What does this have to do with German Culture
Michael Huebner
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 21:14:14 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:09:11 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>>Our civilisation is the greatest for us. From an outside point of view
>>it may look silly if people waste their lifes hunting for money and
>>overbeating the neighbour.
>
>No civilisation is perfect and our exagerated materialism is a negativ
>trait.
How can you then judge which one is best?
>The Russian culture is a European and White culture.
Great point :-)
But it is the one of a different ethnic group. And it will be hard - if
not impossible - to say what is a greater culture.
> Creativity and innovation are some of traits of a higher
>civilisation. E.g. the classical Greek civilisation was great and was
>copied in those areas in which it came in touch with. This
>civilisation was influencing other countries while it received only
>little influence from outside itself.
Okay, that's an explanation I can live with. Higher civilisation as the
one with more advanced technology and stronger influence on others.
What stays left is the question if the other civilisations were not able
to reach the same level at a later time. If you go back in history you
will see that everything was invented when there was a demand for it.
Societies have developed in different ways. I can't see any reason to
call an ethnicity stupid because they did not invent what others did if
they simply didn't need it. If your theory were true, how can the
american multi-ethnic society be so strong in space sciences?
>>Finally again a point of total agreement. Now it depends on the way
>>how we are going to improve. Instead of putting pressure on a society
>>to create "clean" races in separated spaces I'd rather watch other
>>civilisations and copy what I consider great there to improve the own
>>civilisation. The closer my contact to them is the better I can watch
>>it.
>
>And what would specific do you want to copy from other Non-Western
>civilisations?
The better care for the neighbour, the easy-going of life, the way to
judge a person by the behaviours instead of the money, spontaneity,
family sense...etc...
>>When nature gives mixed races a better chance to survive it is not
>>logically at all to call "clean" races "enobled by nature".
>
>What proof do you have for your allegation that nature gives mixed
>race a better chance to survive. Most of the extinct higher
>civilisations went down because of miscegenation. Ancient Egypt,
>India, Greece etc.
Did they get extinct? Those civilisations have just developed and
improved over the time. They are still alive in another form.
>> What you call political
>>doctrins about equality is the actual life around myself. It's
>>reality, not wishful thinking.
>
> I cannot see any equality around me. I can see no equality anywhere.
>Where I work some people have higher positions and wages than others.
>When I was studying some students got better grades than others.
I was talking about the reality around myself, the neighbours of
different ethnicity. There is no sign of what should be by your view.
Aren't you the one who lives in an ethnic homogeneity? How can there be
so many differences if they are created by different "races" and ethnic
groups? Are those with the higher income or better grades just "whiter"
than you are?
> If I
>go to Africa or the third world I quickly realize that we have much
>better conditions socially, politically and economically in Denmark.
That's what I said. It depends on the conditions, not on the races.
>> Why should a harmonic environment be
>>torn apart just because you cannot imagine it would be harmonic? The
>>only explanation you gave for why a multi-ethnic society would create
>>problems is the expression that a multi-ethnic society creates
>>problems.
>
>I remember back in seventies tourist catalogues of Lebanon describing
>in which great harmony the different cultural groups were supposed to
>live together in this country. A few years later the country were torn
>apart by civil war among the same groups. I remember similiar
>catalogues from Yugoslavia which I visited with my parents in the
>sixties. I know that the Bonn-regime will say that all such civil wars
>are due to some "Nazis" and their "hatespeech". If you just ban
>"hatespeech" and "nazi"-groups the causes of such civil wars will just
>vanish into thin air. Like the Jews were blamed for all problems in
>the Hitler-era in Germany, the "neo-nazis" are the scapegoats of the
>silly present Bonn-regime. Centuries ago it was the heretics and
>witches, which were burned at stake in Germany.
You make the multi-ethnicity the scapegoats for all those problems. It's
easier to blame it for all the odds instead of trying to find the real
causes. The difference is that you don't demand I should burn my
neighbours but send them to where their ancestors lived. Civil wars
somewhere are no reason for me to see my neighbours with different eyes.
Why should I, if even your ethnic homogeneity creates what you before
told me to be a result of multi-ethnicity.
> I think that the Sorbians are so closely related
>to the Germans that only little tensions, if any, may rise.
Gather some information about them. They are a totally different tribe,
a Slavic one. They have their own culture and traditions and festivities
that are very exotic for us. The only common thing is that they are also
whites. Maybe you can get some pictures on TV when they are celebrating
the Easter Sunday. They have their own customs and you may see their
traditional clothings because the Easter processions are broadcast on
some TV stations (I guess RTL will transmit it via Astra satellite).
> I think that the Turks are too different to be be accepted as
>permanent residents.They belong in the Middle East.
You still fail to tell me _what_ makes them "too different". Instead of
an explanation you stubbornly repeat that statement. This will not make
it more true!
>>From the point of view of a white person you are right. But if you
>>look at it from a simply historical view you should give the lands
>>back to the Indians and Aborigines. In both cases the white people are
>>exactly what you consider the Turks in Germany.
>
> I can understand that point of view, but it is far too late to undo
>what has happened to North America the last 3½ centuries.
Why don't you give the Turks also 3½ centuries in Germany?
If they should be thrown out for no other reason than being Turks you
should also throw all Americans out of America if they are not of an
ancient tribe. Be more consequent! If you want to support a natural law
you should do it everywhere and not hesitate to correct what was started
wrong 3½ centuries ago. Natural laws didn't change in 3½ centuries.
>>How much of a land do you consider "reasonable big" for those who once
>>owned the entire land?
>
>It depends on how big a percentage of the total population they
>constitute.
Really? If a family of ten came to move into your house without asking
you, would you also divide it according to some headcount?
>>What if the Turks in Germany said "We all move
>>to Thuringia, take it as our part of the country and let you the rest
>>of Germany as your homeland. So, Thuringians, get out of here and into
>>your new homeland"?
>
>No.Turks can only move to Turkey. Turks already have their homeland
>there.
Then I had to move, also. Most of the tribes whose later generations
form Germany had come from other places. We should all move back to
where they had come from some 14 to 18 centuries ago. Now, where should
those live who trace their roots to different tribes in far away parts
of Europe?
>>The official German language is an agreement about what to call the
>>"High German". It's not spoken in any place in Germany. It's something
>>like you might imagine a "Scandinavian" as a convention made from
>>Danish, Norwegian and Swedish dialects.
>
> The differences between the Scandinavian people may not be big but
>still too big to make us one people.
The EU is not to make all nations one "European nation". It is to break
economical barriers.
> My opinion is
>that it may be much more difficult to unite Europe than to unite
>Scandinavia, because most of the European peoples are much more
>different from each other than the Scandinavians. Kohl is such a great
>fool and visionary.
Nobody said that it would be easy to unite the European countries. Take
Kohl away and there are still many others to replace him. Of course it
takes a visionary for such a project. A vison is always the beginning of
any change. But even I, as someone who has a concerned view on all those
things, have to admit that it is very similar to what the German
countries had done already in the past. Most of the German kingdoms and
counties united to one Germany. It was also difficult but at the end we
all benefit from it. It helped develop the economy, closed the many toll
stations and lead to the one currency.
But I doubt if we are already in the situation to do this for the entire
Europe.
> I am first of all Danish. Secondly I am a Scandinavian. Thirdly a
>European or a part of the White race. Forthly, theoretically and
>abstractly, the human race - in that order.
This third point implies that you cannot imagine a non white European,
right?
Michael Hübner
<mhue...@isbmh.com> http://www.isbmh.com/MHuebner/
PGP KeyID B7C60405 (1024 bits / 02 August 1997) on public servers
Ole Kreiberg
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:34:33 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com (Michael Huebner)
wrote:
>The better care for the neighbour, the easy-going of life, the way to
>judge a person by the behaviours instead of the money, spontaneity,
>family sense...etc...
Isn't all that just positive prejudices? I have travelled much in
third world countries, and in most of these places they snob just as
much for money and social position or even more than we do in our part
of the world. I think that some of the most easygoing places I have
been to are countries like the USA and Australia. In which third world
countries do you find the people particular easygoing and spontaneous?
It is true that you most often find oldfashioned family traditions
there. The children take of their old parents. Before the social
welfarestate it was the same in our part of the world too.
>> I cannot see any equality around me. I can see no equality anywhere.
>>Where I work some people have higher positions and wages than others.
>>When I was studying some students got better grades than others.
>
>I was talking about the reality around myself, the neighbours of
>different ethnicity. There is no sign of what should be by your view.
But you will still not find much real equality.
>> I think that the Sorbians are so closely related
>>to the Germans that only little tensions, if any, may rise.
>
>Gather some information about them. They are a totally different tribe,
>a Slavic one.
But they are still a white european tribe.
>They have their own culture and traditions and festivities
>that are very exotic for us. The only common thing is that they are also
>whites.
Gee, now you are consciuos to differences like me.
> Maybe you can get some pictures on TV when they are celebrating
>the Easter Sunday. They have their own customs and you may see their
>traditional clothings because the Easter processions are broadcast on
>some TV stations (I guess RTL will transmit it via Astra satellite).
Okay their folklore may be much different from yours, but they are
still not be as different from you as Turks, Chinese or Black
Africans.
>
>> I think that the Turks are too different to be be accepted as
>>permanent residents.They belong in the Middle East.
>
>You still fail to tell me _what_ makes them "too different". Instead of
>an explanation you stubbornly repeat that statement. This will not make
>it more true!
To me it is obvious that the Islamic Middle Eastern culture is much
more different from the German that e.g. the Polish. You must be
cultural blind if you are not able to see that.
>
>Why don't you give the Turks also 3˝ centuries in Germany?
>If they should be thrown out for no other reason than being Turks you
>should also throw all Americans out of America if they are not of an
>ancient tribe. Be more consequent! If you want to support a natural law
>you should do it everywhere and not hesitate to correct what was started
>wrong 3˝ centuries ago. Natural laws didn't change in 3˝ centuries.
I can understand your point of, but I think that it is the minorities
that must have to leave and not the other way round.
>>It depends on how big a percentage of the total population they
>>constitute.
>
>Really? If a family of ten came to move into your house without asking
>you, would you also divide it according to some headcount?
Again the problems of USA are not really my problems.
>
>Then I had to move, also. Most of the tribes whose later generations
>form Germany had come from other places. We should all move back to
>where they had come from some 14 to 18 centuries ago. Now, where should
>those live who trace their roots to different tribes in far away parts
>of Europe?
Again Germany is one nation and one people.
>> The differences between the Scandinavian people may not be big but
>>still too big to make us one people.
>
>The EU is not to make all nations one "European nation". It is to break
>economical barriers.
Why do the EU then try to infere with what the citizens of
Non-German memberstates may be allowed to think about the
historiography of German WW2 atrocities? What has the treatment of the
Jews in German concentrationcamps in Poland to do with the e.g.
Denmark and Ireland? No Danes or Irishmen were there. Why are the
German atrocities in Poland or elsewhere outside of Denmark more
important to the Danes than similiar French atrocities in Algeria or
American atrocities in Vietnam? Germany is not the center of the world
although the Bonn-regime may think so.
>
>Nobody said that it would be easy to unite the European countries.
This should never be done. Unions of different nationalities suck.
Just take a look at the former Yugoslavia or Cyprus.
> Take
>Kohl away and there are still many others to replace him. Of course it
>takes a visionary for such a project. A vison is always the beginning of
>any change.
By visionary I mean the same as the German word, Phantast. I could not
find a better word than visionary in English.
> But even I, as someone who has a concerned view on all those
>things, have to admit that it is very similar to what the German
>countries had done already in the past. Most of the German kingdoms and
>counties united to one Germany.
And they were all of German nationality. Remember when Germany were
uniting the first they got into conflict and war with was Denmark.
Being in a Union with Germany would be as undesirable for the Danes as
it would have been for the Americans to be a part of the British
empire 220 years ago. Remember the British and the Americans were much
closer related than the Germans and the Danes are.
> It helped develop the economy, closed the many toll
>stations and lead to the one currency.
>But I doubt if we are already in the situation to do this for the entire
>Europe.
The Kohl dream is an impossible dream.
>
>> I am first of all Danish. Secondly I am a Scandinavian. Thirdly a
>>European or a part of the White race. Forthly, theoretically and
>>abstractly, the human race - in that order.
>
>This third point implies that you cannot imagine a non white European,
>right?
>
Exactly.
Ole Kreiberg
Michael Huebner
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:23:10 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:34:33 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com (Michael Huebner)
>wrote:
>
>>The better care for the neighbour, the easy-going of life, the way to
>>judge a person by the behaviours instead of the money, spontaneity,
>>family sense...etc...
>
> Isn't all that just positive prejudices? I have travelled much in
>third world countries, and in most of these places they snob just as
>much for money and social position or even more than we do in our part
>of the world. I think that some of the most easygoing places I have
>been to are countries like the USA and Australia. In which third world
>countries do you find the people particular easygoing and spontaneous?
It's not only in "third world" countries. I found that in Russia,
Slovakia, South Africa, the USA, Norway... and even here in Germany.
It's less a matter of the country but the location. When I was hiking in
the Rocky Mountains I found people different from the ones in big
cities. The same in Germany, just compare the people of a poorer
countryside village to the ones in the big centers. The less people own
the more relaxed they are. They also dream of having more but they don't
fight as hard as the rich. It's easier for them to share the little they
have than for others to share anything of the much they have.
>It is true that you most often find oldfashioned family traditions
>there. The children take of their old parents. Before the social
>welfarestate it was the same in our part of the world too.
I don't think that welfare system is so good. It gives not only what one
needs to live but quite some more. There are people who just know how to
read the law and benefit from it. Some weeks ago there was such a guy on
TV who doesn't work but gets more welfare than I ever had a salary. He
said that his only job was to read the law and find ways to get even
more. On the other side the welfare and support is cut everywhere and
those who cannot fight fall through the grid again. Then it takes the
family again to survive.
>>I was talking about the reality around myself, the neighbours of
>>different ethnicity. There is no sign of what should be by your view.
>
>But you will still not find much real equality.
Of course they are different! But there is no reason to fear their
different looks and ancestry. No reason to send them back to where their
families had come from.
>>> I think that the Sorbians are so closely related
>>>to the Germans that only little tensions, if any, may rise.
>>
>>Gather some information about them. They are a totally different tribe,
>>a Slavic one.
>
>But they are still a white european tribe.
They are white, the are European, they are human. What adjective should
be taken to judge their value?
>>They have their own culture and traditions and festivities
>>that are very exotic for us. The only common thing is that they are also
>>whites.
>
>Gee, now you are consciuos to differences like me.
I bet some other readers got the ironic words.
>Okay their folklore may be much different from yours, but they are
>still not be as different from you as Turks, Chinese or Black
>Africans.
How different are people allowed to be to become acceptable by your
ideology?
>>> I think that the Turks are too different to be be accepted as
>>>permanent residents.They belong in the Middle East.
>>
>>You still fail to tell me _what_ makes them "too different". Instead of
>>an explanation you stubbornly repeat that statement. This will not make
>>it more true!
>
> To me it is obvious that the Islamic Middle Eastern culture is much
>more different from the German that e.g. the Polish. You must be
>cultural blind if you are not able to see that.
Again, Ole, they _are_ different in many things. You don't need to tell
me that they are different but just where you draw the line between
acceptable different and too different.
One of my friends is a Christian Turk and was born in Germany. How does
she fit your system? She doesn't match your requirement of being
Islamic, the Turkish culture is foreign to her. If it wasn't the darker
skin and the exotic name you would never tell she is Turkish. What
should we do now?
>>Why don't you give the Turks also 3˝ centuries in Germany?
>>If they should be thrown out for no other reason than being Turks you
>>should also throw all Americans out of America if they are not of an
>>ancient tribe. Be more consequent! If you want to support a natural law
>>you should do it everywhere and not hesitate to correct what was started
>>wrong 3˝ centuries ago. Natural laws didn't change in 3˝ centuries.
>
> I can understand your point of, but I think that it is the minorities
>that must have to leave and not the other way round.
There is no need for them to leave. I gave you the example of the
Sorbians. They have been living here for centuries without those
problems you call multi-ethnicity the reason for. I would neither send
them anywhere just because they are a minority nor because they are of
different ethnicity.
Why should minorities leave? Do you fear a minority? Do you fear the
Turks would become majority in Germany because they raise more children
than Germans? Then the day would come when Germans have to leave Germany
because they have become a minority. What excuse would you then find to
throw Turks out?
>>>It depends on how big a percentage of the total population they
>>>constitute.
>>
>>Really? If a family of ten came to move into your house without asking
>>you, would you also divide it according to some headcount?
>
>Again the problems of USA are not really my problems.
I won't let you go that easy here. You are discussing general issues
that do matter mankind. It was you who called it a natural law. You
cannot limit a "natural law" to a few regions. Didn't you say yourself
that they are eternal laws?
Anyway, I was asking how you would react. The location doesn't matter at
all. Would you share your house according to the headcount? Or now,
would you leave your house because you have become minority? I bet you
would fight because it is your house, regardless of how many percent of
all people in the house you are. Imagine there were no help and you
would lose the fight, would you then accept to be given a small room in
your house?
You might also let a family of ten come in and welcome them as your
guests. Would you then throw them out because your neighbour found that
they are not part of your family?
>>Then I had to move, also. Most of the tribes whose later generations
>>form Germany had come from other places. We should all move back to
>>where they had come from some 14 to 18 centuries ago. Now, where should
>>those live who trace their roots to different tribes in far away parts
>>of Europe?
>
>Again Germany is one nation and one people.
Excuse me... Didn't I tell you about that just a few days ago? Read
again what I wrote last Sunday. Message-ID
<350be9c0...@news.citylink.de> (Mar 15)
Of course you may deny it because it doesn't fit your ideas at all. But
the world is not changing to fit your thoughts. You should be able to
correct your view to match reality.
38 countries have formed the German Union (Deutscher Bund) in Vienna in
1815. Even that was not Germany, yet. There was still no central
government, no comon laws, police or military. The black-red-golden flag
had become the symbol of the German Union at the Wartburgfest in 1817
and the Hambacher Fest in 1832, when the issues were discussed that
finally lead to a German state.
I don't think you will honestly beliefe that you can form one nation and
one people out of several different ones within less than 200 years. You
may stamp your feet and repeat again and again that Germany were one
nation. But if you want to discuss you should face reality.
>>> The differences between the Scandinavian people may not be big but
>>>still too big to make us one people.
>>
>>The EU is not to make all nations one "European nation". It is to break
>>economical barriers.
>
> Why do the EU then try to infere with what the citizens of
>Non-German memberstates may be allowed to think about the
>historiography of German WW2 atrocities? What has the treatment of the
>Jews in German concentrationcamps in Poland to do with the e.g.
>Denmark and Ireland? No Danes or Irishmen were there. Why are the
>German atrocities in Poland or elsewhere outside of Denmark more
>important to the Danes than similiar French atrocities in Algeria or
>American atrocities in Vietnam? Germany is not the center of the world
>although the Bonn-regime may think so.
Now we are finally back to where our discussion had once begun. To make
my answer short, there is no other way for Germany to force such laws in
other countries. The only possible thing is to convince them. You told
me about the meeting of the ministers where they agreed to such laws. If
you have forgotten our conversation already I will just ask you that one
question again: How did Germany, in your opinion, put _pressure_ on
Denmark to release this law?
This law was certainly applauded by Germany and you may not like it
because it limits your freedom. But it was released by the Danish
government, not in Bonn.
>>Nobody said that it would be easy to unite the European countries.
>
>This should never be done. Unions of different nationalities suck.
>Just take a look at the former Yugoslavia or Cyprus.
You find the opposite with the Sorbians in Germany. You find the
opposite among German states. You find civil wars within nations
(Ireland).
Now, what sucks really? It's your obvious unability to ask for the real
reasons of such civil wars. All you need is a scapegoat. You call it
multi-ethnicity but during the discussion you make clear that you indeed
see different "races" as your scapegoat. You tolerate different ethnic
groups if they are white. You apply "laws" just to where they seem to
fit your picture of the world. If the true facts don't fit your picture
you repeat saying "it is so, it is so, it is so..." You are blindfolded
by your hate. Your mind blocks all logic if it contradicts the basics of
your ideology.
>> Take
>>Kohl away and there are still many others to replace him. Of course it
>>takes a visionary for such a project. A vison is always the beginning of
>>any change.
>
>By visionary I mean the same as the German word, Phantast. I could not
>find a better word than visionary in English.
It still isn't any difference. Whatever someone fancies will look
strange to the others. Then he can try to convinve them and later they
may try to make this fantasy true. Then it may or may not work, but it
takes always that fantasy, that vision, to create it.
I'm a visionary, too. It was my vision to open your eyes. It didn't
work, but it took that vision to at least try it.
>> But even I, as someone who has a concerned view on all those
>>things, have to admit that it is very similar to what the German
>>countries had done already in the past. Most of the German kingdoms and
>>counties united to one Germany.
>
> And they were all of German nationality.
Just see above. I'm not going to repeat again and again.
> Remember when Germany were
>uniting the first they got into conflict and war with was Denmark.
What do you blame the previous wars on? German countries had been
fighting against and along with Danes throughout history. You've got to
see it entirely, not to pick out one war that fits your argumentation.
>> It helped develop the economy, closed the many toll
>>stations and lead to the one currency.
>>But I doubt if we are already in the situation to do this for the entire
>>Europe.
>
>The Kohl dream is an impossible dream.
A typical Ole expression. Just a sentence without the slightest attempt
of a prove. Future will show if it works or not. The course of the world
will not ask for your opinion about it.
>>> I am first of all Danish. Secondly I am a Scandinavian. Thirdly a
>>>European or a part of the White race. Forthly, theoretically and
>>>abstractly, the human race - in that order.
>>
>>This third point implies that you cannot imagine a non white European,
>>right?
>>
>Exactly.
Can you imagine a white non European?
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:34:53 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
> The less people own the more relaxed they are.
I find the rich Americans and Australians as easygoing as their lesser
fortunate countrymen. The easygoingness is in the culture and the
mentality and not in the degree of lack of wealth.
>
>I don't think that welfare system is so good. It gives not only what one
>needs to live but quite some more. There are people who just know how to
>read the law and benefit from it. Some weeks ago there was such a guy on
>TV who doesn't work but gets more welfare than I ever had a salary. He
>said that his only job was to read the law and find ways to get even
>more.
You should preserve the social welfare state while you are fighting
the abuse of it.
> On the other side the welfare and support is cut everywhere and
>those who cannot fight fall through the grid again. Then it takes the
>family again to survive.
You want to go back to the 19th century. You are very reactionary.
The majority of the voters do not want to give up the wellfare state
and the politicians know that.
>How different are people allowed to be to become acceptable by your
>ideology?
People of ethnic European descent are acceptable as citizens of
Europe. All others are not.
>There is no need for them to leave. I gave you the example of the
>Sorbians.They have been living here for centuries without those
>problems you call multi-ethnicity the reason for. I would neither send
>them anywhere just because they are a minority nor because they are of
>different ethnicity.
The Sorbians have always lived where they live today and they have no
country of their own. Furthermore they are culturally and ethnically a
part of Europe. I cannot see a big problem in their presence. It is
like the Germans living in Southern Denmark. They too are a culturally
and ethnically a part of Europe, and if they behave well I can see no
problem in their presence either. In the very North of Germany there
live a Danish minority, and even the naziregime could not see a big
problem in their presence.
>
>Why should minorities leave? Do you fear a minority?
No, I just prefere ethnic homoneity of reasons that I have already
explained several times.
>Do you fear the
>Turks would become majority in Germany because they raise more children
>than Germans? Then the day would come when Germans have to leave Germany
>because they have become a minority. What excuse would you then find to
>throw Turks out?
Yaeh you better throw them out now while you still can, and before
they may become numerous enough to throw you out. Do you remember how
the Turks got rid of all those millions of Greeks and Armenians that
lived in Turkey before WW1? Today they are heavily oppressing the
Curds which are their only minority of any significance.
>>Again the problems of USA are not really my problems.
>
>I won't let you go that easy here. You are discussing general issues
>that do matter mankind. It was you who called it a natural law. You
>cannot limit a "natural law" to a few regions. Didn't you say yourself
>that they are eternal laws?
As I have told you before, American racial separatists, including
Black ones like the Black Muslims, have suggested to divide the
country in different independent racial nations. The size of these
nations should reflect the proportional sizes of the various racial
populations of the present USA.
>Anyway, I was asking how you would react. The location doesn't matter at
>all. Would you share your house according to the headcount? Or now,
>would you leave your house because you have become minority?
I have never said anything about abandoning the laws of property,
but I would prefere to live with people of my own kind.
>>Again Germany is one nation and one people.
>
>Excuse me... Didn't I tell you about that just a few days ago? Read
>again what I wrote last Sunday. Message-ID
><350be9c0...@news.citylink.de> (Mar 15)
And do all your fellow Germans agree with you in this matter?
>
>Of course you may deny it because it doesn't fit your ideas at all. But
>the world is not changing to fit your thoughts. You should be able to
>correct your view to match reality.
I want to exert my democratic right to influence and oppose in which
direction the world should or should not change.
>
>38 countries have formed the German Union (Deutscher Bund) in Vienna in
>1815. Even that was not Germany, yet. There was still no central
>government, no comon laws, police or military. The black-red-golden flag
>had become the symbol of the German Union at the Wartburgfest in 1817
>and the Hambacher Fest in 1832, when the issues were discussed that
>finally lead to a German state.
>
>I don't think you will honestly beliefe that you can form one nation and
>one people out of several different ones within less than 200 years. You
>may stamp your feet and repeat again and again that Germany were one
>nation. But if you want to discuss you should face reality.
The German culture and language bind all Germans together. Being
bothered with the German population of Slesvig Holsten through
centuries there are quite an awareness in Denmark about this matter.
>> Why do the EU then try to infere with what the citizens of
>>Non-German memberstates may be allowed to think about the
>>historiography of German WW2 atrocities? What has the treatment of the
>>Jews in German concentrationcamps in Poland to do with the e.g.
>>Denmark and Ireland? No Danes or Irishmen were there. Why are the
>>German atrocities in Poland or elsewhere outside of Denmark more
>>important to the Danes than similiar French atrocities in Algeria or
>>American atrocities in Vietnam? Germany is not the center of the world
>>although the Bonn-regime may think so.
>
>Now we are finally back to where our discussion had once begun. To make
>my answer short, there is no other way for Germany to force such laws in
>other countries. The only possible thing is to convince them. You told
>me about the meeting of the ministers where they agreed to such laws. If
>you have forgotten our conversation already I will just ask you that one
>question again: How did Germany, in your opinion, put _pressure_ on
>Denmark to release this law?
Hm and how did Germany pressure the Danish politicians in 1941 to
sign the Anti-Comintern Treaty which meant a prohibition of the Danish
communist party. This German act of hegemony created great resentment
in the Danish population toward Germany. My father was an 18 year old
student at the time participated in the demonstrations against this
act. My father was never a communist like the majority of the
demonstrators. This event is regarded the one that ignited the armed
resistence to the German occupation. Communism was not a threat to the
Danish society back then as little as neo-nazism is a threat to the
present Danish society. Trying to pressure Denmark to prohibit the
Danish nazi-party through the EU may be regarded as attempts of German
hegemony and may rise anti-German sentiments as back then in 1941.
Denmark do not share a common destiny with Germany.
>This law was certainly applauded by Germany and you may not like it
>because it limits your freedom. But it was released by the Danish
>government, not in Bonn.
There have never been passed such a law in Denmark concerning German
war-crimes. As far as I know from the press after the Danish
politicians had signed and left some Danish civil servants added some
reservations, namely that this agreement may not have implications
which are against the Danish constitution (which meant that it may not
violate the constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech). In the 1994
there was a similar German pressure and some laws were changed or
rather stated more exactly in order to please our German masters and
oppressors. However the Danish prime ministers told the worried
public that this did not meant a limitation of the freedom speech. He
said that the goevernment would fight racism while supporting the
freedom of speech.
>
>You find the opposite with the Sorbians in Germany. You find the
>opposite among German states. You find civil wars within nations
How many are these Sorbians, 10,000 or 20,000. Do they want their
own state or to be united with Poland? Do they constitute a political
force at all?
>(Ireland).
>Now, what sucks really? It's your obvious unability to ask for the real
>reasons of such civil wars.
The real reasons for such wars are very simple. People want to live
in their own state and be governed by their own people.
> All you need is a scapegoat.
A scapegoat for what? In 1848-51 and 1864 Denmark wanted Holsten
with it's 100 per cent German population to go away and become a part
of Germany and this triggered off these two wars. Are you trying to
tell us that Denmark was trying to make the Holsteners scapegoats for
something?
What are you by the raving about when you are saying scapegoats? Are
this ravings about something from the experience of the nazi-era in
Germany and therefore irrelevant to Denmark?
> You call it
>multi-ethnicity but during the discussion you make clear that you indeed
>see different "races" as your scapegoat.
You deliberately refuse to understand my points of view. I want a
ethnic homogeneous society because it is more coherent and
well-functioning. It is more peaceful and harmonious. It is easier to
create a high level of solidarity in such a society and so on. What
has this to do with making certain ethnic groups scapegoats? I am only
blaming the multiethnic society and the antiracist ideology for
causing the problems not any specific ethnic minority. The minorities
can live in peace and harmony with their own people in their own
countries.
> You tolerate different ethnic
>groups if they are white.
This is because I am racialist.
>> Remember when Germany were
>>uniting the first they got into conflict and war with was Denmark.
>
>What do you blame the previous wars on? German countries had been
>fighting against and along with Danes throughout history. You've got to
>see it entirely, not to pick out one war that fits your argumentation.
Germany is traditionally seen as the heriditary enemy. It is fine
that we live in peace, in particular because the experience from the
1864 clearly proves that Denmark will never be able to win a war
against a united Germany.
>Can you imagine a white non European?
No, but I can certainly imagine a person of White European descent
living outside of Europe.
Michael Huebner
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 12:31:07 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:34:53 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>> The less people own the more relaxed they are.
>
>I find the rich Americans and Australians as easygoing as their lesser
>fortunate countrymen. The easygoingness is in the culture and the
>mentality and not in the degree of lack of wealth.
That's true. I like this way to live and that's why I don't mind those
people around me even though they are of different ethnicity. I don't
ask for their wealth, their education or the color of their skins. If
they want to live here and accept or even adopt our different culture
it's okay for me.
Americans and Aussies live in a multi-ethnic society. Which side brought
this easy going to them? It's certainly not a German heritage...
>>I don't think that welfare system is so good. It gives not only what one
>>needs to live but quite some more. There are people who just know how to
>>read the law and benefit from it. Some weeks ago there was such a guy on
>>TV who doesn't work but gets more welfare than I ever had a salary. He
>>said that his only job was to read the law and find ways to get even
>>more.
>
> You should preserve the social welfare state while you are fighting
>the abuse of it.
That's what I wanted to express. Welfare should not be to give them what
they demand but to help them to help themselves. Some can help
themselves all the time, others hesitate or fail and finally give up.
Those should be supported.
>> On the other side the welfare and support is cut everywhere and
>>those who cannot fight fall through the grid again. Then it takes the
>>family again to survive.
>
> You want to go back to the 19th century. You are very reactionary.
>The majority of the voters do not want to give up the wellfare state
>and the politicians know that.
You got me wrong. I don't want to miss the welfare system. It should
focus on those who really need help instead on those who just call loud
enough for help. But that's how it works right now in many cases. When I
said it takes the family again to catch the unseen I just tell what it
is like. That has nothing to do with the last century but is my personal
experience.
>>How different are people allowed to be to become acceptable by your
>>ideology?
>
> People of ethnic European descent are acceptable as citizens of
>Europe. All others are not.
I still can't understand why. Your only explanation is that
multi-ethnicity wouldn't work but your examples show that homogeneous
countries have the same problems. That makes it impossible for me to
blame the problems on the multi-ethnicity.
You make a location in Europe the base for your judgement of people.
This is not more than a word for something that we refer to as one
continent. It was people, not nature, who said where to draw a border to
Asia. With the same intention you might draw any line to divide what you
see as difference of any kind.
>The Sorbians have always lived where they live today and they have no
>country of their own. Furthermore they are culturally and ethnically a
>part of Europe. I cannot see a big problem in their presence.
The Sorbians have always been thrown around over an area that today
would be in three countries. Their number has decreased to about 100.000
today and they are descendants of different Sorbian tribes. There is
absolutely no problem with their presence.
Nevertheless they meet all your requirements to be not accepted. And I
don't see a reason why. You cannot take ethnicity as a criteria and at
the same moment limit the range of this criteria to something else. If
you do so, the ethnicity is not an explanation. If it were a true reason
it would be that reason always and everywhere. Everything else is a
cheap excuse and a hollow phrase.
From what I feel now even you don't see a reason to send the Sorbians
back to where their ancestors had come from.
For the other part (I copied it here to keep the subject together):
>>You find the opposite with the Sorbians in Germany. You find the
>>opposite among German states. You find civil wars within nations
>
> How many are these Sorbians, 10,000 or 20,000. Do they want their
>own state or to be united with Poland? Do they constitute a political
>force at all?
They don't want an own state or a unification with Poland even though
they are ethnically closer to the Poles. They want their right to stay
in their area and not to be removed because they are of an ethnic
minority. This was granted by law and there is no sign of an ethnic
conflict.
> It is
>like the Germans living in Southern Denmark. They too are a culturally
>and ethnically a part of Europe, and if they behave well I can see no
>problem in their presence either. In the very North of Germany there
>live a Danish minority, and even the naziregime could not see a big
>problem in their presence.
Did the Germans living in Southern Denmark, the Danes living in Northern
Germany or the Sorbians in Saxony and Brandenburg ever create problems
to support your idea that different ethnicities cannot live together?
>>Why should minorities leave? Do you fear a minority?
>
>No, I just prefere ethnic homoneity of reasons that I have already
>explained several times.
... reasons that are nothing but scapegoats, as I showed you all the
time.
>Yaeh you better throw them out now while you still can, and before
>they may become numerous enough to throw you out. Do you remember how
>the Turks got rid of all those millions of Greeks and Armenians that
>lived in Turkey before WW1? Today they are heavily oppressing the
>Curds which are their only minority of any significance.
Again, the reason is not that they CANNOT live together but DON'T WANT
to live together. There is no logical reason for it, just the desire to
show the other group to be stronger. They have some problems and blame
them on those who are different. If it's not a different nationality the
blame it on those of different race. If there is no different race to
blame for it's a different ethnicity. If they are all of the same ethnic
background they find other excuses.
>>>Again the problems of USA are not really my problems.
>>
>>I won't let you go that easy here. You are discussing general issues
>>that do matter mankind. It was you who called it a natural law. You
>>cannot limit a "natural law" to a few regions. Didn't you say yourself
>>that they are eternal laws?
>
> As I have told you before, American racial separatists, including
>Black ones like the Black Muslims, have suggested to divide the
>country in different independent racial nations. The size of these
>nations should reflect the proportional sizes of the various racial
>populations of the present USA.
That is based on the same ideas like yours. If they came to discuss
these homelands I bet they would end up in problems if they had to
decide who should move where. Finally they would not ask for just being
together in homogeneity but would all like to go to an area with lots of
natural sources and fertile land. That's what really stands behind those
ideas. No ethnic group would accept to live in a desert just to be there
together without other groups. Don't you think that at the end they
would rather accept sharing fertile land with others than having a
desert for their own, no matter how large it were?
>>Anyway, I was asking how you would react. The location doesn't matter at
>>all. Would you share your house according to the headcount? Or now,
>>would you leave your house because you have become minority?
>
> I have never said anything about abandoning the laws of property,
>but I would prefere to live with people of my own kind.
That's what I consider the normal thing. In this case you wouldn't ask
what family is minority. Why don't you apply the same priciple to the
USA?
There is no such superior laws to prove how to tell who belongs where.
You always judge it from the present situation. You will always try to
keep the property of your heritage. If you can buy more you will try to
keep this also and not give it away later just because it is was not
originally yours.
>>>Again Germany is one nation and one people.
>>
>>Excuse me... Didn't I tell you about that just a few days ago? Read
>>again what I wrote last Sunday. Message-ID
>><350be9c0...@news.citylink.de> (Mar 15)
>
>And do all your fellow Germans agree with you in this matter?
This can only be said by other Germans. All I can tell you is my view as
a Saxon who spent years to study in Thuringia and has been living in
Bavaria for some years already. I can tell you what my friends in Hessia
think about it and what is commonly known about the relationship of
Saxons and Bavarians to Prussians (okay, there is no Prussian state any
more, it's roughly seen the area around Berlin).
Maybe some of those who may still follow our conversation can tell about
their opinions. Do Germans feel as one nation or do they rather consider
themselves as members of different ethnic groups in Germany?
>>Of course you may deny it because it doesn't fit your ideas at all. But
>>the world is not changing to fit your thoughts. You should be able to
>>correct your view to match reality.
>
> I want to exert my democratic right to influence and oppose in which
>direction the world should or should not change.
Beliefe it or not, even I would follow you if you just could convince me
that your opinion is based on true causalities and not on what only
appears like that.
>The German culture and language bind all Germans together. Being
>bothered with the German population of Slesvig Holsten through
>centuries there are quite an awareness in Denmark about this matter.
The German culture varies a lot if you travel around. What you know or
will learn as the German language is an artificial substract of most
German languages (today referred to as Dialekte). This "high German" can
be compared to what you know as bokmål in Norway. Without it the
Holsteiners could hardly understand the also German Bavarians or Saxons
or Saarlanders... an vice versa. Even with this artificial language it
is difficult enough. On TV you can find subtitles if a local German
variant differs too much from the high German.
Don't consider the Holsteiners representing all Germans.
>>Now we are finally back to where our discussion had once begun. To make
>>[...]
>>question again: How did Germany, in your opinion, put _pressure_ on
>>Denmark to release this law?
>
> Hm and how did Germany pressure the Danish politicians in 1941 to
>sign the Anti-Comintern Treaty which meant a prohibition of the Danish
>communist party.
Ole, I was not asking about 1941. You told about a pressure put on
Denmark to join the EU and therefore agree to a law prohibiting the
denial of Nazi crimes.
>>This law was certainly applauded by Germany and you may not like it
>>because it limits your freedom. But it was released by the Danish
>>government, not in Bonn.
>
>There have never been passed such a law in Denmark concerning German
>war-crimes.
So, what are you talking about, then? Germany said you should have such
a law. Denmark said no, we don't want it. What's wrong about that? Did
Germany ever tell we would stop all or at least some connections in
industry, culture or whatever? Did the Danish decision to refuse anyhow
influence the bilateral relationship?
> However the Danish prime ministers told the worried
>public that this did not meant a limitation of the freedom speech. He
>said that the goevernment would fight racism while supporting the
>freedom of speech.
What's wrong about that? If you don't like this decision you will
certainly have it in mind for the next elections - you live in a true
democracy! Then you will see if the majority of the Danes will agree to
him. They will all vote themselves and you will like the result or have
to accept it. But this is again a Danish decision and not influenced by
Germany.
>>(Ireland).
>>Now, what sucks really? It's your obvious unability to ask for the real
>>reasons of such civil wars.
