Jewish influence on Australia is problematic (1 Viewer)

[redridinghoodrat]

If the British didn't colonize India, you wouldn't be alive to have this discussion, because of the butterfly effect. NO point in using that argument.

And even if Hitler did succeed, India would get freedom earlier than 1947. The Congress was a functional government since the 1920s. More likely than not Bangladesh and Pakistan would be part of India. Tho I don't know if that would make India better or worse.


Nice one. You forgot "Roma". I'm pretty sure Roma were the largest ethnic group that Hitler mass murdered. How many SubSaharan Africans were actually in Europe? I guarantee you the allies killed way more Africans than Hitler ever did.

Yes Hitler murdered all the above groups. But he also murdered the people(French, Dutch, British), who were murdering Black, Muslims, Asians and Indians in even greater numbers. So we would have to subtract the deaths that the Europeans caused during WW2.

British killed 800000(Low range) Indians in Bengals. Hitler killed 500000(high range) Roma in Europe. If Hitler destroyed the UK before the famine, he would save 800000 Indians. 800000-500000 = 200000. One could interpret this as saying Hitler was trying to save hundreds of thousands of Indians.


No. But I can relate to the people who were ethnically cleansed in my country, and feel less sympathy the Europeans being killed, while they were killing my people. Obviously I care more about my people than foreigners


Hitler would have killed every non Nordic Aryan if he could. BUT he couldn't. The he couldn't is the key part.

Assuming you were living in 1940s Madras, and you were educated, you would be cheering for Hitler to crush the British, cause you don't know when a famine would strike Madras, and the British would redirect supplies. Sure Hitler would want to kill you. But his German army wouldn't have been able to project in India.

If you are from people who were colonized by the British, French or Dutch, it makes no sense to not be a Hitler supporter. I'm honestly surprised more non Nazi Hitler/Axis supporters don't exist.

Let me try and go at each point one by one:

1. "And even if Hitler did succeed, India would get freedom earlier than 1947. The Congress was a functional government since the 1920s. More likely than not Bangladesh and Pakistan would be part of India. Tho I don't know if that would make India better or worse"

a. Hitler was not looking to actually decolonize India. He viewed British rule of India as something the Nazis should emulate and he viewed the British administration of India as the only thing keeping the country from falling into chaos (Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944pg. 413). Even when Subash Chandra Bose was appointed in positions of power, he was not looked at as a viable partner or ally due to his lack of popularity within India. Moreover, supporting decolonisation would not make sense from his logic: if Aryans were the superior race, why would they need to collaborate with lower races? And if they needed to, why not collaborate with the Jews instead of extermination?

b. The Congress was not a functional government by 1920. They could not administer law, collect tax or do anything a functional government does. What they were a massively organised opposition to the British administration which threatened their stability of rule.

c. This is irrelevant to the actual argument and was the result of grievances prior to British partition between Muslims and Hindus in India.

2. "Nice one. You forgot "Roma". I'm pretty sure Roma were the largest ethnic group that Hitler mass murdered. How many SubSaharan Africans were actually in Europe? I guarantee you the allies killed way more Africans than Hitler ever did.

Yes Hitler murdered all the above groups. But he also murdered the people(French, Dutch, British), who were murdering Black, Muslims, Asians and Indians in even greater numbers. So we would have to subtract the deaths that the Europeans caused during WW2.

British killed 800000(Low range) Indians in Bengals. Hitler killed 500000(high range) Roma in Europe. If Hitler destroyed the UK before the famine, he would save 800000 Indians. 800000-500000 = 200000. One could interpret this as saying Hitler was trying to save hundreds of thousands of Indians."

a. I used the word etc. to account for any minority that I forgot but the point I was trying to make was Hitler was ready to kill whoever stood in his way, which was not something a rational actor would do and should not be compromised with. Moreover, the Roma genocide directly contradicts your point because the Roma were derived from India and being the major populace murdered; likely meant he WOULDN'T have decolonized India.

b. I'm not denying the Allies likely killed way more Africans than Hitler ever did but Hitler's lack of open condemnation for colonialism and his continued colonialism, expansionism and genocide of ethnic minorities suggests there's nothing Hitler would've done differently to the British or any other European colonial power for that matter.

c. Hitler wouldn't have destroyed Britain because he couldn't as Germany was still far too weak to force a British surrender and also because he viewed the British as fellow Aryans who needed liberation from the failures of parliamentary democracy. He didn't care about the Bengal famine and viewed it as something he should replicate as written before. He was not a supporter of decolonization and was a proponent of colonialism and framing him as anything else is disingenuous at best.

