CENTRAL COUNCIL OF JEWS ON TEAMLIQUID Public Corporation
To the President of Teamliquid.net for the Advancement of Esports, Inc. Prof. Teamliquid Owner Internet
Esteemed Prof. Teamliquid Owner!
The Chairperson of the Board of the Central Council of Jews on Teamiquid, Zerglings Banelings, in a battle.net conversation on just now communicated to himself his concern over the effect of the “expert Hitler blog” of Diplom Poster Ninazerg.
The Administrative Council of the Central Council has thoroughly discussed the documentation and the effect of the blog. It shares the concerns of the Chairman that this “expert blog” could all too easily be used as a pseudo-hearsay proof for denial of the mass murder of Jews. This has happened before – as is known – just search a bit on the forums.
The Central Council of Jews on Teamliquid expects from you, esteemed Prof. Teamliquid Owner, that appropriate measures will be taken by Teamliquid.net and the Teamliquid staff to prevent any further activities of the expert blogger.
The really evil things about hitler is the stuff he was planning to do. His main goal of the invasion of the soviet union was based around "the hunger plan" an initiative that involved clearing out large swaths of the Carpathian basin and western russia so that germen citizens could be moved in in order for them to be self sufficient.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
I don't think he got even close.
srsly? He controlled the entire mainland of europe at the height of WW2, had britain contained, and had Russia on the backfoot. If he had waited out the winter and didn't overextend himself so damn far (trying to beat britain AND russia at the same time) he would have won the war in europe. He was also making considerable progress in africa against the allies as well.....and Japan was terrorizing the pacific islands and eastern asia.
If hitler had conquered the entire europe + asia continents, it would have just been the USA vs more then half the fuckin world.
Nukes may have presented a problem, though I don't know to what extent Germany was developing and pursing that avenue of research.
On January 04 2014 07:16 ninazerg wrote: ... Although the party was called "socialist", it was anything but socialist, and Hitler made the Communist party his primary enemy, declaring that the German Communists would overthrow the government.
might be nitpicking, but the NSDAP had multiple socialist projects. While they surely werent trying to create communism, they had loads of typical socialist ways of handling their economy, like nationalizing big companies and private ownings (e.g. from the jews), giving assignments to companies, creating organizations to bind children to the state, unifying all parties under one etc. All things those were done by e.g. the DDR as well.
That aside I agree to pretty much everything you wrote. On a side note the NSDAP also managed to crush any German national pride.
Basically yes. But the Nazi Party's primary rhetoric changed from a socialist message to a nationalist message over time, partially to win the favor of big industrial financiers. Most of the nationalization was directed at the Jewish community, with the argument always staying on a nationalist narrative, where all seizures of private property were done to either "arrest traitors" or to build the wehrmacht to defend the homeland.
On January 04 2014 08:32 Rinny wrote: I think about hitler everyday i think i have some kind of disease, i dont admire him or even paticularly hate him. Think I might have some kind of childhood traumatic memory associated with him.
I don't really "hate" Hitler. I certainly don't love him either. I think he makes for an interesting historical character study though. In the western world, it is almost a part of standard education to compulsively be steered in the direction of hating Hitler, but luckily, I didn't pay attention in school enough to get a sense of that, which is why I feel like I can be very objective about who he was. I think I could say the same for almost any other historical "villain", except for that bitch Queen Elizabeth. She knows what she did.
On January 04 2014 08:26 Blackfeather wrote: (I doubt that "Untermenschen" aka non Germans would have gotten the permission to study).
Where did you get this from? And I'm pretty sure the NSDAP didn't consider all non-Germans to be "Untermenschen". Hitler valued every nation included in his concept of the Aryan race, in which he included the Japanese by calling them "The Aryans of the East".
Because Nina left out facts, such as the Nürnberger Gesetze, which mentioned how lawyers/doctors were prohibited to practice, as well as things like the Hoßbach Protokoll (which she kind of merged with Mein Kampf). Both are somewhat clear indicators of the course Hitler's / the NSDAP's laws would have looked like (and did), as well as how non-Germans (aka non-Arians with unclear heritage) would be treated.
Yeah, I feel like the persecution / ww2 parts of Hitler's legacy are covered somewhat redundantly by historians. While Hossbach was the policy-making part of Hitler's agenda, it all comes from Hitler's militaristic philosophy, his hatred for the Treaty of Versailles, his hatred for racial and political groups he viewed as parasites, and his assertion that Germany should be able to match, if not surpass, the military power of France and Britain in order to appropriately "defend" the homeland.
