What if neither the Japanese or the Germans attacked the US, and the Americans stayed out of the war. Could the Soviet Union and Britain stop Germany? Could China eventually stop Japan? Would Japan have invaded India and Siberia? How different would the world be right after the war if the Americans were not involved?

There have been dozens of threads on this same topic. Use the search function.

I never noticed that....

A different "Cold war"

with US and Germany facing off each othe with large nuclear arsenal.

If America hadn't enterd the war, Russia would have bigger influence.

depends if america kept up Lend Lease, if they did then the britian and russia would have won.

What if neither the Japanese or the Germans attacked the US, and the Americans stayed out of the war. Could the Soviet Union and Britain stop Germany? Could China eventually stop Japan? Would Japan have invaded India and Siberia? How different would the world be right after the war if the Americans were not involved?
There are plenty other more learned about the war in the European theater and so I'll defer to their expertise on the matter.

For the Pacific I think China is unlikely to be able to stop Japan by herself. Sure China can and was bleeding Japan dry, but the Japanese are also a people unaffected by "war weariness". If the Japanese are able to secure all of Southeast Asia and use its resources against China I think they just might win. It will take a prolonged and massive war of attrition but eventually I think the Chinese people, once totally isolated, will be the ones growing weary and the collaborationists will gain the upper hand and negotiate a peace, probably sacrificing half the territory of China in exchange. :(

I think the USSR would've defeated Germany even without the extra supplies, although the war would've been even bloodier. The communist totalitarian control would've been able to secure a prolonged fight and Germany couldn't win that.
On the Asian front Japan's expansion would've triggered US intervention at some point. So asking what would happen there is pretty moot.

Since the US was bound to fight Japan, this probably would lead them to fight in Europe as well. I don't think either Nazi Europe, or Soviet Europe would be acceptable in the long term.

I would prefer nazi Europe to Communist one:(

Actually China and Japan had been at war about ten years before the begining of WWII. I don't know could Japan defeat China, but i think that China couldn't defeat Japan for certain.
And one more thing..there was a deal between Germany and Japan. When/if Stalingrad fall, Japan attacks Russia.

I would prefer nazi Europe to Communist one:(
In that future as a Slav you would be dead.

I think USSR still would have one the war, perhaps with the loss of Moscow in the beginning and fighting prolonged for 1-2 years. But without US involvement Soviet tanks would have stoped only at the Altantic coast.

What if neither the Japanese or the Germans attacked the US, and the Americans stayed out of the war. Could the Soviet Union and Britain stop Germany? Could China eventually stop Japan? Would Japan have invaded India and Siberia? How different would the world be right after the war if the Americans were not involved?

if the US had not entered the war, Stalin would be even more alienated from the west and would control basically all of Europe (unless Brits and Canadians managed to pull of a D-day on their own and an invasion of Italy). WW2 would have lasted several years longer as well, but Hitler may have died from his heart condition or Parkinsons disease before it ended, who knows

I would prefer nazi Europe to Communist one:(

Actually China and Japan had been at war about ten years before the begining of WWII. I don't know could Japan defeat China, but i think that China couldn't defeat Japan for certain.
And one more thing..there was a deal between Germany and Japan. When/if Stalingrad fall, Japan attacks Russia.

so you would prefer everyone in Europe who isn't Germanic be dead as well as Germany/ US nuking each other? and Stalingrad did fall to the Germans but then they lost it again quite quickly

and China could defeat Japan. (at least until they pushed the Japanese back into the ocean in Korea) as Japan did not have anywhere near the amount of men as China

Yeah, but population isn't everything. The Chinese navy was destroyed by Japan, so there was no hope of invading the home islands. There airforce was small, and backwards. Most importantly, all the industrial centers on the East coast had been taken by Japan. I doubt the Chinese would have had a victory.

@ Gelion. I am Bulgarian, not slav ;)
@Makaan: That is not true. From where do you infer that everybody not germanic would be dead ? IMO all is politics. Are Japanese germanic ? But they were Hitler's allys, weren't they. And nobody was talking of killing them. It's he same with the italians, romanians, bulgarians- all axis allies. HItler killed only jews and gypsies.(i mean beacause of their race). And all about the race theory is fake IMO. It was just a manipulation. Actually Hitler asked some German jews to financate his campaign, but they refused. There is a theory, according to which this is the reason for the genocide on the jews. The race theory is one big lie.


Stalingrad didn't fell to the Germans. They took a big part of it, but not the whole.


I agreed that if America didn't join, the Red army wloud have conquered most of Europe. Actually that was the purpose of D-day - to stop the Solviets from capturin Europe.

@ Gelion. I am Bulgarian, not slav ;)
Most people agree that Bulgarians are Slavs....so you would be dead.

I agreed that if America didn't join, the Red army wloud have conquered most of Europe. Actually that was the purpose of D-day - to stop the Solviets from capturin Europe.
Agree 100%.

The todays Bulgarians, aren't pure bulgarians, but aren't slavs. There are genetic research wchich shows that we are much more Bulgarians than Slavs.

