Disclaimer: This blog contains high levels of Hitler. My intention here isn't to offend anyone or to "troll", but when one talks about Hitler, one needs to do a disclaimer and say "I ain't about that nazi shit, and I'm just reportin' the facts".
Adolf Hitler (Born 1889, April 20th) is widely considered to be the most evil man to have ever lived. Sorry, Aleister Crowley. The problem with truly that is that very people know who Hitler really was due to his often reclusive and timid nature. Despite his charismatic and blusterous speeches that mobilized Germany to national unity, his private life remains largely in question, leading many people to question whether or not Hitler was gay, religious, had only one testicle, was part of the occult, or even Jewish. Among his staff, Hitler was known for being relatively quiet, with bursts of rage in between his moments of calm. From what I've read, Hitler did not smile often, and was usually in a state of depression.
Hitler, in modern-day conversation and diatribe, is often referenced in a form of an absurd argument called Reductio ad Hitlerum. On the subject, Wikipedia reads "According to Strauss, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party." For example, Hitler became a vegetarian around 1941 and would not consume meat. Does this make vegetarianism akin to Nazism? Of course not. One thing that Hitler most certainly did during his lifetime was continuously breathe in and out, and everyone does that, unless there is some kind of Amazing Fish-Man that I don't know about.
But let's back up a bit. What the hell am I writing about Hitler? Well, I was sick and basically asleep for the last 48 hours, so I had a lot of time to have a lot of interesting thoughts and dreams. At no point did I go "Hey, you know who's really cool? Hitler, man." but I've always been a huge history nerd. The number of history books I've read is ridiculous, but it was also the catalyst for me to become interested in military strategy. I would read about people winning these military victories despite incredible odds, and I was intrigued. Eventually that lead to me playing strategy games, and when RTS games began to come out, I was instantly hooked.
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
But why was there a war in the first place? Most historians typically go back to unresolved issues and vendettas left over from World War I, but if that is the case, how did Japan and Italy (who fought for the Allies in WWI) become allied with Germany?
The reason largely was rooted in what is now known as The First Red Scare in 1919. Having overthrown the Democratic government under Alexander Kerensky, the Communist Party abolished other major political parties, and their leaders were arrested. This move was seen as a dangerous and extremist move by the newly-created Soviet Union, which was not just seen as threat to Europe, but to the entire world, who feared that Soviet spies would start revolutions in Democratic nations all over the world and that ultimately, Russia would attempt to take over the world.
Although the "War on Terrorism" is purported to be a new kind of conflict, terrorist acts, such as bombings and assassinations, have been carried by "anarchists" for hundreds of years, and in 1919, a group of anarchists sent, by mail, a number of bombs to prominent figures around the country in hopes of assassinating them, claiming "We will destroy to rid the world of your tyrannical institutions" and this advent, coupled with labor strikes around the country perpetuated the notion that a Communist revolution could occur at any time.
Throughout most of the 1920s and the early 1930s, The Soviet Union was considered the greatest threat to world peace, and "The Axis", a group of emerging powers like Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an alliance to deter the threat of Soviet aggression. At the end of World War I, Germany was prohibited from building a standing army of over 100,000 soldiers and was completely forbidden to build a competent navy or air force by the Treaty of Versailles. However, in 1932 Germany was allowed to go ahead build a huge military force anyhow.
Adolf Hitler became the chancellor of Germany in 1933, and had already expressed his intentions to build up Germany as a major military power, and called the Treaty of Versailles 'the greatest villainy of the century', and the German government cited the treaty's provision that called for "The Members of the League [of Nations] recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations." while France had effectively built up the world's largest standing army.
France and Britain allowed the Germans to continue building up their military forces as what I believe was a fear of Soviet expansionism. Although Germany and France were bitter enemies, even in peace, Hitler maintained a good relationship with Britain's Prime Minister, and hoped to build a Anglo-German alliance against the Soviets, but such an alliance never materialized. The world's opinion quickly began to turn against the Axis Powers during the 1930s as each Germany, Italy and Japan began engaging in aggressive military conflicts and annexations with their neighbors, while the Soviet Union remained largely docile. The Soviet invasions of Finland and the Baltic states did not begin until after the start of World War 2, when France and Britain had already declared war on Germany.
Nazism and Fascism
On this old American dime, we see the Latin phrase "E Pluribus Unum", meaning roughly "Out of many, one" and a bundle of sticks tied around an axe. This was called a "fasces", which was the Roman symbol for unity. The idea was that one stick could be broken easily, but when tied together around a powerful center, it could not be broken. The word "Fascism" comes from this symbol, but this terminology has decidedly taken a very negative connotation, and is often used to describe a nationalistic dictatorship. A large part of Hitler's power came from the fact that Germany was unified against what they saw as threats from Communism and the French. The Nazi Party drew the narrative that the Weimar Republic government as weak and indecisive, and Hitler referred to them as "cowards" and "treasonous" for giving into the demands of the French government.
When we say "Nazi" today, we usually think of racists, but the original Nazi party was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German. Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government. When the Germany parliamentary building, the Reichstag, was set on fire by arsonists, Hitler and the Nazi Party adamantly blamed the Communist Party, and requested emergency powers from then-German-President Paul Von Hindenburg to circumvent the constitution of Germany and arrest the Communists. Hitler used this power to effectively behead the leadership of all opposing political parties, and the Nazi Party became the dominant political party practically overnight.
The Nazi party was founded by Anton Drexler and Karl Harrer as an alternative socialist party to the German Communists, although Drexler was right-wing extremist. Regardless, the party achieved some marginal success by publishing newsletters denouncing Capitalism and propagating Antisemitism. Both concepts were just fads of the 1920s though, and although the party continued to publish Antisemitic messages, their message became increasingly nationalistic and militaristic, as opposed to being strictly a worker's socialist movement.
Edit: I need to mention, for the sake of my own sanity, that after Hitler's rise to power, the Nazi Party nationalized many large industries, so I guess he's a commie after all, and if this section offended you in any way, please don't hesitate to suck a dick.
Eugenics and Racism
Although Francis Galton is often credited with being the originator of modern eugenics, it wasn't until Charles Davenport introduced putting the hypothesis into practice in the United States that it became something that was recognized as a legitimate practice. Around 50-60,000 American citizens were forcefully sterilized starting in the early 1900s to prevent them from ever having children.
On the definition of "eugenics", Francis Galton wrote:
"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditary endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use"
Galton, however, did not specify any sort of "method" for the "breeding" of superior humans, and did specify a particular race as being the ideal human being, but gauged it primarily on strength and intelligence. Davenport later lobbied to have the idea put into law in the U.S., and this became the blueprint for the much more extreme and brutal eugenics movement in Nazi Germany.
Antisemitism is not a new idea. In 1478, the Catholic Church massacred Muslims and Jewish people living in Spain to secure Catholic power in Spain. In the Middle Ages, Jews were blamed for the Black Death. In the 1900s-1920s, Antisemitism became a widely-accepted view for millions of people around the world, who saw the Jewish people as being anything from a nuisance to a threat. Hitler adopted the view that the Jewish people were not only 'inferior stock', but actually contributed to the defeat of Germany in World War I. Hitler adopted the Nazi Party's philosophy that blue-eyed, blonde-haired Nordic peoples were the ideal stock, and that Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Romani, Blacks, and so on, were all inferior to Nordic people. The Nazis had a term for these people: "Untermensch" or "sub-humans", and declared that for Nordic People to prosper in the world, the Untermensch could not be bred with, and had to be forcefully exterminated.
Hitler later wrote about his views on Nordic People and Untermensch in his book, Mein Kampf.
Mein Kampf
Before his rise to power in 1933, Adolf Hitler attempted to seize power from the Weimar Republic's government in 1923. He was arrested and charged with treason. While in prison, Hitler wrote his most infamous and hate-filled book, the notorious Mein Kampf, which outlined Hitler's plan for Germany's future. The book was also partial autobiographical, which gives historians a rare insight into Hitler's early life, but also a darker look into what Hitler planned to do with his attempted overthrow of the German government. The book declared that Germany would build a new empire in Europe that would destroy all of Germany's enemies. Hitler believed that the first World War was lost primarily due to the perpetrating of 'traitors', who he identified as Communists, Jews, Slavs, and "Cowards".
Was Hitler a Secret Jew?
Probably. The gene pool of nearly any given human being probably has a little bit of almost everything, but according to the Huffington Post, Hitler's relatives gave saliva samples to doctors who determined that Hitler may have had Jewish ancestry. Why a doctor would take the time to test such a thing what relevance it could possibly have are not immediately known outside of exposing what could be a hilarious bit of historical irony. I was reading a Nazi-forum (which I am considering trolling) which denies pretty much everything, saying that all of history is a Jewish Conspiracy, so who knows? Maybe the Huffington Post is a Jewish plot.
Was Hitler Gay?
Probably not, but little is known about the personal life of Adolf Hitler. It is known that he had a deep-seeded hatred for homosexuals, and sent them to concentration camps as some kind of internalized homophobia. However, there is no proof to confirm this. There is proof that Hitler had many female partners throughout his life. And then there's this:
There, I got you the black-box version that doesn't show the nipples or buttocks, because if there's anything worse than Hitler, it's showing human nudity.
Was Hitler Religious or Atheist?
This question needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because it is often a backhanded way for Christians and Atheists to insult each by associating the other with Hitler. However, Hitler was not religious or non-religious in a fundamental sense of these words. Atheists who use Hitler as an argument against Christianity always go directly to this quote:
On May 04 1925 03:52 Adolf Hitler wrote: "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."
However, most German voters were Catholic, and this may very well have been Hitler's way of kissing-ass to gain votes. Later, while in power, Hitler did not publicly denounce Christianity, but made plans to "to stamp out Christianity root and branch", and also said of the large Catholic contingent within Germany:
"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."
We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not Hitler believed in a non-Christian notion of God, but regardless, the acts of Hitler seem to motivated by a drive for political power and racial superiority, neither of which are inherent traits of the Religious or Atheists.
How Did Hitler React When Black People Won Medals in The Olympics?
He was probably pissed off.
Was Hitler The Most Evil Man To Ever Live?
Prior to World War 2, Germany had annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, Japan Invaded Manchuria, and Italy invaded Albania and Ethiopia. The world's opinion of the Axis changed from seeing as a necessary measure to stop Soviet expansion to being an aggressive alliance built to increase the power share of its members. Alarmed by Hitler's exploits in Europe, the United States began to manufacture a massive propaganda campaign against Hitler to bring Americans out of an isolationist attitude and prepare them to make war, not love.
There's also a Donald Duck cartoon (which you may be able to find if it's not banned in your country) which depicts what America "could" be like if Hitler were to win the war, and goes to ridiculous lengths to stress how bad Nazis taking over America would be to the point of being annoying, because Donald Duck has to keep yelling "Heil Hitler!" in order to prevent himself from being bayoneted, and his job is to make artillery shells faster than he can possibly work. When he becomes frustrated with how fast he has to make the artillery shells, he has to say like a dozen "Heil Hitlers" to prevent himself from being executed.
America, Britain and Russia, even to this day, are very anti-nazi, although in the US, the Nazi party is legally allowed to exist, even though virtually every person in the country thinks they are worthless.
So is history being written by the victors, or was Hitler really that bad? Well, we can start off by saying that, even in Hitler's day, racism and eugenics were accepted, but war and genocide were not. The unnecessary taking of another human life is never acceptable, and to imprison and degrade people because their beliefs, religions, sexualities, ethnicities, nationalities, and any other artificial encompassing difference we can dream up should never become an acceptable practice.
