UN Compares North Korea to Nazi Germany, Chinese Reactions

2005 August 25, Seoul, South Korea, political activists take on the role of a North Korean soldier and a North Korean refugee that has been abused/tortured after being recaptured. REUTERS/You Sung-Ho

2005 August 25, Seoul, South Korea, political activists take on the role of a North Korean soldier and a North Korean refugee that has been abused/tortured after being recaptured. REUTERS/You Sung-Ho

From NetEase:

United Nations Human Rights Council Likens North Korea to the Nazis, North Korean Representative Slams Leaves in Anger

Global Times consolidated report — At the 25th United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, the North Korea Human Rights report published by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea incited fierce controversy. Because the authors of this report did not actually enter North Korea to conduct on-scene investigations but instead used the “accusations” of over 80 “North Korean refugees” and the reports of anti-North Korean media to arrive at its conclusions, its credibility suffered many questions/much skepticism. The North Korean Human Rights Commission of Inquiry chair Michael Kirby “compared North Korea to Nazi Germany” during his speech on the 17th, triggering a fierce counterattack from North Korea [representative]. North Korea’s permanent United Nations representative in Geneva believes this [the report] was complete nonsense by the United States and other hostile forces/countries. An official of North Korea’s consulate in China accepted on the 18th an exclusive interview with this Global Times journalist and rebutted that the United States immediately stop the “human rights uproar” component of its new hostile policy towards North Korea, and that “before commenting and criticizing other countries, it should first look at its own situation, and first wipe its own butt [take care of its own problems]”.

2008 December 9, Seoul, South Korea, North Korean refugees pose to be North Korean fugitives, protesting the North Korean government. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won

2008 December 9, Seoul, South Korea, North Korean refugees pose to be North Korean fugitives, protesting the North Korean government. REUTERS/Lee Jae-Won

Yonhap reports on the 18th that at the United Nations Human Rights Council held in Geneva, Switzerland on the 17th, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea chair Michael Kirby was first to speak. He defined North Korea’s human rights situation as “crimes against humanity”, and likened North Korea to “Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid, Cambodia Khmer Rouge”, demanding that North Korea immediately improve its human rights situation. Kirby also demanded that China immediately stop repatriating “North Korean refugees”, and “appropriately protect them”.

Just as Kirby’s voice stopped, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations immediately rebutted, arguing that the report was full of unreliable assertions, and raised the the contents were extremely different from reality. China’s representative said the committee didn’t even visit North Korea and only relied on the so-called “testimony” of certain “North Korean refugees” in drafting this North Korean human rights report, which will not benefit peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. The North Korean permanent representative to the United Nations, So Se Pyong, who next spoke also expressed that the content concerning the condition of human rights for North Koreans are “complete fabrications”, that hostile forces lead by the United States are the ones who should be the target of investigations, that the North Korean government has never recognized this committee’s investigation, and resolutely opposes the committee’s fabricated report.

2009 December 9, Seoul, South Korea, a Christian believer Long Dacheng (transliteration) holds up photos denouncing the North Korean government for violating human rights. Long Dacheng says the emaciated children in the photos are abused and starving children in North Korea. REUTERS/Choi Bu-Seok

2009 December 9, Seoul, South Korea, a Christian believer Long Dacheng (transliteration) holds up photos denouncing the North Korean government for violating human rights. Long Dacheng says the emaciated children in the photos are abused and starving children in North Korea. REUTERS/Choi Bu-Seok

Yonhap claims, after briefly criticizing North Korea, the Japanese deputy representative gave the floor to “Japanese Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by North Korea” representative Shigeo Iizuka. North Korean representative So Se Pyong immediately slammed the table and demanded if Shigeo Iizuka was allowed to speak. When the chairman of the council indicated that he was allowed to speak, So Se Pyong angrily left in protest.

With regards to the North Korean human rights report, United Nations Human Rights Council was sharply divided into two opposing factions. The South Korean representative strongly expressed support, with the representatives of countries such as the United States, France, Ireland, Vietnam, and Portugal expressing support soon afterward. However, countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela criticize the report for using double standards.

[…]

2005 March 25, inside Hall of the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, a debate is being held over whether or not public executions should be abolished. A South Korean city resident looks at a picture depicting a North Korean public execution. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

2005 March 25, inside Hall of the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, a debate is being held over whether or not public executions should be abolished. A South Korean city resident looks at a picture depicting a North Korean public execution. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

Comments from NetEase:

网易河南省手机网友 ip:42.237.*.*:

Please don’t use North Korea to insult the Nazis; at least the Nazi’s were strong and powerful [as a country].

制度是中国所有问题的根源 [网易芬兰网友]:

Strongly protest the United Nations Human Rights Council making the North Korean regime sound better.

网易广东省广州市手机网友 ip:117.136.*.*:

The Nazi’s at least were just persecuting Jews, whereas the people North Korea is slaughtering are all of its own ordinary common people [citizens]. In comparison to North Korea, what the Nazis did was just child’s play.

tdior [网易河南省周口市手机网友]:

Yelling this angrily, does he dare allow others to go [into his country] to see?

网易美国手机网友 ip:199.17.*.*:

Global Shit newspaper [pun on the Chinese name of Global Times].

huanbaolianmeng [网易江苏省宿迁市手机网友]:

In the world, there’s actually only two factions, one that supports a fair and free separation of powers system, and one that approves of an authoritarian system where the minority enslaves the majority; one believes in principles, while the other believes in interests!!!

samul1005 [网易江苏省南京市网友]: (responding to 42.237.*.*)

The Nazis after all still respected their own country and their own people, unlike now a certain authoritarian country, who only treats its people as tools for government and personal benefit.

网易河北省保定市手机网友 [wenquanbuct]:

Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela…are all friends of North Korea~

中立其实等于站在坏人一方 [网易重庆市手机网友]: (responding to above)

To know a person, look at his friends.

网易山东省青岛市手机网友 ip:119.166.*.*:

North Korean is more like the Soviet regime, even more frightening than the Nazis! More ruthless to its own than towards outsiders! There are still many gulags within North Korea.

网易广西桂林市网友 ip:182.91.*.*:

But the Nazis weren’t cruel to their own countrymen, right?

2011 February 16, on the birthday of Kim Jong-il, on the South Korean side of the Panmunjeom demilitarized zone, some North Korean refugees and South Korean people who support them burn the North Korean flag after releasing balloons carrying materials denouncing Kim Jong-un. REUTERS/Truth Leem

2011 February 16, on the birthday of Kim Jong-il, on the South Korean side of the Panmunjeom demilitarized zone, some North Korean refugees and South Korean people who support them burn the North Korean flag after releasing balloons carrying materials denouncing Kim Jong-un. REUTERS/Truth Leem

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • བོད་

    “The Nazis after all still respected their own country and their own people”

    The nazis systematically exterminated millions of german jews, their own countrymen and citizens of Germany.

    • Mighty曹

      Unfortunately the Nazis didn’t see the Jews as fellow countrymen.

      • Irvin

        Just like NK doesn’t see the people they prosecute as they own countrymen?

        • Mighty曹

          How dumb of you to make such comparison. Genocide vs. Human Rights Abuse

          I’ll make it easy for you:
          Hitler targeted specific categories that didn’t fit or meet the Nazi’s idealogy of a superior race.

          The fat Kims did/do it to anyone whom they feel is a threat. Even family members are not safe.

          • Irvin

            Hitler target who he targets because it was a threat to his ideology, Kim does that because it’s a threat to his regime. They are both actions born from the same motive.

          • Mighty曹

            Another dumb comparison. Hitler targeted those who didn’t fit his concept of the master race, Aryan Herrenvolk. Millions posed no threat to him but ended up in death camps just for being Jews, gays, mentally ill, disabled, etc. Completely different motive as with the Kims.

          • Irvin

            I see it’s a lost cause with you and shall leave you to your ignorance.

          • Mighty曹

            You preached to me about backing an opinion. Is this how you’re going to take the quick exit? You’re the lost cause so it won’t be ignorant of me to call you a premature ejaculating prick.

    • Mighty曹

      Btw, thanks for not posting any stupid comment related to a sofa.

    • Sid

      Not to mention the gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, political opposition, etc….

    • Germandude

      This is not correct at all. The Jewish population in Germany was approx. 0.5 mio prior to the war from which approx 150k were killed. Many were forced to leave the country before the start of WW 2.
      The jews that were killed were mostly Polish (approx. 3 mio), Russian (approx. 1 mio) and Hungarian (approx. 0.5 mio).

      Estimated number of German disabled, political enemies and other unwanted killed was approx. 250k.

      • ScottLoar

        I’m in Shanghai. When do we meet?

        • Germandude

          Why? If you mean me personally, I don’t feel anybody addressed me here. If you mean it in general, I think it’s fair to say that most people know how to handle it.
          The generations born after WW 2 are taught history and the country’s guilt enough already, some argue too much.

          I don’t feel personal guilt since I wasn’t born in those times, but understand that it’s also my responsibility to let sth like that never ever happen again.

          • ScottLoar

            Yes, I agree, of course you bear no responsibility for the past actions of a single party. My point is, as a German you get an undue amount of criticism in this forum, along with certain other nationalities only by reason of nationality.

          • Germandude

            There is only a few people on this forum that I respect. For the ones not included, I just think:

            Pity comes for free, while envy has to be earned. ;-)

      • Don’t Believe the Hype

        I see what your saying. But Poland was brought under Nazi control and was considered part of their “empire,” so doesnt that still constitute, at least in their mind, their own people?
        Also I dont think its really important whether it was thousands, tens of thousands, or millions, whatever. I think we often time forget how many people even a thousand dead really means. Systematic killing, whether it is fifteen or a million is equally horrifying.

        • Kai

          I think it’s generally accepted that the Nazis did not in thier minds see Jews as “their own people” or even equal citizens of the country they took control of and then ruled.

          Edit: Oops, didn’t see Mighty’s comment below.

        • Germandude

          Well if you argue like that, keep in mind that Hitler’s idea was to shift the border up to the Wolga river. It never came up to the Nazis’ minds that the Polish, Russians were their own people.

    • Vox-Populi

      “..their own countrymen and citizens of Germany.”

      Actually, this just limits to the Nazi naysayers, vagrants and criminals.

    • Insomnicide

      If you haven’t noticed, Jews are not native to Germany nor are they Aryan.

    • ScottLoar

      Understand Godwin’s Law and address an issue without resorting to the tired trope of Hitler and Nazi’s.

      No, I’m not German, my stepfather’s only brother was shot down in his fighter plane over Germany in WWII, but this constant, unrelenting and weary reference to Hitler and his Party is over-used to become trite and a mindless reaction to any comment.

  • Mighty曹

    Have the world not learn anything in the past few decades? “Demanding” anything of/from North Korea is as meaningless as begging. It’s high time to stop bitching at the Kim’s and take some serious action to end their dynasty.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      Basically cut off all aid. Which would lead to a lot more of the people dying. But it will cut off their means to pay those who prop up the regime (i.e. the soliders in the army) and that could cause a rebelion. But will a new regime be better than the old?

      • Vox-Populi

        Probably, provided that the regime isn’t in the Kim Dynasty line. It would be better though if the new regime isn’t the Stalinist one.

        • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

          NK will have issues because, as SK may want to take control, China wouldn’t like it. Another thing is, Do you think the US will leave SK once Korea has be unified in the current climate? I don’t think so. So the country may reunite or head off in a different direction. They may improve aor not. Also, another family or group could replace the Kims. We could end up with something like China, but with a whitewashed history, so on.

          • Zappa Frank

            there is the chance that if SK take control may come out some problems with China.. reasonably US will take chance to put some more military bases… but it is only one of the many scenarios. The thing is that for noth Koreans almost anything is better than now.

          • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

            I am a glass is empty sorta guy sometimes and think things can always get worse.

            Pretty much what happens will need the US and China to be working together. Apparently China would not mind as long as no bases past the current no-man zone or whatever it is called between south and north. of course, if there is no north, will the Koreans still do 2 years in the army?

      • wnsk

        You’re thinking of Iraq? (It seems worse off now than when it was under Saddam Hussein.)

        If Kim is eliminated, it seems reasonable to assume that N.Korea would cease as a state, and S.Korea will take over the land and the people. (And it also seems reasonable to assume that S.Korea would be a lot better than N.Korea?)

        • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

          You could count many of the countries (Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc.).

          S.Korea taking over will also have its issue. Its not going to go smoothly. Also, SK may not want 1000s of NKs running into the South, so may need to move things up north. IT will cause problems. The culture is different since they have been apart for so long, the NKs who escaped to the south have problem adjusting. And then there is China.

          • wnsk

            But still, better than what they have now right? I mean, what with all the prison rapes, excruciating tortures, lack of high-speed internet, etc.

          • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

            Most likely better. But humans can always make things worse.

          • Mighty曹

            Very true.

          • Mighty曹

            Hahaha.. I like how ‘lack of hi-speed internet’ is grouped with rapes and tortures.

          • wnsk

            (Just to be clear, I’m not trying to trivialise torture and rape. But S.Korea’s internet is the best in the world, and their decision to invest in next-gen info tech is probably the single biggest reason for their economic success today.)

          • Mighty曹

            Hahaha… I know you weren’t. It’s just how it appeared drew a laughter.

          • linette lee

            What do you mean there is China. The Chinese want Nk and SK to unite. Less burden for China. SK should step up and provide more supplies to NK.
            Do you think China should stop supplying for NK? Do you think millions civilians will die of starvation? Maybe that is what China has to do end it. It’s inevitable.

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            The problem NK is like a drunken family member. When they’re sober they want to change and SK tries to help them change with support and aid. Then NK relapses, gets drunk, and threatens to punch the first guy that looks at him strange. Then they sober up and try to apologize when they realize they spent all their support money on booze and the cycles starts all over.

          • linette lee

            yes true. That fat Kim is mental and unstable. Don’t know what he will do next. Those poor North korean people under a mental leader.

          • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

            China likes their buffer zone. If China did really want NK and SK to unite, as you say, there are many ways they could have nudged NK in that direction. They could stop returning NK refugees but they don’t.

            NK regime has been proped up by aid and China’s support. China doesn’t want SK to take over NK. They want NK to become a mini China.

      • Mighty曹

        Sanctions have never been effective in toppling a regime. If anything, it strengthens its power as it gives them even more control of what is made available to the very people it is oppressing. It’s hard to imagine a new regime as cruel as the Kim’s.

        Side note: NK is the perfect example of US’s biased foreign policy of only serving its own interest and need. It used the excuse of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction to remove Saddam and to free the people from his tyranny.

        Meanwhile, NK has been taunting and waving a middle finger openly declaring, “Hey, we got nukes”. Nothing’s been done to do anything to free the North Korean people. Why? Unlike the oil fields of Iraq there’s nothing that can benefit the US.

        • linette lee

          Also because China is NK’s ally. USA already had a taste of confronting China during NK war. Iraq they don’t have big ally so USA can kick them when they pulled a 911 on USA.

          • Mighty曹

            Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was one of the excuses used to invade Iraq.

          • linette lee

            But that definitely gave USA the green light to attack. Like Bush on TV said he promised the Americans he will find the people that are responsible for this and they will be facing the consequence. USA do not negotiate with terrorists.

          • Zappa Frank

            but in the he did not found anything… no prove of Iraq relation with 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction..
            it is arguable even about Afghanistan if in the end there was really any relation with 9/11…

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            Iraq was invaded because Iraq wouldn’t play nice with the U.N when the French found traces of chemical weapons. The U.N threatened aggressive operations, Iraq still refused.

            The U.S was like “Hey we’re nearby, we can do it for you!”

            UN was “No, it’s alright we can do-”
            “LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEROOOOOOOOOOOOY-”

            And you know what happened from there. U.N is hesitant to ask U.S because they can get the job done, but the mess they leave behind….

            China’s involvement in the Korean Conflict was because one dumb American wouldn’t listen to the Commander in Chief to stop pushing to China. Said General was about to submit plans to nuke china for counter-invading until said president fired him for being stupid.

          • linette lee

            hahaha…who’s Leroy?

          • Rosemon Calvin Pilot

            Linette For your viewing pleasure, I introduce to you Bruce Leeroy aka Black Bruce Lee aka Taimak….you can thank me later -_^

          • Mighty曹

            How come I’ve never heard of this? I’m gonna Netflix it. (But I do know Vanity)

          • ESL Ninja

            I thought LEEEROOOOOOOY was a Leroy Jenkins reference…

          • Kai

            +1 just for the pop culture reference.

          • zachary T

            when I found out MacArthurs plan to drop dozens of A-bombs on the Korea/china border when China entered the conflict…Just the fact that was on the drawing board is ridiculous/amazing. then I found out about him wanting to put cobalt mines in the ground right before hand….cobalt sucks up radiation like a vacuum, which would have made the Yalu river a no go zone for…oh at least a century and a half, that’s when I realized Truman DID have some common sense.

          • Rosemon Calvin Pilot

            LMAO 100 thumbs up for the “LEEEEEEEEEEROOOOOY”
            Do you possess…..”THE GLOW!”

          • Insomnicide

            Are you talking about MacArthurr? Man, he gets so much praise for being an idiot.

