|
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. I didn't call him a fascist
|
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:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
whoops double post, hit quote instead of edit.
|
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
|
I expected an answer to the mystery of the missing testicle. Must say I'm a little disappointed.
|
this topic surely will turn into a hitler debate gj ninazerg
|
On January 04 2014 08:32 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +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 08:18 Cuh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 08:14 MysteryMeat1 wrote: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
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
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 08:26 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 09:07 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: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.
And good read, OP.
|
On January 04 2014 09:16 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 09:07 Smurfett3 wrote:On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: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 08:52 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2014 08:18 Cuh wrote:On January 04 2014 08:14 MysteryMeat1 wrote: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
|
fuckin lol at the hitler apologist. great thread 5/5
|
|
|
|