So maybe history is being written by the victors, but I like this version of history. I like living in a world where human life is valuable, and even where my Presidents are held in contempt for their actions. There have been major killing machines organized by political parties in our near-present, and these should not be dismissed as something that can never happen again. We thought it could not happen in this day and age, but it happened under Pol Pot, it happened in Vietnam, it happened in Afghanistan, it happened in Rwanda, it happened in Sudan, it happened in the Congo, and it happened in Yugoslavia.
Deaths by war/dictator: World War 2: 60,000,000 Mao Tse-Tung: 40,000,000 Josef Stalin: 30,000,000 Hideki Tojo: 20,000,000 Adolf Hitler: 15,000,000 World War I: 15,000,000 Congolese Civil Wars: 5,500,000 Korean War: 4,000,000 Vietnam War: 3,500,000 Nigerian Civil War: 2,500,000 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: 2,000,000 Pol Pot: 2,000,000 Iran-Iraq War: 2,000,000 Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000 Rwandan Civil War: 1,000,000 George W. Bush:As many as 1,000,000 Saddam Hussein: 600,000 Bosnian Civil War: 320,000 Kosovo War: 3,368
What Do I Think About Hitler?
I think he's a dick. Also, all the numbers above are probably bullshit and part of a Jewish Conspiracy, but when you have a huge fucking war and millions of people die and you have no way of knowing exactly how many died, the estimates can be way off. Some people believe World War 2 may have caused up to 70 million deaths. The North Korean government claims that only 400,000 people died in the Korean War.
So before you get all huffy thinking I'm comparing Saddam Hussein and George Bush to Hitler, I'm not. Killing on a massive scale is very wrong, though. Before the modern age, genocide was something that actually was a natural part of war, and the Mongol conquests may have killed as many as 30,000,000 people. Tamerlane may have killed 20,000,000. Those numbers are staggering, especially considering how much higher the world's population has become in the modern age, so the percentage of killing was much higher, although Pol Pot may have killed up to one-quarter of Cambodia's population.
So, in conclusion, Hitler is a piece of shit, but you probably already knew that if you are a rational human being. Nazi Germany did invent computers though, and I like those so... NO, NO. Fuck the Nazis. America invented the personal computer. + Show Spoiler [videos] +
Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
On January 04 2014 07:30 GeckoXp wrote: ()()△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△(-.-)△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△("(")(")△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△T△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△L△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△D△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△R△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△
THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
Why would people be more unified if we were all one race or nationality? We'd just define subraces and/or kill each other because of other differences. People always find a way to create and "us" vs "them" situation, no matter how similar everyone is.
While Hitlers view on the SU may be correct, saying that Germany was opposing the SU priot to Hitler is a bit off. In fact, Germany did a lot of cheating on the Versailles treaty in cooperation with the Sowjets to circumvent their forcelimits. Larger parts of German military research and even troops were stationed in Sowjet territory during the twenties. Being isolated from the west through the Versailles treaty, the SU was a natural partner for Germany in that time. When Hitler finally officially broke the Versailles treaty, there was not much need for that cooperation anymore though, and his agenda then made the SU an enemy.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
Your question is of the kind that Westerners have since WWII been trained by the schools and the media to regard as evil. The desired reaction is "What a terrible thought crime!" and few can go beyond this. Those that do have thoughts like this tend to keep them secret in fear of losing their job/social ostracization.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
damn man i never thought if that way im just a simple man who like to wonder about things, Ya know FANTASY, like how people make fiction movies out of real events. Dint mean to offend you and i fell your calling me a fasisct. which im not completly sure what that mean. But my ACTUAL wishes on there are no where near the way it is now. I wish we could jump in a meadow singing LALALALA. ...sorry that was a little hard to understand i just wish everyone could have everything they wanted and everyone is happy EVERYONE in the world regardless of anything
Farvacola, are you really considering what you are doing here? Cuh asks a question, and you jump on the opportunity to call him a fascist, which people are now trained to view as a terrible accusation requiring a defensive or apologetic reaction. I guess this is an apt case in point of people being conditioned to view some questions as unacceptable transgressions.
I was reading a Nazi-forum (which I am considering trolling) which denies pretty much everything, saying that all of history is a Jewish Conspiracy, so who knows? Maybe the Huffington Post is a Jewish plot.
I'd like to see this trolling. Though be careful though, these Nazis ain't stupid.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
And yes, It does seem reasonable that technological progress would be more advanced if the money that has gone to "social justice" and "foreign aid" was instead spent on research. It should be possible to recognize this fact without taking a moral or ideological stance.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
You are literally worse than hitler
I'll agree i'm a worse public speaker than hitler, and i have hard time articulating myself online.
i didnt realize i'd be condemned for asking a "what if" question... too bad you dont know me in real life you would never say that...
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
On January 04 2014 08:09 Potling wrote: Farvacola, are you really considering what you are doing here? Cuh asks a question, and you jump on the opportunity to call him a fascist, which people are now trained to view as a terrible accusation requiring a defensive or apologetic reaction. I guess this is an apt case in point of people being conditioned to view some questions as unacceptable transgressions.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
I agree that Hitler wasnt even close. Russia wasnt on their back foot, they had a vast amount of people left as proven by their fast advance after Stalingrad. Only because you are deep in Russian territory doesnt mean you are even close to winning, a lesson that Napoleon had to learn as well. The only chance for German world domination would have been to draw the British and by that the American on their side before the war. The Russian and American industry both proved to be superior on the long run alone, let alone combined.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
There would also have been a drastically reduced amount of possible researcher (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study). That alone should be enough to tip the equation in our favor. Also the nazi's hunger for technology came from the drive to prove that they were superior and the necessity of greater efficiency in the WW2. After the victory these factors would have fallen off.
I think about hitler everyday i think i have some kind of disease, i dont admire him or even paticularly hate him. Think I might have some kind of childhood traumatic memory associated with him.
On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study).
Where did you get this from? And I'm pretty sure the NSDAP didn't consider all non-Germans to be "Untermenschen". Hitler valued every nation included in his concept of the Aryan race, in which he included the Japanese by calling them "The Aryans of the East".
Edit: Here's an interesting tidbit by the "white supremacist" Revilo P. Oliver that may explain Hitler's view of the Japanese. + Show Spoiler +
A nation may also be known by its deeds. We are Aryans, who can think dispassionately; we can recognize great achievements and we can salute with respect brave and gallant enemies. Hitler's recognition of the Japanese as "honorary Aryans" was not merely the slick verbiage that is used in diplomacy to grease a temporary alliance for a common purpose. It had a basis in hard facts. The Japanese had shown, alone among all other races, a quality of mind that enabled them not only to assimilate the science and technology that was uniquely the creation of our race, but also to carry on and augment our work. Writers who are alarmed by Japanese achievement today would be astonished to see how much of what they say was anticipated in 1936 by Anton Zischka in his Japan in der Welt, die japanische Expansion seit 1854, published by Goldmann in Leipzig and widely circulated in Germany, although it openly challenged much of Hitler's policy. {note 17} Zischka used the phenomenal achievement of Japan as a basis for a study of the relative efficiency of the laissez-faire economy of European nations as contrasted with the nationally unified and directed economy of Japan. He made almost no allowance for innate racial differences, but he did wonder why our nations had permitted the rise of Japan, and he more than hinted that our whole race even then faced a crucial decision that might determine its whole future. Of the problem of economic organization he said, "Dass wir es rechtzeitig studieren, mag über Lebenstragen der weissen Rasse entscheiden." (His emphasis.) He did not foresee the war against Germany that traitors in Britain and the United States were then planning, but he did see that Soviet Russia and the United States were in fact allied against Japan, trying to encircle her, and might attack her in the near future. {end note 17} It would have been irrational to deny that the Japanese were an exception to many generalizations about non-Aryan peoples.
The term "honorary Aryan" recognized a similarity that is moral no less than intellectual. Whatever the racial explanation, and despite the great genetic differences, the Japanese are the alien people whose moral qualities most surely command our esteem. Although bushido, the code of the warrior caste, differs in several respects from our chivalry, it is a high standard of personal honor, such as our race instinctively admires and prized highly before our manhood was rotted by a spiritual leprosy. We, no less than the Japanese, spontaneously admire the Forty-Seven Ronin, whose devotion is celebrated in John Masefield's The Faithful; their heroic loyalty reminds us of what Tacitus tells us about the comitatus of a Teutonic chieftain or of the words and deeds of Wiglaf in Beowulf. Our native Aryan (as distinct from Christian) morality lifts our hearts when we hear of brave men to whom the knightly virtues mean more than life itself. And although the practice of seppuku seems to us gratuitously and extravagantly ascetic, our racial psyche still knows that death wipes out dishonor, and that no right is more indefeasible than a man's right to his own life, which can be limited only by a duty that he has assumed and must honorably discharge before he is free to dispose of what is inalienably his.
We must admire the great accomplishments of Japan in her stupendous, though premature, effort to conquer for herself a great empire in Asia, and the energy and valor with which she fought in the Pacific War we forced on her. It is true that prisoners of war were treated with great cruelty, but the Americans, who have repudiated all the conventions by which civilized nations of the West tried to attenuate the horrors of war, are in no position to complain about that; they should instead take what satisfaction they can from the precedents they have set: in the next war there will be no prisoners.
We can only salute with awe and envy the national and racial devotion exhibited by Japanese soldiers, especially the men who went to die alone for their country and people. The heroism of the kamakazehas been reported in a new book, The Sacred Warriors , by Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Warner and a Japanese naval officer, Sadao Seno. {note 18} New York, Van Nostrand, 1982. The book opens with an incident that is probably historical: a Japanese submarine was about to shell San Francisco on the night of 24 December 1941, but was forbidden to do so by the Japanese Admiralty on the grounds that Christmas was a sacred holiday in the United States. {end note 18} It deserves to be read with a solemn appreciation. http://www.faem.com/oliver/yellow.htm
On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study).
Where did you get this from? And I'm pretty sure the NSDAP didn't consider all non-Germans to be "Untermenschen". Hitler valued every nation included in his concept of the Aryan race, in which he included the Japanese by calling them "The Aryans of the East".
Because Nina left out facts, such as the Nürnberger Gesetze, which mentioned how lawyers/doctors were prohibited to practice, as well as things like the Hoßbach Protokoll (which she kind of merged with Mein Kampf). Both are somewhat clear indicators of the course Hitler's / the NSDAP's laws would have looked like (and did), as well as how non-Germans (aka non-Arians with unclear heritage) would be treated.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
You are literally worse than hitler
I'll agree i'm a worse public speaker than hitler, and i have hard time articulating myself online.
i didnt realize i'd be condemned for asking a "what if" question... too bad you dont know me in real life you would never say that...
Chill out dude, these are just semi educated loudmouths who think that labeling others as "bad people" somehow makes themselves into "good" people. There's nothing wrong with anything you asked/pondered.
Personally I think that even if, as farva rightfully pointed out, the impossible goals of Hitler were reached (and he wasn't shooting for total German world domination by any stretch of the imagination, more like some weird white supremacist regime), todays civilisation wouldn't be better for it. And that is even if you ignore the possibility of a nuclear world war (Hitler certainly was crazy enough to try it) and assume some kind of status quo with the US (there's literally, or rather numerically no way for Germany to occupy Russia let alone the US). First, free societies seem to develop faster in terms of social and non militaristic technological advances. (I think it's save to assume that no Nazi society would ever have been free.) Second the entire "supreme race" scheme that was meant to eventually lead into breeding some kind of Ubermensch. However with less and less variety you increase the risk of "inbreeding" which might eventually lead to a race of blonde, blue eyed, well muscled morons. And third I see no reason to assume that the Nazis would have had any inclination to improve the state of humanity in it's entirety- unless you imagine them wiping out the entire 3rd world and replacing their populations with Germans, the problems would still be there and whoever ruled Europe would still rather exploit the 3rd world than help them. + Show Spoiler +
inb4 someone claims I said the EU is as bad as Hitler, lol.