        • linette lee

          I agree. They need to try something else instead of sanctions. Sanctions only allow the dictator to have more control over his people because all resources are now limited to the people. The UN should focus making sure other nations do not provide NK materials needed to make nukes or weapons of mass destruction.

          • Mighty曹

            I wonder why the CIA hasn’t come up with a way to lace poison in the lobsters that Fatty Kim loves to feast on?

          • linette lee

            Or send in trained spies to assassinate him. Maybe a beautiful woman like Charlie’s angel. Which do you think fat kim will fall for? Fat lobster or skinny women? Maybe the fat lobster.

          • Mighty曹

            Definitely fat lobster and over the hill ex-NBA players.

          • linette lee

            USA should’ve trained Dennis Rodman.

        • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

          It also makes other coutnries seeing what NK doing and think, ‘If we have nukes, they won’t come after us.‘

          But then again, even the US props up evil dictators in parts of the world and doesn’t bat an eyelid at what they do to their own people.

          • Mighty曹

            Yup. US hypocrisy.

        • Teacher in China

          It’s slightly more complicated than that. There are a whole load of geopolitical arguments to be made on behalf of U.S., South Korea, China and even Japan that make invasion and regime toppling difficult. It’s a tricky situation. I agree, though, that sanctions won’t do much good.

          • Mighty曹

            Yes, also, sometimes it’s best not to disturb the balance of power in the region. Best example is the Persian Gulf. With Saddam removed Iran has emerged as the regional power who poses more of a threat to the US. Nice job!

  • vonskippy

    China’s new flag should be an Ostrich with it’s head buried in the sand and one of it’s wings grasping a bunch of US Dollars.

    • Irvin

      I imagined a statue of lady justice only with money on both hands with a big smirk on the face.

      • Vox-Populi

        Also with a cola and burger on her hands.

    • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

      Ostriches don’t bury their head in the sand. They would suffocate. They do put their heads to the ground to scan their surroundings for predators.

    • filabusta

      Thanks for the lol

    • Reptilian

      Make it simpler: a Smiley with a pirate’s eye-patch and mouth taped. Says loads more about that country.

  • commander

    If the UN fact-finding commission had requested a visit permission to North Korea, the police state would have flatly snubbed that request.

    Then, how could the UN human rights arm conduct on-site investigation into human rights conditions in the authoritarian state except for relying on testimonies from North Korean defectors who fled poverty and freedom suppression there?

    If the Stalinist nation is confident in providing basic human right amply, why tens of thousands are reported to be held captive in gulag where torture and heavy labor is forced against them, and to have died from gross starvation?

    • Kai

      Apparently they DID request permission and WERE rejected. While it is technically true that the commission had no direct investigation or sources and thus the report is based on hearsay, the bullshit is in pretending like it was due to the commission’s negligence or dishonesty. At the end of the day, this is geopolitics. China is defending NK here because China has a vested interest in defending it. If defending NK means playing along with NK’s bullshit, they’ll do it. China wouldn’t be the only country in history to turn a blind eye or play along with bullshit because of an interest they consider more important. The world sucks balls.

      • commander

        I want to speak out two points.

        First, if China’s support and defense of North Korea is inevitable because it’s in the interests of China, it’s for the same reason–vital national interests at stake that the United States can step in territorial disputes in South China Sea between China and other Southeast Asian countries, action that China vigorously condemns as menacing intervention of its “internal affairs.”

        Another case in point is American ties with Taiwan.

        If China’s attempt to retain its influences on the Korean Peninsula by supporting North Korea politically and economically in disregard of a deteriotating humanitarian crisis in North Korea is justified, American continued ties with Taiwan to roll back China’s expanding clout and keep it from becoming a maritime power can be vindicated in the same vain.

        China appears to tend to decry double standards of US led western countries in human rights.

        But to many countries, China may be viewed as “one of them” who can trample on the weak championing a nebulous, extremly flexible notion of “national interests.”

        Second, logically speaking, the fact that you are not the first to do something wrong, that doesn’t mean that that action is tenable and legitimate.

        If that assertion give China some comfort in turning a blind eye to a deepening human rights abuses in North Korea, I may concede it with a shrugg, if all conscientious people put vital Chinese vital interests over painful tears and harrowing blood from tens of thousands of people in North Korea.

        • Kai

          Hypocrisy comes standard in geopolitics.

          • commander

            That others conducting themselves in a hypocritical manner doesn’t justify another act of hypercrisy. You need to take a closer look at the second point in my first response.

          • Kai

            I never said hypocrisy justifies hypocrisy. I never said “that action is tenable and legitimate”. I said: “The world sucks balls”.

            I’m not sure what you want me to say. You said you wanted to speak out two points. You did. I read it. My cynical response is what it is. Do you think I’m somehow defending China’s hypocrisy?

  • Zen my Ass

    NK has been a shithole since its inception in 1953. How come only now people are opening their eyes? Bunch of bureaucratic hypocrites.

    • Irvin

      People only cares when there’s something in it for them, whoever thinks people do what they do just because or out of good will are just being naive.

      • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

        That really should be governments and to an extent, most people. Not all people are like that.

      • tomoe723

        How very true… almost everyone is like this. But to get a gauge of who aren’t, I’ll take the biblical number 144,000 people. Given that the population of Earth was 7 billion at 2012, 144,000 is less than 1%. Or 1 out 50,000 people. XD

      • vonskippy

        Bunching together huge groups of people into one ideology is naive. There are plenty of do gooder’s in the world.

        • Irvin

          It’s not ideology, it’s psychology. Did you know bats share their food? The reason why they do that got nothing to do with morality, it is because the ones that don’t share their food wouldn’t have any food shared to them. It is out of selfishness.

          Just like human, even people that do charity doesn’t do it for other people, they do it for themselves. It it because it make THEM feel good, it’s like an addition. Although most philanthropist/church does it mostly for publicity.

          EVERYTHING we do, we does it out of selfishness weather it’s seen as good or bad from another person’s perspective.

          • nickhz

            so charitable people do it out of selfish reasons? always? that’s bullsh#t. there are many people who help others without any desire for recognition. that may be your mentality but it isn’t for all other people. maybe some people, but not all. I have, and know others who have done things for people and have wanted nothing in return. we did a christmas charity drive in panama years ago and when they came with cameras and news people we didn’t allow them to come in to take photographs of us at all. they were only allowed to see the children. i gained nothing from that exept knowing that these children had benifited. you have a messed up opinion of people.

          • Irvin

            “i gained nothing from that exept knowing that these children had benifited” that’s precisely what I was talking about, helping people make YOU felt good, just like drugs to addicts and alcohol to alcoholics.

            I’m not saying you have a bad addiction and it don’t benefit others. But don’t pretend it’s not a selfish action as well. You did it for you.

          • nickhz

            that is completely bullsh*t. it does not make it a selfish act just because you fell good about it. if you do it so you can feel good about yourself then it is selfish. but doing something for others, really doing it for someone else is not selfish, feeling good about it is just natural.

          • Irvin

            You don’t get it, there’s virtually no act that is not selfish unless you’re a robot and being control by someone else, everything you do, every action you take is out of your own free will. Hence each act and each action is a selfish action weather it benefit others or not.

          • nickhz

            Oh, I understand your point. I just completely disagree. How selfish of me

      • ScottLoar

        The word is “altruism”, a powerful motive; a reading of human affairs should prove that to you even though you lack experience of life to recognize it yourself. Moreover, people who act solely from selfish motives to advance themselves are universally castigated by groups and society.

    • Probotector

      North Korea was established in 1948. 1953 was the year the Korean War armistice was signed. I agree with the rest though.

  • mr.wiener

    China: “So north Korea is Nazi Germany….Cool! that must mean we are Sweden!”

    • Probotector

      Um, by that analogy I’d say that China is more like Spain (at the time), which was like Nazi Germany light.

  • Vox-Populi

    Time will tell when will North Korea fall apart. Regimes like this will not last forever.

  • Can’t remember my username

    “Oh, and did anybody mention that Nazi was elected to power in a democratic state?”

    No, because they were never elected to power, they seized control and then changed laws to suit themselves. Perhaps you should check your sources again?

    ‘The Nazis were elected to power’ argument is often stated by CCP apologists to distract from a current issue and used so they can point to how bad the ‘West’ is. As such, I’m not sure why you would bring it up?

    • Germandude

      Correct.
      March 1933, election in which Hitler tried to confirm himself as being ordered by the people:

      “Despite achieving a much better result than in the November 1932 election, the Nazis did not do as well as Hitler had hoped. Despite massive violence and intimidation, the Nazis won 43.9% of the vote”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

      • Vox-Populi

        Perhaps the people at that time are fuelled by the idea of Anti-Semitism and renewal of German Identity, which explains the high number of vote despite the violence and intimidation.

        • Germandude

          The number of votes is pretty low considering that Hitler’s “streetfighters” were standing in front of each place of election, threatening voters to make the cross at the right place. Additionally, in some districts, Hitler’s supporters were manipulating vote outcomes to their favor.
          The election was not held under what is considered “a vote under free democratic conditions”.

          Anti-Semitism was present in all over Europe for 100s of years and was never a unique German belief.

          The support Hitler gained, especially after he was in charge, was mainly achieved through him nullifying the unfair treaty of Versailles.

          • nickhz

            yeah, i think it’s funny how we are told that anti-semitism is a german thing. it really was a wide spread belief all over europe. the only difference is that the nazis took it to a whole new level.

          • ScottLoar

            England’s own Richard The Lion-Hearted expelled Jews, as did their most Christian majesties Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, wholly dispossessing people of a religion that had been accepted for centuries. No, anti-Semitism was never unique to Germany (look to the Pale of St. Stephan), and I quote this from the Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller:

            First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

            In my own country we enslaved a people for more than 340 years (that first slave ship came in 1621) because we chose to define ourselves by race or country or creed or religion or party or worse – custom.

          • Chinamark

            Interesting. You learn something new every day. The Lionheart, eh?

          • Thor

            Actually, the worst anti-semitists at the times were the Russians and Poles. “pogrom” is a Russian word and their crimes against Jews didn’t wait for WW2 or even USSR to start. Trotsky was assassinated by Stalin, etc.

          • Germandude

            Some historians argue anti-semitism to have started as early as approx. 160 BC within the Roman Empire. Most argue it started in the 11th century with the 1st Crusade.

    • Insomnicide

      CCP apologists? Don’t you mean anti-Semites and neo-fascists?

    • Kai

      Uh, CCP apologists are far more likely to point to India’s lagging economy and Taiwan’s legislative antics to criticize democracy (as something to be in instituted immediately in mainland China) than they are going to point to the Nazis.

  • Rick in China

    I think this part is hilarious:

    “Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela criticize the report for using double standards.”

    Oh, the bastions of human rights, speak out for justice! Go go go!

    • sun tzu

      muh axis of evil

  • FYIADragoon

    Only way NK is getting fixed is through America or the EU pressuring China to allow some sort of military intervention, a complete blockade of all goods into or out of the country, or Chinese style market reforms. America has no leg to stand on when it comes to big countries protecting their craven small allies. EU is too scattered in their goals and can never seem to present a united front when it matters. Blockade will kill much of the population, and the survivors are most likely to be the military and the Kim family’s best friends, not the civilians. Considering the starting point they’re at now, Chinese style market reforms will take 50 years at the very least (Kim’s now deceased uncle seemed to want this, so the regime is not going to be welcoming any economic reform for a while). Sucks to be a North Korean.

    • Zappa Frank

      a blitzkrieg to kill or arrest all the Kims and allies? Special force operation. If they can take Kim down in a night the country will likely collapse..

    • chucky3176

      If China blockade the North Korean border, and forbid all trade, North Korea will collapse in matter of days. China is the only source where North Korea gets its oil and food. But China will never do so because that would be against their own interest to do so. First, if North Korea collapses, they lose the buffer state. Second, they’ll be neighboring a US backed united Korea – which will be by far, the largest free democratic country bordering China. Obviously China is very afraid of this combination of influence that could come from Korean peninsula. Even if the US withdraws from Korea, I doubt China will change their minds. Third, China will lose a very cheap source of natural resources from North Korea. Since China is the only country that commercially deals with North Korea, China has long been low balling North Korean natural resource products. North Korea has rich abundant natural resources including huge deposits of gold, tungsten, uranium, rare earth, coal, magnesium, and 10% of world’s oil reserves buried in deep seas in east and west coasts of North Korea which has never been explored (surprisingly this makes North Korea’s oil reserves rivaling that of Iran). All these that China is eyeing to exploit, will be lost.

      China will never let go of North Korea easily.

  • Insomnicide

    You missed the point completely. Nazis and the Japanese were good governments to their own people, but committed atrocities against others. North Korea commits atrocities against it’s own people, and China did too in the past. Which is the commentary the netizens are making, they hope the Chinese government stop antagonizing it’s own citizens.

    • Terrik

      Japan was absoutely horrid to its own people in WWII.

      • Insomnicide

        Living conditions weren’t so good, but the government itself was very protective of it’s citizen’s interests.

        • Zappa Frank

          is up to what you mean with “good to their people”, any freedom was abolished and there was absence of human rights. You could but to do what the party decide you have to do, else you got exiled, beated, or even killed.. however if you mean that was better than NK gov, yes.. maybe only Stalin was comparable with Kim..but still was not a good life.

    • Guest

      so were all the german jews the killed not actual germans? were all the disable germans they killed not germans? were all the political opposition they killed not actual germans?

      • Kai

        The Nazi race platform was never about historical German “nationality” but about their warped views on “purity” of race/ethnicity.

  • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

    That may be the case or at least in the beginning. You could nullify instead of appeasing them. I know they have nukes, but they’d only have to be willing to use them at the end. If their people and people within their own army start revolting, then the internal issues may take most of the brunt.

  • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

    It would also be a hideious flag and not representive of Ostriches true nature. :P

    • wnsk

      I really like how you’re not bowing to the pressure of popular sentiment and doing what you can to surface the truths about these animals and not letting these ridiculous myths about them spread any further. Respect!

    • Mateusz82

      So the flag would represent willful ignorance, and also enrage ornithologist nazis =p

  • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

    You’d think China’d get tired of baby sitting that yappy mutt by now.

  • Phil

    No. Chinese do not admire Nazis. Instead, they admire Jews a lot more. They are just trying to say: Hey, Nazis even did better than the north Koreans. WTF you NK gov’t are doing.

    • whuddyasack

      Yes, this is exactly the case. It’s quite a warped thinking. That Chinese actually admire the Nazis to the detriment of the Jews when it is the Jews that the Chinese “admire”.

      As a side note, even the Japanese prefer the Jews to the Nazis despite being allies back then. And even now. Chiune Sugihara and Kiichiro Higuchi were two famous Japanese heroes who rescued countless Jews from Nazi persecution. Looking at Japanese videos and blogs about these brave men, great pride is felt thanks to their heroic deeds.

      It’s quite enlightening and what it shows is that in a time where blood, bombs and cruelty dominated the world, there was kindness where it was least expected. And there was forgiveness too.

  • Phil

    Come on. They are not praising Nazis. Don’t be silly. Chinese say: .Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat. They are trying to analyze the enemies. Many of them do admire the Japs for their spirit of pursuing perfectness. However, It does not imply that Chinese like what the Japs have done to Chinese people.

  • jin

    south korea u should reinforce the death penalty.

  • Free Man

    Yeah the standards raised a lot by end of WWII. Here’s a photo of my hometown at that time. Looks like the perfect place for your home , doesn’t it. People starving or freezing around you, while bombs drop on your neighbours. Sons+fathers far away from home or dead. If that doesn’t raise morals …

    • ScottLoar

      Anyone who advocates war as a solution should look real hard at war’s reality: It stinks. It violates every sensibility but that of cruelty and sadistic pleasure. War shows the very worst of us, revealing those parts needfully covered; it is putting your hand in a hole, feeling the shit in your hand, then pulling out to show family like grandparents and father, friends like those who knew you in grade school, mother and sister, what your damned hand looks like now. Can you be proud? Is it manly?

    • Germandude

      So u r from Cologne?

      • Free Man

        Indeed. Koelle Alaaf!

      • Teacher in China

        Visited there in 2000. It’s a lovely city!
        Ah whoops, responded to the wrong guy…..

      • Free Man

        yes sir. kölle alaaf!!!

        why, u from düsseldorf?

        • Germandude

          Nope, but I recognized Kölner Dom on the pic. I am from the same province as you though.

  • Vlogger

    “The Nazis after all still respected their own country and their own people, unlike now a certain authoritarian country, who only treats its people as tools for government and personal benefit.”

    The description could very well fit both North Korea and china.

    • Kai

      The suspicion is that the Chinese netizen was intentionally also referring to China.

  • Vox-Populi

    Sounds like the harshest way to increase people’s morality..

  • RagnarDanneskjold

    UNO could probably make a pizza for that.

  • Mighty曹

    Really, the condition in camps are worse than that of animals.

  • YourSupremeCommander

    Hitler would not have been seen posting with a Jew family like this.

    • Mighty曹

      Nah, only because this family’s surname is Jew and the toddler shares his haircut.

    • Zappa Frank

      they don’t seem so happy..

  • Mighty曹

    Same people with one culture and different political systems eventually reunite with varying results as in Vietnam and Germany. Yeah, commies suck!

