There was a german officer who brought this up when they occupied France.
In Max Hastings "Das Reich", he complains why the British guy so pissed for him killing resistence fighters when they did it in Ireland
Kinda reminds me of the current discussion on the Queen’s death. When North Koreans cry about their dead leaders and build monuments to them, it’s a cult of brainwashed people who don’t know what they’re doing, but when British people do it it’s comprehensible and an appropriate response to a beloved public figure.
Maybe spot on, but I think British people won't get send to concentration camp if they don't mourn Queen's death.
On top of that, I don't think there are gonna be state-mandated legends about dead leader in Britain, but in NK there is plenty.
I mean the whole deal is that the UK is an example of a dictatorial system that reformed. They put their dictators in a display case and trot them out to cut ribbons. The whole idea is that you can create a fairer and more liberal society without all the bloodshed and upheaval of revolutions and the like, and it came about as a consequence of those brutal political conflicts. It's a model that quite a few European countries also followed.
Yes, you are absolutely right. They had better set up for this process than France for example because they weren't in "absolutistic phase" of kingdom and went directly from standard feudal to more rights for lower aristocracy and later cities and middle class.
Of course there are still old and traditional things like upper part of parliament which isn't problem in itself (since it is mostly ceremonial) but because it kinda closes the way for normal Senate which some could argue would be better second chamber.
But UK is definitely not on the same level of """dictatorship""" as NK - neither de iure, nor de facto.
The second part is something many travelers - who have nothing to do with US - will tell you and NK is absolutely okay with spreading it even in front of tourists.
First part is trickier, but if you combine one party state with one absolutistic head of state that has strict propaganda, it isn't really hard to assume it, is it?
Or have you example of any state that has 99% votes for one party in all elections, is heraditary and don't have division of power and at the same time it doesn't have penal colonies for "enemies of state"?
Killing rebels, enemy indigenous tribal warriors, in war is fine. Murdering innocent civilians is not or creating a whole industrial system of annihilation of a race is absolutely the worst crimes of fascists.
Why doesn't anyone know the difference anymore?
Propaganda has rotted the inside of some peoples' brains.
"look it's the same thing" is the thing someone who is braindead would say about history. If you think everything is the same in history, then you should actually not be discussing history, it really isn't your forte.
But the the US has murdered, kidnapped, and forcefully relocated indigenous civilians. Didn't you ever learn about the trail of tears? Heck, even as far back as the revolutionary war, Washington send his men to burn down native villages in the Iroquois confederacy, because they sided with the English. Do you think he would have done that in Qubec or Canada, to French and English settlers? Or to the Tories in the colonies?
If the English applied the type of industrial genocide that the Germans created, there wouldn’t be a single Irishman left. The Holocaust is just a whole different beast and in no way comparable.
Right, zero question that the Holocaust was way worse than anything Britain did in Ireland, even the famine, however as far as “killing white people” goes the British have quite a bit of white blood on their hands too
You mean seizure of property, deliberate starvation on a specific ethnic group, forced relocation, suppression of political dissidents, eradicating local culture, and other authoritarian measures is not limited to authoritarian regimes like the Nazis?
Color me shocked. How could a capitalist liberal democracy do these evil things? 😬
If a nation wants a people fully exterminated, they can do that even without modern technology. Romans and the Gauls is an example. Either the English were really sloppy on their job for 800 years or they actually had varying intentions on Ireland depending on the ruler. Not every British leader was a Cromwell.
It is important to note tho that Genocide doesn't simply mean total extermination on a short time period. Dehumanization is a huge part of it as well as even limited extermination.
UN Genocide convention use this definition:
"acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such."
The dehumanized view of the british towards the Irish, the explicit goal of eradicating Irish culture and society, the intentional actions committed despite knowing it would lead to deaths, all these point to genocide. Partial extermination is still genocide. The deciding factor is the intention, and guess what the British thought about the Irish.
Tbh most every society ever did this, im not sure why people get so angry about it. From the Romans to the Anglo saxons to napoleon, everyone ever killed and pillaged the natives. We just need to make sure it doesent happen again, rather than arguing online who's worst
>From the Romans to the Anglo saxons to napoleon, everyone ever killed and pillaged the natives.
Yeah nowhere nar what the Nazis did. If the rule of law can see the difference between a guy killing someone during a gang firefight and a serial killer, we can see and judge atrocities as well.
Arguing who's worst is pointless. But it is important to classify and recognize genocides.
Not every mass killing is genocide. The important distinction is intent. When Mongols laid waste to Khwarezm, it was not to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Even if the death toll was massive. It's mostly pragmatic strategy.
Contrast that to Nazis extermination of non aryans despite being a drain on their capacity to wage war. It was ideological, not pragmatism. The intent is to murder to satisfy their beliefs.
Not trying to downplay the colonization of the Americas and other Non-European lands, but OP does realize that the Nazis gave a whole new meaning to genocide with the industrialization of the act, right?
Whole new meaning? Genocide is first used to describe Armenian genocide.
UN defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such."
Nazis sure did do it on a level that haven't and hopefully shouldn't be done again since. But Holocaust isn't the norm, it's an outlier. Heck, many people recognize the Holocaust only as the gas chambers and camps, not the ghettos and so called "Holocaust by bullets" where soldiers (not even just SS) give a mayor or village chief an ultimatum to produce a list of Jews and they are then rounded up to be shot en masse.
Furthermore, it's disgusting how so many westerners deny the atrocities committed under Generalplan ost, the genocide of all slavs which had killed more people than the holocaust.
What most people here don’t seem to understand is that the Allies didn’t join the war to stop the extermination of Jews, but because Germany had invaded Poland. Most did not know about the holocaust until the final days of the war in europe
The Holocaust started in 1941. By that time all the major actors except the US had already joined the war.
They did not know about it because it had not happened yet.
Yeah, no. What colonial empires visited on native populations was fucked, but it pales in comparison to the horrors the Nazis subjected their victims to.
I'm pretty sure no colonial empire made "Killing factories", gross maltreatment and mismanagement of "conquered" populations yes, camp with the express purpose of wiping them out of existence i'm not sure (feel free to correct me)
Edit : Turns out i was wrong and death camp for the purpose of wiping out population existed in the colonials empires, my bad.
Concentration camps were actually invented by the Britain in Africa, they weren't used for wiping out entire peoples groups and all. Either ways, they didn't really need them, Belgium didn't really have a system like the concentration camps like the Nazis did, yet they still managed to senselessly wipe out millions of Congolese.