But actualy i don't think that even the slavs would be dead. Just red my previous post. I think it was all politics....

^ perhaps you are unawave of the amout of Russians, Byelorussians and Ukranians killed by Hitler. I doubt that in the final analysis that they would be more than slaves or second class citizens in Nazi Europe. Worst case scenario - dead with all their cities, culture and traditions.

As far as Bugarians go..... I don't know what kind of "new wave" of discoveries and "research" goes on in your country, but traditionally Bulgarians were considered Southern Slavs. Even if it is not so as you say Hitler would not make that difference after he deafeated Soviet Union and killed all of inhabitants there.....

All those kiling in USSR weren't because of the race...I have ever heard that Hitler had delighted how beutifull were the Ukraenian children. But Stalin killed many people , too. I don't say that Hitler is good, just i think it would be better than the communism.

Actually this research isn't made in Bulgaria ;) But how can the Bulgarians be considereed of slavs or whatever, when they are bulgarians ;) I will try to explain :) The Bulgarian country was made by Bulgarinas and Slavs. The slavs lived here, but the bulgarians came from the east.
They had their own country there- Great Bulgaria as it was called by the Byzantians. But it splited and everyone of the sons of Khan Kubrat(the ruler of Great Bulgaria) spred through the world. Today there are Bulgarian living in Russia - the volga Bulgarians. Some other went to Italy and Panonia.
And Khan Asparuh came to the Balkans. The slavic-bulgarian state (as it was called) was formed by the Bulgarinas, Slaves and some Thrace but they where very few. Today we are mixture of Bulgarinas, Slavs and many other ethnics, but mostly the Bulgarian one.

The Bulgarian country was made by Bulgarinas and Slavs. The slavs lived here, but the bulgarians came from the east.

That's correct. Bulgarians came from the east, and have eastern ancestry, so, you were in fact, according to Hitlear, inferior, and deserve to die even more then the "pure" slavs.

Russia survived because the Germans had a million of their troops positioned to guard against an allied invasion. Sure, the war was won before American troops fought on a large scale, but without the threat of US troops opening a western front, Germany could have focussed and dealt with Russia. UK couldn't have done much to stop them.

Oh, and don't forget the lend and lease.

As I see it:
-Britain would have remained a thorn in Hitler's side, but probably little more.
-Germany and Russia would have reached an equilibrium for a time, until Russia had the strength to overcome Germany. This would be followed by the eventual Russian Conquest of most of Europe.
-Japan would have taken Darwin and the surrounding area, but would not have been able to expand very far once the Australian Home Guard was organised (though I could be wrong here).

As I see it:
...
-Japan would have taken Darwin and the surrounding area, but would not have been able to expand very far once the Australian Home Guard was organised (though I could be wrong here).
Actually it seems neither Germany or Japan had any intentions of taking over Australia. It turns out they thought it could be a little on the hard side, without any benefit for their cause. The Japanese action in the Pacific and Australia was largely to keep Australia from being a springboard for further attacks into South East Asia.

Japan's main goal was to conquer China for its version of lebensraum. Southeast Asia was attacked for its resources, the Pacific islands to serve as a defensive buffer, ditto New Guinea and unsuccesfully, Australia.

If Nazi Germany hadn't stationed her troops in such countries as France and Norway, the Resistance would have killed her while Russia grinds her to stalemate on the Eastern Front. While the line would be even further east, the Allies would have won anyway.

The race theory is one big lie.[/Iranian President Ahmadinedschad]

Yeah, that would explain why Hitler exterminated the baptized jews, too, right? :rolleyes:

That's correct. Bulgarians came from the east, and have eastern ancestry, so, you were in fact, according to Hitlear, inferior, and deserve to die even more then the "pure" slavs.

Completely wrong ! Actually the Areyans, the most pure and master race according to Hitler came from the East-Iran. The Bulgarians are Aryans, too.
And Hitler cooperated with some Tibetians i think. Many bodys of them were found in Berlin.

[/Iranian President Ahmadinedschad]

Yeah, that would explain why Hitler exterminated the baptized jews, too, right? :rolleyes:

There is a difference between the race theory and the antisemithism! Stalin was antiemith, too.

I tend to think that the Sovs and Nazis would have come to a negotiated peace with the Germans taking a big bite of European Russia.

Slavs are Aryans too did you know that?

Not certain.They have the same fenotype. Blond hair and blue eyes. But i am not sure that they are aryans.

Not certain.They have the same fenotype. Blond hair and blue eyes. But i am not sure that they are aryans.

All indo-european peoples are Aryans, it still did not prevent Hitler and the nazis from exterminating every other people who did not speak German or look nordic. :rolleyes:

I have ever heard that Hitler had delighted how beutifull were the Ukraenian children.

The German Army and the nazis were potrayed as liberators from the soviets to the peoples of eastern-europe. That still did not prevent them from putting them in extermination camps. :rolleyes:

Soviets would have won the war. If America had never fought in any war like that it would be interesting to see what would have happened in the cold war. America may not have won because the Soviets would take all of Europe and Americas army pre WW2 was tiny.