    • Kai

      A lot of South Koreans aren’t that keen on reuniting with North Korea. It’d compromise their current living standards. In a way, similar to China and Taiwan, except some differences in scale.

      • Mighty曹

        Yup, Germany certainly learned that it wasn’t all sweet after reunification.

  • linette lee

    It’s heart breaking to see children suffering. Children should be carefree and happy. They shouldn’t have to worry about hunger and safety.

  • death_by_ivory

    Im saying that for the longest.There is a saying after the Holocaust that people say to remind each other that” Never again”.I guess it is meaningless,just a saying.
    I realize Nk is backed up by China but in WW2 the Allies went to liberate the death camps.Who will liberate the NK camps?Or just wait for the whole thing to collapse?

  • Guest

    The Nazi’s at least were just persecuting Jews, whereas the people North Korea is slaughtering are all of its own ordinary common people [citizens]. In comparison to North Korea, what the Nazis did was just child’s play.

    the nazis went after a lot more people then just jews… they went after the diabled, homosexuals, slavs, roma, and virtually all non-white people (lot’s of stories of black people in europe going missing when the nazis took over)….

    • chucky3176

      North Koreans also go after homosexuals, disabled, and the mentally ill.
      Any babies that are born with physical or mental flaws are immediately killed and buried under an apple tree (the superstition is that the apple tree will be fertilized to give off rich tasting fruit). In North Korea, there are no physically handicapped or mentally disabled people. Six out of ten births in North Korea lead to deaths. It’s not official, but its been long suspected that North Korea’s population has been in decline for a long time. Any North Korean unlucky to get disabled in accident or illness, they are silently shipped off to special housings where they are warehoused and die horribly from hunger and disease and neglect, not long after.

      Simply put, there are nowhere in the world that is hellish as North Korea. Nowhere.

      • tina

        I wish china would stop all aid to north korea, that would be liberating. there should not be any north korea. korea should be united as one.

  • Markus Peg

    “Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela…are all friends of North Korea~
    To know a person, look at his friends.”

    China?…

    • Kai

      Chinese netizens regularly make the same point about their own country…like whenever visa-free travel is concerned.

      • Markus Peg

        In general i am in agreement to most comments, obliviously exaggerations are made, but we get the point they are trying to get across. I feel the comments reflect a very different view to the official governmental stance, though behind closed doors they may not like NK, openly and politically they are NK’s friend

  • Kai

    How the hell did this comment get upvoted 7 times?

    1) The Chinese were recognizing that Nazi Germany was a force to be reckoned with at its height. It’s like recognizing someone is buff cuz they are. It’s also in juxtaposition to how weak NK is. This isn’t admiration.

    2) The Nazi Germans are best known for persecuting Jews, seen as outsiders to their Aryan “race”. Not killing their own people is in juxtaposition to North Koreans gulaging North Koreans. Technically, the Nazis did persecute Aryan Germans too, but for the simplistic purposes of this Chinese netizen’s juxtaposition, the point is pretty clear, isn’t it?

    There is no statistically significant number of Chinese who “admire” the Nazis, much less in the comments you’re referencing.

  • chucky3176

    It’s encouraging to see the Chinese netizen reactions like these finally. But will they support a move by China to drop the support of North Korea? Without China, North Korea would not even exist.

    North Korea is even worse than the Nazis. The Nazi abuses lasted only 12 years, however the North Korean Holocaust is now going on to its 80th year. North Korea has killed more people than the Nazis, in similar fashions like mass shootings, concentration camps, and even gas chambers. But the Nazi’s at least didn’t kill their own German nationals (other than Jews and other foreigners). The North Koreans on the other hand, have a million of its own citizens in mass concentration camps, and the 99% of its people live in daily fear for their lives. In some ways, North Korea is even far worse than the Nazis. Did the Germans had to survive by eating human flesh? Nope.

  • Boris_Da_Bengal_Tiger

    If they fired even one and Seoul, they’d lose the war. China can’t support them and SK and US (and maybe others) will attack. It will definitely be a different reaction to the ones of the ship sinking and that of the island bombardment a few years back. The issue for them is that they know what they can get away with. If people inside are revolting, if they attack outside their own nation, it will invite outside attack to join the inside revolt. It is delicate. But the main thing for the regime is to stay in power. They need aid. They need China’s support. And they know there are limits to what they can do. Hence bombing a ship close to their territory or the island no one really cares about. If they could hit Seoul and get away with it, they would have done so.

  • that guy

    some of these Chinese comments….

  • Zappa Frank

    yes you are right, if the first strike doesn’t take him and his crew down it may follow a tragedy

  • kkw

    Japanese is probably the most disgusting race on this planet. It not only committed horrible atrocities that even the germans found appaling, their society also never really changed. Abe visiting Yasukuni is equivalent to Merkel visiting the grave of Hitler (which of course doesn’t exist, because the germans have shown real remorse for their deeds). This is disgusting… just proves that it is a spineless, weak nation.

    • Germandude

      And the first sentence in your reply shows that there is a little Hitler inside you that just waits to be unleashed…

    • tina

      I have met many Japanese people and most are wonderful warm people, nothing like what you describe. don’t let the past and that hatred blind you. there are good and bad people in all cultures and ethnic groups.

      • kkw

        Maybe if they stopped worshiping war criminals.

  • Insomnicide

    Speaking of selective historical memory, isn’t it convenient people always forget that more Russian and Chinese civilians died in WW2 yet cry about the holocaust as the worst catastrophe in human history? Or the fact that Hitler was killed and his regime dismantled but Hirohito was allowed to keep the throne? The Tokyo trials were like slaps on the wrists compared to the Nuremberg trials.

  • Tova Rischi

    Maybe a stupid question, but to those connected to the mainland, if the PRC can actually democratize, would a reformed CCP, say a “左” (If I got that right) akin to Germany’s Die Linke, be something you could stand to tolerate, or do you think the CCP has discredited even euro-styled democratic socialism enough that you think it should be banned from the new nation? All hypothetical, I suppose…

  • whuddyasack

    I think you are mistaken. Most Chinese do not admire Hitler, those comments you listed out are used as a comparison of how terrible the current North Korean regime is. The mere fact that China props up such a ruthless dictator is disgraceful and I can’t wait for the day that China stops supporting the madness for good.

    Back to nazi-worship, you’d actually find “Nazi-worship” significantly LESS of a problem in China, let alone the rest of North-east Asia. The “Asian” countries rife with neo-nazis are India, Russia and perhaps Malaysia. In fact, Gandhi was one of Hitler’s greatest admirers.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-06/hitler-has-a-following-in-india

    http://sabhlokcity.com/2013/08/hindu-revivalism-is-at-a-peak-hitler-is-more-admired-than-gandhi-mein-kampf-is-the-best-seller/

    The point is Chinese, like everyone else I suppose, find unjustified and systematic killing of innocent civilians sickening no matter who the victim or offender is. The Chinese never praise the actions of the Nazis against the Jews the same way certain trolls praise the actions of the Japanese in WW2 and use that to mock Chinese.

    Chinese just aren’t low enough for such despicable acts.

    • O.

      You’re being incredibly hyperbolic. Gandhi was not one of Hitler’s “greatest admirers”. He wrote a letter to the man in the 1930s, from one leader to another, and said that as much as he admired Hitler’s zeal for Germany, he would counsel him to utilize nonviolence in strengthening Germany.

      In fact, Gandhi authored a treatise in June 1940, entitled, ‘How to Combat Hitlerism’. This was prior to World War II itself, so Gandhi was reflecting solely upon Hitler’s actions re Czechoslovakia and the seizure of the Sudetenland, and speaking of Hitler’s leadership with respect to that (in other words, in June 1940, he – much like the rest of the world – would have been unaware of Hitler’s further genocidal intentions).

      “I doubt if the Germans of future generations will entertain unadulterated pride in the deeds for which Hitlerism will be deemed responsible. They will honour Herr Hitler as genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more.

      But I should hope that the Germans of the future will have learnt the art of discrimination even about their heroes. Anyway I think it will be allowed that all the blood that has been spilled by Hitler has added not a millionth part of an inch to the world’s moral stature.

    • O.

      As for the Hitler-admiration that exists in India, it’s very much along the same lines as the Chinese netizen comments above. It is misguided and divorced from historical context: they think highly of Hitler for his militarism, without considering or being aware of* how this militarism was employed, i.e. in territorial grabs and the wholesale genocide of “non-Aryans”. World history education is lacking throughout much of India, which is partly to blame for the superficial attitude re Hitler, but it’s also simply that – being located a continent away – India was not directly affected by Nazi wartime actions.

      * notable exception being Bal Thackeray, who was a rightwing piece of human excrement, and regarded non-Hindus much like how Hitler regarded “non-Aryans”… so of course, Hitler’s philosophy suits him and the rest of the Shiv Sena party perfectly
      __

      Speaking of leaders who are lauded in one part of the world while simultaneously reviled in another, you want to know who’s a real villain to the Indian subcontinent? Winston Churchill. The man is lauded in the Western hemisphere for his leadership in World War II, but most Westerners are blissfully unaware of the genocide he (and British imperialism) perpetrated in India. I note the (manmade) Bengali Famine of 1943 as one such example.

      So it all boils down to what we’ve been taught and made aware of, particularly where historical figures are concerned.

  • whuddyasack

    Simply because the number of Chinese who admire the Nazis remains statistically undetermined does not mean, as you state, “there is no statistically significant number of Chinese who ‘admire’ the Nazis.”

    But there really isn’t. There are no neo-nazi groups in China in the same vein as this:

    http://www.ibtimes.com/neo-nazis-sprout-malaysia-yes-malaysia-1271165

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583127/Teenage-neo-Nazi-accused-plotting-Columbine-style-massacre-downloaded-Mujahideen-Poisons-Handbook-phone.html

    Yeah, Michael Piggin sure looks like a pig.

  • nickhz

    they look terrified

    • Rosemon Calvin Pilot

      Really?…They are just beaming with happiness to be in the presence of Dear Leader….they feel they are not worthy to be in his presence!

  • O.

    “But the Nazis weren’t cruel to their own countrymen, right?”

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

  • Kai

    I’ll clarify. @司马迁 is marveling: since both the Nazis and Imperial Japan were “strong and powerful” (“and didn’t kill their own people”), why do the Chinese “admire” the former but not the latter?

    Insofar as “admire” connotes any notion that the Chinese think the Nazis (or Hitler) were “morally good” or “overall likeable”, I object, because I’m certain there is no statistically significant amount of Chinese who do. I concede to your criticism that this is technically statistically undetermined, so until someone determines it, please interpret it as an expression of my certainty. You’re welcome to present information to suggest Chinese people admire the Nazis as “morally good” or “overall likeable”. If you agree with me that they most likely don’t, then we understand the extent of my objection here.

    Insofar as “admire” connotes the notion that the Chinese recognize and are even “impressed by” things the Nazis were superior in, I completely agree and that was what my point 1) above was about, recognizing that the Chinese recognize how objectively (value-neutral) “lihai” the Nazis were.

    If we go with the second connotation, the problem with 司马迁’s comment is that the Chinese DO have “admiration” for how “strong and powerful” the Japanese were (and are). The Chinese know Imperial Japan were far superior to the Chinese in so much, and that superiority in so many things is why the Chinese were invaded and had their asses kicked over and over and over again. Those who lived under Japanese occupation at the time even say living standards and governance improved under the Japanese. They recognize all this, “admire” it. Strength is strength. Having one’s act together is having one’s act together.

    What is different between how Chinese feel about the Nazis versus the Japanese is “resentment”. The Nazis didn’t invade China; the Japanese did. The Chinese having a whole lot more resentment for the Japanese that raped them in the ass versus the distant Nazis who didn’t do much direct harm to them doesn’t mean the Chinese somehow hypocritically admire something in one but don’t admire that same thing in another.

    Objectively, the Chinese “admire” both for how “strong and powerful” they were. Subjectively, the Chinese resent the Japanese far more. There is no cognitive dissonance here. If the resentment overpowers the admiration, that’ll influence what sort of remarks will come out of one’s mouth first.

    Nazis:
    Admiration: 10
    Resentment: 3
    “Please don’t use North Korea to insult the Nazis; at least the Nazi’s were strong and powerful.”

    Japanese:
    Admiration: 10
    Resentment: 9000
    “FUCKING JAPANESE DEVILS!”

    This is why 司马迁 shouldn’t be “really amazed”.

    It’s also why Chinese people shouldn’t be “really amazed” when an expat bitches about life in China all day long but remains in the country. Like the Chinese, the expat can hold two thoughts in his head at once, and expressing one emotion doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel another emotion as well.

    Chinese tend to have very selective preferences when it comes to historical issues, an they’re all relate with their own fate.

    To what extent does this apply to just about everyone? Who doesn’t come across as “selective” when it involves matters closer to home versus those far away and distant? Is this “really amazing”?

    • Wa

      Thank you for that excessively long response, Kai. Hopefully you won’t think it tiresome of me to return the favor. Your certainty in this case clearly means nothing. In fact, your entire comment is nothing more than quibbling and moral tergiversation, which is all that is certain. The idea that you can parse out acceptable aspects of Nazi likeableness or relegate to “what’s natural” Chinese people’s admiration for the Nazis and Hitler should give you pause. Not only because of what that says about the Chinese, but also because of what that says about you.

      Chinese admiration for the Nazis is not value-neutral. Indeed, insofar as the Nazis are remarkable and regularly remarked upon, it cannot be.

      http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-no05-276325-1.shtml
      http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_4394962_1.html

      http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2151435050

      http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/149283286.html

      http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/546350030.html

      http://wenwen.sogou.com/z/q253779509.htm?ch=wtk.title

      You will find in the discussions linked to a range of reactions to Hitler and the Nazis, of course. What is clearly also present are the following: 1) a recognition that a significant number of Chinese people (still statistically undetermined), yes, “like” or “worship” the Nazis; 2) explanation for that based on the “similarity” of circumstance between China and Germany between the wars; 3) a desperate hope to show the same “strength” the Germans had during WWII (complete with images of nukes falling on the Statue of Liberty); 4) an articulated disappointment that the Nazis did not side with China during the war; 5) that odd emotional appeal to Hitler’s Chinese interests.

      Now, these are all remarkable things. What is more, when these aspects of the Nazis or Hitler are highlighted when the subject of Germany is broached–as we saw in the case of “Hitler, soccer” above–they are things people are choosing to address, *choosing to value* over other things which may be said of the Nazis or Hitler or even of Germany. This is especially notable when what the Chinese value about the Nazis is historically questionable. Free Man, on this very thread, has pointed out the ridiculousness of claiming the Nazis raised morals and the standards of living. With the devastation that fell upon Germany as a consequence of the Nazis actions, I think it is safe to say the Chinese admiration of Nazi “strength” is a blinkered one, and as such a willful one.

      Your analysis of 司马迁’s comment lacks substance because it simply shifts the moral burden from admiring the Nazis to admiring anything “strong” (i.e. also Japan) even when that causes inhuman destruction. And what you basically have to say about is precisely what 司马迁 criticized: when that strength hurts the Chinese, they don’t like it; when it hurts others, they don’t really worry about it, or they even admire it. Of course, you would like to argue this “applies to just about everyone”. However, you would immediately recognize the injustice of a white Brit who, when asked about South Africa, said, “Apartheid sure kept the streets clean,” where as you do not for a Chinese commenting, “The Nazis made Germany strong.” I’m afraid this may say as much about you as it does about the Chinese.

      “Remember, if the notion of the Nazis being ultimately evil and thus horrible to be compared to wasn’t dominant in China and the Chinese social consciousness, China wouldn’t have the headline above. China’s UN representative would not object to NK being compared to the Nazis. Chinese people would not object to themselves being compared to the Nazis in some of the more demagogic China criticisms and bashing.”
      I’m pretty sure we are all well aware of that. What we are really discussing here is: why the hell not? I understand your criticism of 司马迁’s insufficient treatment of “context”, but his comment does usefully raise our awareness to a real issue. My initial comment to you merely addressed that fact.

      • Kai

        Your first paragraph was an interesting way of criticizing me for the opinions I’ve expressed. Yes, the beliefs I express says something about me.

        I seem to have been using “value-neutral” in a confusing way. I apologize. What I was trying to say with it is that the Chinese can and DO admire “admirable” aspects of the Nazis without admiring the “unadmirable” aspects of the Nazis. I don’t think 司马迁’s comment reflects an understanding of this and may suggest the idea that the Chinese admire the Nazis lock, stock, and barrel, without caveats, that the Chinese have no issue at all with all the horrible things the Nazis were guilty of. I don’t think I’m being unfair in my objection to this.

        What is clearly also present are the following: 1) a recognition that a significant number of Chinese people (still statistically undetermined), yes, “like” or “worship” the Nazis;

        If you read every link you shared, my point above should be inescapable because the Chinese netizens themselves in those links articulate what specifically they can find “admirable” in the Nazis and Hitler. Surely you’re not going to argue a significant number of Chinese people think their atrocities are totally cool?

        If not, then are we in agreement?