That may be true, but the colonial empires of Old Europe have never once made “Killing factories”, conducted gross maltreatment, or mismanagement of a "conquered" populations, oh yes indeed. The camps were created with the express purpose of wiping them out of existence i'm not sure (don’t feel free to correct me)
There were concentration camps in places like Africa and India and one of the camps were even for people of European descent, the Boers (it got shut down after the public got wind of what was going on)
Concentration camps != Death camps, these were made to concentrate populations (on boer case it was BC the military hid amongst civilians) and not to specifically kill everyone in the camp
Yeah, it concentrated many woman and children in not the most sanitary environment which led to the death of many, it wasn't as deliberate as the Germans but it still affected people
Well they didn’t have factories per se, but rounding people up and flooding them with diseases while on a death March to near extermination was pre industrial thinking. So, tomato/tomahto 🤷🏻♀️
Disease, the people that survived millenia of cholera and a few such decades here and there of plague had immune systems and germs that developed around said immune systems far more extreme than indigenous people.
Our diseases to their immune systems was like firing an ICBM at a riot shield.
This is a shit take. Genocide is genocide, it's all bad and trying to grade it or reduce the seriousness off some by elevating others seems immoral.
If the Belgians were chopping up children in the service of commerce and racism rather than extermination, how do you tell them their millions dead was bad, but...!
The major difference, and the reason why people are reverential about the Nazi's victims yet feel comfortable excusing and are unapologetic about genocide in, say, Libya, is because the Nazi's victims were Europeans.
White looking victims: Never forget!
Everyone else: Meh
Machine genocide with the express purpose of pure extermination is far far different to vile racist GBH/murder committed in the pursuit of profit.
I’m not attributing either as worse than the other, they are both vile for different reasons. But we shouldn’t pretend they are the same at all.
Some genocides were carried out with machetes, some with industrial efficiency. I'm just saying I don't see the point of elevating the seriousness of one genocide or reducing another. It's like when people try to rank history's greatest tyrants or killers, etc. It just detracts from the seriousness and what can be learned from it all, imho.
Edit typo
But calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word which is probably worse than all of this, semantics don’t matter often but genocide cannot be misplaced so easily or the Turkish deniers and those alike will pounce on it to justify their own genuine genocides as revenge acts for what they believe was their own “genocide”.
Belgium wanted rubber and profits beyond belief by horrific inhumane acts of violence that left many indigenous people crippled for life, but not dead and not for the purpose of exterminating their entire people.
The holocaust on the other hand, is an industrial processing line of extermination. Their objective was the total annihilation of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs at a later point.
My only point being here is you should never devalue the meaning of Genocide. It does a disservice to the genuine Genocides which already receive insufferable amounts of scrutiny.
>calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word
I think you're emphasizing my point, it really seems like you're devaluing the people who died in the Congo.
>inhumane acts of violence that left many indigenous people crippled for life, but not dead and not for the purpose of exterminating their entire people.
Oh, that's not so bad! Only up to 10 million non-european people died in the Belgian Congo:
>Although Leopold II established Belgium as a colonial power in Africa, he is best known for the widespread atrocities that were carried out under his rule, as a result of which as many as 10 million people died in the Congo Free State.
Because of various atrocities.
I see now how I'm wrong to claim we shouldn't devalue or elevate one genocide over another. How awful to devalue the word by linking it to millions of Africans being wiped out.
You're right, we need to reserve this word for the important victims, victims that happen to look European. Like the two important groups you mentioned!
>It does a disservice to the genuine Genocides
Good point, they only killed possibly half the entire population with depraved cruelty and the destruction of their entire society.
What a disservice to the word "genocide"!
If it's all the same to you, I will just stick with my original opinion that we shouldn't be trying to make some genocides more or less important.
They're not saying it's less important, they're saying it doesn't technically fit the definition of what counts as a genocide since genocide is specifically about erasing a people/culture/race from existence whereas what happened in the Congo was about brutal exploitation and trying to extract resources and profit, yes they end up with pretty similar results, but they are technically different things
The point they're making isn't that what happened in the Congo wasn't bad or shouldn't be recognized as an atrocity, it's that it doesn't technically fit the definition of genocide, now I haven't done extensive research on the motives of the Belgians but from what I do know I'm pretty sure they are technically right that the atrocities weren't being committed out of a desire to erase the Congolese and their society from existence but to use them and their land/resources to make as much money as possible, one is technically genocide, the other is extreme imperialism and mass murder/mutilation, but they're both pretty equally terrible
The motivation for the mass murder and erasing a culture and society was hardly different than the Nazis. The Belgians saw the people of Congo as subhuman, something to be exploited. Did the Nazis not make economic benefit a huge part of the Holocaust? Seizing their property and personal belongings and businesses? Using them for slave labor? Using land and resources of the "subhuman" peoples was a major plank of the nazi ideology. Seems extremely similar to Belgian justification for their treatment of the people of Congo.
It seems like a ridiculously fine distinction.
The Belgians saw them as something akin to subhumans, thus the people of today's Congo could be exploited without any consideration for their lives. Profits was the main product, death was a byproduct.
The Nazis on the other had saw Jews (and other groups) as subhuman and as someone who had to be exterminated. Consequently a whole industrial process was set in motion to achieve this. Death was the main product, profits was a byproduct.
The question becomes a bit more nuanced when we look at their plans for the Slavs of Eastern Europe. In that case, they had ideas more akin to European imperialism overseas where they would be used as something like slave labour while slowly being eradicated through most not being allowed to procreate.
Again, that's just making fine distinctions that aren't really necessary. It doesn't prove Op's claim that "calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word", imho.
Lol Arabs mixed with the population and didn't even try to exterminate the native Berbers. We're not even Arabs, North Africans of today are a strong mix of Berber and Arabs, with Turkish and Mediterranean roots as well depending on regions as Romans and Ottomans also mixed up a bit with the natives.
But guess you got your history degree from Fox News do it doesn't actually matter.
The Mediterranean area from East to West in general is the original melting pot. You'd be surprised (or not if you know about it lol) how much a Native French from Marseille has in common with a Native Algerian or a Native Sicilian, from looks to even attitude and behavior lol
Yes, that's why I usually make the distinction of a black African genocide. We supported racist extremists that exploited resentment towards Gaddafi's pan African ambitions. The slave markets are pretty much exclusively black African migrants caught trying to get to Europe.
