Also he had wind of the russians preparing to attack the west, so he decided to attack fiest to make sure he disrupted their supplies as much as possible. It was a move he had to do. Not having to worry about the russians wasnt an.option, both knew they had to go to war at some point. Germany almost won, they just couldnt get rid of everyone at stalingrad on time.
The fucker shot himself instead of picking up a rifle and trying to take a few Russians with him. That alone says he didn't really give a shit about Germany.
Munich Soviet Republic run by bolshevik jews cemented the germans hatred for the jewish revolutionaries. I don't think we can reduce the complexities of their time down to "attacking russia for lebensraum lulz". Bolshevism was a massive threat to all of europe then.
Besides, if you want to blame someone, blame Goering for promising supplies without any ability to deliver them to the front. Blame him for baiting the german army into staying when they should have fallen back.
Of course! Not making sure the English were wiped out at Dunkirk. Also, not listening to Rommel during D-Day. Requiring HH at the end of all Enigma messages was a biggie. Not locating vital war production below ground earlier in the war. Oh, and that Soviet boondoggle. I'm sure others will come to mind.
Well, he failed, so surely he made mistakes. Though sometimes it's hard to evaluate them, for example, I once read that Hitler refused to cooperate with White (as in not communist) Russians during Barbarossa and the Soviet counterattack since he hated Slavs, and one thinks, gee what an idiot, but then I remembered there were Slav SS divisions. So maybe it was propaganda what I read? Dunno.
Was not attacking at Dunkirk a mistake or an attempt to be brotherly with the British and sue for peace? I guess mistake, since the second thing wasn't going to happen.
I'm pretty sure he wanted their farm land for German expansion & saw the slavs as "in the way".
They definitely had a presence in the camps but I don't know if it was ideology (like the jews) or for more practical purposes (land) that got them rounded up.
I generally suspect the Generalplan Ost to be greatly exaggerated, probably by the Soviets. As in, Hitler did want to have all Germanic peoples in one state, maybe some oil and wheat fields in Ukraine but the whole idea of making this Germany wasn't really an established, realistic, existing plan. A problem with Eastern sources on the war is that they had a vested interest in making the Nazis look as worse as possible and themselves better by comparison.
This whole thing is a lot deeper than you might expect. Here we go.
The "Nazi" party were not called "Nazi" because they belonged to the NSDAP - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. They were called "Nazi" because they were ashkenazi jews, basically the Khazar's, who under King Bhulan adopted the jewish faith (and who now make up 94% of the so called "semites"...).
The same same people who now have taken over your government.
A little Jack Otto, who also got the good news from our friends, might be in place. He will tell you about the very few running this world: The Chabad Lubavitch sect. Please read up on them.
Hitler lost, which resulted in the near-complete destruction of German sovereignty and self-determination. A huge proportion of adult German males were killed and something like 3/4 of all German females from 8 to 80 were brutally raped by invading/occupying forces. The German people were literally and forcibly cucked, and are living the outcome of that total failure (the latest punishment being the wholesale importation of Muslims).
Hitler wanted a strong, proud, and free Germany, and in that endeavor he failed utterly.
Of course what he did was wrong, you'd have to be a fucking, retarded nigger to think otherwise. He shouldn't have started whit with Stalin, that's what he did wrong.
It is a necessary lesson I fear. When you fight, you fight for survival, there is no room for mercy in a clash of ideologies/civilizations. You must pummel the opponent til they no longer pose a threat. Conflict must be avoided if possible but if it is inevitable, you must go all the way. I imagine there would also be a lot less conflict if people thought it would be carried out to the brutal end. They would think long and hard before engaging in it. War must never be easy for either side, it must always be brutal and carried to its bloody conclusion.
The phrase 'hitler did nothing wrong' is not in reference to all of his activities, but to a select few which involved rounding up and jailing the jews.
'hitler did a few things wrong' encompasses many more activities while diluting the meaning of 'hitler did nothing wrong'
only a jew shill would pollute the meaning of the phrase.
The biggest mistake was in not taking Moscow - all roads lead to Moscow. He should have taken it while he had the chance. The disruption would have severely crippled the Soviet war machine.
I believe this decision cost him the second world war.