STOP! If you continue to spread actual solid facts about the Nazis and information about 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' I cant relate things to Hitler to try and make unjustifiable opinions justifiable. :O
Seriously though a great write-up, I'm not sure about some parts such as the causes of the second world war. I have always thought that it was the allies being naive and not believing that Germany would use their renewed army for aggression and was instead just a reclaiming of unjustifiably stripped national military pride and independence and by the time they realized the aggressive intentions they were too late to stop them; though on second thought this argument has its weaknesses.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote:
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
Its funny in Britain (at least for me) we were taught that it was the British that won the war, then us and the Americans and then that it was probably the Russians for the most part. I wonder what its like in Russian education.
On January 04 2014 08:56 Snugles wrote: STOP! If you continue to spread actual solid facts about the Nazis and information about 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' I cant relate things to Hitler to try and make unjustifiable opinions justifiable. :O
Seriously though a great write-up, I'm not sure about some parts such as the causes of the second world war. I have always thought that it was the allies being naive and not believing that Germany would use their renewed army for aggression and was instead just a reclaiming of unjustifiably stripped national military pride and independence and by the time they realized the aggressive intentions they were too late to stop them; though on second thought this argument has its weaknesses.
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
Its funny in Britain (at least for me) we were taught that it was the British that won the war, then us and the Americans and then that it was probably the Russians for the most part. I wonder what its like in Russian education.
I've never had any Russian education but I'd be fairly confident in taking an educated guess.
When it comes to the Appeasement policy of the Allies and especially Chamberlain, I tend to think that they realized that they went horribly overboard at Versailles and thus tried to somewhat make up for it by, tragically, enabling a megalomaniacal assholes insane thirst for conquest.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
I agree that Hitler wasnt even close. Russia wasnt on their back foot, they had a vast amount of people left as proven by their fast advance after Stalingrad. Only because you are deep in Russian territory doesnt mean you are even close to winning, a lesson that Napoleon had to learn as well. The only chance for German world domination would have been to draw the British and by that the American on their side before the war. The Russian and American industry both proved to be superior on the long run alone, let alone combined.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
There would also have been a drastically reduced amount of possible researcher (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study). That alone should be enough to tip the equation in our favor. Also the nazi's hunger for technology came from the drive to prove that they were superior and the necessity of greater efficiency in the WW2. After the victory these factors would have fallen off.
I am saying hitler had a positional advantage with his army. The russian's didn't beat hitler because of their superior industry. They won because Hitler's army didn't have proper provisions or gear for the cold russian winter (which the russians were accustomed to already) and it didn't help that it was one of the coldest russian winters in history as well.
I'm not arguging that the german industry was larger than the american industry, there was a great american spirited rally that prooved america to be the #1 nation in the world in terms of industrial force. I think that hitler would have been able to win against either the British + Usa ally help OR against Russia, not both of them at the same time. If he had focused on either one, I would place a bet that he could have most likely won against either one, NOT both of them
On January 04 2014 08:52 Monsen wrote: Second the entire "supreme race" scheme that was meant to eventually lead into breeding some kind of Ubermensch. However with less and less variety you increase the risk of "inbreeding" which might eventually lead to a race of blonde, blue eyed, well muscled morons.
Inbreeding is said to enhance both the positive and the negative traits of the shared heritage, with inbred individuals often more prone to specific diseases. It does not, however, create morons. Hitler wanted the intelligent to reproduce in greater numbers than the unintelligent; I really don't see how that plan would lead to a sharp decline in IQ.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
On January 04 2014 08:21 Smurfett3 wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:29 ninazerg wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
I agree that Hitler wasnt even close. Russia wasnt on their back foot, they had a vast amount of people left as proven by their fast advance after Stalingrad. Only because you are deep in Russian territory doesnt mean you are even close to winning, a lesson that Napoleon had to learn as well. The only chance for German world domination would have been to draw the British and by that the American on their side before the war. The Russian and American industry both proved to be superior on the long run alone, let alone combined.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
There would also have been a drastically reduced amount of possible researcher (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study). That alone should be enough to tip the equation in our favor. Also the nazi's hunger for technology came from the drive to prove that they were superior and the necessity of greater efficiency in the WW2. After the victory these factors would have fallen off.
I am saying hitler had a positional advantage with his army. The russian's didn't beat hitler because of their superior industry. They won because Hitler's army didn't have proper provisions or gear for the cold russian winter (which the russians were accustomed to already) and it didn't help that it was one of the coldest russian winters in history as well.
I'm not arguging that the german industry was larger than the american industry, there was a great american spirited rally that prooved america to be the #1 nation in the world in terms of industrial force. I think that hitler would have been able to win against either the British + Usa ally help OR against Russia, not both of them at the same time. If he had focused on either one, I would place a bet that he could have most likely won against either one, NOT both of them
Doubtful. The idea of Germany "winning" the war against Russia hinges on the faulty assumption that Stalin would have surrendered after losing Moscow. By the time the Wehrmacht was threatening Moscow however, most of the Russian industry had already been moved into Siberia. Russia seemed prepared to continue the war even after such a loss, and Germany simply never had the manpower to occupy such a vast nation.
If find the (ludicrous) scenario of Germany occupying the British isles and coming to some kind of agreement with the US actually more likely than them successfully beating and occupying Russia.
edit: on the topic of Hitler himself, I find that he was a retard when it comes to strategy, tactics, basic human interactions etc. but somewhat of a genius when it comes to mass manipulation. Many of his know character traits seem to correlate with symptoms of bipolar disorder or aspergers. From the terror commandos of the SA, the (afaik first) utilisation of mass media (radio) for disinformation to the systematic denunciation of all (political) enemies- it's just impressive how he managed to (largely) control the will of an entire nation up to and including it's own complete destruction. The impressive asshole savant of propaganda if you will.
For those wondering in the what if's and technology, there is a new tv show called "Nazi megaestructures" not a bad watch Episode 1 about the Atlantic Wall explains a lot about the situation Germani was in when the US attacked.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
"What if" questions are always challenging to answer. I think this is a legitimate question. Those who say that you're evil or stupid just don't understand that 'what if' is not the same as 'i wish.' However, I disagree there would be fewer wars just because there are fewer people. People will always fight against each other and hate each other as long as there's something to gain from it.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
On January 04 2014 08:21 Smurfett3 wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:29 ninazerg wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
I agree that Hitler wasnt even close. Russia wasnt on their back foot, they had a vast amount of people left as proven by their fast advance after Stalingrad. Only because you are deep in Russian territory doesnt mean you are even close to winning, a lesson that Napoleon had to learn as well. The only chance for German world domination would have been to draw the British and by that the American on their side before the war. The Russian and American industry both proved to be superior on the long run alone, let alone combined.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
There would also have been a drastically reduced amount of possible researcher (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study). That alone should be enough to tip the equation in our favor. Also the nazi's hunger for technology came from the drive to prove that they were superior and the necessity of greater efficiency in the WW2. After the victory these factors would have fallen off.
I am saying hitler had a positional advantage with his army. The russian's didn't beat hitler because of their superior industry. They won because Hitler's army didn't have proper provisions or gear for the cold russian winter (which the russians were accustomed to already) and it didn't help that it was one of the coldest russian winters in history as well.
I'm not arguging that the german industry was larger than the american industry, there was a great american spirited rally that prooved america to be the #1 nation in the world in terms of industrial force. I think that hitler would have been able to win against either the British + Usa ally help OR against Russia, not both of them at the same time. If he had focused on either one, I would place a bet that he could have most likely won against either one, NOT both of them
Doubtful. The idea of Germany "winning" the war against Russia hinges on the faulty assumption that Stalin would have surrendered after losing Moscow. By the time the Wehrmacht was threatening Moscow however, most of the Russian industry had already been moved into Siberia. Russia seemed prepared to continue the war even after such a loss, and Germany simply never had the manpower to occupy such a vast nation.
If find the (ludicrous) scenario of Germany occupying the British isles and coming to some kind of agreement with the US actually more likely than them successfully beating and occupying Russia.
fine. your from germany. you know more then me. i cecede my point
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
You are literally worse than hitler
I'll agree i'm a worse public speaker than hitler, and i have hard time articulating myself online.
i didnt realize i'd be condemned for asking a "what if" question... too bad you dont know me in real life you would never say that...
Chill out dude, these are just semi educated loudmouths who think that labeling others as "bad people" somehow makes themselves into "good" people. There's nothing wrong with anything you asked/pondered.
Personally I think that even if, as farva rightfully pointed out, the impossible goals of Hitler were reached (and he wasn't shooting for total German world domination by any stretch of the imagination, more like some weird white supremacist regime), todays civilisation wouldn't be better for it. And that is even if you ignore the possibility of a nuclear world war (Hitler certainly was crazy enough to try it) and assume some kind of status quo with the US (there's literally, or rather numerically no way for Germany to occupy Russia let alone the US). First, free societies seem to develop faster in terms of social and non militaristic technological advances. (I think it's save to assume that no Nazi society would ever have been free.) Second the entire "supreme race" scheme that was meant to eventually lead into breeding some kind of Ubermensch. However with less and less variety you increase the risk of "inbreeding" which might eventually lead to a race of blonde, blue eyed, well muscled morons. And third I see no reason to assume that the Nazis would have had any inclination to improve the state of humanity in it's entirety- unless you imagine them wiping out the entire 3rd world and replacing their populations with Germans, the problems would still be there and whoever ruled Europe would still rather exploit the 3rd world than help them. + Show Spoiler +
inb4 someone claims I said the EU is as bad as Hitler, lol.
edit: 5/5 for Dune2
haha sorry i dont like being called more evil than hitelr, + thats alot of good points i never thought about. its crazy thought how things would be... ok well cya guys around
CENTRAL COUNCIL OF JEWS ON TEAMLIQUID Public Corporation
To the President of Teamliquid.net for the Advancement of Esports, Inc. Prof. Teamliquid Owner Internet
Esteemed Prof. Teamliquid Owner!
The Chairperson of the Board of the Central Council of Jews on Teamiquid, Zerglings Banelings, in a battle.net conversation on just now communicated to himself his concern over the effect of the “expert Hitler blog” of Diplom Poster Ninazerg.
The Administrative Council of the Central Council has thoroughly discussed the documentation and the effect of the blog. It shares the concerns of the Chairman that this “expert blog” could all too easily be used as a pseudo-hearsay proof for denial of the mass murder of Jews. This has happened before – as is known – just search a bit on the forums.
The Central Council of Jews on Teamliquid expects from you, esteemed Prof. Teamliquid Owner, that appropriate measures will be taken by Teamliquid.net and the Teamliquid staff to prevent any further activities of the expert blogger.
The really evil things about hitler is the stuff he was planning to do. His main goal of the invasion of the soviet union was based around "the hunger plan" an initiative that involved clearing out large swaths of the Carpathian basin and western russia so that germen citizens could be moved in in order for them to be self sufficient.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
Nukes may have presented a problem, though I don't know to what extent Germany was developing and pursing that avenue of research.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
Basically yes. But the Nazi Party's primary rhetoric changed from a socialist message to a nationalist message over time, partially to win the favor of big industrial financiers. Most of the nationalization was directed at the Jewish community, with the argument always staying on a nationalist narrative, where all seizures of private property were done to either "arrest traitors" or to build the wehrmacht to defend the homeland.
On January 04 2014 08:32 Rinny wrote: I think about hitler everyday i think i have some kind of disease, i dont admire him or even paticularly hate him. Think I might have some kind of childhood traumatic memory associated with him.
I don't really "hate" Hitler. I certainly don't love him either. I think he makes for an interesting historical character study though. In the western world, it is almost a part of standard education to compulsively be steered in the direction of hating Hitler, but luckily, I didn't pay attention in school enough to get a sense of that, which is why I feel like I can be very objective about who he was. I think I could say the same for almost any other historical "villain", except for that bitch Queen Elizabeth. She knows what she did.