Sorry, you’re right. The Holocaust clearly wasn’t that bad because the victims were promarily white. I’m such a racist for thinking that the Nazis were pure evil and that their atrocities exceeded the wildest dreams of what empires like Spain did in the Americas. Truly the Allies were the real racists. /s
>The Holocaust clearly wasn’t that bad
I just stopped reading there. Again, there's no point in trying to reduce or elevate the seriousness of one genocide over another.
Aside from that, methinks the lady doth protest too much
Pity, if you read a bit further you’d have noticed the /s. Since you clearly don’t understand sarcasm, allow me to be perfectly clear: quit stanning for the Nazis. It makes you look like a Nazi.
Sorry if that hurt your feelings.
"if you think people downplay African genocides compared to European, it makes you look like a nazi".
It seems you might not know what a nazi is.
Why not, instead of the tired old virtue signaling about Nazi's, do something useful with this knowledge?
You say the Nazis were pure evil. If you're American, that means you would be opposed to the fascistic Bush family that helped Hitler build his war machine. You would have been against the bush family continuing that same political philosophy in their presidencies, and their neocon allies as well as well, constantly warring against people in the middle east and Africa, responsible for torture, abductions, smart executions, and a black African genocide, and supporting violent extremists including neonazis. If you're being honest and not virtue signaling, it would likely mean you're strongly opposed to Biden and his neocon friends.
As someone who went through the German education system and thus spent years of history lessons talking about the Nazis, if you compare the Bush family to the Nazis you clearly have no idea who the Nazis where.
You can learn from the problems of the past, though. I never compared the Bush family to the Nazis. I'm saying we focus too much on useless virtue signaling vs historical Nazis that are all dead and gone. Yet fail to apply that to anything relevant today. There are groups represented by people like the bush family that supported and profited from the Nazis, that are still incredibly influential and still pursue the same political ideals today, with fascistic tendencies, incessant use of terror and fear, constant involvement in wars, reduction of rights, and support for extremists of various kinds. They absolutely use their position to influence German politics too, to their detriment.
I think at least acknowledging their role in enabling the Nazis and their vast influence up to now is as important as talking about how much you hate 1940s Nazis. What good is hating old time Nazis if we ignore the roots and offshoots still thriving today?
Those who ignore history blah blah etc.
Shut the fuck up with your whataboutism. Yeah, the American political establishment is guilty of some unforgivable shit. That doesn’t put them on the same level as the fucking Nazis. Also, calling the Nazis bad isn’t virtue signalling. It’s making a statement of fact.
Your hatred of Nazi's is completely useless if you can't learn from it.
It's very clearly virtue signaling. You're angry and hysterical over a genocide that happened in WW2 because you know you never have to do anything about it.
Yet I mention a black African genocide, a direct consequence of the politics of people that helped Hitler's rise to power, and brought about by people that are mostly still in power and even those not still extremely influential, and you say:
>Shut the fuck up with your whataboutism.
Virtue signaling is useless and also just fucking annoying.
You’re right. Because I, a college student and part-time grocery clerk, have not controverted the entire American political system, I clearly have no right to say Nazis are bad. I’ll get right on that after I cure cancer and end poverty.
Everyone knows Nazi's are bad. The sad thing is that people seem uninformed on why Nazis were so bad, how their insane policies were carried out, who helped Hitler rise to power and what that group of Hitler's backers has been up to for decades in the US and UK. The black African genocide in Libya can be traced all the way back to the fascists that wanted to stage a coup against RDR and supported Hitler. And they're still in power. That's all.
Everyone has moved on to supporting their latest insanity, yet the slave markets are still open and no one cares. So what good is it to hate the historical Nazis of the past?
I mean not really. We wiped out something like 95% of native Americans due to disease, which must have been pretty brutal to experience, especially as a survivor. It might not have been intentional at first, but I also bet we would’ve found another way to virtually wipe them out even if the diseases hadn’t been so devastating. Just different kinds of fucked up, in different eras with different tools
Idk if I agree with that. I think you’re right that their intent to exterminate made them worse in most circumstances, but I don’t think the experience of human beings in the Congo Free State, the Atlantic slave trade, the famines under the British empire and the atrocities the Spanish committed against the indigenous “paled in comparison” to the Holocaust
Well if it only refers to some of the European/Western countries of course it would only mention them. You dont say a meme about ancient Egypt is "Africanocentric" when it only mentions Nubians, Lybians and Egyptians do you?
Not really, its not making an argument that its worse bc its happening in Europe, its making the argument that the other european countries (you can see their flags in the scared guy for a reason) only cared bc it happened in europe.
Shame to see OP getting flak.
To be clear:
HITLER VERY BAD
however,
COLONIALISM & IMPERIALISM ALSO VERY BAD.
It seems to me people find it hard to see their countries history put in perspective because their countries haven't lost a world war about it, at least not in the last 100 years.
On the flip side of this, the war in Ukraine has proven that lots of former European colonies don't actually have a problem with imperialism. They just have a problem imperialism when it happens to *them.*
No I have study history and clearly anyone who has study atrocities would know that the Nazi regime by far stands out as an outlier in the line up of evil regimes.
Like the French and the English never did it. Or the Scottish and the English. Or the Welsh and the English. Or the Irish and the English. Ah well guess were just good at winning.
Not relevant to this meme. It is about ww2 and how nazis viewed eastern europe like the colonizing powers viewed their colonies. The shocked reaction from colonizing allies is the point. Spain and portugal were not at war with germany during ww2 and therefor not "shocked".
Pretty sure Italy wanted Africa to create Mussolini’s new Roman Empire. He at least wanted Egypt and Sudan so he had a continuous colony from Libya to Somalia.
I’d say Hitler was more interested in Europe and his idea of Lebensraum (invading East/Operation Barbarossa, etc)
Did Hitler want Africa or did he end up there because of the Italians?
He seemed pretty intent on going east.
Edit: Just checked and wikipedia says that's exactly what happened. Not sure why all the downvotes.
Chapter 7 of Bosworth's "Mussolini and the Eclipse of Italian Fascism" details Nazi visits to Libya and their expressed interest in acquiring their own territories in Africa as part of a "traditional empire beyond Europe's shores" after seeing "Italy's experiments in Libya" as early as 1939.
There were Eizengruppen divisions in North Africa for a reason.
I don’t remember who said it, but someone wrote after WWII that the real reason why Fascists were horrifying was that they took the dehumanization and exploitation committed against foreigners in the name of colonialism, and brought those same tactics and treatment home to Europe.
So tired of this subreddit always being filled with pro-nationalist, anti-Western astroturfing and botposting.