3. "No. But I can relate to the people who were ethnically cleansed in my country, and feel less sympathy the Europeans being killed, while they were killing my people. Obviously I care more about my people than foreigners


Hitler would have killed every non Nordic Aryan if he could. BUT he couldn't. The he couldn't is the key part.

Assuming you were living in 1940s Madras, and you were educated, you would be cheering for Hitler to crush the British, cause you don't know when a famine would strike Madras, and the British would redirect supplies. Sure Hitler would want to kill you. But his German army wouldn't have been able to project in India.

If you are from people who were colonized by the British, French or Dutch, it makes no sense to not be a Hitler supporter. I'm honestly surprised more non Nazi Hitler/Axis supporters don't exist."

a. Your people being colonized, as much of a tragedy it is, must open your eyes to the fact that we can't let something like this happen to anybody let alone ourselves. Once you excuse it for a certain group of people, the perpetrators can justify using it to ANY group of people.

b. If anything, if Hitler crushed the British and assumed control and occupation over it's territories as what happened to Germany OTL, Hitler likely would've used the Hunger Plan he used in Eastern Europe to starve most of his colonies to continue funding expansion or worse just genocide the undesirables and put the rest to work.

c. Why would a victim of colonization just support another colonizer?

 

[redridinghoodrat]

the FUCK are you talking abou lmao

that's what communism is! It's a belief there should be a literal revolution to overthrow the government, and this revolution is of course to be acheived through violence

The Communist Party in Australia does not advocate for violent revolution nor does any of its offshoots? Marx also believed that in nations with developed democratic traditions like Britain and by extension, Australia, revolution would be more through legislation and democracy rather than violent.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

No he fucking didn't LMAO you are beyond ignorant, jfc

Any evidence to the contrary?

 

[Interdice]

a. Hitler was not looking to actually decolonize India. He viewed British rule of India as something the Nazis should emulate and he viewed the British administration of India as the only thing keeping the country from falling into chaos (Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944pg. 413). Even when Subash Chandra Bose was appointed in positions of power, he was not looked at as a viable partner or ally due to his lack of popularity within India. Moreover, supporting decolonisation would not make sense from his logic: if Aryans were the superior race, why would they need to collaborate with lower races? And if they needed to, why not collaborate with the Jews instead of extermination?

Hitler wanted peace with India in 1942 and war with India in 196X. It would be up to India to strengthen themselves in the buffer period.

b. The Congress was not a functional government by 1920. They could not administer law, collect tax or do anything a functional government does. What they were a massively organised opposition to the British administration which threatened their stability of rule.

British offered indepdence to India similar to what Australia got in 1901, but the COngress refused, wanting full self governance.

The Congress would just take over the British Indian government, and collect tax, adminster law etc, through the British system. IT's what happened after partition. The police officers, judges and civil bodies were the same, but different management.

c. This is irrelevant to the actual argument and was the result of grievances prior to British partition between Muslims and Hindus in India.

It is relavant. I'm claiming that India would be better(Marginally), if Hitler won.

a. I used the word etc. to account for any minority that I forgot but the point I was trying to make was Hitler was ready to kill whoever stood in his way, which was not something a rational actor would do and should not be compromised with. Moreover, the Roma genocide directly contradicts your point because the Roma were derived from India and being the major populace murdered; likely meant he WOULDN'T have decolonized India.

You're putting the cart before the horse. How would Germany colonize India, with a British defeat? British officials would give independence to India, before giving it to the Germans. And even if British leadership were relocated, Congress or some other organization would take over.

c. Hitler wouldn't have destroyed Britain because he couldn't as Germany was still far too weak to force a British surrender and also because he viewed the British as fellow Aryans who needed liberation from the failures of parliamentary democracy. He didn't care about the Bengal famine and viewed it as something he should replicate as written before. He was not a supporter of decolonization and was a proponent of colonialism and framing him as anything else is disingenuous at best.

Far too weak? They took over france in 30 days. UK only won, cause of America. Germany would have won bar foreign interference.