On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study).
Where did you get this from? And I'm pretty sure the NSDAP didn't consider all non-Germans to be "Untermenschen". Hitler valued every nation included in his concept of the Aryan race, in which he included the Japanese by calling them "The Aryans of the East".
Because Nina left out facts, such as the Nürnberger Gesetze, which mentioned how lawyers/doctors were prohibited to practice, as well as things like the Hoßbach Protokoll (which she kind of merged with Mein Kampf). Both are somewhat clear indicators of the course Hitler's / the NSDAP's laws would have looked like (and did), as well as how non-Germans (aka non-Arians with unclear heritage) would be treated.
Yeah, I feel like the persecution / ww2 parts of Hitler's legacy are covered somewhat redundantly by historians. While Hossbach was the policy-making part of Hitler's agenda, it all comes from Hitler's militaristic philosophy, his hatred for the Treaty of Versailles, his hatred for racial and political groups he viewed as parasites, and his assertion that Germany should be able to match, if not surpass, the military power of France and Britain in order to appropriately "defend" the homeland.
The only references I made to the Hossbach Protocol were mentioning Hitler's original interest in Britain as a potential ally, and his intention to engage Europe in war. One thing that I wanted to mention, but totally forgot to mention was the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, and Stalin's relationship with Hitler. There were a lot of other things I thought about including, like Hitler's purge of the "brown shirts", and his idea of Lebensraum, but I felt like it would be beating a dead horse to say "And here's another thing that Hitler thought that was kinda fucked-up..."
On January 04 2014 08:56 Snugles wrote: STOP! If you continue to spread actual solid facts about the Nazis and information about 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' I cant relate things to Hitler to try and make unjustifiable opinions justifiable. :O
Seriously though a great write-up, I'm not sure about some parts such as the causes of the second world war. I have always thought that it was the allies being naive and not believing that Germany would use their renewed army for aggression and was instead just a reclaiming of unjustifiably stripped national military pride and independence and by the time they realized the aggressive intentions they were too late to stop them; though on second thought this argument has its weaknesses.
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
Its funny in Britain (at least for me) we were taught that it was the British that won the war, then us and the Americans and then that it was probably the Russians for the most part. I wonder what its like in Russian education.
In Russia, they're basically taught "We won the war, America sent some supplies, but we won it.", which is actually 66% true.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Well, now that you got shit on by the forumz, I feel like maybe this deserves a slightly better answer. First, my blog is not about World War 2, even though that is a large part of Hitler's legacy. Both sides made large technological leaps over the course of the war, however. The Germans introduced the V2 Rocket as a weapon, created the first jet-engine, created the first "computer". The Allies, on the other hand, had the best propeller plane in the world in the P-51, and the strength and durability of the German Panzers were not only matched, but exceeded by Russian T-40 and IS-2 tanks. The Allies were the first to use radar to spot incoming aircraft, and sonar to spot the German U-Boats. On top of everything, the United States developed arguably the most influential and deadly weapon of the war: the atomic bomb.
So technologically, I don't feel that there would be much difference. That being said, your statement that "if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world" is a quasi-paradox, because hunger and poverty are problems that involve human suffering. War itself causes immense human suffering, so to engage in wars of aggression and to exterminate populations would seem to exacerbate the condition of human suffering. Also, many of the nations suffering from extreme poverty and hunger are in their current state due to constant warfare and 'ethnic cleansing'.
About the prospect of unity: it is a very noble goal to see more unity and less warfare among humankind. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America was more or less very unified, perhaps to a frightening extent, against the "evil Japanese", which has affected my own family negatively, to say the least. If a crowd comes together to hang an innocent man, isn't that unity? Of course it is, but not for a noble purpose. Any sort of unity based on hatred and lies will not last, and Hitler's regime was not immune to disillusionment. Many attempts were made on Hitler's life, although he survived all of them, including a bomb blast that nearly killed him. Unity in the name of violence and oppression simply cannot stand because it goes against human nature, and while it may seem unbreakable, the fasces of hate will die of atrophy.
Like all ideological centralized military dictatorships, Germany had a good start at technical progress impacting military concerns, and eventually lost steam because political considerations impair science in ideological centralized military dictatorships. Germany led the world in nuclear physics research before the war, but Hitler thought a nuclear bomb was a pie-in-the-sky money waster and focused more resources and minds on jet aircraft, tanks, missiles, etc.
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
And the Russians main contribution to winning the war was bodies. The Russkis were shooting ammunition made in the USA, riding in 50,000 trucks made in the USA, riding in tanks made in factories relocated to the Urals under American industrialist supervision (also partially made with raw materials mined in the USA), flying planes filled with aviation gasoline drilled and distilled in the US (literally almost 100% of their avgas), etc. Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and stones without the USA pretty much. America provided the internal-combustion engine mobility that was the Red Army's main advantage over the Germans post-summer of '42.
One of the more weird parts of the war is that America and Japan were blasting the hell out of each other in the Pacific while thousands of American ships were going from the West Coast to Russia chock-full of war supplies that Russia would have lost the war without, and Japan never once tried to stop them, because Japan and Russia were neutral until the very end of it.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
No... He was a strategic moron... The blitzkrieg was probably not invented by him. The only strategic input he had was the no retreat policy which only got his men killed.
The only thing he was good was manipulation and giving good speeches (I assume)
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
He probably forgot about the: Kill the Jews, enslave the Slavs part... Slips my mind occasionally to sometimes.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. Instead of bothering to explain your views or say anything that matters at all, you say that he is wrong and a nazi. Really?
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
That really just describes the nationalist part of Nazism, though. You could simply say "The Nazi Party was nationalist in a ...", etc. and be completely correct. So your criticism is a bit off on that part.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
Ummm...Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica etc? There are many examples where large empires did indeed lead to less internal wars then previously existed in the conquered areas. Cultural, commercial and scientific exchange also flourished and lead to economic growth.
Or how about the USA? 500 subjugated indian nations, occurrences of genocide, systematic destruction of culture and language, countless broken treaties (some of which are legal to this day and still not honored) and yet there is internal peace now and it has become the richest country on earth.
Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No, that's why it is a hypothetical question. Is the idea so absurd that you need to insult his intelligence? No.
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
That really just describes the nationalist part of Nazism, though. You could simply say "The Nazi Party was nationalist in a ...", etc. and be completely correct. So your criticism is a bit off on that part.
There's very little difference between volkisch collectivism and proletarian collectivism. Mostly the difference exists in the self-identity that the ideology promotes. The Nazi world-state is a collectivism of Aryans sacrificing at the altar of the Master Race so Aryans can live in a utopia in the future; the communist world-state is a collectivism of workers sacrificing at the altar of the proletariat so the workers can live in a utopia in the future. Both involve the subsuming of the individual by the State, eventually over the entirety of the globe, to achieve a promised golden age. The Nazis were just a bit more discriminating as to who deserves the ostensible benefits of this global dominion.
Objections to "National Socialism" being described as socialistic and saying "it's the nationalism" are off the mark. Socialism is cultural as well as economic, and nationalism is a form of cultural socialism confined to a single nation instead of transcending borders the way "red" socialism is supposed to (thanks for putting a bullet through the brain of that one, Stalin). There's very little difference between German national socialism and Stalin's Russian-supremacist Soviet Socialism (funny, because Stalin was a Georgian) (and the USSR never escaped the trap it built for itself with its Russian supremacism, even after Stalin). Pre-WWI socialism, a more idealistic socialism, is more different from Nazism than post-WWI, "build socialism in one country" socialism is. Not that the earlier version disappeared, but after Trotsky's defeat it shrank to insignificance (outside of the Comintern, a tool of the NKVD / later the KGB) (which is why the Chinese never really got with it and eventually their own nationalism sent them off in a split with the Russians, Russian-supremacist socialism and Chinese-supremacist socialism can't both rule the world and all that) until socialism itself was tossed on the ash heap of history, and thanks to that, it has not recovered.
Calling the same thing by two different names doesn't make them two different things. At the core of both is a fairy tale wherein the universe is remade by a triumph of the will, backed by (alleged) scientific truth, which requires the individual to sacrifice all or nearly all autonomy of action and thought to the State because the enemies of the utopia can only be overcome by unflinching obedience and a united front that never retreats and never surrenders.
Socialists just have a visceral "NO WAI" reaction to it the same way patriots have a visceral "NO WAI" reaction to how it is a short step from loving your country to fascism.
On January 04 2014 12:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: And the Russians main contribution to winning the war was bodies. The Russkis were shooting ammunition made in the USA, riding in 50,000 trucks made in the USA, riding in tanks made in factories relocated to the Urals under American industrialist supervision (also partially made with raw materials mined in the USA), flying planes filled with aviation gasoline drilled and distilled in the US (literally almost 100% of their avgas), etc. Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and stones without the USA pretty much. America provided the internal-combustion engine mobility that was the Red Army's main advantage over the Germans post-summer of '42.
That's so utterly overexaggerated it's basically just flat out wrong.
From Wikipedia: "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $650 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped. That represented 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and smaller sums to other Allies."
So unless a third of what the British received made a difference equal to "without it they'd have been fighting with sticks" on the by far largest theater of war in human history, you're wrong.
Hard to see a blog topic title like this and not be intrigued. Good intro to the topic, though I personally feel that simply presenting a list of (estimated) deaths by war/conflict/political leader very problematic.
For one, I think it was AJP Taylor that pointed out, it was not Hitler himself who smashed every Jewish shop window, pulled every lever at Auschwitz, launched every V2, or gunned down every Russian. Although Hitler had the highest responsibility, each agent at every layer also bears some responsibility, from the individual to the organization, to the culture and political winds of the time in Germany and the world. The same goes for any conflict.
Also, though a great number of deaths is certainly bad, it masks circumstances and intentions. I would condemn a leader in whose service troops died in the pursuit of immoral goals, and support a leader in whose service troops died for noble purposes. But interpretations of goals vary, as do the motivations and circumstances of the troops and the dead themselves.
I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
If Hitler had won, the war would have extended so far and so long that it would have devastated the world's economy, industry, commerce, and food supplies even more than it actually did, and I would wager a guess that, based on his ideology, he would not have been very willing to fully rebuild much of it, if at all. There also would certainly have been resistance movements like the historical ones in Poland and France, so no on the less wars. Hitler's Germany was not the kind of open and intellectually free society that enables wide ranging technological progression. (Dictatorships can certainly make narrow scientific successes, like North Korea's nuclear project) Finally, there would not be more world unity unless he literally killed off every ethnic group that Nazism disfavored, as well as every ethnic or political group that opposed his goals morally or politically.
Personally, something I find interesting is the political situation in Germany just before Hitler's rise to power. At the time, Socialists and Communists actually were somewhat popular in Germany - the election right after the Reichstag fire didn't even register a Nazi majority - they got 44% while Socialists got 18% and the Communists 12%, even under voter intimidation from the SS. And a year before that, the Socialists had 20% and the Communists 17% against the Nazis' 33%. You mentioned that Hitler rose to power on fears of the Communists and the lesson many people take away is the dangerous ability of a demagogue to rise to power by distracting people with fears of an outside enemy. I feel the real lesson is that his political campaign worked because there were enough kernels of truth in it (there actually was a Communist presence in Germany at the time) despite the fact that it was so extreme and undemocratic (many native Germans truly believed Communism was right for their country, and Hitler banned their party). I imagine many German voters of the time may not have had any grander intentions than choosing the lesser of two evils when they voted Hitler into power.