>
> The real reasons for such wars are very simple. People want to live
>in their own state and be governed by their own people.
As you see they don't ask for ethnicity at all when they are to decide
who is one of their own people. How does that now fit your assumption of
problems and wars caused by ethnic reasons and ethnic homogeneity would
guarantee the loss of those problems? Doesn't it flush it down the
drain?
>> All you need is a scapegoat.
>
> A scapegoat for what? In 1848-51 and 1864 Denmark wanted Holsten
>with it's 100 per cent German population to go away and become a part
>of Germany and this triggered off these two wars. Are you trying to
>tell us that Denmark was trying to make the Holsteners scapegoats for
>something?
Was it really that the Danes could not live together with the
Holsteiners? Or was it to gain some land? If the different ethnicity
were a real reason, why can they now be accepted? Did the ethnicity of
the Holsteiners change? Did the Danes change? How can you today accept
them as being at least European if this was not possible in the last
century? Have they not been Europeans some 150 years ago?
The Danes did not make the Holsteiners scapegoats but the different
ethnicity is a scapegoat for another reasons, e.g. the land.
>What are you by the raving about when you are saying scapegoats? Are
>this ravings about something from the experience of the nazi-era in
>Germany and therefore irrelevant to Denmark?
My "raving" (it's more a relaxed smile) is about that you call something
scapegoats for what can be shown or proven and have more scapegoats
yourself to immunize your ideology. All your explanations are only
functioning in a few selected cases and contradict themselves in others.
>> You call it
>>multi-ethnicity but during the discussion you make clear that you indeed
>>see different "races" as your scapegoat.
>
> You deliberately refuse to understand my points of view. I want a
>ethnic homogeneous society because it is more coherent and
>well-functioning. It is more peaceful and harmonious. It is easier to
>create a high level of solidarity in such a society and so on. What
>has this to do with making certain ethnic groups scapegoats?
I don't think I need to give you more examples that it is not
multi-ethnicity that creates problems and homogeneity that is better
functioning and peaceful. This creation of a higher level of solidarity
is also only true if you see people of different ethnicity as less worth
to show solidarity with. If you don't ask for their race you won't find
a difference. That's what I ment by self immunizing. Your ideology
creates the problems that it then pretends to solve.
>> You tolerate different ethnic
>>groups if they are white.
>
>This is because I am racialist.
That's an explanation for your words, not a prove for their truth.
> Germany is traditionally seen as the heriditary enemy. It is fine
>that we live in peace, in particular because the experience from the
>1864 clearly proves that Denmark will never be able to win a war
>against a united Germany.
Why is the strong Germany not starting a new war against the "hereditary
enemy"? Would Denmark start a new war if the Federal Republic fell
apart? If the federation were our guarantee to be safe from Denmark you
will understand that Germany is interested in a larger federation,
called EU.
>>Can you imagine a white non European?
>
>No, but I can certainly imagine a person of White European descent
>living outside of Europe.
They should better move to where their ancestors came from. White
Europeans outside of Europe will only create ethnic conflicts by their
presence there :-)
Ole, don't you see how obvious your ideas contradict themselves?
Bye for now, I will be back next weekend.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:09:06 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>Americans and Aussies live in a multi-ethnic society. Which side brought
>this easy going to them? It's certainly not a German heritage...
Until recently Australia was an almost White country. It is not the
multi-ethnic situation that makes Australia easy-going. It was
easygoing before that.
>
>That's what I wanted to express. Welfare should not be to give them what
>they demand but to help them to help themselves. Some can help
>themselves all the time, others hesitate or fail and finally give up.
>Those should be supported.
No one gets ill or old just to "abusing" the welfare system to get
some free medical care or a pension.
>Nevertheless they [the Sorbians] meet all your requirements to be not accepted.
Gee. why? I thought they were White people. Remember that I am not
German and thus do not necessarily share your attitude toward the
Slavs. For the Danes Slavs are distant people with whom we have no
particular problems.
>From what I feel now even you don't see a reason to send the Sorbians
>back to where their ancestors had come from.
I will do everything that I can to avoid conflicts with other White
people.
>
>Did the Germans living in Southern Denmark, the Danes living in Northern
>Germany or the Sorbians in Saxony and Brandenburg ever create problems
>to support your idea that different ethnicities cannot live together?
In 1848-51 the Slesvig-Holstener Germans made armed insurrection
against Denmark. The local Danish population still watch the German
minority with some suspicion and animosity.
>... reasons that are nothing but scapegoats, as I showed you all the
>time.
You keep babbling about your scapegoats. I just want to preserve my
race and my nation, and I can see no scapegoats in that.
>
>Again, the reason is not that they CANNOT live together but DON'T WANT
>to live together. There is no logical reason for it, just the desire to
>show the other group to be stronger. They have some problems and blame
>them on those who are different. If it's not a different nationality the
>blame it on those of different race. If there is no different race to
>blame for it's a different ethnicity. If they are all of the same ethnic
>background they find other excuses.
If you say to a Curd or an Armenian that he is of the same ethnic
background as the Turks you may very well end up with a kick in your
face.
>That is based on the same ideas like yours. If they came to discuss
>these homelands I bet they would end up in problems if they had to
>decide who should move where. Finally they would not ask for just being
>together in homogeneity but would all like to go to an area with lots of
>natural sources and fertile land. That's what really stands behind those
>ideas. No ethnic group would accept to live in a desert just to be there
>together without other groups. Don't you think that at the end they
>would rather accept sharing fertile land with others than having a
>desert for their own, no matter how large it were?
The Negros may get some of southern states with it's better climate.
This is their natural home area in the USA.
>The German culture varies a lot if you travel around. What you know or
>will learn as the German language is an artificial substract of most
>German languages (today referred to as Dialekte).
I speak German and I have never difficulties in understanding German
dialects. Even Swiss and Austrian German I can understand although it
may sometimes be a little difficult if they speak too fast.
>Don't consider the Holsteiners representing all Germans.
The Holsteners have still much more in common with e.g. the Bavarians
than the Danes. The different German "tribes" have still more in
common together than they have with the surrounding foreign people.
That is why you have a Germany in the first place.
>
>Ole, I was not asking about 1941. You told about a pressure put on
>Denmark to join the EU and therefore agree to a law prohibiting the
>denial of Nazi crimes.
Why will you German people not be so kind as to explain why German
war crimes should be of any particular concern to the Danish people.
Are you accusing us of having participated in them or what?
>
>So, what are you talking about, then? Germany said you should have such
>a law.
How dare you impudent bastards. :-(
> Denmark said no, we don't want it. What's wrong about that? Did
>Germany ever tell we would stop all or at least some connections in
>industry, culture or whatever? Did the Danish decision to refuse anyhow
>influence the bilateral relationship?
But I suspect that Germany will continue to bring this issue up and
perhaps they will band together with the fanatic French who have not
slightest respect for the freedom of speech.
>
>> However the Danish prime ministers told the worried
>>public that this did not meant a limitation of the freedom speech. He
>>said that the goevernment would fight racism while supporting the
>>freedom of speech.
>
>What's wrong about that?
Nothing is wrong with that. He withstood German pressure and proved
that he was not a wimp in this matter.
>
>Was it really that the Danes could not live together with the
>Holsteiners?
The Holsteners of course wanted to live together with their fellow
Germans. Is there anything wrong with that. Furthermore democracy was
brandnew in Danmark a that time and it was assumed that democracy
would not work in a multinational state, so Holsten had to leave.
>Or was it to gain some land?
"Loosing" Holsten would mean to loose some land, wouldn't it?
>If the different ethnicity
>were a real reason, why can they now be accepted? Did the ethnicity of
>the Holsteiners change?
What are you talking about? The Holsteners are as much a part of
Germany as the rest of the German states.
> Did the Danes change? How can you today accept
>them as being at least European if this was not possible in the last
>century?
There are only few Germans in Denmark today. The 1920 referendum
which let to the division of Slesvig settled the problem.
>My "raving" (it's more a relaxed smile) is about that you call something
>scapegoats for what can be shown or proven and have more scapegoats
>yourself to immunize your ideology.
You do not have to develop an ideology to feel an urge to preserve
your people and nation.
>
>Why is the strong Germany not starting a new war against the "hereditary
>enemy"?
Denmark is too small to be considered an enemy of any significance at
all.
>Would Denmark start a new war if the Federal Republic fell
>apart?
The problem was settled in 1920. After WW1 and WW2 the possibility
was aired that Denmark could have got all of Slesvig. An area like the
southern part, populated by almost all Germans was regarded as
worthless, and it was feared that problems like those in 1848 could
arise.
>If the federation were our guarantee to be safe from Denmark
Are you making fun? A military midget like Denmark would never be able
to make Germany feel unsafe. It is normally bigger countries that
threaten and dominates smaller countries.
> you
>will understand that Germany is interested in a larger federation,
>called EU.
Yeah, Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles auf der Welt.
Alexander Rose
krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Until recently Australia was an almost White country. It is not the
>multi-ethnic situation that makes Australia easy-going. It was
>easygoing before that.
Before what?
Before the White Man came and conquered the land?
Alex
--
Please reply to:
h9552113 at idefix.wu-wien.ac.at
where the first "at" is a @, remove blanks.
Sorry for the inconvenience!
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <351575ca...@enews.newsguy.com>,
krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:09:06 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
> (Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
> >Americans and Aussies live in a multi-ethnic society. Which side brought
> >this easy going to them? It's certainly not a German heritage...
>
> Until recently Australia was an almost White country. It is not the
> multi-ethnic situation that makes Australia easy-going. It was
> easygoing before that.
Yes, even before Australia was a "white country". I have never been there
myself, yet, but I don't think the Aborigines were different in that case.
> >That's what I wanted to express. Welfare should not be to give them what
> >they demand but to help them to help themselves. Some can help
> >themselves all the time, others hesitate or fail and finally give up.
> >Those should be supported.
>
> No one gets ill or old just to "abusing" the welfare system to get
> some free medical care or a pension.
Did I say so? I was not talking about health care. It's commonly known that
there are some monday sufferers. I think the bigger problem are those who come
here asking for asylum and welfare. Then they travel from town to town and for
a long time they are supported by many different communities. Others are not
interested in a job after they found out how to get more welfare than salary.
It sounds silly but it is true in Germany. If they get an apartment, money for
food and all they need, including TV, why should they work? With several
extra bonuses they can have more money than a working man in a factory.
> >Nevertheless they [the Sorbians] meet all your requirements to be not
accepted.
>
> Gee. why? I thought they were White people. Remember that I am not
> German and thus do not necessarily share your attitude toward the
> Slavs. For the Danes Slavs are distant people with whom we have no
> particular problems.
For me the Slavs are close people with whom I have no problem at all. I was
raised close to the Czech border (20 minutes by bicycle) and have often been
there. I have Russian and Polish friends and Sorbians in the family.
I was pretty sure you would come to that point that incompatibility of
different ethnic groups is not the reason. You see no problem with Germans and
Sorbians because they are white Europeans. How does this now compare to your
previous explanation concerning former Yugoslavia? Aren't Serbs and Croats
also white Europeans? What excuse will you find now for that civil war?
> >Did the Germans living in Southern Denmark, the Danes living in Northern
> >Germany or the Sorbians in Saxony and Brandenburg ever create problems
> >to support your idea that different ethnicities cannot live together?
>
> In 1848-51 the Slesvig-Holstener Germans made armed insurrection
> against Denmark. The local Danish population still watch the German
> minority with some suspicion and animosity.
Okay, was all this an ethnic problem? If yes, why is it not today? Ethnicity
didn't change.
> >... reasons that are nothing but scapegoats, as I showed you all the
> >time.
>
> You keep babbling about your scapegoats. I just want to preserve my
> race and my nation, and I can see no scapegoats in that.
Not your race and nation are scapegoats, Ole. It's the explanation that
different ethnic groups cannot live together in peace. That is the scapegoats
for other problems that may but do not necessarily occur between ethnic
groups. It's too easy to blame different ethnicity for those conflicts that
are based on something different. You cannot consider ethnicity a reason and
at the same time limit it to different races. Then you should call different
races the reason, not the ethnicity. Ethnicity differs within the same race.
But even if you called races the reason it would be simple again to repeat our
discussion in this direction.
> >Again, the reason is not that they CANNOT live together but DON'T WANT
> >to live together.
>
> If you say to a Curd or an Armenian that he is of the same ethnic
> background as the Turks you may very well end up with a kick in your
> face.
Why should I say so? Of course, even though they are of the same race they are
of different ethnicity! But that is not the reason for their conflicts. It's
just the excuse.
> The Negros may get some of southern states with it's better climate.
> This is their natural home area in the USA.
This is where they had been brought to from Africa. It was the white people
who settled them there. That doesn't make it a "natural home". The Indian
reservations are not the "natural homes" of those peoples whose natural home
was the entire continet.
> >The German culture varies a lot if you travel around. What you know or
> >will learn as the German language is an artificial substract of most
> >German languages (today referred to as Dialekte).
>
> I speak German and I have never difficulties in understanding German
> dialects. Even Swiss and Austrian German I can understand although it
> may sometimes be a little difficult if they speak too fast.
From your German postings I am far from any doubt. Your German is indeed very
good. Anyway, I doubt if you could really understand the original dialects
that are usually spoken. If people talk to you they will use that artificial
High German. That's what we do when we talk to someone from another German
region, too. I think it would be best if you go to a place where local people
meet for a beer and listen to them without saying a word. If they don't know
that you are a Dane they may talk in their real language. I bet it will not be
easier for you to understand them than it is for me. I've had colleagues from
Cologne area ask me to translate what Swiss colleagues had said.
> >Don't consider the Holsteiners representing all Germans.
>
> The Holsteners have still much more in common with e.g. the Bavarians
> than the Danes. The different German "tribes" have still more in
> common together than they have with the surrounding foreign people.
> That is why you have a Germany in the first place.
Austrians have much more in common with the Bavarians than Holsteiners.
Saarlanders have much in common with the French. The differences especially
between northern and southern Germans are much bigger than the ones between
Danes and Norwegians. Of course, the distance is also greater. What we have as
Germany is something like Denmark, Norway and Sweden would be if they united.
I think noone else is following our discussion any more. At least I haven't
found any replies to that point. Last week I was asking a friend what she
feels to be stronger, being from Hessia or from Germany. She answered "Hessia,
of course. Germany is something outside."
> >Ole, I was not asking about 1941. You told about a pressure put on
> >Denmark to join the EU and therefore agree to a law prohibiting the
> >denial of Nazi crimes.
>
> Why will you German people not be so kind as to explain why German
> war crimes should be of any particular concern to the Danish people.
> Are you accusing us of having participated in them or what?
If you wouldn't deny the German war crimes it would be of no interest at all
if any country had a law like this. Even we wouldn't need such a law. What is
wrong about a law to tell the truth? It's the basic law of any society, no
matter if it was written on paper with paragraphs and stuff or if it is just
common sense.
> > Denmark said no, we don't want it. What's wrong about that? Did
> >Germany ever tell we would stop all or at least some connections in
> >industry, culture or whatever? Did the Danish decision to refuse anyhow
> >influence the bilateral relationship?
>
> But I suspect that Germany will continue to bring this issue up and
> perhaps they will band together with the fanatic French who have not
> slightest respect for the freedom of speech.
Ah, we come closer to the point again. It's not that Germany put any pressure
on Denmark but just what you suspect. Don't sell us your nightmares as
reality.
> >If the different ethnicity
> >were a real reason, why can they now be accepted? Did the ethnicity of
> >the Holsteiners change?
>
> What are you talking about? The Holsteners are as much a part of
> Germany as the rest of the German states.
It was _you_ who claimed that different ethnicity would cause conflicts and
wars.
> >My "raving" (it's more a relaxed smile) is about that you call something
> >scapegoats for what can be shown or proven and have more scapegoats
> >yourself to immunize your ideology.
>
> You do not have to develop an ideology to feel an urge to preserve
> your people and nation.
But you have developed it (not really you, but you are one who carries it) to
preserve your people and nation by suppressing others. You try to find a
reason to "prove" that the other peoples are contradicting yours to have an
excuse to fight them. In that attempt you are so blindfolded that you refuse
to see the holes in your ideology.
> >Why is the strong Germany not starting a new war against the "hereditary
> >enemy"?
>
> Denmark is too small to be considered an enemy of any significance at
> all.
I don't even see a danger for Denmark from its "hereditary enemy" Germany. The
simple fact of the size doesn't make us more or less violent.
> >Would Denmark start a new war if the Federal Republic fell
> >apart?
>
> The problem was settled in 1920. After WW1 and WW2 the possibility
> was aired that Denmark could have got all of Slesvig. An area like the
> southern part, populated by almost all Germans was regarded as
> worthless, and it was feared that problems like those in 1848 could
> arise.
But now, if we just imagine the German federation fell apart, would Denmark
then fight the smaller German countries? Why?
> Are you making fun? A military midget like Denmark would never be able
> to make Germany feel unsafe. It is normally bigger countries that
> threaten and dominates smaller countries.
>
> > you
> >will understand that Germany is interested in a larger federation,
> >called EU.
>
> Yeah, Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles auf der Welt.
Now you are making fun. First you fear a federation that is bigger than
Denmark, then you fear the federation that might include Denmark and protect
it this way. To make the fun complete you don't see that the EU is made of
more than just Germany. To be correct you should at least say Europe, Europe
ueber alles...
Mike
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>I was pretty sure you would come to that point that incompatibility of
>different ethnic groups is not the reason. You see no problem with Germans and
>Sorbians because they are white Europeans. How does this now compare to your
>previous explanation concerning former Yugoslavia? Aren't Serbs and Croats
>also white Europeans? What excuse will you find now for that civil war?
As I have told you before there are other problems than ethnic
problems. There can be problems between nationalities, between
socio-economical groups (classes) within the same ethnic group and
nationality, between different political parties etc. There are all
sorts of problems. I think that in the former Yugoslavia the problems
are conflicts between nationalities and cultural groups rather than
ethnic groups. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are all Serbo-Croats
which mean that they belong to the same ethnic group.
>> In 1848-51 the Slesvig-Holstener Germans made armed insurrection
>> against Denmark. The local Danish population still watch the German
>> minority with some suspicion and animosity.
>
>Okay, was all this an ethnic problem? If yes, why is it not today? Ethnicity
>didn't change.
This problem has more to do with nationality than with ethnicity.
Danes and Germans have been intermarrying for centuries. You cannot
tell the nationality of a Slesviger from the surname.
>Not your race and nation are scapegoats, Ole. It's the explanation that
>different ethnic groups cannot live together in peace.
Take a look at the former Yugoslavia, Libanon, Sri Lanka etc and you
will understand. Now, I know you will come up with the usual quibble
that this or that problem may rather has do with nationality, culture
etc. and I will repeat again that these problems are sometime
overlapping each other and may have or have not ethnic elements in
them.
>That is the scapegoats
>for other problems that may but do not necessarily occur between ethnic
>groups. It's too easy to blame different ethnicity for those conflicts that
>are based on something different.
Your scapegoats are some mystical nationalistic leaders that are
creating the problems, and then are seducing the people to follow
them.
>You cannot consider ethnicity a reason and
>at the same time limit it to different races. Then you should call different
>races the reason, not the ethnicity. Ethnicity differs within the same race.
>But even if you called races the reason it would be simple again to repeat our
>discussion in this direction.
It is exactly what I am trying to tell you that the problems may
soemtimes be complex.
>> If you say to a Curd or an Armenian that he is of the same ethnic
>> background as the Turks you may very well end up with a kick in your
>> face.
>
>Why should I say so? Of course, even though they are of the same race they are
>of different ethnicity!
You seem to know very little about ehnicity. Armenian and Curdish
language are as different from Turkish as German from Chinese. These
people are not of the same ethnicity. I have never heard any
anthropologist or historian diagree with that.
>> The Negros may get some of southern states with it's better climate.
>> This is their natural home area in the USA.
>
>This is where they had been brought to from Africa. It was the white people
>who settled them there. That doesn't make it a "natural home".
Sure. Their natural home may rather be in Africa.
>The Indian
>reservations are not the "natural homes" of those peoples whose natural home
>was the entire continet.
The tribal way of life as hunters and subsistance farmers belongs to
a bygone era. You cannot recreate that. What has happened has happened
and there is no way that you cannot redo it. Germany lost large
eastern parts in WW2 and it will be unrealistic to think that you will
ever get that back again. It is now settled with Poles and Russians
like Southern Slesvig, which originally was Danish land, is now
settled with Germans. This land is lost like the Indians have lost
most of theirs.
>Austrians have much more in common with the Bavarians than Holsteiners.
>Saarlanders have much in common with the French.
But the Holsteners have still more in common with the Austrians and
the Bavarians than with the Danes.
>The differences especially
>between northern and southern Germans are much bigger than the ones between
>Danes and Norwegians. Of course, the distance is also greater. What we have as
>Germany is something like Denmark, Norway and Sweden would be if they united.
Swiss and Austrian German are written the same way as High German,
while Swedish and Danish are written quite differently. Denmark and
Norway were in many centuries united like Germany, and in Norway you
will find a deep Danish influence in language and culture.
>If you wouldn't deny the German war crimes it would be of no interest at all
>if any country had a law like this. Even we wouldn't need such a law.
It is none of your businesses what Danish people are thinking of your
history and war crimes. As a Dane I can shove them all up my ass and
forgetting them totally, and you canot nothing about that.
> What is
>wrong about a law to tell the truth?
In a democracy the citizens should be free to seek the truth even if
they make mistakes their endeavour. It has nothing to do with
democracy that the state is dictating the citizens it's version of the
truth.
And what is that "truth" based on? Some jewish witnesses and some
German officials, the reliability of whom, I have not much confidence
in.
>
>Ah, we come closer to the point again. It's not that Germany put any pressure
>on Denmark but just what you suspect. Don't sell us your nightmares as
>reality.
Most Danes don't really like the Germans much and watch them with
some distrust. It has been so from time immemorial.
>But you have developed it (not really you, but you are one who carries it) to
>preserve your people and nation by suppressing others.
I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
>I don't even see a danger for Denmark from its "hereditary enemy" Germany. The
>simple fact of the size doesn't make us more or less violent.
But because you are bigger you can dominate us politically and
economically. Like in nature where the bigger fish eats the smaller
one, big countries have a tendency to swallow up smaller countries.
This is the problem in a nutshell.
>
>But now, if we just imagine the German federation fell apart, would Denmark
>then fight the smaller German countries? Why?
As long as they respect the border from 1920 there ought not to be a
problem.
>> Yeah, Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles auf der Welt.
>
>Now you are making fun. First you fear a federation that is bigger than
>Denmark, then you fear the federation that might include Denmark and protect
>it this way. To make the fun complete you don't see that the EU is made of
>more than just Germany. To be correct you should at least say Europe, Europe
>ueber alles...
Why not Deutsches Europa, Deutsches Europa ueber alles, oder besser
Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles in Europa.
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <351eb32c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> As I have told you before there are other problems than ethnic
> problems. There can be problems between nationalities, between
> socio-economical groups (classes) within the same ethnic group and
> nationality, between different political parties etc. There are all
> sorts of problems.
Isn't that what I had always told you? You will never solve those problems by
creating "ethnically clean" societies.
> >Not your race and nation are scapegoats, Ole. It's the explanation that
> >different ethnic groups cannot live together in peace.
>
> Take a look at the former Yugoslavia, Libanon, Sri Lanka etc and you
> will understand. Now, I know you will come up with the usual quibble
> that this or that problem may rather has do with nationality, culture
> etc. and I will repeat again that these problems are sometime
> overlapping each other and may have or have not ethnic elements in
> them.
They may or may not... Why did you then call those differences the reason for
the problems? If they really were a reason they should always be. If not, you
can take anything and call it a reason.
> Your scapegoats are some mystical nationalistic leaders that are
> creating the problems, and then are seducing the people to follow
> them.
Not some mystical but living persons like you who pretend to tell people how
to solve their problems but fail to explain why. It was such people who lead
Germany into wars.
> It is exactly what I am trying to tell you that the problems may
> soemtimes be complex.
No need telling me about that. It was you who came up with the idea that
different ethnicity would create problems and "cleaning up" the society would
solve them.
> >Why should I say so? Of course, even though they are of the same race they
are
> >of different ethnicity!
>
> You seem to know very little about ehnicity. Armenian and Curdish
> language are as different from Turkish as German from Chinese. These
> people are not of the same ethnicity. I have never heard any
> anthropologist or historian diagree with that.
Did you read what I had written and you even quoted? That's exactly what I
had said! It's you who uses those words in different ways, depending on how it
might fit the argumentation.
> Swiss and Austrian German are written the same way as High German,
> while Swedish and Danish are written quite differently.
We all write (or should write) that "high German". If not, we had the same
difficulties like in spoken language. As I told you earlier, you may compare
that high German to bokmaal or a "Scandinavian".
> >If you wouldn't deny the German war crimes it would be of no interest at
all
> >if any country had a law like this. Even we wouldn't need such a law.
>
> It is none of your businesses what Danish people are thinking of your
> history and war crimes. As a Dane I can shove them all up my ass and
> forgetting them totally, and you canot nothing about that.
We don't have any law telling you what to beliefe. If you have one it's not
our business. Our laws are not your business.
> In a democracy the citizens should be free to seek the truth even if
> they make mistakes their endeavour. It has nothing to do with
> democracy that the state is dictating the citizens it's version of the
> truth.
...dictatorship of the majority...
> And what is that "truth" based on? Some jewish witnesses and some
> German officials, the reliability of whom, I have not much confidence
> in.
The truth doesn't depend on what you beliefe. It was not only Jewish
witnesses. What about all the other prisoners, what about the soldiers who
have seen it themselves? The truth isn't made by your likes.
> >Ah, we come closer to the point again. It's not that Germany put any
pressure
> >on Denmark but just what you suspect. Don't sell us your nightmares as
> >reality.
>
> Most Danes don't really like the Germans much and watch them with
> some distrust. It has been so from time immemorial.
Your distrust doesn't make your accusation true.
> I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
> deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
> all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
> the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
So, why don't you move? If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
Otherwise you had to convince them to move.
> But because you are bigger you can dominate us politically and
> economically. Like in nature where the bigger fish eats the smaller
> one, big countries have a tendency to swallow up smaller countries.
Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger. By the size we
could probably, but by other reasons we don't. Show me where your fear comes
from. Just a nightmare again?
> >But now, if we just imagine the German federation fell apart, would Denmark
> >then fight the smaller German countries? Why?
>
> As long as they respect the border from 1920 there ought not to be a
> problem.
We were talking about the size and the unification of countries. All your
arguments crack, now you come back to the basics. Of course there is no
problem as long as the borders are accepted. No matter what date you set, I
would always like to know why especially that date, why not one from the 1st
or so century.
> >> Yeah, Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles auf der Welt.
> >
> >Now you are making fun. First you fear a federation that is bigger than
> >Denmark, then you fear the federation that might include Denmark and
protect
> >it this way. To make the fun complete you don't see that the EU is made of
> >more than just Germany. To be correct you should at least say Europe,
Europe
> >ueber alles...
>
> Why not Deutsches Europa, Deutsches Europa ueber alles, oder besser
> Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles in Europa.
Why not French Europe, why not European Europe...? Why do you need to back up
your ideas and fears with such phrases?
Michael Hübner
Ole Kreiberg
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 06:50:57 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>In article <351eb32c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>>
>> As I have told you before there are other problems than ethnic
>> problems. There can be problems between nationalities, between
>> socio-economical groups (classes) within the same ethnic group and
>> nationality, between different political parties etc. There are all
>> sorts of problems.
>
>Isn't that what I had always told you? You will never solve those problems by
>creating "ethnically clean" societies.
By creating ethnic homogeneity I will only solve those problems that
originate from ethnic diversity, but this is far enough for me and my
ambitions.
>> Your scapegoats are some mystical nationalistic leaders that are
>> creating the problems, and then are seducing the people to follow
>> them.
>
>Not some mystical but living persons like you who pretend to tell people how
>to solve their problems but fail to explain why. It was such people who lead
>Germany into wars.
So what. You Germans were not able to handle nationalism, and you are
now trying to make some leaders scapegoats. You Germans cannot live
without scapegoats every time something fails for you.
When you Germans were nationalists you were bothering your
surroundings with your nationalism. Now that you have become
internationalists you are bothering your surroundings with your
internationalism. Why can't you take it a little easy? Why can't you
be like the Swiss which have a high standard of living and never
bothers other countries and therefore never get into war.
>
>> It is exactly what I am trying to tell you that the problems may
>> soemtimes be complex.
>
>No need telling me about that. It was you who came up with the idea that
>different ethnicity would create problems and "cleaning up" the society would
>solve them.
Creating ethnic homogeneity will solve many problems but not all of
them. An ethnic homogeneous society is better a society than
diversified one, anyhow. Diversity sucks. This is my slogan.
>
>We all write (or should write) that "high German". If not, we had the same
>difficulties like in spoken language. As I told you earlier, you may compare
>that high German to bokmaal or a "Scandinavian".
There is no common Scandinavian language.
>> In a democracy the citizens should be free to seek the truth even if
>> they make mistakes their endeavour. It has nothing to do with
>> democracy that the state is dictating the citizens it's version of the
>> truth.
>
>...dictatorship of the majority...
Hey this sound very much like nazi-thinking. A Dane said the same in
the guestbook in one of the homepages below, and he was immediately
labeled "nazi" by the anti-racists.
>
>> And what is that "truth" based on? Some jewish witnesses and some
>> German officials, the reliability of whom, I have not much confidence
>> in.
>
>The truth doesn't depend on what you beliefe. It was not only Jewish
>witnesses. What about all the other prisoners, what about the soldiers who
>have seen it themselves? The truth isn't made by your likes.
The ordinary prisoners and the soldiers never watch the gassing
according to the holocaust-tales. If gassing ever took place it was
only known and watched by a few highly trusted SS-men, and the corpses
were supposed to have been taken out by special Jewish workgroups who
were supposed to be gassed soon after, so that they would not later
squeal.
>> I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
>> deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
>> all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
>> the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
>
>So, why don't you move?
Hey I am not a third-worlder.
>If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
But not by me. If the Pakistanis living in Denmark are moved to
Pakistan, and they are suppressed there, it is a problem of Pakistan.
>Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger.
In the EU you have much more influence than we have.
>By the size we
>could probably, but by other reasons we don't. Show me where your fear comes
>from. Just a nightmare again?
I have told you about that several times. First there were the
Lauck-Scandal from which the Danes have learned that because we live
next door to Germany we cannot have as much freedom of speech as the
USA. This is just one example.
>We were talking about the size and the unification of countries. All your
>arguments crack, now you come back to the basics. Of course there is no
>problem as long as the borders are accepted. No matter what date you set, I
>would always like to know why especially that date, why not one from the 1st
>or so century.
Because in 1920 the border was drawn after a referendum among the
local people. As few people as possible came to live under foreign
rule. This is the ideal.
>> Why not Deutsches Europa, Deutsches Europa ueber alles, oder besser
>> Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles in Europa.
>
>Why not French Europe, why not European Europe...? Why do you need to back up
>your ideas and fears with such phrases?
>
Because you are the most dominating people in the EU. Have you ever
read Animal Farm by George Orwell? The Germans are like those pigs
there, that regarded themselves a little more equal than the rest of
the animals. Helmuth Kohl certainly reminds me a great deal of the
chief pig, comrade Napoleon. I know no other political leader in the
whole world that I dislike more than Helmuth Kohl. Margareth Thacher
once said some very wise words about the Germans in the EU. The
Englishmen and the Danes seem to be those people in the EU that have
most understanding of the German problem.
Juergen Hubert
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 06:50:57 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> >In article <351eb32c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> > krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
> >>
> >> As I have told you before there are other problems than ethnic
> >> problems. There can be problems between nationalities, between
> >> socio-economical groups (classes) within the same ethnic group and
> >> nationality, between different political parties etc. There are all
> >> sorts of problems.
> >
> >Isn't that what I had always told you? You will never solve those problems by
> >creating "ethnically clean" societies.
>
> By creating ethnic homogeneity I will only solve those problems that
> originate from ethnic diversity, but this is far enough for me and my
> ambitions.
Ethinc homogenity didn't make discrimination vanish in Japan, so why do
you think it would work elsewhere?
-- Juergen Hubert
Heiko Leberer
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
OK, I have to admit, that I waited for this to jump on:
>
> I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
> deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
> all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
> the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
>
Ole, when are you ready to move?
Since we all have our roots somewhere in Ethiopia, we all should
be deported. Since you brought up the wish, you should be the one
to start with.
It's a pitty, that you will have to learn to live together with
*them*, since *they* also derived from there.
--
Heiko
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <352d09c2...@enews.newsguy.com>,
krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 06:50:57 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> >In article <351eb32c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> > krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
> >>
> By creating ethnic homogeneity I will only solve those problems that
> originate from ethnic diversity, but this is far enough for me and my
> ambitions.
That's the point. Whatever you called an ethnic problem turned out to be based
on something different. That's why I call your "ethnic problem" scapegoats,
Ole.
> So what. You Germans were not able to handle nationalism, and you are
> now trying to make some leaders scapegoats. You Germans cannot live
> without scapegoats every time something fails for you.
What leaders? If you call some people leaders, because they teach a
mono-ethnic society you are right. Germany was not able to handle national
socialism (that's not nationalism as you know). If there were a true leader,
someone whose arguments are okay, I would follow him. If he came up with
some poor arguments like yours I can only try to discuss them to find out if I
am not yet to understand him - then I will learn - or prove his arguments
simple empty slogans.
> When you Germans were nationalists you were bothering your
> surroundings with your nationalism. Now that you have become
> internationalists you are bothering your surroundings with your
> internationalism. Why can't you take it a little easy? Why can't you
> be like the Swiss which have a high standard of living and never
> bothers other countries and therefore never get into war.
Why won't you take it easy and let us do what we think is right? I beliefe you
are referring to the EU subject when you mean we bother you. If Germany is
trying to improve it's economy by unification with other countries and offers
and tries to convince other countries to join it is a normal ting to do so. If
another country doesn't want to join the EU it's also okay. There is no
bothering about it. Germany and other EU countries will not force a refusing
neighbour to join.
> Creating ethnic homogeneity will solve many problems but not all of
> them. An ethnic homogeneous society is better a society than
> diversified one, anyhow. Diversity sucks. This is my slogan.
Right, it's no more than a slogan. If you could prove that it's right I would
accept you as a leader. Living in a socialist society for over 30 years I was
fed up with slogans and ask for more. I want to know what stands behind them.
Phrases are not enough for me.
> There is no common Scandinavian language.
That's why I told you to imagine one. The Scandinavian languages differ less
than the German languages. You don't need a "Scandinavian" but we need that
"high German" to communicate.
> >...dictatorship of the majority...
>
> Hey this sound very much like nazi-thinking. A Dane said the same in
> the guestbook in one of the homepages below, and he was immediately
> labeled "nazi" by the anti-racists.
Get some basics of politics, a dictionary will do it. Democracy is when the
majority of the population rules. Both forms are to protect the leader, a
single person, a small group or the majority of the people. The difference is
that in a democracy the opposition is free as well to publish the different
opinion about things. But every society will dictate it's rules.
> >> And what is that "truth" based on? Some jewish witnesses and some
> >> German officials, the reliability of whom, I have not much confidence
> >> in.
> >
> >The truth doesn't depend on what you beliefe. It was not only Jewish
> >witnesses. What about all the other prisoners, what about the soldiers who
> >have seen it themselves? The truth isn't made by your likes.
>
> The ordinary prisoners and the soldiers never watch the gassing
> according to the holocaust-tales. If gassing ever took place it was
> only known and watched by a few highly trusted SS-men,
Okay, why don't you trust those SS men who confessed?
Do you beliefe the SS built gas chambers just to confuse those who would chase
them to hell? Those chambers were present when the camps were freed and not
built later, like some Nazi followers like to assert.
> and the corpses
> were supposed to have been taken out by special Jewish workgroups who
> were supposed to be gassed soon after, so that they would not later
> squeal.
How do you know about that if they were all gassed? You don't beliefe it when
they talk about gassing but beliefe when they talk about how something that
"never happened" was organised? Just for the reason that they are Jews. This
"logic" is the point for me not to see people like you as a leader.
> >> I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
> >> deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
> >> all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
> >> the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
> >
> >So, why don't you move?
>
> Hey I am not a third-worlder.
Neither is a Japanese who lives in Denmark or Germany for example. But you
would not accept him because he is not white.
BTW, the whites in South Africa are the ones whose roots are not there.
> >If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
>
> But not by me. If the Pakistanis living in Denmark are moved to
> Pakistan, and they are suppressed there, it is a problem of Pakistan.
No. If they don't want to go back to Pakistan you can suppress them, force
them to go away - or accept them.
> >Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger.
>
> In the EU you have much more influence than we have.
How?
> >By the size we
> >could probably, but by other reasons we don't. Show me where your fear
comes
> >from. Just a nightmare again?
>
> I have told you about that several times. First there were the
> Lauck-Scandal from which the Danes have learned that because we live
> next door to Germany we cannot have as much freedom of speech as the
> USA. This is just one example.
Because of that neighbourhood? Guess how many secret services operate in
Denmark...
> >We were talking about the size and the unification of countries. All your
> >arguments crack, now you come back to the basics. Of course there is no
> >problem as long as the borders are accepted. No matter what date you set, I
> >would always like to know why especially that date, why not one from the
1st
> >or so century.
>
> Because in 1920 the border was drawn after a referendum among the
> local people. As few people as possible came to live under foreign
> rule. This is the ideal.
Thanks for this information.
> >> Why not Deutsches Europa, Deutsches Europa ueber alles, oder besser
> >> Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles in Europa.
> >
> >Why not French Europe, why not European Europe...? Why do you need to back
up
> >your ideas and fears with such phrases?
> >
> Because you are the most dominating people in the EU. Have you ever
> read Animal Farm by George Orwell?
It's one of my favourite books. After reading it I understood why it was
illegal in East Germany.
> The Germans are like those pigs
> there, that regarded themselves a little more equal than the rest of
> the animals.
What is Germany telling other countries to do or not to do that other EU
members do not agree with? If we were really so dominating there were not so
many EU laws and restrictions that we don't like. Some others would apply
instead. The only way is to add them internally.
> Helmuth Kohl certainly reminds me a great deal of the
> chief pig, comrade Napoleon. I know no other political leader in the
> whole world that I dislike more than Helmuth Kohl.
I don't like him either. But that doesn't make him my hightmare figure. He
won't care if I like him or not. I can vote for somebody else, that's all.
> Margareth Thacher
> once said some very wise words about the Germans in the EU. The
> Englishmen and the Danes seem to be those people in the EU that have
> most understanding of the German problem.
What words? Anyway, it's still words and you can agree or not.
It's hard to beliefe that countries with such good understanding of the
"German problem" still join a union with Germany if we create so bad problems.
If someone feared me but came to share a house with me I'd call him stupid.
Klaus Günther Beck
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 06:50:57 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> >In article <351eb32c...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> > krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:29 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
> >>
> >> As I have told you before there are other problems than ethnic
> >> problems. There can be problems between nationalities, between
> >> socio-economical groups (classes) within the same ethnic group and
> >> nationality, between different political parties etc. There are all
> >> sorts of problems.
