For speculation

Swastika emblem is denied everyone knows why i hope but why the sickle and hammer not?
both are representing totalitarian regime in which millions people died, so whats wrong?
in Slovakia you can go even to jail for propagandism of swastika but when you promoting sickle and hammer its ok, in post Communist countries is still big problem of balancing whit history and most spokesman which was representing Communism just change mask and now act like democracy politics and that's bad...

Because the Western Allies were friends with the hammer and sickle through WWII. Because of that, we have turned a blind eye to bad things done. Sadly, The world was so worried about Nazi Germany that we closed our eyes to Stalinist Russia.

It's always been a pet peave of mine as well, that the swastika is outlawed. I mean, what they did was wrong, but the swastika was used and had many other important meanings in it's history than just Nazi Germany. Everyone knows Hitler got it from Rome. So any Roman symbolism with a swastika is also outlawed. It's very sad.

Not trying to be an ass here, but I think the German government has done a real dis-service to the country's history and put more of a burden on it's younger generations by outlawing the damn symbol. Outlawing it doesn't mean it's going to go away. That time for Germany is a dark sad time, they know that but they have moved on. It's not like having the symbol there is going to cause Hitler to pop out of the sky and take Germany over again. And outlawing CERTAINLY doesn't mean what happened is going to go away.

Somethings about history are bad, but you can't just ignore them. What was done, was done. All people should be able to read about it, learn about it and most importantly learn FROM it.

your right with that the history must be remembered and not to be forgoten and we all and most the younger people must learn how bad was those times (now its opposite, many young people even don't know much about holocaust and more)
but what i wanted to say is that the something is good (sickle and hammer) and other thing (swastika) are bad and that's wrong theres a problem of knowledge, i think both regimes must be "thrown into one bag" and not taken separately.
I think its good that the swastika is denied even it was taken from roman artwork, it represents those dark times and that's it and it could be too with sickle and hammer

that sign is banned in several countires for one. And for many other reasons they will not add it. YES it is a part of history. That piece of history is the kind that we shove into a back room and don't talk about. I would hate to see that....that thing in the mod. Now your going to go on and on about how its just a buddhist symbol. Well they turned it around, I belive that symbol meant peace (dont take my word for it) and they switched it around and made it the oppiosite. SO NO way will I even touch this mod if it has that fascist symbol.

One of the reasons the swastika is perceived differently than the hammer and sickle is because it represents the actions of a government that undertook a deliberate effort to commit genocide on a specific group of people (gays, mentally ill, jews). The Soviet regime meanwhile never deliberately instituted a genocidal program. Their reasons for murdering were political and not based on racist hatred, sexual orientation etc...

that is true. I mean Soviet mass killings were hidden from plain sight. Unlike the Nazis who as Bomb said killed for Racism

So what makes political mass murders any better than racial genocide?

i don't see a big difference betwen killing because of racism or a political at the end of both are millions of lives which was taken
a big number of people died in gulags they worked to death if we separate deaths which was done by war and take deaths which hapends by genocide and deaths that was provided in gulags then the soviets kill more people then Nazis with their genocide...

WartyX wrote:
So what makes political mass murders any better than racial genocide?

It doesn't make it "better" you just have to put the two into perspective. I would argue that there is a distinction between killing people in the interests of power/with the intent to assume a position of dominance (in the case of the Soviet Union) - and killing people in the interests of racial purity - which is only rarely seen in history. The former is a simple power struggle, taken to the 20th century level, that goes on every day. The latter meanwhile devoted an entire government branch to wipe out whoever was deemed impure. I would rank this on a higher "evil" scale, I guess, than killing in the interest of being the alpha male (taken to the nation state level) which again, happens daily.

---

Post Merge: [time]1265505807[/time]

---

GamblerSK wrote:
i don't see a big difference betwen killing because of racism or a political at the end of both are millions of lives which was taken
a big number of people died in gulags they worked to death if we separate deaths which was done by war and take deaths which hapends by genocide and deaths that was provided in gulags then the soviets kill more people then Nazis with their genocide...

I agree, the Soviet regime did take millions of lives but again, I'd have to say that killing because you simply want to stay in power/strengthen your grip on the country is different from killing those that are not racially pure. 