The extramination camps were only for jews and gypsies.
Hitler didn't extermined all others. As i am trying to convince you, it's all politics. Did he made camps for the french ? Did he ever said somethiong about the purity of the race of his allies ? Hitlers killed his enemies, but they weren't his enemies because of their race.

Back to the original question: America was slowly getting itself into the war. By summer of 1941 the US navy was escorting convoys part way across the Atlantic. Lend-Lease was trading war materials to the Allies. The US was sending fighters and pilots to China. Read up about the Flying Tigers. The US was Japan's major supplier of oil and stopped selling it to Japan in 1941.

Given the above, even without Pearl Harbor or the German war declaration, the US was getting involved in the war. Just when the actual shooting starts is another question. I'm sure by mid to late 1942 the US would be actively in the war.

The eventual outcome of the war in Europe was decided before the American military was able to contribute. America's contribution made the destruction of Nazi Germany a lot cheaper and quicker than it would have otherwise been.

fing0lfin - you need to read about the fate of the millions of Russian prisoners of war.

Fing0lfin, Are you a holocaust denier?

Adriane, you need to read what i have wrote. Their fate was not because of their race.

Fing0lfin, Are you a holocaust denier?

Not really. I don't say that Hitler wasn't killing jews, but i think that it is not right to say that everything whcich Hitler did, was to protect the purity of the race and etc.

^ Slavic Holocost is seriously underrated.

I think that jewich Holocost is seriously overrated, but i don't want to start these topic here. Just some people are too sensitive about these questions...

I think that jewich Holocost is seriously overrated, but i don't want to start these topic here. Just some people are too sensitive about these questions...

Hard to believe that some people are sensitive about the Hitler, christ people are so touchy!

@Fing0lfin, 6-7 million Jews died in the "Jewish Holocaust". That was about 70% of the total Jewish population of Europe at this time. Poland's pre-war Jewish population of 3,500,000 was almost gone when the war was over. It was definatly a genocide, and Hitlar just wanted to get rid of ALL of them.

Also, you should really read about what he said he wanted to do to Russia in Mein Kampf about Lebensraum.

I am not saying that the Holocost doesn't exsitsi. But the jews weren't the only one who suffered from the war, but the only ones who got benefits from this. But i don't want to start the topic here...

Mein Kampf is just ideology and propaganda.

I thought you were saying that Slavs weren't genocided. If I was wrong - excuse me.

I am not saying that the Holocost doesn't exsitsi. But the jews weren't the only one who suffered from the war, but the only ones who got benefits from this.

Are you saying the Jews BENIFITED from the Holocost!!!! :eek: Maybe I just misread this post, maybe English isn't your native language, so I just thought you might like to know that you just said the holocost was good for them.

fing0lfin

I have read what you have written. It seems that you are terribly ill informed and would benefit from doing a lot of reading on the WWII period.

Nazi Germany conciously and deliberately tried to exterminate anyone they thought was inferior. That included Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, homosexuals, as well as the slavs.

I have a question for all you history buffs who are taking fing0lfin apart [and rightfully so.] What did Hitler think about his darker skinned allies, like the Italians, and the Japanese?

Italians were alright, and the Japanese were "honourary Aryans".

Hitler considered Slavs to be sub-human. His intentions were thus not to kill them off, a la Jews or Gypsies, but to enslave them.

To be fair and play devil's advocate: Jews did emerge a large winner after World War II in many respects. They founded Israel, they got a ****load of money, and so forth. They also lost too: six million dead, lost their homes, businesses, etc.

I think Russia would have conquered Germany and all of Europe and a cold war would play out between the even bigger Soviet Union and the United States

Japan i'm not very sure of

The USSR would've steamrolled Germany anyway as lendleased items made very little impact on the battles that mattered (i.e. Kursk, Stalingrad, , Leningrad, Smolensk, Kiev).

Japan would be unable to make any sort of impact on the war with Russia as their forces would starve and die halfway through a hypothetical invasion of the USSR (i.e. Siberia = cold)

Are you saying the Jews BENIFITED from the Holocost!!!! :eek: Maybe I just misread this post, maybe English isn't your native language, so I just thought you might like to know that you just said the holocost was good for them.

:) As i said too sensitive on some topics ... Do you know how many Russians died in this war ? How many Germans ? But actually only the jews made a benefit from their suffering. They got their country and a lot of reparation. Also even now you can be acused in discrimination of a jew, but no one cares about the discrimination of the white.

Also even now you can be acused in discrimination of a jew

The same way you can get accused of discriminating against any other person. ;)

but no one cares about the discrimination of the white.

Name one place where they are discriminated against. (Excluding some African nations)

Also even now you can be acused in discrimination of a jew, but no one cares about the discrimination of the white.

What color are the jews around you?

fing0lfin

I have read what you have written. It seems that you are terribly ill informed and would benefit from doing a lot of reading on the WWII period.

Nazi Germany conciously and deliberately tried to exterminate anyone they thought was inferior. That included Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, homosexuals, as well as the slavs.

