This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
England for the English?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Connor27
Although OP is an idiot, you can't compare the rise of Hitler to anti immigration, populist parties today.
Hitler didn't even seriously mention deportation of the Jews until he has abolished democracy, many Germans did not expect the holocaust as most hadn't read Mein Kampf.
Yes, he did blame the Jews for the treaty of Versailles, but that was more anti socialist than anti Semitic, he simply pointed out the coincidence that many of the socialists in the Weimar government happened to be Jewish.
Yes, his deep hatred of the Jews was apparent in reading Mein Kampf, but he didn't start persecuting them properly until democracy was abolished and the people had no say anymore.
To blame the rise of Hitler on "racists German voters" is to be very ignorant of the underlying economic, social and territorial concerns of many Germans in the interwar period that was imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles.
Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau were the three biggest contributors. in the rise of Hitler.
Hitler didn't even seriously mention deportation of the Jews until he has abolished democracy, many Germans did not expect the holocaust as most hadn't read Mein Kampf.
Yes, he did blame the Jews for the treaty of Versailles, but that was more anti socialist than anti Semitic, he simply pointed out the coincidence that many of the socialists in the Weimar government happened to be Jewish.
Yes, his deep hatred of the Jews was apparent in reading Mein Kampf, but he didn't start persecuting them properly until democracy was abolished and the people had no say anymore.
To blame the rise of Hitler on "racists German voters" is to be very ignorant of the underlying economic, social and territorial concerns of many Germans in the interwar period that was imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles.
Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau were the three biggest contributors. in the rise of Hitler.
Im not saying it is exactly the same.
My point was that nationalist approaches tend not to go down well.
Original post by KatieOliver99
Most immigrants are here because there are better educational and job opportunities, in fact immigration has a positive net impact on the economy in the UK. New laws passed also mean immigrants can't collect welfare for the first three years of living here.
I oppose the welfare state, also that so called "Net Contribution" does not take into account Welfare and state housing. Im not saying im anti immigration because I am not, however if a welfare state does exist you should be a citizen of this country to receive any benefits.
Yes, we should be putting the British natives first - "British jobs for British people" and all that.
Original post by TheExtrovertGod
Which is great if you're an employer looking for someone to work in slave conditions, migrants displace locals in poor industry as the locals are less likely to put up with awful working conditions.
Oh give it up, what do you think health and safety laws are for in this country?
No one could keep up bad working conditions for that long without being thrown in jail.
Anyone who's unemployed and blames immigration and vague *******s like that is just a lazy, feckless idiot that needs to start taking responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming everything else. It's just as bad as the far left nutters that blame capitalism for their misgivings...
I redirect you, as I did the OP, to the lump of Labour fallacy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Immigrants do not "take our jobs" - in fact even unskilled migrants create more jobs in shops and supermarkets for example as there is more demand for food and general supplies to live and therefore more labour is needed to supply.
Original post by Connor27
Oh give it up, what do you think health and safety laws are for in this country?
No one could keep up bad working conditions for that long without being thrown in jail.
No one could keep up bad working conditions for that long without being thrown in jail.
As if you have the audacity to say that so early after the reports on Sports Direct, JD, and virtually every other company in the UK.
Original post by Nottie
It did work out perfectly last time some Austrian dude tried this approach with Germany, didnt it?
Apparently you seem to be unaware of the "Reductio ad hitlerium" rule that states as soon as one side of an argument compares the other side to Hitler or Nazis they automatically lose the argument, because it shows they dont have any better points to make than resorting to name-calling
Original post by TheExtrovertGod
As if you have the audacity to say that so early after the reports on Sports Direct, JD, and virtually every other company in the UK.
Nice job evading the rest of the argument (the brunt of it)...
**************UK****************** (scotland, ireland and wales exist too) :-)
Original post by Connor27
Although OP is an idiot, you can't compare the rise of Hitler to anti immigration, populist parties today.
Hitler didn't even seriously mention deportation of the Jews until he has abolished democracy, many Germans did not expect the holocaust as most hadn't read Mein Kampf.
Yes, he did blame the Jews for the treaty of Versailles, but that was more anti socialist than anti Semitic, he simply pointed out the coincidence that many of the socialists in the Weimar government happened to be Jewish.
Yes, his deep hatred of the Jews was apparent in reading Mein Kampf, but he didn't start persecuting them properly until democracy was abolished and the people had no say anymore.
To blame the rise of Hitler on "racists German voters" is to be very ignorant of the underlying economic, social and territorial concerns of many Germans in the interwar period that was imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles.
Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau were the three biggest contributors. in the rise of Hitler.
Hitler didn't even seriously mention deportation of the Jews until he has abolished democracy, many Germans did not expect the holocaust as most hadn't read Mein Kampf.
Yes, he did blame the Jews for the treaty of Versailles, but that was more anti socialist than anti Semitic, he simply pointed out the coincidence that many of the socialists in the Weimar government happened to be Jewish.
Yes, his deep hatred of the Jews was apparent in reading Mein Kampf, but he didn't start persecuting them properly until democracy was abolished and the people had no say anymore.
To blame the rise of Hitler on "racists German voters" is to be very ignorant of the underlying economic, social and territorial concerns of many Germans in the interwar period that was imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles.
Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Georges Clemenceau were the three biggest contributors. in the rise of Hitler.
While the "Germans were just racist" thesis has been thoroughly discredited, so has the thesis that Versailles was particularly problematic and responsible for the rise of Nazism. Versailles really wasn't all that onerous. It was far less harsh that the treaties imposed on defeated Hungary, Austria, or Turkey, never mind the terms imposed on Russia by the Germans themselves (which likely would have played out similarly in the West had Germany defeated Britain and France. There was simply a lack of will on the part of many major German political leaders to accept Versailles or the new republican regime.
Original post by anarchism101
While the "Germans were just racist" thesis has been thoroughly discredited, so has the thesis that Versailles was particularly problematic and responsible for the rise of Nazism. Versailles really wasn't all that onerous. It was far less harsh that the treaties imposed on defeated Hungary, Austria, or Turkey, never mind the terms imposed on Russia by the Germans themselves (which likely would have played out similarly in the West had Germany defeated Britain and France. There was simply a lack of will on the part of many major German political leaders to accept Versailles or the new republican regime.
I would disagree with that; look at all the land they lost: The Polish Corridor; Alsace-Lorraine; the Sudetenland etc etc.
The reparation payments were crippling and caused the hyperinflation crisis in the 20s that I would argue made people lose confidence in the Weimar Regime.
Also, forcing a nation that was known to be proud of its military to disarm and to prevent them from stationing any troops whatsoever on their western border (the Rhineland) was an unnecessary humiliation that caused nothing but resentment.
The fact the Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau were all dissatisfied with Versailles shows that it was a flawed, bad treaty.
Original post by Nottie
It did work out perfectly last time some Austrian dude tried this approach with Germany, didnt it?
the nazis were not that focused on immigration more antisemitism also Godwin's law
Original post by TheExtrovertGod
Who even are the English? Normans? Angles? Saxons? Vikings? Are the Royal Family English or German? Do Coventry and Manchester really have as much in common as say, London and Toronto?
Nationality is a nonsense.
Nationality is a nonsense.
This is kind of nonsense. English is maybe someone whose family has been here for maybe four generations
Why do people keep saying that immigration has a positive impact economically when this is not true, where is the evidence for this? Also I am not really interested in money more the cultural effects of immigration. What you have is a huge number of foreigners and their offspring living here (who are not proper English people).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by TheExtrovertGod
Who even are the English? Normans? Angles? Saxons? Vikings? Are the Royal Family English or German? Do Coventry and Manchester really have as much in common as say, London and Toronto?
All Northern/Western European cultures of a very similar nature. But It's a myth that the English are a mongrel nation formed by foreign invaders. The English are no less native to these lands than the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/
Original post by Wōden
All Northern/Western European cultures of a very similar nature. But It's a myth that the English are a mongrel nation formed by foreign invaders. The English are no less native to these lands than the Scots, Welsh and Irish.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/
This. The idea that we are an immigrant nation of have always been a nation of immigrants is nonsense put forward by the pro immigration lobby. Even the Normans coming over was nearly 1000 years ago.
Original post by TheExtrovertGod
Who even are the English? Normans? Angles? Saxons? Vikings? Are the Royal Family English or German? Do Coventry and Manchester really have as much in common as say, London and Toronto?
Nationality is a nonsense.
Nationality is a nonsense.
Humans are very genetically similar. Vikings/Anglo-Saxons/Normans are all the same thing just different cultures imo.
Original post by Recont
What is the problem with migrants then?
Allowing in vast numbers of migrants will ultimately destroy the unique ethnic and cultural identity of an indigenous people. That is what we want to protect against. Japan does it, they are unashamedly nationalistic, and whilst they do allow a small amount of immigration, it is still made it very clear that Japan is for the Japanese and that guests must conform to their culture and customs. And nobody bats an eyelid at this, Japan is not called "racist" or "xenophobic". Why are the Europeans, especially the English, denied the same right?
Original post by karl pilkington
Do you think that England should be for the English or be opened up to the world and everyone/anyone who wants to be allowed to live here?
I think every country should be opened up to anyone who wants to go and live or work there, and anyone should be allowed to live anywhere. (But all countries would have to do it, it doesn't work if it's just a few).
It would be the pinnacle of globalisation, creating a far more economically efficient world and facilitating a stronger interchange of social and cultural ideas and world views, creating further progress on that front too.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by karl pilkington
It is not purely "immigration" that has a positive economic impact, but rather the free movement of people (this includes people's right to leave the country and go somewhere else too).
The economic benefit is that, if an employer needs to hire someone to do a job, they can hire someone from a much wider pool of potential candidates. This ensures that they can get the best person for the job. It also stimulates competition for that job, which means people will work harder to do a good job. It makes the process more meritocratic i.e. success depends on how good you are rather than just having been born in the right place.
On the flip side, if a person needs to try and get a job, they have a much larger range of potential jobs they can apply for, because there are no restrictions in terms of which country they can go to. This ensures that they can get the job most suitable for them, and also stimulates competition amongst employers to secure that person's services, which means they will want to provide better salaries and working conditions etc.
It's already clear to see the economic detriment of Brexit, for example. Confidence in the economy has plummeted at the mere suggestion that the free movement of people (amongst other things) might be compromised.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
