Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Master-Collection488 t1_iqz5zw8 wrote

He also couldn't see that being a Nazi-sympathizer was wrong.

72

Woodie626 t1_iqz7f6q wrote

Probably can't even see why kids love the cinnamon taste of cinnamon toast crunch.

50

ash_274 t1_ir0t7u3 wrote

Actually, he could see the cinnamon swirls in every bite through the periscope.

8

JuzoItami t1_iqzbfy9 wrote

Yet he later worked to heal the damage wrought by the Nazis by spreading his love throughout postwar Germany.

12

sanmigmike t1_ir06ro0 wrote

I’m guessing you mean the girlfriend and kids there?

7

JuzoItami t1_ir0c0fe wrote

Well yeah sure, the girlfriend and her kids in Germany.

But also the two other girlfriends in Germany and their kids, too.

Three girlfriends in Germany, and seven kids: maybe he was trying to repopulate the Aryan race post WW2 all by himself.

7

Psianth t1_ir0qv5l wrote

A rich white guy from a racist society who thinks he needs to repopulate the earth with more of himself? Why does that sound so familiar…

−3

ash_274 t1_ir0sthu wrote

He also downed several Japanese fighters as a civilian when he was sent to the Pacific theater to improve the fuel economy of American fighter planes. He was a bit of an expert on that subject, and he drastically improved the performance on the P-38 because the both the AAC and Hughes Aircraft didn’t fully utilize the engine’s and supercharger’s abilities

5

MacRubys t1_iqzt843 wrote

More that he was into eugenics, as were the Nazi's.

5

Originalwookie t1_ir00j8k wrote

So was Margaret Sanger…

4

MacRubys t1_ir027mv wrote

So was the queen's uncle.

2

Gigatron_0 t1_ir0dgou wrote

Gene therapies are an ongoing thing, and they got their origin in part from eugenics

0

MacRubys t1_ir0dtlr wrote

That was not the Nazi agenda.

1

Gigatron_0 t1_ir0dxq5 wrote

I didn't say it was lol but eugenics was a small part of the whole movement

2

MacRubys t1_ir0e2db wrote

It was pretty much the whole agenda.

−2

Gigatron_0 t1_ir0eg2d wrote

"That was not the Nazi agenda"

"That was pretty much the whole agenda"

Wat

2

MacRubys t1_ir0fd6z wrote

I've had a few drinks, because, frankly, the world sucks. sue me. Also I thought about it more in that time frame. I think both my statements were true. Because the Nazi's were making shit up as they went, but the blue eyed blond thing was their gig, Lindbergh though so too. There has been talk that the Lindbergh baby wasn't "quite" right. How sad is that. Kid doesn't meet your standards, so you get rid of it?

0

Gigatron_0 t1_ir0g3jz wrote

Enjoy your drinks 🍻 words have meaning though lol

3

MacRubys t1_ir0kfb4 wrote

Yeah, had family that lived in relevant countries at the time. They downplayed it guess part of me did too. But now I understand why they did. And even now I'm trying to wrap my head around what they went through.

1

Gigatron_0 t1_ir0l9dv wrote

I don't think it's something you'll ever be able to fully hold in your hand. We'll only be able to understand parts at a time, never fully as if we ourselves are going through it. But rest assured we'd go through it just the same they did. Would we protest, be loud and proud, or keep our heads down and change what we could in our immediate surroundings? Ride the wave, benefitting where we could? Or be smashed by it?

It's always interesting trying to put yourself in the shoes of the common person during "interesting times". The Russian and Ukrainian people are going through interesting times currently. So are Iranians. Definitely others that my limited scope doesn't know of.

1

phdoofus t1_ir18758 wrote

As were a lot of people and countries at the time.

1

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_iqzc3je wrote

I usually skip the “sympathizer” part and just go with “Nazi,” but since you got here first, I’ll defer to you.

1

DaveOJ12 t1_iqzglq0 wrote

He wasn't a member of the Nazi Party, so he wasn't a "Nazi."