I don't care about Hitler's bullshit beliefs, only Nazis cares care about his fantastical view on races.. He was a madman. I'm just saying if I lived in India, I would be a Nazi supporter, because he was the enemy to the British. NOT a Nazi. If the Nazis came near India, I would support destroying them, and not letting them near Asia.

a. Your people being colonized, as much of a tragedy it is, must open your eyes to the fact that we can't let something like this happen to anybody let alone ourselves. Once you excuse it for a certain group of people, the perpetrators can justify using it to ANY group of people.

More Indians were killed than jews and roma combined. PUt on your own mask, before you put on the mask of your neighbours. And even so, WW2 was a civil war within Europe, not my business.

Expelling the British to Britain, and demanding the Empire to pay a large ransom for the lords/politicians in India, is not unreasonable.

c. Why would a victim of colonization just support another colonizer?

India supports Israel.

And it's not supporting. It's weaponizing indifference. Letting the Germans take over UK, and using that weakness to free India. I don't support the nazis, I just don't support the allies even more

 

[redridinghoodrat]

Hitler wanted peace with India in 1942 and war with India in 196X. It would be up to India to strengthen themselves in the buffer period.


British offered indepdence to India similar to what Australia got in 1901, but the COngress refused, wanting full self governance.

The Congress would just take over the British Indian government, and collect tax, adminster law etc, through the British system. IT's what happened after partition. The police officers, judges and civil bodies were the same, but different management.


It is relavant. I'm claiming that India would be better(Marginally), if Hitler won.


You're putting the cart before the horse. How would Germany colonize India, with a British defeat? British officials would give independence to India, before giving it to the Germans. And even if British leadership were relocated, Congress or some other organization would take over.


Far too weak? They took over france in 30 days. UK only won, cause of America. Germany would have won bar foreign interference.

I don't care about Hitler's bullshit beliefs, only Nazis cares care about his fantastical view on races.. He was a madman. I'm just saying if I lived in India, I would be a Nazi supporter, because he was the enemy to the British. NOT a Nazi. If the Nazis came near India, I would support destroying them, and not letting them near Asia.


More Indians were killed than jews and roma combined. PUt on your own mask, before you put on the mask of your neighbours. And even so, WW2 was a civil war within Europe, not my business.

Expelling the British to Britain, and demanding the Empire to pay a large ransom for the lords/politicians in India, is not unreasonable.


India supports Israel.

And it's not supporting. It's weaponizing indifference. Letting the Germans take over UK, and using that weakness to free India. I don't support the nazis, I just don't support the allies even more

Let me respond to some of these claims again but I feel like this debate is gonna keep going because you and I have fundamentally different views

1. "Hitler wanted peace with India in 1942 and war with India in 196X. It would be up to India to strengthen themselves in the buffer period.


British offered indepdence to India similar to what Australia got in 1901, but the COngress refused, wanting full self governance.

The Congress would just take over the British Indian government, and collect tax, adminster law etc, through the British system. IT's what happened after partition. The police officers, judges and civil bodies were the same, but different management."

a. There isn't anything corroborating the claim that Hitler wanted peace with India, more so, he was indifferent to India and viewed it more as a strategic point for propaganda rather than actual peace with India

b. This was a. not achieved in 1920 and b. the Cripps Plan was heavily still geared towards the colonizer's benefit, the British wanted to maintain military control, included a clause which allowed states to "opt-out" of the Indian union which would've effectively Balkanized the subcontinent and created instability which the British could capitalize on again and there was little transparency about the plan which deteriorated discussions between the two distant parties even further.

c. You state in your argument that you don't know whether a united India would be better or worse so would it really be better if the Germans won?

2. "You're putting the cart before the horse. How would Germany colonize India, with a British defeat? British officials would give independence to India, before giving it to the Germans. And even if British leadership were relocated, Congress or some other organization would take over."

a. In this scenario, I imagine that a British defeat would be similar to the German defeat in WW1, which led to the forcible assumption of colonies belonging to Germany. If Britain did lose, they wouldn't have the bargaining power to grant India independence, similar to how Germany didn't have the bargaining power to grant its dominions independence.

b. I can't really argue with this other than maybe the possibility of a full crackdown on political parties by the German occupation

3. "Far too weak? They took over france in 30 days. UK only won, cause of America. Germany would have won bar foreign interference.