:) i am not sure who is the ill informed...
The extermination of mentalsick pople and homosexuals was in order to keep the german population fit. I agreed that Hitler killed jews and gypsies, but it was for the same reasons - they were parastiting on the nation.

But killing slavs is much different. Just see what mongoloid caw hav written. Don't you get what i ma trying to convince you ? Hitler's allies weren't aryans, but he hadn't done them nothing wrong, he even had Slavic allies. I will try to expalin it most simple- the race is not the reason for the mass extermination, it was an exculpation.

What color are the jews around you?

White= white race, jews are semiths.

The same way you can get accused of discriminating against any other person. ;)



Name one place where they are discriminated against. (Excluding some African nations)

No, just all people are too sensitive about discriminating jews. That's why every body 'observes' the keeping of their rights.

Almost all the world, in my country for example, in France, In Britain...

The extermination of mentalsick pople and homosexuals was in order to keep the german population fit. I agreed that Hitler killed jews and gypsies, but it was for the same reasons - they were parastiting on the nation.
You fail to explain why Hitler exterminated the Jews, if not for their race.
According to your logic, Hitler thought they were parasites, but then you
state that he didn't kill them because of their race. Well then, why did
he kill them at all?!

Exculpation? Do you mean ethnic cleansing?

You fail to explain why Hitler exterminated the Jews, if not for their race.
According to your logic, Hitler thought they were parasites, but then you
state that he didn't kill them because of their race. Well then, why did
he kill them at all?!

Exculpation? Do you mean ethnic cleansing?

Oh men...I have never said that he didn't killed them because of their race. Actually i said that the jews were the only one killed because of their race.


'Exculpation? Do you mean ethnic cleansing?'. I don't see nothig related to the jews in this. If you read the previous posts, you will understand.
I am sick of repeating the same things, just because you haven't read them.

I'm obviously not the only one trying to grasp what you mean.
I read all your post, even several times, but verbalizations like

I don't see nothig related

aren't that easy to understand. :rolleyes:

What if neither the Japanese or the Germans attacked the US, and the Americans stayed out of the war.
Well, the US was already in the war, before Pearl Harbor. Maybe not with their actual military, but most certainly with their production. And their production was exactly what was needed.

Could the Soviet Union and Britain stop Germany?
The Britsh would probably have been succesful without American troops, but WITH their equipment. Of course, this wouldn't exactly have speeded things up, thus giving the Russians more time to take more of Europe.

so you would prefer everyone in Europe who isn't Germanic be dead as well as Germany/ US nuking each other? and Stalingrad did fall to the Germans but then they lost it again quite quickly
Was communism really that much better?

I don't think that eastern Europeans really give a **** about this topic, it's somewhat irrelevant wether commie-bastards come rape eastern Europe or German bastards do the same.

Was communism really that much better?

I don't think that eastern Europeans really give a **** about this topic, it's somewhat irrelevant wether commie-bastards come rape eastern Europe or German bastards do the same.
Under communism as a Slav I had a chance of survial. Under Nazi Germans I did not. Its plain simple for me......

It would have all been fine for the Bulgars and other associated untermenschen until Hitler was finished with the Russians. After the major threats were over Hitler and the Nazi would have turned to them as well. They would have suffered the same fate as the Poles and the Czechs.

@fing0lfin - Pls back up your statements with massive and irrefutable evidence and post more detailedly on your arguments, you're walking on thin ice here. Short sentences will not cut it, with the points of view you're trying to put forward on this hypersensitive topic.

@fing0lfin - Pls back up your statements with massive and irrefutable evidence and post more detailedly on your arguments, you're walking on thin ice here. Short sentences will not cut it, with the points of view you're trying to put forward on this hypersensitive topic.

On which statements should i give massive and irrefutable evidence excactly ?
I have said that the topic is too sensitive for some people, and i don't want to disscus it here, but i couldn't leave their posts without response.

Warned for public discussion of moderator action. The right procedure is to PM me. - KD

PS All of them posts. Like I said, short single sentences will not cut it, considering the scenario you're trying to push.

Under communism as a Slav I had a chance of survial. Under Nazi Germans I did not. Its plain simple for me......
Actually you would survive if you smiled a lot, kept your head down and said "Jawohl!" to whatever a member of the Master Race told you.

Hitler's dinner conversations (stenographed) are pretty clear about how he saw the future of the Slavs:

Eastern Europe and Russia would be ruled by Germany. The locals would all be kept illiterate and till the land in some quasi-feudal agricultural system. There would be no books or newspapers but public radio speaker would be everywhere, allowing the masters to inform their slaves of whatever they saw fit. In between there would be massive amounts of accordion music. There would literally be a lot of dancing for the Slavs under Nazi rule.

At the same time a superb network of roads would crisscross these lands, and on these the square jawed, steely eyed member of the Aryan race would drive around on top of their tanks.

That's Hitler's vision. Seems pretty clear he envisioned something like British India and the US south rolled into one with Slavs fof Black/Indians, only a lot worse.