The only references I made to the Hossbach Protocol were mentioning Hitler's original interest in Britain as a potential ally, and his intention to engage Europe in war. One thing that I wanted to mention, but totally forgot to mention was the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, and Stalin's relationship with Hitler. There were a lot of other things I thought about including, like Hitler's purge of the "brown shirts", and his idea of Lebensraum, but I felt like it would be beating a dead horse to say "And here's another thing that Hitler thought that was kinda fucked-up..."
On January 04 2014 08:56 Snugles wrote: STOP! If you continue to spread actual solid facts about the Nazis and information about 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' I cant relate things to Hitler to try and make unjustifiable opinions justifiable. :O
Seriously though a great write-up, I'm not sure about some parts such as the causes of the second world war. I have always thought that it was the allies being naive and not believing that Germany would use their renewed army for aggression and was instead just a reclaiming of unjustifiably stripped national military pride and independence and by the time they realized the aggressive intentions they were too late to stop them; though on second thought this argument has its weaknesses.
Of course, when one starts learning about history, one of the first things you learn in America is: "Hitler was bad, and heroic Americans won the war." and later we learn that the Russians may have also had a hand in winning the war.
Its funny in Britain (at least for me) we were taught that it was the British that won the war, then us and the Americans and then that it was probably the Russians for the most part. I wonder what its like in Russian education.
In Russia, they're basically taught "We won the war, America sent some supplies, but we won it.", which is actually 66% true.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Well, now that you got shit on by the forumz, I feel like maybe this deserves a slightly better answer. First, my blog is not about World War 2, even though that is a large part of Hitler's legacy. Both sides made large technological leaps over the course of the war, however. The Germans introduced the V2 Rocket as a weapon, created the first jet-engine, created the first "computer". The Allies, on the other hand, had the best propeller plane in the world in the P-51, and the strength and durability of the German Panzers were not only matched, but exceeded by Russian T-40 and IS-2 tanks. The Allies were the first to use radar to spot incoming aircraft, and sonar to spot the German U-Boats. On top of everything, the United States developed arguably the most influential and deadly weapon of the war: the atomic bomb.
So technologically, I don't feel that there would be much difference. That being said, your statement that "if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world" is a quasi-paradox, because hunger and poverty are problems that involve human suffering. War itself causes immense human suffering, so to engage in wars of aggression and to exterminate populations would seem to exacerbate the condition of human suffering. Also, many of the nations suffering from extreme poverty and hunger are in their current state due to constant warfare and 'ethnic cleansing'.
About the prospect of unity: it is a very noble goal to see more unity and less warfare among humankind. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America was more or less very unified, perhaps to a frightening extent, against the "evil Japanese", which has affected my own family negatively, to say the least. If a crowd comes together to hang an innocent man, isn't that unity? Of course it is, but not for a noble purpose. Any sort of unity based on hatred and lies will not last, and Hitler's regime was not immune to disillusionment. Many attempts were made on Hitler's life, although he survived all of them, including a bomb blast that nearly killed him. Unity in the name of violence and oppression simply cannot stand because it goes against human nature, and while it may seem unbreakable, the fasces of hate will die of atrophy.
Like all ideological centralized military dictatorships, Germany had a good start at technical progress impacting military concerns, and eventually lost steam because political considerations impair science in ideological centralized military dictatorships. Germany led the world in nuclear physics research before the war, but Hitler thought a nuclear bomb was a pie-in-the-sky money waster and focused more resources and minds on jet aircraft, tanks, missiles, etc.
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
And the Russians main contribution to winning the war was bodies. The Russkis were shooting ammunition made in the USA, riding in 50,000 trucks made in the USA, riding in tanks made in factories relocated to the Urals under American industrialist supervision (also partially made with raw materials mined in the USA), flying planes filled with aviation gasoline drilled and distilled in the US (literally almost 100% of their avgas), etc. Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and stones without the USA pretty much. America provided the internal-combustion engine mobility that was the Red Army's main advantage over the Germans post-summer of '42.
One of the more weird parts of the war is that America and Japan were blasting the hell out of each other in the Pacific while thousands of American ships were going from the West Coast to Russia chock-full of war supplies that Russia would have lost the war without, and Japan never once tried to stop them, because Japan and Russia were neutral until the very end of it.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
On January 04 2014 07:24 Smurfett3 wrote: Hitler is a dick. Was a dick. Will always be a asshole. BUT you cannot ignore the fact that he was less then a finger away from conquering the entire world. That sir takes a genius mind and grandmaster manipulation skills
No... He was a strategic moron... The blitzkrieg was probably not invented by him. The only strategic input he had was the no retreat policy which only got his men killed.
