Greatest German military songs part 2

[ADFSDF1996]

Here’s part two. Wow I have to say that I’m quite disgusted by how some ignoramuses use the guilt by association and false equivalence fallacy just because I like listening to German military songs that have nothing to do with the third reich. Seriously some people are just too stupid that no amount of education can remedy their stupidity. As the old saying goes, “you can’t fix stupid”. And just because a composer was part of the Nazi party is not a valid excuse to to call some of these songs “Nazi songs” because the songs do not reference politics, the composer(s) weren’t fanatics and the composer(s) never committed any war crimes. But I digress, here are even more German military songs that have nothing to do with the nazi regime

“Im Wald Im grüne walde”(within the green forest), composed during the 19th century, composer unknown: A song about a forest in Germany. It’s famous for sounding similar to glory glory hallelujah at certain parts. It’s still a popular song in Germany today in the 21st century.

“Fredericus Rex”, composed one 1860 by Ferdinand Radeck: A old German song that glorifies Frederick the great and his battles. The song is still played by several German music groups.

“Helenenmarsch”, composed 1857 by Frederick Lübberta: A popular German march that is still played by various German military bands.

“Prussian Praesentiermarsch”, composed 1820 by Frederick William III: A popular march used when German leaders indie t their troops. It’s still used today by the bundeswehr.

“Ich Hatte Einen Kameraden”(I once had a comrade)composed in 1825 by Frederick Silcher: A German requiem for fallen soldiers, it’s based off a Swiss folk song and is still used by the German Bundeswehr today.

“Muss I denn”, date composed 1827, composer Frederich Silcher: A very popular German folk song used by both military and civilian musicians. It talks about random topics like a village and marriage. It’s very popular around the world. It’s most famous version was sung by Elvis Presley.

“Wenn die soldaten”(when the soldiers), date composed possibly 1839, composer unknown: A song about German soldiers marching through a city and being greeted by many women. The song is still played by many German musicians.

Wenn wir marschieren(when we march), composed around 1910, composer unknown: A German march about Germans marching through the city and it talks about beautiful women as well. The song is currently played by various musical groups including the bundeswehr military band.

“Rose Marie” composed by Herms Niel, date unknown: A very beautiful song about a woman named Rose Marie. The song is occasionally used by the German bundeswehr.

“Augen Geradeaus”(eyes forward)composer unknown(attributed to Eric Weinert ensemble), date unknown(during cold war): An East German march popular amongst the national people’s army. It’s not used anymore but many recordings of it are available in m YouTube. Let’s see how many ignoramuses still call it a “Nazi” song even though it was composed in communist East Germany.

Es wolt Ein mädchen früh Aufstehn, date composed unknown, composer unknown: A German folk song about a woman in a forest. The song is still played by various musical groups.

“Drei Lilien”(three Lilies), date composed unknown, composer Gustav Kneip: A German song about three lily flowers. It was popular during WWII but is still played by the bundeswehr.

“Schwarzbraun ist die hasselnuss”(Black brown is the hazelnut), date composed sometime in the 19th century, composer unknown: A very popular German folk song about Hazelnuts which is often used a military march. It’s still played by various musical groups in Germany.

“Monika” composer unknown, composed either during Cold War or 2006: A popular German military song which has mysterious origins. While it’s often attributed to being an East German military song, some people have claimed that it is a much newer song composed as recent as 2006. Although not much info is available on the song, it is most likely an East German song about a woman named Monika.

”wir Sind die anfang, nicht das ende”(we are the beginning, not the end), composer unknown, date composed unknown possibly 1970s: Not exactly w military song but it is too good to exclude. A song about how Germany will rise from the ruins and will one day be whole again. It also speaks against the oppressive East German government in it’s lyrics by saying “brothers in the East, your suffering is our suffering.” “We will never bow to a red dictatorship”. A very powerful song.

These are 15 more great German military songs that have nothing to do with the third reich.

[DamnSam]

Im from Vienna, in the state below Germany

Actual I did learn some of these in school. And you're right, none of them is an actual nazi song, not even partly...

Its not my type of music but I know bader genres...

Marschkapellen still play them and a Marschkapelle is almost in every city with population over 1k... that's a lot of musicians

[BhaniLovesMusic]

Wow Awesome

[goaded]

"Wow I have to say that I’m quite disgusted by how some ignoramuses use the guilt by association and false equivalence fallacy just because I like listening to German military songs that have nothing to do with the third reich."

