Something that most people don't seem to understand is that the hatred of Nazis based on their ideology was almost entirely a post-hoc justification for WWII. The original hatred was based on standard wartime propaganda, but it stuck around because the ideology was so heinous.
During the actual war, most people didn't know about the actual atrocities in great detail. Partly because international wartime reporting was (and is) difficult, and partly because German atrocities were largely falsely/over-reported during WWI (because, again, propaganda).
But we don't still hate the Germans or the Japanese, because the war ended and people moved on as the peace persisted. It is fully justified to hate Nazis, but people forget that fighting against Nazi ideology ipso facto was not the initial justification for fighting WWII.
Otherwise, there would be no justification for the significant delay that America took before finally entering the war in full official capacity. Nazi ideology is certainly heinous, but this was more or less a convenient coincidence in terms of historical post-war justification.
The "who, what, and when" of the war (on the side of the Allies, anyway) were almost all motivated by "standard" international warfare that had much more to do with military action, geography, intelligence, and "agnostic" international relationships, rather than ideology alone.
It's true that the actions of Hitler and the Nazis were motivated by ideology, but if a different, less hateful ideology resulted in the Germans taking similar military actions, then the Allies would probably have fought the war in the same way. Anti-German propaganda and all.
In this way, the fact that the Nazis believe what Nazis believe was applied as a convenience to bolster various patriotic and nationalistic narratives of post-war justification, and was/is often oversimplified and retconned as the justification to fight WWII in the first place.
Of course, defeating the Nazis was unequivocally good overall, and I'm certainly happy that if WWII needed to happen, that our opponents held an ideology so heinous that the Nazis continue to act as the standard template for caricatured cartoon villains that persists to this day.
This long winded explanation was necessary to highlight the specific problem that I actually wanted to talk about. The problem is that this post-hoc historical justification is often cited as contemporary justification for imparting violence against those with hateful ideologies.
I'm sure that you've head it in various forms:
"We fought WWII to fight Nazis, so we need to punch Nazis now."
"Captain America punches Nazis. What more do you need to know?"
"Nazi ideology is itself 'violence,' so violence is justified."
"You aren't a Nazi sympathizer, are you?"
"We fought WWII to fight Nazis, so we need to punch Nazis now."
"Captain America punches Nazis. What more do you need to know?"
"Nazi ideology is itself 'violence,' so violence is justified."
"You aren't a Nazi sympathizer, are you?"
This line of thinking is essentially the same as using WWII era propaganda, hatred, and warfare violence against Germans and Japanese to justify contemporary peacetime violence against Germans and Japanese. That would obviously be silly, because we've moved so far beyond WWII.
The problem is that the fully justified (though post-hoc) historical hatred of Nazis is being co-opted and used to conflate fully justified contemporary hatred of Nazis based on ideology with unjustified contemporary violence against people that aren't engaged in violence or war.
Historical narratives and rhetoric against the evils of Nazis, which are more correctly attributed to wartime propaganda and post-war post-hoc justification, are being used for contemporary justification of violence against Nazis as if they still represent a wartime enemy empire.
Further, in true wartime fashion, advocating for reducing violence or ceasing to fight "the enemy" is considered "siding with" them. And because this is justified fully on ideological opposition, it is also considered "agreeing with" the ideology of "the enemy."
This is so dangerous because people legitimately believe that advocating against violence based on ideology is the same as advocating for that ideology. And then, in that belief system, violence is now justified against those who advocate against such violence.
It's completely fine to hate Nazi ideology. Unequivocally, you SHOULD hate Nazi ideology. But it's important to recognize that what someone believes or says, in the absence of direct threats or violence on their part, is not enough justification to impart violence onto them.
"Nazis" today are a group of people that adhere to a specific ideology. "Nazis" are no longer an empire that you're at war with, and they haven't been for decades. "Nazis" also aren't just people that disagree with you on one or more issues. People that aren't Nazis can do that.
In conclusion:
1. Hating Nazi ideology is justified.
2. Violence against Nazis based only on their speech/beliefs is not justified.
3. The history of WWII is not the justification for (2.) that many think it is.
4. Disagreeing with violence against Nazis does not make one a Nazi.
1. Hating Nazi ideology is justified.
2. Violence against Nazis based only on their speech/beliefs is not justified.
3. The history of WWII is not the justification for (2.) that many think it is.
4. Disagreeing with violence against Nazis does not make one a Nazi.
5. Fuck you, Polygon.
