And you’re absolutely sure about that?

Oh, heck, why argue? Let’s compromise:
The Nazis were “right” until El Alamein, i.e., until the summer of 1942—or…if that’s not long enough let’s say they were “right” for as long as they were able to besiege Leningrad, i.e., until the beginning of 1944—and after that (July 1942 or January 1944) they were wrong, OK?

Or maybe, closer to home, the Nazis were “right” until June 1944 but from July 1944 onward they weren’t (though perhaps with a brief interlude at the Battle of the Bulge, when they were “right” again…or “almost right”)?

Agreed?

Or if even that’s not satisfactory, could we agree that they were “right” because their plan to destroy as much of the world’s Jews was successfully implemented (as far as it goes) but they weren’t “right” because they failed to finish the job?

Gosh, these compromises can get a bit tricky. Well, whatever….

Well they were right about that. Not that they were right in general, but it is the victor who writes the history. Fortunately (“fortune”, ha) “right”, along with some backbone, makes might. While their system was awful and would eventually collapse, they still would have lasted a good bit longer were it not for US economic might and geographical location. Were it not for the US they would have survived perhaps a few generations? Certainly longer than the Soviets did with a far more ridiculous system. And that clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caliginous idiocy lasted 70 years. But imagine a similar world without the US. The opposition would have been ground down just as those who opposed the Romans were. And were not the Romans “right”? Or better yet, on a much smaller scale, the Spartans?

As for Neo, etc….yeah, whatevs. I suspect the overreaction I’m getting here is because I’m hitting a bit close to the truth. I notice Dr. libertarian wasn’t willing to speak up for himself so, I’ll take that for what it says.

In other words, a question of “…we were so close, so close…” together with “…it’s the victors who are always “right”, who write the history, who decide what the truth is…. If we HAD won, then we would have been in the right…” etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Important to note, FWIW—none of this is new—that the Germans, generally speaking, were far more willing to take responsibility for their country’s prior decisions than were the Austrians, the latter being more inclined to see themselves as “victims” of the Nazis (or so they preferred to rationalize the Anschluss, even if documentary and other defense would shriek to differ)…and while some prominent German historians also took this route, such revisionism didn’t really catch on there. (This of course may be changing as the years go by….)

I am pointing out that the people you are calling cowards have almost certainly done exactly what you are advocating, and for many years, and are choosing not to continue to beat their heads against that particular brick wall. We are arguing about their REACTION to other people bringing up politics, and whether they are cowardly at this point if they decide not to rise to the tired old bait.

Your assumptions and your name-calling are the problem, and that is what I’ve pointed out from the start, and that is not a mischaracterization of your position.

1) “Once they shove their politics and ideology at you, unprovoked”
2) “Those of us who do speak up, again IN CONTEXT”
3) “People need to stand up to the leftists…again…WHEN THEY START, mmm…, STUFF. ”
4) “I don’t challenge it every single time ”
5) “AGAIN, I am not advocating forcing these issues into (otherwise) polite conversation. I am saying that if THEY push it, you have a responsibility to push back.”

Now think about what/where you may have mischaracterized my position.

Neo-nazi movements have had very little purchase in Germany or Austria.

I am referring to the persuasive powers you exhibit here, which are quite short of brilliant, and have until now amounted mostly to insults. Your most recent comment is more thoughtful, however.

Again, though, you are making assumptions that are unwarranted. If people – most of whom have ALREADY argued with friends and family FOR YEARS (see? I’m shouting) to no avail, choose to forego the arguments for the sake of love and friendship – then why would you assume that those friends and family aren’t already well aware of where that person stands? My friends and family certainly are.

People have a finite amount of energy, and they choose to ration it so that they expend it where it is most likely to effect a result. Why keep shouting at those who already know exactly where you stand and have not ever changed their minds despite tons of arguing with them? Best use your energy on those who have expressed an interest by either requesting a talk with you or requesting links to articles on the right from you, and whose minds are at least open a tiny tiny bit to what you might have to say.

That has zero to do with courage.

And if you are merely saying that if someone starts “pushing it” with you, you should stand up for what you believe, most people here have already done so many times. For example, there’s a person with whom I’ve argued for many years to no avail, who likes to tweak or tease me now and then by making some politically inflammatory statement. That’s all it is, just a little goad. And I always say to him, “If you’d actually like to talk about that issue, I’m more than willing. But if you’re not prepared to argue with me about politics for real, than don’t bring it up.” He retreats, because he has no interest in actually having that discussion.

At that point, you have to dismantle each point. I’m not sure what all the leftist talking points are, but suffice to say, none of them are accurate.