Discussion in 'World History' started by christos200, Jul 26, 2013.
He was able to do it by himself? That's impressive for a man with only one testicle.
And dark hair.
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.)
A masterrace has been born!
One with chronic pneumonia that is.
At least they'd be vegetarian non-smoking animal lovers!
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.
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.
Haha I remember reading that somewhere. "Breed" may not have been the best term for the point I was trying to make, but I think you can understand what I was going for.
Ok "many of the people" would've been better to use as Merkel is not a great example of that.
And my little brother that I share this account with is 14, 6'2", and I guess 170lbs. I'm 22. Just putting that out there.
Only to violent political societies owning ancestry to the 3rd Reich. And people who like mass transportation.
To take the example of Napoleon, he was viewed as a villain for demanding too much in part, for achieving a lot of useless destruction for his people, and for challenging the political status quo. That political status quo isn't particularly valued in the modern day, so that is why Napoleon is partially redeemed. Admiration of Napoleon is based on his skill and audacity, which doesn't necessarily make him heroic, just prominent. Ok, maybe you might describe him as heroic for pursuing war against many opponents in the same time frame, and maybe you'd say that because those opponents were political adherents of a status quo that is unpopular in the modern era.
Do we view Hannibal of Carthage as a hero, or just prominent? I'd say just prominent. The same for the Khans. It was impressive tribal warfare with profound influence on the world, and maybe some increased communication between Europe and Asia. There's some prominence in it. We are probably more apathetic about whatever politics or values those people fought for, because of distance of time and culture. They aren't really redeemed, just interesting in the same way as any other significant event in history.
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.
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.
besides , his really being a strong military leader doesn't actually match the truth . The appearance is this is to turn into a justification of what happened back then ; makes it readily assumable that there is already a strong level of information on all the "conspiracies" . Hence it should be really obvious that Hitler was winning when he was on the "good" side . The word "good" here is used with some little insane amount of sarcasm . And when he was not , he didn't go far . It's just the Allies' fault that they all were plotting for post-war instead of being on the "Anti-Hitlerite Crusade" .
Spend some time on Youtube comment sections and you'll treat this guy like a professor.
The sad thing is that you don't even have to go looking for fertile Anti-Semitic ground, like Holocaust Denial, to find virulent Antisemitism on YouTube.
I am the only one who think Hitler was hopeless lunatic with absolutely no chances of 'total victory'?
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
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
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
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)
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
- 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)
- 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 resistance 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
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.
...no my friend, Hitler is viewed as evil because of his views on humanity, human dignity, and him initiating the greatest war in the human history, the most pointless waste of lives in human history and obviously Holocaust
Except those moral problems with Hitler... Wait, you are really trying to convince me that if in politics someone makes something ambitious and extremely stupid, fails and provides great amount of despair to countless people he should be praised just because he tried?
To compare, Napoleon while failed can be praised as military genius and the creator of law, he also didn't begin the greatest genocide in human history and didn't create an ideology regarded as evil by almost all cultures Napoleonic idea had some level of plausibility and political realism. It failed but didn't necessarily have to fail. It caused big loss of life but 'not abnormal loss of life' while talking about his times and the scale of conflicts
Hitler had psychologic problems, was obsessed with completely nonsensical ideology (I am talking about biology of human 'races'), became the master of manipulation and propaganda, for 5 years led very immoral state on the verge of economic collapse, and later started the cataclysm which was not only immoral from basic points of view but ridiculous from geopolitical point of view. During the war he did countless very, very stupid things on military level which led to even greater loss of life, personally was responsible for extremely immoral actions (personal order of Hitler - annihilate Warsaw after Uprising, destroy its historical monuments and kill all people inside), finally he completely collapsed psychologically along his devastated nation and cowardly committed suicide - so he didn't even take the responsibility for his actons (...unlike Napoleon).
I don't think he was Great in any way except his charisma and determination. But many crazy prophets have charisma and determination
His Great Plan was based on scientifically wrong beliefs and his deep personal psychological problems, he got the power and led his country to completely irrational war, lost it in huge part due to his ignorant decisions and committed suicide. Congratulations
Many national heroes did 'irrational' things while attempting to beat down 'challenges' but they usually don't fail so hard as Hitler and don't lead to such moral disasters as his regime
It can be said that he was able ruler in 1933 - 1939 period. This argument has few serious flaws.
1) Restoring German economy after Great Crisis was not a miracle and I seriously doubt Hitler 'achievements' here. On the other hand, it is hard to say 'if not WW2 Germany under Hitler would flourish...' since lesser or bigger Great War was his delusional goal since very beginning. German economy by 1939 was overheated because of massive militarization and later was completely crushed by the industry of USSR + USA.
2) Hitler didn't create German superpower out of thin air. He basically raised morale of already very developed and very strong nation - which is pretty nice achievement on its own... to lead it into complete and utter disaster. It is not like Hitler created Wehrmacht, German industry and German military tradition. Nazi army evolved from Prussian military tradition, German industry was traditionally powerful, Germany had countless Great People.
3) Praising Hitler for Autobahns and such stuff is IMHO wrong on the same level as praising Stalin for Industrialisation. On its own those achievements were pretty nice. Unfortunately in the historical perspective the disregard of human life of Hitler and Stalin during their times led to such economical and demographic massacre of their nations that those losses greatly outweigh positive aspects.
Hitler restored the faith in imperial Germany, only to make this Germany lose 6 - 9 000 000 people, sovereignity, suffer terrible economic losses and be crippled for the next few decades (and today his nation has insane problems with identity because of him). Stalin developed industry in USSR, in the meantime his rule + WWII led to complete demographic massacre of Russian nation. To the point current Russian Federation today has smaller population than Russian Empire in 1911 and is in total demographical decline.
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?
Ah. That explains the "XXX days since minority member beaten." (with a little writing area where "XXX" is) posters I saw.
Emphasizing the positive is a classic marketing strategy.
I've thought this, too.
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.
Let's not forget the Nazi sympathizers and anti-Communist sentiment in the US.
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.
Well, OK. But the German-speaking peoples of Europe did constitute quite a large bloc on their own, didn't they?
Maybe. Even so, Germany came very close to developing a nuclear weapon.
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.
Area bombing was the only sensible option. As the Allies found when they came back to heavily bomb Germany.
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.
Yeah. Hitler was delusional alright.
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.
I've often seen it argued - this is "IIRC" - that bailing out Italy in the Balkans cost Germany its best chance at Russia. OTOH, that effort was likely doomed one way or the other, no matter what. So, as you say, we may still be at "didn't help."
The Italians can often be fun to play in wargames, though. "This!? This is supposed to be a tank?" "This is the wrong TOE, it's something from WWI... it isn't?"
He was very aggressive. Early in the war, when Germany had advantages in technology and preparation (both material and doctrinal) it made him look brilliant. (Yet even there he was inconsistent - a few times he should have been aggressive, he wasn't.)
But the situation changed fairly quickly and he didn't adapt. Which revealed what he was: "Foolish" may be the weakest possible word for it.
I agree. It's always seemed ironic that the British, given their experience of being bombed, and how ineffective it is in affecting either the morale or output of a country, should have thought bombing was the way to make a major contribution to defeating Germany.
I suppose they thought that, if only they bombed Germany enough, eventually it would make a difference.
Incidentally, even today, "precision" bombing is pretty much a ... ahem... hit and miss affair.
Separate names with a comma.