It must have come as a great shock to you when your previous post was mobbed by a mass of two people, one of who's comment was "lol, Nazis". Oh, the humanity!

In the mean time, you'll bring up the Nazis yourself and slander the left because you're being completely apolitical.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

*sighs* fortunately there aren’t many radical left wingers on this website, so of course there aren’t going to be many of them commenting on my post. It’s not rocket science🙄. If I were to post this on quora, I would definitely get a lot more angry feedback. But again, I’m not trying to “goad” people into posting angry replies, I’m just trying to inform and educate people on faulty logic.

And by the way, the SJW guilt by association and false equivalence fallacies isn’t just present on Girlsaskguys, it’s also present on other websites. But what you are doing is assuming that I’m trying to say that these two fallacies are somehow unique to this website. When that’s not the case.

[goaded]

I'm sure you've tried this on other websites, too, sorry this one disappoints you.

Is there any particular reason you feel the need to "inform and educate people on faulty logic" in this way? Other than to try and make the right look more attractive?

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded There you go again, making more faulty assumptions.

No I don’t do this on other websites. And the only reason I post this stuff is purely for informative/education reasons.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

You what’s kind of funny is how you never complain when someone criticizes the political right, yet you complain when someone criticizes the political left. Are you oblivious to the obvious double standard or do you really think that the political left is absolutely flawless? Either way that’s pretty hypocritical on your part.

[goaded]

And yet you felt the need to "point out" this faulty logic in a Take, then post a music take denying (loudly) that it was Nazi music, followed by a question to talk about the supposed faulty logic of the one person who fell for it, most of whose comments and your responses you'd deleted, so we can't see the logic they used to arrive at their conclusion, and now make a big deal about how terrible the left are in this take, again.

I'm sure you'd be equally shocked to hear there was gambling taking place in Rick's bar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

When the right is being criticised, there are always multiple examples of it happening, just as there are multiple examples of people like you lying and cheating to encourage people to move to the right. Someone even made a video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

[ADFSDF1996]

Because it’s not nazi music, how many times do I have to repeat my self and dumb it down so you can understand? And no I didn’t delete any comments either because I don’t censor people for having different opinions.

Again, what’s with the irrelevant videos? You literally keep evading my points just so you can spout off the same nonsense over and over.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

[goaded]

Post 1: "The left make unfair accusations"
Post 2: "I really like this totally non-Nazi music"... mostly crickets, and people suggesting other military music.
Post 3: "Look at post 2, where two people mentioned Nazis!" (Three, including you.)
Post 4: "I’m quite disgusted by how some ignoramuses use the guilt by association falacy..."

You're not, you're trying to provoke a reaction. Sorry the reaction is that you're trying to provoke a reaction. Sad that you tried again.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded More faulty assumptions and distortions of my points.

Did I not make it perfectly clear when I said that I was criticizing the radical left, yet here you are acting as if I’m generalizing everyone on the left. And no, I’m not trying to provoke any angry reaction. If I wanted to get angry comments I’d go on quora and post this. How many times do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

All you’ve been doing is spouting off fallacious nonsense to make yourself seem credible. Not to mention that you keep evading my points.

Why is it okay to generalize and criticize the political right but it’s not okay to give a simple criticism of the political left? Again, that’s hypocritical on your part.

[goaded]

I apologise, and correct myself:

Post 1: "The FAR left make unfair accusations"
Post 2: "I really like this totally non-Nazi music"... mostly crickets, and people suggesting other military music.
Post 3: "Look at post 2, where two people mentioned Nazis!" (Three, including you.)
Post 4: "I’m quite disgusted by how some ignoramuses use the guilt by association falacy..."

You're trying to provoke a reaction. Sorry the reaction is that you're trying to provoke a reaction. Sad that you tried again.

When the right is being criticised, there are always multiple examples of it happening, just as there are multiple examples of people like you lying and cheating to encourage people to move to the right. Someone even made a video about it.

https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g

[ADFSDF1996]

TSK Tsk, you just copy pasted the same nonsense with a small tweak.