        Next, do you have any idea how many similar results I can get Googling “why do people like Hitler”? The vast majority of people who might be characterized as “admiring” Hitler or the Nazis have very narrow specific reasons separate from what they recognize as their evil.

        http://www.quora.com/Adolf-Hitler/Is-it-true-that-Hitler-is-still-respected-in-certain-countries-in-the-world

        What I’m objecting to is any notion that Chinese people admire, like, or even worship him for his evil. That’s just not true. Any suggestion of that is grossly inaccurate and unfair. Does 司马迁’s comment recognize this?

        This is especially notable when what the Chinese value about the Nazis is historically questionable. Free Man, on this very thread, has pointed out the ridiculousness of claiming the Nazis raised morals and the standards of living.

        Free Man misspelled “morale”. The Nazis DID improve Germany’s morale and standard of living. That they later fucked it all up is irrelevant to the fact that they DID do so. This is historical, not “historically questionable”.

        With the devastation that fell upon Germany as a consequence of the Nazis actions, I think it is safe to say the Chinese admiration of Nazi “strength” is a blinkered one, and as such a willful one.

        No, it isn’t. The Chinese are able to separate things you feel must be conflated. A common theme of so many of these “why do people like/admire/respect the Nazis or Hitler” questions and answers is the ability to look objectively at their many facets, giving credit where it is due. The Chinese who can be characterized as admiring the Nazis do the same thing that non-Chinese do.

        Your analysis of 司马迁’s comment lacks substance because it simply shifts the moral burden from admiring the Nazis to admiring anything “strong” (i.e. also Japan) even when that causes inhuman destruction.

        You’re tacking on “causes inhuman destruction” and thus straw-manning my position. Go ahead and accuse a Chinese person that they admire the Nazis because of the Nazi’s “inhuman destruction” and they’ll think you’re nuts and completely disrespecting what should be the obvious unnecessary-to-voice limitations of whatever admiration they have for the Nazis.

        And what you basically have to say about is precisely what 司马迁 criticized: when that strength hurts the Chinese, they don’t like it; when it hurts others, they don’t really worry about it, or they even admire it. Of course, you would like to argue this “applies to just about everyone”.

        Yes, people around the world–not just the Chinese–can be characterized as being more motivated by self-interest than principles, but NO, what I said is NOT what he criticized. Chinese people may admire the Nazis for their strength, but they don’t admire the Nazis for using their strength to hurt others. Similarly, Chinese people admired Imperial Japan’s strength, but they naturally RESENT that strength having been used to hurt them. They can like/admire Imperial Japan’s strength without liking/admiring that strength being used to hurt them. They can resent that strength being used to hurt them while still recognizing strength as admirable.

        However, you would immediately recognize the injustice of a white Brit who, when asked about South Africa, said, “Apartheid sure kept the streets clean,” where as you do not for a Chinese commenting, “The Nazis made Germany strong.” I’m afraid this may say as much about you as it does about the Chinese.

        Your hypothetical juxtaposition does not reflect the situation here. 司马迁 reacted to a Chinese person saying “Please don’t use North Korea to insult the Nazis; at least the Nazi’s were strong and powerful [as a country]” in reaction to the UN comparing NK to the Nazis. This is not a situation where a Chinese person was asked about the Nazis and they responded “The Nazi’s made Germany strong.” The situation is a Chinese person taking the piss out of North North Korea by making them look even worse than the Nazis. I think you’ll concede that you’re misrepresenting the situation with that substitution.

        Next, something closer would be a white Brit saying, “Please don’t use North Korea to insult Apartheid, at least South Africa had an economy under Apartheid.” I would not “recognize the injustice” in that response. I’d find it pretty funny. I get you think I’m revealing some sort of racial double-standard here but I don’t see how with that false example you made. I’d indeed be revealing a double standard in your hypothetical, but that hypothetical doesn’t reflect what happened here. Therefore, I don’t see how I’ve revealed a racial double standard here.

        I’m pretty sure we are all well aware of that.

        It is because I’m worried that 司马迁 ISN’T aware that I wrote it. I’ve already articulated my reasons why I don’t feel he demonstrated an awareness of that in his comment.

        What we are really discussing here is: why the hell not?

        I don’t follow. What are you referring to? Why the hell not what?

        I understand your criticism of 司马迁’s insufficient treatment of “context”, but his comment does usefully raise our awareness to a real issue.

        Thanks for understanding my criticism in that part. My original criticism is that his comment does not usefully raise our awareness because the issue I believe (and you believe) he is raising is not a real issue. He was marveling and you are defending his marveling at the Chinese admiring the Nazis ostensibly in general and without regard for their evil. If that was true, then sure, it’s worth raising. However, it’s not true, neither in the comments above or in the links you provided. That’s a misinterpretation (or worse, misrepresentation) of Chinese expressions of admiration for the Nazis or Hitler. Remember what I wrote here:

        If we’re going to suggest the Chinese “admire” the Nazis, we better specify what exactly the Chinese may admire about the Nazis, NOT suggest they for god knows what reason do and outrageously “raise” arguments to somehow defend their admiration. That’s grossly unfair. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a Chinese person who will say, “yeah, okay, so they gassed a bunch of Jews but it’s okay cuz they were ‘strong and powerful’.

        I’ll repeat, the Chinese do not admire the Nazis and not to any degree where they excuse the evil of the Nazis. If they did, then let’s be shocked and appalled. But do they? No, I don’t think they do. Their ability to recognize admirable aspects about Hitler and the Nazis is similar to non-Chinese people who do the same because they’re capable of having an objective conversation that doesn’t limit discussion of the Nazis and Hitler to wholesale condemnation and disassociation.

        • Wa

          Kai, I’m reasonably sure I’ve understood your argument from the outset, and I don’t think you’ve improved upon it. Instead, you’ve resorted to reframing, equivocation, and baseless interpretation which verges on justification (or apologetics, if that word doesn’t offend).

          “What I was trying to say with it is that the Chinese can and DO admire “admirable” aspects of the Nazis without admiring the “unadmirable” aspects of the Nazis. I don’t think 司马迁’s comment reflects an understanding of this and may suggest the idea that the Chinese admire the Nazis lock, stock, and barrel, without caveats, that the Chinese have no issue at all with all the horrible things the Nazis were guilty of.”

          There are several problems with this argument, and I’ll get to them below. But here I should note how everything that follows “may suggest” in your passage is your own imputation not present in 司马迁’s point, which we can both recognize by his simple use of the word “admire” and his citation of specific comments which show a relatively favorable attitude toward the Nazis in certain respects. As your imputation, the rest of your paragraph is either an index of your paranoia or a functional strawman.

          “If you read every link you shared, my point above should be inescapable because the Chinese netizens themselves in those links articulate what specifically they can find “admirable” in the Nazis and Hitler.”

          Yes, I’ve read the links I’ve shared and would be willing to peruse them with you line by line. I fail to see why you are laboring this point since I noted that one can see a range of reactions to Hitler and the Nazis. The links I presented gave us some substance to address since you had not contributed anything but your “certainty” (this is something you do often) and a schematic framework in which admiration would be either understandable or acceptable.

          “Surely you’re not going to argue a significant number of Chinese people think their atrocities are totally cool?

          If not, then are we in agreement?”

          Surely both you and I DO NOT KNOW (you cap, I cap). And at least in admitting as much we may be able to get somewhere, or at least get to the crux of our continuing disagreement and my acute implication of what your beliefs say about you.

          “Next, do you have any idea how many similar results I can get Googling “why do people like Hitler”? The vast majority of people who might be characterized as “admiring” Hitler or the Nazis have very narrow specific reasons separate from what they recognize as their evil.”

          Not to make too big of a point about this, but I think by slightly altering the terms of your search you’ll find things are not as equitable as you may believe, and logic would dictate that you do so. To compare a search for “Why do Chinese people like Hitler” with “Why do people like Hitler” is not conceptually informative because the prior category is subsumed in the latter one, so of course we might expect something similar. However, comparing a search for “Why do Americans like the Nazis” or “Why do British people like Hitler” (or some variant thereof) to the Chinese question could conceptually be informative. In contrast to the Chinese posing the question about their own people on the whole and responding to it at length with various aspects of admiration, I see no similar results with the Americans or British on the whole. Indeed, in the only result which may be argued to be similar (focused on white Americans), the question is almost immediately rejected. Naturally, I acknowledge your second point that people anywhere who admire Hitler and the Nazis may “have very narrow specific reasons”, but we certainly differ on whether these are definitively “separate from what they recognize as their evil”.

          “What I’m objecting to is any notion that Chinese people admire, like, or even worship him for his evil. That’s just not true. Any suggestion of that is grossly inaccurate and unfair. Does 司马迁’s comment recognize this?”

          Why should it? As I stated above, this is your imputation. But more importantly, your argument is based on the mistaken and morally perilous notion that it is easy or at least possible to separate his clearly “evil” acts from those which were not, as though they weren’t intricately entwined, and as though the Chinese capably do so. This is certainly not a given. We can address why with a look at the subsequent claim you made. (a moment)

          • Kai

            I’m reasonably sure you’re insisting on a straw man.

            everything that follows “may suggest” in your passage is your own imputation not present in 司马迁’s point

            I’ve been clear that I’m objecting to what I fear Simaqian’s comment may suggest to others. I’ve been consistent in explaining why the content and structure of his comment may suggest what I fear. There is no avoiding interpretation of his comment. What is debatable is how reasonable those interpretations are.

            which we can both recognize by his simple use of the word “admire” and his citation of specific comments which show a relatively favorable attitude toward the Nazis in certain respects.

            …and the issue here is the extent and limitations of what you characterize as “favorable attitude”.

            As your imputation, the rest of your paragraph is either an index of your paranoia or a functional strawman.

            You’re just being disingenuous now.

            I fail to see why you are laboring this point since I noted that one can see a range of reactions to Hitler and the Nazis.

            Because I feel you’re laboring to present any Chinese admiration for the Nazis as being more than what they are. I’m trying to inject necessary nuance and specificity into an issue fraught with controversy and emotion while you’re laboring to oversimplify it and perpetuate the possibility of misunderstanding. While I labor to explain the limitations of any Chinese admiration for the Nazis, you keep fighting for the appropriateness of simply saying the Chinese admire the Nazis. I feel I’m trying to explain something you prefer to keep purposefully vague.

            Is this characterization of our disagreement unfair? If so, please explain how what I’ve said doesn’t reconcile with what you’ve shown in your links, and how your links doesn’t reconcile with my certainty that the vast majority of Chinese people don’t like Hitler for his evil.

            The links I presented gave us some substance to address

            No, the links you presented contained content already addressed but which I feel you want to dishonestly conflate into a nuance-less characterization of “Chinese Nazi worship”.

            To compare a search for “Why do Chinese people like Hitler” with “Why do people like Hitler” is not conceptually informative because the prior category is subsumed in the latter one, so of course we might expect something similar.

            Right, and my point there was in the second sentence you quoted: “The vast majority of people who might be characterized as “admiring” Hitler or the Nazis have very narrow specific reasons separate from what they recognize as their evil.”

            Like in your “why do Chinese people like Hitler”, the vast majority of people who are questioned for seemingly liking Hitler (or the Nazis) cite reasons that are separate from what they recognize as HItler’s (or the Nazis’) evil. That’s the “similar”.

            To the extent you’re alarmist about Chinese admiration for the Nazis or Hitler, I’m demonstrating you shouldn’t be, because similar to non-Chinese people who have expressed sentiments characterized as “admiring” Hitler/Nazis, Chinese people are pretty damn specific about what they admire, and it doesn’t include the evil of Hitler/Nazis.

            However, comparing a search for “Why do Americans like the Nazis” or “Why do British people like Hitler” (or some variant thereof) to the Chinese question could conceptually be informative.

            Only insofar as you’re pretending the only thing different and thus shaping expressed sentiments is nationality…when the Chinese people in the very links you yourself posted took pains to explain various reasons why Chinese people might not have as visceral an emotional reaction to the Nazis. Go ahead and search “Why do Indian people like the Nazis/Hitler”, for example.

            I see no similar results with the Americans or British on the whole.

            …which is not a position I’ve taken. The position I took is that most people, Chinese and non-Chinese included, who are characterized as liking Hitler cite specific reasons that are separate from their evil. This is evidenced by Google searches you can do.

            but we certainly differ on whether these are definitively “separate from what they recognize as their evil”.

            Okay, go ask Chinese people if they’re totally cool with Hitler committing genocide.

            Why should it?

            It should if he knows Chinese people don’t admire, like, or even worship HItler for his evil. It shouldn’t if he actually thinks Chinese people admire, like, and even worship Hitler for his evil. Take your pick of which pitfall you want Simaqian to fall into, I was explaining how the content and structure of his comment leads me to my interpretation and thus objection.

            your argument is based on the mistaken and morally perilous notion that it is easy or at least possible to separate his clearly “evil” acts from those which were not, as though they weren’t intricately entwined, and as though the Chinese capably do so.

            Feel free to argue with those Chinese people that the specific reasons they admire HItler are intricately entwined with his evil. I’ll continue with my “mistaken and morally perilous notion” that I can “capably” separate things I admire about, for example, the United States from the things I don’t like about it.

            Can I admire Putin’s badassery without admiring his politics? Is his ability to pull off topless horseback riding intricately entwined with his evil? Shall I give myself the benefit of the doubt that I can capably separate these things? THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW.

        • Wa

          “Free Man misspelled ‘morale’. The Nazis DID improve
          Germany’s morale and standard of living. That they later fucked it all up is rrelevant to the fact that they DID do so. This is historical, not ‘historically questionable’.”

          I think this is an incredibly myopic and ultimately stupid statement of historicity, no less so, ironically, than recognizing North Korea’s temporary blip of economic superiority as “admirable” over the South. In both cases the momentary success led irrevocably to failure, and a failure that was built into the system. But let’s entertain the notion and see what is relevant: how did they raise morale and improve the standard of living?

          The Nazis solved the problem of unemployment by forcing
          citizens to do the work given to them and nothing else. They no longer accounted for women in employment figures, they took citizenship away from hundreds of thousands of “impure” people, they conscripted hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and they increased factory output for weapons (“Guns before Butter”). In light of these historical facts, to see the Nazis as “successful” puts one in the category of Lloyd George, who infamously publicly praised Hitler as “a great man” (a phrase you see appear repeatedly in the Chinese links I sent), and who has been rightfully VILIFIED for the comment ever since. None of the measures above are “irrelevant” to their solution to the problem of unemployment. They are, in fact, how it was achieved.

          And how about morale? Well, prior to the Blood Purge’s motivational tactics, you had the torchlight parade on Unter den Linden (mirrored in other cities as well), where 20,000 of the works of great German and world authors were burned ceremoniously. You had the subjugation of all media to the state as well as the subjugation of all
          personal freedoms to the state, which even regimented leisure time for citizens. You had the Labor Service and the Hitler Youth to turn to for guidance should the heightened achievements of the new educational system, which of course nowhere saw a decline in the quality of its
          output (not at all associated with living standards), not be sufficient.

          These facts should at least raise your awareness to the problem of offering substance-free justification for what you find acceptably admirable in Nazi actions. Free Man made this point clearly. So do I.

          “No, it isn’t. The Chinese are able to separate things you feel must be conflated.”

          Nonsense. And the way we know this is nonsense is that the comments you refer to above are historically inaccurate insofar as they claim the Nazis were not absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture. The fact that they are ignorant or uncaring about the full extent of Nazi crimes and still advance arguments in their favor is a form of moral negligence, which is the general point I’ve been making about Chinese “admiring” the Nazis. To choose to value one aspect of Nazi actions (“success”) over another which was an explicit part of it (the “social engineering” that made unemployment mysteriously disappear) is blinkered and willful. Whereas the historian steps cautiously into this field to assess matters, the Chinese who admire the Nazis regularly do not. Hitler, soccer. I wouldn’t call that an objective conversation.

          “Yes, people around the world–not just the Chinese–can be characterized as being more motivated by self-interest than principles, but NO, what I said is NOT what he criticized. Chinese people may admire the Nazis for their strength, but they don’t admire the Nazis for using their strength to hurt others.”

          Seriously, Kai, now you are just making shit up. You have no idea how far the admiration Chinese have for the Nazis goes, and you are simply inserting an arbitrary stop-gap here without any evidence. Were I to argue as you do, I could simply make stuff up too and see if we agree on it. Let’s try it: survey Mainland Chinese as to how they know the Nazis made Germany strong. Dollars to donuts you get imposed military force and conquering as the top result. That will be the Chinese definition of Nazi strength, and it will not be distinguished from hurting others.

          “Your hypothetical juxtaposition does not reflect the situation here. 司马迁 reacted to a Chinese person saying “Please don’t use North Korea to insult the Nazis; at least the Nazi’s were strong and powerful [as a country]” in reaction to the UN comparing NK to the Nazis. This is not a situation where a Chinese person was asked about the Nazis and they responded “The Nazi’s made Germany strong.” The situation is a Chinese person taking the piss out of North North Korea by making them look even worse than the Nazis. I think you’ll concede that you’re misrepresenting the situation with that substitution.”

          I won’t, because I cited many examples where the same thing was said outside of this context and, to be honest, you know you have been defending Chinese selective admiration for the Nazis generally. In other words, the parallel I’ve offered is not a false one in our debate. So, let me ask you directly: outside of this specific context, do you see how my hypothetical reveals the injustice of your general point on selective admiration? If you do, it undermines most of the general arguments you’ve made on selective admiration for the Nazis here.