> >
> >Isn't that what I had always told you? You will never solve those problems by
> >creating "ethnically clean" societies.
>
> By creating ethnic homogeneity I will only solve those problems that
> originate from ethnic diversity, but this is far enough for me and my
> ambitions.
Because your mind is to little to function in the complexity of a
diverse world.
>
> >> Your scapegoats are some mystical nationalistic leaders that are
> >> creating the problems, and then are seducing the people to follow
> >> them.
> >
> >Not some mystical but living persons like you who pretend to tell people how
> >to solve their problems but fail to explain why. It was such people who lead
> >Germany into wars.
>
> So what. You Germans were not able to handle nationalism, and you are
> now trying to make some leaders scapegoats. You Germans cannot live
> without scapegoats every time something fails for you.
Well, seeing how you use Germans for scapegoats, that´s a mighty funny
statement.
>
> When you Germans were nationalists you were bothering your
> surroundings with your nationalism. Now that you have become
> internationalists you are bothering your surroundings with your
> internationalism. Why can't you take it a little easy? Why can't you
> be like the Swiss which have a high standard of living and never
> bothers other countries and therefore never get into war.
No, they only make a decent buck by all the things going on around them
and are left in piece, because nobody wants this country and nobody robs
his own bank.
>
> >
> >> It is exactly what I am trying to tell you that the problems may
> >> soemtimes be complex.
> >
> >No need telling me about that. It was you who came up with the idea that
> >different ethnicity would create problems and "cleaning up" the society would
> >solve them.
>
> Creating ethnic homogeneity will solve many problems but not all of
> them. An ethnic homogeneous society is better a society than
> diversified one, anyhow. Diversity sucks. This is my slogan.
And this you can fold, till it is all angles and stuff it where the sun
never shines.
>
> >
> >We all write (or should write) that "high German". If not, we had the same
> >difficulties like in spoken language. As I told you earlier, you may compare
> >that high German to bokmaal or a "Scandinavian".
>
> There is no common Scandinavian language.
>
> >> In a democracy the citizens should be free to seek the truth even if
> >> they make mistakes their endeavour. It has nothing to do with
> >> democracy that the state is dictating the citizens it's version of the
> >> truth.
> >
> >...dictatorship of the majority...
>
> Hey this sound very much like nazi-thinking. A Dane said the same in
> the guestbook in one of the homepages below, and he was immediately
> labeled "nazi" by the anti-racists.
>
> >
> >> And what is that "truth" based on? Some jewish witnesses and some
> >> German officials, the reliability of whom, I have not much confidence
> >> in.
> >
> >The truth doesn't depend on what you beliefe. It was not only Jewish
> >witnesses. What about all the other prisoners, what about the soldiers who
> >have seen it themselves? The truth isn't made by your likes.
>
> The ordinary prisoners and the soldiers never watch the gassing
> according to the holocaust-tales. If gassing ever took place it was
> only known and watched by a few highly trusted SS-men, and the corpses
> were supposed to have been taken out by special Jewish workgroups who
> were supposed to be gassed soon after, so that they would not later
> squeal.
Patently untrue, as you should know. A short time ago, there was a nice
documentary from Ravensbrück. Prisoners who carted the bodies of gassed
people to massgraves. Temporary cinematic evidence provided by a wardess
who thought this a nice flick for at home.
>
> >> I certainly do not want to suppress other peoples. No I want to
> >> deport all people who have their roots in the third world once and for
> >> all, that is all. I could never accept living together with them like
> >> the Whites did in South Africa during the Apartheid-era.
> >
> >So, why don't you move?
>
> Hey I am not a third-worlder.
No, you only got your brain third-hand.
>
> >If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
>
> But not by me. If the Pakistanis living in Denmark are moved to
> Pakistan, and they are suppressed there, it is a problem of Pakistan.
Oh, how enlightened. You really make me wanna puke.
>
> >Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger.
>
> In the EU you have much more influence than we have.
So what? We pay a lot for this influence. He who pays the piper calls
the tune. That´s capitalism in the real world.
>
> >By the size we
> >could probably, but by other reasons we don't. Show me where your fear comes
> >from. Just a nightmare again?
>
> I have told you about that several times. First there were the
> Lauck-Scandal from which the Danes have learned that because we live
> next door to Germany we cannot have as much freedom of speech as the
> USA. This is just one example.
Oh, you can have. Your goverment doesn´t have to give people to our
goverment, if they do not want to. They did anyway. Makes you think that
a lot of Danes don´t agree with little Ole.
>
> >We were talking about the size and the unification of countries. All your
> >arguments crack, now you come back to the basics. Of course there is no
> >problem as long as the borders are accepted. No matter what date you set, I
> >would always like to know why especially that date, why not one from the 1st
> >or so century.
>
> Because in 1920 the border was drawn after a referendum among the
> local people. As few people as possible came to live under foreign
> rule. This is the ideal.
After 78 years they live where they live. Most live quite well. People
living at borders tend to make more an issue of national identity, as we
see in Duisburg and at the Niederrhein, where the Germans really like to
hate the people from the Netherlands and vice versa. But stupidity is no
excuse for hate.
>
> >> Why not Deutsches Europa, Deutsches Europa ueber alles, oder besser
> >> Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles in Europa.
> >
> >Why not French Europe, why not European Europe...? Why do you need to back up
> >your ideas and fears with such phrases?
> >
> Because you are the most dominating people in the EU. Have you ever
> read Animal Farm by George Orwell? The Germans are like those pigs
> there, that regarded themselves a little more equal than the rest of
> the animals. Helmuth Kohl certainly reminds me a great deal of the
> chief pig, comrade Napoleon. I know no other political leader in the
> whole world that I dislike more than Helmuth Kohl. Margareth Thacher
> once said some very wise words about the Germans in the EU. The
> Englishmen and the Danes seem to be those people in the EU that have
> most understanding of the German problem.
THe English as a people get the most out of the EU while putting as
little as possible into it. They ,ake propaganda against the EU on every
turn to hide their home-made troubles. Scapegaotism for sure.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:51:17 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>That's the point. Whatever you called an ethnic problem turned out to be based
>on something different. That's why I call your "ethnic problem" scapegoats,
>Ole.
I can understand that you believe that ethnic problems do not exist
but are always based on something else. Strange belief. You are like
the ostriche hiding your head in the sand. You do not want to see
politically inconvienient problems. Problems that are political
inconvienient for your beloved Bonn-regime.
>
>> So what. You Germans were not able to handle nationalism, and you are
>> now trying to make some leaders scapegoats. You Germans cannot live
>> without scapegoats every time something fails for you.
>
>What leaders?
You German people are told by your massmedia, Bonn-regime etc. that
it is nationalistic leaders that are agitating the otherwise innocent
people into becoming nationalists. Arrest the leaders and you will
have no nationalism. There are already 6000 political prisoners in
Germany, the most despicable and unfree country in Europe.
> If you call some people leaders, because they teach a
>mono-ethnic society you are right. Germany was not able to handle national
>socialism (that's not nationalism as you know).
But in the propaganda for giving up our freedom and national dignity
we are told again and again by the massmedia and other propaganda
sources of how bad nationalism is, and that nationalism for some
reasons always lead to dictatorship and wars, just because one country
(Germany) once could not handle democracy and nationalism because of
the innate authoritarian mentality of it's people. Nazism was an
expression of the German soul and a sheer product of German
mentality, culture and history. The cowardly Bonn-regime does not want
to face this fact but are trying to make the other countries share
their "guilt".
Why was Denmark supposed to get involved with that problem you had
with the USA concerning Gary Lauck? What has Denmark to do with nazism
or your problems with the USA? Why do you want to have Danish people
punished for not paying enough respect for your alleged Jewish victims
during the WW2. Denmark was a victim itself of Nazi-Germany and
according to the American Jews the whole of the Danish people saved
the Danish Jews from the Germans during WW2. So why are your bothering
Denmark? Furthermore you have payed billions of marks to Israel and
the Jews, but you have never paid back those loans you took out of the
Danish Central Bank during WW2.
>
>Why won't you take it easy and let us do what we think is right? I beliefe you
>are referring to the EU subject when you mean we bother you. If Germany is
>trying to improve it's economy by unification with other countries and offers
>and tries to convince other countries to join it is a normal ting to do so.
It is all propaganda that Germany would improve it's economy by
getting more integrated with the neighbouring countries. In sixties
there was much less integration and Germany experienced
"Wirtschaftwunder"
>If
>another country doesn't want to join the EU it's also okay. There is no
>bothering about it. Germany and other EU countries will not force a refusing
>neighbour to join.
But they will put various pressure on.
>
>> Creating ethnic homogeneity will solve many problems but not all of
>> them. An ethnic homogeneous society is better a society than
>> diversified one, anyhow. Diversity sucks. This is my slogan.
>
>Right, it's no more than a slogan.
Hm. So is racial equality. The idea of an inborn and natural racial
equality is nothing but a political doctrin based on wishful thinking.
> If you could prove that it's right I would
>accept you as a leader. Living in a socialist society for over 30 years I was
>fed up with slogans and ask for more. I want to know what stands behind them.
>Phrases are not enough for me.
But you are parroting all those slogans of the Bonn regime concerning
diversity, EU "the danger of nationalism, racism, nazism" "under the
skin we are all the same".
>Get some basics of politics, a dictionary will do it. Democracy is when the
>majority of the population rules. Both forms are to protect the leader, a
>single person, a small group or the majority of the people. The difference is
>that in a democracy the opposition is free as well to publish the different
>opinion about things. But every society will dictate it's rules.
In Germany the there is no free opposition. Several parties are
prohibited.
>
>Okay, why don't you trust those SS men who confessed?
>Do you beliefe the SS built gas chambers just to confuse those who would chase
>them to hell? Those chambers were present when the camps were freed and not
>built later, like some Nazi followers like to assert.
Show me just one genuine gaschamber that was used for other purposes
than fumigating clothes (killing lice).
>
>
>> and the corpses
>> were supposed to have been taken out by special Jewish workgroups who
>> were supposed to be gassed soon after, so that they would not later
>> squeal.
>
>How do you know about that if they were all gassed?
That is what the "survived" Jewish witnesses are telling all the
time. In Germany you must believe everything they tell or go to
prison.
>
>> >If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
>>
>> But not by me. If the Pakistanis living in Denmark are moved to
>> Pakistan, and they are suppressed there, it is a problem of Pakistan.
>
>No. If they don't want to go back to Pakistan you can suppress them, force
>them to go away - or accept them.
There should be only one option for them and that is back to Pakistan.
>
>> >Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger.
>>
>> In the EU you have much more influence than we have.
>
>How?
Because your a bigger. Like we were discussing before. The more
people you are the more influence you will have in a democracy. You
called it dictatorship of the majority. The Danes constitute around 2
per cent of the population in the EU. That means that we will get 2
per cent influence on our own destiny, while foreign people will have
98 per cent influence.
>What words? Anyway, it's still words and you can agree or not.
>It's hard to beliefe that countries with such good understanding of the
>"German problem" still join a union with Germany if we create so bad problems.
>If someone feared me but came to share a house with me I'd call him stupid.
>
I certainly hope we will get out soon so that this nightmare will be
over.
Ole Kreiberg
On 18 Apr 1998 08:38:47 GMT, KlausGue...@t-online.de (Klaus
Günther Beck) wrote:
>> Lauck-Scandal from which the Danes have learned that because we live
>> next door to Germany we cannot have as much freedom of speech as the
>> USA. This is just one example.
>
>Oh, you can have. Your goverment doesn´t have to give people to our
>goverment, if they do not want to. They did anyway. Makes you think that
>a lot of Danes don´t agree with little Ole.
During the WW2 and even before, the Danish government did everything
it could to please Germany, and the people did not like that. This was
the background for the armed resistance. Today it is still doing too
much to please Germany and the EU, and the people do not like that. I
think that it was Frederick the Second of Prussia that once said that
the Danes must be the most intelligent people in the world because
they have been able survive all the way down history with the most
unintelligent political leaders. I tend to agree with his wisdom.
>After 78 years they live where they live. Most live quite well. People
>living at borders tend to make more an issue of national identity, as we
>see in Duisburg and at the Niederrhein, where the Germans really like to
>hate the people from the Netherlands and vice versa. But stupidity is no
>excuse for hate.
I think that the Danish people in the borderland never felt
comfortable with the proximity of Germans. In your book they must just
be to stupid "to handle diversity". Try to say that to them, and you
will get a kich in your face.
Alexander Rose
Krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
> You German people are told by your massmedia, Bonn-regime etc. that
>it is nationalistic leaders that are agitating the otherwise innocent
>people into becoming nationalists.
You Nazi-assholes didn't realize that your Hitler stuff is bullshit, did
you?
You think the whole world's against you?
Then you're damn right!
Ole Kreiberg
On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 01:24:27 GMT, lo...@signature.below (Alexander
Rose) wrote:
>You Nazi-assholes didn't realize that your Hitler stuff is bullshit, did
>you?
How dare you call a Danish person a nazi? True nazis were only you
Germans and Austrians. Hitler said several times that national
socialism knows only Germany and is not meant for export. My country
was an innocent victim of you people. Most of those who fought in the
resistance during WW2 did so out of national reasons. They fought the
inheriditary enemy because of love to their fatherland. As I have told
you before, here in Denmark there is no conflict between being a
nationalist, democrat and Anti-German. In Denmark democracy and modern
nationalism came together. Those who wrote the Danish democratic
constitution, the national liberals, were both nationalists and
democrats. And what did this constitution and national liberalism
cause? Immediately armed insurrection against Denmark by the Germans
in Slesvig-Holsten, that was under the Danish rule in those days.
>You think the whole world's against you?
>Then you're damn right!
>
The controlled massmedia are fighting everything that are against the
hidden agenda of breaking down the national states and creating a
dictatorial and elitarian one world government of the money-power. The
EU is just a step toward attaining this goal.
LuKe
Am Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:21:29 GMT schrieb o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg)
folgendes :
>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 01:24:27 GMT, lo...@signature.below (Alexander
>Rose) wrote:
>
>>You Nazi-assholes didn't realize that your Hitler stuff is bullshit, did
>>you?
>
>How dare you call a Danish person a nazi? True nazis were only you
>Germans and Austrians. Hitler said several times that national
>socialism knows only Germany and is not meant for export.
Nazi zu sein ist keine Frage der Nationalitaet, sondern eine
Frage der Geisteshaltung.
Luke
--
" Wir sind doch alle Individuen und verschieden... "
" ICH nicht ! "
L. Keiser, Hamminkelner Landstr. 46, 46483 Wesel
0281/68199 & 0172/2610214 & Lima...@t-online.de
Alexander Rose
Krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>>You Nazi-assholes didn't realize that your Hitler stuff is bullshit, did
>>you?
>
>How dare you call a Danish person a nazi?
It's easy - read my posting again and you'll see how easy it is.
>True nazis were only you
>Germans and Austrians. Hitler said several times that national
>socialism knows only Germany and is not meant for export.
Hitler said a lot of bullshit, this is only another weird idea from a
heavily damaged Upper Austrian brain.
>My country
>was an innocent victim of you people.
And your brain is an innocent victim of a total vacuum?
>As I have told
>you before, here in Denmark there is no conflict between being a
>nationalist, democrat and Anti-German.
At least you think so!
>>You think the whole world's against you?
>>Then you're damn right!
>>
>The controlled massmedia are fighting everything that are against the
>hidden agenda of breaking down the national states and creating a
>dictatorial and elitarian one world government of the money-power. The
>EU is just a step toward attaining this goal.
Ah, yeah, sure - you forgot to mention that the massmedia is under
JEWISH control.
God bless I still remember your usual posts...
;-)
Ole, don't you think it's time to wake up?
You are free to think whatever you want to believe in, but your
antisemitism, racism, your repeated paranoia and such really make me
think you're just making fun of everything - or do you really mean what
you write?
Oh no..
>Ole Kreiberg
Alex
BTW, why did you have to change your provider?
Was the old one under Jewish control?
Ole Kreiberg
In article <6hhhhp$d...@cantine.wu-wien.ac.at>, Alexander Rose wrote:
>Ole, don't you think it's time to wake up?
>You are free to think whatever you want to believe in, but your
>antisemitism, racism, your repeated paranoia and such really make me
>think you're just making fun of everything - or do you really mean what
>you write?
>Oh no..
I mean everything.
>
>BTW, why did you have to change your provider?
>Was the old one under Jewish control?
>
I have several providers. See the header above which showes my oldest one.
In Denmark the freedom of speech is almost holy like in the USA. No ISP in
Denmark want have a reputation as one that censors. Nobody in Denmark has
been kicked out from an ISP, because of his political points of view.
Several German and French persons tried some years ago to complain to my
postmaster. The postmaster told me that they couldn't care less about my
political views as long as I did not violate the netetiquette. I am sorry,
this is Denmark and not crazy Stasi-Germany or it's silly little puppet-state
of Austria.
--
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <353a51f7...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:51:17 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> I can understand that you believe that ethnic problems do not exist
> but are always based on something else. Strange belief.
There is nothing strange about it.. It's not the non existing problems that
are based on something different but the ones you call ethnic problems.
> You are like
> the ostriche hiding your head in the sand. You do not want to see
> politically inconvienient problems. Problems that are political
> inconvienient for your beloved Bonn-regime.
First of all, I don't like the present German government. Secondly, I don't
need anybody to tell me what my personal opinion should be.
> >What leaders?
>
> You German people are told by your massmedia, Bonn-regime etc. that
> it is nationalistic leaders that are agitating the otherwise innocent
> people into becoming nationalists. Arrest the leaders and you will
> have no nationalism. There are already 6000 political prisoners in
> Germany, the most despicable and unfree country in Europe.
As I told you before I would rather have all those with different opinions out
on the street where I can discuss their thoughts than having them in prisons
or secret meetings. I know that this opinion is not what many people here like
and it doesn't provide a perfect solution, but I consider it better to talk to
those guys and show them and others how cracky their ideas are. It's like our
discussion here. The "otherwise innocent" are then to make up their own minds
just like I made and make up mine.
> > If you call some people leaders, because they teach a
> >mono-ethnic society you are right. Germany was not able to handle national
> >socialism (that's not nationalism as you know).
>
> But in the propaganda for giving up our freedom and national dignity
> we are told again and again by the massmedia and other propaganda
> sources of how bad nationalism is, and that nationalism for some
> reasons always lead to dictatorship and wars, just because one country
> (Germany) once could not handle democracy and nationalism because of
> the innate authoritarian mentality of it's people. Nazism was an
> expression of the German soul and a sheer product of German
> mentality, culture and history.
I don't know enough about what you were told in Denmark about it to comment
this. Media here can tell whatever they want, it's still my own business to
decide what to beliefe.
> The cowardly Bonn-regime does not want
> to face this fact but are trying to make the other countries share
> their "guilt".
How? We will not invade and hunt Danes who think differently.
> It is all propaganda that Germany would improve it's economy by
> getting more integrated with the neighbouring countries. In sixties
> there was much less integration and Germany experienced
> "Wirtschaftwunder"
Economical tools don't always work the same. You have to respect the current
situation and go with time if you want success. The world is changing. You
wouldn't consider building pyramides with slaves just because it worked once,
would you?
> > Germany and other EU countries will not force a refusing
> >neighbour to join.
>
> But they will put various pressure on.
How do you know? What pressure? If they succeed and become even stronger in
the EU, would you then feel under pressure?
> >> Creating ethnic homogeneity will solve many problems but not all of
> >> them. An ethnic homogeneous society is better a society than
> >> diversified one, anyhow. Diversity sucks. This is my slogan.
> >
> >Right, it's no more than a slogan.
>
> Hm. So is racial equality. The idea of an inborn and natural racial
> equality is nothing but a political doctrin based on wishful thinking.
You may consider roses and tulips different races of flowers or red roses and
white roses different races. It's not my field to describe what is correct.
Anyway, to declare a difference - no matter of what kind - it takes some facts
that describe the differences. That's why I had asked you for some proof. All
your answers appeared to be true at first sight but failed to prove your
statements from a critical point of view. What may or may not be true will
hardly ever work as proving fact.
> > If you could prove that it's right I would
> >accept you as a leader. Living in a socialist society for over 30 years I
> >was
> >fed up with slogans and ask for more. I want to know what stands behind
> >them.
> >Phrases are not enough for me.
>
> But you are parroting all those slogans of the Bonn regime concerning
> diversity, EU "the danger of nationalism, racism, nazism" "under the
> skin we are all the same".
I told you nothing but my own opinion. You had and still have all
possibilities to convince me of something different. All I refuse to beliefe
is simple slogans without prove, no matter if they are given by you, by the
German government, by people around me or anybody else. Your position to say
"you are one of them if you are not one of us" is too simple.
> >Get some basics of politics, a dictionary will do it. Democracy is when
> >the
> >majority of the population rules. Both forms are to protect the leader, a
> >single person, a small group or the majority of the people. The difference
> >is
> >that in a democracy the opposition is free as well to publish the
> >different
> >opinion about things. But every society will dictate it's rules.
>
> In Germany the there is no free opposition. Several parties are
> prohibited.
That's true - see my opinion about this above. But this is the wish of most
people here and I have to accept it - the majority dictates. All I can do is
to tell them my opinion and discuss different views. My idea is not so popular
but I'm free to talk about it.
> Show me just one genuine gaschamber that was used for other purposes
> than fumigating clothes (killing lice).
Do you really beliefe Jews were killed (as you said yourself) for watching
lice die in a gas chamber? Don't be that ridiculous.
> >> and the corpses
> >> were supposed to have been taken out by special Jewish workgroups who
> >> were supposed to be gassed soon after, so that they would not later
> >> squeal.
> >
> >How do you know about that if they were all gassed?
>
> That is what the "survived" Jewish witnesses are telling all the
> time. In Germany you must believe everything they tell or go to
> prison.
It was not only told by Jews. Talk to some non Jewish survivers - they will
tell you the same. Why should they lie? Because they fear prison? Why should
they lie if they don't live here and the German law does not apply to them?
> >> >If those people had to move they would be suppressed.
> >>
> >> But not by me. If the Pakistanis living in Denmark are moved to
> >> Pakistan, and they are suppressed there, it is a problem of Pakistan.
> >
> >No. If they don't want to go back to Pakistan you can suppress them,
> >force
> >them to go away - or accept them.
>
> There should be only one option for them and that is back to Pakistan.
That's what all the matter is about. Why should there only be that one option?
Because that is the only option you like. If you want to let your option
become reality you must force the Pakistani to go - you must suppress them.
Don't tell me then that you don't want to suppress anybody. It sounds like
that joke "you may beliefe whatever you want - if you beliefe what I beliefe".
> >> >Show me how we do dominate you just because we are bigger.
> >>
> >> In the EU you have much more influence than we have.
> >
> >How?
>
> Because your a bigger. Like we were discussing before. The more
> people you are the more influence you will have in a democracy. You
> called it dictatorship of the majority. The Danes constitute around 2
> per cent of the population in the EU. That means that we will get 2
> per cent influence on our own destiny, while foreign people will have
> 98 per cent influence.
That's absolutely correct. But the relation of these numbers is the same all
the time. Should we split up Germany again and re-create the many small
countries like we had centuries ago? Many of them would then not exceed the
size of Denmark.
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <XKJFrOev...@login.dknet.dk>,
o...@login.dknet.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>
> this is Denmark and not crazy Stasi-Germany or it's silly little
> puppet-state
> of Austria.
At this point you probably didn't know enough about the words you were using.
I bet you have never been to Stasi-Germany, the former GDR. If you had you
would never compare the two things this way. Austria has never in history been
bound to Stasi-Germany. It's just one of the smaller states that do not fear
the bigger neighbour, like it or not.
Ole Kreiberg
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 03:27:43 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>At this point you probably didn't know enough about the words you were using.
>I bet you have never been to Stasi-Germany, the former GDR.
I have been several times to GDR. On entrance to this country they
used to search you for "dangerous and subversive" litterature, which
they seemed to fear as much as the Bonn-regime fears revisionists
litterature.
>If you had you
>would never compare the two things this way. Austria has never in history been
>bound to Stasi-Germany. It's just one of the smaller states that do not fear
>the bigger neighbour, like it or not.
If the Austrians had tails they would probably wag them everytime they
hear the voices of their beloved masters in Bonn.
The Austrians are a kind of Germans or at least closely related to
the Germans the same way the Danes and Norwegians are related. Like
the Norwegians and Danes are brotherpeople, the Austrians and the
Germans are the same.
Ole Kreiberg
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 18:08:21 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>> The cowardly Bonn-regime does not want
>> to face this fact but are trying to make the other countries share
>> their "guilt".
>
>How? We will not invade and hunt Danes who think differently.
Yeah you would like to. That is the meaning of EU police cooperation
which is dominated by the Germans. The other day I read in a Danish
newspaper about a meeting of highranking European police-officers.
Here it was clearly described how some obnoxious German
police-officer was telling the non-Germans how to run things.
>> But they will put various pressure on.
>
>How do you know? What pressure? If they succeed and become even stronger in
>the EU, would you then feel under pressure?
I would not like to see Denmark become stronger at the price of
loosing it's independence and national dignity.
>> In Germany the there is no free opposition. Several parties are
>> prohibited.
>
>That's true - see my opinion about this above. But this is the wish of most
>people here and I have to accept it - the majority dictates.
How do you know the opinion of the majority? Has there been a
referendum about the matter? No, it is just propaganda lies of the
Bonn-regime that the majority of the population should want to have
freedom of speech suppressed.
>
>> Show me just one genuine gaschamber that was used for other purposes
>> than fumigating clothes (killing lice).
>
>Do you really beliefe Jews were killed (as you said yourself) for watching
>lice die in a gas chamber? Don't be that ridiculous.
I do not believe that there were any gassings of humans in the German
concentration camps during WW2. By refusing to believe in the
holocaust you can up to 5 years of prison in the obscure policestate
of Germany.
>It was not only told by Jews. Talk to some non Jewish survivers - they will
>tell you the same. Why should they lie? Because they fear prison? Why should
>they lie if they don't live here and the German law does not apply to them?
They did not actually watch a gassing themselves. They just believed
in rumours about gassing, that were widespread among the prisoners at
the time.
>> There should be only one option for them and that is back to Pakistan.
>
>That's what all the matter is about. Why should there only be that one option?
>Because that is the only option you like.
Sure I am fighting for the cause of the ethnic Danes and not the
cause of the Pakistanis.
>If you want to let your option
>become reality you must force the Pakistani to go - you must suppress them.
If an illegal alien does not leave the country voluntarily the police
will have to help him to do so. If I were in power I would cancel the
residence permits and Danish citizensships of the Pakistanis and
similiar people. Then they will have to leave either voluntarily or by
force.
>> Because your a bigger. Like we were discussing before. The more
>> people you are the more influence you will have in a democracy. You
>> called it dictatorship of the majority. The Danes constitute around 2
>> per cent of the population in the EU. That means that we will get 2
>> per cent influence on our own destiny, while foreign people will have
>> 98 per cent influence.
>
>That's absolutely correct. But the relation of these numbers is the same all
>the time. Should we split up Germany again and re-create the many small
>countries like we had centuries ago? Many of them would then not exceed the
>size of Denmark.
As I have told you the Germans constitute a nationality although there
may be some regional differences. A Holstener has still more in common
with Bavarian than a Dane.
Michael Huebner
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:09 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 18:08:21 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
>>> The cowardly Bonn-regime does not want
>>> to face this fact but are trying to make the other countries share
>>> their "guilt".
>>
>>How? We will not invade and hunt Danes who think differently.
>
>Yeah you would like to. That is the meaning of EU police cooperation
>which is dominated by the Germans.
I know a lot of Germans with different opinions and different ideas
about how to handle the immigration, foreign relations etc. Not a single
one of them would care for your opinion in a way to hunt you.
It's again nothing but your paranoia that gives you those nightmares.
> The other day I read in a Danish
>newspaper about a meeting of highranking European police-officers.
>Here it was clearly described how some obnoxious German
>police-officer was telling the non-Germans how to run things.
And what? If you forget the comment of this article and get the simple
facts out of it, it probably reads that high rank police officers had a
discussion of how to work together more efficiently throughout Europe.
All the rest is mindmaking stuff, written by some journalists. In this
context Germany will send its representatives and as one of the largest
countries and located in the center of Europe it will probably send more
than one person. Remember, it's quite some German states. I don't even
think that every German state had sent its representative. The more
interesting a country is to criminals the more experienced its police
will be. Why shouldn't they share their experience with the police in
other countries? If the same high rank officers of other countries do
not agree with what the Germans said they don't need to do it. What does
it make so terrible to you?
>>> But they will put various pressure on.
>>
>>How do you know? What pressure? If they succeed and become even stronger in
>>the EU, would you then feel under pressure?
>
> I would not like to see Denmark become stronger at the price of
>loosing it's independence and national dignity.
Then keep Denmark out of EU and prevent your dignity. Don't moan later
if the neighbours grow stronger and have a better living. Always
remember, they paid with their dignity :-)
>>> In Germany the there is no free opposition. Several parties are
>>> prohibited.
>>
>>That's true - see my opinion about this above. But this is the wish of most
>>people here and I have to accept it - the majority dictates.
>
> How do you know the opinion of the majority? Has there been a
>referendum about the matter? No, it is just propaganda lies of the
>Bonn-regime that the majority of the population should want to have
>freedom of speech suppressed.
Wrong. I told you before that I don't need anyone in Bonn telling me
what to beliefe. I know it from my discussions with people around. I can
see the reaction when some right wing groups have meetings and
demonstrations. They come together from all over Germany to form a big
crowd but no matter how many will come there is always a larger group
protesting against their presence. Plus some thousands who do not want
such meetings but don't protest against them on the treets.
>>> Show me just one genuine gaschamber that was used for other purposes
>>> than fumigating clothes (killing lice).
>>
>>Do you really beliefe Jews were killed (as you said yourself) for watching
>>lice die in a gas chamber? Don't be that ridiculous.
>
> I do not believe that there were any gassings of humans in the German
>concentration camps during WW2.
History doesn't change according to your beliefe.
> By refusing to believe in the
>holocaust you can up to 5 years of prison in the obscure policestate
>of Germany.
By refusing to beliefe in gravity you will hit the street when jumping
out of a window.
This law in Germany is to protect those witnesses you don't beliefe from
being called liars. In almost any country you can be sentenced for
giving someone a bad reputation without proof. But you are still free to
prove that those chambers were made to gas lice. All you need to do is
to prove it. Your beliefe doesn't count.
Isn't it strange that, according to Nazi reports (!) those camps had
always had much more death cases after they had gassed the lice?
>>It was not only told by Jews. Talk to some non Jewish survivers - they will
>>tell you the same. Why should they lie? Because they fear prison? Why should
>>they lie if they don't live here and the German law does not apply to them?
>
> They did not actually watch a gassing themselves. They just believed
>in rumours about gassing, that were widespread among the prisoners at
>the time.
What is it then that makes you beliefe it was nothing but rumours?
>>> There should be only one option for them and that is back to Pakistan.
>>
>>That's what all the matter is about. Why should there only be that one option?
>>Because that is the only option you like.
>
> Sure I am fighting for the cause of the ethnic Danes and not the
>cause of the Pakistanis.
Now you are closing the circle.
Fighting for the cause of ethnic Danes does not necessarily mean that
Pakistani have to leave Denmark. It's just people like you who try to
tell this. You call problems, that are caused by different reasons,
ethnic problems to "prove" that the Pakistani should leave Denmark. You
pretend not to put pressure on anybody but put it on those people to go
away. You refuse to see that the real problem is your own intolerance.
> If an illegal alien does not leave the country voluntarily the police
>will have to help him to do so. If I were in power I would cancel the
>residence permits and Danish citizensships of the Pakistanis and
>similiar people. Then they will have to leave either voluntarily or by
>force.
Why are you not an elected political leader to do so? If you work for
what the majority of Danes wants they should vote for you. I'm sure you
will also find a way to rid Denmark of the Pakistani without putting
pressure on anybody.
>>That's absolutely correct. But the relation of these numbers is the same all
>>the time. Should we split up Germany again and re-create the many small
>>countries like we had centuries ago? Many of them would then not exceed the
>>size of Denmark.
>
>As I have told you the Germans constitute a nationality although there
>may be some regional differences. A Holstener has still more in common
>with Bavarian than a Dane.
That's what I doubt. I haven't spent much time in the northern part of
Germany but I found the general mentality of people there closer to the
Danes and Norwegians than to Swabians, Bavarians, Hessians, Thuringians
or Saxons. Of course, that is only my personal impression.
Anyway, it still doesn't provide a base to fear the others.
Michael Huebner
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:07 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 03:27:43 -0600, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
>>At this point you probably didn't know enough about the words you were using.
>>I bet you have never been to Stasi-Germany, the former GDR.
>
> I have been several times to GDR. On entrance to this country they
>used to search you for "dangerous and subversive" litterature, which
>they seemed to fear as much as the Bonn-regime fears revisionists
>litterature.
Yes, and they were also dressed in uniforms.
Entering the USA you are not allowed to have food with you. Entering
with a gun in the bag was illegal in GDR and is illegal in other
countries. Do you call them Stasi-France, Stasi-USA or Stasi-Denmark?
If asking for illegal literature is enough for you to see the state as
Stasi-Germany you don't know anything about the real crimes committed
legally by the communists in GDR.
>>If you had you
>>would never compare the two things this way. Austria has never in history been
>>bound to Stasi-Germany. It's just one of the smaller states that do not fear
>>the bigger neighbour, like it or not.
>
>If the Austrians had tails they would probably wag them everytime they
>hear the voices of their beloved masters in Bonn.
Just one more of your nightmares. But you fail (like almost always) to
show what gives you the similarities to Stasi-GDR.
> The Austrians are a kind of Germans or at least closely related to
>the Germans the same way the Danes and Norwegians are related. Like
>the Norwegians and Danes are brotherpeople, the Austrians and the
>Germans are the same.
I consider Sweden also a part of this scandinavian brotherhood. Of
course, they are closer related to Norwegians in the east. I have heard
Norwegians from the north call those in the south Danes, just because
they are closer to Denmark. But does that make them all the same? Does
the same language make the Austrians Germans? What about Switzerland,
then?
Martin Paegert
LuKe <Lima...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Nazi zu sein ist keine Frage der Nationalitaet, sondern eine
> Frage der Geisteshaltung.
Dem wird Ole glatt widersprechen. Er definiert es anders und es stoert ihn
wenig, dass er mit seiner Definition allein dasteht. Entgegen besseren
Wissens wird er weiterhin behaupten, der Nationalsozialismus sei nie fuer
den "Export" gedacht gewesen, und dies stereotyp mit einem Hitlerzitat
"beweisen". Sagt und belegt man, dass Hitler sich auch ganz anders
geaeussert und dass das NS-Regime anders gehandelt hat, ignoriert er das
froehlich oder geht scheinbar drauf ein, nur um 3 Monate spaeter wieder mit
denselben Behautptungen aufzuwarten.
Die Strategie dahinter ist relativ simpel und wird laengst nicht nur von
ihm angewendet: Man ueberschwemmt scg mit rechtsradikalen und nazistischen
Inhalten und diktiert so einerseits einen guten Teil der Threads,
andererseits verbreitet man die eigene Ideologie. Und letzteres, nicht etwa
die Suche nach Erkenntnis, ist der zentrale Punkt. Ole kriegt dabei
durchaus den Spagat hin, einerseits zu behaupten, er sei kein Neo-Nazi,
andererseits aber Neo-Nazi-Propaganda zu verbreiten. Oder einerseits zu
behaupten, er habe nichts gegen Deutsche, andererseits aber Deutsche
pauschal als eine Art verblendeter Idioten darzustellen, deren Aussagen man
sowieso nicht ernstnehmen darf. Es sei denn, es handelt sich um Frey oder
ähnliche Rassisten.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:09:36 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:07 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>> I have been several times to GDR. On entrance to this country they
>>used to search you for "dangerous and subversive" litterature, which
>>they seemed to fear as much as the Bonn-regime fears revisionists
>>litterature.
>
>Yes, and they were also dressed in uniforms.
>
>Entering the USA you are not allowed to have food with you. Entering
>with a gun in the bag was illegal in GDR and is illegal in other
>countries. Do you call them Stasi-France, Stasi-USA or Stasi-Denmark?
>If asking for illegal literature is enough for you to see the state as
>Stasi-Germany
Only in dictatorships there exist something like illegal literature.
This proves again that Germany is a phony democracy.
> you don't know anything about the real crimes committed
>legally by the communists in GDR.
I know both of the crimes of GDR and BRD. I know of the crimes
committed by the German state against people like Gunther Deckert, Udo
Walendy, Germer Rudolf and many more. Suppressing the right of freedom
of speech is a crime.
>
>I consider Sweden also a part of this scandinavian brotherhood. Of
>course, they are closer related to Norwegians in the east. I have heard
>Norwegians from the north call those in the south Danes, just because
>they are closer to Denmark.
I have never heard the latter. I think that you are confusing
Southern Norway with Southern Sweden. The Southern part of Sweden
called Scania was original Danish but conquered by Sweden in the 17th
century. Through almost genocide it succeeded for the Swedes to wipe
Danish culture and language in this province. However the people there
still have still Danish roots and strong affinity toward Denmark.
> But does that make them all the same? Does
>the same language make the Austrians Germans? What about Switzerland,
>then?
>
I think that Germans, Austrians and German Swiss are culturally very
closely related. It is like Anglo-Saxon people like Englishmen,
Anglo-Canadian, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:09:34 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>I know a lot of Germans with different opinions and different ideas
>about how to handle the immigration, foreign relations etc. Not a single
>one of them would care for your opinion in a way to hunt you.
>It's again nothing but your paranoia that gives you those nightmares.
But I have said several times in public that I do not believe in the
holocaust. This is regarded heresy in Germany and persecuted by the
state. You must either believe in the holocaust or go to prison.
>> I would not like to see Denmark become stronger at the price of
>>loosing it's independence and national dignity.
>
>Then keep Denmark out of EU and prevent your dignity. Don't moan later
>if the neighbours grow stronger and have a better living. Always
>remember, they paid with their dignity :-)
No one has until now been able to prove how Denmark will become
wealthier by having the same currency as the Germans, open borders
etc.. Germany is Denmarks biggest trading partner and has been so for
many years. In fact Denmark has a slightly higher living standard than
Germany. Tell me how this can become even higher by having open
borders with Germany?
>Wrong. I told you before that I don't need anyone in Bonn telling me
>what to beliefe. I know it from my discussions with people around. I can
>see the reaction when some right wing groups have meetings and
>demonstrations. They come together from all over Germany to form a big
>crowd but no matter how many will come there is always a larger group
>protesting against their presence. Plus some thousands who do not want
>such meetings but don't protest against them on the treets.
How numerous are those protesters? 10,000 perhaps 50,000? How many
per cent do they constitute of the population? One per mille or
perhaps one per cent? Most of them seem to be confused young people
looking for row.