The only thing he was good was manipulation and giving good speeches (I assume)
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
He probably forgot about the: Kill the Jews, enslave the Slavs part... Slips my mind occasionally to sometimes.
On January 04 2014 07:42 Cuh wrote: I dont get why its terrible. All im doing is saying I wonder how different the human race would be if certain parts of history went a different way, I never implied that i wish he would of won or anything. Negatives or positives the world would be a much changed.. and if all the humans were one race/nationality dont you think there would be more global unity since all cultures would be realtivly the same? if there were only 1/5 of the world population wouldnt it be easier to feed everyone???
whats so stupid about wondering how the world could be so much different if history played out differently
None of your supposed end goals of Hitlers campaign were or are even remotely tenable, and to focus on idealistic, nonsense outcomes instead of the realities of what happened is to basically play second fiddle to fascistic ideology.
What a completely worthless, inflammatory response. Instead of bothering to explain your views or say anything that matters at all, you say that he is wrong and a nazi. Really?
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
That really just describes the nationalist part of Nazism, though. You could simply say "The Nazi Party was nationalist in a ...", etc. and be completely correct. So your criticism is a bit off on that part.
On January 04 2014 07:31 Cuh wrote: I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
Wow, I am speechless. I never knew this level of intelligence even existed. In what crazy scenario in your head would a conquered nation (in this case, the whole fucking world) brought to it's knees by an iron fist (Nazi Germany), ever submit quietly and live peacefully? Furthermore, what nation would simply submit and live in unity with a regime that incorporates genocide on an institutional level? Hitler would have never conquered the WHOLE world, but let's say he did, the "fires" that erupt post-war would consume him long after his afterlife in Hell. Just look at what happened in France and Poland. Freedom fighters rose up and continued the war even after Hitler's victories in France and Poland.
Ummm...Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica etc? There are many examples where large empires did indeed lead to less internal wars then previously existed in the conquered areas. Cultural, commercial and scientific exchange also flourished and lead to economic growth.
Or how about the USA? 500 subjugated indian nations, occurrences of genocide, systematic destruction of culture and language, countless broken treaties (some of which are legal to this day and still not honored) and yet there is internal peace now and it has become the richest country on earth.
Could this have happened with Nazi Germany? No, that's why it is a hypothetical question. Is the idea so absurd that you need to insult his intelligence? No.
Very good OP but some minor errors in it. The Nazi Party was socialist in a "unity of the nation, all individuals for the State" way, not necessarily economic socialism. Should have touched on Gleichshaltung (well it's close to that spelling) which means roughly "bringing into line," and was the process by which the Nazi Party took over all institutions in Germany. Churches, sporting clubs, youth groups, trade unions, industrial councils, etc. The Nazi Party's economic policy was socialist to a degree in that the Party told business what it wanted, and if business did not provide, Nazi commissars took over and made sure business did provide.
That really just describes the nationalist part of Nazism, though. You could simply say "The Nazi Party was nationalist in a ...", etc. and be completely correct. So your criticism is a bit off on that part.
There's very little difference between volkisch collectivism and proletarian collectivism. Mostly the difference exists in the self-identity that the ideology promotes. The Nazi world-state is a collectivism of Aryans sacrificing at the altar of the Master Race so Aryans can live in a utopia in the future; the communist world-state is a collectivism of workers sacrificing at the altar of the proletariat so the workers can live in a utopia in the future. Both involve the subsuming of the individual by the State, eventually over the entirety of the globe, to achieve a promised golden age. The Nazis were just a bit more discriminating as to who deserves the ostensible benefits of this global dominion.
Objections to "National Socialism" being described as socialistic and saying "it's the nationalism" are off the mark. Socialism is cultural as well as economic, and nationalism is a form of cultural socialism confined to a single nation instead of transcending borders the way "red" socialism is supposed to (thanks for putting a bullet through the brain of that one, Stalin). There's very little difference between German national socialism and Stalin's Russian-supremacist Soviet Socialism (funny, because Stalin was a Georgian) (and the USSR never escaped the trap it built for itself with its Russian supremacism, even after Stalin). Pre-WWI socialism, a more idealistic socialism, is more different from Nazism than post-WWI, "build socialism in one country" socialism is. Not that the earlier version disappeared, but after Trotsky's defeat it shrank to insignificance (outside of the Comintern, a tool of the NKVD / later the KGB) (which is why the Chinese never really got with it and eventually their own nationalism sent them off in a split with the Russians, Russian-supremacist socialism and Chinese-supremacist socialism can't both rule the world and all that) until socialism itself was tossed on the ash heap of history, and thanks to that, it has not recovered.