          “I don’t follow. What are you referring to? Why the hell not what?”
          Why wouldn’t China’s media and government object to North Korea or even China itself being labeled Nazis? All this shows is a general recognition for how the rest of the world, or the UN Human Rights Council in this case, or “Western media” regards the Nazis. It is the dominant world consciousness, hence we are all aware of it to a degree. That is the only thing necessary to provoke this reaction. It doesn’t mean precisely the same notion is prevalent in Chinese social consciousness. The Chinese government also no longer relishes being called “Reds”, though their understanding of the value of the term differs significantly from that of others.

          • Kai

            I think this is an incredibly myopic and ultimately stupid statement of historicity,

            No, it’s just history.

            In both cases the momentary success led irrevocably to failure, and a failure that was built into the system.

            Ascribed in retrospect.

            These facts should at least raise your awareness to the problem of offering substance-free justification for what you find acceptably admirable in Nazi actions.

            I have a better picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

            And again, multi-purpose: http://www.quora.com/Adolf-Hitler/Is-it-true-that-Hitler-is-still-respected-in-certain-countries-in-the-world

            And the way we know this is nonsense is that the comments you refer to above are historically inaccurate insofar as they claim the Nazis were not absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture.

            This is you understanding what the Chinese netizens mean and intentionally misrepresenting them in order to attack a straw man. You’ve changed Chinese netizens taking the piss out of North Korea into Chinese people literally thinking the Nazis didn’t hurt ANY of their own and ultimately their country.

            The fact that they are ignorant or uncaring about the full extent of Nazi crimes and still advance arguments in their favor is a form of moral negligence, which is the general point I’ve been making about Chinese “admiring” the Nazis.

            Imputation.

            To choose to value one aspect of Nazi actions (“success”) over another which was an explicit part of it (the “social engineering” that made unemployment mysteriously disappear) is blinkered and willful.

            No, you’re misrepresenting and conflating. It’s like conflating admiration of power with admiration of power used to hurt others. Chinese people also admire US power, but they don’t admire US using heir power to hurt others. You’d have us think admiration of the former has to be admiration of the latter. That’s just unrealistic.

            Whereas the historian steps cautiously into this field to assess matters, the Chinese who admire the Nazis regularly do not. Hitler, soccer. I wouldn’t call that an objective conversation.

            So you’d base your judgement of, for example, American sentiments on the articulations of its most ignorant members? And just straw man everyone else?

            Seriously, Kai, now you are just making shit up. You have no idea how far the admiration Chinese have for the Nazis goes, and you are simply inserting an arbitrary stop-gap here without any evidence.

            You’ve got to be kidding me. You point to some links where Chinese people articulate various reasons they admire Hitler and that overrides the fact that Chinese people inherently understood the comparison of NK to the Nazis as insulting and controversial? And you think you have a more accurate idea of how far the admiration Chinese have for the Nazis go?

            You are seeing what you want to see, and you’re now exaggerating and overweighting.

            Let’s try it: survey Mainland Chinese as to how they know the Nazis made Germany strong. Dollars to donuts you get imposed military force and conquering as the top result. That will be the Chinese definition of Nazi strength, and it will not be distinguished from hurting others.

            Go for it. I await your survey results.

            I won’t, because I cited many examples where the same thing was said
            outside of this context and, to be honest, you know you have been
            defending Chinese selective admiration for the Nazis generally.

            1. Citing this context was important for ascertaining the validity of Simaqian’s comment, the original issue in this discussion. To defend Simaqian’s comment, you conflated examples outside of this context into it.

            2. Yes, these other examples you cited are outside of this context. However, they have contexts of their own which you are not recognizing and instead trying to frame these examples as context-less generalized admiration for the Nazis to be conflated with some generalized admiration for the evil of the Nazis.

            3. I’m defending against misunderstanding the extent and limitations of Chinese admiration for the Nazis/Hitler. Again, you seem intent on conflating their admiration for one thing with admiration for another thing because you argue they are inseparable. If one does something evil, one cannot be recognized for anything else is what you’re saying.

            So, let me ask you directly: outside of this specific context, do you
            see how my hypothetical reveals the injustice of your general point on
            selective admiration?

            Holy shit, it may have finally dawned upon me just how mutated your conception of this entire discussion is.

            All this time, I thought we were arguing over the conclusions Simaqian formed and may be suggesting from the Chinese netizen’s comment above taking the piss out of North Korea when you instead were thinking we were arguing about Chinese admiration for the Nazis in general just because the comment could be encapsulated within it.

            You seem to have accepted the validity of my position within this specific context, the one I was operating in. That’s good. I’ll entertain your question about outside this context.

            Outside of this context. If I asked a Chinese person what they think about the Nazis and they said “The Nazis made Germany strong”, my first reaction would very likely be: “Uh, you know they did a lot of bad things too, right? Like gassing Jews?”

            To the extent I’d extend enough benefit of the doubt to ask this question instead of immediately castigating them for their ignorance is because I know Chinese people, unlike white Brits, generally did not grow up with the same emphasis on European history reinforced by pop culture media involving Nazi villains. They had the Japanese.

            If they respond in the affirmative, I breathe a sigh of relief. The world continues spinning.

            Now, if they don’t know, then I’m going to have a long conversation with them like I’m having with you.

            A zillion and one different conversations can be had depending on what they say when they explain why they think the Nazis made Germany strong. I’ll agree with what I agree with and disagree with what I don’t. I haven’t run into any situation where Chinese people have said something expressing admiration for the Nazis that I think is indefensible or hasn’t been said by non-Chinese people before.

            If you do, it undermines most of the general arguments you’ve made on selective admiration for the Nazis here.

            Not sure why you say this. The only way to undermine what you characterize as my “general arguments on selective admiration for the Nazis” would be to argue that people cannot separate aspects of one thing and admire or revile them separately. Given that people do so all the time, that doesn’t seem realistic.

            That is the only thing necessary to provoke this reaction. It doesn’t
            mean precisely the same notion is prevalent in Chinese social
            consciousness.

            Okay, I understand what you were referring to now. I agree, technically, simply knowing others think something is bad is enough. It’s like functional sociopaths. The reason why I don’t think Chinese people are merely aping offense at the comparison to Nazis simply because they know others think that way is because there’s enough evidence that they do understand that the Nazis did lots of horrible things. Baidu if you don’t believe me, like “why did the Nazis kill Jews”, “why did the Nazis lose”, etc.

            There are of course Chinese idiots. They are not, however, a fair representation of “Chinese admiration for the Nazis” just like American idiots would not be a fair representation for “American sensitivities towards race-relations.” We can technically argue about just how representative these idiots actually are of the average Chinese or American until our faces are blue and it would still be us being unfair and dishonest to each other.

            You praised yourself for highlighting the different things Chinese people brought up in their articulations of why they admired HItler/Nazis. Surely you can also highlight the different things Chinese people bring up for their articulations of why Hitler/Nazis are not to be blindly worshipped, right?

            Here’s a good example from that den of nationalistic military masturbating nutjobs:

            http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_6950432_1.html

          • Wa

            “No, it’s just history”

            “Ascribed in retrospect.”

            Typical. Shameless insistence without adding any substance or addressing anything I said about how mistaken this idea is. Again, destruction and dislocation was part and parcel of the “success”.

            “This is you understanding what the Chinese netizens mean and intentionally misrepresenting them in order to attack a straw man. You’ve changed Chinese netizens taking the piss out of North Korea into Chinese people literally thinking the Nazis didn’t hurt ANY of their own and ultimately their country.”

            And this is you being utterly dishonest. I haven’t created a strawman and nothing I’ve said suggests “Chinese people literally thinking the Nazis didn’t hurt ANY of their own and ultimately their country.” What I have done is address the logic necessary for the comparison. The Chinese juxtaposition ONLY WORKS if there is a significant difference. If the difference lies in the fact that the Nazis killed more of other people, well that doesn’t paint the Chinese in a good light. If the difference lies in the notion that the Nazis were not, as I said, “absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture”, then that is incorrect, and one wonders why they would create a difference where there is none.

            “No, you’re misrepresenting and conflating. It’s like conflating admiration of power with admiration of power used to hurt others. Chinese people also admire US power, but they don’t admire US using heir power to hurt others.”

            No, I’m not conflating. History is sometimes formed by necessary bonds. If you don’t think so, please parse out how full-scale employment was achieved without implementing the social policies I noted above. Nor am I misrepresenting, but you certainly are. Chinese attitudes toward America are colored by rivalry. As such, lines are speciously drawn that do not apply in their attitudes toward others, particularly others of a different era.

            “So you’d base your judgement of, for example, American sentiments on the articulations of its most ignorant members? And just straw man everyone else?”

            It’s not my judgment. It is a representation of prevalent Chinese attitudes toward the Nazis the authors of the first piece to which I linked felt was informative. I used it to point out that you have NO BASIS for seeing Chinese selective admiration as necessarily objective.

            “You’ve got to be kidding me. You point to some links where Chinese people articulate various reasons they admire Hitler and that overrides the fact that Chinese people inherently understood the comparison of NK to the Nazis as insulting and controversial? And you think you have a more accurate idea of how far the admiration Chinese have for the Nazis go?”

            I’m not kidding you, Kai. You pulled that argument right out of the air. You have fabricated your entire argument from what you’d like to be true, from your “certainty”, not from evidence. It started by flatly denying admiration, and you have subsequently been forced to provide this extended apology for just how the Chinese admire the Nazis in light of that error. As I stated, I do not know how far Chinese admiration for the Nazis goes, but I do know the worshipping of strength crosses moral lines regularly. Lloyd George made his comment about Hitler’s “greatness” prior to all the revelations of Nazi attrocities, and it still serves as a black mark on his record. You of course understand this and understand why, yet you feel justified defending similar comments made by Chinese.

            “You are seeing what you want to see, and you’re now exaggerating and overweighting.

            Go for it. I await your survey results”

            If that’s what it seems like, Kai, good, because I rather flamboyantly indicated that I was now beginning to argue as you do. I have as much “certainty” in the outcome of this survey as you do in your knowledge of the limits of Chinese admiration for the Nazis. I bet you don’t think it will be based on military force and conquering, right?

            “To defend Simaqian’s comment, you conflated examples outside of this context into it.”

            No, read again. I addressed the wider issue from the start. You clearly were aware of this, as you addressed several paragraphs to the wider issue.

            “Yes, these other examples you cited are outside of this context. However, they have contexts of their own which you are not recognizing and instead trying to frame these examples as context-less generalized admiration for the Nazis to be conflated with some generalized admiration for the evil of the Nazis.”

            The question uttered by Chinese on the boards I linked to didn’t have any clear “context of its own”. It was a general question asked by the Chinese themselves: Why do Chinese people (or youth) admire (or like) the Nazis (or Hitler)? The responses to this question are varied, as I stated, and I recognized the prevalence of certain responses (which just happen to reflect 司马迁’s comments, by the way) ALONG WITH OTHERS. In short, I’ve been much more detailed about this than you have, so arguing that I’m neglecting context is convenient. What you are really attempting to say is you want to be able to determine the terms of the “context”.

            “Again, you seem intent on conflating their admiration for one thing with admiration for another thing because you argue they are inseparable. If one does something evil, one cannot be recognized for anything else is what you’re saying.”

            What I have clearly stated is that it is very difficult if not impossible to do this with the Nazis. The totalitarian nature of the regime should make it clear why. I made a specific point which reflected this about the solution to unemployment, the Nazis’ “greatest” claim to improving “morale” and “living standards”, being inseparable from the evil of the tactics used. You have not responded to it. I have stated that the Nazis “strength” irrevocably led to the destruction of the nation. You have pretended this is just hind-sight. It is not; and many Germans who fled recognized the cultural, economic, and social destruction long prior to the nation’s military defeat. You are trying desperately to apply the terms of a general point which I’ve not made to the specific context of our debate. Why?

            “Not sure why you say this. The only way to undermine what you characterize as my “general arguments on selective admiration for the Nazis” would be to argue that people cannot separate aspects of one thing and admire or revile them separately.”
            Or argue that it takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to do so, especially in the case of the Nazis, especially if something is actually reviled; and to show that you have not revealed that care and intelligence in either your comments or the Chinese comments we’ve discussed. In your embrace of the hypothetical, you initiated the conversation. You were disturbed by the answer. You recognized the moral depravity of their ignorance. You felt motivated to have a long conversation. In other words, you treated them like you would other people if they said something objectionable, not like Chinese people whose attitudes need to be defended as acceptable. Unfortunately, this awareness and ethic is not at all reflected in the “certainty” you’ve based your entire argument upon in this thread.
            I’ll address your other comments sometime later today.

          • Kai

            Again, destruction and dislocation was part and parcel of the “success”.

            The same can be said about many aspects of China’s economic reforms and modern age development. Yet people can still admire China’s economic growth. Just because we can argue that destruction and dislocation is part and parcel of whatever success China has had doesn’t make it fair to suggest the admirers admire the destruction and dislocation. Likewise, I can admire the power of the British Empire even when its power and “successes” were arguably linked to estruction and dislocation.

            I think normal people can recognize the inherent limitations. What you characterize as “shameless insistence” is merely continued articulations of why I refuse to concede to your unrealistic conflation. I don’t understand why you, for your part, refuse to accept the simplest test to establish the extent and limitations of any Chinese person’s expressed admiration for the Nazis: ask them if in their admiration they admire the destruction and dislocation.

            Instead, you want to extrapolate that they admire the destruction and dislocation simply because they find aspects of the Nazis admirable. You’re insisting on not allowing them to elaborate or clarify their position. This is “shameless insistence” on a strawman.

            Let’s use another analogy, Chinese people’s admiration for Mao. Can’t we argue that destruction and dislocation was part and parcel of Mao’s ideology and policies? Of course we can and many Westerners cannot understand why Chinese people would hold him in esteem for those very reasons, right? Yet you also know why Chinese people hold in in esteem and the reasons are not for the destruction and dislocation per se, but for what they think were admirable things about it, like his ideals, his campaigning against institutionalized and corrupt powers, his desire to keep China soveriegn, etc. etc. etc. In all of these things, no Chinese person genuinely admires all the bad things he has done. The whole 70/30 thing is Chinese people acknowledging that there was bad and good. Westerners might have a different proportion and some may want that to be 100/0, but are Westerners really incapable of understanding how people can admire just aspects of something?

            I don’t think so. Your doggedness in trying to make admiration of aspects of the Nazis incomprehensible and alarming by conflating everything together intentionally ignoring the limits the admirers would offer is unreasonable.

            The Chinese juxtaposition ONLY WORKS if there is a significant difference. If the difference lies in the fact that the Nazis killed more of other people, well that doesn’t paint the Chinese in a good light. If the difference lies in the notion that the Nazis were not, as I said, “absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture”, then that is incorrect, and one wonders why they would create a difference where there is none.

            To be clear, we’re back to the original context of this discussion, right? The one about the Chinese netizen saying it’s an insult to the Nazis to compare NK to it?

            If so, the Chinese juxtaposition works insofar as there’s a perceived difference in geopolitical power between Nazi Germany and NK. The Chinese netizen understands the comparison to the Nazis being premised on human rights violations. He’s joking that it’s an insult to Nazi Germany because “at least the Nazis were strong and powerful”, meaning he doesn’t think NK is. He doesn’t believe NK has a comparable level of international power as the Nazis did in their time. This is him taking the piss out of NK.

            I do not understand how you think this netizen’s juxtaposition posits a “difference” that “lies in the notion that the Nazis were not, as I said, ‘absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture’.” The strawman is you substituting the difference the Chinese netizen is referring to (geopolitical power) with “brutality to their own people/culture”.

            You either strawmanned this guy or you’ve completely misunderstood him.

            No, I’m not conflating. History is sometimes formed by necessary bonds. If you don’t think so, please parse out how full-scale employment was achieved without implementing the social policies I noted above. Nor am I misrepresenting, but you certainly are. Chinese attitudes toward America are colored by rivalry. As such, lines are speciously drawn that do not apply in their attitudes toward others, particularly others of a different era.

            Yes, you’re conflating. No one is denying that things can be argued to tie together. What I am disagreeing with you on is the notion that admiring something admirable necessarily means admiring another thing that can be argued to be connected to it. I admire how powerful and influential the United States became since its founding. Much of its rise has been contributed to by policies of destruction and dislocation. Me admiring the United States for aspects of its greatness does not mean admiration of all the bad things it can be associated with.

            Neither Mao nor the United States can be separated from things they are responsible for, but people can indeed selectively admire aspects of them WITHOUT being guilty of admiring OTHER aspects of them.

            I used it to point out that you have NO BASIS for seeing Chinese selective admiration as necessarily objective.

            You’re either misrepresenting or have misunderstood my position. I understand you’re referring to where I’ve used the adjective “objectively”. The use of the word is not me saying “Chinese selective admiration is objective”. It is me saying the ability to admire aspects of something even when there are other things about that something that are not admirable is being objective.

            For example, I can “objectively” admire your vocabulary without admiring your argumentation.