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 1:23 AM by thebomb

WartyX wrote:
So what makes political mass murders any better than racial genocide?

the fact that one is GENOCIDE and Racist while the other is for politics

Ok so there is difference one is for political and other is for racism reason BUT!!! there is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil... :-\

GamblerSK wrote:
Ok so there is difference one is for political and other is for racism reason BUT!!! there is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil... :-\

Right...so along with the swastika I assume you also want the American bald eagle and British Union jack banned too right? They killed thousands of innocent people people in Iraq..so let's ban those symbols too.

but when you look on the American bald eagle or that British union jack what you see? or what comes on you mind? nothing but the sickle and hammer is representing very long time of oppression,fear and death. The American troops or British don't came to Iraq for killing innocent people that wasn't their goal but what Communist did is something totally else then what are you want to say, also the Saddam Hussein was dictator too he order to kill many innocent people even his cousin i think ordered to kill thousands of Kurd people by chemical weapons...so don't try to compare those things

GamblerSK wrote:
but when you look on the American bald eagle or that British union jack what you see? or what comes on you mind?

Exploitation, greed, racism, colonialism.

Quote
but the sickle and hammer is representing very long time of oppression,fear and death.

I wouldn't say that the hammer and sickle represents oppression, fear and death in the same way that the swastika represents nazi genocide. The swastika is a very specific identifier, it says "Hey, I identify with the Nazi regime and its 'philosophies'". The swastika did not have the time to develop other attributes like the hammer and sickle. If for example I see someone with a Soviet flag, or pin I don't think "He identifies himself with oppression, fear and death!". Some may but more often than not the person that has these items is simply heavily left-leaning.

Quote
I would argue that the hammer and sickle represents more The American troops or British don't came to Iraq for killing innocent people that wasn't their goal but what Communist did is something totally else then what are you want to say, also the Saddam Hussein was dictator too he order to kill many innocent people even his cousin i think ordered to kill thousands of Kurd people by chemical weapons...so don't try to compare those things

So what the Americans and British did is one thing but what the communists did is another? You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said:

Quotethere is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil...

Either an American or British murder of an Iraqi is just as evil as a Soviet murder or they are not. You said the Soviets and Nazi murders were the same. But you can't have your cake and eat it...if Soviet and Nazi crimes are the same then so are American and British ones.

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 2:24 AM by thebomb

All of these are easily connected, sorry if that upsets anyone. Murder is murder, no matter how you cut it, define it in your own mind, make excuses etc etc.

I'm not religious, what-so-ever, but for those of you who believe in God (or A God), do you think if you killed one man who was black because you don't like blacks, or killed a Caucasian who just happened to be the CEO of a rival company, the punishment would be any different? A man, woman, child, person was killed. Their life ended. It doesn't matter if you starved them to death or shot them or beat them to death. They are still dead because of you.

To justify or reason with what the Nazis or Communists did in WWII is silly. You can't moralize whole sale murder. You can't defend it on any level, regardless of the motive. The fact that someone was murdered, regardless of the reason is a terrible thing.

As far as the Swastika in game, I couldn't care less one way or the other but no one in this topic said it should be in the game.

As for the swastika or hammer and sickle issue in general, neither should be outlawed. Censorship is the easy way to get past what happened and let people forget. These symbols are important to WORLD history and should never be banned. Hence why I argued for the Swastika to be unbanned! History can be ugly. People should never forget it, less the same mistakes be made.

Bigpop wrote:

I'm not religious, what-so-ever, but for those of you who believe in God (or A God), do you think if you killed one man who was black because you don't like blacks, or killed a Caucasian who just happened to be the CEO of a rival company, the punishment would be any different? A man, woman, child, person was killed. Their life ended. It doesn't matter if you starved them to death or shot them or beat them to death. They are still dead because of you.

I don't think you understood the distinction I made. Yes, I agree with you that there is no difference if a black man or a Caucasian man was killed - they are both murders. However, there IS a difference if a government institutionalizes and devotes itself to systematically wiping out an entire people. I would rank that a little more sinister than simply killing a man because you're afraid he is going to usurp your power.