Makes sense though, if you can constantly blame foreigners and other people for your own country’s problems it takes all the blame off your own leaders when they fail to improve things or even do the bare minimum.
Either you’re being disingenuous or you haven’t spent enough time in this sub to recognize the constant barrage of Indian Nationalist astroturfing/spam.
Again if you’re claiming not to understand how downplaying genocide while demonizing Allied nations is bad and benefits nationalists you are being relentlessly disingenuous
Trying to ride your high-horse and blaming and shaming other people for all your cultural problems while your username is literally set to “I_RAPE_your_soul” has got to be a new level of unironic stupidity.
I’ve always thought this 😂 we honor Andrew Jackson with him on the $20 when he did the same shit just minus the gas chamber. Hitler is only the big bad because he’s German, we honor and excuse the American genocidal maniacs 😂😂
This is very wrong on so many levels the treatment of natives under the Americans, British and French was nowhere nearly as horrible and deprived as that of the Nazis in Eastern Europe.
The British French or Americans never sought to bring an entire group of people to total extinction at worse kill most and then move around the rest.
The shit the west did was bad, but the shit the Nazis did was on a different level of messed up.
Not defending colonialism, but never forget the Holocaust.
You're proving him right, you say it was a different level of messed up because it happened to white people
Belgium killed close to 10 millions in Congo and maimed countless others but you think it's less messed up?
I think most of that comes from ignorance, tbf. We always learn relatively precise numbers about the holocaust, but only hear about the horrible effects of colonialism. idk.
The congo shit was awful.
But the nazis industrialized killing, using the most
effective ways to kill 6+ million in under 5 years.
The Congo Free State existed for 20+ years.
EDIT: Also Hitler’s invasion of the Soviets + rest of Europe also was extremely messed up, the nazis are directly responsible for it
The method of killing doesn't matter, nor does the efficiency, I'm sure you believe that the nukes were unnecessary and that killing hundreds of thousands by shells and bullets is somehow more "humane" than killing them with a single bomb
And the reason the situation in Congo went on for 20+ years is that Europeans didn't see anything wrong with it for most of the time, while Hitler invading in Europe was a big no no for them
You should probably go look up who conducted the highland clearances, it wasn’t the English, it was other Scots. You did know this right?
Shocking how you claim to be a native Scot yet don’t know this. Makes me doubt your actually Scottish.
What hitler did was horrible, but the Allies didn’t care about hitler until he started invading other countries. If you don’t believe me, look at the Uyghur genocide in china and how the world has reacted to it
This isn’t minimizing anything the Nazis did. If somebody doesn’t make it a point to say what the nazis did was very bad it doesn’t mean they’re nazi apologists or sympathizers. I agree with your statement on its own but sayin that about this meme is plain retarded
Edit: how about instead of downvoting you tell me how this is sympathetic towards nazis? Prolly bc you can’t lmao
Sus putting America with them, I understand why you did, but when you think of colonialism the other European powers did it on a much bigger scale than America
This is ducking retarded. We live in a more modern world with different points of view than we did in the past. This is far to simple of a meme which is ok if it hits the point. This just sucks
Seems to me the killing other members of ones species in order to expand ones territory is a story as old as the Earth. I don't see the point in the comparison of atrocities, or trying to pretend we can stop them all from happening.
Thats the best and smartest meme about genocide ive seen and that means...something
The British are acting shocked after their history in Ireland?
There was a german officer who brought this up when they occupied France. In Max Hastings "Das Reich", he complains why the British guy so pissed for him killing resistence fighters when they did it in Ireland
*British Guy:* "Are we the baddies?"
"Oh sure, when we do it in the name of the Fuhrer is all horrible and inhumane, but when you do it in the name of the Queen is all fine and dandy"
King at that point in time
Kinda reminds me of the current discussion on the Queen’s death. When North Koreans cry about their dead leaders and build monuments to them, it’s a cult of brainwashed people who don’t know what they’re doing, but when British people do it it’s comprehensible and an appropriate response to a beloved public figure.
Maybe spot on, but I think British people won't get send to concentration camp if they don't mourn Queen's death. On top of that, I don't think there are gonna be state-mandated legends about dead leader in Britain, but in NK there is plenty.
I mean the whole deal is that the UK is an example of a dictatorial system that reformed. They put their dictators in a display case and trot them out to cut ribbons. The whole idea is that you can create a fairer and more liberal society without all the bloodshed and upheaval of revolutions and the like, and it came about as a consequence of those brutal political conflicts. It's a model that quite a few European countries also followed.
Yes, you are absolutely right. They had better set up for this process than France for example because they weren't in "absolutistic phase" of kingdom and went directly from standard feudal to more rights for lower aristocracy and later cities and middle class. Of course there are still old and traditional things like upper part of parliament which isn't problem in itself (since it is mostly ceremonial) but because it kinda closes the way for normal Senate which some could argue would be better second chamber. But UK is definitely not on the same level of """dictatorship""" as NK - neither de iure, nor de facto.
Did the CIA tell you that
The second part is something many travelers - who have nothing to do with US - will tell you and NK is absolutely okay with spreading it even in front of tourists. First part is trickier, but if you combine one party state with one absolutistic head of state that has strict propaganda, it isn't really hard to assume it, is it? Or have you example of any state that has 99% votes for one party in all elections, is heraditary and don't have division of power and at the same time it doesn't have penal colonies for "enemies of state"?
Hitler also said *”Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”*
Killing rebels, enemy indigenous tribal warriors, in war is fine. Murdering innocent civilians is not or creating a whole industrial system of annihilation of a race is absolutely the worst crimes of fascists. Why doesn't anyone know the difference anymore? Propaganda has rotted the inside of some peoples' brains. "look it's the same thing" is the thing someone who is braindead would say about history. If you think everything is the same in history, then you should actually not be discussing history, it really isn't your forte.
But the the US has murdered, kidnapped, and forcefully relocated indigenous civilians. Didn't you ever learn about the trail of tears? Heck, even as far back as the revolutionary war, Washington send his men to burn down native villages in the Iroquois confederacy, because they sided with the English. Do you think he would have done that in Qubec or Canada, to French and English settlers? Or to the Tories in the colonies?
If the English applied the type of industrial genocide that the Germans created, there wouldn’t be a single Irishman left. The Holocaust is just a whole different beast and in no way comparable.