7

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_iqzizpn wrote

Whatever you say, Curt Schilling.

Membership in the party is an extremely narrow definition of who qualifies as a Nazi, and one that historians reject. Early in the war formal membership surged to about 6.5 million Germans, or about 12%. (Dietrich Orlow). But in 1933, the Nazi party won about 33% of the vote in the last free election before the war. (Georg Fertig). “There is no reason to assume that this share decreased before, say, late 1944.” (Thomas Keuhne).

Statistics aside, why don’t you go find a few combat vets from that time and see whether they made a distinction between party members and non-members in who, of the people that tried to kill them, they considered to be a Nazi?

Let me know how that goes for you.

−4

8bitbebop4 t1_iqzyfoj wrote

That's on par with interning American Japanese for the actions of the Axis.

−5

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir09q52 wrote

Dear God! No it’s not.

−2

8bitbebop4 t1_ir1grog wrote

It absolutely is. How are you going to attribute nazism to someone if they're not a nazi just because of their heritage? How can you accuse all Japanese Americans of being part of the axis just because of their heritage? Thats incredibly bigoted of you

1

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir3l6r2 wrote

What kind of ass-backward reasoning is that? First, I didn't accuse Japanese Americans of being part of the Axis and, as I'm sure you noticed, my post didn't have anything to do with Japanese Americans; you brought that up.

Second, Nazism is not a person's "heritage," it is a political ideology/movement. It is an absolutely intellectually dishonest argument to try to draw a parallel between my position that one did not have to be a member of the Nazi party to be considered a Nazi and the unjust treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

As for how I "attribute nazism [sic] to someone if they're not a nazi [sic]," that statement doesn't make any sense. If what you're asking is how I conclude that someone can be a Nazi without being a member of the Nazi party, go back and read what I wrote. I cited Orlow, Fertig, and Keuhne, all respected professors of German history/politics, for the proposition that membership in the Nazi party was too narrow a definition for who qualifies as a Nazi.

Lindbergh was a Nazi, regardless of whether he was a member of the Nazi party. As noted above, membership in the party is not a requirement for the designation of being a Nazi. Lindbergh moved from the U.S. to Europe, in part, to be closer to French scientist Dr. Alexis Carrel and was taken with Carrel's ideas about superior races and programs to purge criminals, the insane, and any others that weakened society. (Sound familiar?) He was the personal guest of Hermann Goering at the 1936 Summer Olympics and was so impressed by the "energy" of Germany under the Nazis that he planned to move to Berlin. This impressive "energy" was a result of "dictatorial direction." Those are his words, not mine. He was gushing over a dictatorial system of governance, which is, of course, an essential feature of Nazism.

Goering, on behalf of Hitler, awarded Lindbergh the Service Cross of the German Eagle after news about the persecution of Jews had been spreading out of Germany. He then gave a radio address in America urging the U.S. to stay out of the war and discussed his belief that "racial strength is vital" and civilization depended preventing "the infiltration of inferior blood." (Does that sound familiar too?)

Loving dictators in general, and Hitler in particular, along with believing in racial superiority and defending against "inferior blood" makes anyone a Nazi in my book.

Edit: Autocorrect typo.

1

8bitbebop4 t1_ir5195d wrote

Its an analogy. And im not reading all the ramblings of a stranger on the internet. Learn to write concisely. Gleaning your text, you are still trying to classify people as being a nazi despite not being a nazi. Just as what happened to Japanese Americans during WW2 (analogy). That's an incredibly bigoted approach. Sins of the father, etc.

1

Dont_Wanna_Not_Gonna t1_ir5hjut wrote

What is it that you think I am saying that is analogous to imprisoning Japanese Americans during WWII?

Putting it in a little different way, who exactly do you think I am judging/classifying/condemning for the sins of their fathers?

0

scroll2022 t1_ir6dos1 wrote

He was arguably autistic. The Germans had such air superiority that he assumed they were the winners

1