“ When the right is being criticised, there are always multiple examples of it happening, just as there are multiple examples of people like you lying and cheating to encourage people to move to the right. Someone even made a video about it.”
There’s plenty of examples used to criticize the left but I’m not going to list them all here. Again you are just being hypocritical.

And I see you are still using an argument from authority by posting the same irrelevant video from a politically partisan YouTube channel.

Anyways you pretty much just admitted to being a radical left winger. Nice work genius.

[goaded]

You complained about a very minor point, so I "corrected" it. Just for you.

That's no argument from authority, it's just a video that makes sense of what I'm seeing from you in your four "apolitical" posts that are clearly more about the left wing than the music. It's not perfect, but the logic is clear, and backed up by documentation like the Daily Stormer's style guide.

What is your idea of what makes someone radically far left? The whole Democratic party? Half of it?

Even if I was (and I haven't made any unfair accusations, let alone what you're so desparate to hear), so what? I wouldn't have to hide it, because it means I believe in free and fair elections, equality under the law, and not allowing weath generated by everyone to be concentrated in the hands of a few (at least not for generations).

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
I didn’t “complain” about a “minor point”. I simply pointed out a big issue that is rarely addressed.

It is an argument from authority because you are using someone else’s opinion as your strongest counter argument, which is also an irrelevant opinion because I’m not part of the alt right.

“ What is your idea of what makes someone radically far left? The whole Democratic party? Half of it?” I’ve already told you, anyone who is Neo communist, anarchist, or SJW is considered radical left wing.

“ Even if I was (and I haven't made any unfair accusations, let alone what you're so desparate to hear), so what? I wouldn't have to hide it, because it means I believe in free and fair elections, equality under the law, and not allowing weath generated by everyone to be concentrated in the hands of a few (at least not for generations).”

If you aren’t a radical left winger then what’s with your constant vilification of everyone that’s part of the right wing? You think that just because you supposedly believe in “free and fair elections” and “equality under the law” that is enough to not make you a radical left winger? How do we know you don’t only believe in those two things for the benefit of left wingers only. And your third point regarding wealth is pretty much communist.

Funny how you failed to mention free speech/freedom of expression.

[goaded]

Yes, you did: "I was criticizing the radical left, yet here you are acting as if I’m generalizing everyone on the left", that's not "point[ing] out a big issue that is rarely addressed.".

Have you ever heard the expression "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"?

"anyone who is Neo communist, anarchist, or SJW is considered radical left wing."
So, what do SJW's stand for, exactly? Is Mitt Romney an SJW?

"If you aren’t a radical left winger then what’s with your constant vilification of everyone that’s part of the right wing?"
Their wrongness on most issues, and the fact that I don't have to make a family of posts trying to draw out an unreasonable opinion, I just get them when I tell the truth.

"your third point regarding wealth is pretty much communist."
Is it? I thought conservative believed in making their own way, and given all the advantages of growing up in a rich household, shouldn't rich people find that relatively easy?

This guy was obviously an idiot, right? "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.".

"Funny how you failed to mention free speech/freedom of expression."
I didn't mention Pre-K, either.

[goaded]

In fact, it doesn't even have to have anything to do with me.

What do you think about the pizza gate conspiracy? ↗

"it's very real."
" Jews did this"
" Fascinating. "
"I'm gonna be honest here. It seems like every other day, a "right wing conspiracy theory" turns out to be true" (Anon, of course.)
" The evidence is there. "

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded There you go again distorting my points. Seriously you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with your fallacious incoherent replies.

1.) It’s called addressing an issue displayed by a certain group.

2.) What does Mit Romney have anything to do with this? Oh I see, you think that I have issue with the ongoing peaceful protests, don’t you? Well even though I don’t have any issue with PEACEFUL protests. And there’s a big difference between peaceful protests and riots.

3.) “Wrongness on most issues” there’s your political bias speaking. The same thing can be said about the political left wing. And don’t give me that denialist nonsense of “I never noticed the political left wing doing anything worth criticizing.”

4.) You are advocating class warfare, one of the main traits of communism.

5.) Without free speech, you plant the seeds for totalitarianism.

[goaded]

1. That's what I'm doing, yes.

2. You didn't answer my question: "what do SJW's stand for, exactly?" Mitt Romney was an example of someone saying Black Lives Matter; is he an SJW, or not?

3. “Wrongness on most issues” Slavery, racial equality, women's rights, gay rights, trickle-down economics...