Yeah the Encirclement of the 6th was tragic, and the abandonment of the Afrika Corps too which is hard to forgive him for. There was a reason the General staff called him the Bohemian Corporal behind his back. He wasnt a good Tactician for the smaller to medium sized variables - more of a Bigger picture strategist (which he excelled at) Its just a shame he didnt leave the minute details of doctrine to his generals.
From Julius Caesar to Napoleon, Hitler is just another man to learn from.
Hitler was under the 'delusion' that England, an Anglo-Saxon Nation, would cast off its jewish banker chains and help fight communism hand in hand with their European brothers. That was ultimately the biggest factor in his decision to invade. Which imo was foolish, but hindsight etc.
If u mention anything about hitler on reddit or other sites in any way positive u get blasted with information explaining how horrible everything he did was.
Well, he did lose the war, so I think that's a reasonable thing to say. For propaganda and offensiveness purposes, it's best not to get complicated and just say, "Hitler did nothing wrong."
... okay except that a war like that wouldnt end until one side no longer had the supplies to keep fighting. Eventually Germany would still have to push into Russia to end the threat. And Russia didnt have to motivate its people - It just had to conscript and use order 227. Digging in was the weakest of the two options, because it gave Russia the initiative to continually attempt to break the german line, if in your strategic opinion Germany wouldnt counter attack.
Also Russia didnt lose WW1 it withdrew due to the boleshivik revolution which had been heating up for a decade prior.
I don't think there is ever a good time to attack Russia. Countries to not fuck with because their people are tough bastards who will happily die in their millions defending their country; Russia, Afghanistan, Iran. You may kill ten times as many of them as they kill of you but that means nothing if they are willing to die, you may take territory but you will never hold it.
The Russian people were forced into a meat grinder, i think the germans were there to liberate them from the jewish communists, the Russian people should have allied with them but when they were starved by the jews and had their families threatened with death they pushed onward. A great shame really, Only the jews won on the Russian front
It's not just that, it's the inevitable fact that no matter when you invade Russia, you will inevitably be invading Russia during the winter time. It's a massive chunk of land to cross and a little scorched earth retreating will wait out anyone.
And anyone who has been drinking with a Russian knows those tough bastards are not to be fucked with. Sometimes it is not just about how much you can thrash your opponent but about how much of a beating they can take. And those are some hardcore folks that will take whatever savagery you throw at them and stay stoic. I think it also helps that they are one homogenous group, you can't conquer Russia by turning some Russians against others because they are all white, Orthodox Christian, have the same history, roughly the same values. It isn't like Syria where you can get Kurds to turn on Alawites and Sunnis on Shias. You can't count on turning any of the locals into fighters for your side.
In the case of afghanistan... If the US didn't intervene by provinding MANPADS among other things, quite frankly, afghans would be history by now
For real
The soviet bulldozer was no joke and afghans stood no chance against su25 and mi24 aircrafts, they barely had any descent guns, no AKs
Imagine arizona getting bombed 24/7 by a10 and apache helicopters while everybody has old hunting rifles, and stuffs like geneva convention/human rights or rules of engagement aren't observed
And that's just for the air campaign, you get the full kit right after, special forces, armored vehicles and all that
Perhaps? But didn't American escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan show that taking territory with superior firepower is easy but holding that territory is another story, even against a poorly armed opponent? I definitely concede that the Americans arming the mujahideen helped them take on Soviets who had air dominance and tanks whilst the Afghans had AKs. Does this mean that the Soviets would have managed to hold and rule an Islamic, Arab country of that size whilst the Soviet Union was facing dire economic pressures and struggling to manage and admminister such a huge empire? I don't think so.
A Taliban sticking to assymetric warfare, sabotage, sporadic attacks and suicide bombings (which the Algerian liberation war was showing the effectiveness off and which were already tied to Islam) would, I think, have killed the Soviets a slow death os a thousand pin pricks, then escalated into swaths of terriroty being ungovernable and under Taliban rule and eventual Soviet surrender.
Sure, taking a position is one thing, holding it is an entire different ball game
"Does this mean that the Soviets would have managed to hold and rule an Islamic, Arab country of that size whilst the Soviet Union was facing dire economic pressures and struggling to manage and admminister such a huge empire? I don't think so."