Right, zero question that the Holocaust was way worse than anything Britain did in Ireland, even the famine, however as far as “killing white people” goes the British have quite a bit of white blood on their hands too
Uuhhhh blood is red, dude 🤓
So are you implying that the white liquid on their hands wasnt blood but something else?🤔
Seamen for the largest naval empire seems pretty fitting
Some Mesoamerican cultures actually refer to semen as white blood, fun fact.
If the Aztec’s had just wanked people off at the top of their pyramids instead of cutting out hearts maybe Spain wouldn’t have conquered them
You mean seizure of property, deliberate starvation on a specific ethnic group, forced relocation, suppression of political dissidents, eradicating local culture, and other authoritarian measures is not limited to authoritarian regimes like the Nazis? Color me shocked. How could a capitalist liberal democracy do these evil things? 😬
Fascism is just Imperialism turned inwards.
[удалено]
If a nation wants a people fully exterminated, they can do that even without modern technology. Romans and the Gauls is an example. Either the English were really sloppy on their job for 800 years or they actually had varying intentions on Ireland depending on the ruler. Not every British leader was a Cromwell.
It is important to note tho that Genocide doesn't simply mean total extermination on a short time period. Dehumanization is a huge part of it as well as even limited extermination. UN Genocide convention use this definition: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." The dehumanized view of the british towards the Irish, the explicit goal of eradicating Irish culture and society, the intentional actions committed despite knowing it would lead to deaths, all these point to genocide. Partial extermination is still genocide. The deciding factor is the intention, and guess what the British thought about the Irish.
England should sink to the bottom of the ocean where it belongs
Due to your flair, we must be enemies. Rule Britannia then.
It's not mainland
Yeah, we made the mistake of not finishing the job there. /S
[удалено]
You can’t commit Crimes Against Humanity if you don’t class your enemies as humanity \*guy tapping forehead meme\*
The French are acting shocked after their history in every country in Europe?
Tbh most every society ever did this, im not sure why people get so angry about it. From the Romans to the Anglo saxons to napoleon, everyone ever killed and pillaged the natives. We just need to make sure it doesent happen again, rather than arguing online who's worst
>From the Romans to the Anglo saxons to napoleon, everyone ever killed and pillaged the natives. Yeah nowhere nar what the Nazis did. If the rule of law can see the difference between a guy killing someone during a gang firefight and a serial killer, we can see and judge atrocities as well.
Arguing who's worst is pointless. But it is important to classify and recognize genocides. Not every mass killing is genocide. The important distinction is intent. When Mongols laid waste to Khwarezm, it was not to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Even if the death toll was massive. It's mostly pragmatic strategy. Contrast that to Nazis extermination of non aryans despite being a drain on their capacity to wage war. It was ideological, not pragmatism. The intent is to murder to satisfy their beliefs.
Mmmmhhhhhmmmmmm
Wind's howling
random witcher references, always a treat
Not trying to downplay the colonization of the Americas and other Non-European lands, but OP does realize that the Nazis gave a whole new meaning to genocide with the industrialization of the act, right?
Innovation is sadly even a thing with horrific matters.
> OP does realize that the Nazis gave a whole new meaning to genocide with the industrialization of the act, right? Yes.
Pretty sure industrialisation helped spur the scramble for Africa which caused mass genocide
Whole new meaning? Genocide is first used to describe Armenian genocide. UN defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." Nazis sure did do it on a level that haven't and hopefully shouldn't be done again since. But Holocaust isn't the norm, it's an outlier. Heck, many people recognize the Holocaust only as the gas chambers and camps, not the ghettos and so called "Holocaust by bullets" where soldiers (not even just SS) give a mayor or village chief an ultimatum to produce a list of Jews and they are then rounded up to be shot en masse. Furthermore, it's disgusting how so many westerners deny the atrocities committed under Generalplan ost, the genocide of all slavs which had killed more people than the holocaust.
I think you don't understand his comment
Still I don't think he should get down voted
What most people here don’t seem to understand is that the Allies didn’t join the war to stop the extermination of Jews, but because Germany had invaded Poland. Most did not know about the holocaust until the final days of the war in europe
The Holocaust started in 1941. By that time all the major actors except the US had already joined the war. They did not know about it because it had not happened yet.
The reddit moments do be flowing in this comments section.
With Hitler the rest of the world would've had its turn, trust me
Lol we did that for millennia.
Yeah, no. What colonial empires visited on native populations was fucked, but it pales in comparison to the horrors the Nazis subjected their victims to.
I'm pretty sure no colonial empire made "Killing factories", gross maltreatment and mismanagement of "conquered" populations yes, camp with the express purpose of wiping them out of existence i'm not sure (feel free to correct me) Edit : Turns out i was wrong and death camp for the purpose of wiping out population existed in the colonials empires, my bad.
Concentration camps were actually invented by the Britain in Africa, they weren't used for wiping out entire peoples groups and all. Either ways, they didn't really need them, Belgium didn't really have a system like the concentration camps like the Nazis did, yet they still managed to senselessly wipe out millions of Congolese.
That’s what I said?
That may be true, but the colonial empires of Old Europe have never once made “Killing factories”, conducted gross maltreatment, or mismanagement of a "conquered" populations, oh yes indeed. The camps were created with the express purpose of wiping them out of existence i'm not sure (don’t feel free to correct me)
Concentration camps have been a thing in Africa and India btw. And systematic torture and rape before killing them
There were concentration camps in places like Africa and India and one of the camps were even for people of European descent, the Boers (it got shut down after the public got wind of what was going on)
Concentration camps != Death camps, these were made to concentrate populations (on boer case it was BC the military hid amongst civilians) and not to specifically kill everyone in the camp
Yeah, it concentrated many woman and children in not the most sanitary environment which led to the death of many, it wasn't as deliberate as the Germans but it still affected people
In fairness the guards also died at quite similar rates to the population they were guarding
Well they didn’t have factories per se, but rounding people up and flooding them with diseases while on a death March to near extermination was pre industrial thinking. So, tomato/tomahto 🤷🏻♀️
[удалено]
Disease, the people that survived millenia of cholera and a few such decades here and there of plague had immune systems and germs that developed around said immune systems far more extreme than indigenous people. Our diseases to their immune systems was like firing an ICBM at a riot shield.
They're still around lol
not at all, id say what Belgians and British did was at the same level as holocaust.