EDIT: And yeah, I agree with you - if people want to wear the swastika on their forehead, they can knock themselves out I wouldn't care. It would make it easier to identify idiots though haha

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 2:28 AM by thebomb

thebomb wrote:

Bigpop wrote:

I'm not religious, what-so-ever, but for those of you who believe in God (or A God), do you think if you killed one man who was black because you don't like blacks, or killed a Caucasian who just happened to be the CEO of a rival company, the punishment would be any different? A man, woman, child, person was killed. Their life ended. It doesn't matter if you starved them to death or shot them or beat them to death. They are still dead because of you.

I don't think you understood the distinction I made. Yes, I agree with you that there is no difference if a black man or a Caucasian man was killed - they are both murders. However, there IS a difference if a government institutionalizes and devotes itself to systematically wiping out an entire people. I would rank that a little more sinister than simply killing a man because you're afraid he is going to usurp your power.

I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject.

Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way.

Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying.

Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself. 

Bigpop wrote:
I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject.

Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way.

Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying.

Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself.

So I assume you would rank American terror and murder in the same category as Nazi and Soviet crimes, yes?

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 2:42 AM by thebomb

thebomb wrote:

Bigpop wrote:
I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject.

Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way.

Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying.

Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself.

So I assume you would rank American terror and murder in the same category as Nazi and Soviet crimes, yes?

lol if your asking me if I think America is innocent of committing war crimes (regardless of if in WWII or any other war) then I would say no, most certainly NOT. We have soldiers who admit to killing German POWs in WWII and obviously in Iraq and such there has been tons of innocent casualties.

Bigpop wrote:

thebomb wrote:

Bigpop wrote:
I understand what you mean. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue of the subject.

Ultimately, Hitler did what he did because he hated and feared the Jews. Stalin did what he did because he hated and feared anyone who stood in his way.

Hitler was afraid of Jews, Stalin afraid of being Usurped. I still don't think either side is less or more villainous than the other. I personally think both regimes are two of the single darkest most foul governments ever in place in human history. The blood on both of their hands is horrifying.

Hitler at least did us a favor and killed himself.

So I assume you would rank American terror and murder in the same category as Nazi and Soviet crimes, yes?

lol if your asking me if I think America is innocent of committing war crimes (regardless of if in WWII or any other war) then I would say no, most certainly NOT. We have soldiers who admit to killing German POWs in WWII and obviously in Iraq and such there has been tons of innocent casualties.

That's not what I asked but O.K.

Alright, then I misunderstood?

Bigpop wrote:
Alright, then I misunderstood?

One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?

thebomb wrote:

Bigpop wrote:
Alright, then I misunderstood?

One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?

I disagree.

While the U.S. Government may have issues of corruption, it is not nearly as bad as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In my mind the sheer volume of blatant murders by both of those governments is not even comparable to England, America, France, etc etc. A murder is a murder, all murder is wrong, but what they did is past murder in the sense that it was a crime against humanity. I don't think America has ever fought one of those  :P lol

But to say that English or American governments are innocent of wrong doing is obviously nuts as they have secrets as well.

Bigpop wrote:

thebomb wrote:

Bigpop wrote:
Alright, then I misunderstood?

One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?

I disagree.

While the U.S. Government may have issues of corruption, it is not nearly as bad as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In my mind the sheer volume of blatant murders by both of those governments is not even comparable to England, America, France, etc etc. A murder is a murder, all murder is wrong, but what they did is past murder in the sense that it was a crime against humanity. I don't think America has ever fought one of those  :P lol

But to say that English or American governments are innocent of wrong doing is obviously nuts as they have secrets as well.

Your line of thought contradicts the thread starter's:

Quote
Ok so there is difference one is for political and other is for racism reason BUT!!! there is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil...

Therefore we have agreed all along. There IS a difference between the murders of governments since you acknowledge that America's crimes are "different" in nature.

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 4:09 AM by thebomb

thebomb wrote:
One would be a hypocrite if they were to lump the Soviet regime and the Nazis as "the most foul governments" but not the American or British governments. Do you agree?


I disagree.

While the U.S. Government may have issues of corruption, it is not nearly as bad as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In my mind the sheer volume of blatant murders by both of those governments is not even comparable to England, America, France, etc etc. A murder is a murder, all murder is wrong, but what they did is past murder in the sense that it was a crime against humanity. I don't think America has ever fought one of those  :P lol

But to say that English or American governments are innocent of wrong doing is obviously nuts as they have secrets as well.