            You have fabricated your entire argument from what you’d like to be true, from your “certainty”, not from evidence.

            No, my certainty is based on knowing Chinese people do not admire the evils of the Nazis and HItler. Your entire argument is based on being aghast that Chinese people can express admiration for anything involving the Nazis or Hitler, while cherry-picking search results for misleading vividness effect. Like I said, just ask Chinese people if they’re totally cool with the Nazis gassing Jews and all their other horrible things. You refuse to, because what you want to be true is Chinese selective admiration amounting to indiscriminate admiration.

            I don’t accept this, it is unreaslistic. There is no reason why Chinese people cannot admire the concept of a unified and mobilized country but also disagree with aspects of how it was achieved. I can admire the martial prowness of Sparta without admiring how they achieved it. I can admire the achievements of Qinshihuang without admiring how brutal he was. Same for the Mongols. Similarly, Chinese people can admire the power of Nazi Germany without admiring the fucked up things they did.

            It started by flatly denying admiration, and you have subsequently been forced to provide this extended apology for just how the Chinese admire the Nazis in light of that error.

            You’re misrepresenting my position. I had a specific connotation in mind when “flatly denying admiration“. I felt a better word for describing that Chinese netizen’s joke was “recognition” because I felt “admire” suggests more than what that netizen’s comment justifies.

            You’re trying to make me sound like I’m backtracking. No, my original objection to “admire” and my subsequent clarifications are an issue of semantics, of connotations.

            Simaqian: I’m amazed that Chinese admire the Nazis.

            Me: Whoa, wait, it’s not so much admiration as in they think the Nazis are all good, they just r

            You: No, you’re wrong. Here’s links of Chinese people admiring various things about Hitler.

            Me: Right, and none of these mean they admire Hitler/Nazis for the terrible shit they did. Just ask them if they admire those things and you’ll know the limitation of their “admiration”.

            You: But these things are historically bound to those things!

            Me: Still doesn’t mean they admire the terrible things about HItler/Nazis. Again, just ask them.

            You:: Shameless insistance! You just want that to be true!

            Me: WTF?

            You insisting on interpreting my position in one specific way amongst others and without respect to my elaborations nad clarifications is strawmanning, the substitution of a weaker position in order to prevail in an argument.

            but I do know the worshipping of strength crosses moral lines regularly.

            Yes, I agree that the worshipping of strength can cross moral lines. I just think its easier, logical, and reasonable to ascertain if a moral line is crossed by directly asking the admirer if they actually admire the terrible things the Nazis did. I won’t decry the relevance of this step and insist on projecting correlation. I’d rather just settle the question.

            Lloyd George made his comment about Hitler’s “greatness” prior to all the revelations of Nazi attrocities, and it still serves as a black mark on his record. You of course understand this and understand why, yet you feel justified defending similar comments made by Chinese.

            I’m not attacking Lloyd George nor am I treating him with a double-standard relative to how I treat the Chinese people who admire aspects about HItler/Nazis. You’re projecting hypocrisy where there is none. I don’t think Lloyd George admired the atrocities of the Nazis when he said what he did. Of course I understand how what he said gives him a black mark in the eyes of others who judge his comment with a different context. Likewise, I understand people like Simaqian and you are judging what some Chinese people have said in a context different from what they were operating in. That’s unfair. It’s unfair to suggest Lloyd George and the Chinese people are admiring HItler/Nazis in general.

            So again, yes, admiring strength CAN cross moral lines, but you have to ascertain if and how. The admiration of strength itself is not alarming just because strength can be used in immoral ways or obtained through immoral ways.

            I bet you don’t think it will be based on military force and conquering, right?

            I’m sorry, unless you edited your post, I misread your proposed survey question as “how the Nazis made Germany strong” when you wrote “how they know the Nazis made Germany strong”. I therefore agree that Chinese people would most likely cite Nazi Germany’s military force and conquests as evidence of the Nazis having made Germany strong.

            With respect to our actual core disagreement, this still doesn’t show that they admire the terrible things the Nazis did. Just like admiring an awesome sniper rifle doesn’t necesarily mean I admire headshotting people as morally desirable.

            No, read again. I addressed the wider issue from the start. You clearly were aware of this, as you addressed several paragraphs to the wider issue.

            Read again. Given how I kept referencing Simaqian’s comment throughout my response to you makes it clear that I was focused on the Simaqian context.

            The question uttered by Chinese on the boards I linked to didn’t have any clear “context of its own”.

            My point was that I was operating in the Simaqian context and you’re unfairly conflating my arguments about that context into defense about Chinese comments outside of that context.

            so arguing that I’m neglecting context is convenient. What you are really attempting to say is you want to be able to determine the terms of the “context”.

            I’ve done my best to be clear about when I’m talking about Simaqian’s context and when I’ve been talking about your other examples. I feel your attacks on my comments about the Simaqian context involve conflating in other examples from other contexts.

            What I have clearly stated is that it is very difficult if not impossible to do this with the Nazis.

            In your context, but as I’ve argued many times throughout this entire debate, the Chinese come from a different context. Nazi Germany was not a direct hostile force, they’re overshadowed by the Japanese, they don’t have the same emphasis on the Nazis in their education and pop culture. Therefore, it is not remotely difficult and definitely possible for Chinese people to be less conditioned to immediate revulsion and aversion with anything to do with the Nazis and Hitler.

            An albeit imperfect example: Germandude was aghast by Progressive Dubstep’s swastika avatar and could not imagine why it was being tolerated. His aversion to that symbol is a product of his conditioning. Countless others on cS recognized the symbol as poor taste but were not immediately calling for its censorship. Why is this?

            Germandude’s worldview, his context, is different from the rest of us. There are similarities, just like how Chinese recognize the Nazis as a symbol and historical bogeyman, enough to resent comparisons to them, to object to such comparisons. They are however less conditioned to find it impossible to recognize anything else about the Nazis apart from their evil.

            You find it impossible. The Chinese don’t. In fact, many people don’t. The Indians are another popular target of “omg, they like the Nazis?!” hysteria. The reasons I think are pretty obvious and already presented in a Quora discussion, articulated more eloquently than I could.

            I made a specific point which reflected this about the solution to unemployment, the Nazis’ “greatest” claim to improving “morale” and “living standards”, being inseparable from the evil of the tactics used. You have not responded to it.

            You not acknowledging my addressing of it is not me not responding to it. The Chinese people who admire Nazi Germany for increasing the country’s morale and living standards to a point where they can wage world war does not necessarily mean they admire the means used. Liking a result, a state of being, does not mean liking the means to get there. I like having a rockin’ body, but I don’t like the food I have to give up to get it. Given where Germany was after WWI, the Chinese certainly think a geopolitically confident Germany is pretty impressive. We can argue about the morality of any trade-offs and moral compromises they may subsequently argue as justified to reach that state, but until they do, we don’t assume they simply think all the crimes and atrocities were admirable.

            That’s the problem I see in your position. You want to damn them one step ahead of proper.

            I have stated that the Nazis “strength” irrevocably led to the destruction of the nation. You have pretended this is just hind-sight. It is not; and many Germans who fled recognized the cultural, economic, and social destruction long prior to the nation’s military defeat. You are trying desperately to apply the terms of a general point which I’ve not made to the specific context of our debate. Why?

            I don’t understand your accusation at the end. Feel free to explain it if you want.

            The fact that the Nazis were able to do what they did proves that it was indeed hindsight with the vast majority of the world. The people who fled had their fears validated. That’s good for them. That doesn’t make it true that everyone else knew the Nazis were evil.

            Or argue that it takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to do so, especially in the case of the Nazis, especially if something is actually reviled; and to show that you have not revealed that care and intelligence in either your comments or the Chinese comments we’ve discussed.

            It takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to understand why some Chinese people might admire aspects of the Nazis/Hitler. This was not evidenced by Simaqian. This is not being evidenced by you, who is imposing a moral obligation you posses due to your own historical conditioning (context) while dismissing the different historical conditioning (context) that the Chinese people who express admiration with certain aspects of the Nazi do not necessarily share. You’re essentially in an ethnocentric hole of your own digging. You’re reading more into and judging Chinese people’s sentiments not from their context but from your own context which you believe should be universal.

            In your embrace of the hypothetical, you initiated the conversation. You were disturbed by the answer. You recognized the moral depravity of their ignorance.

            Your strawman is really amusing. You spend as much time making snide comments about me as a person as you do about the actual subject in discussion. Come on, dude.

          • Wa

            Kai, I’ll start with your more egregious bullshit and expand outward from there to your far more serious argumentative and logical errors. I still intend to comment on your earlier response to my statements, as I said I would, but now that you’ve posted such a long and ridiculous tirade, I’ll be forced to organize my responses thematically, not chronologically.

            “You’re misrepresenting my position. I had a specific connotation in mind when ‘flatly denying admiration’. I felt a better word for describing that Chinese netizen’s joke was ‘recognition’ because I felt ‘admire’ suggests more than what that netizen’s comment justifies.

            You’re trying to make me sound like I’m backtracking. No, my original objection to “admire” and my subsequent clarifications are an issue of semantics, of connotations.

            Simaqian: I’m amazed that Chinese admire the Nazis.

            Me: Whoa, wait, it’s not so much admiration as in they think the Nazis are all good, they just r

            You: No, you’re wrong. Here’s links of Chinese people admiring various things about Hitler.

            Me: Right, and none of these mean they admire Hitler/Nazis for the terrible shit they did. Just ask them if they admire those things and you’ll know the limitation of their “admiration”.

            You: But these things are historically bound to those things!

            Me: Still doesn’t mean they admire the terrible things about HItler/Nazis. Again, just ask them.

            You:: Shameless insistance! You just want that to be true!

            Me: WTF?”

            This is pathetically puerile. You should be better than this, Kai, but clearly you are not. The record of our conversation stands above and no analysis of our dialogue could countenance your transparently contrived rewriting of it as an accurate reflection of my address to you or my argument. And you provide this despite being a person who repeatedly throws out baseless accusations of strawman arguments.

            “There is no statistically significant number of Chinese who ‘admire’ the Nazis, much less in the comments you’re referencing.”

            This statement is a flat denial of Chinese admiration for the Nazis *generally* AS WELL AS a response to the Chinese comments above in question. It is two claims, as evidenced by your inclusion of “much less”, and no attempt to rewrite the “specific connotations [you had] in mind” will alter that fact. Since this is the very passage I quoted from you and criticized as being inaccurate, my focus on the general argument you made was salient from the outset. I did not immediately post links to prove anything. The links I posted were a response to your response to me, and the fact is that you once again articulated the “certainty” of your general claim (we know this because of your insistence on the statistically significant, which would not apply to the specific comments by Chinese in response to this above): “Insofar as ‘admire’ connotes any notion that the Chinese think the Nazis (or Hitler) were ‘morally good’ or ‘overall likeable’, I object, because I’m certain there is no statistically significant amount of Chinese who do.” I am not conflating your response to the specific comments cited by 司马迁above with the general ones which I pointed out align with them (and they do align). It is you who tried to maintain a claim on both.

            Now, if you strictly intend to limit your argument to the comments 司马迁 made above, we can do that. Seeing as it was never my intent from the outset, I can understand how things may have seemed “conflated” for you. However, there are several problems with your interpretation of his comments and the netizens’ points, too. When I did turn to your criticism of 司马迁’s remarks, I noted that your comments in fact corresponded to his; in response, you were determined to see an arbitrary stop-gap where the Chinese did not admire the Nazis or Hitler if their strength was used to hurt others. Your most recent statements continue this line of thinking and employ a specious parallel:

            “I therefore agree that Chinese people would most likely cite Nazi Germany’s military force and conquests as evidence of the Nazis having made Germany strong.

            With respect to our actual core disagreement, this still doesn’t show that they admire the terrible things the Nazis did. Just like admiring an awesome sniper rifle doesn’t necesarily mean I admire headshotting people as morally desirable.”

            Yours is an argument of lunacy. The strength of a military can only be revealed in war, in the destruction of an enemy. The “awesomeness” of a sniper rifle can be witnessed in test firing and target practice. There is no need for deaths to determine its accuracy or power. Firing through concrete walls will be sufficient. Would
            you attempt to argue that the admiration of the German military’s strength is limited to war games and not actual war? If not, not only is your attempt at providing a parallel here absurd, but your attempt to claim I strawmanned your position by incorporating “even when it causes inhuman destruction” is unsurprisingly duplicitous. The measure of an army’s strength is the carnage it imposes on an enemy. Of course, I should not find it surprising if you continue to argue that one can admire even military conquest without concern for the destruction caused, and maybe even cite the centuries-removed Mongols or the millennia-removed Spartans to fortify your position, because you see different “states of being” where an army just is a conqueror absent its relations to others…even others that remain alive.

            Though this is an extension of context, I can understand if you won’t accept it as such, so let’s look at the basis of other criticisms you leveled at 司马迁’s comments. You do keep returning to the argument that “What I’m objecting to is any notion that Chinese people admire, like, or even worship [Hitler] for his evil. That’s just not true. Any suggestion of that is grossly inaccurate and unfair. Does 司马迁’s comment recognize this?” When I responded by pointing out that this is obviously your indelicate imputation highlighted by your “may suggest” (and we may add to this your frequent use of the phrase ”I feel” in interpretation), your argument was:

            “It should [recognize this] if he knows Chinese people don’t admire, like, or even worship Hitler for his evil. It shouldn’t if he actually thinks Chinese people admire, like and even worship Hitler for his evil. Take your pick of which pitfall you want Simaqian to fall into, I was explaining how the content and structure of his comment leads me to my interpretation and thus objection.”

            Ok. Let’s first state unequivocally that 司马迁’s comment DID NOT claim the Chinese admire the Nazis “for their evil” ( the phrase you’ve freighted so much). He cited the specific comments (the use of which I acknowledge you object to) as an indication of admiration. He tacked on the notion of the Nazis being a “symbol of nothing than pure evil” as a comment on them, not on what the Chinese admire about them. A wide gap separates these two points, as any competent reader can see. So what, ultimately, is your argument? It is essentially an argument about ambiguity. By making the claim about what his comments “should recognize” above, you are saying he is responsible for what you regard as the ambiguity of his content. This is rather ham-fisted, for surely he can say the exact same thing about the Chinese commenters. Granted, you are here trying to dispel their ambiguity or even suggest it doesn’t exist; but if you can argue that Chinese may “admire” or recognize certain aspects of the Nazis in such comments without admiring them “for their evil”, are you really going to advance the argument that others may not acknowledge the Chinese admiration or recognition of positive aspects of the Nazis without explicitly qualifying it as not directed “to their evil”? This is a ridiculous double standard, try as you might to argue otherwise, and he really has no reason for doing so except in the context you are trying to frame for him and restrict him to.

            Now, about that context. You will note that 司马迁 referred to two basic arguments made by the Chinese commenters: “strong and powerful” and “at least they didn’t kill their own people”. The former is manifest only once, while the latter is manifest 3 times in some variation (didn’t kill/didn’t disrespect/weren’t cruel to their own people). You did attempt to dispel the ambiguity of both in your initial comment to him, albeit you acknowledged that the latter argument was false (you’ve qualified such inaccuracies twice with “technically”, and odd choice of words), adding, “but for simplistic purposes…the point is pretty clear, isn’t it?” When I turned to the specific context of the Chinese commenters above, I too mentioned the historically inaccurate comments that were manifest three times, and noted that this historical inaccuracy speaks against the notion that they are, in this context, as you claimed, “able to separate things you feel must be conflated.” For if the claim they are making is wrong, they are not separating anything. Here is my comment and your response:

            ME: “And the way we know this is nonsense is that the comments you refer to above are historically inaccurate insofar as they claim the Nazis were not absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture.”

            YOU: “This is you understanding what the Chinese netizens mean and intentionally misrepresenting them in order to attack a straw man. You’ve changed Chinese netizens taking the piss out of North Korea into Chinese people literally thinking the Nazis didn’t hurt ANY of their own and ultimately their country.”

            In one of your many unjustifiable attempts to accuse me of using a straw man and “intentionally misrepresenting”, you arbitrarily reduced the acceptable range of commentary and context to acknowledging that they (netizens) are merely taking the piss out of North Korea and not making any claims (despite the fact that you previously acknowledged the SAME CLAIM as false). You also charge me, rather freakishly, with an asseveration I didn’t even remotely make, thereby coming full circle with your straw man. Quite a tour de force. And we know this is not an accident because of how you doubled down in your response and “clarification” when I pointed this out to you:

            ME: “The Chinese juxtaposition ONLY WORKS if there is a significant difference. If the difference lies in the fact that the Nazis killed more of other people, well that doesn’t paint the Chinese in a good light. If the difference lies in the notion that the Nazis were not, as I said, “absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture”, then that is incorrect, and one wonders why they would create a difference where there is none.”

            YOU: “To be clear, we’re back to the original context of this discussion, right? The one about the Chinese netizen saying it’s an insult to the Nazis to compare NK to it?

            If so, the Chinese juxtaposition works insofar as there’s a perceived difference in geopolitical power between Nazi Germany and NK. The Chinese netizen understands the comparison to the Nazis being premised on human rights violations. He’s joking that it’s an insult to Nazi Germany because “at least the Nazis were strong and powerful”, meaning he doesn’t think NK is. He doesn’t believe NK has a comparable level of international power as the Nazis did in their time. This is him taking the piss out of NK.

