Wrymouth3
Emperor
When Hitler tried to breed the ultimate race.
He was able to do it by himself? That's impressive for a man with only one testicle.
When Hitler tried to breed the ultimate race.
He was able to do it by himself? That's impressive for a man with only one testicle.
Who may have been 1/4 Jewish. And Austrian. Whose drunk father beat him, and whose mother mother-coddled him.
And who had a thing for his cousin.
(I could go on.)
chrisg7, you are starting to be my favorite poster. I am reminded of the golden and legendary first dommy thread. It was glorious.
Though I find it a kind of interesting thought experiment to breed all the ugliness away. Obviously, it is a cruel idea. But on the long run it would make the human race perhaps consistently happier over-all.
He was able to do it by himself? That's impressive for a man with only one testicle.
^
I do think he is joking. I mean just look at Merkel. Not really support for "all german people are beautiful" lines.
Many conquerors who killed millions of people, like Caesar or Genghis Khan, are admired now and people see them as heroes. This is because a lot of time has passed and no one is directly affected by their massacres. People who lived during the ages of Caesar or Genghis Khan and who were affected directly by their massacres viewed them as villains, but now many people admire them. Also, while Hitler lost in the end, Napoleon also lost but now he is admired by many, even thought many Europeans and Americans at his time viewed him as a villain.
So, do you believe that in 100 or more years from now Hitler could be seen in a more positive way?
I don't know what a dommy is but alright. I agree with that though, as cruel as it sounds Germany kind of came out of it happier, sort of. Wasn't some of the reason for what he did something to do with how the Jewish people were doing bad for the economy or along those lines? I think it was something like that.
I'm not sure that making the ultimate race was his only goal because he started small; I think the first thing was he didn't allow Jews to sit on public benches and it escalated to a point where they were just trying to exterminate them.
Now that you've put it that way, I guess people could admire that he only wanted his people to be happy and he wanted the best for his country. He was a really strong military leader and very charismatic. Mots just the way he chose to get there, killing an entire race off, didn't go down to well.
I find it terrifying that someone who claims to be 22 years old should say things like this. Please, go and learn what Hitler actually did and why, and what the consequences were for Germany. Here is a starter: the Jews were not in fact harming Germany, and Germany did not come out of the Third Reich happier than it went in, in any way whatsoever. Hitler did not care about the happiness of his people, he cared about their strength, because he viewed the world as an endless battle between races. He was a fascist whose goals were fundamentally evil, not merely the means he used to try to bring them about.
Krajzen, this is why he's villified and displayed as a military genius - he tried to take down the Big Ones, and in parts, you could say, that for a brief moment of time, he had that chance. And precisely this chance, this very challenge - this is what they're trying to make as evil and bad as possible.
I'm more worried about Mussolini. The European far-right are quietly rehabilitating the interwar rogue's gallery, and they're exploiting Hitler's demonic image to do it. If Hitler was evil given human form, then what was Mussolini, what was Petain, what was Horthy compared to that?In the same way, Hitler will only be a hero to politicians and political governments that claim ancestry on him. The modern German republic doesn't do that. If anything, Hitler was a hero to the corruption of democracy, fascism, greed, violence, racism, genocide, audacity, and madness. And also mass transportation. I wouldn't want to be around if Hitler was redeemed as a popular hero. There's very little favor for the things Hitler stood for, even some 8-ish decades later.
If Hitler was evil given human form, then what was Mussolini, what was Petain, what was Horthy compared to that?
I've thought this, too.I am the only one who think Hitler was hopeless lunatic with absolutely no chances of 'total victory'?
Let's not forget that the USSR was happily supplying the Nazi regime with all sorts of goods. Right up to the launching of Barbarossa. Who knows how long the treaty would have lasted without the invasion? Probably as long as it suited both parties.I mean, hey, let's make our European country global power!