>
>> By refusing to believe in the
>>holocaust you can up to 5 years of prison in the obscure policestate
>>of Germany.
>
>By refusing to beliefe in gravity you will hit the street when jumping
>out of a window.
For that I will not be punished by law.
>This law in Germany is to protect those witnesses you don't beliefe from
>being called liars. In almost any country you can be sentenced for
>giving someone a bad reputation without proof.
It is quite common in murder cases that the accused and even his
lawyer, family etc. keep denying the crime even after he has been
convicted. Denying a crime is not punishable. The accused and his
lawyer can say as much as they want about the witnesses not speaking
the truth. Why doesn't this principle apply to the holocaust homicide
case. This is one of the things which originally made me suspicious
that something was not right about this holocaust thing.
>Isn't it strange that, according to Nazi reports (!) those camps had
>always had much more death cases after they had gassed the lice?
In the case of Auschwitz the recorded number of deaths (from the
Sterbebuecher) during the whole period except 1944 (which are missing)
were 80,002.
>> They did not actually watch a gassing themselves. They just believed
>>in rumours about gassing, that were widespread among the prisoners at
>>the time.
>
>What is it then that makes you beliefe it was nothing but rumours?
Bacause of the lack of technical evidence. E.g. no forensic
examinations of the bodies, no murder weapen etc. no establishement of
the identity of 6 million murdered persons, no ashes or other
remnants of 6 million dead. You have only some witnesses that cannot
be legally contradicted. What do you call this kind of justice? Can
you call it justice at all?
>Now you are closing the circle.
>Fighting for the cause of ethnic Danes does not necessarily mean that
>Pakistani have to leave Denmark.
To me it has. It is the only option I can accept.
> You call problems, that are caused by different reasons,
>ethnic problems to "prove" that the Pakistani should leave Denmark.
I still think that ethnic problems are caused by ethnicity and nothing
else.
> You
>pretend not to put pressure on anybody but put it on those people to go
>away. You refuse to see that the real problem is your own intolerance.
I do not owe Pakistanis and other undesired third world immigrants
any particular tolerance. Who say that they can come here and demand
to be tolerated? Could I demand to be tolerated in Pakistan? In many
Muslim countries Christians are not allowed to built churches.
Countries like Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait never grant citizensships to
any of all those foreigners working there. In Kuwait even fellow Arab
Muslims of third generation cannot attain Kuwaitian citizensship.
Please do not give me that crap about me owing them some tolerance.
Why on earth should I be tolerant to them? Please give me some
rational explanation.
>That's what I doubt. I haven't spent much time in the northern part of
>Germany but I found the general mentality of people there closer to the
>Danes and Norwegians than to Swabians, Bavarians, Hessians, Thuringians
>or Saxons. Of course, that is only my personal impression.
>Anyway, it still doesn't provide a base to fear the others.
>
Hm In that case I wonder what the war in 1848- 51 was all about. The
fact is that Holsten, which has a 100 per cent German population, was
under the Danish crown from 1202 to 1864, and the Holsteners never
accepted the Danish rule. As soon as Germany was about to be united in
the middle of the 19th century the Holsteners of course wanted to be a
part of the United Germany. However they wanted to take with them
Slesvig which was ancient Danish land and had a large Danish
population. The latter the Danes would not allow and the war started.
The situation had much resemblance to the present situation in Kosovo
in former Yugoslavia.
Ole Kreiberg
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:23:36 GMT, Martin Paegert <m...@zenon.prima.de>
wrote:
>Dem wird Ole glatt widersprechen. Er definiert es anders und es stoert ihn
>wenig, dass er mit seiner Definition allein dasteht. Entgegen besseren
>Wissens wird er weiterhin behaupten, der Nationalsozialismus sei nie fuer
>den "Export" gedacht gewesen, und dies stereotyp mit einem Hitlerzitat
>"beweisen".
Hm. Hier in Daenemark gab es keine Nazifizierung wegen der deutschen
Besetzung . Hitler hatte sich nicht fuer Danemark interessiert.
Daenemark und viele andere Laendern wurden nur aus
militaerstrategische Ursachen besetz. Die deutschen nazis waren sehr
national und bewusst ueber ihres Deutschtum. Sie wollten ein
Deutschland nur fuer deutschen haben. Hitler sagte so in seiner letzen
Rede:
"Der Nationalsozialismus kennt nur das Deutschtum, und ihn
interessiert sonst nicht auf der Welt....Die Nationalsozialistische
Lehre ist, und ich habe das immer wieder betont, keine Exportware. Sie
ist nur fuer das deutsche Volk geschaffen"
Verleugnst du das, Martin? Und warum?
> Sagt und belegt man, dass Hitler sich auch ganz anders
>geaeussert und dass das NS-Regime anders gehandelt hat,
Hasst du keine Beispiele fuer deine Behauptung?
>
>Die Strategie dahinter ist relativ simpel und wird laengst nicht nur von
>ihm angewendet: Man ueberschwemmt scg mit rechtsradikalen und nazistischen
>Inhalten und diktiert so einerseits einen guten Teil der Threads,
>andererseits verbreitet man die eigene Ideologie.
Ich habe keine nazistischen Postings gesannt. Aber viele Leute in
anderen Laender finden die Gesetzgebung Deutschlands laecherlich und
ganz undemokratisch und geniessen dehalb die bloeden deutschen zu
necken. Ich kenne ein daenischer Antiracisst, der viele verbotene
(indeksierte) Artiklen in deutschen Neuheitsgruppen anonym gepostet
hat. Seine Verachtung fuer die bloede, autoritaere deutsche
Gesetzgebung ist eben groesser als fuer die Rassismus.
> Und letzteres, nicht etwa
>die Suche nach Erkenntnis, ist der zentrale Punkt. Ole kriegt dabei
>durchaus den Spagat hin, einerseits zu behaupten, er sei kein Neo-Nazi,
>andererseits aber Neo-Nazi-Propaganda zu verbreiten.
Ich habe keine Neo-Nazi-Propaganda verbreitet.
Kent
Michael Huebner gave good arguments against pseudo-scientific confusion and
egocentric babbling.
I quite agree with him. Stupid people who believe what they want to believe
will always be around. The least we can do is to tell them to keep their
fantasies to themselves.
/Kent Eriksson
Michael Huebner
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:49:25 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:09:34 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>>I know a lot of Germans with different opinions and different ideas
>>about how to handle the immigration, foreign relations etc. Not a single
>>one of them would care for your opinion in a way to hunt you.
>>It's again nothing but your paranoia that gives you those nightmares.
>
> But I have said several times in public that I do not believe in the
>holocaust. This is regarded heresy in Germany and persecuted by the
>state. You must either believe in the holocaust or go to prison.
What has the one to do with the other? We have such a law in Germany but
we will not invade and hunt you in Denmark. That is what you had said.
Even here in Germany you can beliefe in what you want. What is
prohibited by this law is that you claim something in public that you
cannot prove but contradicts the obvious facts. If you can prove (again:
your simple beliefe is no proof) that there was no Holocaust you will
not be sentenced. People are free to question it at any time. What you
do is simply denying it.
>>Then keep Denmark out of EU and prevent your dignity. Don't moan later
>>if the neighbours grow stronger and have a better living. Always
>>remember, they paid with their dignity :-)
>
> No one has until now been able to prove how Denmark will become
>wealthier by having the same currency as the Germans, open borders
>etc.. Germany is Denmarks biggest trading partner and has been so for
>many years. In fact Denmark has a slightly higher living standard than
>Germany. Tell me how this can become even higher by having open
>borders with Germany?
It's the opposite. If Germany prefers to trade with other countries
because it is then easier than trading with Denmark, you will lose your
biggest trading partner and this will hardly be good for your living
standard unless you find another partner. Is it that what you mean by
"German pressure on Denmark"?
>>see the reaction when some right wing groups have meetings and
>>demonstrations. [...]
>>[...] no matter how many will come there is always a larger group
>>protesting against their presence. Plus some thousands who do not want
>>such meetings but don't protest against them on the treets.
>
> How numerous are those protesters? 10,000 perhaps 50,000? How many
>per cent do they constitute of the population? One per mille or
>perhaps one per cent? Most of them seem to be confused young people
>looking for row.
They are at least always more than the right wing guys and don't need to
come together from all over Germany. They are of all ages, students as
well as pensioners. The "confused" ones are those who have to be carried
out of the building by ambulance because they are hopelessly drunk.
>>> By refusing to believe in the
>>>holocaust you can up to 5 years of prison in the obscure policestate
>>>of Germany.
>>
>>By refusing to beliefe in gravity you will hit the street when jumping
>>out of a window.
>
>For that I will not be punished by law.
Sure you will - by the law of gravity :-)
>>This law in Germany is to protect those witnesses you don't beliefe from
>>being called liars. In almost any country you can be sentenced for
>>giving someone a bad reputation without proof.
>
> It is quite common in murder cases that the accused and even his
>lawyer, family etc. keep denying the crime even after he has been
>convicted. Denying a crime is not punishable. The accused and his
>lawyer can say as much as they want about the witnesses not speaking
>the truth.
Wrong. They have to prove that the witnesses were not telling the truth.
If you witness in any case and the lawyer of the accused calls you a
liar, you can accuse the lawyer for giving you bad reputation. If he
cannot prove his statement he will be sentenced as well.
>>Isn't it strange that, according to Nazi reports (!) those camps had
>>always had much more death cases after they had gassed the lice?
>
> In the case of Auschwitz the recorded number of deaths (from the
>Sterbebuecher) during the whole period except 1944 (which are missing)
>were 80,002.
What about 1944? Why are they missing? What about other camps? Gas
chambers in Ravensbrueck have been built in fall of 1944, replacing a
special truck that was before stationed outside the camp. Until May 1945
there was enough time to gas prisoners.
Some months ago someone from the USA (if I recall correctly) said here
that his mother was in Ravensbrueck and never told about gas chambers.
If she was released or taken to another camp before, she will, of
course, never have seen the gas chambers there. That doesn't say that
there were none.
>>What is it then that makes you beliefe it was nothing but rumours?
>
> Bacause of the lack of technical evidence. E.g. no forensic
>examinations of the bodies, no murder weapen etc. no establishement of
>the identity of 6 million murdered persons, no ashes or other
>remnants of 6 million dead.
The technical evidence was discussed in another thread and I'm not the
expert to judge it. What murder weapon do you expect when you are
talking about gassing? The identity of murdered people was mostly given
by the Sterbebuecher, written by the SS. Thousands of skeletons in mass
graves should be remnants enough. I'm not going to discuss the number of
6 million. That has no special value for the fact itself.
>>Now you are closing the circle.
>>Fighting for the cause of ethnic Danes does not necessarily mean that
>>Pakistani have to leave Denmark.
>
> To me it has. It is the only option I can accept.
That is the point. The real cause for contradictions is your
intolerance. By this you create a problem that you call an ethnic one
and want to solve by throwing the Pakistani out of the country. You are
fighting for what you consider the cause of the Danes without asking
them. Get into politics with that plan, let the majority of Danes elect
you. Ole for president.
>I still think that ethnic problems are caused by ethnicity and nothing
>else.
But you still fail to prove it. All I can and did show you is that your
slogans may or may not be true. Multi-ethnicity does not necessarily
create problems, ethnic homogeneity does not necessarily avoid the same
problems. If you refuse to see what is so obvious just because it
contradicts your beliefe it will be your problem.
In other words, you may smoke a lot and die in a car accident. You may
never smoke and die in a car accident. If you then keep saying that
smoking and not some other thing causes car accidents you should not
wonder if someone can only laugh about it.
> I do not owe Pakistanis and other undesired third world immigrants
>any particular tolerance. Who say that they can come here and demand
>to be tolerated?
Who (except you) says they cannot?
>Could I demand to be tolerated in Pakistan?
Would or did you demand it? If you would, would they tolerate you?
> In many
>Muslim countries Christians are not allowed to built churches.
>Countries like Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait never grant citizensships to
>any of all those foreigners working there. In Kuwait even fellow Arab
>Muslims of third generation cannot attain Kuwaitian citizensship.
Again you mix up ethnicity with religion and prove hereby yourself that
it is no ethnic problem at all. It is no religious problem, either. It's
intolerance.
>Please do not give me that crap about me owing them some tolerance.
>Why on earth should I be tolerant to them? Please give me some
>rational explanation.
What do you expect yourself to be tolerated for? For being Danish, being
white, being human... being among people who look like you?
>>That's what I doubt. I haven't spent much time in the northern part of
>>Germany but I found the general mentality of people there closer to the
>>Danes and Norwegians than to Swabians, Bavarians, Hessians, Thuringians
>>or Saxons. Of course, that is only my personal impression.
>>Anyway, it still doesn't provide a base to fear the others.
>>
> Hm In that case I wonder what the war in 1848- 51 was all about.
Was it some of the oldest reasons? Gaining (preferrably fertile) land
and uniting with a stronger partner?
When the former countries were re-established in East Germany in 1990 we
had a similar thing going on. People living close to the neighbour
country didn't ask much for some previous border because these borders
had often changed in history. Many of them tended to become part of a
stronger neighbour, opposing those who were proud of their ethnicity.
They voted to become e.g. Saxons or Thuringians. The difference of one
place to a neighbouring one is smaller than to one far away but inside
the same artificial region (department, state, country etc).
Michael Huebner
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:49:23 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:09:36 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>I know both of the crimes of GDR and BRD. I know of the crimes
>committed by the German state against people like Gunther Deckert, Udo
>Walendy, Germer Rudolf and many more. Suppressing the right of freedom
>of speech is a crime.
That's correct and goes along with my opinion. It's still no reason to
set everything now to the idiom Stasi. That would take the Stasi crimes
their negative value on one side and overestimate single crimes on the
other side.
>>I consider Sweden also a part of this scandinavian brotherhood. Of
>>course, they are closer related to Norwegians in the east. I have heard
>>Norwegians from the north call those in the south Danes, just because
>>they are closer to Denmark.
>
> I have never heard the latter. I think that you are confusing
>Southern Norway with Southern Sweden. The Southern part of Sweden
>called Scania was original Danish but conquered by Sweden in the 17th
>century.
No, there was no confusion. I was referring to the Norwegian Rogaland in
special when I was saying Southern Norway. People there were compared to
Danes by other Norwegians from further north. After being there for a
while I may have copied some local dialect and was myself considered a
Dane when I was travelling on to Sweden.
Ole Kreiberg
On Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:04 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>What has the one to do with the other? We have such a law in Germany but
>we will not invade and hunt you in Denmark. That is what you had said.
You do not want to invade, that is for sure, but you still want your
police to operate within Denmark and for which reason? Are you
suggesting that the Danish police is not doing it's work good enough,
and that your police may do thing better. What kind of impudent
attitude is that? I can really understand why the Union of Danish
Policemen has protested against German police on Danish soil.
>Even here in Germany you can beliefe in what you want. What is
>prohibited by this law is that you claim something in public that you
>cannot prove but contradicts the obvious facts. If you can prove (again:
>your simple beliefe is no proof) that there was no Holocaust you will
>not be sentenced.
The courts of the Bonn-regime do not accept any evidence that
challenge the established historiography of the holocaust. The German
chemist Germar Rudolf wrote a book that debunked the holocaust story,
and the book was immediately banned by the Bonn-regime.
> People are free to question it at any time. What you
>do is simply denying it.
You haven't seen all the litterature written by various scientists.
Have you ever read "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by the American
professor Arthur Butz. No you haven't, because you are an
authoritarian German that believes the Bonn-regime when it denounces
all the evidence in favour of the holocaust not happening in the way
described in established historiography.
>It's the opposite. If Germany prefers to trade with other countries
>because it is then easier than trading with Denmark, you will lose your
>biggest trading partner and this will hardly be good for your living
>standard unless you find another partner. Is it that what you mean by
>"German pressure on Denmark"?
I will not sell the priviledge og living in a free and independent
country for a higher standard of living. In fact materialism and
consumerism are not really my cup of tea. Remember that the standard
of living is slightly higher in Denmark than in Germany. The same is
the case in Norway and Switzerland which are not members of the EU.
Modern Germany is behaving like the Hanseatic League in the Middle
Age. The Hansa wanted more than just trade. It wanted political
influence too. Because of that there were almost permanent warfare
between the Hansa and Denmark. The attitude of modern Germany does not
seem far from that of the medieval Hanseatic League. Why do the
Germans always have to have such agressive, obnoxiuos and dominated
attitude toward it's neighbouring countries? I think that you will
find the roots to most of the wars in which the Germans have been
involved in through history in this circumstance.
>> How numerous are those protesters? 10,000 perhaps 50,000? How many
>>per cent do they constitute of the population? One per mille or
>>perhaps one per cent? Most of them seem to be confused young people
>>looking for row.
>
>They are at least always more than the right wing guys and don't need to
>come together from all over Germany. They are of all ages, students as
>well as pensioners. The "confused" ones are those who have to be carried
>out of the building by ambulance because they are hopelessly drunk.
But most of them are leftwingers or even extreme leftwingers - people
that if they came to power would never grant more political freedom
and freedom of speech than in the old communist eastern Europe.
>>
>> It is quite common in murder cases that the accused and even his
>>lawyer, family etc. keep denying the crime even after he has been
>>convicted. Denying a crime is not punishable. The accused and his
>>lawyer can say as much as they want about the witnesses not speaking
>>the truth.
>
>Wrong. They have to prove that the witnesses were not telling the truth.
>If you witness in any case and the lawyer of the accused calls you a
>liar, you can accuse the lawyer for giving you bad reputation. If he
>cannot prove his statement he will be sentenced as well.
In the Danish penal code it is clearly indicated that it is not in
itself punishable do deny a crime.. If e.g. 10 witnesses have seen an
accused murdering somebody, and the accused and his lawyer deny this
crime because the lack of a corpse, the identity of the alleged
victim, a forensic examination of the cause of death etc., they have
not committed anything punishable. They do not of course have to say
explicit that the witnesses are lying but they can claim that the
evidence is not heavy enough, and that the observation of the
witnesses may not be accurate enough etc. Even if there were both
testimony from the witnesses and all the necessary technical evidence,
the accused still has the right to deny the crime without receiving
any extra penalty.
>What about 1944? Why are they missing? What about other camps? Gas
>chambers in Ravensbrueck have been built in fall of 1944, replacing a
>special truck that was before stationed outside the camp. Until May 1945
>there was enough time to gas prisoners.
Some years ago some Norwegian ex-inmates of Ravenbruecks said in the
Danish television that they did not see any gaschamber there. They had
only heard rumours about a mobile one.
>The technical evidence was discussed in another thread and I'm not the
>expert to judge it. What murder weapon do you expect when you are
>talking about gassing?
The actual and genuine gaschamber constructed in a way to handle this
task without causing dangers to the surroundings.
>The identity of murdered people was mostly given
>by the Sterbebuecher, written by the SS. Thousands of skeletons in mass
>graves should be remnants enough. I'm not going to discuss the number of
>6 million. That has no special value for the fact itself.
You certainly do not find 6 million registered dead Jews in those
Sterbebuecher. As I have told you before, in the Auschwitz
Sterbebuecher which are kept at the Red Cross in Arolsen you will find
only 80002 Jews and Non-Jews.
>
>That is the point. The real cause for contradictions is your
>intolerance.
Tolerance and intolerance are just empty catchwords of the
antiracist propaganda. To me the problem has nothing to do with
tolerance or intolerance but rather with selfpreservation. I want
Denmark to be preserved as a White and Nordic country. All these third
worlders are diluting this identity and therefore they must go. I do
not believe in multiracialism. Mulitiracialism sucks.
>By this you create a problem that you call an ethnic one
>and want to solve by throwing the Pakistani out of the country. You are
>fighting for what you consider the cause of the Danes without asking
>them. Get into politics with that plan, let the majority of Danes elect
>you. Ole for president.
Opinion polls show that 72 per cent of the Danes are against the
multietnic society.
>
>>I still think that ethnic problems are caused by ethnicity and nothing
>>else.
>
>But you still fail to prove it.
And you have failed to prove the opposite.
>> I do not owe Pakistanis and other undesired third world immigrants
>>any particular tolerance. Who say that they can come here and demand
>>to be tolerated?
>
>Who (except you) says they cannot?
Give me just one good reason to accept these people who have only come
in order to attain a higher standard of living.
>Again you mix up ethnicity with religion and prove hereby yourself that
>it is no ethnic problem at all. It is no religious problem, either. It's
>intolerance.
And has the oppression of the Curds in Turkey and Iraq nothing to do
with ethnicity?
Because the Germans once committed some alleged crimes in the name
ethnicity, ethnicity according to you now does not matter any longer.
Can't you come up with somethimg better?
>>>
>> Hm In that case I wonder what the war in 1848- 51 was all about.
>
>Was it some of the oldest reasons? Gaining (preferrably fertile) land
>and uniting with a stronger partner?
You have understood nothing. The Germans in Slesvig-Holsten wanted to
be united with their fellow Germans because they were Germans like
themselves and therefore sharing the same language, culture and
menthality. They were not thinking in economical terms. Furhermore
there have never been big differneces in living standard betwen
economical development between Germany and Denmark.
Ole Kreiberg
On Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:07 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>That's correct and goes along with my opinion. It's still no reason to
>set everything now to the idiom Stasi. That would take the Stasi crimes
>their negative value on one side and overestimate single crimes on the
>other side.
In my opinion the Verfassungsschutz is the STASI of BRD. There may of
of course be differences, but one thing is sure that BRD is not a true
democracy. Democracy is in Gerrmany just an empty catchword like it
was in the German Democratic Republic (GDR).
>No, there was no confusion. I was referring to the Norwegian Rogaland in
>special when I was saying Southern Norway. People there were compared to
>Danes by other Norwegians from further north.
Danes and Norwegians are very closely related. Norwegian is almost
just a Danish dialect. You often hear the opinion that Norwegian is
Danish spoken with a Swedish pronunciation.
> After being there for a
>while I may have copied some local dialect and was myself considered a
>Dane when I was travelling on to Sweden.
>
When Danes are travelling in areas where people are not familiar with
Danes they are often confused with Germans. I have had this problem
several times when I am travelling.
Michael Huebner
On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:41:56 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:07 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
> In my opinion the Verfassungsschutz is the STASI of BRD. There may of
>of course be differences,
Verfassungsschutz is also something like FBI in the USA or...
What makes the difference is that Stasi was not really bound to laws the
way BDN and the Verfassungsschutz are. If you'd compare Stasi with the
Gestapo I'd agree faster.
> but one thing is sure that BRD is not a true
>democracy. Democracy is in Gerrmany just an empty catchword like it
>was in the German Democratic Republic (GDR).
Also here you find a lot of significant differences. But I agree in one
point. The democratic system is not really working in Germany (in my
opinion) but protects a few established parties. It doesn't take a
majority to elect a party. Usually those with the most but not enough
votes for a real political leadership form an alliance and prevent
hereby a new election. While in GDR there was in fact the choice to vote
for one out of one parties we have now the choice to vote for one out of
hardly more than three parties. There is no way to name an alternative.
> Danes and Norwegians are very closely related. Norwegian is almost
>just a Danish dialect. You often hear the opinion that Norwegian is
>Danish spoken with a Swedish pronunciation.
That's why I was referring to a common Scandinavian language some days
ago, telling about the larger differences in German dialects. I wish my
Norwegian were half as good as your German. Even with my little
knowledge I could distinguish differences in the pronounciation in
places some 20 km apart. But there was a common base to communicate to
people in Denmark and Sweden as well. This is here in Germany only
possible if people speak the artificial High German.
>When Danes are travelling in areas where people are not familiar with
>Danes they are often confused with Germans. I have had this problem
>several times when I am travelling.
Being familiar with... seems to be the point. Those people just find a
difference in pronounciation and regard the speaker as German. If they
knew Germans they would probably not understand a word where they still
can understand Danes.
Michael Huebner
On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:41:11 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Fri, 01 May 1998 13:17:04 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>>What has the one to do with the other? We have such a law in Germany but
>>we will not invade and hunt you in Denmark. That is what you had said.
>
> You do not want to invade, that is for sure, but you still want your
>police to operate within Denmark and for which reason?
Now what? First you say we want to invade (this thread, your message on
Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:09 GMT), then you accept that we do not. Now you
shift the point and talk about German police operating in Denmark.
I have never heard of anything like that except for secret services. If
you mean the BND is operating in Denmark you will most likely be right.
That's what almost all countries do to each other, like or not (I hate
it but it's true).
>suggesting that the Danish police is not doing it's work good enough,
>and that your police may do thing better. What kind of impudent
>attitude is that?
I did never suggest anything like that. All I told you is that probably
police officers of several countries met to discuss their tactics and
experiences. That does _not_ say that Danish police is doing their job
wrong or bad. They may have listened to the representants of other
countries and have told about their own opinion, too. That's all.
> I can really understand why the Union of Danish
>Policemen has protested against German police on Danish soil.
I would support such protest. But I have not heard of an action of
German _police_ in Denmark. If it is or was, you will find me on your
side to protest. German police has to operate nowhere else than in
Germany. There was probably nothing in our news. Can you give me any
source of information (preferrably on the internet)?
>>Even here in Germany you can beliefe in what you want. What is
>>prohibited by this law is that you claim something in public that you
>>cannot prove but contradicts the obvious facts. If you can prove (again:
>>your simple beliefe is no proof) that there was no Holocaust you will
>>not be sentenced.
>
> The courts of the Bonn-regime do not accept any evidence that
>challenge the established historiography of the holocaust. The German
>chemist Germar Rudolf wrote a book that debunked the holocaust story,
>and the book was immediately banned by the Bonn-regime.
You have probably read a copy of this book, I haven't. Did he bring up
any PROVE against or just DENY the holocaust?
>> People are free to question it at any time. What you
>>do is simply denying it.
>
>You haven't seen all the litterature written by various scientists.
>Have you ever read "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by the American
>professor Arthur Butz. No you haven't, because you are an
>authoritarian German that believes the Bonn-regime when it denounces
>all the evidence in favour of the holocaust not happening in the way
>described in established historiography.
Ole, if you are interested in an honest discussion, please open your
brain for a moment and let these words get in:
I am not favouring the government in Bonn. All I tell you is my very
personal opinion and has nothing to do with anything given by this
government. I am German but it takes other people to judge me as
authoritarian.
Got it now?
>>It's the opposite. If Germany prefers to trade with other countries
>>because it is then easier than trading with Denmark, you will lose your
>>biggest trading partner and this will hardly be good for your living
>>standard unless you find another partner. Is it that what you mean by
>>"German pressure on Denmark"?
>
> I will not sell the priviledge og living in a free and independent
>country for a higher standard of living. In fact materialism and
>consumerism are not really my cup of tea. Remember that the standard
>of living is slightly higher in Denmark than in Germany. The same is
>the case in Norway and Switzerland which are not members of the EU.
Did you read what I had written? So far the EU is not yet functioning
the way it is supposed to some day. I was talking about the future and
what might happen if Germany is in the EU and Denmark is not.
You really don't need to tell me about the living standard in
Scandinavian countries. I was ready to move to Norway and had applied
for a job there. I'd prefer the lifestyle there any time. It's just that
I have finally started my own business here in Germany a few weeks ago.
BTW, that's why I am answering less often and via Dejanews during
weekdays.
> Modern Germany is behaving like the Hanseatic League in the Middle
>Age. The Hansa wanted more than just trade. It wanted political
>influence too. Because of that there were almost permanent warfare
>between the Hansa and Denmark. The attitude of modern Germany does not
>seem far from that of the medieval Hanseatic League. Why do the
>Germans always have to have such agressive, obnoxiuos and dominated
>attitude toward it's neighbouring countries? I think that you will
>find the roots to most of the wars in which the Germans have been
>involved in through history in this circumstance.
Tell me about any war that the modern Germany is into. As one result of
WW2 we rather step back in such case. Germany was accused by the
international public to have hesitated too long to take any action in
former Yugoslavia. It took US American action to force a peace process
in that region.
Ole, let's discuss like normal educated people. Be so kind and provide
at least an example for your accusations.
>>They are at least always more than the right wing guys and don't need to
>>come together from all over Germany. They are of all ages, students as
>>well as pensioners. The "confused" ones are those who have to be carried
>>out of the building by ambulance because they are hopelessly drunk.
>
> But most of them are leftwingers or even extreme leftwingers - people
>that if they came to power would never grant more political freedom
>and freedom of speech than in the old communist eastern Europe.
Wrong again. You are talking about a different group, those who like to
fight with their fists because they don't know how to use words.
People demonstrating against the brown danger are of almost all
political orientations. On elections they vote for SPD, CDU and CSU as
well as for the B90/Greens or PDS. They are war veterans and students,
housewifes and managers. Don't call CDU/CSU left wing parties :-)
>In the Danish penal code it is clearly indicated that it is not in
>itself punishable do deny a crime.. If e.g. 10 witnesses have seen an
>accused murdering somebody, and the accused and his lawyer deny this
>crime because the lack of a corpse, the identity of the alleged
>victim, a forensic examination of the cause of death etc., they have
>not committed anything punishable. They do not of course have to say
>explicit that the witnesses are lying but they can claim that the
>evidence is not heavy enough, and that the observation of the
>witnesses may not be accurate enough etc. Even if there were both
>testimony from the witnesses and all the necessary technical evidence,
>the accused still has the right to deny the crime without receiving
>any extra penalty.
This will be the same in any country with this understanding about law
and justice. In the case of our discussion it would apply as well if
there were not enough evidence to prove the opposite. Even in Denmark it
is not enough to deny a crime that can be proven, to be set free. If the
jury accepts the evidence of the facts the accused will be sentenced.
His lawyer may then _prove_ the opposite to protect his client. If he
just keeps saying that he is innocent he will be sentenced, anyway.
>>What about 1944? Why are they missing? What about other camps? Gas
>>chambers in Ravensbrueck have been built in fall of 1944, replacing a
>>special truck that was before stationed outside the camp. Until May 1945
>>there was enough time to gas prisoners.
>
> Some years ago some Norwegian ex-inmates of Ravenbruecks said in the
>Danish television that they did not see any gaschamber there. They had
>only heard rumours about a mobile one.
They are most likely true. Were they asked when they were released from
that camp? Remember, the gas chambers were not all the time in the
concentration camps. They were built in 1944/45. Because of this comment
from someone I have read again a book my parents have about the
Ravensbrueck camp. It was stated that a mobile unit was stationed in
fall of 1944 outside the camp while the gas chambers inside were built.
I could not find a record of when they were used the first time but
records for the use of these chambers to kill prisoners in early 1945.
>>The technical evidence was discussed in another thread and I'm not the
>>expert to judge it. What murder weapon do you expect when you are
>>talking about gassing?
>
>The actual and genuine gaschamber constructed in a way to handle this
>task without causing dangers to the surroundings.
Who would care for a danger for the surrounding? All prisoners who were
eventually to be gassed, anyway. The SS could be protected with gas
masks. What stays left is a gas chamber without your high expectation.
And you will find some of them in the preserved camps.
>>The identity of murdered people was mostly given
>>by the Sterbebuecher, written by the SS. Thousands of skeletons in mass
>>graves should be remnants enough. I'm not going to discuss the number of
>>6 million. That has no special value for the fact itself.
>
> You certainly do not find 6 million registered dead Jews in those
>Sterbebuecher. As I have told you before, in the Auschwitz
>Sterbebuecher which are kept at the Red Cross in Arolsen you will find
>only 80002 Jews and Non-Jews.
I told you I'm not going to discuss the numbers. As the death records
were not always kept up to date, these numbers will probably be guesses,
adjusted to either side's convenience.
A single gassed person is already one too many and evidence for the
existence and use of the gas chambers.
>>That is the point. The real cause for contradictions is your
>>intolerance.
>
> Tolerance and intolerance are just empty catchwords of the
>antiracist propaganda. To me the problem has nothing to do with
>tolerance or intolerance but rather with selfpreservation. I want
>Denmark to be preserved as a White and Nordic country. All these third
>worlders are diluting this identity and therefore they must go. I do
>not believe in multiracialism. Mulitiracialism sucks.
Ole, that's hollow slogans again. I understand meanwhile that tolerance
is an empty catchword and means nothing to you. It's probably owed to
your education that you know how to spell it.
But yes, it's a keyword for anti racist propaganda. In a world without
different "races" of people you'd have to find another scapegoat for
your problem and would again hear that it is your missing tolerance that
creates problems.
You are against:
Jews
Muslims
Turks
Blacks
Asians
Frenchmen
Germans - if they are not right wingers.
You fear a Germany accusedly invading Denmark but cheer the right
wingers here. In this very moment you forget that it was the right wing
Germans who invaded Denmark some decades ago. You expect the Germans
always to do what you call good. But you accuse Germany to tell Denmark
what to do in many cases.
>Opinion polls show that 72 per cent of the Danes are against the
>multietnic society.
In this case I'd accept it even though I can hardly beliefe it. Can you
give any source to verify this number?
>>>I still think that ethnic problems are caused by ethnicity and nothing
>>>else.
>>
>>But you still fail to prove it.
>
>And you have failed to prove the opposite.
If you can't accept the examples of homogene countries that do have the
same problems you accuse multi- ethnicity for, I just feel sorry for
you. No proof will ever work if a mind is not open to realise simple
logic.
>>> I do not owe Pakistanis and other undesired third world immigrants
>>>any particular tolerance. Who say that they can come here and demand
>>>to be tolerated?
>>
>>Who (except you) says they cannot?
>
>Give me just one good reason to accept these people who have only come
>in order to attain a higher standard of living.
If they work for the society they want to have this higher standard
from, they become part of it. They help provide this standard and not
accepting them would mean to lose that level. What jobs do they do? Who
would do these jobs if they were away?
Also, what is bad if they want a higher standard of living? It should be
given by the work someone is doing. I moved from East to West Germany
because I had found a job there - to raise my standard of living. I'd
move to other places and other countries if I had a demand for an even
higher standard of living. I would always work for the society there and
try to adjust. If I had moved to Norway I had worked for the people
there to get payed by them. Would it be bad?
>>Again you mix up ethnicity with religion and prove hereby yourself that
>>it is no ethnic problem at all. It is no religious problem, either. It's
>>intolerance.
>
>And has the oppression of the Curds in Turkey and Iraq nothing to do
>with ethnicity?
No. The ethnicity is, once again, the scapegoats for something
different. If it wasn't the Curds they would suppress any other people,
to keep this border to Georgia and Russia in their own hands. The region
is of too high strategic importance. The Curds, on the other side,
prefer to live in an own independent state without the restrictions
given by the Turks.
>Because the Germans once committed some alleged crimes in the name
>ethnicity, ethnicity according to you now does not matter any longer.
>Can't you come up with somethimg better?
I like your words "in the name of ethnicity". Ethnicity does matter, but
in a very different way. Also in WW2 ethnicity was nothing but
scapegoats for other reasons. In real the war was about gaining space
for Germans (Volk ohne Raum - people without space) and natural
ressources like the oil in southern Russia. By that way the communist
system was to be destroyed. Did you ever ask yourself why the western
allied forces have joined in so late? Destroying Russia and the
communism was rigth in their minds. Only, Hitler Germany was longing for
more and became a danger also for them.
Do you wonder why especially German people try to learn from this
history to avoid making the same mistake one more time?
>>> Hm In that case I wonder what the war in 1848- 51 was all about.
>>
>>Was it some of the oldest reasons? Gaining (preferrably fertile) land
>>and uniting with a stronger partner?
>
>You have understood nothing. The Germans in Slesvig-Holsten wanted to
>be united with their fellow Germans because they were Germans like
>themselves and therefore sharing the same language, culture and
>menthality. They were not thinking in economical terms. Furhermore
>there have never been big differneces in living standard betwen
>economical development between Germany and Denmark.
You should ask the question a different way. Why was a region settled by
German people part of Denmark? Did they come there into Denmark or did
Denmark demand their land to be Danish? If they wanted to be part of
Germany, why did Denmark not let them go? Why did it take a war instead
of a simple referendum?
I guess they would have chosen to be Danish if Denmark had provided a
better living.
Christian Krause
Michael Huebner schrieb in Nachricht <354b6241...@news.citylink.de>...
>-Schnipp-<
>> I can really understand why the Union of Danish
>>Policemen has protested against German police on Danish soil.
>
>I would support such protest. But I have not heard of an action of
>German _police_ in Denmark. If it is or was, you will find me on your
>side to protest. German police has to operate nowhere else than in
>Germany. There was probably nothing in our news. Can you give me any
>source of information (preferrably on the internet)?
I don't know if there are agreements between Germany and Denmark. But
there's an agreement between Germany and the Netherlands. Dutch Policemen
have the right to operate in Germany when a criminal flees to Germany during
a chase. But there are of course some restrictions. It's only a small area
at the border where they may operate (30 km I think). They have to inform
the German police, and so on. Certainly, the German police has the same
rights.
It works. Under the condition that no one behaves like Rambo but works
together with his colleages.
OK, that was my contribution to this discussion.
>-Schnipp-<
Gruß, Christian
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 02 May 1998 22:54:07 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>> Danes and Norwegians are very closely related. Norwegian is almost
>>just a Danish dialect. You often hear the opinion that Norwegian is
>>Danish spoken with a Swedish pronunciation.
>
>That's why I was referring to a common Scandinavian language some days
>ago, telling about the larger differences in German dialects.
Well, although I have only learnt High-German in school I have no
difficulties in understand all German dialects. Even Swiss German
which I find the most different from High-German, I can understand
although I have to be more concentrated and alert when it is spoken.
In my opinion the German dialects are no more different than the
Danish. I have sometimes difficulties if somebody speaks with a
Jutlandic dialect. The German dialects are no more different than the
various kind of English spoken in e.g. Scotland, Australia or the USA.
> I wish my
>Norwegian were half as good as your German. Even with my little
>knowledge I could distinguish differences in the pronounciation in
>places some 20 km apart. But there was a common base to communicate to
>people in Denmark and Sweden as well. This is here in Germany only
>possible if people speak the artificial High German.
In Denmark we have a similiar standard Danish (called rigsdansk),
which is the way the educated middle class in Copenhagen speaks. When
a Jutlander speaks to me he will speak in standard Danish while he
will speak Jutlandic to his fellow Jutlanders.
When I speak to Norwegians I can speak in Danish but when it come
Swedish one has to speak "Scandinavian". This means that I speak
Danish slowly and insert as many Swedish words and phrases I know of.
The Swede will do the same in his language.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 02 May 1998 22:53:44 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>Now what? First you say we want to invade (this thread, your message on
>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:09 GMT), then you accept that we do not.
Germany lost WW1 and WW2, and I think that it would never dare to
invade another country on their own. The only danger I see is that
they could do so on behalf of e.g. the EU. But this possibility is
only highly hypothetical right now.
> Now you
>shift the point and talk about German police operating in Denmark.
>I have never heard of anything like that except for secret services. If
>you mean the BND is operating in Denmark you will most likely be right.
>That's what almost all countries do to each other, like or not (I hate
>it but it's true).
Little do you know. As a part of the police cooperation in the EU the
German police has demanded access to operate within Denmark. This has
been turned down by the Danish Justice Departement. According to to
regulations of the Justice Departement a German police car can only
chase a suspect 15 kilometer into Denmark, and it is not allow to use
hooter signals and lights and has to drive behind an escorting Danish
policecar which may apply hooter signals and lights. The German
policemen are not allowed to leave their car and making an arrest. The
suspect will not be turned over to the Germans before being
interogated by the Danish police.