4. No, I'm advocating for people to stand on their own two feet; supposedly a conservative ideal.

5. Yes, so stop gassing protesters.

Ducky.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) Nonsense

2.) I did answer your question, you just lack reading comprehension. An SJW is someone on the left wing who can’t respect opposing views without throwing a hissy fit.

3.) Hasty generalization. Most right wingers aren’t racists, sexists, homophones etc. And criticizing 4th wave feminism, isn’t synonymous with misogyny.

4.) Sounds like back pedaling

5.) Have there been peaceful protestors hit with tear gas, yes and that’s uncared for but those are simple mistakes. That doesn’t mean police should stand idly as rioters loot businesses.

[ADFSDF1996]

*uncalled for

[goaded]

1. I'm not addressing an issue displayed by a certain group? (The Alt-Right)

2. Are all supporters of BLM SJWs, or not?

3. They're not, now, but that's the pattern over decades.

4. What's back-pedalling about saying "I thought conservative believed in making their own way, and given all the advantages of growing up in a rich household, shouldn't rich people find that relatively easy?"

Do you know who said: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."?

5. Looters, maybe, protesters, no.
https://youtu.be/JxYmILDya0A

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) I’m not part of the alt right

2.) Some are, some aren’t

3.) This isn’t the 1950s anymore, quit acting like it is.

4.) You changed the topic, originally you were talking about the distribution of wealth. And Abraham Lincoln said that quote, your point is?

5.) Did you not read what I just said?

[goaded]

1. Did someone just quack? Maybe you're just acting that way, I have no way to tell.

2. "Some [supporters of BLM are SJWs], some aren't". So, what does make someone an SJW?

Remember, you said: "anyone who is Neo communist, anarchist, or SJW is considered radical left wing.", so I asked "So, what do SJW's stand for, exactly? Is Mitt Romney an SJW?". It seems like SJW means anyone you don't like, which is a circular argument.

3. Birtherism wasn't in the 1950s.

4. I was talking about intergenerational weath. Limiting that means that even people who were clever enough to choose the right parents have to work for themselves. Not a change of subject. I said: "... not allowing weath generated by everyone to be concentrated in the hands of a few (at least not for generations)."

5. Do you approve of the events in the video? There was no looting or rioting going on.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) Yeah, look in the mirror and see who’s the one quacking

2.) I’ve already told you what an SJW is, I’m not going to repeat myself.

3.) Nitpicking. But you don’t seem to understand that what you consider “wrong” about the right is merely your opinion especially since you are oversimplifying things.

4.) So pretty much you don’t believe in inheritance of wealth.

5.) Again, there’s a difference between peaceful protests and rioting. There’s nothing wrong with the former.

[goaded]

1. OK, so, I'm for social justice, what does that make you?

2. No, you haven't. Quote yourself, or admit you lied.

3. Trickle down economics has never worked, LBGTQ rights are human rights.

4. To an extent, it's acceptable, but don't you think that a $1m inheritance should be enough for anyone? If not, $10m? $100m?

5. Again, there wasn't any rioting going on on Black Lives Matter Plaza last Monday. Do you approve of the way the protesters were treated?

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Unlike you, I actually believe in true equality, liberty and fairness for all.

2.) You really lack reading comprehension don’t you. “ An SJW is someone on the left wing who can’t respect opposing views without throwing a hissy fit. ”

3.) That’s called a false dichotomy, you act as if it’s either “this or that”. Even within the lgbtq community there are different groups, there are gay christisn communities and there are also right wing lgbt groups like the log cabin republicans.

4.) How much a person inherits is that person’s business only.

5.) I’ve already told you that mistreating peaceful protestors is wrong. But that doesn’t mean that the authorities should just stand idly as the looters cause mayhem. Even the peaceful protestors are starting to protect businesses from looters. www.google.com/.../%3famp=true

[goaded]

The original question was: "what do SJW's stand for, exactly?" It seems your answer is: "hissy fits".

I'd say "I’m quite disgusted by how some ignoramuses..." (disagree with your personal definition of what makes a Nazi song) is a hissy fit, so are you a left wing radical? Of course, as long as nobody calls out what you're doing, you win.