I think without external support, any local opposition to the soviet war machine would have been exterminated, plain and simple
...
Even as dirty as it seems , keep in mind that the west is playing the war game nice and civilized ,(even when considering droning, fuck geneva, black ops, etc)
...
You have what? Thousands of nukes availabe for immediate delivery ? What else ? Bacteriological weaponery ?
Please.
It took half of the world to defeat nazi germany and it was a short win
Imagine what a US sized nazi germany would be like
The problem with the big guns is you can almost never use them. If the Soviets had dropped a nuke on anyone, even a country that wasn't a US ally, the Americans would have loved the excuse to nuke them right. Also, nukes mean everyone is dead but thanks to radiation, you can't take over that territory anyway. SImilarly, chemical and biological weapons sound like fun but if you are not facing an army on a battlefield but a resistance movement hiding within the local population, what are you going to to do, kill every living Afghan? And if you do, who is left to rule over? You can't even brutal wipe out a few villages and hope everyone takes the lesson to heart and surrenders because it is a holy war and people are happy to die. The more Arabs you kill, the more Arab civilians are ready to die. Fighting to defeat an army is a hell of a lot easier than fighting to hold and control territory, with functional infrastructure to bring the resources you have captured back home and rule the local population. No matter how savage you are willing to be, you need to keep enough people alive to provide labour and enough infrastructure working to justify your conquest. I don't think the Soviets could have done it.
A global nuclear war already happened regarding fallouts, and when it comes to it, it's the first weeks that trully matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131
You and I will probably die from a cancer or with one, depends, but we're far from being born with 3 arms and shit, and no global nuclear war ever happened, officially, but I digress
"SImilarly, chemical and biological weapons sound like fun but if you are not facing an army on a battlefield but a resistance movement hiding within the local population"
And that's my whole point
Local population
Who gives a shit ? ... See what I mean ? The west, and let's forget the west, the US (because let's face it, 3/4 of the west's force de frappe is the US) isn't playing an anihilation game when it comes to war, while it certainly could, technynically speaking
...
"what are you going to to do, kill every living Afghan? "
Why not ?
...
Imagine a saudi arabia with the force de frappe of the US and the territory and empire the size of the US, with nobody capable to stand in their way.
You think they would give a fuck for one fucking second about your white face ? Your civilization ?
look at yemen for a hint
...
"The more Arabs you kill, the more Arab civilians are ready to die. "
The lambs want to jump in the meat grinder ? Since when is it a problem ?
The decision to fight back instead of live as slaves under usury. There was always going to be a war as soon as they cast out the banking cabal. Hitler just underestimated how much influence the bankers had on superpowers of the time.
Unfortunately, much as he is portrayed as ruthless and bloodthirsty, he was nothing of the sort. If he had wiped out the British and the leftover French at Dunkirk there would have been no one to invade on the western front; He could have finished off the British air force but told the Luftwaffe to change targets and go after military complexes, not airfields.With the troop wiped out at Dunkirk and no air force, the UK would have fallen and America would have been unlikely to join a war against Germany if Germany had all of Western Europe.
Adolf perfectly demonstrated that men with a little charisma and enough capacity to game the system can achieve many things . Outside of that he did everything (with the exception of the propaganda war towards the French) wrong .
I don't know about doing 'everything' wrong. People forget the German military takeover of the Sudetenland was simply retaking German territory and citizens from before the Treaty of Versaille chopped off bits of the country. If anything, the bloody French did the most to push Germany into war, with the Versaille nonsense, the reparations, the abuses of French troops in the Weimar Republic, France declaring war on Nazi Germany etc
I meant simply retaking territory as in this wasn't the thirst for conquest that it is portrayed as. It was a predictable response to cutting off parts of Germany and calling them Polish or French. The way the last war ended made another war inevitable. And now, more than half a century later, the unification of Europe under a single government which was thought to be the way to prevent another European war seems to be creating the new existential threat that is tearing European countries apart.
I agree with the second part of the post , as about the first nothing is enough for nationalists and i did mention the Balkans where a soup of religious minorities became countries and invoked some long dead ancestors to claim lands from one another .