>>suggesting that the Danish police is not doing it's work good enough,
>>and that your police may do thing better. What kind of impudent
>>attitude is that?
>
>I did never suggest anything like that.
You never did so. Highranking German police-officers did so.
>
>> I can really understand why the Union of Danish
>>Policemen has protested against German police on Danish soil.
>
>I would support such protest. But I have not heard of an action of
>German _police_ in Denmark. If it is or was, you will find me on your
>side to protest. German police has to operate nowhere else than in
>Germany. There was probably nothing in our news. Can you give me any
>source of information (preferrably on the internet)?
There have been a lot of writing in Danish newspapars about this
matter and the Danish minister of jusitice have given interviews. The
minister of Justice did not want to allow them more than 15 kilometers
from the border. The Union of Danish Policemen protested together with
some the local policemasters against German police on Danish soil at
all while the German authorities have provoked and spat on Danish
sovereignty and national dignity by allowing Danish police to
opererate in a unlimited distance south of the Danish-German border.
The only cooperation of this sort that I have heard of is that 3
unarmed German policemen were allowed to hand out leaflets informing
about German speed limits to Danish motorists at the ferry leaving to
Germany. Six Danish policemen carrying submachine guns were there to
look after them, and by their presence preventing the Danish public
from becoming worried.
>
>You have probably read a copy of this book, I haven't. Did he bring up
>any PROVE against or just DENY the holocaust?
Of course he did. That is why the Bonn-regime fears his book so much.
>>You haven't seen all the litterature written by various scientists.
>>Have you ever read "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by the American
>>professor Arthur Butz. No you haven't, because you are an
>>authoritarian German that believes the Bonn-regime when it denounces
>>all the evidence in favour of the holocaust not happening in the way
>>described in established historiography.
>
>Ole, if you are interested in an honest discussion,
How dare you suggest that professor Butz is dishonest?
Do you know him? Have you ever read his book? Do you know at all what
you are talking about?
>> I will not sell the priviledge og living in a free and independent
>>country for a higher standard of living. In fact materialism and
>>consumerism are not really my cup of tea. Remember that the standard
>>of living is slightly higher in Denmark than in Germany. The same is
>>the case in Norway and Switzerland which are not members of the EU.
>
>Did you read what I had written? So far the EU is not yet functioning
>the way it is supposed to some day.
I hope that this day will never dawn.
>Tell me about any war that the modern Germany is into. As one result of
>WW2 we rather step back in such case.
Germany is trying to gain with peaceful means what it failed to do by
military means. Hitler called it Neuropa and Grosswirtsschaftsraum
while Kohl prefere to call it EU.
>Germany was accused by the
>international public to have hesitated too long to take any action in
>former Yugoslavia.
To me the NATO invasion of Bosnia is pure EU imperialism. The
downfall of communism in Eastern Europe left a vaccum of power that
Western Europe is now trying to fill in.
> It took US American action to force a peace process
>in that region.
My dream is to see the NATO in Yugoslavia end up the same way as the
USA did in Vietnam or Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
>This will be the same in any country with this understanding about law
>and justice. In the case of our discussion it would apply as well if
>there were not enough evidence to prove the opposite. Even in Denmark it
>is not enough to deny a crime that can be proven, to be set free. If the
>jury accepts the evidence of the facts the accused will be sentenced.
>His lawyer may then _prove_ the opposite to protect his client. If he
>just keeps saying that he is innocent he will be sentenced, anyway.
Sure but he will not receive any penalty for denying the crime. If
his lawyer, after the sentence, says that he still does not think that
his client is guilty, and that he still thinks that the evidence was
to weak the lawyer will not receive any penalty for that either.
>> Some years ago some Norwegian ex-inmates of Ravenbruecks said in the
>>Danish television that they did not see any gaschamber there. They had
>>only heard rumours about a mobile one.
>
>They are most likely true. Were they asked when they were released from
>that camp?
They were asked by some people from the Norweigian television 50
years later.
>Remember, the gas chambers were not all the time in the
>concentration camps.
According to the established historiography there were only
gaschambers for the executions of human beings in Poland. Even Simon
Wiesenthal has admitted ( to the magazine Books & Bookmen from april
1975) that there were no gaschambers for executing of human beings on
German soil. In 1962, in a letter to weekly journal Die Zeit, Dr.
Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
admitted that none of the camps in Germany - including Bergen Belsen,
Buchenwald, Dachau, Ravensbrueck and Sachsenhausen - were
extermination camps and that no-one was ever gassed in any of them.
>What stays left is a gas chamber without your high expectation.
>And you will find some of them in the preserved camps.
Show me just one genuine one.
>> You certainly do not find 6 million registered dead Jews in those
>>Sterbebuecher. As I have told you before, in the Auschwitz
>>Sterbebuecher which are kept at the Red Cross in Arolsen you will find
>>only 80002 Jews and Non-Jews.
>
>I told you I'm not going to discuss the numbers. As the death records
>were not always kept up to date, these numbers will probably be guesses,
>adjusted to either side's convenience.
Bullshit. I have seen photostatic copies of those books. Every death
is carefully noted. The name and age of the dead as well as the cause
and date of the death. The date of arrival is also noted, and they are
all signed by doctors. You will not find a single entry indicating
poisoning by cyanidgas as the cause of death. The Danish scientist Dr.
Christian Lindtner has gone through these books in Arolsen and can
confirm this.
>Ole, that's hollow slogans again. I understand meanwhile that tolerance
>is an empty catchword and means nothing to you. It's probably owed to
>your education that you know how to spell it.
Hey I was brought up to believe in all that crap, and I did so. Later
I started to think independently and became critical.
>But yes, it's a keyword for anti racist propaganda. In a world without
>different "races" of people
Because Hitler was bad and believed the races were different we can
now conclude that races do not exist. This argument does not sound
very convincing to me.
>you'd have to find another scapegoat for
>your problem and would again hear that it is your missing tolerance that
>creates problems.
The same silly kind of argument, because Hitler once made the Jews
the scapegoats for some problems, any criticism of multiracialism has
now something to do with scapegoating.
>You are against:
>Jews
>Muslims
>Turks
>Blacks
>Asians
>Frenchmen
Frenchmen??
>Germans - if they are not right wingers.
Yeah. If the Germans became a little more nationalistic they would act
more selfsufficiently and be less importunate to the neighbouring
countries. A Germany ruled by the DVU would never accept open borders
to the neighbouring countries, EU borderregions, foreign police on
German soil etc.
>You fear a Germany accusedly invading Denmark but cheer the right
>wingers here. In this very moment you forget that it was the right wing
>Germans who invaded Denmark some decades ago.
They only invaded Denmark out of military strategical reasons. Other
parts the then Denmark like the Faroe Islands and Iceland were
occupied by the Allies of the exact same reasons.
>>Opinion polls show that 72 per cent of the Danes are against the
>>multietnic society.
>
>In this case I'd accept it even though I can hardly beliefe it. Can you
>give any source to verify this number?
The newspaper BT. Opinion polls made by the EU have similiar
results.
>If they work for the society they want to have this higher standard
>from, they become part of it. They help provide this standard and not
>accepting them would mean to lose that level. What jobs do they do? Who
>would do these jobs if they were away?
There are still more than 200,000 unemployed Danes. This is many
times the number of Pakistanis.
>Also, what is bad if they want a higher standard of living?
Nothing. They should work hard for creating a higher standard of
living in their own country.
>>
>>And has the oppression of the Curds in Turkey and Iraq nothing to do
>>with ethnicity?
>
>No. The ethnicity is, once again, the scapegoats for something
>different.
Nice political doctrin you have got there. Who have you originally
learned that from? The GDR-regime or the Bonn-regime. Denying the
meaning of ethnicity, because is politically inconvenient, is
outright stupid.
> By that way the communist
>system was to be destroyed. Did you ever ask yourself why the western
>allied forces have joined in so late?
Late? The Western Allied joined in 1939 while the Soviet Union did so
in 1941. Remember Hitler and Stalin conquered and divided Poland in
1939. France and England then declared war on Germany but not the
Soviet Union, allthough Stalin did exactly the same to Poland as
Hitler. After the war the Western Allies even accepted that Stalin
kept "his" part of Poland and his ethnic cleansing of all Poles from
this area during the end of war.
>
>You should ask the question a different way. Why was a region settled by
>German people part of Denmark?
Holsten was conquered by the Denmark back in 1202 and from unfortunate
circumstances this German country was joined together with the Danish
province of Slesvig. Similiar things must never happen again through
the EU. The EU border region Slesvig must be scrapped. We must learn
from history and never create tension of the sort that lead to the
wars in 1848-51 and 1864.
> Did they come there into Denmark or did
>Denmark demand their land to be Danish?
Never. Denmark only wanted Slesvig to become a fully integrated part
in Denmark, while Holsten was welcome to leave any time.
> If they wanted to be part of
>Germany, why did Denmark not let them go?
Because they wanted to take Slesvig with it's large Danish population
with them to Germany. It was for Slesvig those two wars were fought.
>Why did it take a war instead
>of a simple referendum?
Because Denmark simply claimed that all of Slesvig belonged
historically to Denmark although it was heavily populated with Germans
in the southern part. In ancient time the Eider river marked the
natural border to the Saxons and later the German Roman Empire.
>I guess they would have chosen to be Danish if Denmark had provided a
>better living.
Absolute bullshit. When democracy came to Denmark it was no longer
possible to suppress German nationalism, and it was assumed that
democracy would not work in a multinational state. The Holsteners
simply had to leave but without Slesvig. This was the Danish point of
view. The German view was that Slesvig could not be separated from
Holsten due to some old treaty from 1474.
The Shoe
I sincerely hope you are right.
Martin Paegert
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
> Hier in Daenemark gab es keine Nazifizierung wegen der deutschen
> Besetzung.
Es gab sie schon, sie war nur nicht erfolgreich.
> Hitler hatte sich nicht fuer Danemark interessiert. Daenemark und viele
> andere Laendern wurden nur aus militaerstrategische Ursachen besetz.
Das wird gern behauptet, ist so aber nicht ganz richtig. Das zu
errrichtende Grossdeutsche Reich sollte Daenemark wie die meisten anderen
Staaten West- und Nordeuropas als Satellitenstaaten umfassen. Die Daenemark
und anderen Staaten zugedachte Rolle unterscheidet sich in nichts von der
Rolle, die den meisten osteuopaeischen Staaten nach dem Krieg dann von
Stalin zuerkannt wurde. Daemark war nicht das primaere, sehr wohl aber
sekundaeres Angriffsziel des Nationalsozialismus. (Nachzulesen zum Teil in
"Mein Kampf", deutlicher dann bei Alfred Rosenberg.)
> Hitler sagte so in seiner letzen Rede: ...
... das zitierte und noch jede Menge anderen Bloedsinn. Unter anderem, dass
ihn das deutsche Volk verraten und im Stich gelassen habe, etc., etc. Dann
kommt das wunderschoene, bei allen Neo-Nazis anzutreffende Muster eines
vermeindlichen "Gegenangriffs":
> Verleugnst du das, Martin? Und warum?
Was passeirt da ? Rhetorisch soll so der Spiess umgedreht werden. Wirft
man Holocaust-Leugnern eben diese Leugnung vor, drehen sie vermeindlich den
Spiess um, indem sie ein paar Hitler-Zitate in die Gegend streuen und die
Leugnung zum Gegenvorwurf machen. Sehr schoen kommt auch diese von
scheinbar vorwurfsvoller Betroffenheit triefende, persoenlich Ansprache.
Abgesehen davon, dass es eine relativ plumpe Art ist, der Sache ausweichend
den Spiess rein rhetorisch umzudrehen und auch noch Propaganda zu
verbreiten (Hitlersche in dem Fall), hat die Sache einen perfiden
Nebenaspekt. Stellt man auf rhetorischer Ebene doch die Aussagekraft der
zitierten Stellen als etwas hin, das ebenso wie der Holocaust als belegte
Wahrheit zu akzeptieren ist, oder - andere Richtung - zieht Millionen von
Belegen fuer den Holocaust auf das Niveau von Propagandareden eines
notorischen Luegners wie Hitler hinab.
Wenn man es mit Zitaten von Hitler zu tun hat, muss man sich eigentlich
immer fragen, ob sich das Gesagte in Einklag mit andernorts Gesagtem,
Angeordnetem und Taten bringen laesst. Wenn man entsprechend selektiv
zitiert, laesst sich "belegen", dass Hitler der reinste Friedensapostel
gewesen ist und niemals vorgehabt hat, irgendwem auch nur ein Haaerchen zu
kruemmen. Es gehoert allerdings ein gehoeriges Mass an Unwissen, Dummheit
und Ignoranz dazu, dies fuer die lautere Wahrheit zu halten. Obwohl, auch
das findet man in scg.
Im vorliegenden Fall - letzte Rede Hitlers - handelt sich es um die Rede
eines bereits schwer psychisch gestoerten, kaum noch klar denkenden
Menschen. Eines selbsterkorenen militaerischen Genies, das noch wenige
Stunden vor der Rede von Endsieg und Wunderwaffen faselte und das auf der
strategischen Karte Gegenoffensiven mit Verbaenden plante und befahl, die
garnicht existierten. Hinzu kommt die Verzweiflung, als er denn die
Ausweglosigkeit endlich erkennt - die andere schon 3 bis 4 Jahre frueher
sahen. Eine Verzweiflung, die ihn dazu treibt, sich von allen verlassen zu
waehnen, ueberall Verrrat zu sehen, waehrend man selbst doch nur die
lautersten Ziele mit saubersten Mitteln verfolgt habe. "Realitaetsverlust"
nennt sich das. Kein neuer Zug bei Hitler, spaetestens ab Anfang 42 setzte
er zunehmend ein. Und ausgerechnet die letzte Rede eines - vulgo -
verrueckt gewordenen Diktators wird als Beleg fuer die Realitaet
herangezogen. Ich denke, es laesst sich ohne weiteres erkennen, dass sie
dazu denkbar ungeeignet sind.
Das der Verfahrensweise Hitler-Zitate in die Gegend zu streuen zugrunde
liegende Prinzip reicht jedoch weiter. Ole und andere behandeln sie so, als
habe der Mann nie oeffentlich gelogen, als sei Propaganda fuer Hitler ein
Fremdwort gewesen. "Es war so, weil Hitler sagte, dass es so ist." ist ein
insbesondere bei Ole beliebtes Muster. Beispiele: siehe Verwendung des
Zitates aus der letzten Rede Hitlers oder Oles ebenfalls mit einem
Hitler-Zitat belegten "der Nationalsozialismus war nur fuer Deutschland
bestimmt".
Anders gesagt: Auf die Tour liesse sich dann auch "beweisen", dass nicht
Hitler, sondern Polen den Krieg angefangen hat, schliesslich hat Hitler ja
genau das gesagt, also muss dem auch so sein.
> Ich habe keine nazistischen Postings gesannt.
66 Q&A, Abzuege von der Zuendelsite, Rimland-Postings, Leuchter's
Expertisen, und neulich eine ziemlich fadenscheinige "Berechnung", dass es
keinen Holocaust gegeben haben kann, weil fast alle polnischen Juden nach
Sibirien gebracht worden waeren. Von deinen eigenen, durchaus
neo-nazistisch zu nennenden, rassistischen eigenen Vorstellungen mal ganz
abgesehen.
Anmerkung fuer neue Leser: Dass er kein Neo-Nazi sein koenne "beweist" Ole
gemeinhin damit, dass nur Deutsche Nazis und somit auch Neo-Nazis sein
koennen, weil - und da schliesst sich der Kreis - schliesslich Hitler
hoechstselbst gesagt habe, der Nationalsozialismus sei nur was fuer
Deutschland und nicht fuer den "Export" bestimmt. Hinweise darauf, dass
Hitler via NSdAP kraeftig exportiert hat und artverwandte Stroemungen in
noch nicht besetzten Laendern wie in besetzten Laendern nach Kraeften
foerderte, werden geflissentlich ignoriert oder mit einem "in Daenemark
nicht" quittiert (falsch, weil versucht hat man es schon, nur eben nicht
erfolgreich und viel weniger energisch als andernorts).
> Aber viele Leute in anderen Laender finden die Gesetzgebung Deutschlands
> laecherlich und ganz undemokratisch und geniessen dehalb die bloeden
> deutschen zu necken.
Was einen netten inneren Widerspruch enthaelt. Einerseits ist Ole Vertreter
der Meinung, die Mehrheit koenne anstellen, was sie wolle, wenn sie nur
demokratisch gewaehlt sei (verwechselt also Demokratie mit einer Art
"Diktatur der Mehrheit"), andererseits greift er massiv mit demokratischer
Mehrheit beschlossene Paragraphen des deutschen Strafgesetzbuches an und
erklaert, weil es diese Gesetze gebe, sei Deutschland als eher
Pseudo-Demokratie oder als undemokratisch zu betrachten.
Deutsche haelt Ole erklaertermassen sowieso fuer verbloedet und verblendet.
Von den wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen und die sind ausnahmslos Neo-Nazisten.
> Ich kenne ein daenischer Antiracisst, der viele verbotene (indeksierte)
> Artiklen in deutschen Neuheitsgruppen anonym gepostet hat. Seine
> Verachtung fuer die bloede, autoritaere deutsche Gesetzgebung ist eben
> groesser als fuer die Rassismus.
Was ich dir schlichtweg nicht glaube. Es muesste sich dann um einen
Anti-Rassisten handeln, der seine anti-rassistische Haltung durch das
posten von rassistischen News unter Beweis zu stellen meint. Und das auch
noch anonym. Ich denke eher, es gibt diese Person garnicht, oder sie kennt
die deutsche Gesetzgebung nicht.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
George F. Hardy
Invade, no. Not possible today. But I could see a
union with Austria. Probably not, as the EU will
make "nation states" obsolete in Europe, as they
are in the northern part of North America.
GFH
The Shoe
I sincerely hope you are right. I wish I could be as certain.
> Invade, no. Not possible today.
> >
Michael Huebner
On Sun, 3 May 1998 14:38:34 +0200, "Christian Krause" <kra...@cww.de>
wrote:
>I don't know if there are agreements between Germany and Denmark. But
>there's an agreement between Germany and the Netherlands. Dutch Policemen
>have the right to operate in Germany when a criminal flees to Germany during
>a chase.
I consider this a good thing, especially with open borders. This is an
agreement of both sides and not the kind of intrusion Ole was talking
about.
Michael Huebner
On 3 May 1998 19:54:53 GMT, "The Shoe" <nos...@correct.com> wrote:
>I sincerely hope you are right.
>>
>> Germany lost WW1 and WW2, and I think that it would never dare to
>> invade another country on their own.
I hope so, too. I also hope the same applies to all other countries as
well. After so many centuries of wars we should have learned what it
brings.
Michael Huebner
On Sun, 03 May 1998 14:16:01 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 22:54:07 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
> Well, although I have only learnt High-German in school I have no
>difficulties in understand all German dialects.
That's a great talent! I can hardly understand the real Platt of the
norther coast - I was once lost in a bar in Rostock. I had to help
colleagues from Cologne area who could not understand Swiss colleagues.
Only few people understand the dialects in Oberlausitz and some valleys
in Thuringia (e.g. the Sonneberg area), some from the north have serious
problems with Bavarian.
> The German dialects are no more different than the
>various kind of English spoken in e.g. Scotland, Australia or the USA.
That comes closer to my impression. I think I told you before that I had
to translate the pronounciation of a guy from Scotland for a Canadian.
It seems to depend basically if you are used to different dialects.
Michael Huebner
On Sun, 03 May 1998 14:16:05 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Sat, 02 May 1998 22:53:44 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>>Now what? First you say we want to invade (this thread, your message on
>>Wed, 22 Apr 1998 21:41:09 GMT), then you accept that we do not.
>
>Germany lost WW1 and WW2, and I think that it would never dare to
>invade another country on their own. The only danger I see is that
>they could do so on behalf of e.g. the EU. But this possibility is
>only highly hypothetical right now.
You mean, EU would use Germany as a fighter against Denmark? Only highly
hypothetical, indeed. Okay, let's drop that point. I take it as
something you wrote in an emotional moment and didn't mean so.
>Little do you know. As a part of the police cooperation in the EU the
>German police has demanded access to operate within Denmark. This has
>been turned down by the Danish Justice Departement.
So what is all the fun about? Germany had asked a question, Denmark said
no. Germany has to agree. We have similar agreements with other
countries (you have probably read the example of the Netherlands). What
is bad about asking another neighbour for the same? It was a proposal
for co-operation, not a demand.
>>>suggesting that the Danish police is not doing it's work good enough,
>>>and that your police may do thing better. What kind of impudent
>>>attitude is that?
>>
>>I did never suggest anything like that.
>
>You never did so. Highranking German police-officers did so.
You had asked me if were suggesting that the Danish police is not doing
it's work good enough.
Give me some facts, please. Some quoted text or a source where I can see
it myself. I'd like to make sure that they were really telling such
sonsense. Usually, in a discussion each partner tells his basic opinion
and then they discuss which one is best, hopefully to find an agreement.
> There have been a lot of writing in Danish newspapars about this
>matter and the Danish minister of jusitice have given interviews. The
>minister of Justice did not want to allow them more than 15 kilometers
>from the border.
That's okay. Did German police operate in Denmark without permission or
did they respect the Danish decision?
>>You have probably read a copy of this book, I haven't. Did he bring up
>>any PROVE against or just DENY the holocaust?
>
>Of course he did. That is why the Bonn-regime fears his book so much.
Oh, really? Why did he not publish it in other countries and hereby
convince the rest of the world that the German government is wrong? Or
did they also not beliefe in what he regards a prove?
>>>You haven't seen all the litterature written by various scientists.
>>>Have you ever read "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by the American
>>>professor Arthur Butz. No you haven't, because you are an
>>>authoritarian German that believes the Bonn-regime when it denounces
>>>all the evidence in favour of the holocaust not happening in the way
>>>described in established historiography.
>>
>>Ole, if you are interested in an honest discussion,
>
> How dare you suggest that professor Butz is dishonest?
I was not talking about him at all. I was protesting against your
repeated words that I were favouring the Bonn government. I have not
read this book and so I cannot judge it and the author.
>>Tell me about any war that the modern Germany is into. As one result of
>>WW2 we rather step back in such case.
>
>Germany is trying to gain with peaceful means what it failed to do by
>military means. Hitler called it Neuropa and Grosswirtsschaftsraum
>while Kohl prefere to call it EU.
Sure. It makes a lot of sense to work together with those countries that
we want to occupy this way. What you obviously don't understand (or want
to see) is that such thing like EU doesn't work in just one direction.
>>Germany was accused by the
>>international public to have hesitated too long to take any action in
>>former Yugoslavia.
>
> To me the NATO invasion of Bosnia is pure EU imperialism. The
>downfall of communism in Eastern Europe left a vaccum of power that
>Western Europe is now trying to fill in.
What did you learn about the role of NATO there? Did they fight for any
side or try to protect the civilians? Of course we could have waited
until they had killed everybody there.
>> It took US American action to force a peace process
>>in that region.
>
> My dream is to see the NATO in Yugoslavia end up the same way as the
>USA did in Vietnam or Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
What great comparison! Take NATO out and wait for a few days. Then we'll
see what happens.
> Sure but he will not receive any penalty for denying the crime. If
>his lawyer, after the sentence, says that he still does not think that
>his client is guilty, and that he still thinks that the evidence was
>to weak the lawyer will not receive any penalty for that either.
Correct. But then he will have to prove the opposite. His client is
sentenced, regardless of what his defender thinks. If he was sentenced
because of what some witnesses had said, the defender cannot simply say
they are wrong unless he can prove it.
>>> Some years ago some Norwegian ex-inmates of Ravenbruecks said in the
>>>Danish television that they did not see any gaschamber there. They had
>>>only heard rumours about a mobile one.
>>
>>They are most likely true. Were they asked when they were released from
>>that camp?
>
>They were asked by some people from the Norweigian television 50
>years later.
What did they answer? Were they released or relocated _before_ the gas
chambers were built?
> According to the established historiography there were only
>gaschambers for the executions of human beings in Poland. Even Simon
>Wiesenthal has admitted ( to the magazine Books & Bookmen from april
>1975) that there were no gaschambers for executing of human beings on
>German soil. In 1962, in a letter to weekly journal Die Zeit, Dr.
>Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
>admitted that none of the camps in Germany - including Bergen Belsen,
>Buchenwald, Dachau, Ravensbrueck and Sachsenhausen - were
>extermination camps and that no-one was ever gassed in any of them.
I hope I find the time to ask for a copy in an archive. Assuming that
this is true, what about the other camps? What about all the other death
causes?
>Bullshit. I have seen photostatic copies of those books. Every death
>is carefully noted. The name and age of the dead as well as the cause
>and date of the death.
What did you see? You saw the noted cases. You coul not have seen the
missing ones, of course.
> The date of arrival is also noted, and they are
>all signed by doctors. You will not find a single entry indicating
>poisoning by cyanidgas as the cause of death. The Danish scientist Dr.
>Christian Lindtner has gone through these books in Arolsen and can
>confirm this.
He can probably confirm it for what is written in the books he had
worked with. He can hardly know about other cases, especially the
missing ones of 1944.
>>Ole, that's hollow slogans again. I understand meanwhile that tolerance
>>is an empty catchword and means nothing to you. It's probably owed to
>>your education that you know how to spell it.
>
> Hey I was brought up to believe in all that crap, and I did so. Later
>I started to think independently and became critical.
That's why I like discussing with you. You told me already a lot to
think about. All I'm missing is a logical connection between most of
your thoughts. Too often I found only some "it is so" instead of an
answer. Concerning ethnicity you were telling "diversity sucks" instead
of a logical answer. That's where I get suspicious.
>>But yes, it's a keyword for anti racist propaganda. In a world without
>>different "races" of people
>
> Because Hitler was bad and believed the races were different we can
>now conclude that races do not exist. This argument does not sound
>very convincing to me.
It wouldn't convince me either that way. It's most likely a matter of
definition and as I told you that's not my field. I don't call a red
rose another race than a white one. In my eyes it's a different sort or
species but not a different race.
>>you'd have to find another scapegoat for
>>your problem and would again hear that it is your missing tolerance that
>>creates problems.
>
> The same silly kind of argument, because Hitler once made the Jews
>the scapegoats for some problems, any criticism of multiracialism has
>now something to do with scapegoating.
No. It was your word earlier in this thread. You used it very often. Now
you don't like it any more. If you want, replace the scapegoats by
explanation, it doesn't take much from my words.
>Yeah. If the Germans became a little more nationalistic they would act
>more selfsufficiently and be less importunate to the neighbouring
>countries. A Germany ruled by the DVU would never accept open borders
>to the neighbouring countries, EU borderregions, foreign police on
>German soil etc.
The DVU is what you are fearing. Have you heard about the randals last
weekend in Leipzig? It was the DVU who could be easily made out by their
looks, even though they were forbidden to carry Nazi symbols. No other
party there needed to tell their members such things. Today I have seen
some interviews of the newly elected members of the local parliament.
One has already stepped back from the job because he had not known
before that DVU is so aggressive. Another one wants to force the matter
of the Germans. He wants to think German, act German, be German. He was
asked what it means to think, act and be German. He couldn't answer that
question. The major goal of DVU (and main reason to vote for them) is to
decrease unemployment. One guy was asked how they plan to do this. He
answered that he would not anser this question. What a great future if
such people gain power. I hope we will always be careful and strong
enough to prevent this.
>>You fear a Germany accusedly invading Denmark but cheer the right
>>wingers here. In this very moment you forget that it was the right wing
>>Germans who invaded Denmark some decades ago.
>
> They only invaded Denmark out of military strategical reasons. Other
>parts the then Denmark like the Faroe Islands and Iceland were
>occupied by the Allies of the exact same reasons.
What makes you beliefe that Denmark is strategically less important for
the right wingers? For what reason would you let Germany occupy Denmark?
>>>Opinion polls show that 72 per cent of the Danes are against the
>>>multietnic society.
>>
>>In this case I'd accept it even though I can hardly beliefe it. Can you
>>give any source to verify this number?
>
> The newspaper BT. Opinion polls made by the EU have similiar
>results.
Do you know some source on the internet? It would be the easiest way for
me. Thanks in advance.
> There are still more than 200,000 unemployed Danes. This is many
>times the number of Pakistanis.
So, throwing the Pakistani out would not solve but decrease the problem
a little.
We have currently a discussion going on in Germany. Our government
wanted to limit the number of people coming every year from Poland to
harvest asparagus. It was intended to give those jobs to German
unemployed. The problem is that they don't want or can do this job. The
salary is too low - I bet they also claim the price for asparagus too
high. The working conditions are not suitable, there are no standard
toilets and social rooms. At the end we have the choice to let Poles
come in or import the asparagus while the self produced builds a
fertilizer.
>>Also, what is bad if they want a higher standard of living?
>
> Nothing. They should work hard for creating a higher standard of
>living in their own country.
That's the best solution. What happens if they cannot do this in their
home countries for some reason? People from all over the world had a
dream to make a better living in America. What argument could bring them
back to the countries of their ancestors?
>>>And has the oppression of the Curds in Turkey and Iraq nothing to do
>>>with ethnicity?
>>
>>No. The ethnicity is, once again, the scapegoats for something
>>different.
>
> Nice political doctrin you have got there. Who have you originally
>learned that from? The GDR-regime or the Bonn-regime. Denying the
>meaning of ethnicity, because is politically inconvenient, is
>outright stupid.
What were we discussing all those weeks? Whenever you don't have an
answer you hide behind some personal attacks. My short answer to that
question was exactly what you did not quote.
>>You should ask the question a different way. Why was a region settled by
>>German people part of Denmark?
>
>Holsten was conquered by the Denmark back in 1202 and from unfortunate
>circumstances this German country was joined together with the Danish
>province of Slesvig. Similiar things must never happen again through
>the EU. The EU border region Slesvig must be scrapped. We must learn
>from history and never create tension of the sort that lead to the
>wars in 1848-51 and 1864.
I agree with that. Only, I don't confuse co-operation with invasion. The
EU will not change borders but open them for easier trade. Many
countries are asked but none is forced to join the EU. If a country does
not join it will not be attacked. No country can force the neighbour to
join, no country can force the neighbour not to join if they want and
meet the requirements.
Thank you for the explanation about the wars in Slesvig. It was new and
interesting for me. I hope to see it clearer now.
If I got it right, the reason was that Denmark wanted to keep the
territory but the Germans living there did not accept do become Danish
citizens. What was the original situation? When Slesvig had always been
Danish, the Germans must have gone to Denmark. Or was the area German
for some time and then settled by Germans?
The question for me is if it was the German nationalism that caused
those wars or the Danish demand to have an area back that was lost
earlier.
Juergen Hubert
George F. Hardy wrote:
>
> Invade, no. Not possible today. But I could see a
> union with Austria. Probably not, as the EU will
> make "nation states" obsolete in Europe, as they
> are in the northern part of North America.
>
> GFH
I doubt a reunion between Germany and Austria would happen - few people
in either nation really would want one...
-- Juergen Hubert
Stern22
Michael Huebner <mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis> wrote in article
<354cf9e2...@news.citylink.de>...[snip]
> >>>You haven't seen all the litterature written by various scientists.
> >>>Have you ever read "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by the American
> >>>professor Arthur Butz. No you haven't, because you are an
> >>>authoritarian German that believes the Bonn-regime when it denounces
> >>>all the evidence in favour of the holocaust not happening in the way
> >>>described in established historiography.
> >>
> >>Ole, if you are interested in an honest discussion,
> >
> > How dare you suggest that professor Butz is dishonest?
>
> I was not talking about him at all. I was protesting against your
> repeated words that I were favouring the Bonn government. I have not
> read this book and so I cannot judge it and the author.
>
The "scientist" Arthur Butz is really an Electrical and Computer
Engineering Professor at Northwestern University (Illinois)... of course
there's never a serious historian in Ole's list of revisionist books...
this one came about 1980 I think. Few years back I saw some debate on CNN
about it though the real issue was about Internet censorship since this guy
posts his stuff on the university server. AFAIR the core of the book was to
question Auschwitz... you know, the usual stuff... there were no gas
chambers, most inmates died from typhus, nobody was cremated, nobody ever
saw the ashes, the sky didn't go dark, bla, bla... and of course no scrap
of evidence to refute the facts. I'm sure Ole could have come up with the
exact same book using his careful "research"... matter of presenting a case
based on one's speculations only.
Dan.
Ole Kreiberg
On 4 May 98 22:43:25 GMT, "Stern22" <dst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>How dare you imply Ole is capable of a reliable source? ;-)
>The "scientist" Arthur Butz is really an Electrical and Computer
>Engineering Professor at Northwestern University (Illinois)... of course
>there's never a serious historian in Ole's list of revisionist books...
>this one came about 1980 I think. Few years back I saw some debate on CNN
>about it though the real issue was about Internet censorship since this guy
>posts his stuff on the university server. AFAIR the core of the book was to
>question Auschwitz... you know, the usual stuff... there were no gas
>chambers, most inmates died from typhus, nobody was cremated,
You are lying. Butz was only disputing the historiography of the
capacity of the crematoria.
>nobody ever
>saw the ashes, the sky didn't go dark, bla, bla... and of course no scrap
>of evidence to refute the facts.
Read the book and you will see.
See the website of professor Arthur Butz:
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz
I will very soon answer Micael Huebner's article from the 03.05.98
Wayne Brown
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
> Well, although I have only learnt High-German in school I have no
> difficulties in understand all German dialects. Even Swiss German
> which I find the most different from High-German, I can understand
> although I have to be more concentrated and alert when it is spoken.
> In my opinion the German dialects are no more different than the
> Danish. I have sometimes difficulties if somebody speaks with a
> Jutlandic dialect. The German dialects are no more different than the
> various kind of English spoken in e.g. Scotland, Australia or the USA.
That surely ranks as one of the gross exaggerations to appear in this news
group. No foreigner who has learned German as a foreign language can
understand "all German dialects." Even native Germans with a pronounced
interest in German dialects, specific knowledge of them and a keen ear can
only understand some of them well. In view of the fact that German
dialects are classified in more than 130 main categories, only a genius
could understand them all when native speakers really cut loose and talk
naturally, without modifying their speech for the uninitiated.
Regards,-----WB.
______________________________________________________
Wo wird einst des Wandermueden
Letzte Ruhestaette sein?
Unter Palmen in dem Sueden?
Unter Linden an dem Rhein?
-----Heine
Ole Kreiberg
On Mon, 04 May 1998 02:55:53 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>>Little do you know. As a part of the police cooperation in the EU the
>>German police has demanded access to operate within Denmark. This has
>>been turned down by the Danish Justice Departement.
>
>So what is all the fun about? Germany had asked a question,
In Denmark this is regarded pressure or at least as something
unpleasant.
> Germany has to agree. We have similar agreements with other
>countries (you have probably read the example of the Netherlands). What
>is bad about asking another neighbour for the same? It was a proposal
>for co-operation, not a demand.
Because it seems that only Germany have those needs. You are pushing
all the time while Denmark never does the same. You are not pleasant
neighbours in that way. Why can't you just mind your own business and
let us to the same.
>You had asked me if were suggesting that the Danish police is not doing
>it's work good enough.
When I am referring to "you" I mean plural you Germans and not just
Michael Huebner.
>Give me some facts, please. Some quoted text or a source where I can see
>it myself. I'd like to make sure that they were really telling such
>sonsense.
I have read a lot of such things in the Danish newspapers.
> Usually, in a discussion each partner tells his basic opinion
>and then they discuss which one is best, hopefully to find an agreement.
>
>> There have been a lot of writing in Danish newspapars about this
>>matter and the Danish minister of jusitice have given interviews. The
>>minister of Justice did not want to allow them more than 15 kilometers
>>from the border.
>
>That's okay. Did German police operate in Denmark without permission or
>did they respect the Danish decision?
No, but they very much want to, and that is the problem.
>>
>>Of course he did. That is why the Bonn-regime fears his book so much.
>
>Oh, really? Why did he not publish it in other countries and hereby
>convince the rest of the world that the German government is wrong? Or
>did they also not beliefe in what he regards a prove?
Well the book is indeed printed in other countries, and in the big
scientific Royal Library in Copenhagen you can find a copy of it.
>>
>> To me the NATO invasion of Bosnia is pure EU imperialism. The
>>downfall of communism in Eastern Europe left a vaccum of power that
>>Western Europe is now trying to fill in.
>
>What did you learn about the role of NATO there? Did they fight for any
>side or try to protect the civilians? Of course we could have waited
>until they had killed everybody there.
Nato wants it's own kind of peace there. There must be
multi-culturalism and heterogeneity. That is the ideology of the
people behind the new world order. NATO is in the former Yugoslavia in
order to enforce this ideology and to make way for a possible future
entry of those Balkan states in the European Empire (EU).
>> My dream is to see the NATO in Yugoslavia end up the same way as the
>>USA did in Vietnam or Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
>
>What great comparison! Take NATO out and wait for a few days. Then we'll
>see what happens.
And what happens will solely be the responsibility of the people of
those former Yugoslav states. Western Eurpope should not care or
mingle in their affairs.
>
>> Sure but he will not receive any penalty for denying the crime. If
>>his lawyer, after the sentence, says that he still does not think that
>>his client is guilty, and that he still thinks that the evidence was
>>to weak the lawyer will not receive any penalty for that either.
>
>Correct. But then he will have to prove the opposite. His client is
>sentenced, regardless of what his defender thinks. If he was sentenced
>because of what some witnesses had said, the defender cannot simply say
>they are wrong unless he can prove it.
If his client keeps saying that it was not him the witnesses saw
because he was elsewhere he can support that view. He can anytime time
say that he does not believe what the witnesses are saying if there is
no more evidence than that.
>>They were asked by some people from the Norweigian television 50
>>years later.
>
>What did they answer? Were they released or relocated _before_ the gas
>chambers were built?
They were there until the liberation of the camp.
>
>> According to the established historiography there were only
>>gaschambers for the executions of human beings in Poland. Even Simon
>>Wiesenthal has admitted ( to the magazine Books & Bookmen from april
>>1975) that there were no gaschambers for executing of human beings on
>>German soil. In 1962, in a letter to weekly journal Die Zeit, Dr.
>>Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
>>admitted that none of the camps in Germany - including Bergen Belsen,
>>Buchenwald, Dachau, Ravensbrueck and Sachsenhausen - were
>>extermination camps and that no-one was ever gassed in any of them.
>
>I hope I find the time to ask for a copy in an archive. Assuming that
>this is true, what about the other camps? What about all the other death
>causes?
>
When we are talking about the alleged holocaust, we are talking about
deliberate attempts of murdering somebody.
>>Bullshit. I have seen photostatic copies of those books. Every death
>>is carefully noted. The name and age of the dead as well as the cause
>>and date of the death.
>
>What did you see? You saw the noted cases. You coul not have seen the
>missing ones, of course.