Your line of thought contradicts the thread starter's:

[quote]
Ok so there is difference one is for political and other is for racism reason BUT!!! there is only one result = Death and you cant say one is smaller and one is bigger evil its only one evil = evil...


Therefore we have agreed all along. There IS a difference between the murders of governments since you acknowledge that America's crimes are "different" in nature.

Well, I would obviously never say that the U.S. Government is squeaky clean. But to say they are as bad as Russia or Germany during WWII is absurd.

That being said comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia isn't far off. Their reasons may have differed slightly but the overall opinion of many historians is that both did what they did because of fear. The debate of what fear is irrelevant (imo) if you agree with this line of thinking. Stalin also targeted Gypsies and other ethnics in the area, so it isn't like he was just killing men who were all caught trying to, for example, over throw him and take Russia over, then make peace with Nazi Germany.

Does that make any sense?

Quote
Well, I would obviously never say that the U.S. Government is squeaky clean. But to say they are as bad as Russia or Germany during WWII is absurd.

Exactly. Just as it is absurd to say that we should ban the Soviet hammer and sickle because it was "just as bad" as the Nazi swastika.

Quote
That being said comparing Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia isn't far off. Their reasons may have differed slightly but the overall opinion of many historians is that both did what they did because of fear. The debate of what fear is irrelevant (imo) if you agree with this line of thinking. Stalin also targeted Gypsies and other ethnics in the area, so it isn't like he was just killing men who were all caught trying to, for example, over throw him and take Russia over, then make peace with Nazi Germany.

I don't agree with your line of reasoning that just because these two regimes shared a common attribute, in this case fear of a group of people, that it immediately implies that they are comparable in their crimes. The US "feared" Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction - is the US lumped with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Obviously not. It is therefore important and not irrelevant to discuss the reasons for the fear and its consequences.

The way in which each regime dealt with this fear is crucial, and in our specific case I would say pivotal in distinguishing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. For the Soviet Union it was the fear of the political dissident or anyone who would challenge Soviet rule. Whether they were Russian, Ukrainian, Tajik, or Chechen - it didn't matter. There was no systemic or permanent concentration of hate towards a group. In other words one would first have to become a dissident to become hated or killed (unless of course you were unlucky enough to be killed out of random chance due to Stalin's paranoia). In no way was a specific group in the Soviet Union identified, targeted, persecuted, and killed in the same way as was done by the Nazi regime.

In the case of Nazi Germany however, it did not matter if you were a dissident or not, if you were a Slav, Jew, Black, mentally ill, or homosexual - you felt the consequences immediately. This difference is crucial, and I believe instrumental, in distinguishing how each regime dealt with "fear". It is simply folly to lump the Soviet Union which committed crimes (ones being committed throughout history and even today) to those of a regime that "raised the bar" so to speak and institutionalized violence against specific ethnic groups.

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 4:51 AM by thebomb

thebomb wrote:

Exactly. Just as it is absurd to say that we should ban the Soviet hammer and sickle because it was "just as bad" as the Nazi swastika.

Well, like I said I don't think any of them should be banned. Just my opinion though. I know not all the world works on freedom of speech like we do. 

QuoteI don't agree with your line of reasoning that just because these two regimes shared a common attribute, in this case fear of a group of people, that it immediately implies that they are comparable in their crimes. The US "feared" Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction - is the US lumped with Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany? Obviously not. It is therefore important and not irrelevant to discuss the reasons for the fear and its consequences.

The way in which each regime dealt with this fear is crucial, and in our specific case I would say pivotal in distinguishing the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. For the Soviet Union it was the fear of the political dissident or anyone who would challenge Soviet rule. Whether they were Russian, Ukrainian, Tajik, or Chechen - it didn't matter. There was no systemic or permanent concentration of hate towards a group. In other words one would first have to become a dissident to become hated or killed (unless of course you were unlucky enough to be killed out of random chance due to Stalin's paranoia). In no way was a specific group in the Soviet Union identified, targeted, persecuted, and killed in the same way as was done by the Nazi regime.