Two main unavoidable obstacles:
1) USRR, the most pathological and militarized country in the human history ruled by ruthless maniac, with 5x bigger population and absolutely insane geography, with ideology exactly opposed to nazism
Let's not forget the Nazi sympathizers and anti-Communist sentiment in the US.2) USA, the world ridiculously dominant economic and scientific power - behind few thousand kilometres of ocean and with complete naval domination - obsessed over status quo
Hitler seemed to have expected Britain to agree to peace terms after he conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. And was rather surprised when it didn't.Not to mention English devastating fleet and the entire colonial empire, permanent tensions in the Third Reich, rejection of any 'inappriopriate allies', all world sane countries united more or less against Germany and, oh, all world communists united against Germany
Well, OK. But the German-speaking peoples of Europe did constitute quite a large bloc on their own, didn't they?And only foreign allies of Hitler:
- few poor Balkan countries
- Japan, whose chances of dominating the entire Eastern Asia are exactly as big as German chances of dominating Europe
- complete and magnificent idiot (come on, guess who)
Maybe. Even so, Germany came very close to developing a nuclear weapon.Hm, let's wonder what would be required for Hitler to achieve 'domination victory'
- Not forcing all briliant nuclear scientists to emigration and investing into nuclear program, not rocket one
OK. But I asked someone once why the Germans didn't simply bomb the airfields and deprive the RAF of the ability to fly. They said they did try, but it didn't work. It's really quite easy just to bulldoze a lot of earth into craters and take off again.- Not being complete idiot and conquering Britain via air domination (battle of England was lost because of idiotic decision to bomb population centres instead of military targets)
The Spanish Civil War effectively devastated Spain out of participating at all. Mussolini was pretty irrelevant. Are you saying the Italians effectively hampered the Third Reich? They certainly didn't help. But I'm not sure Germany would have been significantly better off without them. Not sure what point you're trying to make about Stalin.- Franco being complete idiot and joining Third Reich
- Mussolini being even bigger idiot and NOT joining Third Reich
- Stalin being exactly as big idiot as he was IRL and wasting millions of troops in the early stage of war
- USSR somehow surrendering after losing Leningrad and Moscow and not continuing evresistance with the entire industrial superpower still in the far interior
- ...Poland joining Germany (this is so strange idea I don't even know if it is idiotic)
- ...basically rejecting Nazi racial ideology to cooperate with repressed citizens of USSR (for example Ucrainians were really willing to overthrow USSR with Wehrmacht, but they realised Hitler is somehow even worse than Stalin)
- USA completely don't caring about the entire European Derby despite very influential Jewish and European groups
- The entire British + French navy and military force falling and not continuing resistance from colonies
- Some kind of Muslim/Hindu Uprising to destroy British empire (???)
- Japan occupying the entire China (despite total stagnation of the entire invasion IRL due to massive lack of manpower to control 400 000 000 Chinese people)
- Lack of guerilla on conquered territories
- Lack of internal uprising/coup'd'etat/Stauffenberg
- ...oh, and most of military actions going perfectly
- ...economy and resources...
I don't even mention completely ridiculous 'Germany invading USA' scenario
Area bombing was the only sensible option. As the Allies found when they came back to heavily bomb Germany.
Are you saying the Italians effectively hampered the Third Reich? They certainly didn't help. But I'm not sure Germany would have been significantly better off without them.
I'm actually surprised how much success he enjoyed. I think he was incredibly lucky at times. And also enjoyed some spectacular incompetence from his opposition.
You're correct in what you say above - it was often the best they could do and had a significant effect. But I don't know if you're aware or not that the bombing wasn't nearly as effective as the Allies believed it to be during the war.
The accuracy wasn't nearly as good as they hoped, and factories especially were put back into operation much quicker than they'd believed possible. Basically, the bombs had a harder time damaging equipment than was thought.
The infamous "firebombing" stuff wasn't terribly useful either.
IIRC high-altitude bombing as field-prep for battles was disappointing, too.
Interdiction often worked well. And more limited bombing was certainly worth while - stuff targeted at vulnerable bottlenecks. The Germans also put a significant amount of effort into guarding against bombing.