No one has seen the missing ones, and nobody knows exactly how many
are missing.
>
>> The date of arrival is also noted, and they are
>>all signed by doctors. You will not find a single entry indicating
>>poisoning by cyanidgas as the cause of death. The Danish scientist Dr.
>>Christian Lindtner has gone through these books in Arolsen and can
>>confirm this.
>
>He can probably confirm it for what is written in the books he had
>worked with. He can hardly know about other cases, especially the
>missing ones of 1944.
But the holocaust is supposed to have started in 1942, and you have
the death records from 1942, 1943, and they don't mention anything
about cyanid-poisoning. The deceased have in most cases stayed in the
camp for monthes before dying. Nothing indicates that they were
murdered on arrival.
>That's why I like discussing with you. You told me already a lot to
>think about. All I'm missing is a logical connection between most of
>your thoughts. Too often I found only some "it is so" instead of an
>answer. Concerning ethnicity you were telling "diversity sucks" instead
>of a logical answer. That's where I get suspicious.
It has never been accurately scientific established how much
biological differences mean. Today scientific research into this
matter is not regarded political correct and convenient and therefore
the researched is checked,
>The DVU is what you are fearing.
I do not fear DVU, I welcome them. I love to see the Germans getting
more national conscious.
> He wants to think German, act German, be German.
Excellent.
>He was
>asked what it means to think, act and be German. He couldn't answer that
>question.
Poor guy he must have been so much brainwashed with anti-national
propaganda that he cannot express his true German identity.
> The major goal of DVU (and main reason to vote for them) is to
>decrease unemployment. One guy was asked how they plan to do this. He
>answered that he would not anser this question.
There may be many political beginners and amateurs in that party. I
am sure that they will learn the trade.
>>
>> They only invaded Denmark out of military strategical reasons. Other
>>parts the then Denmark like the Faroe Islands and Iceland were
>>occupied by the Allies of the exact same reasons.
>
>What makes you beliefe that Denmark is strategically less important for
>the right wingers?
Because there is no war now - that simple. The Germans do not want
to repeat the disasters of WW1 and WW2. Furthermore all the major WW2
enemies of Germany are armed with nuclear weapons today.
>> The newspaper BT. Opinion polls made by the EU have similiar
>>results.
>
>Do you know some source on the internet? It would be the easiest way for
>me. Thanks in advance.
Not really but the EU runs some kind of opion institute. Perhaps you
can find information from this somewhere on the internet. However the
results of this institute may not exactly correspond with that of the
opinion poll published in BT.
>We have currently a discussion going on in Germany. Our government
>wanted to limit the number of people coming every year from Poland to
>harvest asparagus. It was intended to give those jobs to German
>unemployed. The problem is that they don't want or can do this job.
If there is no one else to do it, they will have to do.
>The salary is too low
Then it must be raised. Another option could be to stop growing
aspargus in Germany and buy it from Polish farmers instead.
>- I bet they also claim the price for asparagus too
>high. The working conditions are not suitable, there are no standard
>toilets and social rooms.
It sounds outragous that the German Unions accept such working
conditions. In Denmark there are strikes and blockades when foreign
workers work under conditions not in agreement with
negotiated standards on the labour market.
>> Nothing. They should work hard for creating a higher standard of
>>living in their own country.
>
>That's the best solution. What happens if they cannot do this in their
>home countries for some reason?
This is not our problem. The European countries have taken a few
million people from the third world, but what about those many more
millions still living there. Why don't they have the same right to
come here in order to get a higher standard of living as those of
their countrymen who already are here. You should never have allowed a
single one to come in the first place.
>People from all over the world had a
>dream to make a better living in America. What argument could bring them
>back to the countries of their ancestors?
I think that the American dream is a bad dream - one that really
sucks.
>I agree with that. Only, I don't confuse co-operation with invasion. The
>EU will not change borders but open them for easier trade.
But the EU will try to integrate people of different nationality and
culture into artificial EU regions. I do not like that,
>Many
>countries are asked but none is forced to join the EU. If a country does
>not join it will not be attacked. No country can force the neighbour to
>join, no country can force the neighbour not to join if they want and
>meet the requirements.
But little by little the EU will become more repressive. The
experience from multinational states such as the former Yugoslavia
and Soviet Union shows that they can only be kept together by harsh
repression of any tendency to separatism and nationalism.
>
>Thank you for the explanation about the wars in Slesvig. It was new and
>interesting for me. I hope to see it clearer now.
>If I got it right, the reason was that Denmark wanted to keep the
>territory but the Germans living there did not accept do become Danish
>citizens. What was the original situation? When Slesvig had always been
>Danish, the Germans must have gone to Denmark. Or was the area German
>for some time and then settled by Germans?
Sure after the conquest of Holsten in 1202 the Germans took the
opportunity the settle in the deserted land forming the natural border
between and Denmark and it's southern neighbour. From there on the
Germans spread more and more to the north. Lebensraum.
>The question for me is if it was the German nationalism that caused
>those wars or the Danish demand to have an area back that was lost
>earlier.
There were just as much Danish nationalism as German nationalism. The
first thing that happened when democracy was introduced was an upsurge
of nationalism. You saw the same phenomenon in the former Soviet Union
and Yugoslavia. The first thing that people wanted when they were free
to express themselves were national independence from the other people
in the union. The Germans and the Danes in Slesvig wanted to become
fully integrated in their own countries.
Heiko Leberer
Ole Kreiberg wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Well, although I have only learnt High-German in school I have no
> difficulties in understand all German dialects. Even Swiss German
> which I find the most different from High-German, I can understand
> although I have to be more concentrated and alert when it is spoken.
dialect and people being polite and speaking a local-colored-version
that is supposed to be High German (but often sounds very funny
instead). If you learnt High German only, you are definitely not able to
understand Swiss German if they talk to each other.
On German TV, some swiss movies are even broadcasted with german
subtitles.
(sisch doch eso, oddr?)
> In my opinion the German dialects are no more different than the
> Danish. I have sometimes difficulties if somebody speaks with a
> Jutlandic dialect. The German dialects are no more different than the
> various kind of English spoken in e.g. Scotland, Australia or the USA.
A little anecdote:
Ein Schweizer, ein Schwabe und ein Norddeutscher sitzen im Zug. Meint
der Schweizer zum Norddeutschen: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?'
Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?', Schweizer: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?',
Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?'
wirft der Schwabe ein: 'Er moend gwaeh!'
--
Heiko
a rose
Heiko Leberer wrote:
> A little anecdote:
>
> Ein Schweizer, ein Schwabe und ein Norddeutscher sitzen im Zug. Meint
> der Schweizer zum Norddeutschen: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?'
> Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?', Schweizer: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?',
> Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?'
> wirft der Schwabe ein: 'Er moend gwaeh!'
Wie bitte?
--<--@ (Norddeutscher in Bayern)
Heiko Leberer
kommt das echt gut rueber.
Ansonsten: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?' = 'Sind Sie in Zuerich gewesen?'
'Er moend gwaeh!' = 'Er meint gewesen?'
--
Heiko
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 3 May 1998 01:06:25 GMT, Martin Paegert <m...@zenon.prima.de>
wrote:
>Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
>
>> Hier in Daenemark gab es keine Nazifizierung wegen der deutschen
>> Besetzung.
>
>Es gab sie schon, sie war nur nicht erfolgreich.
>
Das ist 100 Prozent falsch. Du hast keine Beispiele. Die Daenen waren
fuer die damalige Deutschen ein ganzes uninteressantes Vremdvolk. Eben
in 1943 gab es demokratische Parlamentswahlen.
>
>> Hitler hatte sich nicht fuer Danemark interessiert. Daenemark und viele
>> andere Laendern wurden nur aus militaerstrategische Ursachen besetz.
>
>Das wird gern behauptet, ist so aber nicht ganz richtig. Das zu
>errrichtende Grossdeutsche Reich sollte Daenemark wie die meisten anderen
>Staaten West- und Nordeuropas als Satellitenstaaten umfassen. Die Daenemark
>und anderen Staaten zugedachte Rolle unterscheidet sich in nichts von der
>Rolle, die den meisten osteuopaeischen Staaten nach dem Krieg dann von
>Stalin zuerkannt wurde.
Ja wie Finland. Finland konnte sein eigenes demokratisches
politisches System behalten, aber es musste die Aussenpolitik nach den
Interessen der Sowietunions einorden. Daenemark hatte ein aehnliches
Verhaeltnis zu Deutschland wegen der deutschen Besetzung.
> Daemark war nicht das primaere, sehr wohl aber
>sekundaeres Angriffsziel des Nationalsozialismus. (Nachzulesen zum Teil in
>"Mein Kampf", deutlicher dann bei Alfred Rosenberg.)
Ich habe Mein Kampf gelesen, und Hitler hat nichts ueber Daenemark
geschrieben. Daenische Geschichtsforschern sagen immer, dass Hitler
hat sich nicht fuer Daenemark interessiert.
> Im vorliegenden Fall - letzte Rede Hitlers - handelt sich es um die Rede
>eines bereits schwer psychisch gestoerten, kaum noch klar denkenden
>Menschen.
Ich habe die ganze Rede gelesen, und es gibt keine Zeichen, dass er
damals psychisch gestoert war. Du hasst zu viel allierte
Kriegspropaganda gelesen.
>> Ich habe keine nazistischen Postings gesannt.
>
>66 Q&A,
Ich habe nicht 66 Q&A gesannt. Dazu kommt, dass 66 Q&A nicht
Nazi-Propaganda ist. Dieses Pamphlet hat nichts mit der
nationalsocialistischen Ideologie zu tun. Es dreht sich nur um
Geschichtschreibung.
> Von deinen eigenen, durchaus
>neo-nazistisch zu nennenden, rassistischen eigenen Vorstellungen mal ganz
>abgesehen.
Man brauch nicht gegen die Demokatie zu sein, weil man gegen
Einwanderung und Koexistenz mit Leute aus der dritten Welt
ist.
Ole Kreiberg
On Wed, 06 May 1998 11:02:40 +0200, Heiko Leberer >I think, you are
confusing ywo things int this case. People speaking in
>dialect and people being polite and speaking a local-colored-version
>that is supposed to be High German (but often sounds very funny
>instead). If you learnt High German only, you are definitely not able to
>understand Swiss German if they talk to each other.
I have travelled in Switzerland where I had no problem with
understanding what was said on Television. Of course first time I
heard Swiss German I was not able to understand everything. It took
some training to get accustomed to it. It is the same with Swedish, it
takes even more training to undertand it if you have never heard it
before and know only Danish. Many words and frases are total
different.
However, what I originally wanted to say was that North German
dialects have still much more in common with Swiss , Austrian and
Bavarian German than with Danish, which is a totally different
language like English. When it comes to culture and mentality people
in Hamburg have still much more in common with people in Munich than
with people in Copenhagen. Danes should always only orient themselves
toward their Scandinavian brothers and sisters and never against the
aliens to south. This is the way it has been from time immemorial.
History has taught that any close relationship between Nothern Germany
and Denmark will only create tensions and eventually wars. The ideal
relationship between Denmark and Germany must like the one between
Germany and Canada. That is friendly and without problems but with an
approbiate distance.
Michael Huebner
On Wed, 06 May 1998 11:02:40 +0200, Heiko Leberer
>A little anecdote:
>
>Ein Schweizer, ein Schwabe und ein Norddeutscher sitzen im Zug. Meint
>der Schweizer zum Norddeutschen: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?'
>Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?', Schweizer: 'Sinn Sie sZueri gsie?',
>Norddeutscher: 'Wie bitte?'
>wirft der Schwabe ein: 'Er moend gwaeh!'
I wonder if Ole could translate this. I'm aware that reading it is even
more difficult than hearing it. Even I had to read twice to catch.
Michael Huebner
On Tue, 05 May 1998 21:11:23 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 1998 02:55:53 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>>So what is all the fun about? Germany had asked a question,
>
> In Denmark this is regarded pressure or at least as something
>unpleasant.
A question is pressure? What is so unpleasant if Germany asks Denmark to
co-operate the same way other countries do and explains why? Denmark can
say 'no' and that's it.
> Because it seems that only Germany have those needs. You are pushing
>all the time while Denmark never does the same. You are not pleasant
>neighbours in that way. Why can't you just mind your own business and
>let us to the same.
The Netherlands, France, Austria and some other countries have the same
need. If you see how it is done in the USA you'll find that they will
inform the other side in advance, so the local police can take over.
What is bad about that?
>>Give me some facts, please. Some quoted text or a source where I can see
>>it myself. I'd like to make sure that they were really telling such
>>sonsense.
>
>I have read a lot of such things in the Danish newspapers.
Sorry, I cannot regard this as facts as I don't know what newspapers you
read. From another statement following now I got an even deeper
impression not to trust such blurred "facts".
>>> There have been a lot of writing in Danish newspapars about this
>>>matter and the Danish minister of jusitice have given interviews. The
>>>minister of Justice did not want to allow them more than 15 kilometers
>>>from the border.
>>
>>That's okay. Did German police operate in Denmark without permission or
>>did they respect the Danish decision?
>
>No, but they very much want to, and that is the problem.
Telling the wish for permission for acting on Danish ground is something
very different from actually doing it! But that's what you had told
about. You seem to confuse your nightmares with reality.
>>>Of course he did. That is why the Bonn-regime fears his book so much.
>>
>>Oh, really? Why did he not publish it in other countries and hereby
>>convince the rest of the world that the German government is wrong? Or
>>did they also not beliefe in what he regards a prove?
>
> Well the book is indeed printed in other countries, and in the big
>scientific Royal Library in Copenhagen you can find a copy of it.
Whom could he convince?
>[Bosnia]
> Nato wants it's own kind of peace there. There must be
>multi-culturalism and heterogeneity. That is the ideology of the
>people behind the new world order. NATO is in the former Yugoslavia in
>order to enforce this ideology and to make way for a possible future
>entry of those Balkan states in the European Empire (EU).
NATO is there to keep the fighting parties apart and protect the
civilians. What the locals work out in a way without killing each other
is their own business. As a matter of fact it will be difficult (I
regard it as impossible) to separate people of different ethnic groups
living next door without problems. First you need to tell them that
their neighbour is an enemy, then you need to prove it somehow. That's
what they tried. If common people would feel that it were okay, but it
is the ideology of a few people only.
> And what happens will solely be the responsibility of the people of
>those former Yugoslav states. Western Eurpope should not care or
>mingle in their affairs.
When your neighbour were fighting with a burglar you would certainly not
help him, would you? It is a matter between him and the burglar. If he'd
beat his wife you would not help her, it's a matter between the two.
Who compared me to an ostrich with the head in the sand not long ago?
> If his client keeps saying that it was not him the witnesses saw
>because he was elsewhere he can support that view. He can anytime time
>say that he does not believe what the witnesses are saying if there is
>no more evidence than that.
Why do you shift the subject?
The accused will be sentenced if he was recognised by witnesses and
cannot prove an alibi. Again: he (or his defender) has to _prove_ it.
But we were discussing what happened if the defender called the
witnesses liars _without prove_ just because he doesn't _beliefe_ them
for the matter of his client. I say he'd be sentenced as well.
BTW, can anybody tell me the correct english terms for german "ueble
Nachrede" (giving s.o. a bad and wrong reputation) and "Rufschaedigung"
(negative influence on the person's life by bad reputation)?
>>What did they answer? Were they released or relocated _before_ the gas
>>chambers were built?
>
> They were there until the liberation of the camp.
Other ex-inmates of the Ravensbrueck camp told the opposite. It takes
some more questions to find out about the individual circumstances. Who
was there for how long and during what period. Who came close to were
the gas chambers are etc. It will be hard to prove that those chambers
have been built after the liberation of the camps.
>>I hope I find the time to ask for a copy in an archive. Assuming that
>>this is true, what about the other camps? What about all the other death
>>causes?
>>
> When we are talking about the alleged holocaust, we are talking about
>deliberate attempts of murdering somebody.
What do you regard as deliberate attempts? It's not only shooting or
gassing them. Letting them starve or beating them to death do the same,
also "medical tests" that take the death into account.
>[death records]
>>What did you see? You saw the noted cases. You coul not have seen the
>>missing ones, of course.
>
> No one has seen the missing ones, and nobody knows exactly how many
>are missing.
That's what I mean. No one can say that there were only those crimes
that were recorded in those books. You can prove those by the books but
have to prove anything else by other means.
>>He can probably confirm it for what is written in the books he had
>>worked with. He can hardly know about other cases, especially the
>>missing ones of 1944.
>
> But the holocaust is supposed to have started in 1942, and you have
>the death records from 1942, 1943, and they don't mention anything
>about cyanid-poisoning. The deceased have in most cases stayed in the
>camp for monthes before dying. Nothing indicates that they were
>murdered on arrival.
Are you so blind? When the gassing started in late (!) 1944 and those
books are missing, how could you expect records about death by cyanid in
earlier books? Your whole theory is based on weak facts:
In the books before 1944 there is no record of gassed prisoners, so
there was no gassing. Because there was no gassing there was no
holocaust. Don't be that ridiculous.
>>The DVU is what you are fearing.
>
> I do not fear DVU, I welcome them. I love to see the Germans getting
>more national conscious.
That's what I mean. Today you welcome them. The older generation here
sees much the DVU has in common with the Nazis (not only hair cut). The
Nazis were once to show a way out of an economically bad situation, and
that's what the DVU does. Just like the Nazis they work with slogans
only but cannot explain them. DVU needs to tell their members and
followers not to wear Nazi symbols - a sign that they know what goes on
in the minds of those guys. The danger for us is that parties like DVU
could repeat the history. And if they then would occupy Denmark, would
you still like and welcome and cheer them?
Isn't it exactly what you accuse the present German government for?
Whenever I asked you more about those accusations you failed to answer
and it turned out to be just nightmares. But you refuse to see the
obvious similarities just because they fit your view right now. Try to
extend your horizon a little in that way.
>> He wants to think German, act German, be German.
>
>Excellent.
Excellent that he doesn't know what that is? It's the cheap trick of
your propaganda to take just a few words of what I had posted.
>>He was
>>asked what it means to think, act and be German. He couldn't answer that
>>question.
>
> Poor guy he must have been so much brainwashed with anti-national
>propaganda that he cannot express his true German identity.
What nice attempt to protect this guy :-) If he were so badly
brainwashed by anti national propaganda, how can he now think the
opposite? What is it now, was he brainwashed or not? Or is he just too
stupid to understand? Was he cought by empty catchwords?
>> The major goal of DVU (and main reason to vote for them) is to
>>decrease unemployment. One guy was asked how they plan to do this. He
>>answered that he would not anser this question.
>
> There may be many political beginners and amateurs in that party. I
>am sure that they will learn the trade.
Would you follow a party with only political beginners?
>>What makes you beliefe that Denmark is strategically less important for
>>the right wingers?
>
> Because there is no war now - that simple.
And if they start a way you cry that it is illegal.
> The Germans do not want
>to repeat the disasters of WW1 and WW2. Furthermore all the major WW2
>enemies of Germany are armed with nuclear weapons today.
What about some new enemies? You appear to know so much about history,
why can't you learn from it for the future?
>>> The newspaper BT. Opinion polls made by the EU have similiar
>>>results.
>>
>>Do you know some source on the internet? It would be the easiest way for
>>me. Thanks in advance.
>
> Not really but the EU runs some kind of opion institute. Perhaps you
>can find information from this somewhere on the internet. However the
>results of this institute may not exactly correspond with that of the
>opinion poll published in BT.
Great! Again you claimed a fact and if I ask for more details and prove
you stagger. What newspaper do you read and beliefe that gives you such
information? You should be old enough to know that not everything
written black on white is true.
>>We have currently a discussion going on in Germany. Our government
>>wanted to limit the number of people coming every year from Poland to
>>harvest asparagus. It was intended to give those jobs to German
>>unemployed. The problem is that they don't want or can do this job.
>
> If there is no one else to do it, they will have to do.
Ah, now the foreigners are suddenly welcome.
>>The salary is too low
>
> Then it must be raised. Another option could be to stop growing
>aspargus in Germany and buy it from Polish farmers instead.
How can a farmer pay more if he doesn't get more on the market? If he
pays more he has to sell the asparagus for more...
Importing asparagus would destroy this part of our agriculture.
Asparagus is just one example. The exactly same problem have e.g.
vinyards.
>>high. The working conditions are not suitable, there are no standard
>>toilets and social rooms.
> It sounds outragous that the German Unions accept such working
>conditions. In Denmark there are strikes and blockades when foreign
>workers work under conditions not in agreement with
>negotiated standards on the labour market.
Do you honestly expect separated toilets for men and women on the
fields? Do you expect a couch, chairs and tables on the fields? Would
look funny, wouldn't it? You cannot apply agreements that were made for
factories to agriculture. But that's what they did. Would any union in
Denmark go on strike because the farmers cannot afford having those
social facilities out on the fields for the few harvest weeks?
As I had said earlier, we are spoiled by our good lifestyle. Without hot
shower, perfectly clean toilets, a comfortable bed and TV we are unable
to live.
>This is not our problem. The European countries have taken a few
>million people from the third world, but what about those many more
>millions still living there. Why don't they have the same right to
>come here in order to get a higher standard of living as those of
>their countrymen who already are here. You should never have allowed a
>single one to come in the first place.
Sure, that's wishful thinking. Letting them in was wrong, so let's
correct this fault. Send them back, close all doors, see no evil, hear
no evil...
But when we need Polish farmers we let them in again. Just as we like
it.
>>People from all over the world had a
>>dream to make a better living in America. What argument could bring them
>>back to the countries of their ancestors?
>
> I think that the American dream is a bad dream - one that really
>sucks.
I was asking you for an argument to bring them back to the countries of
their ancestors, not for your opinion about the American dream.
>>I agree with that. Only, I don't confuse co-operation with invasion. The
>>EU will not change borders but open them for easier trade.
>
> But the EU will try to integrate people of different nationality and
>culture into artificial EU regions. I do not like that,
What artificial regions? Countries work together but their areas remain
untouched. No country will invade another one. Your nightmare is, again,
without practical background.
>>Many
>>countries are asked but none is forced to join the EU. If a country does
>>not join it will not be attacked. No country can force the neighbour to
>>join, no country can force the neighbour not to join if they want and
>>meet the requirements.
>
> But little by little the EU will become more repressive. The
>experience from multinational states such as the former Yugoslavia
>and Soviet Union shows that they can only be kept together by harsh
>repression of any tendency to separatism and nationalism.
They become more repressive? How do you know that? Just another
nightmare? Your example of multinational states contradicts the USA (to
name one example). What lets you think that really this multi
nationality is the reason? You make it again a scapegoat for different
reasons. In former Soviet Union as well as in Yugoslavia it was a small
communist group that suppressed the others in some way.
>[war in Slesvig]
> Sure after the conquest of Holsten in 1202 the Germans took the
>opportunity the settle in the deserted land forming the natural border
>between and Denmark and it's southern neighbour. From there on the
>Germans spread more and more to the north. Lebensraum.
Why were they not stopped earlier or at least some day at the current
border?
> There were just as much Danish nationalism as German nationalism. The
>first thing that happened when democracy was introduced was an upsurge
>of nationalism. You saw the same phenomenon in the former Soviet Union
>and Yugoslavia. The first thing that people wanted when they were free
>to express themselves were national independence from the other people
>in the union. The Germans and the Danes in Slesvig wanted to become
>fully integrated in their own countries.
Sounds almost like nationalism caused those wars. They will most likely
have had problems living together all the time. How were those
suppressed earlier? Nationalism doesn't suddenly exist over night.
Stern22
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote in article
<354ecde7...@enews.newsguy.com>...
> On 4 May 98 22:43:25 GMT, "Stern22" <dst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >How dare you imply Ole is capable of a reliable source? ;-)
> >The "scientist" Arthur Butz is really an Electrical and Computer
> >Engineering Professor at Northwestern University (Illinois)... of course
> >there's never a serious historian in Ole's list of revisionist books...
> >this one came about 1980 I think. Few years back I saw some debate on
CNN
> >about it though the real issue was about Internet censorship since this
guy
> >posts his stuff on the university server. AFAIR the core of the book was
to
> >question Auschwitz... you know, the usual stuff... there were no gas
> >chambers, most inmates died from typhus, nobody was cremated,
>
> You are lying. Butz was only disputing the historiography of the
> capacity of the crematoria.
>
The guy is all over the west and east camps, the Nüremberg trials, the
complete Jewish conspiracy theory... and of course no scrap of evidence,
all he is capable of quoting is other revisionists and supposed statements
from Nazis and allies. Talk about baseless assertions and lies.
> >nobody ever
> >saw the ashes, the sky didn't go dark, bla, bla... and of course no
scrap
> >of evidence to refute the facts.
>
> Read the book and you will see.
>
> See the website of professor Arthur Butz:
>
> http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz
>
Seen enough. No desire to waste my money on such a ridiculous book.
> Ole Kreiberg
>
Dan.
Stern22
Michael Huebner <mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis> wrote in article
> Nachrede" (giving s.o. a bad and wrong reputation) and "Rufschaedigung"
> (negative influence on the person's life by bad reputation)?
>
"üble Nachrede" I believe is slander or libel.
"Rufschädigung" from your description I'd say defamation... I guess they're
kind of synonymous.
Now tell me how to say racketeer (obtain money illegally like by fraud or
extortion) in German... I must write another letter to Germany but it takes
me days to complete :-)
Dan.
Heiko Leberer
Stern22 wrote:
> Now tell me how to say racketeer
racketeer= Verbrecher, Gangster
> (obtain money illegally like by fraud
Fraud: the deed=Betrug, the performer=Betrueger
> or
> extortion) in German... I must write another letter to Germany but it takes
Extortion: the deed=Erpressung, the performer: Erpresser
> me days to complete :-)
>
> Dan.
--
Heiko
Ole Kreiberg
On Thu, 07 May 1998 00:48:03 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>The Netherlands, France, Austria and some other countries have the same
>need. If you see how it is done in the USA you'll find that they will
>inform the other side in advance, so the local police can take over.
>What is bad about that?
The best thing will be to preserve the bordercontrol and thereby the
feeling of independence and national dignity. A recent opinion poll in
Denmark shows that two thirds are against open borders and only 20
percent are in favour.
>>No, but they very much want to, and that is the problem.
>
>Telling the wish for permission for acting on Danish ground is something
>very different from actually doing it! But that's what you had told
>about. You seem to confuse your nightmares with reality.
The Danes never feel comfortable with Germany. Let me give you an
example. Recently a foreign NATO weapon depot in Denmark had to be
removed. This depot was always known to be American. Suddently it
turned out to really be German. The Danish military authorities had
never dared to tell the public that those NATO weapons were German and
had made the local population believe that they were American. As far
as the story goes the Americans were friendly enough to remove those
German weapons in stead of the Germans in order not to create tension
among the local Danish population an. Origianally it was the
Americans who had placed them there in order to fool the Danes.
I hope that this example will give an idea why German policemen on
Danish ground would not be aprobiate.
>> Well the book is indeed printed in other countries, and in the big
>>scientific Royal Library in Copenhagen you can find a copy of it.
>
>Whom could he convince?
Among others the Danish scientist Dr. Christian Lindtner who is often
referring to him in his many articles in Danish newspapers about the
holocaust that did not happen.
>
>>[Bosnia]
>> Nato wants it's own kind of peace there. There must be
>>multi-culturalism and heterogeneity. That is the ideology of the
>>people behind the new world order. NATO is in the former Yugoslavia in
>>order to enforce this ideology and to make way for a possible future
>>entry of those Balkan states in the European Empire (EU).
>
>NATO is there to keep the fighting parties apart and protect the
>civilians.
All NATO Propaganda, and of the same kind as " Hitler occupied Poland
in order to help the Poles developing Poland" or that the German
police is able to help Denmark solving criminal cases that it
otherwise would not be able to solve itself.
>> And what happens will solely be the responsibility of the people of
>>those former Yugoslav states. Western Eurpope should not care or
>>mingle in their affairs.
>
>When your neighbour were fighting with a burglar you would certainly not
>help him, would you? It is a matter between him and the burglar. If he'd
>beat his wife you would not help her, it's a matter between the two.
It is difficult to see who is the criminel in this case. The Serbs
and the Muslims were living peacefully side by side until the Muslim
Bosnians seceded Bosnia from the Yugoslav union. Then the bosnian
Serbs suddently found themselves a minority in a Muslim dominated
state. I can easily understand why they want to be united with their
fellow Serbs in Serbia. This conflict has much in common with the
Slesvig conflict in the 18th century. In my opinion it is very cruel
of NATO to force the Bosnian Serbs to live together with Bosnian
Muslims instead of with their fellow Serbians in Serbia.
>Who compared me to an ostrich with the head in the sand not long ago?
The Germans and other Western Europeans have no right to enforce
their solution on the Bosnian Serbs. I am 100 per cent Pro-Serbian.
>But we were discussing what happened if the defender called the
>witnesses liars _without prove_ just because he doesn't _beliefe_ them
>for the matter of his client. I say he'd be sentenced as well.
The word "liar" may be libellous, but it is not libellous to say
that the witnesses are wrong.
>>>
>> When we are talking about the alleged holocaust, we are talking about
>>deliberate attempts of murdering somebody.
>
>What do you regard as deliberate attempts? It's not only shooting or
>gassing them. Letting them starve or beating them to death do the same,
>also "medical tests" that take the death into account.
Many inmates died from typhoid fever. This was not inflicted
deliberately. In the last monthes of the war the food conditions grew
steadily worse due to the general breakdown in Germany. The
infrastructure was destroyed and the food situation grew worse for all
Germans. Fighting desperately up against the wall the Germans thought
that feeding the enemy (that is the inmates of the concentration
camps) was less important than feeding their own solidiers and
people. Hundreds of Danes were in German concentrationcamps, and the
Danish authorities were permitted by the Germans to evacuate them to
Sweden during the last monthes of the war. All those prisoners can
confirm how the food situation became steadily worse until their
evacuation.
>> But the holocaust is supposed to have started in 1942, and you have
>>the death records from 1942, 1943, and they don't mention anything
>>about cyanid-poisoning. The deceased have in most cases stayed in the
>>camp for monthes before dying. Nothing indicates that they were
>>murdered on arrival.
>
>Are you so blind? When the gassing started in late (!) 1944 and those
>books are missing, how could you expect records about death by cyanid in
>earlier books? Your whole theory is based on weak facts:
>In the books before 1944 there is no record of gassed prisoners, so
>there was no gassing. Because there was no gassing there was no
>holocaust. Don't be that ridiculous.
Hey you better watch out. If the Verfassungschutz is watching this
debate you are in big trouble. You are minimizing the holocaust by
denying that gassings took place in 1942 and 1943. You are denying
"established facts".
>
>>>The DVU is what you are fearing.
>>
>> I do not fear DVU, I welcome them. I love to see the Germans getting
>>more national conscious.
>
>That's what I mean. Today you welcome them. The older generation here
>sees much the DVU has in common with the Nazis (not only hair cut).
The DVU are ordinary nationalists and not national socialists.
>The
>Nazis were once to show a way out of an economically bad situation, and
>that's what the DVU does. Just like the Nazis they work with slogans
>only but cannot explain them. DVU needs to tell their members and
>followers not to wear Nazi symbols - a sign that they know what goes on
>in the minds of those guys.
These guys do not know anything about real national socialism. They
have been brainwashed by the Honnecker-regime and later by the
Bonn-regime.
>The danger for us is that parties like DVU
>could repeat the history.
This would be as likely as Danish vikings would try to reconquer
England. History is history, and you cannot turn back the wheel of
history.
> And if they then would occupy Denmark, would
>you still like and welcome and cheer them?
Occupying Denmark would be a meaningless act. Danes are Non-Germans
and thus of no value to a nationalistic Germany. I think that DVU want
Germany for the Germans. Remember in 1864 when the Germans had won
the war over Denmark they only grabbed those parts of Denmark which
had a German population. After they had occupied the whole of Jutland
for a while they withdrew.
>Isn't it exactly what you accuse the present German government for?
The present German government is very dangerous because it is not
nationalistic enough and therefore does not mind to integrate and
blend in foreign neighbour people. This danger is more than just a
nightmare.
>Whenever I asked you more about those accusations you failed to answer
>and it turned out to be just nightmares. But you refuse to see the
>obvious similarities just because they fit your view right now. Try to
>extend your horizon a little in that way.
????
>> There may be many political beginners and amateurs in that party. I
>>am sure that they will learn the trade.
>
>Would you follow a party with only political beginners?
If the leaders are more experienced, they can teach the newcomers.
>> Because there is no war now - that simple.
>
>And if they start a way you cry that it is illegal.
And what is there to fight about.
>
>> The Germans do not want
>>to repeat the disasters of WW1 and WW2. Furthermore all the major WW2
>>enemies of Germany are armed with nuclear weapons today.
>
>What about some new enemies? You appear to know so much about history,
>why can't you learn from it for the future?
I think that most Danes prefere to learn from the whole of history
and not just the recent world wars with which Denmark was very little
involved . These wars were not started by Denmark or directed against
Denmark. Ok, in WW2 Denmark was in the way of the German warmachine
and was so unlucky to become occupied by the Germans like the Faroe
Islands and Iceland were by the Allies.
>> Not really but the EU runs some kind of opion institute. Perhaps you
>>can find information from this somewhere on the internet. However the
>>results of this institute may not exactly correspond with that of the
>>opinion poll published in BT.
>
>Great! Again you claimed a fact and if I ask for more details and prove
>you stagger. What newspaper do you read and beliefe that gives you such
>information? You should be old enough to know that not everything
>written black on white is true.
Blah, blah, blah. Yeah I did not cut this newpaper article out.
>
>>>We have currently a discussion going on in Germany. Our government
>>>wanted to limit the number of people coming every year from Poland to
>>>harvest asparagus. It was intended to give those jobs to German
>>>unemployed. The problem is that they don't want or can do this job.
>>
>> If there is no one else to do it, they will have to do.
>
>Ah, now the foreigners are suddenly welcome.
You have misunderstood something. I meant the German unemployed will
have to do it if there is nobody else to do it.
>
>>>The salary is too low
>>
>> Then it must be raised. Another option could be to stop growing
>>aspargus in Germany and buy it from Polish farmers instead.
>
>How can a farmer pay more if he doesn't get more on the market? If he
>pays more he has to sell the asparagus for more...
Sure the German consumer will have to pay higher price and so what.
>Importing asparagus would destroy this part of our agriculture.
And so what. In Denmark which has a higly effective agriculture and
large export only the most profitable crops are grown. The rest is
imported from outside.
>Sure, that's wishful thinking. Letting them in was wrong, so let's
>correct this fault. Send them back, close all doors, see no evil, hear
>no evil...
>But when we need Polish farmers we let them in again. Just as we like
>it.
If you need Polish agricultural products you can buy them from the
Polish farmers in Poland, and you will in this way support the
economy of Poland. You will thereby contribute to the raising of the
Polish livingstandard, and then fewer Poles will wish to go to Germany
to work.
>>
>> I think that the American dream is a bad dream - one that really
>>sucks.
>
>I was asking you for an argument to bring them back to the countries of
>their ancestors, not for your opinion about the American dream.
The problems of America are not my problems.
>> But the EU will try to integrate people of different nationality and
>>culture into artificial EU regions. I do not like that,
>
>What artificial regions? Countries work together but their areas remain
>untouched. No country will invade another one. Your nightmare is, again,
>without practical background.
I was mentioning the EU region Slesvig. I have heard that there are
ideas among the Germans of extenting this region with Holsten and
Hamburg and to draw Jutland closer to this region and eventually
incorporate the whole of Jutland in this region. This is the ultimate
"nightmare".
>>
>> But little by little the EU will become more repressive. The
>>experience from multinational states such as the former Yugoslavia
>>and Soviet Union shows that they can only be kept together by harsh
>>repression of any tendency to separatism and nationalism.
>
>They become more repressive? How do you know that?
That is the only way to keep people of different nationality together.
>Just another
>nightmare? Your example of multinational states contradicts the USA (to
>name one example).
The people in all the American states are of the same nationality.
They speak the same language and share the same culture, mentality and
history. E.g. a Dane and a German have no more in common than a Dane
and an American.
> What lets you think that really this multi
>nationality is the reason? You make it again a scapegoat for different
>reasons. In former Soviet Union as well as in Yugoslavia it was a small
>communist group that suppressed the others in some way.
In the EU it is a small elite that rules too.
>
>>[war in Slesvig]
>> Sure after the conquest of Holsten in 1202 the Germans took the
>>opportunity the settle in the deserted land forming the natural border
>>between and Denmark and it's southern neighbour. From there on the
>>Germans spread more and more to the north. Lebensraum.
>
>Why were they not stopped earlier or at least some day at the current
>border?
Because Slesvig and Holsten became one province and the Germans from
the south was then free to migrate further to the north.
>
>> There were just as much Danish nationalism as German nationalism. The
>>first thing that happened when democracy was introduced was an upsurge
>>of nationalism. You saw the same phenomenon in the former Soviet Union
>>and Yugoslavia. The first thing that people wanted when they were free
>>to express themselves were national independence from the other people
>>in the union. The Germans and the Danes in Slesvig wanted to become
>>fully integrated in their own countries.
>
>Sounds almost like nationalism caused those wars. They will most likely
>have had problems living together all the time. How were those
>suppressed earlier? Nationalism doesn't suddenly exist over night.
>
Slesvig- Holsten had from the Middle age a kind of homerule. When
Holsten was conquered back in 1202 the social structures were feudal.
The counts and other nobles in Holsten (and Holsten was 100 per cent
German and has always been) accepted the Danish king as their
overlord, because the Danish king accepted them as the local rulers
and "under"lords. They were called the knightship and were the
upperclass. They were German speaking and the knightship existed as
the local rulers until the introduction of democracy in Denmark.
Furthermore in the whole of Slesvig Holsten the Germans formed the
majority and because of that and the fact that the upperclass was the
German-speaking the Germans were quite content.
Ole Kreiberg
On 7 May 98 18:35:48 GMT, "Stern22" <dst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote in article
>> See the website of professor Arthur Butz:
>>
>> http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz
>>
>Seen enough. No desire to waste my money on such a ridiculous book.
>
For those interested in getting their own impression of this subject,
the following websites can be recommended too:
http://www.ihr.org
http://www.codoh.com
Michael Huebner
On 8 May 98 01:03:32 GMT, "Stern22" <dst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"üble Nachrede" I believe is slander or libel.
Thanks, I could confirm this with a dictionary.
>"Rufschädigung" from your description I'd say defamation... I guess they're
>kind of synonymous.
I couln't find this in my pocket dic but the big Langenscheidt agrees
with you. Thanks for your duty :-)
>Now tell me how to say racketeer (obtain money illegally like by fraud or
>extortion) in German...
Correctly answered by Heiko already.
Martin Paegert
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
Just a few remarks.
> According to to regulations of the [Danish] Justice Departement a German
> police car can only chase a suspect 15 kilometer into Denmark, ...
So where is the problem ? German police asked "May we ... ?", Danish
Department of Justice answered "No, but under following circumstances ...".
Where is the scandal ?
>>You have probably read a copy of this book [of Germar Rudolph], I
>>haven't. Did he bring up any PROVE against or just DENY the holocaust?