Oh men...I have never said that he didn't killed them because of their race. Actually i said that the jews were the only one killed because of their race.
The lingering suspiscion is that you are claiming that in some sense the Jews had it coming - that the Nazi extermination was in some way logical and in part provoked by the Jews.

That, I think, is the suspiscion surrounding what you've posted, in plain language.

Actually you would survive if you smiled a lot, kept your head down and said "Jawohl!" to whatever a member of the Master Race told you.

Hitler's dinner conversations (stenographed) are pretty clear about how he saw the future of the Slavs:

Eastern Europe and Russia would be ruled by Germany. The locals would all be kept illiterate and till the land in some quasi-feudal agricultural system. There would be no books or newspapers but public radio speaker would be everywhere, allowing the masters to inform their slaves of whatever they saw fit. In between there would be massive amounts of accordion music. There would literally be a lot of dancing for the Slavs under Nazi rule.

At the same time a superb network of roads would crisscross these lands, and on these the square jawed, steely eyed member of the Aryan race would drive around on top of their tanks.

That's Hitler's vision. Seems pretty clear he envisioned something like British India and the US south rolled into one with Slavs fof Black/Indians, only a lot worse.
Well I am sure it would have been fun, but thank God this "future" didn't happen. Even if Hitler was planning that (I've read otherwise a story which more resembes a labour camp with enforced hunger, diseases and illiteracy) his first actions were a little bit harsher than most Slavs would accept. Despite all the communist-bashing the cultures of the Slavs and Slav people themsevles survived the Communist rule (for which I am gratefull too), which proves that Communism was a bit better than Nazi Europe. At least in my eyes.
As far as the roads go it was a very cunning statement. Hitler knew that Russia's second biggest problem are roads so his plans would be a very serious temptation ;)

The lingering suspiscion is that you are claiming that in some sense the Jews had it coming - that the Nazi extermination was in some way logical and in part provoked by the Jews.

That, I think, is the suspiscion surrounding what you've posted, in plain language.


No.
Hitler killed the jews, because they are jews. But he killed Russians (slavs) for example, because they were his politic and war enemy.

Under communism as a Slav I had a chance of survial. Under Nazi Germans I did not. Its plain simple for me......
You would end up enslaved anyway.
It's probably better to enslaved by your own kind, though.

You would end up enslaved anyway.
It's probably better to enslaved by your own kind, though.
I don't think anyone I know how lived in USSR felt that they were enslaved. People knew what not to say, how to try to behave and how to feed 1000's of people with 3 breads (i.e manage hunger ;) ). For one USSR of 1945 turned into USSR of 1970s or 1980s which is a good thing. I don't see Nazi Germany doing that. For another people of all nationalities and races had a chance there. I consider the system to be harsh, but fair. At least my birth did not determine my faith, only my actions.

If The Americans didn't help out in World War II.....

Interesting use of the word help there. Implies that the US was given a choice which, since Germany and Japan declared war on them, wasn't exactly the case.

I don't think anyone I know how lived in USSR felt that they were enslaved. People knew what not to say, how to try to behave and how to feed 1000's of people with 3 breads (i.e manage hunger ;) ). For one USSR of 1945 turned into USSR of 1970s or 1980s which is a good thing. I don't see Nazi Germany doing that. For another people of all nationalities and races had a chance there. I consider the system to be harsh, but fair. At least my birth did not determine my faith, only my actions.
What if your father was an enemy of the regime?

What if your father was an enemy of the regime?
Then its bad luck...... however few people could hide these things..... I know someone that did and got away with it. At least Kuilaks were not a race like Slavs. Also in some cases it was your choice to be an "enemy of the regime". In many cases it wasn't but in some it was.
I'm not saying the system was very humanie especially at the beginning. There the term would be "inhumaine". However it was still better than Hitlers Nazism.

It would have all been fine for the Bulgars and other associated untermenschen until Hitler was finished with the Russians. After the major threats were over Hitler and the Nazi would have turned to them as well. They would have suffered the same fate as the Poles and the Czechs.

What on earth are you talking about? 'The same fate as the Czechs'?
The Czechs came out of the war extremly well nothing compared to what happened to the Poles

I would prefer nazi Europe to Communist one:(

Actually China and Japan had been at war about ten years before the begining of WWII. I don't know could Japan defeat China, but i think that China couldn't defeat Japan for certain.
And one more thing..there was a deal between Germany and Japan. When/if Stalingrad fall, Japan attacks Russia.

i swear if you had that attitude you wouldnt last long in germany. if i ever saw someone prasing hitler i would hit them and knock them out.

i swear if you had that attitude you wouldnt last long in germany. if i ever saw someone prasing hitler i would hit them and knock them out.

Actually man, i am sick of the bull****S. Actually have i ever prasied Hitler ?!?!!?!?!?!!?? Show me where !!! Of course i can show you where i said that both, Hitler and Stalin are bad. But you are talking some pointless shits.

Oh, and in Germany there are people prasing Hitler, i suggest you knock them.(SkinHeads, Blood&Honor, etc.)

Of course i can show you where i said that both, Hitler and Stalin are bad. But you are talking some pointless shits.