And on a side note, I think a much more interesting alternate history than "what if Hitler had actually conquered [place he didn't conquer]" is "what if the parties of the Left in Germany of the 1930s had actually managed to work together to take power, instead of Hitler".
hi my goal is not to disparage people trying, but your disheartning lack of objective, the presence of too many holes in your post and your overbearing (perhaps unknowingly) subjectiveness is frightening no subject is wrong, but you chose hitler as if it is an objective in as of itself
i had the fortune or missfortune to cover nazism and fascism in the last centuries 4 times in 3 years when i was 15 to 18 (taught by french and british teachers) and i see too many holes in your op for it to be the bases of anything worthwhile
you are bored and think you will be "entertained" by this, and to this i object (not that it will do anything, but whatever good is done is done)
no, your post is not wrong on so many counts that it is aweful, or missing that many things that it does not stem acolade from people, ..but your stance is non existent too many "troll" posts from you on tl could have shaped my vision, but not to this extent
I could and i possibly will quote correct/fill some of the holes and most vitaly point out where your subjectiveness bores on lazyness or subconcious dimwittingness in your op, but as i typed earlier, the amount of work and motivation required is beyond my time frame (your op, the responses...) the attitude you have (on tl and on this post) is akin to a bored teen aging, and i don't foresee any good things coming out of your rebutal posts to make my enthusiasm/patience grow any more than what i have typed here
one thing may come out of this: you rereading your op and trying to figure where your lack of objectiveness is too much for yourself to bare
on a lighter note, do hope you get well and resume out of bed life
funny thing about being banned from a blog is that one can edit (not to mention double post on purpose for such an anticipated purpose):
as surmised your objective is to have fun on a ill chosen topic
i am not guilty of what you accuse me of, and banning me from posting in your thread after insulting me makes my point for me
i could care less, however, YOU stated : "Disclaimer: This blog contains high levels of Hitler. My intention here isn't to offend anyone or to "troll", but when one talks about Hitler, one needs to do a disclaimer and say "I ain't about that nazi shit, and I'm just reportin' the facts". "
you are delusionnal in thinking that, and leaving said post uncorrected is a bad thing, a sign of weaknessn bread from lazyness
your post is about half truths meant for a meager self serving pleasure trip
this is the opposite of journalism
those are not facts, but only a subjective choice with mistakes bloated on top
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
Nukes may have presented a problem, though I don't know to what extent Germany was developing and pursing that avenue of research.
Well, those Jewish/German/European scientists who later worked on the atomic bomb were forced to flee from Europe... tough luck, Hitler. It's interesting that Oppenheimer, while born in America, was of German/Jewish heritage, too.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. Instead of bothering to explain your views or say anything that matters at all, you say that he is wrong and a nazi. Really?
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. I explained it very clearly, and did not call him a nazi, but I'll digress in the hopes that your panties untwist themselves.
One of the key components of a working fascist ideology revolves around the concept of pseudo-historical destiny, or the idea that a society's success in some way hinges on it being able to follow a path determined by blood identity, community, and some form of idealized, pre-established outcome. Racial purity is one facet of this pre-formed goal, as is the nonsense idea that a Hitler conquered world would somehow fall into harmony. By asking a "what if" question alongside an established outcome ("seems like there would be a lot of unity"), it stops being a "what if" and becomes a "what if this specifically had happened", which is then aptly responded to with "no, that's stupid, such a question feeds directly into fascist ideology". You must realize that those who responded to those questions as I did circa 1936 were either killed, sent away, or threatened (if Aryan) until they promised to never challenge such an "obvious" Nazi destiny again. So yeah, any time someone puts on wishful nazi goggles, it is appropriate to smack them off their head, as we can all clearly see what happens when no one will.
I could and i possibly will quote correct/fill some of the holes and most vitaly point out where your subjectiveness bores on lazyness or subconcious dimwittingness in your op, but as i typed earlier, the amount of work and motivation required is beyond my time frame (your op, the responses...) the attitude you have (on tl and on this post) is akin to a bored teen aging, and i don't foresee any good things coming out of your rebutal posts to make my enthusiasm/patience grow any more than what i have typed here
Well, that's always a good way to start a conversation...
I actually have friends on Teamliquid and from other places who are French and are German, and have read this. They've actually said "Hey, you mixed this up" or "You messed this part up" or "You forgot this". Probably the worst part of my post is defining Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism as political and economic entities, because it's kind of vague. This, however, is not a research paper, and I'm not teaching a history class.
However, to be perfectly honest, pretty much everything you've claimed about me applies directly to you. No matter what I reply with, you're going to say I'm wrong, because you've already decided that I am arrogant and immature. The essence of your post is "I think you are wrong about your definitions of Nazism and Fascism, but I'm not going to tell you why, because I don't have the time to deal with you." Additionally, if you did write a response, I would almost certainly cringe at the content of such a post because your style of writing is virtually unreadable.
On January 04 2014 15:58 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:49 farvacola wrote:
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. Instead of bothering to explain your views or say anything that matters at all, you say that he is wrong and a nazi. Really?
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. I explained it very clearly, and did not call him a nazi, but I'll digress in the hopes that your panties untwist themselves.
One of the key components of a working fascist ideology revolves around the concept of pseudo-historical destiny, or the idea that a society's success in some way hinges on it being able to follow a path determined by blood identity, community, and some form of idealized, pre-established outcome. Racial purity is one facet of this pre-formed goal, as is the nonsense idea that a Hitler conquered world would somehow fall into harmony. By asking a "what if" question alongside an established outcome ("seems like there would be a lot of unity"), it stops being a "what if" and becomes a "what if this specifically had happened", which is then aptly responded to with "no, that's stupid, such a question feeds directly into fascist ideology". You must realize that those who responded to those questions as I did circa 1936 were either killed, sent away, or threatened (if Aryan) until they promised to never challenge such an "obvious" Nazi destiny again. So yeah, any time someone puts on wishful nazi goggles, it is appropriate to smack them off their head, as we can all clearly see what happens when no one will.
Sorry buddy, it doesn't matter in what or how many words you pack it- it remains an asshole response as you've been told by several different people already.
On January 05 2014 00:59 farvacola wrote: Actually, scratch that, I am an asshole. That's sort of the point.
I just want to throw this out there - but I think you might be literally worse than Hitler.
Jigglypuff Esportz Volume 3
A collaboration between a spiteful German and a mentally unstable American, what could go wrong
Letter from the Editor
Rejoice, children of Aiur, for GGE #ggesports #esports #cuteandcuddly #reincarnation has returned. Like eSports, the e-magazine died from a lack of prize money, but through the sales of some delicious lemonade, we managed to scrape together enough prize money to inspire our writers to work again. Of course, they don't get any of the money. Sziky gets it all. But it's there to get them excited. Still most of the former writers have switched from writing to Hearthstone, which they feel is more casual than writing even though it's totally pay-to-win. Don't worry, though, we got MaxTerran and LuigiKart back. Helen never left. She stayed around the office just to spite me personally even though I told her she was fired. She is the worst. Simply the worst. I wish she would just fall over and die. Helen, if you're reading this, please, for the love of God, just drop dead. Stop living. Stop it. Keel over, bitch. Nobody wants to hear you complain about the weather, because in the winter, it's always "Way too cold" and in the summer it's always "Way too hot", and nobody wants to hear about your cat puked on an autographed picture that you clearly made yourself. And certainly nobody trusts you to make them coffee because you probably spike it with cyanide. I hate you, Helen. Please leave the office, or I will call the police.
Uh, so, that was awkward. I'm sorry you all had to see that. But anyhow, the world of eSports has been volatile from day 1, and we have teams/leagues disbanding left and right like a wizrad, and so this issue of GGE is dedicated to saving eSports. We can do this guys. We just need to hack into Blizzard's network and recode their games to meet the specifications we're asking for, however, to do this, we need a lot of money. Now, I have never accepted money from strangers in my life, and when my boss gave me my first paycheck at work, I told him to go shove the Pyramids of Giza up his butthole, but if super-kawaii azn gurlzzz :3 who are in Gold League can ask for money, so can we. We have a model that we follow here: if it's cute, it must be right. Cuteness is our creed, it's in our blood and sweat. So if someone cute was cooking crystal meth, we'd totally do that! ^_^ However, back to the money thing. So, we know this hacker. He lives in Romania and we have confirmed that he is neither a vampire or a gypsy, but he wants $50,000 dollars for the hax we need to save eSports from Blizzrad. We, however, have a plan: If 1,000 people each buy one hockey card for 10 dollars each, and then sell it for 20 dollars each, that's like 90,000 dollars. We can totally do this, guys! This plan is flawless!!!
So, cuddle up with your reaver (unless you play SC2, then cuddle up with your adorable Colossus or whatever), grab a mug of hot cocoa mixed with vodka, put on your favorite pair of pink bunny slippers, turn off that damn noise you kids call 'music', put "TV" in your twitch ID, and get ready for the most best issue of GGE, because this one will make your head fucking explode!
Protoss is fucking imbalanced
By MaxTerran
Fuck Protoss. I just want to make this clear: fuck Protoss. They get a fucking mothershit core, and if you try to harass, they can just put up force fields, and if you do drops, guess what? They just warp in units right next to your drop, so all you can do is do a macro game where they just form a death ball of storms and colossus and you have to micro perfectly and still lose anyhow, so fuck you, Protoss fuckers. Fuck you. All they do is do 1a, then leave their computer to go look at gay porn while I micro for my life. And I hate you fucking commentators who fucking yell about the beautiful storms that all the fucking gaytosses are doing because ooooh it's so hard to press the "t" key, but all the casters are gay noobs who are gay for Protoss and can't wait for the thermal lance upgrade so Colossus can extend their range so they can suck that extended range. It's the dumbest no-skill race and Blizzard took everything from us. Hellbats? Gone. Medivac speed? Gone. Widow mines? Nerfed. Ghost snipe? Nerfed. We have nothing. WE HAVE FUCKING NOTHING. FUCK YOU, PROTOSS. YOU DUMBSHITS NEED TO STOP THINKING YOUR WINS ARE LEGITIMATE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SKILL YOU BITCHES.
Note from editor: Shortly after writing this article, a huge bulging vein on the side of MaxTerran's head burst open and he had to be rushed to a nearby hospital where doctors describe his situation as "Stable, but angry".
To come:
- Shocking Tossgirl Plastic Surgery Pics - Shocking Nude Pics of Ellen Page Discovered by Albanian Teenager - Jeppe works in the potatoe factory - TwitchPlaysTetris ends in failure - PHÂT PHÙC restaurant sponsors new starleague - BREAD! - Interview with Skzlime - How doge might save eSports - SC2 is officially "complete shit" - The cute corner - Puck's many painful surgeries - Shauni's tips on how to acquire pussy - What July is REALLY doing - Campaign to get EvinKura his shirt #stopricksanchez2014 - How to get a game of BroodWar - Random girl joins random team! - Closing thoughts - Epiclogue aka Why are Germans so angry?
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
Ummm...Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica etc? There are many examples where large empires did indeed lead to less internal wars then previously existed in the conquered areas. Cultural, commercial and scientific exchange also flourished and lead to economic growth.
Or how about the USA? 500 subjugated indian nations, occurrences of genocide, systematic destruction of culture and language, countless broken treaties (some of which are legal to this day and still not honored) and yet there is internal peace now and it has become the richest country on earth.
Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No, that's why it is a hypothetical question. Is the idea so absurd that you need to insult his intelligence? No.
Rofl. Yeah you are right. The Gauls just picked flowers after Julius enslaved their women and sons. No wonder the Romans held that swath of territory.
"Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No..." - Are you serious? So you agree with me and I answered his question that specifically pertains to Nazi Germany, but you find his thinking rational? Look, I'm just trying to set him straight since he seems to believe that there would have been unity and peace in concentration camp happy Germany. Yeah, I think that is absurd. Highly.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
Ummm...Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica etc? There are many examples where large empires did indeed lead to less internal wars then previously existed in the conquered areas. Cultural, commercial and scientific exchange also flourished and lead to economic growth.