I don't care about Hitler's bullshit beliefs, only Nazis cares care about his fantastical view on races.. He was a madman. I'm just saying if I lived in India, I would be a Nazi supporter, because he was the enemy to the British. NOT a Nazi. If the Nazis came near India, I would support destroying them, and not letting them near Asia."

a. Unlikely that Britain would've lost mainly because of it's colonies providing them a global supply chain which the Germans lacked. They could afford to continue fighting a battle of attrition with the Germans who could not. France was taken over in 30 days mainly BECAUSE they were un-coordinated and lacked a proper supply chain. Moreover, even if the US never intervened, it was more than likely that Germany still would've lost because they decided to fight a two-front war with Russia and Britain. If we become generous and assume that Russia wasn't involved in the war at all/didn't fight Germany, Germany would still be on the losing end because they couldn't gain air superiority over Britain which would allow for a land invasion. So yes, Germany was far too weak to actually challenge Britain significantly and they would've fallen into an armistice which ends in a ceasefire.

b. Hitler's racial beliefs matter in a context like this because that was what he based his entire political career up to this point on and would've likely continued to influence his actions in the future. But disregarding that, I don't believe that the Germans would've just left India alone if they defeated the British. There was a reason why the British had such a tight grip on India, it had a multitude of resources which couldn't be matched by many nations in the world. The Germans would've likely brutally occupied India and been far worse than the British. But even if for some reason, Hitler decides to be benevolent and not torture the Indians, India would be in the same position as when they were colonized by the British at first, used solely for resources and the Indians' needs were put second. So I don't believe that the Indian should support Nazism even for a chance at weakening Britain

4. "More Indians were killed than jews and roma combined. PUt on your own mask, before you put on the mask of your neighbours. And even so, WW2 was a civil war within Europe, not my business.

Expelling the British to Britain, and demanding the Empire to pay a large ransom for the lords/politicians in India, is not unreasonable."

a. I agree, more Indians were killed than Jews and Roma combined, but that still doesn't justify any genocide that occurred anywhere.

b. It isn't unreasonable but it's almost ignorant to believe that solely because Hitler wins that the British will begin paying ransoms to the Indians. Even if the British get expelled, the German occupation would still remain and the Germans would likely pocket the ransoms for themselves and let the Indian people die.

5.
India supports Israel.

And it's not supporting. It's weaponizing indifference. Letting the Germans take over UK, and using that weakness to free India. I don't support the nazis, I just don't support the allies even more

a. I agree with you but Israel does not currently occupy India to the extent the Germans or British would've. Support for Israel could be due to various reasons that I personally don't agree with.

b. I don't believe that we would've been left alone if the Germans took over the UK is the thing, I'm fine with you not supporting either but choosing one because it seems more useful, I just don't think it would've been useful for the Indians to allow for a German victory.

 

[SylviaB]

Any evidence to the contrary?

Evidence to the contrary is that he literally allied with non-nordics extensively

 

[SylviaB]

The Communist Party in Australia does not advocate for violent revolution nor does any of its offshoots? Marx also believed that in nations with developed democratic traditions like Britain and by extension, Australia, revolution would be more through legislation and democracy rather than violent.

They don't advocate for it because they know its a bad look and teythey have no chance. If they had a chance, they would do it in a heart beat.

And post-revolution socialist countries have all been extremely authoritarian.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

They don't advocate for it because they know its a bad look and teythey have no chance. If they had a chance, they would do it in a heart beat.

And post-revolution socialist countries have all been extremely authoritarian.

So you're going to support the far-right who does it openly? You criticise the communists for advocating violence when they don't and then you try and say "oh they don't advocate violence but if they could they would so i'm going to support the people advocating violence instead" I'm so confused by your logic.

And a. not all post-revolution socialist nations were authoritarian (Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz) b. you can't denounce post-revolution socialism for authoritarianism and then endorse ideology that openly advocates for totalitarianism lol.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

Evidence to the contrary is that he literally allied with non-nordics extensively

His alliance with Non-Nordics were justified by him by elevating them to "Aryan" or "honorary Aryan" status. If his political behavior suggests anything, he would've reversed this view if he was victorious.

 

[SylviaB]

His alliance with Non-Nordics were justified by him by elevating them to "Aryan" or "honorary Aryan" status. If his political behavior suggests anything, he would've reversed this view if he was victorious.

No, he wouldn't have, because his goal was never world domination despite what your cartoonish understanding of him suggests

And if anyone can be elevated to 'aryan status' then 'aryan' isn't a racial term and doesn't predict genocide of any particualr group.