Oh, and in Germany there are people prasing Hitler, i suggest you knock them.(SkinHeads, Blood&Honor, etc.)

saying i would rather have nazi rule.... etc is, but stalin didnt decide to eleminate a whole race (or holocust).

Again your useing history to blame germany for its past
i know people still prase him (in different countries) but saying everyone does in germany is just wrong

Actually man, i am sick of the bull****S. Actually have i ever prasied Hitler ?!?!!?!?!?!!?? Show me where !!!

I think that jewich Holocost is seriously overrated, but i don't want to start these topic here. Just some people are too sensitive about these questions...

so a whole race nearly killed is overrated???? man thats just wrong
useless

saying i would rather have nazi rule.... etc is, but stalin didnt decide to eleminate a whole race (or holocust).

Again your useing history to blame germany for its past
i know people still prase him (in different countries) but saying everyone does in germany is just wrong





so a whole race nearly killed is overrated???? man thats just wrong
useless



At the first point. Saying that i would have a nazi rule to communst one, doesn't mean that nazi rule is good. A simple example: We have three cars. Car1 cost 100, Car2 200, Car3 300. We acn say that Car2 is cheaper than Car3, but it doesn't mean it's the cheapest. The same with nazism and communism. One is bad and the other is bad. But one is worse ;)

Oh and Stalined eliminated all nations and actually his repretion took much more lives than the holucost.

You are completely wrong. I don't blame Germany for nothing. I just said that there are still Neo-nazis there. I don't say that the all Germans are nazis. Actually there are neo-nazis in the most countries....

About the Holucost..i have read it before in this topic, what this mean. The jews weren't the only one who suffered from this war. But they were the only ones who gained.
For example, together with the jews, Hitler killed the Gypsies. But after the war the Gypsies neither got their own country, nor got reparations.

Pls keep it civil. Thank you.

At the first point. Saying that i would have a nazi rule to communst one, doesn't mean that nazi rule is good. A simple example: We have three cars. Car1 cost 100, Car2 200, Car3 300. We acn say that Car2 is cheaper than Car3, but it doesn't mean it's the cheapest. The same with nazism and communism. One is bad and the other is bad. But one is worse ;).

that has nothing to do with it

Oh and Stalined eliminated all nations and actually his repretion took much more lives than the holucost.
the holocost was worser i.e ALOT worser

About the first point. I am explaining that nazism better than communism isn't = nazism is good. I am trying to explain it, because you have understood it wrong.

Why was the holocost worse ? If you claim such things, you are an racist. One example: Why is killing 6 million jews worse than killing 6 milions slavs (actually they were more) ? Do you think that the jew is more 'valuable' than the slav ?

Why was the holocost worse ? If you claim such things, you are an racist. One example: Why is killing 6 million jews worse than killing 6 milions slavs (actually they were more) ? Do you think that the jew is more 'valuable' than the slav ?

how dare you call me a racist! the jews lived in worser conditons and where put in death camps

how dare you call me a racist! the jews lived in worser conditons and where put in death camps
I don't see why i shouldn't call someone, who thinks that killing jews is worse than killing slavs, a racist.

What conditions are you talking about ?!!? And there where dead camps in Russia too.

Warned for name-calling. :rolleyes: - KD

I don't see why i shouldn't call someone, who thinks that killing jews is worse than killing slavs, a racist.

What conditions are you talking about ?!!? And there where dead camps in Russia too.

ever been in bergen belsen? and the jews where worser treated

Yeah...the jews were worse threated, as far as the slavs wasn't treated at all. Just shot at the head, while walking in the coridor....

I don't get what are you trying to prove.. Why is holocost worse than the Stalin's repretions ? That is your point, isn't it ??

Yeah...the jews were worse threated, as far as the slavs wasn't treated at all. Just shot at the head, while walking in the coridor....

I don't get what are you trying to prove.. Why is holocost worse than the Stalin's repretions ? That is your point, isn't it ??



the jews where gassed and tricked into the war cmaps thats what makes them so bad, they where starved even thier children they didnt even get a quick death that so many wanted

We all now what was the situation of the jews in wwII.

But i want to ask you: Do you still claim that the holocost was worse than the Stalin's repretions ?

We all now what was the situation of the jews in wwII.

But i want to ask you: Do you still claim that the holocost was worse than the Stalin's repretions ?

yes i do, i know he massacred them but they died instantly (well maby some didnt)nut the jews kept on beingkept inthier camp

First the Stalin's repretion took much more lives than the Holucost.
Second, there were much more death camps in Russia than in Germany.
And that how did they died doesn't really matter. Not all jews died in the gazcameras. Not all slavs died instantly.

I don't know if you realise how many people may you insult by claiming such things.

First the Stalin's repretion took much more lives than the Holucost.
Second, there were much more death camps in Russia than in Germany.
And that how did they died doesn't really matter. Not all jews died in the gazcameras. Not all slavs died instantly.

I don't know if you realise how many people may you insult by claiming such things.

nobodys insulted me yet (apart from you :mad: ). and what the hell is a "gazcameras"??

