Summoning make stand against fascism

[Apocalyptic Raves]

I don't think it was a bad idea to stand up and say "fuck you" to NSBMers, I wouldn't want my music to be used for any political agendas either. The fact that Summoning aren't necessarily an Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement band puzzles me as to why anyone would use their music for a nazi video. I don't think he went about it very well though, he said a lot of poorly informed things that, frankly, I was surprised to hear from somebody in a black metal band of their caliber. For example, since when was Stalin a fascist?

I don't know what the situation in Europe is, but most people that show up to concerts around here that listen to Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement aren't true nationalists. They're racists, and hillbillies to boot. So for that I have something of a prejudice against it, I think they're a squee-bit naive in some of their beliefs. A little bit oversimplified to ever work. "If only we could just get them damn African-Americans to quit terkin' our jerbs", and similar rhetoric.

I'm not defending multiculturalism, but I am suggesting that unless the music is good, Narrow Squirting Bowel Movement shouldn't be supported as a whole. Nationalism's cool, and so is taking pride in your heritage, but when your music revolves more around ignorant, sophomoric, and naive prejudice than it does metal, you suck.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

I think you misunderstand, because you haven't paid attention to history. Hitler's goals did not include the USA. The USA did not enter the war until Japan attacked, and only then declared war on Germany.

In short, you're trying to be unique like a hipster and failing.

"you haven't paid attention to history"..."[the USA] declared war on Germany."

Your attention to and understanding of history seems watertight however.

After Hitler declared war on the USA, his goals included the USA. Had circumstances been prevalent so as to avoid this declaration of war, how long do you think it would have taken the USA's increasingly non-isolationist government to declare war for some reason (money, alliances, oil, disgust as the holocaust comes to light etc etc) anyway?

[born for banning]

"you haven't paid attention to history"..."[the USA] declared war on Germany."

Your attention to and understanding of history seems watertight however.

After Hitler declared war on the USA, his goals included the USA. Had circumstances been prevalent so as to avoid this declaration of war, how long do you think it would have taken the USA's increasingly non-isolationist government to declare war for some reason (money, alliances, oil, disgust as the holocaust comes to light etc etc) anyway?

Earlier in 1941, the Nazis learned of the U.S. military's contingency planning to get troops in Continental Europe by 1943; this was Rainbow Five, made public by sources unsympathetic to Roosevelt's New Deal, and published by the Chicago Tribune. Hitler decided war with the United States was unavoidable, and the Pearl Harbor attack, the publication of Rainbow Five, and Roosevelt's post-Pearl Harbor address, which focused on European affairs as well as the situation with Japan, probably contributed to the declaration.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm

The USA provoked the Japanese attack, then declared war on Japan and by extension Germany even if not formally, and only after that was Hitler interested.

His goals did not include the USA as noted.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

His goals did not include the USA as noted.

His goals before the war and even at the start didn't include Britain either, but when we declared war after his invasion of Poland, there wasn't much he could do about it (and he liked it anyway, peace-mongering with Britain was condemned by Hitler). It doesn't matter whether Hitler wanted war with America or not for it to happen.

So what you're saying is, because at the start of the war Hitler didn't have implicit and stated desires to destroy the USA, he would have won World War Two even though the two continents would regularly be exchanging nuclear blasts (NUCLEAR blasts) and slaughtering each others troops over a period of decades? This isn't preferable to a fucking cold war. "But we'd have no black people!" I hear you say? Think again. How long until either both sides start using massive amounts of troops from other continents, or until both sides are exhausted and give way to a massed third party invasion?

Please, stop reading Stormfront. It's an ugly, grotesque place to be.

[born for banning]

His goals before the war and even at the start didn't include Britain either

Exactly. His goal was not a cold war. He did not view the USA or Britain as enemies until they made themselves his enemy, where Russia (as history proved) was everyone's enemy.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

The Germans were the first to create the atomic bomb, but by the time it could be made into a weapon the war was over, they had already done successful tests with the nuclear devices. The only reason America obtained the bomb is by hiring huge amounts of the German scientists who worked on such projects.

Lets say that operation Barbarossa  was a success, with Moscow gone Russia is now a snake with no head and falls apart, this is the reason why the invasion of Russia was aiming for Moscow. With this operation a success he only has to fight small bands of troops to the east and does not enter a two font war. If this happened the resources could be put to the defense of the western front, this would slow down the allies (if not drive them out of the continent) long enough for the bombs to be devolved and turned into weapons. The states without a nuclear weapon cannot fight off all of Europe with nuclear weapons. Then Germany wins. Not had to imagine since operation Barbarossa was so incredible close to succeeding.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

M-T-C, you're knowledge of the war isn't quite perfect.