 

[SylviaB]

So you're going to support the far-right who does it openly? You criticise the communists for advocating violence when they don't and then you try and say "oh they don't advocate violence but if they could they would so i'm going to support the people advocating violence instead" I'm so confused by your logic.

And a. not all post-revolution socialist nations were authoritarian (Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz) b. you can't denounce post-revolution socialism for authoritarianism and then endorse ideology that openly advocates for totalitarianism lol.

I didn't endorse shit, moron. I'm saying that far-left ideology is inherently violent, and you just don't want it banned because you support it.

Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz

Chile did not have a revolution, and the Guatemalan coup was inherently violent lol

 

[Interdice]

I didn't endorse shit, moron. I'm saying that far-left ideology is inherently violent, and you just don't want it banned because you support it.

Based

 

[Interdice]

And if anyone can be elevated to 'aryan status' then 'aryan' isn't a racial term and doesn't predict genocide of any particualr group.

If Aryan status is given, then it can be taken away.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

I didn't endorse shit, moron. I'm saying that far-left ideology is inherently violent, and you just don't want it banned because you support it.



Chile did not have a revolution, and the Guatemalan coup was inherently violent lol

Far-left ideology is literally such a broad set of ideologies, how can you claim all of it is inherently violent? You can't actually rebut any of my claims so you have to just resort to "huh at least im not a commie!". The Guatemalan protest turned violent because the police regime before Arbenz tried to violently suppress dissent. It started off with peaceful strikes. Nothing like that has happened in Australia, until the Gaza protests.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

No, he wouldn't have, because his goal was never world domination despite what your cartoonish understanding of him suggests

And if anyone can be elevated to 'aryan status' then 'aryan' isn't a racial term and doesn't predict genocide of any particualr group.

His goal would've expanded to justify world domination because as we all know, colonialists are well known for their restraint and lack of expansionism. As Interdice pointed out, if anybody can be elevated to Aryan status then anybody can also be taken out of Aryan status and their genocide can be justified.

 

[Interdice]

This pretty much sums up why I'm indifferent on Nazis. I don't agree with their beliefs, but I'd rather the Nazis win, cause that would mean less deaths on my side

 

[Interdice]

anybody can be elevated to Aryan status then anybody can also be taken out of Aryan status and their genocide can be justified.

No one outside of europe is threatened by Nazis tho. Idgaf if Hitler wanted to kill me. What's he gonna do about it?

Poland is racist af towards non Europeans, and idgaf, cause I'm not in Poland. Tho if they ethnically cleansed my people, I would be upset. If they expelled my people to my homeland, I wouldn't really care that much tbh.



Not my circus not my monkey.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

View attachment 51661
This pretty much sums up why I'm indifferent on Nazis. I don't agree with their beliefs, but I'd rather the Nazis win, cause that would mean less deaths on my side

I'm saying it wouldn't benefit the colonized people in any way, switching from colonizer to colonizer is as much rational as switching from one slaveowner to another, both of them are still keeping you enslaved. The route that India took OTL was the most preferable way that it earned independence, even if it ended in the partition which would've happened in a violent war regardless due to the discontent brewing inside India at the time. If the Nazis won, India wouldn't have gotten the chance to exercise independence because they would've been much more violently suppressed.

 

[redridinghoodrat]

No one outside of europe is threatened by Nazis tho. Idgaf if Hitler wanted to kill me. What's he gonna do about it?

Poland is racist af towards non Europeans, and idgaf, cause I'm not in Poland. Tho if they ethnically cleansed my people, I would be upset. If they expelled my people to my homeland, I wouldn't really care that much tbh.



Not my circus not my monkey.

If Hitler had won, he would've become the leader of the European continent, and by proxy, world hegemon. Noting the actions of the United States in various nations to preserve its hegemony, it makes perfect sense to not want a Nazi hegemon as it inevitably bleeds out into the rest of the world due to Europe's influence.

 

[SylviaB]

His goal would've expanded to justify world domination because as we all know, colonialists are well known for their restraint and lack of expansionism. As Interdice pointed out, if anybody can be elevated to Aryan status then anybody can also be taken out of Aryan status and their genocide can be justified.

There's zero evidence of that, and Germany wasn't colonialist anyway.

And you said he wanted to kill anyone who isn't aryan, but if anyone can be aryan, then your claim is literally meaningless because it doesn't predict who he will or won't kill.