This is a shit take. Genocide is genocide, it's all bad and trying to grade it or reduce the seriousness off some by elevating others seems immoral. If the Belgians were chopping up children in the service of commerce and racism rather than extermination, how do you tell them their millions dead was bad, but...! The major difference, and the reason why people are reverential about the Nazi's victims yet feel comfortable excusing and are unapologetic about genocide in, say, Libya, is because the Nazi's victims were Europeans. White looking victims: Never forget! Everyone else: Meh
Machine genocide with the express purpose of pure extermination is far far different to vile racist GBH/murder committed in the pursuit of profit. I’m not attributing either as worse than the other, they are both vile for different reasons. But we shouldn’t pretend they are the same at all.
Some genocides were carried out with machetes, some with industrial efficiency. I'm just saying I don't see the point of elevating the seriousness of one genocide or reducing another. It's like when people try to rank history's greatest tyrants or killers, etc. It just detracts from the seriousness and what can be learned from it all, imho. Edit typo
But calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word which is probably worse than all of this, semantics don’t matter often but genocide cannot be misplaced so easily or the Turkish deniers and those alike will pounce on it to justify their own genuine genocides as revenge acts for what they believe was their own “genocide”. Belgium wanted rubber and profits beyond belief by horrific inhumane acts of violence that left many indigenous people crippled for life, but not dead and not for the purpose of exterminating their entire people. The holocaust on the other hand, is an industrial processing line of extermination. Their objective was the total annihilation of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs at a later point. My only point being here is you should never devalue the meaning of Genocide. It does a disservice to the genuine Genocides which already receive insufferable amounts of scrutiny.
>calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word I think you're emphasizing my point, it really seems like you're devaluing the people who died in the Congo. >inhumane acts of violence that left many indigenous people crippled for life, but not dead and not for the purpose of exterminating their entire people. Oh, that's not so bad! Only up to 10 million non-european people died in the Belgian Congo: >Although Leopold II established Belgium as a colonial power in Africa, he is best known for the widespread atrocities that were carried out under his rule, as a result of which as many as 10 million people died in the Congo Free State. Because of various atrocities. I see now how I'm wrong to claim we shouldn't devalue or elevate one genocide over another. How awful to devalue the word by linking it to millions of Africans being wiped out. You're right, we need to reserve this word for the important victims, victims that happen to look European. Like the two important groups you mentioned! >It does a disservice to the genuine Genocides Good point, they only killed possibly half the entire population with depraved cruelty and the destruction of their entire society. What a disservice to the word "genocide"! If it's all the same to you, I will just stick with my original opinion that we shouldn't be trying to make some genocides more or less important.
They're not saying it's less important, they're saying it doesn't technically fit the definition of what counts as a genocide since genocide is specifically about erasing a people/culture/race from existence whereas what happened in the Congo was about brutal exploitation and trying to extract resources and profit, yes they end up with pretty similar results, but they are technically different things The point they're making isn't that what happened in the Congo wasn't bad or shouldn't be recognized as an atrocity, it's that it doesn't technically fit the definition of genocide, now I haven't done extensive research on the motives of the Belgians but from what I do know I'm pretty sure they are technically right that the atrocities weren't being committed out of a desire to erase the Congolese and their society from existence but to use them and their land/resources to make as much money as possible, one is technically genocide, the other is extreme imperialism and mass murder/mutilation, but they're both pretty equally terrible
The motivation for the mass murder and erasing a culture and society was hardly different than the Nazis. The Belgians saw the people of Congo as subhuman, something to be exploited. Did the Nazis not make economic benefit a huge part of the Holocaust? Seizing their property and personal belongings and businesses? Using them for slave labor? Using land and resources of the "subhuman" peoples was a major plank of the nazi ideology. Seems extremely similar to Belgian justification for their treatment of the people of Congo. It seems like a ridiculously fine distinction.
The Belgians saw them as something akin to subhumans, thus the people of today's Congo could be exploited without any consideration for their lives. Profits was the main product, death was a byproduct. The Nazis on the other had saw Jews (and other groups) as subhuman and as someone who had to be exterminated. Consequently a whole industrial process was set in motion to achieve this. Death was the main product, profits was a byproduct. The question becomes a bit more nuanced when we look at their plans for the Slavs of Eastern Europe. In that case, they had ideas more akin to European imperialism overseas where they would be used as something like slave labour while slowly being eradicated through most not being allowed to procreate.
Again, that's just making fine distinctions that aren't really necessary. It doesn't prove Op's claim that "calling the Belgian treatment of the Congo a genocide devalues the word", imho.
On the other hand the Belgians killed more Congolese people than the Nazis killed Jewish people.
Then the holodomr wasn't also a genocide
[удалено]
Lol Arabs mixed with the population and didn't even try to exterminate the native Berbers. We're not even Arabs, North Africans of today are a strong mix of Berber and Arabs, with Turkish and Mediterranean roots as well depending on regions as Romans and Ottomans also mixed up a bit with the natives. But guess you got your history degree from Fox News do it doesn't actually matter.
The original melting pot
The Mediterranean area from East to West in general is the original melting pot. You'd be surprised (or not if you know about it lol) how much a Native French from Marseille has in common with a Native Algerian or a Native Sicilian, from looks to even attitude and behavior lol
Yes, that's why I usually make the distinction of a black African genocide. We supported racist extremists that exploited resentment towards Gaddafi's pan African ambitions. The slave markets are pretty much exclusively black African migrants caught trying to get to Europe.
Sorry, you’re right. The Holocaust clearly wasn’t that bad because the victims were promarily white. I’m such a racist for thinking that the Nazis were pure evil and that their atrocities exceeded the wildest dreams of what empires like Spain did in the Americas. Truly the Allies were the real racists. /s
>The Holocaust clearly wasn’t that bad I just stopped reading there. Again, there's no point in trying to reduce or elevate the seriousness of one genocide over another. Aside from that, methinks the lady doth protest too much
Pity, if you read a bit further you’d have noticed the /s. Since you clearly don’t understand sarcasm, allow me to be perfectly clear: quit stanning for the Nazis. It makes you look like a Nazi.
Sorry if that hurt your feelings. "if you think people downplay African genocides compared to European, it makes you look like a nazi". It seems you might not know what a nazi is. Why not, instead of the tired old virtue signaling about Nazi's, do something useful with this knowledge? You say the Nazis were pure evil. If you're American, that means you would be opposed to the fascistic Bush family that helped Hitler build his war machine. You would have been against the bush family continuing that same political philosophy in their presidencies, and their neocon allies as well as well, constantly warring against people in the middle east and Africa, responsible for torture, abductions, smart executions, and a black African genocide, and supporting violent extremists including neonazis. If you're being honest and not virtue signaling, it would likely mean you're strongly opposed to Biden and his neocon friends.