>
> Of course he did. That is why the Bonn-regime fears his book so much.
Now, in Germany books aren't forbidden by the Government, but by Courts. In
case of Germar Rudoplph and acording to my memories the book has been
banned for a short time when historians expertises found that it is not to
be seen as scientific but as propagandistic, and this ban has been lifted
later on.
For sure there is nothing to fear. What ? That deniers of the Holocaust
are right ? Now, assume for the moment a book proving exactly just right
that is existing and forbidden in Germany. What would happen ? Masses of
historians from all over the world would protest and "Holocaust did not
exist - how xy [Germar Rudolph f.e.] revealed the truth" would become the
most important issue on international historians conventions. Nothing of
this did take place. Why not ? The usual argument of neo-nazi-revisionists
is "Because of the International Jewish Conspiracy". Let's see what Ole's
answer is.
> According to the established historiography there were only
> gaschambers for the executions of human beings in Poland. Even Simon
> Wiesenthal has admitted ( to the magazine Books & Bookmen from april
> 1975) that there were no gaschambers for executing of human beings on
> German soil.
That is not what "even Simon Wiesenthal has admitted". Historiography in
accordance with facts does state, that no "extermination camp" did exist on
German soil. This does mean: there was no mass-deportation of Jews for
extermination to any German KZ. This does _not_ mean: there was no
gassing-chamber on German soil, nor that no Jew has been gassed in a KZ on
German soil as you try to say.
Thus
> In 1962, in a letter to weekly journal Die Zeit, Dr.
> Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
> admitted that none of the camps in Germany - including Bergen Belsen,
> Buchenwald, Dachau, Ravensbrueck and Sachsenhausen - were
> extermination camps and that no-one was ever gassed in any of them.
is correct in terms of cites, but not in terms of conclusion "no-one was
ever gassed in any of them".
Readers please note: it is Ole saying that no gassing at all took place
in these gas-chambers.
> I have seen photostatic copies of those books. [Sterbebuecher] Every
> death is carefully noted. The name and age of the dead as well as the
> cause and date of the death.
Not really. Every natural death of regular inmates is noted in these books
- and a lot of "natural" causes were fraud, people tortured to death
registered as "died from heart attack".
In extermination camps the great majority of victims was not registered
as inmate, but gassed and cremated within as quickly as possible - quite
often on the same day they arrived. Not one of these victims will be found
in a Sterbebuch.
> A Germany ruled by the DVU would never accept open borders to the
> neighbouring countries, EU borderregions, foreign police on German soil
> etc.
Anyone did doubt what political party Ole would vote for if German ?
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
Martin Paegert
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
> However, what I originally wanted to say was that North German
> dialects have still much more in common with Swiss , Austrian and
> Bavarian German than with Danish, which is a totally different
> language like English.
Hard to believe. Can anyone with a lingual background confirm ? For sure
the difference of Nothern German dialects and Bavarian or other Southern
dialects is by far greater than to Dutch. Not to mention Alemannian (sp?
"Alemannisch" in German) which is a language on its own and has nothing to
do with German. Most major dialects are lingual mixtures of German and much
older languages.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
Martin Paegert
Michael Huebner <mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis> wrote:
> I don't call a red rose another race than a white one. In my eyes it's a
> different sort or species but not a different race.
Aeh, andersrum. Die Begriffe "Rasse" und "Spezies" stammen aus der
biologischen Taxonomie, ihre Inhalte haben sich entsprechend dem
wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt im Laufe der Zeit gewandelt. Unter "Spezies"
versteht man alle Mitglieder einer Fortpflanzungsgemeinschaft. Die
entscheidende Frage ist: Koennen fruchtbare Nachkommen gezeugt werden ?
Weil weisse und rote Rosen sich ohne weiteres kreuzen lassen, gehoeren
beide zu einer Spezies.
Der Begriff "Rasse" macht biologisch gesehen keinen Sinn, denn es gibt kein
biologisch relevantes Merkmal, an Hand dessen es sich sinnvollerweise
definieren liesse. Trotzdem wird der Terminus "Rasse" oder "Subspezies" aus
historischen Gruenden weiterbenutzt. Man muss sich aber im klaren darueber
sein, dass die Merkmale, an Hand deren man weiter klassifiziert, biologisch
sinnlos sind und nur dem menschlichen Hang entgegen kommen, an Hand
unbedeutender aeusserlicher Merkmale extensiv zu katalogisieren. Die zur
Katalogisierung hearangezogenen Merkmale sind dabei als willkuerlich zu
betrachten - stehen oft sogar in Gegensatz zu biologisch wenigstens
halbwegs begruendbaren Einteilungen.
Tip: Versuch, deinen Gebrauch der Worte "Spezies" und "Rasse" oder
"Subspezies" dem biologischen Gebrauch anzupassen. Das beugt
Misverstaendnissen vor.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
Martin Paegert
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
> Die Daenen waren fuer die damalige Deutschen ein ganzes uninteressantes
> Vremdvolk.
Nicht so uninteressant, wie du glaubst. Hitler regte bereits in den 30-ger
Jahren einen regen Schueler- und Studentenaustausch mit dem "arischen
Brudervolk im Norden" an. Es wurde lebhaft versucht, den daenischen
Austauschstudenten voelkisches Ideengut nahezubringen. Mit relativ wenig
Erfolg. Die rassistische Nazi-Ideologie verfing bei den weitaus meisten
nicht.
Nach der Besetzung probierte man die volle Palette. Man versuchte, einen
daenischen Ableger der NSdAP zu gruenden, warb Mitglieder fuer die eigene
Armee und die SS, gruendete Lebensborn-Heime (das daenisch Erbgut war im
Sinne der Nazi-Rassenideologie ja durchaus wertvoll), stellte aber die
Benuehungen recht bald ein. Aus zwei Gruenden: zum einen verfingen sie
nicht, zum anderen trafen sie auf energische Proteste der Daenischen
Regierung und drohten das Land zu destabilisieren. Man liess es also beim
Status Quo, denn man hatte weitaus wichtigeres zu erledigen.
Der Status Quo war dabei nicht uninteressant. Daenemark ergab sich kampflos
und durfte deshalb und weil im Sinne der Nazi-Ideologie privilegiert, eine
Regierung behalten und sich weitgehendst selbst verwalten. Regierung wie
auch prominente Einzelpersonen kultivierten eine Art "zivilen Ungehorsam".
Mit dem bemerkenswerten Resultat, dass die Nazi-Besetzung relativ wenig
Opfer forderte - auch auf Seiten der Daenen juedischen Glaubens nicht.Der
Anweisung, juedische Mitbuerger der SS zu uebergeben, verweigerte man den
Gehorsam. Obwohl sich die deutschen Statthalter in Daenemark in Berlin
bitterlich darueber beklagten, wagte man es in Berlin nicht, das Land durch
entsprechendes Vorgehen der SS in Aufruhr zu versetzen.
>>Das wird gern behauptet, ist so aber nicht ganz richtig. Das zu
>>errrichtende Grossdeutsche Reich sollte Daenemark wie die meisten anderen
>>Staaten West- und Nordeuropas als Satellitenstaaten umfassen. Die Daenemark
>>und anderen Staaten zugedachte Rolle unterscheidet sich in nichts von der
>>Rolle, die den meisten osteuopaeischen Staaten nach dem Krieg dann von
>>Stalin zuerkannt wurde.
>
> Ja wie Finland. Finland konnte sein eigenes demokratisches
> politisches System behalten, aber es musste die Aussenpolitik nach den
> Interessen der Sowietunions einorden. Daenemark hatte ein aehnliches
> Verhaeltnis zu Deutschland wegen der deutschen Besetzung.
Der Vergleich geht daneben. Finnland - wie uebrigens auch Oesterreich -
waren militaerisch zur Neutralitaet verpflichtet, durften also nicht
Mitglied der NATO werden. Weder Finnland, noch Oesterreich, war nach dem
Krieg indes als Sowjetischer Satellitenstaat zu betrachten.
Die nach einem deutschen Sieg Daenemark zugedachte Rolle ist eher
vergleichbar der Ungarns oder der Tschechoslovakei. Daenemark haette eine
Regierung von deutschen Gnaden bekommen und Widerstand waere notfalls mit
Panzern im Keim erstickt worden.
> Ich habe Mein Kampf gelesen, und Hitler hat nichts ueber Daenemark
> geschrieben. Daenische Geschichtsforschern sagen immer, dass Hitler
> hat sich nicht fuer Daenemark interessiert.
Lies nach, was er ueber Grossdeutschland schreibt und was er darunter
versteht. Ich nehme an, die "daenischen Geschichtsforscher" meinen, dass es
fuer die praktische Politik keine wesentlich Rolle spielte. Wie auch ? Es
gab "wichtigeres", um das sich Hitler zu kuemmern hatte, wenn man seiner
Agenda folgt. Bei Rosenberg wird es dann deutlicher.
> Ich habe die ganze Rede [Hitlers letzte] gelesen, und es gibt keine
> Zeichen, dass er damals psychisch gestoert war. Du hasst zu viel allierte
> Kriegspropaganda gelesen.
Nicht ? Dass er ueberall "Sabotage und Verrat" wittert, dass er dem
gesamten deutschen Volk vorwirft, ihn verraten zu haben ist kein Zeichen
psychischer Stoerung ? Dass er in den letzten Wochen mit Einheiten und
Wunderwaffen agiert, die es real nicht gibt, ist kein Zeichen psychischer
Stoerung ? Dass er ein Sippenhaftgesetz erlaesst - "Es ist ein Gesetz
erlassen, na dem alle Familienangehoerigen von Soldaten, die im gefecht
ueberlaufen oder sich feige verhalten haben, verhaftet und anstelle der
Soldaten zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden." - ist durchaus normal ?
Ich sag's mal so: ausser Ole sind sich eigentlich alle im Fueherbunker
anwesenden (der "Leibarzt" Morell z.B.) wie all jene, die ausserhalb des
Fuehrerbunkers auf Order warteten (Generalfeldmarschall Kesselring etc)
darueber einig, dass Hitler massiv psychisch gestoert war und unter
massivem Realitaetsverlust litt. Und sie koennen das sehr gut belegen.
> Ich habe nicht 66 Q&A gesannt.
Ooch, du wolltest/willst sie nur in vor der Luebecker Polizeistation
verteilen.
> Dazu kommt, dass 66 Q&A nicht Nazi-Propaganda ist.
Ich sag's mal so: fuer jemanden, der sagt, nur Deutsche koennten Nazis
sein, ist das durchaus adaequat.
> Man brauch nicht gegen die Demokatie zu sein, weil man gegen
> Einwanderung und Koexistenz mit Leute aus der dritten Welt
> ist.
Sicher. Nur beschraenkt sich dein Demokratieverstaendnis scheinbar darauf,
einerseits eine "Diktatur der Mehrheit" zu befuerworten, wenn es darum
geht, was passieren soll, sollten deine poitischen Genossen jemals die
parlamentarische Mehrheit erlangen (menschenrechtliche Bindung lehnst du
z.B. kategorisch ab), andererseits aber auf politische Minderheitenrechte
zu pochen, wann immer dir das in den Kram passt und "freie
Meinungsaeusserung" als eine Art "Recht auf Aufforderung zu Gewalt und
Diktatur" misszuverstehen.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)
Michael Huebner
On Fri, 08 May 1998 20:17:45 GMT, o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) wrote:
>On Thu, 07 May 1998 00:48:03 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
>(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
> The best thing will be to preserve the bordercontrol and thereby the
>feeling of independence and national dignity. A recent opinion poll in
>Denmark shows that two thirds are against open borders and only 20
>percent are in favour.
Just do it.
> The Danes never feel comfortable with Germany. Let me give you an
>example. Recently a foreign NATO weapon depot in Denmark had to be
>removed. This depot was always known to be American. Suddently it
>turned out to really be German. The Danish military authorities had
>never dared to tell the public that those NATO weapons were German and
>had made the local population believe that they were American. As far
>as the story goes the Americans were friendly enough to remove those
>German weapons in stead of the Germans in order not to create tension
>among the local Danish population an. Origianally it was the
>Americans who had placed them there in order to fool the Danes.
Sounds strange to me. Weapons placed by Americans, removed by Americans,
owned by the NATO - how comes they are German weapons?
Didn't you know that Germany is a NATO member? Therefore it is possible
all the time that NATO weapons and equipment are made in Germany but
still used by the NATO.
> I hope that this example will give an idea why German policemen on
>Danish ground would not be aprobiate.
Not at all. It's not even an explanation but a strange construction.
>>Whom could he convince?
>
>Among others the Danish scientist Dr. Christian Lindtner who is often
>referring to him in his many articles in Danish newspapers about the
>holocaust that did not happen.
Can this Dr. Lindtner _prove_ it somehow? Quoting an unsecure source
doesn't make it true, no matter how many articles one writes for some
newspaper.
It's funny how often you are referring to people with a university
degree. It just doesn't impress me at all.
[Bosnia]
>>NATO is there to keep the fighting parties apart and protect the
>>civilians.
>
> All NATO Propaganda, and of the same kind as " Hitler occupied Poland
>in order to help the Poles developing Poland" or that the German
>police is able to help Denmark solving criminal cases that it
>otherwise would not be able to solve itself.
Tell me just one example that NATO troups in Bosnia had at least one
battle to occupy Bosnian territory for the NATO - then you may compare
them to the Nazis. Then tell me what this has to do with the exchange of
experiences of the police. You are getting weird.
> It is difficult to see who is the criminel in this case. The Serbs
>and the Muslims were living peacefully side by side until the Muslim
>Bosnians seceded Bosnia from the Yugoslav union. Then the bosnian
>Serbs suddently found themselves a minority in a Muslim dominated
>state. I can easily understand why they want to be united with their
>fellow Serbs in Serbia. This conflict has much in common with the
>Slesvig conflict in the 18th century. In my opinion it is very cruel
>of NATO to force the Bosnian Serbs to live together with Bosnian
>Muslims instead of with their fellow Serbians in Serbia.
There were no NATO if they'd make up their minds talking around tables.
If you want to go to your brother who is far away, you do wrong when you
make your way leaving a trace of blood.
> The Germans and other Western Europeans have no right to enforce
>their solution on the Bosnian Serbs.
What a silly expression. Germans and Western Europeans. It was NATO,
Dayton is in the USA. Your cheap propaganda tricks don't work.
>>But we were discussing what happened if the defender called the
>>witnesses liars _without prove_ just because he doesn't _beliefe_ them
>>for the matter of his client. I say he'd be sentenced as well.
>
> The word "liar" may be libellous, but it is not libellous to say
>that the witnesses are wrong.
Even if the defender says that the witnesses are wrong he has to prove
it. If his explanation cannot convince the jury his client will be
sentenced and he will be accused instead. The difference bewtween wrong
and lie is simply that in the first case one doesn't know to be wrong,
while in the other case he knows but still says the wrong thing.
> Many inmates died from typhoid fever. This was not inflicted
>deliberately. In the last monthes of the war the food conditions grew
>steadily worse due to the general breakdown in Germany.
[...]
>people. Hundreds of Danes were in German concentrationcamps, and the
>Danish authorities were permitted by the Germans to evacuate them to
>Sweden during the last monthes of the war. All those prisoners can
>confirm how the food situation became steadily worse until their
>evacuation.
That's still no explanation. Once dead nobody would ask why. If a
prisoner is not released because he cannot be fed any more and he dies
from hunger, his life was extinct. He didn't go to the concentration
camp but was taken there. He had no chance to go away when the food was
poorer and less. So, where is your prove that there was no holocaust?
>>Are you so blind? When the gassing started in late (!) 1944 and those
>>books are missing, how could you expect records about death by cyanid in
>>earlier books? Your whole theory is based on weak facts:
>>In the books before 1944 there is no record of gassed prisoners, so
>>there was no gassing. Because there was no gassing there was no
>>holocaust. Don't be that ridiculous.
>
>Hey you better watch out. If the Verfassungschutz is watching this
>debate you are in big trouble. You are minimizing the holocaust by
>denying that gassings took place in 1942 and 1943. You are denying
>"established facts".
Let this be my business. I gave my source earlier. That's a typical way
people like you act. You cannot find an argument, so you try to confuse
the other side. Did you mean to silence me by this funny threat? It
won't work. We are discussing in public, our articles are recorded on
Dejanews and many computers of those who read it. Why not
Verfassungsschutz, FBI or whatever.
>>>>The DVU is what you are fearing.
>>>
>>> I do not fear DVU, I welcome them. I love to see the Germans getting
>>>more national conscious.
>>
>>That's what I mean. Today you welcome them. The older generation here
>>sees much the DVU has in common with the Nazis (not only hair cut).
>
>The DVU are ordinary nationalists and not national socialists.
How do you know? Why are they wearing Nazi symbols if not prohibited by
their head quarter? How can someone be a representant of a non national
socialist party who had spread swastikas on grave stones?
>These guys do not know anything about real national socialism. They
>have been brainwashed by the Honnecker-regime and later by the
>Bonn-regime.
ROTFL
These guys do not know anything about anything. They cannot even talk to
the people who voted for them. Those "politicians" cannot give an
interview without the permission of their head quarter. They are nothing
but well educated dogs that bark on command.
>>The danger for us is that parties like DVU
>>could repeat the history.
>
>This would be as likely as Danish vikings would try to reconquer
>England. History is history, and you cannot turn back the wheel of
>history.
WW1 was followed by WW2. Already forgotten?
>> And if they then would occupy Denmark, would
>>you still like and welcome and cheer them?
>
>Occupying Denmark would be a meaningless act. Danes are Non-Germans
>and thus of no value to a nationalistic Germany. I think that DVU want
>Germany for the Germans.
Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He wanted more space for Germans.
What if those innocent ordinary nationalists decided to take some of the
big Norway, wouldn't you be somewhere on the way?
I bet your tears would then wash the dust from your eyes.
> Remember in 1864 when the Germans had won
>the war over Denmark they only grabbed those parts of Denmark which
>had a German population. After they had occupied the whole of Jutland
>for a while they withdrew.
Why Poland, why Russia, why France, why ... There was also no German
population.
>>Isn't it exactly what you accuse the present German government for?
>
> The present German government is very dangerous because it is not
>nationalistic enough and therefore does not mind to integrate and
>blend in foreign neighbour people. This danger is more than just a
>nightmare.
That's no need for your accusations that all turned out to be wrong. And
you still cannot explain why co-operation with neighbours should be bad.
National pride does not need national overestimation. I can be proud to
be German and still don't need to fight others.
>>Would you follow a party with only political beginners?
>
> If the leaders are more experienced, they can teach the newcomers.
>
>>> Because there is no war now - that simple.
>>
>>And if they start a way you cry that it is illegal.
>
>And what is there to fight about.
There is never a reason for a war. Just excuses.
[harvesting asparagus]
>>Ah, now the foreigners are suddenly welcome.
>
>You have misunderstood something. I meant the German unemployed will
>have to do it if there is nobody else to do it.
But that is the problem! They cannot do it because the toilets are not
appropriate and the salary is too low. How would you like to force them?
>Sure the German consumer will have to pay higher price and so what.
They don't. They buy cheaper imported goods.
> If you need Polish agricultural products you can buy them from the
>Polish farmers in Poland, and you will in this way support the
>economy of Poland. You will thereby contribute to the raising of the
>Polish livingstandard, and then fewer Poles will wish to go to Germany
>to work.
That's how we lose even more jobs in Germany.
>>> I think that the American dream is a bad dream - one that really
>>>sucks.
>>
>>I was asking you for an argument to bring them back to the countries of
>>their ancestors, not for your opinion about the American dream.
>
>The problems of America are not my problems.
So, why do you make the problems of Germany your problems?
>>What artificial regions? Countries work together but their areas remain
>>untouched. No country will invade another one. Your nightmare is, again,
>>without practical background.
>
> I was mentioning the EU region Slesvig. I have heard that there are
>ideas among the Germans of extenting this region with Holsten and
>Hamburg and to draw Jutland closer to this region and eventually
>incorporate the whole of Jutland in this region. This is the ultimate
>"nightmare".
And if Denmark says "no" this dream is over. It's that simple.
[EU]
>>They become more repressive? How do you know that?
>
>That is the only way to keep people of different nationality together.
I'm still waiting for your prove.
> The people in all the American states are of the same nationality.
>They speak the same language and share the same culture, mentality and
>history. E.g. a Dane and a German have no more in common than a Dane
>and an American.
You didn't mean this, did you?
Indians have the same culture like Cajuns? They have the same mentality
on East and West coast? No kidding.
>> What lets you think that really this multi
>>nationality is the reason? You make it again a scapegoat for different
>>reasons. In former Soviet Union as well as in Yugoslavia it was a small
>>communist group that suppressed the others in some way.
>
>In the EU it is a small elite that rules too.
I wonder who this is supposed to be.
>>>[war in Slesvig]
>>Why were they not stopped earlier or at least some day at the current
>>border?
>
> Because Slesvig and Holsten became one province and the Germans from
>the south was then free to migrate further to the north.
This says they were practically not stopped but accepted.
>>Sounds almost like nationalism caused those wars. They will most likely
>>have had problems living together all the time. How were those
>>suppressed earlier? Nationalism doesn't suddenly exist over night.
>>
> Slesvig- Holsten had from the Middle age a kind of homerule. When
>Holsten was conquered back in 1202 the social structures were feudal.
>The counts and other nobles in Holsten (and Holsten was 100 per cent
>German and has always been) accepted the Danish king as their
>overlord, because the Danish king accepted them as the local rulers
>and "under"lords. They were called the knightship and were the
>upperclass. They were German speaking and the knightship existed as
>the local rulers until the introduction of democracy in Denmark.
>Furthermore in the whole of Slesvig Holsten the Germans formed the
>majority and because of that and the fact that the upperclass was the
>German-speaking the Germans were quite content.
How did they suppress nationalism?
Stern22
Heiko Leberer <Heiko_...@bbn.hp.com> wrote in article
<3552A85D...@bbn.hp.com>...
> Stern22 wrote:
> > Now tell me how to say racketeer
>
>
> > (obtain money illegally like by fraud
>
> > or
> > extortion) in German... I must write another letter to Germany but it
takes
> Extortion: the deed=Erpressung, the performer: Erpresser
>
> > me days to complete :-)
> >
> > Dan.
>
> --
> Heiko
>
Dan.
E.F.Schelby
mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis (Michael Huebner) wrote:
>On 8 May 98 01:03:32 GMT, "Stern22" <dst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>"Rufschädigung" from your description I'd say defamation... I guess they're
>>kind of synonymous.
I would also suggest: character assassination.
ES
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 09 May 1998 07:22:22 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
(Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
>Sounds strange to me. Weapons placed by Americans, removed by Americans,
>owned by the NATO - how comes they are German weapons?
German weapons placed by the Americans in order not to scare the
Danish public.
>Didn't you know that Germany is a NATO member?
In the book of most Danes the Germans are still the hereditary enemy
(at least potentially) although the Soviet Union in those days seemed
more menacing. German weapons on Danish soil would have been too hard
to swallow. Therefore the American illusion was necessary.
>Therefore it is possible
>all the time that NATO weapons and equipment are made in Germany but
>still used by the NATO.
In case of war with Soviet Union these weapons was supposed to be
used by the Germans.
>>Among others the Danish scientist Dr. Christian Lindtner who is often
>>referring to him in his many articles in Danish newspapers about the
>>holocaust that did not happen.
>
>Can this Dr. Lindtner _prove_ it somehow?
Easily. Some of his articles have been translated to German and
posted to the internet. I have helped him posting some them.
>Quoting an unsecure source
>doesn't make it true, no matter how many articles one writes for some
>newspaper.
He does not do that.
>
>Tell me just one example that NATO troups in Bosnia had at least one
>battle to occupy Bosnian territory for the NATO - then you may compare
>them to the Nazis. Then tell me what this has to do with the exchange of
>experiences of the police. You are getting weird.
Under great pressure from military superior forces the Bosnian Serbs
were forced to sign the peace treaty. It was like Denmark on 9th April
1940. It had to negociate with the invading Germans instead of
fighting with them. The latter would have been totally useless.
>
>> It is difficult to see who is the criminel in this case. The Serbs
>>and the Muslims were living peacefully side by side until the Muslim
>>Bosnians seceded Bosnia from the Yugoslav union. Then the bosnian
>>Serbs suddently found themselves a minority in a Muslim dominated
>>state. I can easily understand why they want to be united with their
>>fellow Serbs in Serbia. This conflict has much in common with the
>>Slesvig conflict in the 18th century. In my opinion it is very cruel
>>of NATO to force the Bosnian Serbs to live together with Bosnian
>>Muslims instead of with their fellow Serbians in Serbia.
>
>There were no NATO if they'd make up their minds talking around tables.
>If you want to go to your brother who is far away, you do wrong when you
>make your way leaving a trace of blood.
In my opinion there ought to be a referendum like that in Slesvig in
1920 in both the Serbian part of Bosnia as well as in Kosovo. I think
that the local people should decide for themselves which country they
want to be a part of. The Serbs should live in Greater Serbia and the
Kosovo Albanians should live in Greater Albania.
>
>> The Germans and other Western Europeans have no right to enforce
>>their solution on the Bosnian Serbs.
>
>What a silly expression. Germans and Western Europeans. It was NATO,
>Dayton is in the USA. Your cheap propaganda tricks don't work.
But Danish NATO soldiers were sent there together with British, French
and so on.
>>
>> The word "liar" may be libellous, but it is not libellous to say
>>that the witnesses are wrong.
>
>Even if the defender says that the witnesses are wrong he has to prove
>it. If his explanation cannot convince the jury his client will be
>sentenced
The accused will only be sentenced for the original act and not for
saying that the witnesses are wrong.
>and he will be accused instead.
In Denmark it will not be a crime to doubt the witnesses or
suspecting them for not telling the truth.
>The difference bewtween wrong
>and lie is simply that in the first case one doesn't know to be wrong,
>while in the other case he knows but still says the wrong thing.
The defender still has the right of a free opinion no matter how
wrong it may be in the eyes of the judge.
>
>> Many inmates died from typhoid fever. This was not inflicted
>>deliberately. In the last monthes of the war the food conditions grew
>>steadily worse due to the general breakdown in Germany.
>[...]
>>people. Hundreds of Danes were in German concentrationcamps, and the
>>Danish authorities were permitted by the Germans to evacuate them to
>>Sweden during the last monthes of the war. All those prisoners can
>>confirm how the food situation became steadily worse until their
>>evacuation.
>
>That's still no explanation. Once dead nobody would ask why. If a
>prisoner is not released because he cannot be fed any more and he dies
>from hunger, his life was extinct. He didn't go to the concentration
>camp but was taken there. He had no chance to go away when the food was
>poorer and less. So, where is your prove that there was no holocaust?
But this does not prove that there were any deliberate attempts to
kill anybody, and you cannot blame the Germans for the succes of the
Allies in worsening of the food situation in Germany. Trying to starve
the enemy to surrender is an ancient old strategy of warfare
>>The DVU are ordinary nationalists and not national socialists.
>
>How do you know? Why are they wearing Nazi symbols if not prohibited by
>their head quarter? How can someone be a representant of a non national
>socialist party who had spread swastikas on grave stones?
If there are some national socialists they will always tend to
infiltrate ordinary national parties. I am affiliated with ordinary
national parties and associations in Denmark, and we are aware of this
problem. Wearing national socialist symbols will make you get kicked
out immediately.
>>>The danger for us is that parties like DVU
>>>could repeat the history.
>>
>>This would be as likely as Danish vikings would try to reconquer
>>England. History is history, and you cannot turn back the wheel of
>>history.
>
>WW1 was followed by WW2. Already forgotten?
Recently I heard the former British prime minister John Major saying
that WW1 and WW2 were 31 years of war with a break in between.
WW1 was finished with an armistice. The Versailles Treaty did not
solve the problems, so the second round of fighting started in 1939.
>
>>> And if they then would occupy Denmark, would
>>>you still like and welcome and cheer them?
>>
>>Occupying Denmark would be a meaningless act. Danes are Non-Germans
>>and thus of no value to a nationalistic Germany. I think that DVU want
>>Germany for the Germans.
>
>Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He wanted more space for Germans.
He wanted that to the east and not the north, west or south. In Mein
Kampf Hitler is rather vague about the east too.
>
>What if those innocent ordinary nationalists decided to take some of the
>big Norway,
This does not seem realistic to me. True nationalists want only to
have their own kind of people in their country.
>
>> Remember in 1864 when the Germans had won
>>the war over Denmark they only grabbed those parts of Denmark which
>>had a German population. After they had occupied the whole of Jutland
>>for a while they withdrew.
>
>Why Poland, why Russia, why France, why ... There was also no German
>population.
In Poland they wanted first and foremost to reestablish the borders
from 1914. The war against the Soviet Union was first and foremost a
war against communism.
>> The present German government is very dangerous because it is not
>>nationalistic enough and therefore does not mind to integrate and
>>blend in foreign neighbour people. This danger is more than just a
>>nightmare.
>
>That's no need for your accusations that all turned out to be wrong. And
>you still cannot explain why co-operation with neighbours should be bad.
It is you that need long explanations for the outright obvious. The
purpose of the EU regions for cooperation of neighbouring countries is
to suppress the national identities and substitute them with an
artificial European one. Just like they in the former Soviet Union
tried to create a Soviet identity - a new soviet human.
>
>National pride does not need national overestimation. I can be proud to
>be German and still don't need to fight others.
It is you German people who are fighting other people. Denmark has no
problem with having national pride and identity and live in peace with
it's neighbours. After the introduction of modern nationalism Denmark
has lived in peace and brotherhood with the Swedes. This was far from
the case before modern nationalism.
>
>There is never a reason for a war. Just excuses.
This is a very ignorant and naiv statement.
>
>But that is the problem! They cannot do it because the toilets are not
>appropriate and the salary is too low. How would you like to force them?
Take away their social or unemployment benefits if they refuse to take
the assigned work. This is what is done in similiar cases in Denmark.
>> If you need Polish agricultural products you can buy them from the
>>Polish farmers in Poland, and you will in this way support the
>>economy of Poland. You will thereby contribute to the raising of the
>>Polish livingstandard, and then fewer Poles will wish to go to Germany
>>to work.
>
>That's how we lose even more jobs in Germany.
Hm you will only lose those jobs that the Poles are doing. If there
is no work for them they won't come in the first place.
>>The problems of America are not my problems.
>
>So, why do you make the problems of Germany your problems?
Because the Germans are bothering me with them. They want to
harmonize their laws with countries in the rest of Europe. They want
to tyranize the other countries with their past.
>>
>>That is the only way to keep people of different nationality together.
>
>I'm still waiting for your prove.
I have already told you that they will try to limit the freedom of
speech in the disguise of fighting "racism" and "discrimination".
>
>> The people in all the American states are of the same nationality.
>>They speak the same language and share the same culture, mentality and
>>history. E.g. a Dane and a German have no more in common than a Dane
>>and an American.
>
>You didn't mean this, did you?
>Indians have the same culture like Cajuns? They have the same mentality
>on East and West coast? No kidding.
When I speak of Americans I mean the White majority. When I speak of
Danes I mean the ethnic Danes and not e.g. the German minority in the
South of Jutland.
>>>>[war in Slesvig]
>>>Why were they not stopped earlier or at least some day at the current
>>>border?
>>
>> Because Slesvig and Holsten became one province and the Germans from
>>the south was then free to migrate further to the north.
>
>This says they were practically not stopped but accepted.
In Slesvig they absorbed the local Danish upperclass while those
migrating into the real Denmark were absorbed in the Danish
population. German was mostly spoken in the cities of Slesvig while
Danish mostly mostly was spoken by common people in countryside. The
Danish upperclass in the Slesvig towns tended to speak German while
the German commoners in the countryside tended to speek Danish. German
was the world language while Danish was the local "potato" language.
This applies of course not to Holsten where everybody were German and
German speaking.
I fear very much that such a situation could arise again if the
Germans get lucky with their EU-region.
>How did they [the Danish rule] suppress nationalism?
>
German nationalists were sent to prison.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sat, 9 May 1998 01:16:49 GMT, Martin Paegert <m...@zenon.prima.de>
wrote:
>
>Nicht so uninteressant, wie du glaubst. Hitler regte bereits in den 30-ger
>Jahren einen regen Schueler- und Studentenaustausch mit dem "arischen
>Brudervolk im Norden" an.
Heute gibt es auch Schueler- und Studentenaustausch mit Deutschland.
Bedeutet das, dass es Plaene fuer eine deutsche Eroberung gibt?
Besonders viele junge Daenen machen ein Jahr in amerikanischen
Highschools. Bedeutet das, dass man Amerikanische Eroberung erwarten
kann?
> Es wurde lebhaft versucht, den daenischen
>Austauschstudenten voelkisches Ideengut nahezubringen. Mit relativ wenig
>Erfolg. Die rassistische Nazi-Ideologie verfing bei den weitaus meisten
>nicht.
Davon habe ich nichts gehoert. Ich habe viel von der deutschen
Besetzung gehoert von der alten Generation, aber ich habe niemals
gehoert von deutscher Rassenpolitik in Daenemark. Diese Rasse Dinge
war nur fuer die Deutschen. Eben die deportation von den Daenischen
Juden war mit sicherheitmaessigen Ursache begruendet.
>
>Nach der Besetzung probierte man die volle Palette. Man versuchte, einen
>daenischen Ableger der NSdAP zu gruenden,
Nicht korrekt. Es gab schon eine daenische Nazipartei und eben diese
Partei hatte Mistrauen zu den Deutschen.
> warb Mitglieder fuer die eigene
>Armee und die SS,
Ja Fremde Miettruppen wie die Franzosen in den Fremdlegion hat. Die
franzoesische Fremdlegion beweisst nicht, dass Frankreich
eroberungsplaene gegen andere europaische laender hat.
>gruendete Lebensborn-Heime (das daenisch Erbgut war im
>Sinne der Nazi-Rassenideologie ja durchaus wertvoll),
Sie haben schon genug von gutem Erbgut in seinem eigenem Volk. Sie
brauchten keine Verstaerkerung von Fremdvoelkern.
> stellte aber die
>Benuehungen recht bald ein. Aus zwei Gruenden: zum einen verfingen sie
>nicht, zum anderen trafen sie auf energische Proteste der Daenischen
>Regierung und drohten das Land zu destabilisieren.
Davon habe ich nicht gehoert. Und was waren diese Lebensbornstellen
anders als Kinderheimen und Heimen fuer unverheirateten Muetter?
Solche soziale problemen konnte Daenemark selbst leicht handtieren.
Das deutsche Heer war nicht fuer solchen Aufgaben faehig.
>
>Der Status Quo war dabei nicht uninteressant. Daenemark ergab sich kampflos
Kampflos? 13 daenische Soldaten hatten im kampf gegen die Invasion
gestorben.
>und durfte deshalb und weil im Sinne der Nazi-Ideologie privilegiert, eine
>Regierung behalten und sich weitgehendst selbst verwalten. Regierung wie
>auch prominente Einzelpersonen kultivierten eine Art "zivilen Ungehorsam".
>Mit dem bemerkenswerten Resultat, dass die Nazi-Besetzung relativ wenig
>Opfer forderte - auch auf Seiten der Daenen juedischen Glaubens nicht.Der
>Anweisung, juedische Mitbuerger der SS zu uebergeben, verweigerte man den
>Gehorsam. Obwohl sich die deutschen Statthalter in Daenemark in Berlin
>bitterlich darueber beklagten, wagte man es in Berlin nicht, das Land durch
>entsprechendes Vorgehen der SS in Aufruhr zu versetzen.
Die Leitern des Besetzungheers Renthe-Fink und spaeter Werner Best
hatten Berlin empfohlen keine Aktion gegen die daenische Juden zu
nehmen. Sie hatten beiden mitgeteilt, dass es in Daenemark kein
Judenproblem gibt. Berlin behauptete, dass die daenischen Juden ein
Sicherheits risiko waren.
>
>
>>>Das wird gern behauptet, ist so aber nicht ganz richtig. Das zu
>>>errrichtende Grossdeutsche Reich sollte Daenemark wie die meisten anderen
>>>Staaten West- und Nordeuropas als Satellitenstaaten umfassen. Die Daenemark
>>>und anderen Staaten zugedachte Rolle unterscheidet sich in nichts von der
>>>Rolle, die den meisten osteuopaeischen Staaten nach dem Krieg dann von
>>>Stalin zuerkannt wurde.
>>
>> Ja wie Finland. Finland konnte sein eigenes demokratisches
>> politisches System behalten, aber es musste die Aussenpolitik nach den
>> Interessen der Sowietunions einorden. Daenemark hatte ein aehnliches
>> Verhaeltnis zu Deutschland wegen der deutschen Besetzung.
>
>Der Vergleich geht daneben. Finnland - wie uebrigens auch Oesterreich -
>waren militaerisch zur Neutralitaet verpflichtet, durften also nicht
>Mitglied der NATO werden. Weder Finnland, noch Oesterreich, war nach dem
>Krieg indes als Sowjetischer Satellitenstaat zu betrachten.
> Die nach einem deutschen Sieg Daenemark zugedachte Rolle ist eher
>vergleichbar der Ungarns oder der Tschechoslovakei. Daenemark haette eine
>Regierung von deutschen Gnaden bekommen und Widerstand waere notfalls mit
>Panzern im Keim erstickt worden.
Und welcher Beleg hasst du fuer diese Behauptung? Die deutschen
Nationalsozialisten waren deutschen chauvinisten und waren nur in
Fremdvoelkern interessiert wenn sie ein Sicherheitproblem waeren.
>
>
>> Ich habe Mein Kampf gelesen, und Hitler hat nichts ueber Daenemark
>> geschrieben. Daenische Geschichtsforschern sagen immer, dass Hitler
>> hat sich nicht fuer Daenemark interessiert.
>
>Lies nach, was er ueber Grossdeutschland schreibt und was er darunter
>versteht.
Grossdeutschland war nur fuer Deutschen.
>
>> Ich habe die ganze Rede [Hitlers letzte] gelesen, und es gibt keine
>> Zeichen, dass er damals psychisch gestoert war. Du hasst zu viel allierte
>> Kriegspropaganda gelesen.
>
>Nicht ? Dass er ueberall "Sabotage und Verrat" wittert, dass er dem
>gesamten deutschen Volk vorwirft, ihn verraten zu haben ist kein Zeichen
>psychischer Stoerung ?
Ich habe solches nicht da gelesen. Nur bedauert sich darueber dass
man Italien zu helfen versucht hat. Deutschland hatte nicht die
militaere resourcen in Balkan und Nordafrika zu kaempfen. Er
einraeumt, dass man in diesem Fall die Lage falsch beurteilt hat.
> Dass er in den letzten Wochen mit Einheiten und
>Wunderwaffen agiert, die es real nicht gibt, ist kein Zeichen psychischer
>Stoerung ? Dass er ein Sippenhaftgesetz erlaesst - "Es ist ein Gesetz
>erlassen, na dem alle Familienangehoerigen von Soldaten, die im gefecht
>ueberlaufen oder sich feige verhalten haben, verhaftet und anstelle der
>Soldaten zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden." - ist durchaus normal ?
