▲ 79 ▼ Germany’s far-right AfD bans leading candidate from EU election events (www.france24.com) submitted 2 years ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments Germany's AfD party on Wednesday banned its leading candidate from appearing at EU election campaign events, after France's main far-right party announced a split with the Germans over a slew of scandals involving the politician.
[–] Opafi@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I thought calling somebody "not-a-nazi" would be okay, but guess I just gotta try to be better. Sorry, didn't want to mess with the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intelisense@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think you misunderstand me - surely being a member of an SS paramilitary group is a violation of the constitution? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Opafi@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago Yeah, it was just a dumb joke. I'll try harder next time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No that's impossible. The (there only ever was the SS, not an number of them) SS was the paramilitary arm of the NSDAP, the political party of Hitler. And it was dissolved with the Third Reich before the Grundgesetz was adopted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intelisense@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) It sounds like the constitution defines Nazism in narrower terms than I expected. That's a shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago You seem to be misunderstanding both the quote and the comment! No offense, i can see how it could be confusing. What Krah said was meant in a historical context. Kind of a "not all SS-members were criminals", basically downplaying the Nazis crimes. The commenter sarcastically called him "totally not a nazi" for that statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago No, there is no definition of Nazism in the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) I think you misunderstand me - surely being a member of an SS paramilitary group is a violation of the constitution? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Opafi@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago Yeah, it was just a dumb joke. I'll try harder next time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No that's impossible. The (there only ever was the SS, not an number of them) SS was the paramilitary arm of the NSDAP, the political party of Hitler. And it was dissolved with the Third Reich before the Grundgesetz was adopted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intelisense@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) It sounds like the constitution defines Nazism in narrower terms than I expected. That's a shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago You seem to be misunderstanding both the quote and the comment! No offense, i can see how it could be confusing. What Krah said was meant in a historical context. Kind of a "not all SS-members were criminals", basically downplaying the Nazis crimes. The commenter sarcastically called him "totally not a nazi" for that statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago No, there is no definition of Nazism in the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Opafi@feddit.de 7 points 2 years ago Yeah, it was just a dumb joke. I'll try harder next time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) No that's impossible. The (there only ever was the SS, not an number of them) SS was the paramilitary arm of the NSDAP, the political party of Hitler. And it was dissolved with the Third Reich before the Grundgesetz was adopted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intelisense@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) It sounds like the constitution defines Nazism in narrower terms than I expected. That's a shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago You seem to be misunderstanding both the quote and the comment! No offense, i can see how it could be confusing. What Krah said was meant in a historical context. Kind of a "not all SS-members were criminals", basically downplaying the Nazis crimes. The commenter sarcastically called him "totally not a nazi" for that statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago No, there is no definition of Nazism in the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) It sounds like the constitution defines Nazism in narrower terms than I expected. That's a shame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago You seem to be misunderstanding both the quote and the comment! No offense, i can see how it could be confusing. What Krah said was meant in a historical context. Kind of a "not all SS-members were criminals", basically downplaying the Nazis crimes. The commenter sarcastically called him "totally not a nazi" for that statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago No, there is no definition of Nazism in the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shapesandstuff@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago You seem to be misunderstanding both the quote and the comment! No offense, i can see how it could be confusing. What Krah said was meant in a historical context. Kind of a "not all SS-members were criminals", basically downplaying the Nazis crimes. The commenter sarcastically called him "totally not a nazi" for that statement. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago No, there is no definition of Nazism in the Grundgesetz. permalink fedilink source parent