            I do not understand how you think this netizen’s juxtaposition posits a “difference” that “lies in the notion that the Nazis were not, as I said, ‘absolutely brutal to their own citizens and their own culture’.” The strawman is you substituting the difference the Chinese netizen is referring to (geopolitical power) with “brutality to their own people/culture”.

            You either strawmanned this guy or you’ve completely misunderstood him.”
            You will note that here you go completely off the rails, which is strange since you have me focused on context as you wished. You got your requisite accusation of a straw man in there (twice!), so here’s a cookie. But whereas I was clearly referencing the comments that drew a distinction between NK and the Nazis along the lines of not killing/disrespecting/being cruel to their own people, you’ve decided to focus, for what can only be bizarre reasons, on the “piss-taker” who said “at least the Nazis were strong and powerful” and opposed to the comments manifest three times which 司马迁 also referenced. You claim I misrepresented your chosen netizen’s views, straw manned him, tried to substitute my claim for his when in fact I am referring very accurately to the comments made by the Chinese netizens above, the context you wanted. Perhaps your understanding of acceptable context has changed, has been reduced to simply one comment that we are allowed to address.

          • Kai

            The meta argument is getting out of control. I won’t deny expressing some consternation and exasperation with your rhetoric but you are, as usual, going beyond into seizing every opportunity to make ad hominems and make this personal. You comment more on me than you do on the issues and arguments at hand.

            My objections to Simaqian’s comment is simple:

            1. To the extent he is suggesting OR to the extent his comment may be interpreted by others as Chinese people in general having some sort of indiscriminate “admiration” of the Nazis based on the Chinese netizen comments he quoted, I disagree.

            a. Differing from Simaqian’s presentation, the Chinese netizen’ was not “raising arguments” for his “admiration” of the Nazis. The Chinese netizens were reacting to the UN comparing NK to the Nazis by joking that NK shouldn’t be compared to the Nazis because at least the Nazis were “strong and powerful” (1st guy) and “at least didn’t kill their own people” (2nd guy). The first guy is making fun of NK, by saying it isn’t strong and powerful, and thus doesn’t even measure up to the Nazis. Jokingly, the netizen presented this as an “insult” to the Nazis. The second guy oversimplified Nazi persecution targets to emphasize a notable difference he perceives between NK and the Nazis. It is clear in his mind that if the Nazis were better known for persecuting their own “ordinary common people” (Aryan Germans), then NK would be more comparable to the Nazis.

            b. It is unfair to quote the Chinese netizen’s comments but divorce them from their context in order to remark about how Chinese people “admire” the Nazis and “raise arguments” defending such “admiration”. I felt “admiration” could easily be misconstrued due to its various connotations, so I used “recognition”, pointing out that there’s nothing inherently wrong with recognizing that the Nazis were indeed “strong and powerful”, as the Chinese netizen said. With regards to the second netizen, I pointed out what I reiterated above.

            c. I sought to make clear that Chinese people do not admire the Nazis in any sense of them admiring the horrible things the Nazis did. Why? Because I don’t want people to think the Chinese do! It would be unfair because the Chinese do not! The simplest way to know this is to ask them if they agree and admire with the horrible shit the Nazis did. With the overwhelming vast majority of Chinese people, who are inherently human like the rest of us, they will of course reject any notion that they admire Nazi atrocities. Allowing vagueness to engender notions that Chinese people admire the Nazis for their atrocities and evil is being accomplice to ignorant to malicious vilification.

            d. As long as no one thinks the aspects Chinese people admire about the Nazis are the Nazis’ evil and atrocities, then I’m content. I’m happy to discuss the “morality” or “ignorance” of admiring ANYTHING about the Nazis but my goal in responding to Simaqian here was to make clear that Chinese people do not admire the “evil” itself.

            2. To the extent that Simaqian twisted the first Chinese netizen’s easily understandable joke into yet another generalized criticism of Chinese people as somehow being hypocritical, I disagree.

            a. He suggests hypocrisy and double-standards when the real reason is differences in the proximity of harm from the Nazis vs. the Imperial Japanese and the differences in resentment engendered by that.

            b. Therefore, it is not that the Chinese admire “strength and power” in one but not the other, as Simaqian presented, but that another emotion (resentment) influences what they are more likely to say about either.

            c. Once this is understood, considered, even remembered, there is no reason to be “really amazed” as Simaqian said he was. There should be no thought of hypocrisy or double-standards in selectivity. The differences in how Chinese people regard the Nazis vs. the Imperial Japanese is all very natural, normal, and human. Nothing to be “amazed” about.

            My comments in this discussion have primarily been about the above situation, about Simaqian’s comment, about that context.

            I understand you broadened the issue with your first comment in this thread by quoting IFS’s article, expanding it from the “Nazis” both Simaqian and I referred to into including Hitler. I understand you’re reacting to my statement: “There is no statistically significant number of Chinese who “admire” the Nazis”. I understand you are criticizing that statement as not technically true.

            a. In the context I was operating in, the context of the Chinese netizen comments Simaqian was reacting to, the context where I feared people would interpret Simaqian’s comment as Chinese people in general admiring the evil of the Nazis, my statement is true. As I’ve said, all you need to do is go and ask Chinese people if they admire the evil of the Nazis. I am certain “there is no statistically significant number of Chinese” who do. To any extent you are uncertain about that, it reflects your perceptions of the Chinese people, that unfortunately somewhere along the line you took to believing Chinese people in general admire evil itself.

            b. In the context you introduced, a context where Chinese have expressed admiration for aspects of the Nazis, my statement is of course false. When I already preemptively said in my initial response to Simaqian that Chinese people recognize the Nazis as having been “strong and powerful”, I cannot possible believe the Chinese have not expressed admiration for aspects of the Nazis. Therefore, the only way my statement makes sense is if it is interpreted in the context I was making it in as well as the semantic considerations I was responding to. You therefore tried to undermine my statement by divorcing it from its rightful context and substituting your own broadened context .

            c. The extent that I’ve indulged your broadened context is to argue that people, not just Chinese people, should be allowed to admire aspects of the Nazis without having that admiration conflated into them admiring the evil of the Nazis. I extend this courtesy to Chinese people like I extend it to non-Chinese people.

            d. Your argument has been that it is very difficult if not impossible to be able to admire aspects of the Nazis without also admiring the evil of the Nazis. I disagree. I understand notions like yours’ and Simaqian’s where the Nazis are not just symbols of but might as well be synonymous with “pure” evil, and their evil is so great that it is fundamentally questionable to even dare admiring anything about them. I ALSO understand your argument that the things Chinese people admire about the Nazis are intrinsically tied to evil, so if those things came about through evil, those things are also evil themselves, ergo the Chinese are admiring evil.

            e. I think that is unfair. The easiest way to determine this is to again ask the Chinese people themselves. If you ask a Chinese person if they admire, for example, solving unemployment by killing off people, and they say yes, then you have cause to be in contempt of that Chinese person. If they simply express admiration for “solving unemployment”, you could make an argument for contempt of their ignorance but not contempt of their morality. Likewise, ask if they admire boosting morale by locking up everyone who wasn’t happy. What answers will you likely get and how does that modify any expression of admiration of the Nazis they uttered?

            f. Contempt of Chinese ignorance can also be unfair. We take for granted what we know about the Nazis, about all the Western education we’ve been blessed with, with the constant reinforcement by Western pop culture and Western popular media. Chinese admiration for aspects of the Nazis must be fairly interpreted and judged in the context of what they know and what they are thinking about when they express it. It is unavoidable for listeners to interpret what they hear with their own context; that’s true and we are all routinely guilty of this, but that doesn’t change whether or not you are being fair to the Chinese person when you judge them for what you interpreted from your background and context instead of their background and context.

            So much of your arguments with me run afoul of this same problem. I keep saying you’re strawmanning me precisely because you refuse to consider what I meant, what my context was, and instead insist on substituting your context and your interpretations of what I must mean. When you keep doing this, you are not debating with me in good faith. You are not intent on understanding me and finding consensus in this discussion but rather intent on finding a way to make your contempt of me stick. Judging the morality of Chinese people without seeking to understand the extent and limitations of any admiration for the Nazis they might express by simply asking a follow-up question reflects the same eagerness to judge and be contemptuous rather than seeing them as human beings who can be understood.

            I’m happy to discuss my objections to Simaqian’s comment. I’m happy to argue with you about how universally morally contemptible it is for Chinese people to express any admiration for aspects of the Nazis. I am NOT happy to read more character attacks based on straw man arguments.

          • Wa

            “I won’t deny expressing some consternation and exasperation with your rhetoric but you are, as usual, going beyond into seizing every opportunity to make ad hominems and make this personal. You comment more on me than you do on the issues and arguments at hand.”

            Wait…rewriting and inaccurately manipulating our dialogue so as to suggest stupidity and tone-deafness on my part is “expressing consternation and exasperation”? Not simply egregious and puerile misrepresentation? Kai, not even your convenient understanding of semantics can countenance that. The comments I made above were precisely on the issues and arguments at hand, in the context you wanted them focused upon. The fact that in the process of making my points on the logic of the netizens’ juxtaposition, I had to cite your frequent baseless accusations of me strawmanning is the fault of the person leveling those charges and choosing not to understand my claims.

            Now, instead of responding to the points I made inclusive of the things you said and the things you have accused me of, you have decided to categorize my comments as largely ad hominem attacks making things personal, ignore them, and go on to RESTATE your arguments in a demonstrably burnished way. Of course, despite not actually dealing with the points I’ve made on your unjustifiable accusation of strawmanning and your double standard on ambiguity, you still manage to make baseless and illogical claims about me, including “strawmanning” (again, without support) and a beautified new one:

            “To any extent you are uncertain about it reflects your perceptions of the Chinese people, that unfortunately somewhere along the line you took to believing Chinese people in general admire evil itself.”

            This statement is many things: ridiculously crass, illogical, and manipulative. But ultimately it is simply wrong and a total deflation of the credibility of anyone who would use it.

            So, with your baseless accusations made and your arguments reordered, let’s get back to our discussion.
            Since you’ve made them again in this post, next I’ll tackle your “cultural difference” arguments, arguments on the inculpability of ignorance, and your “just ask them” arguments. It will take a bit of time, so breathe.

          • Wa

            “The Chinese come from a different context. Nazi Germany was not a direct hostile force, they’re overshadowed by the Japanese, they don’t have the same emphasis on the Nazis in their education and pop culture. Therefore, it is not remotely difficult and definitely possible for Chinese people to be less conditioned to immediate revulsion and aversion with anything to do with the Nazis and Hitler.

            An albeit imperfect example: Germandude was aghast by
            Progressive Dubstep’s swastika avatar and could not imagine why it was being tolerated. His aversion to that symbol is a product of his conditioning. Countless others on cS recognized the symbol as poor taste but were not
            immediately calling for its censorship. Why is this?

            Germandude’s worldview, his context, is different from the
            rest of us. There are similarities, just like how Chinese recognize the Nazis as a symbol and historical bogeyman, enough to resent comparisons to them, to object to such comparisons. They are however less conditioned to find it
            impossible to recognize anything else about the Nazis apart from their evil.”

            I have no problem acknowledging that the Chinese come from a different cultural and educational context with respect to the Nazis, no more than I would with their understanding of Mao. And yes, they may be “less
            conditioned to immediate revulsion and aversion with anything to do with the Nazis and Hitler”. However, the example you provide once again does not really address the crux of our disagreement nor the relevance of cultural
            difference in this discussion. I’ll show you why.

            Germandude wanted the swastika censored due to his
            “conditioning” (this is, of course, your interpretation and you haven’t asked if he has a more cognizant reason), and you responded that the site would allow it to stand. But this is merely perfectly in line with the site’s insistence on free speech, resultant horrors be damned. I applaud that
            to the same degree that I would applaud the Chinese internet police allowing statements calling for the destruction of the US or support for Hitler to stand
            if it accorded to a general embrace of free speech (of course, we must acknowlege, it does not). The underlying logic of this insistence on free speech, as you are aware, is to allow for an accurate and unvarnished articulation of people’s attitudes and ideas to whatever degree they are
            willing to provide them.

            Nevertheless, your decision to allow the swastika’s image to stand says nothing about the content and implications of its usage. Now, since I am NOT advocating for Chinese people NOT TO BE ABLE to express admiration for
            the Nazis in this or any other forum, but am certainly focused on the content and implications of any such articulated admiration, your example is not congruent. I understand you are using it in an attempt to clarify how different “conditioning” may lead to different reactions, but insofar as the content and implications are concerned, surely the “countless others who recognized the [use of the] symbol as poor taste” are more relevant. Germandude’s reaction may be motivated by the laws of his nation (he cited them, in fact), but his understanding of the content and implications is IN LINE with those “countless others”. I presume that includes you, by the way?

            “We take for granted what we know about the Nazis,
            about all the Western education we’ve been blessed with, with the constant reinforcement by Western pop culture and Western popular media.”

            I don’t know who this “we” is, and I don’t think
            that is nugatory, but let’s look at your primary claim and see if the very example you employed applies to it.

            “Chinese admiration for aspects of the Nazis must be
            fairly interpreted and judged in the context of what they know and what they are thinking about when they express it. It is unavoidable for listeners to interpret what they hear with their own context; that’s true and we are all
            routinely guilty of this, but that doesn’t change whether or not you are being fair to the Chinese person when you judge them for what you interpreted from your background and context instead of their background and context.”

            It remarkable that you do not recognize how utterly naive
            and discombobulated the first sentence above is. A century of debates migrating between phenomenology and hermeneutics have witnessed your demand here as
            entirely impossible, as a red herring imposed by those with pretenses to certainty attempting to negate the ambiguity and indeterminacy of interpretation, and thus to negate the need for interpretation itself. You can see this yourself if you look closely at your demand. Note how if we must

            “fairly [interpret] and [judge]

            in the context of what they know and what they are thinking about when they express it”,

            there is, in fact, NO NEED FOR INTERPRETATION.

            Why would interpretation be necessary if we had access to
            what they know and what they are thinking about when they express it? Ultimately, Kai, this attempt to obviate interpretation is a fundamental discomfort with ambiguity that I remarked on above. It is why your use of “semantics, connotations, and nuance” is unreliable. And it presents the perfect backdrop for your repeated insistence on your certainty. These are judgments made on the basis of the analysis above, so please do not suggest they are character-based attacks.

            One might also remember the other peculiar aspect to this
            claim I have already highlighted. Your insistence above places the burden entirely on the interpreter (here apparently those exposed to Western education
            and culture) and says nothing about the speaker/writer. We have to know “what someone is thinking about” when he/she states something in order to be fair? Well, how are we to do that? You claim I can “just ask the Chinese” (and I’ll get to the problems with that), but where is the
            corresponding need for the Chinese to clarify and disambiguate in their initial statement, to provide and account of their context and what they are thinking
            about and mitigate the ambiguity of their content? This has been absent from your demand.

            To apply this point to the cultural difference debate,
            consider the example you cited above. If Progressive Dubstep wants to post an avatar of a swastika, he is able to do so. Is it the responsibility of anyone who sees it and finds it in bad taste or offended by it to understand precisely what he was thinking about when he decided to use it? Is it unfair to comment on his usage without asking him? Is it unfair to find that person in bad taste
            or benighted? Certainly not, and there is no use pretending it is. An attempt to claim this is “unfair” comes across as nothing more than infantilizing Progressive Dubstep.

            Is he under any responsibility to disambiguate his usage of the swastika? You certainly have made that lack of disambiguation a part of your objection to 司马迁’s
            comments, so would you apply the same standards here?

            But this is just the beginning of the problem, and here we see why your insistence that I can “just ask the Chinese” to clarify is fundamentally flawed and logically moronic in the assessment of internet commenters. If someone does give Progressive Dubstep the time to ask why he posts a swastika, how can we be certain that his answer gives an accurate account of “what he was thinking about when he [posted or] expressed it”? What this invites, of course, is successive rounds of reinterpretation and comparing what was initially said with further hedging and interpretation, but we are made no more certain about his initial intent or the sincerity of his subsequent comments. It is quite plausible that he may be embarrassed enough by the revelation of his crassness to alter his statements entirely, yet that embarrassment could correspond to what his choice of an avatar connoted accidentally or what it denoted intentionally. Perhaps he was just ignorant, or perhaps he was malicious and is now attempting to hide that in order to make it socially acceptable and allow his maliciousness to continue in this new context.

            Does that mean we should give up trying to understand others? No, obviously. But it does mean we must, to a certain degree, embrace ambiguity as both interpreters and speakers. I made this point several times by saying we simply do not know the full extent of support or admiration for the Nazis or Hitler in China, and your certainty that it never reaches statistical significance or always stops short of “their evil” is no certainty at all. It is not based on the language the Chinese use, and it is not based on a context you get to fully determine. 司马迁 saw those comments as reflecting wider interactions he had with Chinese people; I too saw them as generally indicative of attitudes toward the Nazis the Chinese have expressed to me; but even in the immediate context above, your attempt to interpret the commenters involved “oversimplification” and “simplistic purposes” (these are words you’ve chosen to use). There are more than two guys, and your comments still have not embraced the LOGICAL NECESSITY the juxtaposition relies upon beyond this “simplification”, particularly when that simplification is inaccurate.