Or how about the USA? 500 subjugated indian nations, occurrences of genocide, systematic destruction of culture and language, countless broken treaties (some of which are legal to this day and still not honored) and yet there is internal peace now and it has become the richest country on earth.
Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No, that's why it is a hypothetical question. Is the idea so absurd that you need to insult his intelligence? No.
Rofl. Yeah you are right. The Gauls just picked flowers after Julius enslaved their women and sons. No wonder the Romans held that swath of territory.
"Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No..." - Are you serious? So you agree with me and I answered his question that specifically pertains to Nazi Germany, but you find his thinking rational? Look, I'm just trying to set him straight since he seems to believe that there would have been unity and peace in concentration camp happy Germany. Yeah, I think that is absurd. Highly.
That's not what you said though. If we ignore the shitty way you started your post with (opening insult always a pro move) we find that you were talking about a general scenario in which a conquered nation might or might not "submit". He pointed out several historic occasions where arguably conquest somewhat improved stability in response. Also there have been plenty of occasions where conquered people simply assimilated into the conquering nation. Does this apply to WW2 and Nazi Germany? Of course not. Is the notion of a conquering nation improving stability by force always ridiculous? Of course not. You need to get of your high horse.
I could and i possibly will quote correct/fill some of the holes and most vitaly point out where your subjectiveness bores on lazyness or subconcious dimwittingness in your op, but as i typed earlier, the amount of work and motivation required is beyond my time frame (your op, the responses...) the attitude you have (on tl and on this post) is akin to a bored teen aging, and i don't foresee any good things coming out of your rebutal posts to make my enthusiasm/patience grow any more than what i have typed here
Well, that's always a good way to start a conversation...
I actually have friends on Teamliquid and from other places who are French and are German, and have read this. They've actually said "Hey, you mixed this up" or "You messed this part up" or "You forgot this". Probably the worst part of my post is defining Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism as political and economic entities, because it's kind of vague. This, however, is not a research paper, and I'm not teaching a history class.
However, to be perfectly honest, pretty much everything you've claimed about me applies directly to you. No matter what I reply with, you're going to say I'm wrong, because you've already decided that I am arrogant and immature. The essence of your post is "I think you are wrong about your definitions of Nazism and Fascism, but I'm not going to tell you why, because I don't have the time to deal with you." Additionally, if you did write a response, I would almost certainly cringe at the content of such a post because your style of writing is virtually unreadable.
That's why one shouldn't write on the subject matter if one isn't educated well enough in it. A small fact that isn't correct may and will cause misinterpretation among other people and/or nations.
Hitler wasn't the cause of the war, more likely it was the seriously unfair conditions of the Versaille' treaty and the horrible economic conditions at the time. Hitler wanted war, but only to get back their lost lands and get rid of the unfair limitations of the Versaille treaty. Italy and Japan joined him, because they got less out of the Versaille treaty than they had hoped for (US was fearful of Japan getting control of Asia).
There were many reasons for the war, and Hitler shouldn't be called a 'dick', as he definitely wasn't the most evil person to walk on earth. The most evil person is probably the person who controls the banks in Switzerland (why else wasn't Switzerland conquered?)
Estonia was occupied by Russians and Germans, but life under German rule was probably better. Some would agree, others would argue - matter of perspective. US and UK abandoned the Baltic states so I have no sympathy towards them either (at least President Bush apologized).
And why did you list just some former head's of state, why not name them all.
Anyways, talking about history seems pretty pointless. We won't ever know all the facts, and there's definitely going to be some misinterpretation. Total objectivity is not accepted as well - we can't talk about it without emotions.
How dare you call Hitler a dick, Nina! Good thing we still have people willing to speak up when someone calls Hitler a dick. When no one speaks for Hitler, who will speak for me?
On January 05 2014 03:21 farvacola wrote: How dare you call Hitler a dick, Nina! Good thing we still have people willing to speak up when someone calls Hitler a dick. When no one speaks for Hitler, who will speak for me?
lelelel im funny lol sarcasm
This is what I meant when I said that there isn't no objectivity or emotions involved
Ah yeah, that Swiss Banker Guy was pretty evil too I suppose.
But yeah, Hitler started the war. He purposefully violated the Treaty of Versailles, sent troops into Austria and Czechoslovakia, and then invaded Poland after signing a treaty declaring that he would stop being a dick and invading countries.
I could and i possibly will quote correct/fill some of the holes and most vitaly point out where your subjectiveness bores on lazyness or subconcious dimwittingness in your op, but as i typed earlier, the amount of work and motivation required is beyond my time frame (your op, the responses...) the attitude you have (on tl and on this post) is akin to a bored teen aging, and i don't foresee any good things coming out of your rebutal posts to make my enthusiasm/patience grow any more than what i have typed here
Well, that's always a good way to start a conversation...
I actually have friends on Teamliquid and from other places who are French and are German, and have read this. They've actually said "Hey, you mixed this up" or "You messed this part up" or "You forgot this". Probably the worst part of my post is defining Nazism, Fascism, and Socialism as political and economic entities, because it's kind of vague. This, however, is not a research paper, and I'm not teaching a history class.
However, to be perfectly honest, pretty much everything you've claimed about me applies directly to you. No matter what I reply with, you're going to say I'm wrong, because you've already decided that I am arrogant and immature. The essence of your post is "I think you are wrong about your definitions of Nazism and Fascism, but I'm not going to tell you why, because I don't have the time to deal with you." Additionally, if you did write a response, I would almost certainly cringe at the content of such a post because your style of writing is virtually unreadable.
There were many reasons for the war, and Hitler shouldn't be called a 'dick', as he definitely wasn't the most evil person to walk on earth.
TIL that only the most evil person on the planet should be called a dick, otherwise its just to mean
There are numerous errors in the OP, but generally the point remains valid: historical figures are known by ear, and often in our age of depersonalised abstractions, we confuse the the conceptual impressions of a man with the man himself.
As far as the question go, while Hitler's private personality remains elusive, the broader questions raised are not very controversial: The is very little evidence for Hitler's alleged homosexuality or other depravities. Books like Lothar Machtan's Hidden Hitler proclaiming Hitler's homosexuality is a load of CI psychoanalysis which is not taken seriously by serious historians. Although allegations of Hitler's sexual depravities surface again and again on the history channel, they are largely based on completely disreputable sources of legend and propaganda, including the wartime OSS reports based on the testimony of Nazi defect Hanfstaengl, and put together by the psychoanalyst Walter Langer. Read against post-war analyses of Hitler, all of these things fall apart, but they keep surfacing in popular culture, because they reflect the reality that people, particularly Americans wanted to believe, that the Hitler legend was reinforced by an Dickensian portrait revealing an abnormal and highly eccentric figure.
Without calling him ordinary, Hitler was a very complicated and mysterious human being. Despite the fact that historical literature on him dwarfs the volumes written about his other great contemporaries: Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and Mussolini, he is perhaps the most elusive of them all when it came to distilling a core being. As a youth he was an outcast and lonely idealist. His social non-conformity and sense of rebellion against the patriarchal authority of his small-town upbringing contributed his lack of vocational or academic success, despite his intelligence and natural knack for leadership. In any case, his resentment of the bourgeois world and its values lasted until the end of his life. One thing we notice at the initial phase of his life was his duality. His behaviour was always extremely polite, but in his politeness was a rigid formality which cloaked personal detachment. Despite being a poor orphan after 1907, he impressed most people as belonging to a more respectable class by his reserved and formal bearing. Until the end of his life, he would never use the familiar du form with any of his associates, not even those close to him. His extreme formality, politeness and detachment was especially notable with women, and today there are myriads of questions surrounding his relationships with the most important women in his life.
Beneath the calm and conformity there was a volcanic soul disturbed by sublime visions. Having dropped out of the Realschule his mother put him in to secure some kind of certain future for him, he had no appetite for study, and was positively bored by most academic content. One exception he made for history, which he loved. He did not seem to establish any close rapport with any of his provincial peers until the age of 15 or 16, when he met August Kubizek at a performance of the Linz Opera.
In any case, he decided that he was going to pursue his artistic ambitions by entering the Fine Arts Academy of Vienna. Contrary to common dictum, Hitler was not untalented as a watercolourist, and his failure to secure entry to the highly competitive academy was not an omen of some kind of cognitive dissonance. After an interview with the director of the academy, Hitler became convinced that he was more an architect than an artist, but here again, his lack of a formal education prevented him from pursuing his vision. Hitler's later enthusiasm for personal talent, and imagination and vision over orthodoxy, education and bureaucracy stemmed from this original sense of injured merit.
In the years between his mother's death and the outbreak of the First World War, he lived in frightening isolation and loneliness. He sketched, he painted, and he read. Above all he watched, absorbed, and resented the mundane society around him, and their alltägliche Values. Hitler was a German romantic, but he shunned the cultural decadence of fin-de-siecle Vienna as much as he shunned the trivial culture of provincial Linz. Having had little formal education, he lent and read many books, and cultivated a self-taught intelligence which was more inspired than academic. His remarkable gift for remembering all kinds of historical and technical details were in his formative years dormant, but would later make him an impressive debater who impressed academic and military professionals, especially since he lacked their vocational training. In the sum, Hitler's Viennese years probably impressed him with a Kafkaesque sense of alienation from the world he lived in. All around him he saw people pursuing vain pleasures of the absurd, the spiritual emptiness behind their drawing room manners and worldly affectations. His reading of history had already reinforced in him the conviction, that in lieu of the personal estrangement which he drew from his natural habitat, the German nation was a surrogate community to which he gave his mind and soul. This explains why two years before the war, Hitler would dodge the draft in Austria, choosing to flee to Bavaria, yet when the World War broke out, Hitler immediately volunteered for the German army.
During the war Hitler was a good and conscientious soldier. He was as physically frail and socially isolated as ever, but he never complained about the ordeals of life in the trenches. He later wrote that serving as a common soldier in the war was the happiest time of his life, and that the experience of the war was his real schooling. In any case, he preferred sketching and writing poetry to fraternisation with his comrades, and preferred to draw affection from a stray dog which wandered into the trenches, Fuchsl, than from human contact. Reinforcing his emotionally spartan habits were his personal abstemiousness which accompanied him through his life: he disliked the lower pleasures, and had no taste for cigars, alcohol or strumpets.
One facet of Hitler that must be remarked upon was his perfect seriousness in all things. He had no sense of humour, and was never trivial. All the ideas and inspirations which attracted his attention were gigantic, and were treated with the gravest contemplation. Surveying his life, one gets the sense that there were no scenes of comedy, as would intersect the ligaments a Shakespearean tragedy. The pathos of his entire life was that of an enormous melodrama: a startling story of a man's rise from obscurity to the greatest summits of destiny by sheer force of will, only to be destroyed by the same daemonic energies which created him. In the intersections one senses few moments of either calm or true happiness.
After the war, there were Hitler's experiences as a political operative in Munich, in which role he stumbled upon the National Socialist Workers' Party. Many of Hitler's biographers have remarked upon the alarming milestone which Munich had upon his life; prior to the age of 30, his life was an unremarkable wasteland of loneliness and failure. In Munich however, speaking among the politically agitated beer halls of the post-war city, he found his voice. Or rather, he discovered his remarkable ability to influence people. This was extraordinary considering his secluded and asocial existence up to this point; when he emerged, he was more prophet than politician. This talent became indispensable to his party and later on, to his political success. Up until that point in his life, Hitler was tormented by his futile dreams. Now, when the Great War had destroyed those bourgeois pillars of society which excluded him from a role of importance and influence, he suddenly found hundreds, and later thousands and millions of willing listeners to his gospel.