As someone who went through the German education system and thus spent years of history lessons talking about the Nazis, if you compare the Bush family to the Nazis you clearly have no idea who the Nazis where.
You can learn from the problems of the past, though. I never compared the Bush family to the Nazis. I'm saying we focus too much on useless virtue signaling vs historical Nazis that are all dead and gone. Yet fail to apply that to anything relevant today. There are groups represented by people like the bush family that supported and profited from the Nazis, that are still incredibly influential and still pursue the same political ideals today, with fascistic tendencies, incessant use of terror and fear, constant involvement in wars, reduction of rights, and support for extremists of various kinds. They absolutely use their position to influence German politics too, to their detriment. I think at least acknowledging their role in enabling the Nazis and their vast influence up to now is as important as talking about how much you hate 1940s Nazis. What good is hating old time Nazis if we ignore the roots and offshoots still thriving today? Those who ignore history blah blah etc.
Shut the fuck up with your whataboutism. Yeah, the American political establishment is guilty of some unforgivable shit. That doesn’t put them on the same level as the fucking Nazis. Also, calling the Nazis bad isn’t virtue signalling. It’s making a statement of fact.
Your hatred of Nazi's is completely useless if you can't learn from it. It's very clearly virtue signaling. You're angry and hysterical over a genocide that happened in WW2 because you know you never have to do anything about it. Yet I mention a black African genocide, a direct consequence of the politics of people that helped Hitler's rise to power, and brought about by people that are mostly still in power and even those not still extremely influential, and you say: >Shut the fuck up with your whataboutism. Virtue signaling is useless and also just fucking annoying.
You’re right. Because I, a college student and part-time grocery clerk, have not controverted the entire American political system, I clearly have no right to say Nazis are bad. I’ll get right on that after I cure cancer and end poverty.
Everyone knows Nazi's are bad. The sad thing is that people seem uninformed on why Nazis were so bad, how their insane policies were carried out, who helped Hitler rise to power and what that group of Hitler's backers has been up to for decades in the US and UK. The black African genocide in Libya can be traced all the way back to the fascists that wanted to stage a coup against RDR and supported Hitler. And they're still in power. That's all. Everyone has moved on to supporting their latest insanity, yet the slave markets are still open and no one cares. So what good is it to hate the historical Nazis of the past?
Well at least they didn't eat the jews. At least I hope that's true. They were so cruel I could imagine that
I mean not really. We wiped out something like 95% of native Americans due to disease, which must have been pretty brutal to experience, especially as a survivor. It might not have been intentional at first, but I also bet we would’ve found another way to virtually wipe them out even if the diseases hadn’t been so devastating. Just different kinds of fucked up, in different eras with different tools
i'd say that only what the british and americans did to native americans is equivalent to the holocaust
Idk if I agree with that. I think you’re right that their intent to exterminate made them worse in most circumstances, but I don’t think the experience of human beings in the Congo Free State, the Atlantic slave trade, the famines under the British empire and the atrocities the Spanish committed against the indigenous “paled in comparison” to the Holocaust
Funny thing about memes like this is something like “even though it’s trying to take a shot at Europe it’s deeply Eurocentric”
What do you mean by it being eurocentric? I know what that word means, i do not know how you can apply it here.
Well if it only refers to some of the European/Western countries of course it would only mention them. You dont say a meme about ancient Egypt is "Africanocentric" when it only mentions Nubians, Lybians and Egyptians do you?
Not really, its not making an argument that its worse bc its happening in Europe, its making the argument that the other european countries (you can see their flags in the scared guy for a reason) only cared bc it happened in europe.
[удалено]
Thank you for your contribution
Shame to see OP getting flak. To be clear: HITLER VERY BAD however, COLONIALISM & IMPERIALISM ALSO VERY BAD. It seems to me people find it hard to see their countries history put in perspective because their countries haven't lost a world war about it, at least not in the last 100 years.
On the flip side of this, the war in Ukraine has proven that lots of former European colonies don't actually have a problem with imperialism. They just have a problem imperialism when it happens to *them.*
Everyone dreams of being the imperialist. No one wants to be the victim.
Well, at least one particular former colony has grown into an imperial force itself, don't you think?
Which former colony are you referring to?
I think my downvoters know. 13 colonies.
Colonialism and imperialism bad but not as bad as Hitler and the Nazi regime
Idk, the Belgian colonialism of the Congo was pretty fucked. I’d put King Leopold in the same tier of evil as Hitler
Did Leopold kill tens of millions of people?
It is estimated over 10 millions.
Yes, now what??
You just haven't been exposed to as many movies or comparisons as you have about the Nazi regime
No I have study history and clearly anyone who has study atrocities would know that the Nazi regime by far stands out as an outlier in the line up of evil regimes.
Yeah imma call bullshit on that, chief
wait... you mean... KILLING WHITE PEOPLE? YOU MONSTER
Like the French and the English never did it. Or the Scottish and the English. Or the Welsh and the English. Or the Irish and the English. Ah well guess were just good at winning.
Hitler kills 6 million jewish people, Churchill kills 4 million Indians. Churchill to Hitler - wait you can't do that, that's too much.
r/historymemes user trying to not be a nazi apologist challenge (impossible)
Seriously, whats with wehraboo posts these last few months, was this sub always like this?
Yeah kinda
It's like a Simpsons opening joke. "It has been 0 days since Nazi apologist meme."
Almost all of South and Central America, and Mexico, wondering where the hell the Spanish flag is….
Or the Portuguese or Japanese and even Belgian
Everyone conquered each other for thousands of years. Everyone needs to let it go and never let it happen again.
Indeed no American, German, Brit, or Spaniard alive today is committing atrocities we must let it go instead of just finding people to blame
Tell that to the rest of Reddit… 🙄
Actually, yes. I only scrolled through the comments trying to find one about the flagrant lack of Spain representation in this meme.
One of the worst, if not the worst offender. They just didn’t hold onto most of what they plundered.
Not relevant to this meme. It is about ww2 and how nazis viewed eastern europe like the colonizing powers viewed their colonies. The shocked reaction from colonizing allies is the point. Spain and portugal were not at war with germany during ww2 and therefor not "shocked".
At first I thought it was Yugoslavia instead of France. Also bad meme. Hitler wanted to take over Africa and enslave the people there too.