Calling the same thing by two different names doesn't make them two different things. At the core of both is a fairy tale wherein the universe is remade by a triumph of the will, backed by (alleged) scientific truth, which requires the individual to sacrifice all or nearly all autonomy of action and thought to the State because the enemies of the utopia can only be overcome by unflinching obedience and a united front that never retreats and never surrenders.
Socialists just have a visceral "NO WAI" reaction to it the same way patriots have a visceral "NO WAI" reaction to how it is a short step from loving your country to fascism.
On January 04 2014 12:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: And the Russians main contribution to winning the war was bodies. The Russkis were shooting ammunition made in the USA, riding in 50,000 trucks made in the USA, riding in tanks made in factories relocated to the Urals under American industrialist supervision (also partially made with raw materials mined in the USA), flying planes filled with aviation gasoline drilled and distilled in the US (literally almost 100% of their avgas), etc. Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and stones without the USA pretty much. America provided the internal-combustion engine mobility that was the Red Army's main advantage over the Germans post-summer of '42.
That's so utterly overexaggerated it's basically just flat out wrong.
From Wikipedia: "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $650 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped. That represented 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and smaller sums to other Allies."
So unless a third of what the British received made a difference equal to "without it they'd have been fighting with sticks" on the by far largest theater of war in human history, you're wrong.
Hard to see a blog topic title like this and not be intrigued. Good intro to the topic, though I personally feel that simply presenting a list of (estimated) deaths by war/conflict/political leader very problematic.
For one, I think it was AJP Taylor that pointed out, it was not Hitler himself who smashed every Jewish shop window, pulled every lever at Auschwitz, launched every V2, or gunned down every Russian. Although Hitler had the highest responsibility, each agent at every layer also bears some responsibility, from the individual to the organization, to the culture and political winds of the time in Germany and the world. The same goes for any conflict.
Also, though a great number of deaths is certainly bad, it masks circumstances and intentions. I would condemn a leader in whose service troops died in the pursuit of immoral goals, and support a leader in whose service troops died for noble purposes. But interpretations of goals vary, as do the motivations and circumstances of the troops and the dead themselves.
I always wonder if Hitler would of won and conquered the entire world, where would the human race be at in terms of technological progression. I mean if he killed out so many people there would prolly be less dependcy to support poverty and hunger around the world. And that many less wars would be fought throughout history? Just seems like there would be alot more unity and in turn more prosperity
If Hitler had won, the war would have extended so far and so long that it would have devastated the world's economy, industry, commerce, and food supplies even more than it actually did, and I would wager a guess that, based on his ideology, he would not have been very willing to fully rebuild much of it, if at all. There also would certainly have been resistance movements like the historical ones in Poland and France, so no on the less wars. Hitler's Germany was not the kind of open and intellectually free society that enables wide ranging technological progression. (Dictatorships can certainly make narrow scientific successes, like North Korea's nuclear project) Finally, there would not be more world unity unless he literally killed off every ethnic group that Nazism disfavored, as well as every ethnic or political group that opposed his goals morally or politically.
Personally, something I find interesting is the political situation in Germany just before Hitler's rise to power. At the time, Socialists and Communists actually were somewhat popular in Germany - the election right after the Reichstag fire didn't even register a Nazi majority - they got 44% while Socialists got 18% and the Communists 12%, even under voter intimidation from the SS. And a year before that, the Socialists had 20% and the Communists 17% against the Nazis' 33%. You mentioned that Hitler rose to power on fears of the Communists and the lesson many people take away is the dangerous ability of a demagogue to rise to power by distracting people with fears of an outside enemy. I feel the real lesson is that his political campaign worked because there were enough kernels of truth in it (there actually was a Communist presence in Germany at the time) despite the fact that it was so extreme and undemocratic (many native Germans truly believed Communism was right for their country, and Hitler banned their party). I imagine many German voters of the time may not have had any grander intentions than choosing the lesser of two evils when they voted Hitler into power.
And on a side note, I think a much more interesting alternate history than "what if Hitler had actually conquered [place he didn't conquer]" is "what if the parties of the Left in Germany of the 1930s had actually managed to work together to take power, instead of Hitler".
EPT