In another way too, the Great War was a catalyst for the coming of Hitler, for it had swept away the conflict between the Byronic individual and his society, by imbibing them in the collective trauma of war and defeat. The uprooted and frustrated idealist was in post-war Germany no longer an outsider, but a mirror to millions of anguished people.
Therefore it is no hypothesis to say that Germany's defeat in war saved Hitler from a life of obscurity. However, it is too much to say that Hitler's history infers some kind of superficial ideologue with monomaniacal visions. One mistake ordinary people, and even historians make with Hitler is that they mistake the surface for the core. They will read his speeches, or even Mein Kampf, and say: well, there it is in Hitler's own words. With Hitler it's not that simple. Some things he said for political expediency, some things he wrote in reaction to a discrete situation. His deepest motivations, like Iago, are frustratingly elusive. This is why Mein Kampf is not a very good guide for tracing Hitler's ideology when he became Reichskanzler, because his social critiques and programmes were already outdated by the 1930s. One of the most obvious examples is how insignificantly the concept of Lebensraum actually figured in his foreign policy after he assumed power.
The reason largely was rooted in what is now known as The First Red Scare in 1919. Having overthrown the Democratic government under Alexander Kerensky, the Communist Party abolished other major political parties, and their leaders were arrested. This move was seen as a dangerous and extremist move by the newly-created Soviet Union, which was not just seen as threat to Europe, but to the entire world, who feared that Soviet spies would start revolutions in Democratic nations all over the world and that ultimately, Russia would attempt to take over the world.
Concerning the Western reaction to the October Revolution: the danger as perceived by London was not the threat of Russian infiltration of Germany, but the reverse. Initially, it was feared that the Bolsheviks were the puppets of the Germans, and in any case their accession to power tremendously benefited the German position in Eastern Europe. The initial allied expeditions to Murmansk, then to Archangel and the Japanese-American landing in Vladivostok was not designed to overthrow the Bolsheviks, but to prevent the military stores from falling into German hands. The suspicion among the Western allies that the Russian Revolution was a proxy for German domination was the original seed which poisoned relations between Russia and the West.
Throughout most of the 1920s and the early 1930s, The Soviet Union was considered the greatest threat to world peace, and "The Axis", a group of emerging powers like Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an alliance to deter the threat of Soviet aggression.
German foreign policy was not monomaniacally anti-Soviet, not even during Hitler's chancellorship. The anti-Comintern pact was signed in 1936, at a time when Soviet foreign policy under the guidance of Litvinov was veering in an anti-German line, most notably in the consummation of the Franco-Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty of 1935. The anti-Comintern pact was a tactical move with wide-ranging consequences down the line, but its immediate motivations served the purpose of ending German diplomatic isolation. Militarily, its intentions were neither explicitly defensive nor offensive. It created more manoeuvring room for Hitler vis-a-vis the West. Consider for example, Hitler's attempt to drive a wedge between Britain and France with the 1935 naval treaty. The main obstacle to German foreign policy aims in 1936 was France, not the Soviet Union.
France and Britain allowed the Germans to continue building up their military forces as what I believe was a fear of Soviet expansionism. Although Germany and France were bitter enemies, even in peace, Hitler maintained a good relationship with Britain's Prime Minister, and hoped to build a Anglo-German alliance against the Soviets, but such an alliance never materialized.
As usual with Hitler, it is easy to overemphasise ideology over strategy. Ideally, yes, Hitler wanted a Britain which accepted German domination of Central-Eastern Europe in exchange for a German acceptance of British global and maritime supremacy. This was based on Hitler's reading of history as well as ideology: Hitler had been a critic of Wilhelminian Weltpolitik because it had been based too much on prestige and not sufficiently on material gain. Hitler's particular vision of an Anglo-German modus vivendi was based on the notion that Britain and Germany were asymmetrical powers, competing upon different platforms on the world stage. The powers most dangerous to Britain's world position, Hitler calculated, were America and Japan. Germany had little to profit from the bankruptcy of the British Empire. Nonetheless, when he found that Empire ranged irreconcilably against him during the war, he had little reserve in inviting Italy, Russia and Japan to carve it up with him.
Hitler exploited Chamberlain's political prejudices, but despised him personally. The traits which he despised in foreign statesmen were the same as those he despised among fellow Germans: pacificism, internationalism, and the bien-pensant politics of bourgeois democracies. During the Rhineland crisis he turned to his associates and said: 'Now we shall see if France has statesmen.' Concerning Chamberlain's capitulation in Munich, he would later say: 'Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich.' Hitler despised the notion of great nations being led by feeble-hearted leaders. His own sense of history was fairly Rankean, and he admired William Pitt as well as Frederick the Great.
The world's opinion quickly began to turn against the Axis Powers during the 1930s as each Germany, Italy and Japan began engaging in aggressive military conflicts and annexations with their neighbors, while the Soviet Union remained largely docile. The Soviet invasions of Finland and the Baltic states did not begin until after the start of World War 2, when France and Britain had already declared war on Germany.
With regard to Italy and Japan, this was true to a limited extent. The Italian invasion of Abyssinia triggered a rift between Britain and Italy which was never repaired, and in the end harmed British interests immensely after 1936. France was put in the awkward position of the middleman, afraid to alienate either power. Ultimately it was Britain, not France, which threw Mussolini into Hitler's camp. Pierre Laval tried his best to reconcile Mussolini to no avail.
Similarly, it was not Britain and France, but the United States which reacted with the greatest indignation to the second Sino-Japanese war. Britain and France were fairly neutral, until the Japanese came to their own conclusions about which faction they wished to align with in Europe, and America's gravity pulled them to the other side.
Germany went beyond the pale with the march into Prague in March 1939. Prior to that, the British were indifferent to German expansionism in Europe as long as it was achieved peacefully. France had a more direct interest, but she was unable to pull the British into a more assertive policy. The march into Prague led to a tectonic shift in the foreign office, where first Eden, then Chamberlain fell into a dudgeon of disbelief. There is an interesting timeline on Chamberlain's shift in attitudes between the Birmingham speech 2 days after Prague, and his Commons speech 2 weeks later, in which guarantees were offered to Poland, Romania and Greece. They were rather spontaneous and poorly-conceived, which rather reflected its author's illness about being forced into that position by Hitler. To the last, Chamberlain was hesitant in carrying them out to the brink of war. Hitler knew this, which is why the German-Polish negotiations in summer 1939 were primarily designed to drive a wedge between Britain and the Poles, and give Chamberlain an honourable way to retract his Polish guarantee.
The Nazi Party drew the narrative that the Weimar Republic government as weak and indecisive, and Hitler referred to them as "cowards" and "treasonous" for giving into the demands of the French government.
Again, there is a distinction between aims and strategy. It is interesting to note that when the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 provoked international condemnation, and triggered a vast wave of strikes and protests among everyone in Germany, the Nazi party forbade their own members' participation in the anti-French protests. Hitler saw how the French invasion aided the aims of the Nazi party, by undermining the legitimacy of the Weimar regime. Later on he would say of Stresemann's foreign policy that the old statesman had some successful talents, but he made a cardinal mistake: he hoped that by achieving successes in foreign policy, he could unite the German people behind his government, whereas the truth was that without first achieving the unity of the German people, successes in foreign policy were impossible. In the end of course, Hitler's military fortunes deserted him and his Greater German Reich was destroyed, but the Nazi domestic revolution is something that deserves more attention, because many of its attributes have outlived the collapse of the Third Reich.
Edit: I need to mention, for the sake of my own sanity, that after Hitler's rise to power, the Nazi Party nationalized many large industries, so I guess he's a commie after all, and if this section offended you in any way, please don't hesitate to suck a dick.
Nazi industrial policy was not nationalisation. The great industries were left in private hands, but subject to national direction. In the end, there was no difference, except some esoteric analyses of the traditional smallholder foundations of German industry which failed to compete with scaled Fordian standardisation achieved in both Russia and America during the war.
Hitler adopted the Nazi Party's philosophy that blue-eyed, blonde-haired Nordic peoples were the ideal stock, and that Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Romani, Blacks, and so on, were all inferior to Nordic people.
This is both inaccurate and a vast simplication of Hitler's thoughts on race. Hitler's anti-semitism was an independent thing all together, and was not necessarily attached to any concrete sentiments of Jewish inferiority, but to their corrosive and decadent effects on national societies.
At the same time, many of his other facets of racial consciousness was merely an empirical projection of his personal values. Prior to the war, the Italians were worthy allies because of their revival of the Roman tradition. The experience of the war revealed that the Italians were a hopeless, decadent people unsuited to greatness. Russians were primitive people occupying a vast portion of the world's resources whose territory may be systematically colonised by Germany. By the end of the war, they deserved to be the nation of the future if they could overcome Germany.
Was Hitler a Secret Jew?
The answer to this is almost 100% no. However whether Hitler believed he might have had some Jewish provenance is an interesting question. Because there is no conclusive view, either during Hitler's lifetime or among modern historians as to the identity of Hitler's paternal grandfather, there is a lot of room for speculation on Hitler's family history. However, I think at this point the Frankenberger hypothesis is more or less finished.
There is proof that Hitler had many female partners throughout his life. And then there's this:
The picture is of course photoshopped, and there was no way that Hitler would ever have met with women in a state of undress in any public manner. His private sexuality is unknown, and is better untouched upon, because there has been a lot of empty sound and fury on this subject.
We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not Hitler believed in a non-Christian notion of God
Hitler was baptised Catholic, he disliked the facets of Western civilisation influenced by the church. His statements suggest that his spiritual views are more Hegelian, than one of a traditional religious bent.
How Did Hitler React When Black People Won Medals in The Olympics?
The Jesse Owens myth is not true, but as far as I am aware, Hitler is known to have made only one remark related to this subject. It was to the effect that primitive conditions had given the negro a natural physical superiority over civilised whites.
So is history being written by the victors, or was Hitler really that bad?
Yes, Hitler possessed a myriad of evil qualities. However, according to the caricatures of modern culture, Hitler is merely being portrayed as the foil of our own enlightened sense of progress and virtue. In some ways, Hitler is the cultural scapegoat we use to justify our own post-Hitlerian ideology. Due to vast distillation of our understanding of human nature, we simplify him to the extent that he becomes merely the avatar of evil, rather than a serious instruction of a man's moral anatomy. There were many qualities Hitler had which command respect; his insight, his courage, his self-discipline, his loyalty, and even his capacity for genuine human empathy. He was furthermore elevated by a tremendous talent which, more than any other figure of modern history, plucked him from the dregs of obscurity and placed him at the summit of world history. Yet the very power of Hitler's insights created an enormous revolutionary drive, supported by an enormous willpower to change his nation's history. His self-discipline sustained him in his virile hatreds for entire categories of people. His self-denial and experience of hardship taught him to make a virtue out of hardness. Hitler was not an insensitive man, but his power of conviction would often eclipse and blot out those lingering human attachments which may be extended to moderate ordinary human action.
Finally, there was something terrible in his raw adulation of the heroic vision of man. To be sure, his aims in German society were more nuanced than merely to reward the strong and punish the weak. He attempted to pervade Germany with a new national ideology by which he hoped to elevate the collective talents of the nation. Yet when all is said and done, there was no room in his panoply of ideas for the value of the intrinsic person. A person was valued by Hitler in terms of what he could do, either presently or in his future potential. His wholesale rejection of the West's Christian civilisation, which he realised no less than Nietzsche as the true antithesis of his ideals, was the thing which above all contributed to his posthumous monstrous reputation.
The only references I made to the Hossbach Protocol were mentioning Hitler's original interest in Britain as a potential ally, and his intention to engage Europe in war.
Hossbach identifies Britain as a potential enemy, albeit a hesitant one, given the distraction caused by the vulnerability of her global and colonial cleavages.