People who are rich because their grandparents acquired a lot of money are not, generally, useful members of society. Why shouldn't they be required to stand on their own two feet, especially as they'll have grown up with every possible advantage. And excessive weath affects all levels of society, look at all the people whinging about George Soros, Bill Gates, or the Koch brothers.

Protesters have been trying to protect businesses since the start of the protests, remember the photos of the white guy with the gas mask and umbrella? You're ignoring the fact that there were no looters or rioters at Lafayette Park when the protesters were attacked.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded still bickering?

1.) Yeah way to go with distorting what I said.

2.) It’s one thing to disagree with someone else’s political views, it’s another thing to disagree with the obvious facts that are self evident.

3.) Those are exceptions. I’m talking about the average person inheriting money.

4.) I didn’t ignore anything, I clearly told you multiple times already that there is nothing wrong with the peaceful protestors but that doesn’t mean the police should stand idly as the actual rioters cause mayhem. I even posted a link showing peaceful protestors guarding a store to show that there is a clear difference between protestors and rioters. All you are doing is nitpicking.

[goaded]

I'm just trying to find out what you think.

As far as I can tell, you can't articulate what makes someone an SJW, and thus radical left-wing, other than someone who vocally disagrees with you. I have to wonder if that's because your definition would encompass everyone to the left of Mussolini?

What obvious facts that are self-evident?

So, do you support the idea of an serious estate/inheritance tax for estates worth more than, say, $10m? That would hardly affect anybody.

Your silence on the events of June 1st speaks volumes.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

1.) No you’re not, you’re doing ambush listening.

2.) There’s a difference between disagreeing and vilifying. Don’t put words in my mouth.

3.) The fact that apolitical German military songs are not Nazi songs.

4.) What does paying taxes have anything to do with what I just said?

5.) Oh shut up. I have addressed this over and over. Yet here you are acting as if I’m ignoring it. Again you lack reading comprehension.

[goaded]

1.) What the hell's that?

2.) Yes, in one case you ask reasonable questions, in the other you use words like "ignoramuses".

3.) A reasonable person could accept that some people will look at a German military song written by the long-time, high ranking Nazi who was the conductor during Nazi rallies at Nuremburg and reasonably decide to call it a Nazi song, even though it's not literally about Nazis. You're portraying your opinion as fact, which it's not.

4.) You gave the impression that you thought wealth redistribution was a bad thing, while you were trying to smear me. "... your third point regarding wealth is pretty much communist."

5.) All you've said, over and over is protesters are OK, looters and rioters should be tackled by the authorities. The closest you've come to condemning gassing peaceful protesters is that it was done by "mistake".

See if you can spot the problem, here:

You (paraphrased): protesters are OK, looters and rioters should be tackled by the authorities.

Me: there were no looters or rioters in Lafayette park on the afternoon of June 1st

You: "Oh shut up. I have addressed this over and over. Yet here you are acting as if I’m ignoring it."

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) When you pretend to listen but in reality just want to spout off drivel. It’s a type of pseudo listening

2.) If you say stupid things, one has to question your intelligence.

3.) Any sensible person would have the ability to think critically and be able to understand that mere association is not enough to vilify something. How many times do I have to say that none of these songs have any political lyrics and that composers like Herms Niel were not fanatical Nazis.

4.) Because what you are advocating is taking someone’s wealth and redistributing it like confetti.

5.) The problem is that you are nitpicking/cherry-picking. I’ve addressed that incident in a general sense. It’s not my fault that you lack critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. But here’s a dumbed down version for you, what happened to those protestors on June 1st was wrong. Happy now?

[goaded]

1. Unfortunately for you, I'm listening to both what you do and don't say.

2. It may have escaped your attention, but I've not said Erika is a Nazi song, just that I can see both arguments. However, when you say things like: "I like listening to German military songs that have nothing to do with the third reich", and list songs written by and for Nazis, you can reasonably expect some push-back.

3. Again, if someone hasn't committed atrocities, or isn't, by your definition, a fanatical Nazi, they're not a Nazi? Even if they joined five years before the war? That sounds a lot like the no true Scotsman fallacy, but in reverse. Hey! You've invented a whole new fallacy!

4. No, I'm advocating taking wealth left over at the end of an extremely rich life and not just handing it over to people who haven't done anything to earn it.

5. "what happened to those protestors on June 1st was wrong. Happy now? " Yes, actually, and it wasn't so hard to say, was it?