The Russians were preparing to invade Nazi occupied Poland and attack first before declaring war, Hitler only had two options; dig in and hold it, or Attack first and have a chance of taking the soviet union out of the war. It was the long supply lines across vast territories harassed by partisans and the impassable mud that saw Germany's defeat in Russia.
they were being deported until the war started and then in the last year of the war they died of disease and malnutrition because of Allied saturation bombing. There was never a policy of extermination.
And then no concrete on stop shop of a source for the deaths of disease. Its a compilation of sources. The more you read into the holocaust the more you find. It deals with several factors namely the allied bombing campaign which bombed everything and anything on purpose. Leading to mass starvation of the German people and by extension the political prisoners (who are you going to feed - Your soldiers and people, or prisoners?). Malnutrition leads to disease and death. Hundreds of thousands likely died this way and their bodies were burned to prevent the spread of more disease.
Please go and cut your balls off so you don't breed if you already have not done so. It's just a pity that your parents did not have the forsight to have terminated their own pregnancy you vile piece of shit.
Why don't to just face up to the fact that whatever hatred you have of Jews stems completely from your own failure at life. Well I'm sorry but Jews didn't make you a fucking loser that wastes their time gutlessly spreading crap on internet forums that can be debunked within literally five minutes.
Read the entirety of the comment chain fucking retard you might learn something. Dont be another one of these "im right because my bias told me so" fags. The wansee conference was over what to do with the jews while at war, during the conference not once did they suggest total annihilation. If you cant be bothered to actually know your own 'facts' then dont fucking argue with others.
edit: Nice edit after the fact to throw in more personal shit flinging - keep it up you might come out on top!
None of that contradicts what I said. Those people would not have died if not for Hitler's policies. Also, it appears Hitler's lieutenants had a different agenda than Hitler himself. Which is where @MrPong's comment comes into play. There was a "final solution", and Hitler did turn his eyes away to allow it. Yet the facts remains, almost everything people are told about the details are factually incorrect.
I'm fully aware of that as common commentary. Yet it completely ignores the fact that "the final solution" is well documented (albeit commonly misappropriated and attributed) and everyone's version of history supports my statements.
The link previously provided to you does in fact document "the final solution." It's undisputed as it's a matter of written record. Clearly it denotes a continuation of previous exchanges which remained undocumented or were built upon previous verbal exchanges. Regardless, "The final solution to the Jewish question", while open to debate, is not difficult to ascertain given the behavior of some of Hitler's lieutenants. Given Hitler's well documented management style (for each their own, let them figure it out), this too is entirely in keeping with all documented management behaviors with Hitler. Meaning, the final solution is mis-attributed to Hitler, yet Hitler knew full well what was going on. At least to the extent he was turning a blind eye.
In other words, according to all documented and uncontested history, Hitler's solution was to eject Jews. They were later used as slave labor to facilitate the war effort and to expand scientific endeavors. In Hitler's mind, this is just punishment. His lieutenants, on the other hand, had different ideas. Something Hitler knew and acknowledged. While the gas chambers certainly did not exist, they had no trouble using Jews and other undesirables as highly expendable slave labor. Yes, they were fed and clothes until it became inconvenient to the war effort. This is still 100% of Hitler's responsibility. The work conditions combined with the Ally bombings and finally sudden inrush of food is what caused the lion share of massively over reported deaths.
But none of that abdicates Hitler from responsibility. Which brings us full circle to my statement of, "Actually he did. Just not in the way we're all told. And not nearly the numbers we're all told. Every modern view of western standards of ethics and law, it's impossible to correctly claim, "Hitler did nothing wrong." That, however, doesn't legitimatimize the absolute bullshit thrust upon the western world.
Just also want to clear up that we both agree it THe final solution was not to exterminate the jews, but thats what (((they))) claim it was
The “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” was the Nazi code name for the plan to murder all Jews within reach, and was not limited to the European continent
Just also want to clear up that we both agree it THe final solution was not to exterminate the jews, but thats what (((they))) claim it was
You are correct that I did not mean to be ambiguous. Please allow me to clarify. When I say, "undisputed", I mean there is documented, undisputed evidence of a, "final solution." What historians speculate on is exactly what that final solution was to be. Bluntly, we don't know exactly what the final solution was to be. What we do know is that many under Hitler were intent of kill Jews. Was this the final solution? Possible but unlikely. The vast majority of records fully substantiate that the final solution was a slave labor force. Anything beyond this was Hitler's lieutenants; albeit with Hitler's knowledge. But that significantly changes the scope and scale. Hitler's solution was very likely not genocide. That doesn't mean his underlings didn't believe otherwise.