In general, the Hossbach Programme raises several interesting questions. Far from elucidating the nature of Hitler's political programme, it actually asks numerous questions about it:
The Hossbach Memorandum was seized upon by allied prosecutors in Nuremberg to indict several participants of the meeting of conspiracy to commit aggressive war, but the actual “conspiracy,” if it can be called that, was exceedingly vague. For one thing, it only identifies and analyses one real target: Czechoslovakia.
Hitler refers to a general need to solve Germany's Lebensraum problem, the ideal period for settling this is in the 1943-1945 timeframe, yet the main bent of his focus is on Czechoslovakia/Austria, with France as the predominant military factor. As is clear in the memorandum, the acquisition of Czechoslovakia and Austria was desirable for military-strategic reasons, rather than purposes of colonisation. Most notable, apart from one sideline reference to Russia, barely any mention is made of the Soviet Union in the memorandum, always taken to be the presumed target of German expansionism. The silence on Russia from Hitler's side, not only in Hossbach, but in the entire period of 1937-1939 is one of the biggest question marks over the scale of German diplomacy during the period. Similarly, during the Munich crisis, Hitler's directives did not factor in Russia at all. This is the Russian conundrum, and desperately requires more answers than most are wont to think.
The second point that needs to be made about the Hossbach memorandum is that it is not an active, but a passive plan. Contrary to traditional thought, it is not a fixed timetable for aggressive war, but a plan for exploiting discrete contingent events. That no mention was made of an attack on either Poland or the Soviet Union, reveals its departure from the actual course of history. The incongruity between the Hossbach prognosis and actual historical events, have excited certain historians to project certain meanings unto it which it does not possess by a naked reading of the memo.
People need to remember that diplomacy is a game of positioning and maneouvre. Hitler was looking at and reacting to situations as they came, as much as the leaders of any other country in Europe.
The only references I made to the Hossbach Protocol were mentioning Hitler's original interest in Britain as a potential ally, and his intention to engage Europe in war.
Hossbach identifies Britain as a potential enemy, albeit a hesitant one, given the distraction caused by the vulnerability of her global and colonial cleavages.
In general, the Hossbach Programme raises several interesting questions. Far from elucidating the nature of Hitler's political programme, it actually asks numerous questions about it:
The Hossbach Memorandum was seized upon by allied prosecutors in Nuremberg to indict several participants of the meeting of conspiracy to commit aggressive war, but the actual “conspiracy,” if it can be called that, was exceedingly vague. For one thing, it only identifies and analyses one real target: Czechoslovakia.
Hitler refers to a general need to solve Germany's Lebensraum problem, the ideal period for settling this is in the 1943-1945 timeframe, yet the main bent of his focus is on Czechoslovakia/Austria, with France as the predominant military factor. As is clear in the memorandum, the acquisition of Czechoslovakia and Austria was desirable for military-strategic reasons, rather than purposes of colonisation. Most notable, apart from one sideline reference to Russia, barely any mention is made of the Soviet Union in the memorandum, always taken to be the presumed target of German expansionism. The silence on Russia from Hitler's side, not only in Hossbach, but in the entire period of 1937-1939 is one of the biggest question marks over the scale of German diplomacy during the period. Similarly, during the Munich crisis, Hitler's directives did not factor in Russia at all. This is the Russian conundrum, and desperately requires more answers than most are wont to think.
The second point that needs to be made about the Hossbach memorandum is that it is not an active, but a passive plan. Contrary to traditional thought, it is not a fixed timetable for aggressive war, but a plan for exploiting discrete contingent events. That no mention was made of an attack on either Poland or the Soviet Union, reveals its departure from the actual course of history. The incongruity between the Hossbach prognosis and actual historical events, have excited certain historians to project certain meanings unto it which it does not possess by a naked reading of the memo.
People need to remember that diplomacy is a game of positioning and maneouvre. Hitler was looking at and reacting to situations as they came, as much as the leaders of any other country in Europe.
Would it be fair to say then, that contrary to the concept of the good old evil masterplan for world domination (insert manic laughter here) Hitler was just as surprised as the rest of the world by "his" diplomatic and military successes? I know that the German High command was very sceptical when it came to the feasibility of Hitlers war goals and only after Frances defeat bought into the whole German Invincibility hype.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks that Hitler actively sought World Domination in this day and age, but apparently the Stufenplan hypothesis is still around, with the main point was that Hitler viewed the Western war as a sideshow for his Eastern ambitions, which was always a fixed part of his global plan. I am able to find surprisingly little documentary or anecdotal evidence to support this hypothesis.
It's reasonable to believe that Hitler intended to take calculated risks to bring his desired domination of Central-Eastern Europe about, including aggressive military conflict at some point in the future, however his implementation had always been situational and flexible. One example was the Anschluss with Austria, in which Hitler had merely intended to support the Nazi elements to power. However, On March 12 Hitler spontaneously changed his mind and declared the Anschluss, due to the political successes paved by Goering's actions.
I think Hitler's general strategic concept was more or less evolutionary, but I would not go as far as AJP Taylor in characterising the Second World War as the result of a colossal political blunder. Hitler did not want the Second World War, but accepted a Second World War as a likely consequence of his ambitious foreign policy. And Hitler's view by 1937 was that, if the war must come, it would be to Germany's advantage for it to occur rather sooner than later.
I know this blog is about Hitler but here's some opinion from an Asian.
in Asia, we consider WW2 japan to be way worse than nazi germany.
Japan believed that every country that is weaker than theirs is theirs to take and control and the humans were some sub-humans. Japan was basically pushing it to see how far they can go. Japan just wanted to invade.
And Nanking Massacre was pretty insane. The whole thing, other than the blood lust such as race to kill 100 people first, it was to serve as a warning to every city who tries to oppose the Japanese army, they will do the same to all.
What's worse, even till this day, some big political figures still won't accept all the evidence.
Reason is, they don't think they have lose to China, they just lost to the US.
And right now the nationalism political party is going strong in Japan, god knows what will happen next
On January 04 2014 21:22 enord wrote: haw haw yew stewpid amaricawnnnn
I double posted because i knew you would ban me from your blog which confirms my initial hypothesis that you are too arrogant to step up to my level you little child, you little baby who was bread for intelectual weaknessesness.
i find your conductiveness to be the essence of delusionification and you are a fool to think you can simply ban those who speak out against such childishness, laziness, trollishness, depravity, and rampant stupidity. your op is simply a pack of lies as part of a jewish conspireacy
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
this is so biased that i cannot believe your impudent arroganceness. this war was won by all countries and peoples not just america so you are simplishly wrong in this regard.
But why was there a war in the first place? Most historians typically go back to unresolved issues and vendettas left over from World War I, but if that is the case, how did Japan and Italy (who fought for the Allies in WWI) become allied with Germany?
if you actually were not lazy you would know that the triple alliance preworld war 1 was germany, austria-hungary and italy and that japan was hungry for the french territories in eastern asia which is why japan allianced with germany before ww2.
France and Britain allowed the Germans to continue building up their military forces as what I believe was a fear of Soviet expansionism. Although Germany and France were bitter enemies, even in peace, Hitler maintained a good relationship with Britain's Prime Minister, and hoped to build a Anglo-German alliance against the Soviets, but such an alliance never materialized. The world's opinion quickly began to turn against the Axis Powers during the 1930s as each Germany, Italy and Japan began engaging in aggressive military conflicts and annexations with their neighbors, while the Soviet Union remained largely docile.
good relationship with uk prime minister? i think not, hitler despised him personally and they only worked wel together in public so this is some half truth you dreamed up or what? france and britain could care less about japan at this time and it was america who was to blaming japan for aggressionness in east asia.
This was called a "fasces", which was the Roman symbol for unity.
haha good joke my friend, the fasces was not invented by the romans empire as you claim, but archeaological findings show that the fasces existed in minoan culture well before the invention of the city of rome. i cannot imagine what they teach in american schools at this point.
The word "Fascism" comes from this symbol, but this terminology has decidedly taken a very negative connotation, and is often used to describe a nationalistic dictatorship. A large part of Hitler's power came from the fact that Germany was unified against what they saw as threats from Communism and the French.
i am now convinced that you are writing a comedy blog but with quite sick humour. fascism is not "unity" fascism is a totalitarianist authoritarian state that promotes the mass mobilisation of the people to nationalism. germany's biggest threat was not from the french but from the immensive naval power of the britain. do you forget that ribbontrop signed a deal of non-aggression with the su or are you just lazy?
The Nazi Party drew the narrative that the Weimar Republic government as weak and indecisive, and Hitler referred to them as "cowards" and "treasonous" for giving into the demands of the French government.
this bias is truly trollful. the german republik was strong until the market crash on black friday and it was not just france that made the treaty of versailles but also the us and uk. why do you blame france only? please be more less provokative.
I need to mention, for the sake of my own sanity, that after Hitler's rise to power, the Nazi Party nationalized many large industries, so I guess he's a commie after all, and if this section offended you in any way, please don't hesitate to suck a dick.
i will perform no such act of fellatio to verify your ego but there was no nationalisation of the grand industries of germany, and this appears to be simply made-up from nothing. hitler also was not a communist, another blatant fabrication.
Although Francis Galton is often credited with being the originator of modern eugenics
the idea of eugenicism trends back to the times of ancient minoans and nobody credits francis galton with eugencism except for christianists who cite that galton was the cousin of darwin and wish to paint him as an evil man.
Hitler adopted the Nazi Party's philosophy that blue-eyed, blonde-haired Nordic peoples were the ideal stock, and that Jews, Slavs, Arabs, Romani, Blacks, and so on, were all inferior to Nordic people.
how do you construct such fairy tales? please i would like to know, because most german people have brown hair even hitler himself. he believed in the superiority of white german people, not blond or blue eyed peoples. please do not post such erroneousness.
There, I got you the black-box version that doesn't show the nipples or buttocks, because if there's anything worse than Hitler, it's showing human nudity.
it is quite obvious to me that this is the work of photoshop and very poor research by yourself. how you can justify your credibility after showing such things is beyond explaination.
So is history being written by the victors, or was Hitler really that bad?
yes how can you even ask such a thing?
i would say more but judging by your arrogant banning and delusional attitude here and other places on tl, it is clear that me responding further would be a waste of ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
GUYS THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP. THE TRIANGLES NEED TO STOP.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
Ummm...Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica etc? There are many examples where large empires did indeed lead to less internal wars then previously existed in the conquered areas. Cultural, commercial and scientific exchange also flourished and lead to economic growth.
Or how about the USA? 500 subjugated indian nations, occurrences of genocide, systematic destruction of culture and language, countless broken treaties (some of which are legal to this day and still not honored) and yet there is internal peace now and it has become the richest country on earth.
Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No, that's why it is a hypothetical question. Is the idea so absurd that you need to insult his intelligence? No.
Rofl. Yeah you are right. The Gauls just picked flowers after Julius enslaved their women and sons. No wonder the Romans held that swath of territory.
"Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No..." - Are you serious? So you agree with me and I answered his question that specifically pertains to Nazi Germany, but you find his thinking rational? Look, I'm just trying to set him straight since he seems to believe that there would have been unity and peace in concentration camp happy Germany. Yeah, I think that is absurd. Highly.
That's not what you said though. If we ignore the shitty way you started your post with (opening insult always a pro move) we find that you were talking about a general scenario in which a conquered nation might or might not "submit". He pointed out several historic occasions where arguably conquest somewhat improved stability in response. Also there have been plenty of occasions where conquered people simply assimilated into the conquering nation. Does this apply to WW2 and Nazi Germany? Of course not. Is the notion of a conquering nation improving stability by force always ridiculous? Of course not. You need to get of your high horse.
Fine. I'm off my high horse, my apologies. But I do not think what I told him is incorrect or far off. He talked about a Nazi World scenario so I gave him a Nazi World scenario.