If the Nazi's had captured Moscow, it would have made little difference. Stalin, his generals and his government had plans to move out before the Nazi's could capture or kill them. The war would have been picked up from elsewhere. The most use the capture of Moscow would have been would have been to make a defensive line so they could create airfields close enough to bomb Russias industrial heartland in the Ural mountains. It would also have had a major negative moral effect on the Russian soldiers (and a major boost for Germany).

By the time Barbarossa (and its follow up operation Typhoon to try and cripple Russia by capturing Moscow once again) the allies still were not in mainland Europe so they wouldn't need to be thrown back out (and this wouldn't slow down their atomic programme anyway).

Hitlers best strategy would have been to capture Stalingrad and set up a defensive line on the River Volga. With this secure he could sweep south unhindered and capture Russias vast oil supplies in the Caucasus region. Not only did Germany desperately need a safe and plentiful supply of oil, but this would cripple Russia and also allow Germany to swoop south and west into Egypt to capture the Suez Canal from the British (basically Britains oil pipeline).

Even if Hitler was succesful in Russia, the war would degenerate into a stalemate with the USA (perhaps an invasion of Britain could be made successfully, perhaps not), possibly turning into nuclear war (fear of atomic power wasn't so strong back then). This would be a shame, seeing as the USA and Europe are pretty much brothers.

[born for banning]

Even if Hitler was succesful in Russia, the war would degenerate into a stalemate with the USA (perhaps an invasion of Britain could be made successfully, perhaps not), possibly turning into nuclear war (fear of atomic power wasn't so strong back then). This would be a shame, seeing as the USA and Europe are pretty much brothers.

I agree here, and want to mention that both WWI and WWII were tragedies for this very reason.

A Hitler victory in Europe, without the Japanese running off and attacking the USA, could equally have resulted in a standoff (like the first days of WWI) until a power change in either place would bring people closer.

In the meantime, the Cold War and its soon sequel would have been avoided, as would have the reckless exportation of technology that has empowered a human population rise and consequent environmental disaster.

Any way you slice it, Hitler was right -- with flaws. Some were military (failing in Russia, taking on too much) and some were in my view organizational. Whatever happened to the Jews, it wasn't good or necessary. I don't see the value in gassing homosexuals. They should have done with those, as was done with the negroes, the obvious and exported them to Africa.

[neoclassical]

Brothers! Where did you get that idea from?

Not at all were they brothers. Maybe today, but that is sad. They surely were not during the authoritarian period in Europe. America was anti-culture to Europe, much as Russia.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

Whatever happened to the Jews, it wasn't good or necessary. I don't see the value in gassing homosexuals. They should have done with those, as was done with the negroes, the obvious and exported them to Africa.

The way I like to think of it is that Hitler should have given the Jews a solution, not a final solution. Had he positively encouraged Jews in Germany to fight with their countrymen with the promised reward of an autonomous Jewish state in a conquered Nazi territory (where Israel stands today, or somewhere in Russia/Asia), who knows how far he could have got? Likewise, he could have used the slavs in much the same way, for the Polish and the Russians are hardly the best of friends.

But if Hitler would have been able to think like this, he wouldn't have been the disgusting creature he sometimes could be.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

But so much of Hitlers popularity and control over the German people was through the hatred and contempt of people like the Jew's. Without scapegoating them the way he did he might never have obtained power or held such a fanatical fan base, but then again maybe not. Impossible to tell with these things.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

At the time of the end of the 1920's there was no more than the usual tinge of anti-semitism throughout Europe that has existed since they arrived here (most likely less than the usual for many Jews served for the German army in WW1). He definately riled it up from places where it hadn't existed before. I believe he could have got into power without anti-semitism.

[Ruben]

At the time of the end of the 1920's there was no more than the usual tinge of anti-semitism throughout Europe that has existed since they arrived here (most likely less than the usual for many Jews served for the German army in WW1). He definately riled it up from places where it hadn't existed before. I believe he could have got into power without anti-semitism.

I agree.

I think the more potent target was the resentment that the German People had towards the way WWI had ended.  People were still smarting over the loss of the war, the financial repercussions, and the feeling of betrayal by the Weimar Government.  Hitler wanted to restore Germany to the powerful empire it once was, which included taking back Germanic Territory that they lost in the Versailles Treaty.  That is a bandwagon any German would jump on, especially during a time when it took 2 billion some odd Deutschmarks to equal one American Dollar (someone correct me if it was more).  

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

But to do this they needed an explanation of why things went wrong without involving themselves in anyway. Gypsies and Jews were among the easiest to place these blames.

[NEVR4GETLOL]

Or instead of ethnic minorities, the nations that defeated and humiliated them in the World War and anyone not pulling their weight for the country?