CaesarAugustus wrote:mothra wrote:CaesarAugustus wrote:mothra wrote:CaesarAugustus wrote:mothra wrote:Is that a yes? You have conceded that peace for a very few at the expense of a great many fulfils your criteria for peace in ideal terms?
No, I'm not conceding that. I never said that. There was peace for the German people who were the majority of the population.
You've absolutely said that. There is tacit agreement for that in the principles you outline.
Denying it does not negate the obvious concession.
Interesting goal post shift into "majority" though. We both know it's a red herring though.
No goal-post shift. The majority benefited from the Nazi Regime.
Well, that's a whole new argument ... isn't it.
But to address the point at hand, totalitarianism and favourable outcomes for certain demographics (tha majority, you tell me, importantly) at the expense of all that was expended by other demographics does not equate to an ideal for peace.
Or are you conceding that you are arguing that peace is a mutable concept? That it only actually applies to some, and not others?
Mothra, how many times do I have to tell you? They were peaceful.
Stop being racist! There are no textual justifications for violence in Nazism.
Who were peaceful: the Nazis ?
People came to Germany from other countries for the specific purpose of joining their army to kill Jews!