In the case of Nazi Germany however, it did not matter if you were a dissident or not, if you were a Slav, Jew, Black, mentally ill, or homosexual - you felt the consequences immediately. This difference is crucial, and I believe instrumental, in distinguishing how each regime dealt with "fear". It is simply folly to lump the Soviet Union which committed crimes (ones being committed throughout history and even today) to those of a regime that "raised the bar" so to speak and institutionalized violence against specific ethnic groups.

I'm gonna crash for the night because I am tired but I don't want you to think I am dodging out. You made a coherent, thought out response and I will do the same in return so think of this as a "spot holder" lol I will revise tomorrow.

But the short of it is, Stalin ordered whole sale slaughter, so did Hitler. By many estimates Stalin actually killed MORE than Hitler. I'll reply in more detail tomorrow. Thanks for the great debate thus far though  ;D

i wasn't saying that the Americans and British are good and others are bad, maybe i just write it bad (still I'm learning English its not my nature language) the difference is that the symbols you write here don't represent government which is systematic killing innocent people regime of Nazis and Communists was killing innocent people like in "mass production" that was their goal they wanted to do it but what happends in Iraq or Afghanistan was a MISTAKE and not their PRIMARY OBJECTIVE just read well those big words and you get what i mean other thing is that American government is corrupted and very bad people sit there which see only their wealth and interests so if you want to be precise you may said to denied American flag because that represents those people but you know that newer hapends, but again don't try to compare regimes of Nazis and Communist with American politics sure their are murderers but not mass as those two so again i was meaning to denied sickle and hammer because their had blood on their hands of millions people more then Nazis but their symbol isn't denied but Nazis yes so i just remitted to this fact, can i have a question thebomb? where are you from?

---

Post Merge: [time]1265546276[/time]

---

the number of killed people cant be put to gather but its arround 100,000,000 killed by communists (USSR,China,Korea,Yugoslavia...) and more countires which was representing communist era do you see that number? nazi germany killed less then 10,000,000 people it think its a biiiig difference in numbers but not in the fact that communists were better because their was killing from political ideas and not genocide...

QuoteIntentional killing of large numbers of civilians, as a rule, for belonging to a particular social or ethnic group, occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia  under the Khmer Rouge, and on a smaller scale in some other countries that declared adherence to a Communist doctrine. These killings, that took place mostly during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents or counter-revolutionaries, mass terror campaigns, or land reforms may fit a definition of mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", "crimes against humanity", or loosely defined genocide.

So you may call it political killing but it had one word for that GENOCIDE

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Last edited February 7, 2010 at 12:37 PM by GamblerSK

GamblerSK wrote:
I wasn't saying that the Americans and British are good and others are bad, maybe i just write it bad (still I'm learning English its not my nature language). The difference is that the symbols you write here don't represent government which is systematic killing innocent people regime of Nazis and Communists was killing innocent people like in "mass production".

That's right. The American bald eagle and the British union jack do not represent the killing of innocent people in the same was as the Soviet hammer and sickle and Nazi swastika. However if you are willing to make that distinction between American and British crimes, you must make a distinction between Soviet murders and Nazi murders.

Quote
That was their goal they wanted to do it but what happends in Iraq or Afghanistan was a MISTAKE and not their PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

It was a primary objective for American forces to kill Iraqis defending their country - for example in the second battle of Fallujah. So that certainly was not a "mistake". Was it a "mistake" or "primary objective" that the Wehrmacht crushed the Slovak uprising in Banská Bystrica?

Quote
the number of killed people cant be put to gather but its arround 100,000,000 killed by communists (USSR,China,Korea,Yugoslavia...) and more countires which was representing communist era do you see that number? nazi germany killed less then 10,000,000 people it think its a biiiig difference in numbers but not in the fact that communists were better because their was killing from political ideas and not genocide...

So you may call it political killing but it had one word for that GENOCIDE

Look, all I'm saying that is there is a difference between the motives of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany when it came to killing people. The Nazis made a deliberate effort to wipe out a group of people (whether it was Jews, Slavs, or whoever) while the Soviets did not. That is a reason why the hammer and sickle does not get lumped into the same bin as the swastika - no matter how many more people it killed.

No country is innocent. America killed thousands of Native Americans and relocated the rest to reservations with poor living conditions.