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

1.) Doesn’t seem like it.

2.) correction, written for German soldiers. And one of those songs was almost banned by Joseph Goebbels for not being “militant enough”.

3.) All they did was sign some paper work to get perks, they never carried out atrocities, which is why they were allowed to go through the denazification process.

4..) Because some people actually need that money to start their own careers. Giving it to random people in small quantities is a joke. But then again, you are acting as if everyone is inheriting tremendous wealth, when that’s far from the truth. Most people aren’t rich.

5.) Like I said, I did say it was wrong multiple times but since you lack reading comprehension, I had simplify it for you.

[goaded]

1. OK. I admit, I'm looking at this post in the context of your other three posts trying to make out that the extreme left are unreasonable for doubting your definition of what makes a song a Nazi song.

2. Who were the German soldiers fighting for?

3. The allies would have had to execute millions if they'd decided all members of the Nazi party deserved to die. If someone had to be denazified, they were a Nazi! Besides, for some (not composers, probably), the perks included slave labour.

4. Did you not start your career until your parents were dead? "Most people aren’t rich", and most people won't be affected by inheritance/estate taxes.

5. No, the closest you came was "Have there been peaceful protestors hit with tear gas, yes and that’s [uncalled] for but those are simple mistakes. That doesn’t mean police should stand idly as rioters loot businesses." It wasn't a mistake, and there weren't rioters looting businesses at the time.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded

1.) Again, it’s not my definition, it’s self evident. Anyone who can think critically can tell the difference between an actual Nazi song like the “horst wessel song” and a non Nazi song like “Erika”. It’s not that hard to understand.

2.) Many were conscripted, do you really think many actually wanted to be fighting a war? That’s why many German POWs were allowed to go home after the war.

3.) Guilt by association and just because fallacy

4.) Each person has different needs

5.) Nope, all you’re doing is distorting my words.

So pretty much, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing with a bunch of whataboutisms.

[goaded]

1. Most reasonable people can understand that it's not a black-and-white question.

2. Conscripts didn't have to join the Nazi party. Soldiers are soldiers, they do what they're told, they don't have to agree with or encourage the ruling party.

3. "Guilt by association and just because fallacy" No. If you voluntarily joined the Nazi party, you were a Nazi. It's not difficult to understand.

4. Not an answer to my question, nor a reaction to the general point that heirs don't earn their inheritance.

5. I'm not distorting anything. Quote yourself saying the Lafayette Park action was unacceptable from before.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) Yeah and distorting self evident facts is revisionism

2.) Exactly my point, not all German soldiers were into politics. And the songs were composed specifically for the German army without any political messages.

3.) Oskar Schindler was a Nazi.

4.) That’s your personal opinion on heirs not earning inheritance

5.) Yet again you prove to lack reading comprehension. I specifically said I was speaking in general, it’s not that hard to understand.

[goaded]

1. Except they're not "self evident facts"

2. Not all German soldiers were Nazis. But all Nazis were Nazis.

3. "Oskar Schindler was a Nazi." Yes, but he joined five years later than Niel, and we know he worked against them. What did Niel do?

4. OK, so what did they do to earn their inheritance? Pick the right parents?

5. I was asking a specific question, answering in general is not an answer.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded
1.) They actually are and I explained why.

2.) Tell that to the people who were saved by Oskar Schindler, Gert Fröbe, Karl Plagge. It’s one thing to join a group, it’s a completely different thing to actually believe in the group’s ideology plus carry out atrocities for the group.

3.) Niel simply wrote music, he never committed any war crimes.

4.) Who are you to say whether or not they deserve the inheritance? comrade goaded

5.) Answering in general is an answer.

[American_Centurion]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gH8qLTobsQo

[irrationally97]

https://youtu.be/ET5F-XahpQo

[goaded]

Isn't that the Eiffel Tower?

[goaded]

And that's the imperial flag from WWI, although the song was written in the 1930's, and the Germans didn't take Paris in WWI.

[irrationally97]

That's just the Mandela Effect

[monkeynutts]

augen geradeaus that was my favourite. Who can take their eyes away from a beautiful lady.

[strateguy632]

many good songs. obviously liking a song , and even praised doesn't imply you accepted any ideology

[cjs31380]

Sink the Bismarck