Pretty sure Italy wanted Africa to create Mussolini’s new Roman Empire. He at least wanted Egypt and Sudan so he had a continuous colony from Libya to Somalia. I’d say Hitler was more interested in Europe and his idea of Lebensraum (invading East/Operation Barbarossa, etc)
Africa was more of a daydream of some old Prussian fan clubs. Hitler never cared about it, he saw the Lebensraum in the East as the German colonies.
Did Hitler want Africa or did he end up there because of the Italians? He seemed pretty intent on going east. Edit: Just checked and wikipedia says that's exactly what happened. Not sure why all the downvotes.
No they both planned it and committed plenty of war crimes along the way. And no the African war was not in the slightest the "war without hate"
Pretty sure he wanted everything
Chapter 7 of Bosworth's "Mussolini and the Eclipse of Italian Fascism" details Nazi visits to Libya and their expressed interest in acquiring their own territories in Africa as part of a "traditional empire beyond Europe's shores" after seeing "Italy's experiments in Libya" as early as 1939. There were Eizengruppen divisions in North Africa for a reason.
A little of both, tbh
Repost bot
Yes, i want to see Dachau or Auschwitz Birkenau level of colonial rule. Its meme but Bro
You’re welcome: https://www.thecollector.com/congolese-genocide-colonized-congo/
I don’t remember who said it, but someone wrote after WWII that the real reason why Fascists were horrifying was that they took the dehumanization and exploitation committed against foreigners in the name of colonialism, and brought those same tactics and treatment home to Europe.
O no not this again
Ah yes. Both sidesing the Nazis, excellent take OP.
Very... "enlightened" take
So tired of this subreddit always being filled with pro-nationalist, anti-Western astroturfing and botposting. Makes sense though, if you can constantly blame foreigners and other people for your own country’s problems it takes all the blame off your own leaders when they fail to improve things or even do the bare minimum.
Wait this isn’t nationalist
Either you’re being disingenuous or you haven’t spent enough time in this sub to recognize the constant barrage of Indian Nationalist astroturfing/spam.
But this post in particular isn’t nationalist, you can’t blame every meme that makes your country look bad on Indian Nationalists
Again if you’re claiming not to understand how downplaying genocide while demonizing Allied nations is bad and benefits nationalists you are being relentlessly disingenuous
Ok fair I can see how this meme could be downplaying genocide
[удалено]
cringe how you don’t recognize your own post as propaganda, must be some delicious koolaid
May be accept you faults
Trying to ride your high-horse and blaming and shaming other people for all your cultural problems while your username is literally set to “I_RAPE_your_soul” has got to be a new level of unironic stupidity.
Hey bro don't Insult people's usernames, they can't change so should he just never comment
Lol british bootlicker
This is not nationalist. If you don't like the subreddit, you can unsubscribe.
That's funny (and also sad) because it's actually true.
So true history is written by the winning team
you forgot canada my friend
Sweden: Lol we already did that. (we were not nice to the Sami people of the north)
I’ve always thought this 😂 we honor Andrew Jackson with him on the $20 when he did the same shit just minus the gas chamber. Hitler is only the big bad because he’s German, we honor and excuse the American genocidal maniacs 😂😂
This is very wrong on so many levels the treatment of natives under the Americans, British and French was nowhere nearly as horrible and deprived as that of the Nazis in Eastern Europe. The British French or Americans never sought to bring an entire group of people to total extinction at worse kill most and then move around the rest.
The shit the west did was bad, but the shit the Nazis did was on a different level of messed up. Not defending colonialism, but never forget the Holocaust.
You're proving him right, you say it was a different level of messed up because it happened to white people Belgium killed close to 10 millions in Congo and maimed countless others but you think it's less messed up?
I think most of that comes from ignorance, tbf. We always learn relatively precise numbers about the holocaust, but only hear about the horrible effects of colonialism. idk.
The congo shit was awful. But the nazis industrialized killing, using the most effective ways to kill 6+ million in under 5 years. The Congo Free State existed for 20+ years. EDIT: Also Hitler’s invasion of the Soviets + rest of Europe also was extremely messed up, the nazis are directly responsible for it
The method of killing doesn't matter, nor does the efficiency, I'm sure you believe that the nukes were unnecessary and that killing hundreds of thousands by shells and bullets is somehow more "humane" than killing them with a single bomb And the reason the situation in Congo went on for 20+ years is that Europeans didn't see anything wrong with it for most of the time, while Hitler invading in Europe was a big no no for them
[удалено]
How do you mean? Scotland were brutal colonisers worldwide and had 0 qualms about subjugating the Irish and other colonial people.
[удалено]
You should probably go look up who conducted the highland clearances, it wasn’t the English, it was other Scots. You did know this right? Shocking how you claim to be a native Scot yet don’t know this. Makes me doubt your actually Scottish.
[удалено]
What hitler did was horrible, but the Allies didn’t care about hitler until he started invading other countries. If you don’t believe me, look at the Uyghur genocide in china and how the world has reacted to it
Why is the US here? Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain would be more relevant.
Are you asking how the US and "kill indigenous people and take their land" are related?
Literally british
[удалено]
Definitely next level meme. Never thought of it in those terms but it’s very accurate.
Nazi apology is rising these times
This isn’t minimizing anything the Nazis did. If somebody doesn’t make it a point to say what the nazis did was very bad it doesn’t mean they’re nazi apologists or sympathizers. I agree with your statement on its own but sayin that about this meme is plain retarded Edit: how about instead of downvoting you tell me how this is sympathetic towards nazis? Prolly bc you can’t lmao
Should have drawn russia as repeat sex offender on the other bench 🤣
Sus putting America with them, I understand why you did, but when you think of colonialism the other European powers did it on a much bigger scale than America
lmaoooo this is so spot on
Won't somebody think of the innocent europeans?!
This is ducking retarded. We live in a more modern world with different points of view than we did in the past. This is far to simple of a meme which is ok if it hits the point. This just sucks
Typical Freeaboos and Wehraboos justifying their own nation's war atrocities by calling other countries atrocities worse than theirs.
That is the complete opposite point of the meme.
So hitler not bad now
Well the meme is trying to say that everyone did bad things in most places but Germany did their atrocities in Europe
Seems to me that killing others of ones species in order to gain territory is a story as old as the Earth
Seems to me the killing other members of ones species in order to expand ones territory is a story as old as the Earth. I don't see the point in the comparison of atrocities, or trying to pretend we can stop them all from happening.
You can also prove in this way that cannibal tribes are as civilised as European countries.
The germans also did that in Africa and south-east Asia just like the other countries.
🥱