May be nodody have insulted you, but surely you have insulted a lot of people.
Gasscameras...i don't know what is the ecxact spelling.

But will you concentrate on the topic please. Do you agree that you are not right or you will deffenf your self.

May be nodody have insulted you, but surely you have insulted a lot of people.
Gasscameras...i don't know what is the ecxact spelling.

i have not (knowingly) insulted anyone and if i di im sorry

But will you concentrate on the topic please. Do you agree that you are not right or you will deffenf your self.

no i beilieve and always will that the jews where treated worser the what stalin did to his own people

You are saying your position.
Now will you please support it with something different from saying that the jews lived bad and was bad threated ?

man, they where hunted out and killed, rouned up and slaughted in a massive scale. i have met a survivor (cant rember his though) hitler didnt set out to kill peopel he set out to eleminate thier whole race

Absolutely the same can be said about some people in Russia. Only the number where biggers. So i don't see why the holucost is worse.

Absolutely the same can be said about some people in Russia. Only the number where biggers. So i don't see why the holucost is worse.

then you are blind. stalin dint aim to kill every different person but hitler did with a forocity that gave germany a bad name

Stalin aimed to kill every different person. But not beacsue of the race. Just the reason is other.
But what does it metter??
We should look the results. More people killed by Stalin than in the Holucost.
Therefore the Holucost can't be worse than the Stalin's repretion (of course if you don't think that the jew wife is more valuabale than the slav)

(of course if you don't think that the jew wife is more valuabale than the slav)

and you call me a racist?? everyone is equal nobody is sorperior

I begin to wonder....if you don't read my posts or my English is so bad ...

I said tha killing 6 milions jews isn't worse then killing 6 millions slavs, unless you think that the jew live is more valuable than the slav live. Is it clear now ?

I begin to wonder....if you don't read my posts or my English is so bad ...

I said tha killing 6 milions jews isn't worse then killing 6 millions slavs, unless you think that the jew live is more valuable than the slav live. Is it clear now ?

it is if they are tortured. starved, beaten then killed, gassed, etc in an inhumane way its worser then jsut shooting them. the nazis laughed as they died

it is if they are tortured. starved, beaten then killed, gassed, etc in an inhumane way its worser then jsut shooting them. the nazis laughed as they died

The slavs were tortured, beaten and etc. too.
I can tell you a story from a deathcamp.(not a jewish one)
The peoople in the camp were gathering sand in sacks. There were one black sack. The guards were giving the prisoners the sacks, and whom was given the black sack, he muct find a way to kill himself untill the end of the day...
So the situation of the jews and the slaves in the camps was nearly the same. The difference is that there were many more slavs killed than jews.
So i don't understand how you can claim that the Holucost was worse then the Stalin's repretions.

Fing0lfin, It wasn't just the Jews in the halucost, that Hitlar idid. He also killd 5 million Slavs, Gypsies, etc. The holocost claimed 11 million lives! He also invaded Russia, and killed 20 million civvies there!!!! (Yes, that is just civilians, not military) At least with Stalin, all people were treated equally, and they didn't kill Jews! As long as you kept quiet, and didn't insult Stalin's regime, you would be OK, even if you were a Jew! If you were a Jew in Germany, 1942, then you died! I heard that when the Soviet Red Army liberated one of the daeth camps in Poland, they were so shocked at German brutallity, that they instantly shot all the Germans! Stalin only killd "enemies of the people" (whether they were real or imaginary) Also, even though Stalin may have killd more people then Hitlar, it wasn't by much, and Stalin was around for 27 years! Hitlar only mass-murderred from about 1940 to 1945! Stalin was definitealy no saint, and he was a terrible leader, but Hitlar was much worst!

Fing0lfin, It wasn't just the Jews in the halucost, that Hitlar idid. He also killd 5 million Slavs, Gypsies, etc. The holocost claimed 11 million lives! He also invaded Russia, and killed 20 million civvies there!!!! (Yes, that is just civilians, not military) At least with Stalin, all people were treated equally, and they didn't kill Jews! As long as you kept quiet, and didn't insult Stalin's regime, you would be OK, even if you were a Jew! If you were a Jew in Germany, 1942, then you died! Stalin only killd "enemies of the people" (whether they were real or imaginary) Also, even though Stalin may have killd more people then Hitlar, it wasn't by much, and Stalin was around for 27 years! Hitlar only mass-murderred from about 1940 to 1945! Stalin was definitealy no saint, and he was a terrible leader, but Hitlar was much worst!

thanks for backing me up fox mccloud, stalin didnt starve his enimies or torture them he just killed them

Actually he did starve the Ukrainians, but that was "just" because they protested him, not because they were Ukrainian.