In der Fassung, die ich habe, kann man nicht solches lesen.
>> Ich habe nicht 66 Q&A gesannt.
>
>Ooch, du wolltest/willst sie nur in vor der Luebecker Polizeistation
>verteilen.
Aber ich habe es noch nicht getan.
>Sicher. Nur beschraenkt sich dein Demokratieverstaendnis scheinbar darauf,
>einerseits eine "Diktatur der Mehrheit" zu befuerworten, wenn es darum
>geht, was passieren soll, sollten deine poitischen Genossen jemals die
>parlamentarische Mehrheit erlangen (menschenrechtliche Bindung lehnst du
>z.B. kategorisch ab), andererseits aber auf politische Minderheitenrechte
>zu pochen, wann immer dir das in den Kram passt und "freie
>Meinungsaeusserung" als eine Art "Recht auf Aufforderung zu Gewalt und
>Diktatur" misszuverstehen.
Die Einwandern aus der dritten Welt koennen in seiner eigenen
Laendern Demokrati haben. Die daenische Demokrati ist nur fuer Daenen
geschaffen.
Peter Alfke
Martin Paegert wrote:
> Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
>
> > However, what I originally wanted to say was that North German
> > dialects have still much more in common with Swiss , Austrian and
> > Bavarian German than with Danish, which is a totally different
> > language like English.
>
> Hard to believe. Can anyone with a lingual background confirm ?
It may be hard to believe, but it is true.Danish is a Scandinavian
language and has strong ties to Norwegian and Swedish. But it is very
different from any German dialect, even any North-German dialect.
Dutch, on the other hand is very similar to the "Plattdeutsch" dialect
spoken in the part of Germany bordering on the Netherlands.
I grew up 20 miles from the German-Dutch border, and later spent 10
years in Scandinavia, so this is not just a biased opinion...
I never thought I would ever stoop so low as to defend Ole Kreiberg, but
facts are facts...
Peter Alfke
>
Daniel Keren
o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) writes:
# Michael Huebner writes:
### Among others the Danish scientist Dr. Christian Lindtner
### who is often referring to him in his many articles in
### Danish newspapers about the holocaust that did not happen.
## Can this Dr. Lindtner _prove_ it somehow?
No, he can only chew the same old Nazi "Holocaust revisionist"
vomit and spit it out again. Kreiberg used to claim that cremation
in Auschwitz was not possible, because corpses would "violently
explode" in the cremation furnaces. That's a typical example
to the quality of arguments offered by "Holocaust revisionists";
they are nothing but a bunch of lying, braindead Nazi morons.
# Easily. Some of his articles have been translated to German and
# posted to the internet. I have helped him posting some them.
Post them here in English, nazi-boy, and I shall reply to them.
-Danny Keren.
Ole Kreiberg
On Fri, 8 May 1998 01:57:28 GMT, Martin Paegert <m...@zenon.prima.de>
wrote:
>Now, in Germany books aren't forbidden by the Government, but by Courts. In
>case of Germar Rudoplph and acording to my memories the book has been
>banned for a short time when historians expertises found that it is not to
>be seen as scientific but as propagandistic, and this ban has been lifted
>later on.
How come that Germar Rudolf was sentenced to 8 monthes in prison
because of this book, if it is legal. Are you suggesing that he got 8
monthes in prison for writing a legal book?
>
>For sure there is nothing to fear. What ? That deniers of the Holocaust
>are right ? Now, assume for the moment a book proving exactly just right
>that is existing and forbidden in Germany. What would happen ? Masses of
>historians from all over the world would protest and "Holocaust did not
>exist - how xy [Germar Rudolph f.e.] revealed the truth" would become the
>most important issue on international historians conventions. Nothing of
>this did take place. Why not ? The usual argument of neo-nazi-revisionists
>is "Because of the International Jewish Conspiracy". Let's see what Ole's
>answer is.
Because this book is not considered political correct among
scientists. Very few scientists apart from revisionists have actually
read this book. If they are told that the book is nazipropaganda it is
more convenient to believe this than to look for themselves.
>Thus
>
>> In 1962, in a letter to weekly journal Die Zeit, Dr.
>> Martin Broszat of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich
>> admitted that none of the camps in Germany - including Bergen Belsen,
>> Buchenwald, Dachau, Ravensbrueck and Sachsenhausen - were
>> extermination camps and that no-one was ever gassed in any of them.
>
>is correct in terms of cites, but not in terms of conclusion "no-one was
>ever gassed in any of them".
> Readers please note: it is Ole saying that no gassing at all took place
>in these gas-chambers.
Try to read it again and you will notice that I wrote that no gassing
at all took place in these camps. I did not write gaschambers.
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 10 May 1998 07:25:23 GMT, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote:
>o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) writes:
># Michael Huebner writes:
>
>### Among others the Danish scientist Dr. Christian Lindtner
>### who is often referring to him in his many articles in
>### Danish newspapers about the holocaust that did not happen.
>
>## Can this Dr. Lindtner _prove_ it somehow?
>
>No, he can only chew the same old Nazi "Holocaust revisionist"
>vomit and spit it out again.
And what do you know about that? Have you ever read yourself what he
wrote?
> Kreiberg used to claim that cremation
>in Auschwitz was not possible, because corpses would "violently
>explode" in the cremation furnaces.
This is a distortion of something I quoted from a Canadian Crematoria
manager by the name Ivan Lagace.
>Post them here in English, nazi-boy, and I shall reply to them.
>
Calling me a nazi only proves that you do not understand what real
nazism is.
Ole Kreiberg
>
>It may be hard to believe, but it is true.Danish is a Scandinavian
>language and has strong ties to Norwegian and Swedish. But it is very
>different from any German dialect, even any North-German dialect.
>
>Dutch, on the other hand is very similar to the "Plattdeutsch" dialect
>spoken in the part of Germany bordering on the Netherlands.
It is my impression too that Dutch is closer related to German than
Danish. However Plattdeutsch, as you are mentioning, is supposed to be
that language outside of Scandinavia that has the closest resemblance
to Danish. Perhaps Dutch is closer to Danish than High-German. I do
not speak Dutch, and I am not sure.
Daniel Keren
o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) writes:
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
## No, he can only chew the same old Nazi "Holocaust revisionist"
## vomit and spit it out again.
# And what do you know about that? Have you ever read yourself
# what he wrote?
Yes, I read some Nazi propaganda he posted, either on SCG or
AR. Same old Nazi crap which Holocaust deniers have been peddling
for years.
## Kreiberg used to claim that cremation
## in Auschwitz was not possible, because corpses would "violently
## explode" in the cremation furnaces.
# This is a distortion of something I quoted from a Canadian
# Crematoria manager by the name Ivan Lagace.
That's what you said.
## Post them here in English, nazi-boy, and I shall reply to them.
# Calling me a nazi only proves that you do not understand what real
# nazism is.
You're not a real Nazi yet, just a nazi-boy. Keep working and
you'll be a real Nazi some day.
-Danny Keren.
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <3554EB01...@xilinx.com>,
Peter Alfke <peter...@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
> It may be hard to believe, but it is true.Danish is a Scandinavian
> language and has strong ties to Norwegian and Swedish. But it is very
> different from any German dialect, even any North-German dialect.
>
> Dutch, on the other hand is very similar to the "Plattdeutsch" dialect
> spoken in the part of Germany bordering on the Netherlands.
You support and contradict my impression at the same time :-)
When I was travelling to Norway by train the first time I found problems
understanding the local people who entered the train in northern Germany. I
found similar problems in Denmark but could still understand them. For my
feeling both dialects were rather close. Of course, it may as well be Danes
living in Germany and Germans living in Denmark.
On the other side I found people in Bavaria who could not understand northern
Germans at all.
Your example of Dutch/Platt supports my opinion that languages of the same
family, no matter if they are regarded true languages or just local dialects,
do not change so much at borders as those are artificial and mostly younger
than the local language itself. Of course, that stops when you enter an area
where the language is part of a different family, e.g. Polish as a Slavian.
> I never thought I would ever stoop so low as to defend Ole Kreiberg, but
> facts are facts...
Why not agree with Ole when he is right? An honest discussion should be
possible without the bias of personal likes and dislikes.
Michael Hübner
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
The Shoe
Like a dog turning to his own vomit. Nazis came up with that "No Holocaust"
line not from any sincere review of facts. They came up with it to enrage
decent people-Jew and Gentile alike. That is their only intent. I spit on
them.
Ole Kreiberg
On Tue, 12 May 1998 07:46:02 GMT, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote:
>
>You're not a real Nazi yet, just a nazi-boy. Keep working and
>you'll be a real Nazi some day.
I have now spent monthes in this newsgroup explaining why only
Germans can be true nazis and that my only intentions are to stop the
immigration and to create ethnic homogeneity. Leave nazism to the
Germans and history. It is not my table.
Ole Kreiberg
On Tue, 12 May 1998 09:29:54 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>You support and contradict my impression at the same time :-)
>When I was travelling to Norway by train the first time I found problems
>understanding the local people who entered the train in northern Germany. I
>found similar problems in Denmark but could still understand them.
If you haven't learned Danish beforehand you will not be able to
understand much of this language. I have learned German for many years
at school, and I should be the first to know the difference between
these two different laguages. Try to tell Danish pupils learning
German that Danish is really only a German dialect, and they will
think that you must have more than one screw loose. Take a look my
homepage which is in Danish only, and you will soon realize what I am
saying:
http://www.patriot.dk
Ole Kreiberg
Ole Kreiberg
On 13 May 1998 01:55:03 GMT, "The Shoe" <nos...@correct.com> wrote:
>Like a dog turning to his own vomit. Nazis came up with that "No Holocaust"
>line not from any sincere review of facts.
Can you prove that?
> They came up with it to enrage
>decent people-Jew and Gentile alike. That is their only intent.
I can understand that you do haven't read any revisionist material but
are only parroting the Bonn-regime.
Try this address:
Daniel Keren
o...@patriot.dk (Ole Kreiberg) writes:
# I can understand that you do haven't read any revisionist
# material but are only parroting the Bonn-regime.
I've read plenty. It's garbage. If you believe there are
strong "Holocaust revisionist" claims, post them.
# Try this address:
#
# http://www.ihr.org
Kreiberg cites a web page authored by an ignorant cracker,
Greg Raven, a man without any qualifications whatsoever
as a scientist and/or a historian; moreover, it may be
interesting to see what Raven thinks about Hitler:
<begin quote from Raven's GEnie article>
Category 15, Topic 4
Message 33 Fri Mar 13, 1992
G.RAVEN at 03:02 EST
My only concern is in going after the facts. As such, I am not
interested in defending Adolf Hitler to my dying breath. I will
say, however, that he was a great man ... certainly greater than
Churchill and FDR put together, and possibly the greatest leader
of our century, if not longer. This is not to say that he was
perfect, but he about the best thing that could have happened
to Germany.
<end quote>
-Danny Keren.
The Shoe
If I try this address, I will be giving evil, filthy slugs like you the
time of day. I can smell you over the internet. Like your predecessor, you
are cruel and totally amoral. You kill then lie about it. I spit on you
again.
>
> Try this address:
The Shoe
I disagree. I think he is a real Nazi. I also know that you don't have to
be a German to be a Nazi. When I visited Dachau many years ago, one of the
former inmates said that most of the SS slugs were not German, but
Austrian, Eastern Slavic, etc. Of course, the commandants were almost
always German.
Ole Kreiberg
On 13 May 1998 23:57:46 GMT, "The Shoe" <nos...@correct.com> wrote:
>I disagree. I think he is a real Nazi. I also know that you don't have to
>be a German to be a Nazi. When I visited Dachau many years ago, one of the
>former inmates said that most of the SS slugs were not German, but
>Austrian, Eastern Slavic, etc. Of course, the commandants were almost
>always German.
Austrians are Germans. Remember Hitler that was an Austrian, and he
certainly regarded himself and his fellow Austrians as Germans. It is
true that many Slavs volunteered for the SS and worked voluntarily for
the Germans. I think that they just needed to earn a living. This
contradicts the Allied horror propaganda that the Slavs were
"subhumans" destined to be exterminated by the German "masterrace". In
my country around 250,000 citizens out of a population of 4 million
worked in Germany during WW2 after they have been assigned to do so by
their social democratic union. If they refused their unemployment
benefits would have been canceled. Before Hitler's attack on the
Soviet Union also communist unions assigned their unemployed members
to work in Germany.
Ole Kreiberg
Gee, are you sure about all that? :-D
Ole Kreiberg
On 13 May 1998 23:55:06 GMT, "The Shoe" <nos...@correct.com> wrote:
>If I try this address, I will be giving evil, filthy slugs like you the
>time of day. I can smell you over the internet. Like your predecessor,
I did not know that I have a predecessor. Who was he? Somebody
debating on the usenet?
> you
>are cruel and totally amoral.
Am I cruel and amoral just because I do not believe in the holocaust?
I know that some people like Daniel Keren may call me "ignorant", but
cruel? Why?
> You kill then lie about it.
Accusing somebody of killing without being able to prove it is serious
libel.
>I spit on you
>again.
But beware that I may spit back. ;-)
The Shoe
Some of you may wonder why this slug sounds hollow and gargled. You see he
lives down on the bottom of the barrel and his throat is full of slime that
chokes him every time he opens his Nazi, anti-Semitic mouth. (I actually
looked into the barrell one day just to watch him wriggle) He tries to make
you think that he is really a nice guy who is questioning The Houlocaust.
He says he just wants an intellectual discussion. Don't fall for his smug
faux sophistication, gang. He wears a mask of mainstream but in reality he
is a filthy slug, an apologist for Nazi cruelty. He is a Scheizkopf.
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <35594f11...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 May 1998 09:29:54 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>
> >You support and contradict my impression at the same time :-)
> >When I was travelling to Norway by train the first time I found problems
> >understanding the local people who entered the train in northern Germany. I
> >found similar problems in Denmark but could still understand them.
>
> If you haven't learned Danish beforehand you will not be able to
> understand much of this language.
That's, of course, correct. At the time of my first trip I had just a basic
understanding of Norwegian because I never learned it at school but with a
tape course. It was enough to make my way through Denmark and Sweden as well
but also helped me to understand people in the "far north" of Germany better.
Michael
mhue...@isbmh.com
In article <35545b9...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Krei...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 May 1998 07:22:22 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com.removethis
> (Michael Huebner) wrote:
>
> >
> >Sounds strange to me. Weapons placed by Americans, removed by Americans,
> >owned by the NATO - how comes they are German weapons?
>
> German weapons placed by the Americans in order not to scare the
> Danish public.
May I lough? I cannot imagine weapons that are not scary, no matter who placed
them or made them.
> >Didn't you know that Germany is a NATO member?
>
> In the book of most Danes the Germans are still the hereditary enemy
> (at least potentially) although the Soviet Union in those days seemed
> more menacing. German weapons on Danish soil would have been too hard
> to swallow. Therefore the American illusion was necessary.
Who made this illusion? I doubt it was Germans pretending to be Americans in
order not to scare the Danes. If someone else is buying weapons in Germany and
placing them on false name you cannot blame Germany for it, can you?
> >Therefore it is possible
> >all the time that NATO weapons and equipment are made in Germany but
> >still used by the NATO.
>
> In case of war with Soviet Union these weapons was supposed to be
> used by the Germans.
Why not by Danes? If someone, maybe Denmark or NATO, were fighting Soviet
Union from Danish ground there were no difference who would work the machine.
> >Can this Dr. Lindtner _prove_ it somehow?
>
> Easily. Some of his articles have been translated to German and
> posted to the internet. I have helped him posting some them.
My question was if he could _prove_ something or just tell the same stuff like
you do, based on personal beliefes only.
> >Tell me just one example that NATO troups in Bosnia had at least one
> >battle to occupy Bosnian territory for the NATO - then you may compare
> >them to the Nazis. Then tell me what this has to do with the exchange of
> >experiences of the police. You are getting weird.
>
> Under great pressure from military superior forces the Bosnian Serbs
> were forced to sign the peace treaty. It was like Denmark on 9th April
> 1940. It had to negociate with the invading Germans instead of
> fighting with them. The latter would have been totally useless.
Do you sometimes read what I ask?
!!! Tell me just one example that NATO troups in Bosnia had at least one
!!! battle to occupy Bosnian territory for the NATO.
Of course, from the point of view of someone who is going to change existing
borders it will always be hard to be stopped. I prefer the presence of
military equipment if it can avoid the use.
> >There were no NATO if they'd make up their minds talking around tables.
> >If you want to go to your brother who is far away, you do wrong when you
> >make your way leaving a trace of blood.
>
> In my opinion there ought to be a referendum like that in Slesvig in
> 1920 in both the Serbian part of Bosnia as well as in Kosovo. I think
> that the local people should decide for themselves which country they
> want to be a part of. The Serbs should live in Greater Serbia and the
> Kosovo Albanians should live in Greater Albania.
I agree with you, it should be done by a referendum. But in the last sentence
you give a result already. If this is the only result you would accept, what
do you need a referendum for? If the Bosnian Serbs want to live in Serbia they
can move there. If they want to stay where they are they can decide to become
part of Serbia if somehow possible but leave the same right for the Bosnians.
All this could be done without war.
> >> The Germans and other Western Europeans have no right to enforce
> >>their solution on the Bosnian Serbs.
> >
> >What a silly expression. Germans and Western Europeans. It was NATO,
> >Dayton is in the USA. Your cheap propaganda tricks don't work.
>
> But Danish NATO soldiers were sent there together with British, French
> and so on.
Great! So it was a Danish solution, too.
But get some facts. NATO didn't tell the people in former Yugoslavia what to
do but brought their representants together to discuss a solution. It was
finally a decision of the involved parties and not of the NATO.
> >> The word "liar" may be libellous, but it is not libellous to say
> >>that the witnesses are wrong.
> >
> >Even if the defender says that the witnesses are wrong he has to prove
> >it. If his explanation cannot convince the jury his client will be
> >sentenced
>
> The accused will only be sentenced for the original act and not for
> saying that the witnesses are wrong.
Ole, why do you keep telling the same all the time? We were talking about the
defender! And even the accused can be sentenced for calling the witnesses
liars. That's no problem at all. He can be found guilty for different things.
> >and he will be accused instead.
>
> In Denmark it will not be a crime to doubt the witnesses or
> suspecting them for not telling the truth.
Witnesses everywhere have to swear to tell nothing but the truth before they
are heard. If someone, no matter who, suspects them not to tell the truth he
has to prove it or shut up. If he can prove it the witness himself can be
sentenced. If he cannot, the witness can bring it up as a new case, now
against the person who called him a liar. I don't think this is different in
Denmark.
The fact that most people don't do it doesn't say that it is impossible. It
depends on how important the matter is regarded.
> >The difference bewtween wrong
> >and lie is simply that in the first case one doesn't know to be wrong,
> >while in the other case he knows but still says the wrong thing.
>
> The defender still has the right of a free opinion no matter how
> wrong it may be in the eyes of the judge.
Sure he has. But he will always be asked why. The question is who can convince
whom.
> >That's still no explanation. Once dead nobody would ask why. If a
> >prisoner is not released because he cannot be fed any more and he dies
> >from hunger, his life was extinct. He didn't go to the concentration
> >camp but was taken there. He had no chance to go away when the food was
> >poorer and less. So, where is your prove that there was no holocaust?
>
> But this does not prove that there were any deliberate attempts to
> kill anybody, and you cannot blame the Germans for the succes of the
> Allies in worsening of the food situation in Germany. Trying to starve
> the enemy to surrender is an ancient old strategy of warfare
The food situation was bad long before. And food is just one example. What
about hard work under bad conditions, what about the many beaten and shot
prisoners?
> If there are some national socialists they will always tend to
> infiltrate ordinary national parties. I am affiliated with ordinary
> national parties and associations in Denmark, and we are aware of this
> problem. Wearing national socialist symbols will make you get kicked
> out immediately.
This may be a difference. German "national" parties like Republikaner or DVU
don't kick them out because they need them to form a greater crowd. They just
try to avoid the Nazi symbols because they would scare many more people.
> >WW1 was followed by WW2. Already forgotten?
>
> Recently I heard the former British prime minister John Major saying
> that WW1 and WW2 were 31 years of war with a break in between.
Sure, all the history is war with some breaks in between...
If you repeat the situation that once lead to National Socialism in Germany
you can hardly say that this time it will end up a different way. The economic
situation is similar, the slogans are of the same kind, the people who follow
them are of the same kind (e.g. social and educational background). My only
hope is that the other people are strong enough to keep that down this time.
> >>Occupying Denmark would be a meaningless act. Danes are Non-Germans
> >>and thus of no value to a nationalistic Germany. I think that DVU want
> >>Germany for the Germans.
> >
> >Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He wanted more space for Germans.
>
> He wanted that to the east and not the north, west or south. In Mein
> Kampf Hitler is rather vague about the east too.
All that didn't stop him to invade other countries, too. What do you beliefe
more, his book or historical facts?
> >What if those innocent ordinary nationalists decided to take some of the
> >big Norway,
>
> This does not seem realistic to me. True nationalists want only to
> have their own kind of people in their country.
Those true nationalists once wanted the Jews out of Germany. They didn't care
if those were German Jews. What was it then that finally those "true
nationalists" also wanted Poles out of Poland, Russians out of Russia, French
out of France...
> In Poland they wanted first and foremost to reestablish the borders
> from 1914. The war against the Soviet Union was first and foremost a
> war against communism.
Don't you see it? Different excuses every time but the result is always the
same - war. I'm sure there would be another excuse to occupy Denmark or Norway
(maybe the oil or the scenic country for holiday resorts). Reestablishing
borders of some certain date will also only be an excuse. What if the Italians
suddenly wanted to reestablish the borders of the Roman empire? They had lost
those countries by war just like Germany had lost some space in WW1 and later
a large area in the east. Should not a good and "true nationalist" want Slesia
back? How should this be done if not by war?
> >That's no need for your accusations that all turned out to be wrong. And
> >you still cannot explain why co-operation with neighbours should be bad.
>
> It is you that need long explanations for the outright obvious.
What seems obvious to you has nothing to do with the obvious things for me.
You gave a lot of long explanations but they are all based on something that
you cannot prove. Don't expect me to swallow something if you cannot convince
me.
> The
> purpose of the EU regions for cooperation of neighbouring countries is
> to suppress the national identities and substitute them with an
> artificial European one. Just like they in the former Soviet Union
> tried to create a Soviet identity - a new soviet human.
First of all you could not convince me at all that living in a national
nutshell would bring any desirable thing. Then you are hooked on the idea that
opening a country would destroy a national identity. Hessians live next door
with the Bavarians and Thuringians and all are still Hessians, Bavarians and
Thuringians under a common German roof. If Germans and Austrians and Danes and
and Belgians etc. lived together under a common European roof they could as
well preserve their national identity. I respect your nightmares but don't
expect me to share them unless you can convince me.
> >National pride does not need national overestimation. I can be proud to
> >be German and still don't need to fight others.
>
> It is you German people who are fighting other people. Denmark has no
> problem with having national pride and identity and live in peace with
> it's neighbours. After the introduction of modern nationalism Denmark
> has lived in peace and brotherhood with the Swedes. This was far from
> the case before modern nationalism.
I am a German and not fighting anybody. I have friends all over the world and
they come visit me without having problems with my neighbours. I go and visit
them without having problems with their neighbours. Who is fighting whom? Of
course you can make up this funny discussion and accuse me of taking Norwegian
space while I'm in Norway... But that's not your intention, right?
> >There is never a reason for a war. Just excuses.
>
> This is a very ignorant and naiv statement.
It's my honest beliefe. You may call it whatever you want - show me the
opposite. I can show you why I see it like this. Feel free to convince me. But
it takes some better arguments than your usual stuff.
> >But that is the problem! They cannot do it because the toilets are not
> >appropriate and the salary is too low. How would you like to force them?
>
> Take away their social or unemployment benefits if they refuse to take
> the assigned work. This is what is done in similiar cases in Denmark.
That's what is going to happen. This is one side of the medal. The other side
is that it proves them wrong when people cry that the foreigners would take
German jobs.
> >That's how we lose even more jobs in Germany.
>
> Hm you will only lose those jobs that the Poles are doing. If there
> is no work for them they won't come in the first place.
They will seek another job. They do a lot of work that Germans are unwilling
to do.
> >>The problems of America are not my problems.
> >
> >So, why do you make the problems of Germany your problems?
>
> Because the Germans are bothering me with them. They want to
> harmonize their laws with countries in the rest of Europe. They want
> to tyranize the other countries with their past.
Yes, sure. We were discussing your nightmares for a long time already.
> >> The people in all the American states are of the same nationality.
> >>They speak the same language and share the same culture, mentality and
> >>history. E.g. a Dane and a German have no more in common than a Dane
> >>and an American.
> >
> >You didn't mean this, did you?
> >Indians have the same culture like Cajuns? They have the same mentality
> >on East and West coast? No kidding.
>
> When I speak of Americans I mean the White majority. When I speak of
> Danes I mean the ethnic Danes and not e.g. the German minority in the
> South of Jutland.
Turning around and around and around... You pick some facts just the way they
fit your argumentation but refuse to see other ones if they contradict.
> In Slesvig they absorbed the local Danish upperclass while those
> migrating into the real Denmark were absorbed in the Danish
> population.
Where was the contradiction then? Where was the national problems (e.g. due to
multi-ethnicity at that time?
> >How did they [the Danish rule] suppress nationalism?
> >
> German nationalists were sent to prison.
What about Danish nationalists?
Ole Kreiberg
On Sun, 17 May 1998 13:11:06 GMT, mhue...@isbmh.com wrote:
>> German weapons placed by the Americans in order not to scare the
>> Danish public.
>
>May I lough? I cannot imagine weapons that are not scary, no matter who placed
>them or made them.
They were scary because they were German. Remember Germany is after
all the old hereditary enemy and is regarded with mistrust.
>Who made this illusion? I doubt it was Germans pretending to be Americans in
>order not to scare the Danes. If someone else is buying weapons in Germany and
>placing them on false name you cannot blame Germany for it, can you?
They were supposed to be applied by the Germans in case a war between
east and west were to be fought out on Danish ground.
>
>My question was if he could _prove_ something or just tell the same stuff like
>you do, based on personal beliefes only.
My views are not based on belief. See following website:
>Do you sometimes read what I ask?
>!!! Tell me just one example that NATO troups in Bosnia had at least one
>!!! battle to occupy Bosnian territory for the NATO.
Sure. There were NATO airraids on Serb positions.
>> The accused will only be sentenced for the original act and not for
>> saying that the witnesses are wrong.
>
>Ole, why do you keep telling the same all the time? We were talking about the
>defender! And even the accused can be sentenced for calling the witnesses
>liars.
I doubt that.
>> >and he will be accused instead.
>>
>> In Denmark it will not be a crime to doubt the witnesses or
>> suspecting them for not telling the truth.
>
>Witnesses everywhere have to swear to tell nothing but the truth before they
>are heard. If someone, no matter who, suspects them not to tell the truth he
>has to prove it or shut up. If he can prove it the witness himself can be
>sentenced. If he cannot, the witness can bring it up as a new case, now
>against the person who called him a liar. I don't think this is different in
>Denmark.
The word liar may be libellous. Which kind of fool will use such a
word. The accused would e.g. just say, that it was not him the
witnesses saw because he was somewhere else, or he would say he was
not e.g. murdering somebody but was only defending himself from being
assaulted. Then you have conflicting versions of the events and there
is nothing punishable in that. The accused will not be punished for
denying that the crime for which he is being sentenced.
>The food situation was bad long before. And food is just one example. What
>about hard work under bad conditions, what about the many beaten and shot
>prisoners?
I have heard former Danish concentration inmates complain about the
boredom and lack of activity in the concentrationcamps. Not all camps
were able to employ all it's inmates while others tend to overwork
them. Bad administration.
>
>Sure, all the history is war with some breaks in between...
>If you repeat the situation that once lead to National Socialism in Germany
>you can hardly say that this time it will end up a different way. The economic
>situation is similar, the slogans are of the same kind, the people who follow
>them are of the same kind (e.g. social and educational background). My only
>hope is that the other people are strong enough to keep that down this time.
WW2 was born at Versailles. After WW2 there were no Versailles. This
makes a differences.
>
>> >>Occupying Denmark would be a meaningless act. Danes are Non-Germans
>> >>and thus of no value to a nationalistic Germany. I think that DVU want
>> >>Germany for the Germans.
>> >
>> >Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany. He wanted more space for Germans.
>>
>> He wanted that to the east and not the north, west or south. In Mein
>> Kampf Hitler is rather vague about the east too.
>
>All that didn't stop him to invade other countries, too. What do you beliefe
>more, his book or historical facts?
He had a borderproblem to settle with Poland - a leftover from the
Versailles Treaty. Later he started the crusade against Bolsjevism.
>
>> >What if those innocent ordinary nationalists decided to take some of the
>> >big Norway,
>>
>> This does not seem realistic to me. True nationalists want only to
>> have their own kind of people in their country.
>
>Those true nationalists once wanted the Jews out of Germany. They didn't care
>if those were German Jews.
In their opinion Jews were not real Germans although they had lived
in Germany for centuries. It is like the Danish minority living in the
very north Germany they certainly do not regard themselves Germans
just because they have been born in Germany and have German
citizensship. When these people come to Denmark and you call them
half-Germans or something like that they will become deeply insulted.
They simply do not regard themselves of German nationality.
> What was it then that finally those "true
>nationalists" also wanted Poles out of Poland, Russians out of Russia, French
>out of France...
Really, and what evidence do you have for these silly delusions.
>
>> In Poland they wanted first and foremost to reestablish the borders
>> from 1914. The war against the Soviet Union was first and foremost a
>> war against communism.
>
>Don't you see it? Different excuses every time but the result is always the
>same - war. I'm sure there would be another excuse to occupy Denmark or Norway
>(maybe the oil or the scenic country for holiday resorts). Reestablishing
>borders of some certain date will also only be an excuse.
Are you trying to tell me that they wanted war just for fun or
because they liked it.
>> The
>> purpose of the EU regions for cooperation of neighbouring countries is
>> to suppress the national identities and substitute them with an
>> artificial European one. Just like they in the former Soviet Union
>> tried to create a Soviet identity - a new soviet human.
>
>First of all you could not convince me at all that living in a national
>nutshell would bring any desirable thing.
In the case of Denmark this will be preferable rather than to be
integrated with Germany. Denmark can have a close relationship with
countries of it's own size like Sweden and Norway with whom it is much
closer related than to Germany.
> Then you are hooked on the idea that
>opening a country would destroy a national identity. Hessians live next door
>with the Bavarians and Thuringians and all are still Hessians, Bavarians and
>Thuringians under a common German roof. If Germans and Austrians and Danes and
>and Belgians etc. lived together under a common European roof they could as
>well preserve their national identity. I respect your nightmares but don't
>expect me to share them unless you can convince me.
I can see absolutely no advantages or sense in Denmark living under
the same roof as Germany. I can only see such plans as German
imperialism.
>> It is you German people who are fighting other people. Denmark has no
>> problem with having national pride and identity and live in peace with
>> it's neighbours. After the introduction of modern nationalism Denmark
>> has lived in peace and brotherhood with the Swedes. This was far from
>> the case before modern nationalism.
>
>I am a German and not fighting anybody.
But your country wants to dominate Europe either by military means
like in WW2 or by peaceful means through the EU. For some reason
Germany cannot just take it easy and mind it's own business.
>> Hm you will only lose those jobs that the Poles are doing. If there
>> is no work for them they won't come in the first place.
>
>They will seek another job. They do a lot of work that Germans are unwilling
>to do.
You must then motivate all those unwilling German unemployed to do
the work. Why can't a German to the work if a Pole can? Are the German
more lazy than the Poles?
>> In Slesvig they absorbed the local Danish upperclass while those
>> migrating into the real Denmark were absorbed in the Danish
>> population.
>
>Where was the contradiction then? Where was the national problems (e.g. due to
>multi-ethnicity at that time?
The Danes in Slesvig wanted Slesvig to become a fully integrated part
of Denmark and they wanted Slesvig to be separated from the German
Holsten. Slesvig was regarded Danish and Holsten German. This was what
started those two wars in the 19th century.
>> >How did they [the Danish rule] suppress nationalism?
>> >
>> German nationalists were sent to prison.
>
>What about Danish nationalists?
>
They were regarded heroes or pioneers. I do not think that the
authorities dared to touch them.
Ole Kreiberg
On Thu, 21 May 1998 00:50:16 GMT, Martin Paegert <m...@zenon.prima.de>
wrote:
>
>Which book exactly ?
Ernst Gauss: Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. Ernst Gauss is the
pseudonym for Germer Rodolf.
> And why was he be imprisoned ? Could you please cite
>the Court Findings on the term concerning whatfor, why and to what he was
>sentenced ?
Because his research came to a conclusion not desired by the
Bonn-regime.
Martin Paegert
Ole Kreiberg <o...@patriot.dk> wrote:
>>> German weapons placed by the Americans in order not to scare the
>>> Danish public.
>
> They were scary because they were German. Remember Germany is after
> all the old hereditary enemy and is regarded with mistrust.
Ok, let's Kreiberg a little:
Not to mention all this scary VW's, Mercedes and BMW in Danish garages.
Isn't it scary, you take a walk and can be killed by a German car every
minute. Thus, how many honest, peace-loving and law-abiding Danes are
killed by German cars per annum ? I bet it is more than 13. Thus modern
Germany is even more deadly to Danes then German Reichswehr was who killed
13 Danish soldiers when occupying Denmark. German cars, the forgotten
threat to every Danes life.
Back to normality. Weapons made in Germany are part of the equipment of
many armies within and without the NATO. It may well be that there was a
NATO driven store with weapons made in German on Danish ground. But for
sure these weapons were not in possession of German Army, not it was
subjected to provide German Army with weapons to fight in or against
Denmark.
There is no such thing like a "hereditary enemy". Neither friendship nor
the oppsite is inherited but may well be based on either behaviour to each
other or propaganda. "Hereditary enemy" is nothing but a propaganda phrase
used to make people feel that others are there enemy a priori.
> They were supposed to be applied by the Germans in case a war between
> east and west were to be fought out on Danish ground.
I doubt so. More likely they were supposed to resupply any NATO troops that
could make their way to Denmark if Germany is defeated - in order to defend
Denmark. Or to resupply any NATO troops that could make to defend nothern
Germany, namly Slesvig and the channel and German havens at the Northern
Sea (namely Hamburg and Bremen).
>>The food situation was bad long before. And food is just one example. What
>>about hard work under bad conditions, what about the many beaten and shot
>>prisoners?
>
> I have heard former Danish concentration inmates complain about the
> boredom and lack of activity in the concentrationcamps. Not all camps
> were able to employ all it's inmates while others tend to overwork
> them. Bad administration.
To correct some things: Food supply was going bad in 44 and almost broken
down in 45. But: this has nothing to do with the situation in concentration
camps. Even in pre-war years inmates were starved to death by supplied with
too small rations. When food in general became short, some concentration
camps did produce food than would be needed to supply its inmates. SS did
sell the goods and cut rations of inmates in order to have more to sell.
Not to prevent Germans from starving to death (almost no one did) but to
make a better deal.
In case a reader is interested in the matter: Eugen Kogon, "Der
SS-Staat" deals with this stuff.
By the way: it was strictly forbidden for Germans to supply CC inmates
with food - they would risk life if doing so. What sense is in this
regulation, if German population is that short on food that close to starve
to death ? And if so, why even rations sent to German inmates by their
friends and relatives were confiscated by the SS ?
Concerning complaints on "lack of activity": Inmates were not treated
uniformly. Political prisoners were treated different than criminals,
Germans, Austrian, Danes and French different from Soviet, Czech or Polish
or people of Jewish belief. If not of Jewish religion, Danes were
privileged as Germans, Austrian, Netherlanders or French were. They had a
good chance not to end up with forced labour but kept busy with tidying the
Camp, aministrative tasks etc.
> WW2 was born at Versailles.
No. WW2 was born in Germany between 1933 and 1939. Ye later, we more. And
much effort was made by NAZI-propaganda to make German generality as well
as German population to fight in a War.
> In their opinion Jews were not real Germans although they had lived
> in Germany for centuries. It is like the Danish minority living in the
> very north Germany they certainly do not regard themselves Germans
> just because they have been born in Germany and have German
> citizensship. When these people come to Denmark and you call them
> half-Germans or something like that they will become deeply insulted.
> They simply do not regard themselves of German nationality.
Nice little turnaround. Germans of Jewish religion _did_ regard themselves
as Germans. It was the government that did not. Whatever Germans of Danish
origin - or better: culture - regard themselves, they are provided with the
same rights as every other German. Thus, if a German of Danish origin, is
regarding himself to be Danish, he is free to do so. If he - consequently -
does give back German passport and does not make use of his rights as
German citizen, he is free to do so. But it is him, not the Government,
that does declare him as "non German".
By the way #1: As an ethnic minority Germans of Danish origin are an
exceptional case for a lot of administrative rules and regulations. Their
political represantation (SSV) f.e. is not subjected to reach 5 % of the
votes in order to be represented in the Parliament of Slesvig-Holstein.
By the way #2: What about a law forbidding Danes to marry non-Danes, Ole ?
I mean, in order to keep Denmark Danish and Danes to be Danes wouldn't you
have to declare something like this ?
> In the case of Denmark this will be preferable rather than to be
> integrated with Germany. Denmark can have a close relationship with
> countries of it's own size like Sweden and Norway with whom it is much
> closer related than to Germany.
Now, Denmark is free to have whatever relations with whomever is does want.
Thus you should campaign in Denmark for leaving the NATO, EU, not to buy
German cars or whatever you want. Do what you want us to do: leave us
alone, at least in sog.culture.german. I promise, I will not invade
soc.culture.danish.
> I can only see such plans as German imperialism.
Yep, all these threatful German cars on Danish streets. It's a war, fought
on Danish soil. The intruders are already there ! Wouldn't it be a nice
action to call for a ban of German cars on Danish streets ? "Boycot
Germany, don't buy German Cars !" May be, Denmark is waiting to be
liberated by you, yes, just by you !!!
> But your country wants to dominate Europe either by military means
> like in WW2 or by peaceful means through the EU.
So, leave the EU. Where is the problem ?
> You must then motivate all those unwilling German unemployed to do
> the work. Why can't a German to the work if a Pole can? Are the German
> more lazy than the Poles?
Assuming you don't know: For a German 5 to 10 DM per hour is by far too
less to make his livings, but for somebody working in Germany but living in
Poland it is much more than he does need to make his livings. The
difference in Gross National Product between Poland and Germany is about a
factor 10. Roughly you will find the same factor for wages and prices. Thus
working in Germany but living an Poland will make you rich as trying to
compete with people living in Poland on the wages market while living in
Germany will ruin you.
As for sure you have the nationalistic nutshell as solution in mind: it
is none unless you build a big wall around each and every country; a kind
of wall not allowing international trade, nor travel. But this kind of wall
may exactly be, what you have in your nationalistic mind, me seems. Most
likely with some wholes if favouring your nationalistic views.
--
Martin (m...@zenon.prima.de)