            With that in mind, I’ll get to the issue of ignorance and Llyod George next.

          • mr.wiener

            Sometimes I’m happy I have a short attention span…..More gas in this argument than a fleet of goodyear blimps.

          • Wa

            If you want to point it out so as to reduce it, please do so. Sniping is fun and all, but it hardly contributes. I think the discussion is valuable and apparently could further use “simplification”.

          • mr.wiener

            Wasn’t just talking about you mate. More a case of a sea of words meeting a continental uplift of text.
            If I can simplify?
            Kai: “I don’t know why some Chinese folk admire the Nazis”.
            Wa: “No they don’t and you are a dick”.

            Feel free to leave a [hopefully] brief statement refuting this :)

          • Wa

            Ha. Sadly these are two things that HAVEN’T been said.

          • mr.wiener

            Given the infinite monkey theorem it is entirely within the bounds of possibility.

          • Wa

            By the way, mate, I have a cousin who when young was a long and stringy bastard. Like many cousins, we had a rivalry and often got into physical altercations. Thing was, he was wasn’t very strong, but he would just FREAK OUT and throw himself around like a maniac. This would force me to step back a few steps and let him over assert himself, then toss him like a rag doll onto hard objects lying around the room. When I hear comments made about the Nazis making Germany strong, I think of this kid.

            The Nazis effectively put their entire nation on a death wish. That can lead to extraordinary things, but it is not an indication of strength.

            There are more walls of text on their way. Knew you’d appreciate the heads up.

          • mr.wiener

            Just enough time for a ciggy and a toilet break then, ta mate.

          • Wa

            Since the Chinese netizens are indeed wrong in claiming that the Nazis did not hurt/ did not disrespect/ were not cruel to their own people, there is a legitimate claim that they are making an argument from ignorance. This may not be the only reason they are making the claim, but it is the lowest common denominator. The initial claim you made, Kai, when issuing your spurious demand that we must know what Chinese people are thinking when they articulate admiration of certain aspects of the Nazis was that “contempt of Chinese ignorance can also be unfair”.

            I have no problem with recognizing the possibility of that generally. It can be.

            But in the context of showing even relative admiration or respect for Nazi “achievements”, is it? Take a look at the closest analogue we have to that in the comments below: Free Man’s clearly articulated contempt (in the form of satire) for another commenter, Tom. Tom’s claim is congruent to both your argument that Chinese netizens can admire aspects of Nazi “achievements” without admiring them for “their evil” and to the claims made by Chinese netizens in response to this article above:

            “If you were some average Kraut dude just minding it’s business you wouldn’t be bothered, pretty sure that your standart of living and pride would go up. Not saying that the Nazis were good but at least they did raise the German moral and standart of living”

            Tom was decent enough to include the phrase “Not saying that the Nazis were good”, but Free Man’s contempt was in direct response to how wrong the commenter was about an important fact. What differentiates this from contempt for Chinese netizens expressing admiration for certain inaccurately understood aspects of Hitler or the Nazis, even if that admiration is very limited and used to make a point about another country? Indeed, is it not plausible this is an exact instance of that? Is Free Man being unfair to express contempt? You have claimed that the difference between these two views is merely a matter of hindsight, and we will get to that issue below, but please consider answering this question first.

            Now, consider again the case of Lloyd George. You stated:

            “I don’t think Lloyd George admired the atrocities of the Nazis when he said what he did. Of course I understand how what he said gives him a black mark in the eyes of others who judge his comment with a different context. Likewise, I understand people like Simaqian and you are judging what some Chinese people have said in a context different from what they were operating in. That’s unfair. It’s unfair to suggest Lloyd George and the Chinese people are admiring HItler/Nazis in general.”

            You argue that it is unfair to judge Lloyd George and the Chinese from a different context. I have already highlighted the fundamental problem of insisting on your particular contexts above, and here I’d like to reveal precisely why it is not only epistemologically ignorant, but morally as well. According to the demand for “fair interpretation” you issued, we ought to fairly judge Lloyd George in the context in which he made his statement of Hitler’s greatness, in “what he was thinking about at the time he was expressing it”. All this would amount to in your view is that he was highlighting certain successes and not addressing other, more vile Nazi policies. Yet we know as a matter of historical fact that those policies were already being carried out pervasively, and many visitors to Germany, Lloyd George being one, were ABLE, save for the concentration camps, to see them being executed. Thus it is not a matter of hindsight, of a context he couldn’t attain, but a question of why “what he was thinking about” did not embrace the larger confluence of events, the context which surrounded him.

            This is not a matter of how closely we, as current interpreters, are able to embrace his limited context, but why his context was so limited, despite evidence of atrocities we know was available, to such a meaningless and ultimately inaccurate focus.

            I think this is a much more cognizant and accurate assessment of why Lloyd George and many others of his era who argued in however limited support of Hitler are held in opprobrium than the idea that we are being unfair to them from our different context. They face opprobrium due to their willful ignorance. Perhaps you think it is unfair to argue that they admired Hitler/Nazis “in general”, but that really is irrelevant to the criticism they are yoked with.

            Their ignorance was devastating precisely for the latitude it gave others and the malice it contributed to.

            And if this was true of Lloyd George then, why should it not also be true of Chinese netizens who call Hitler “not only a good, but a great man”, as in the links I provided, or those who wish to argue on the basis of the falsehood that the Nazis were not brutal to their own citizens, particularly when even more information on the Nazis brutality and pervasive wickedness is available now?

            I know you recognize the validity of this because you have made several claims which yoke this logic into the context of our debate, only in a different direction. Here is one:

            “Allowing vagueness to engender notions that Chinese people admire the Nazis for their atrocities and evil is being accomplice to ignorant to malicious vilification.”

            Now, since you dedicated an entire paragraph in your last reply to me to essentially blaming me for our disagreement, accusing me of not arguing in good faith (a character attack) and again trying to justify your reflexive strawman accusations, I hope you extend me the courtesy of addressing why I think we have difficulties agreeing. I do believe this is a serious issue, and I think you should take it more seriously.

            The passage I just quoted (“Allowing vagueness…”) is an area in which I believe our opinions do converge. However, there is an certain difference between you and me. Whereas you object only to the “vagueness” of statement of an interpreter of Chinese comments above, I am able to acknowledge the vagueness and ambiguity of both the interpreter and the initial Chinese commenter. Whereas you employ this argument to justify limited support of the Nazis in certain respects (to protect the Chinese from malice), I use it to show how such limited support, even if born out of ignorance, also acts as an accomplice to malice.
            You are able to set aside the seriousness of an inaccurate and ambiguous admiration for Nazis in order to defend Chinese from the vagueness of a statement that merely indicates such admiration. This fact is evident in your carelessness when you write “The people who fled had their fears validated. That’s good for them.” (No, Kai, it wasn’t.) And it is more glaringly evident when you argue,

            “It takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to understand why some Chinese people might admire aspects of the Nazis/Hitler.”

            Yes, Kai, I know this was a reflexive inversion of my statement

            “It takes an enormous amount of care and intelligence to [separate aspects of what one admires from what one reviles], especially in the case of the Nazis, especially if something is actually reviled.”

            But the difference is clear: I’d be comfortable taking my statement with me where ever I go, to whatever new contexts. I doubt very sincerely that you would, nor should you be.

          • Wa

            Prior to discussing the issue of cultural difference et al, I should respond to one point you appear to have addressed from my criticism of your tactics above this comment. You now seem to acknowledge that you were indeed making two claims: a general one and one specific to the netizens’ comments above. Thank you for that admission. However, your consequent attempt to justify your accusations of strawmanning and “substitution” in light of these discrete claims carries you into logically erroneous territory again.

            “In the context you introduced, a context where Chinese have expressed admiration for aspects of the Nazis, my statement is of course false. When I already preemptively said in my initial response to Simaqian that Chinese people recognize the Nazis as having been “strong and powerful”, I cannot possible believe the Chinese have not expressed admiration for aspects of the Nazis. Therefore, the only way my statement makes sense is if it is interpreted in the context I was making it in as well as the semantic considerations I was responding to. You therefore tried to undermine my statement by divorcing it from its rightful context and substituting your own broadened context .“

            You cannot possibly believe Chinese have not expressed admiration for the Nazis? Ok. That is not the claim I responded to. The response was to your certainty that “there is no statistically significant number of Chinese who admire the Nazis.” This claim does not exclude, as you said later, idiots, so it would still make sense outside of the specific context of the Chinese netizens above if you felt those idiots were not “statistically significant”. This point completely undermines your argument that “[I] therefore tried to undermine [your] statement by divorcing it from its rightful context and substituting your own broadened context.” Because your statement does not only require one context to make sense, your claim that I “divorced it from its rightful context” and substituted something else is logically incorrect. I believe this is once again an inability on your part to deal with ambiguity, and I hope to address that below.

          • Rick in China

            Wa is right about this, comments like “The Nazi’s at least were just persecuting Jews, whereas the people North Korea is slaughtering are all of its own ordinary common people [citizens].” can not be misinterpreted as a joke or some other shit, it BLATANTLY says, without any hint at some sort of contextual humour or alternative meaning, that the nazi’s were *ONLY* persecuting JEWS. When in fact, there was significant brutality to MANY, including many of their ‘own people’. It’s beyond ridiculous to defend those type of comments, rather, group them as the loud minority or whatever, but please don’t defend them by saying they’re subtle jokes.

          • Kai

            I didn’t say that second netizen comment that Simaqian quoted was a joke. I said the first one clearly was. Please carefully re-read my comments. I’d be insane to think that second netizen comment was a joke, subtle or otherwise.

          • Rick in China

            If it’s in there, fair enough, I must have missed the specific reference to the various comments – just saw “comments” referred to as a group so assumed they were lumped together and not disambiguated in a separate post…

          • Wa

            Just as you mischaracterized my comments on the Chinese netizens above, your dull attempt at rewriting our dialogue focused on another misrepresentation: my remark on your shameless insistence.

            The comment in which I made that remark clearly referred to your risibly blithe understanding of “history”. My explication of the degree to which the Nazi’s vile policies where inherent to the superficial “success” you cited in raising morale and living standards was met with no counterclaim specific to the circumstances of German life. To point out how the Nazis’ vile policies may be separated from their “success” in raising living standards and morale, the very claims you made, is the only direct way to address my comments. Instead, you offered only a perfunctory “it’s just history” (shameless insistence) and an attempt to marshal general arguments and even abstractions to make your point. These often result in grotesque distortions that have no bearing on the realities the Nazis created, but you go right ahead.

            “The same can be said about many aspects of China’s economic reforms and modern age development. Yet people can still admire China’s economic growth. Just because we can argue that destruction and dislocation is part and parcel of whatever success China has had doesn’t make it fair to suggest the admirers admire the destruction and dislocation.”

            If you introduce a parallel, you should be ready to discuss the terms of its application. Are you suggesting the complete regimentation of life which existed under the Nazi regime is remotely similar to China’s economic reforms and development? Are you suggesting public admiration for the British Empire carries no social stigma?

            “Let’s use another analogy, Chinese people’s admiration for Mao. Can’t we argue that destruction and dislocation was part and parcel of Mao’s ideology and policies? Of course we can and many Westerners cannot understand why Chinese people would hold him in esteem for those very reasons, right? Yet you also know why Chinese people hold in in esteem and the reasons are not for the destruction and dislocation per se, but for what they think were admirable things about it, like his ideals, his campaigning against institutionalized and corrupt powers, his desire to keep China soveriegn, etc. etc. etc. In all of these things, no Chinese person genuinely admires all the bad things he has done. The whole 70/30 thing is Chinese people acknowledging that there was bad and good. Westerners might have a different proportion and some may want that to be 100/0, but are Westerners really incapable of understanding how people can admire just aspects of something?”

            Ah…ok. Actually, the whole 70/30 thing is a completely arbitrary government determination, and admiration for Mao is built into the educational system at all levels throughout China, where Mao’s statements on fighting the KMT instead of the Japanese or splitting China into 20 countries if necessary are never, ever broached. It also bears remembering that Mao formed a cult worship around him, and the effects of that are still felt to this day. So if you want to compare Chinese admiration for “the good things” of the Nazis to that of “the good things” of Mao, go ahead. It doesn’t say a great deal about how objectively Chinese are able to evaluate his influence, and it’s not for nothing that people from many countries regard Chinese respect for Mao as a pathology.

            So here are the things you’ve tried to employ to prove that you can admire good things but not the “bad things” which correspond to them:

            Buff guy comparison
            Chinese reform
            British Empire
            Mao
            US development
            Sniper Rifle
            My writing
            More Buff guy/rockin’ body

            And you think repeatedly drawing questionable parallels that differ enormously from Nazi actions is the best way to make your point? Not to, you know, show how Nazi atrocities were not linked to their apparent successes? This repeated attempt to remain on the surface of ever varying analogies is your claim to nuance? Or is it your classic apologist’s “cultural difference” argument which follows? Let’s turn to that.

  • Rick in China

    Admittedly not an expert on either, I’ve been to both, you?

    • David

      I believe those being brutalized in Venezuela right now might side with Rick. I know many Cubans (my step-grand father left there while Batista was still in power) and not a one, who is free to speak his mind in the U.S. has ever said anything nice about the Castro regime in my hearing.

  • Mighty曹

    Hahaha… yeah, I’m semi black. I got da hood n me. I’ll check it out and report back to you.

  • Kevin Yu

    I really wonder how uneducated the Chinese are about Nazi. “Respected their own country”, “They still treated their own people well” and shit like that.

    Tell that to the disabled, retarded people or German who opposed to Hitler during that time…

  • O.

    “Really? Last time I checked WWII started in September of 1939, and
    through out most of the 30’s everyone knew the German intentions, even
    before the war in 1939, footage is still available of Hitler asking for
    the annihilation ‘vernichtung’ of the Jewish race in Europe.”

    I made an error on the date of the war, yes. But no, “throughout most of the ’30s” everyone did not know of the German intentions. Did Hitler preach a lot of anti-Semitic rhetoric in his radio-broadcasted speeches? Yes. Were they explicit statements about the Final Solution and all it entailed? No.

    By the way, the July 1939 letter to which whuddyasack and you continually refer, has nothing to do with Gandhi “admiring” Hitler. As I have said, he wrote to Hitler as one leader to another. Here’s the exact transcript:
    http://images.dazedcdn.com/700/an/280/4/284929.jpg

    “The Bengal Famine was partly man-made however you should again check all
    the facts, One book with a good name against Churchill is’t the only
    place to read from.”

    lol I’ve gotten my information from more than “one book with a good name against Churchill”, thanks. Madhusree Mukerjee’s Churchill’s Secret War isn’t the only book or article that details the Famine and underlying British agenda. Try Churchill’s Blind Spot: India; Orwellian Rectification Popular Churchill Biographies and the 1943 Bengal Famine; and Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: the Famine of 1943-1944, for a start.

    I wonder if you’ve lifted your information straight from wikipedia? At any rate, you miss the point. The 1943 Famine and its catastrophic consequences of 1-3.5 million deaths occurred because Churchill explicitly denied shipments of wheat to the region in the wake of typhoon and crop-failures. Had he not done so, and had shipments proceeded as normal, the starvation/death toll would have been significantly less. Ergo, it is a manmade famine.

    By the way, the domestic stockpiling of grain by “rich” merchants that you refer to? Much of it was done at the insistence of the British government, to provide foodstuffs for the British soldiers stationed in Bengal and Assam, again, at the expense of the locals. (This was documented in a book by Kalicharan Ghosh, written in 1944, as well as a report produced in the Indian Statistical Institute by Professor Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis.)
    Furthermore, those “thousands of Commonwealth troops” were utilised to deliver the supplies not to civilians but to fellow soldiers.

    “Could more have been done, obviously, was the largest war in history raging, yes”

    Which does nothing to dispel my point that Churchill prioritised British war agenda in Asia (to the point of deliberately keeping food supplies in Bengal low, in case of Japanese incursion), and considered the lives of Indians as expendable as Hitler considered the lives of European Jews expendable.

    By the way, you know who Churchill chose to send aid to in 1943 instead? The civilians of Nazi-occupied Greece and Yugoslavia. It’s funny that he wasn’t afraid of foodstuffs falling into the hands of the enemy in a part of the world that didn’t coincide with British imperial interests.

  • chucky3176

    Probably most Chinese are not even aware that there have been hundreds of PRC citizens kidnapped by North Korea. The Chinese government would have suppressed this information.

  • Smith_90125

    Nearing the end, Hitler actively tried to ensure the annihilation of the German people, claiming it would be better for all Germans to die than lose.

    In that light, comparing the North Korean regime to the Nazis is very apt. When that country finally does collapse, it will be a humanitarian disaster unlike anything seen in Africa or even the death camps in Nazi Germany. An entire generation, the last 20+ years of young people, have been subjected to malnutrition and its effects – stunted growth, lack of cranial developement. An opened North Korea will be like those Romanian orphanages for the disabled the world learnt oof 20 years ago, except it will be millions of children living in squalor and abuse, not thousands, and all permanently incapable of caring for themselves.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»