Fing0lfin, It wasn't just the Jews in the halucost, that Hitlar idid. He also killd 5 million Slavs, Gypsies, etc. The holocost claimed 11 million lives! He also invaded Russia, and killed 20 million civvies there!!!! (Yes, that is just civilians, not military) At least with Stalin, all people were treated equally, and they didn't kill Jews! As long as you kept quiet, and didn't insult Stalin's regime, you would be OK, even if you were a Jew! If you were a Jew in Germany, 1942, then you died! I heard that when the Soviet Red Army liberated one of the daeth camps in Poland, they were so shocked at German brutallity, that they instantly shot all the Germans! Stalin only killd "enemies of the people" (whether they were real or imaginary) Also, even though Stalin may have killd more people then Hitlar, it wasn't by much, and Stalin was around for 27 years! Hitlar only mass-murderred from about 1940 to 1945! Stalin was definitealy no saint, and he was a terrible leader, but Hitlar was much worst!
We were talking only about the Jewish Holucost.
Do you know what would happen if your uncle for example, was an 'enemie of the regime' ??
Stalin is a bloodthirsty monster. He had admitted that his reppretions took the life of more then 40 milion people..

We were talking only about the Jewish Holucost.
Do you know what would happen if your uncle for example, was an 'enemie of the regime' ??
Stalin is a bloodthirsty monster. He had admitted that his reppretions took the life of more then 40 milion people..

not as bloodthirsty as hitler. hitler was worser

We were talking only about the Jewish Holucost.

So, now you want to take 1 Giant atrocity of Hitlar, and compare it to everything that Stalin did, and say that Stalin was worst? That's hardly fair.

Do you know what would happen if your uncle for example, was an 'enemie of the regime' ??

Yes, and it was terrible. However, my uncle wouldn't die, because say, he was 1/2 Kazakh, 1/2 Russian, and Stalin didn't say Kazakhs are "inferior". Everyone had equal chances as long as they shut up about the problems created by the regime, and they believed the problganda. With Hitlar, he could've "disappeared" for being 1/2 (insert "inferior race" here)

Stalin is a blooodthirsty monster. He had admitted that his reppretions took the life of more then 40 milion people..

Yes, Stalin was undeniably one of the worst leaders ever. I do not doubt this.

Fingolfin: Stalin is bloodthirsty.
Useles: No, Hitler is more blood thirsty
I may answer you like this:
No, Stalin is more more blood thirsty.
and you will say:
NO, Hitler is more more more bloodthirsty..
It's stupid...It's pointless.
I have proven my points. I have explained my logic...I have explained everything...
But you continiue to be bull-headed and refuse to accept the facts. You claim more and more things, without saying any proves, logic or explanations.... You just keep repeating : "Hitler is the worst, the jews were the worse threated."
It's pointless. This disscusion is doomed....

Warned for getting personal. - KD

Fingolfin: Stalin is bloodthirsty.
Useles: No, Hitler is more blood thirsty
I may answer you like this:
No, Stalin is more more blood thirsty.
and you will say:
NO, Hitler is more more more bloodthirsty..
It's stupid...It's pointless.
I have proven my points. I have explained my logic...I have explained everything...
But you continiue to be bull-headed and refuse to accept the facts. You claim more and more things, without saying any proves, logic or explanations.... You just keep repeating : "Hitler is the worst, the jews were the worse threated."
It's pointless. This disscusion is doomed....

no YOU doomed it from the point you called me a racist (which i is not) :mad:

So, now you want to take 1 Giant atrocity of Hitlar, and compare it to everything that Stalin did, and say that Stalin was worst? That's hardly fair.


Yes, and it was terrible. However, my uncle wouldn't die, because say, he was 1/2 Kazakh, 1/2 Russian, and Stalin didn't say Kazakhs are "inferior". Everyone had equal chances as long as they shut up about the problems created by the regime, and they believed the problganda. With Hitlar, he could've "disappeared" for being 1/2 (insert "inferior race" here)



Yes, Stalin was undeniably one of the worst leaders ever. I do not doubt this.

We were disscusing 'Is the jewish holucost worse than the Stalin's repretions', not ;Who is worse: Stalin or Hitler' ;)

fing0lfin, What's wors? Jews being tortered, starved, beaten, etc. because they are Jews, or Slavs being shot quickly because they were "enemies of the regime". At least Slavs had a chance if they were "good citizens". Jews had no hope.......

We were disscusing 'Is the jewish holucost worse than the Stalin's repretions', not ;Who is worse: Stalin or Hitlar' ;)

I still think holucost was worse, for reasons I've already posted.

I still think holucost was worse, for reasons I've already posted.
what about my statements? so i posted them for nothing? :cry:

I have explained everything above. Just in short. Not all slavs died just shotet, many were beaten, starved etc. Not all jews died beaten etc., some were just shot.
But i don't want to start the same disscusion, with a different person ;) I have wrote my point above...

what about my statements? so i posted them for nothing? :cry:

Yes, you were right. Jews did have it a lot worse than the Slavs. Stalin once even gave of of the "enemies" the choice between exicution and sucide. He chose sucide. ;)

I have explained everything above. Just in short. Not all slavs died just shotet, many were beaten, starved etc. Not all jews died beaten etc., some were just shot.
But i don't want to start the same disscusion, with a different person ;) I have wrote my point above...
that is because i (AND fox mccloud) won the argument :D

I think this thread has reached the end of its useful lifespan... Closed.