Realist:
i was born some 30 years after the war was over. i am not in the least sympathetic towards nationalism. and therefore i don't see any reason why i should avoid pointing out idiocy, racism or plain BS just because it comes from a certain source.
I don;t think you promote or support National Socialism. I do think if I was a white person from the Deep South of the US that, if I had issues with Louis Ferrakhand (sp?), or various pro-African American lobby groups, that I would be aware of people's perceptions. By focusing on the term 'Zionist', like it or not, you identify with others who use the term as loaded klanguage in a racial or religiously motivated agenda. You undermine whatever value there is in your post by selecting termonology used by merchants of hate.
You are quite a bright guy, I'm surprised you didn't realise this.
regarding Jörg Haider - fisrt of all his party gained votes over the years not because of nationism but because of the corruption in the other parties. we had a socialist chancellor for about 30 years and people were just plain tired of the BS that the socialists pulled. (by the way, Haider lost 2/3 of the votes i the last election and stays at 10% right now)
My point stands; "oh, we've got no majority unless we let the Nazi far-right into power, but no one will consider that inappropriate, surely". It is quite the most spasticated action politically of any European country, if you exclude the Comic Opera that is Italian politics. It doesn't mean the Austrians are goose-stepping their way to the future; far-right parties poll around 10% in many European countries and have occasional flashes of success beyond this
secondly, he stated things that are with the exception of germany common in all other countries (i may mention fortuyn in holland, bush in the US, etc. etc.). his condemnation was initiated by the austria press (largely in the hands of the socialist) in order prevent him gaining votes. it did not work in the end because he revealed too many problems within the old administration.
But at least Holland has the decency to have flamboyant gay far-right politicians! (This is a joke, as I say above, the far-right typically scum, I mean skim 10% around Europe). And it is a jolly good thing that the press focused on the action, both in Austria and abroad.
lastly, germany and austria took a lot of beating (in party rightly so) for what happened before and during the war. but with all due respect after 58 years and considering what the allies did it is high time to put an end to digging out the nazi stuff in every discussion regarding israel.
I disagree. If you are ill-advised to use 'zionist' without realising that (even if you are in no way a racist bigot or nazi - and I certainly don't think you are) by your choice of language you are sharing ground and vocabulary the more unsavoury political elements, and by doing so giving them some added credability in the eyes of the underclass they pray upon, then pointing this out is not a bad thing.
Hell Realist, I work in an International call centre. I am sure Germany have every right to use the German Eagle on the back of the Euro coins, but most non-Germans I know think it's in bad taste. Oh dear, it was a symbol that pre-dated NAzi Germany... and is now along with a Hindu peace-symbol forever tarnished by that association. An American friend who was visiting last year didn't get this until we were at the Anne Frank House, and she saw an ID document with an almost identical seal on it.
Of course it's very sad that the past effects those who have no personal responsibility for what happened. But 58 years, whilst a long time, is not enough to ensure those who WERE personally effected by it do not have their wounds re-opened by insensitive use of nazi-linked imagary and vocabulary. If might not be YOUR fault, but it wasn;lt THEIR fault either, and THEY are the injured party.
I alo think it's a really bad idea to get into a pissing contest over whether the Germans and their allies did worse things than the British and their allies. Obviously horrid things happen in war, and are done by both sides. The civilian casualties of German cities, Horoshima and Nagasaki, are not things the victorious side can shrug off that easily.
One can take a long historic view that if the Treaty of Versailles had been different, then the Germans would have never been suscpetable to a Nationalistic bigot like Hitler, as their country would have been less restricted in the antebellum period, and that therefore the framers of that treaty are the true cause of WWII.
But I think whilst the people on either side tended to just be people, and whilst those directing war operations went too far in effecting civilian populations for stategic gain, there is a clear difference in the intent and morality of the top of the pyramid between the two sides, and that this filtered down, as it always does given human nature, to the power structure underneath it, and that therefore any pissing contest of morality is one that the Axis forces come put of badly.