To be clear, this doesn't paint a picture of Hitler entirely without fault, as in, "he did nothing wrong." But it's also nothing close to the lies and propaganda which has been force fed to us. Which is largely unsubstantiated by the documented record.
100% agree with everything except that "It's undisputed as it's a matter of written record" since the argument is about whether it was the policy of the Nazis to seek the total extermination of jews in europe. Not one document says the plan was to exterminate every jew in Europe. The written correspondence between senior members regarding Labor or executions of prisoners by no means supports a doctrine of total extermination. And since the senior leadership was compartmentalized with free action it only further orchestrates the point that there was no total extermination plan. Thats what Ive been arguing. Im not trying to make hitler a good guy or excuse him from responsibility.
Also the Slave labor came from criminals. Not all Jews were in harsh labor camps only the ones who had committed crimes were put in those intensive camps. Otherwise brick factories, armament factories etc were for the non criminal jews. Im not an apologist - i recognize some of the jewish massacres in villages like in Ukraine by SS troops (Ukrainian SS) but I just like all aspects to be represented fairly.
The Final solution was made up because (((they))) didnt have any actual evidence the Germans were systematically exterminating jews. Its manufactured evidence based on supposed 'euphemisms' used by Nazi command. Just like how they used Zyklon B to gas them - even though it was a delouser that even the Germany armed forces used on themselves. But because it was a german product that no one else had heard of and it was on all the supply manifests its an easy piece of 'Evidence' they can use.
Knowing they have had to back pedal on the more obvious lies theyve made; Lamp shades out of skin, Soap out of Jew fat, Homosexual orgies, The various survivor books and horror stories - And the the implausible numbers that when the math is done forces them to lower the counts at places like Auschwitz which was first at 4 million killed, dropped to 2 million, and now is at 1 million, yet the total 6 million is still in place. With these inconsistencies I can make the informed guess the Final Solution theory they put forth is a fabrication.
As for the Haavara Agreement I cant find the Palestine immigration census anymore on google but the population surge during the 30s was close to 2 million of jewish immigrants - obviously dont take my word for it, but consider it.
I don't know for sure how far goes the fabrication
What I do know for sure is that "Lamp shades out of skin, Soap out of Jew fat" is total fabrication, that official numbers, the so called 6 million figure is garbage too, and on top that, it's forbidden by law to question the oficial narrative on this particular part of history in some well known western countries, and that in itself, is highly suspicious
I think Hitler did a few things wrong and I really doubt this is an uncommon opinion. It seems that even among NatSocs, it is only the ... maybe not so intelligent / borderline shills that truly believe Hitler did nothing wrong.
Keep in mind that much of the time when people write that, it's a meme. So it's not to be taken literally.
But Russia was always the actual target. Up until war started between Germany and the British Empire (BE), Hitler legitimately thought the BE would join him in attacking Russia and communists globally. Hitler's BE ambassador was a lying, self-serving, incompetent, imbecile who consistently mis-read and inaccurately conveyed western international perceptions and positions back to Hitler. As such, Hitler was confident the BE would join him in attacking communists everywhere and help expel Jews. Globally, expelling the Jews was not necessarily an undesirable goal. The BE also had a large, minority support, including royalty, who did support the Nazi, nationalist movement and hoped to do the same with the BE.
Nah. He did do some things wrong. No reason to make him out to be either the devil or a deity. He was human. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes really bad ones.
The Germans started WW2 like they started WW1, which is not at all. They merely reacted to conditions created by the rest of Europe, and the German reaction was inevitable. If we count the invasion of Poland as the start of the war, Germany was merely reclaiming German land and people who had been put under Poland after WW1. Or if the start of the final phase of the war was the invasion of France, the French were the ones who declared war on Germany.
wholeheartedly disagree! Sweden would be a beacon of socialist economics today if it wasnt for the millions of niggers and muds they let in who are draining the state of funds. A National Socialist nation is about its own people and taking care of just them. Nazi Germany expected you to work and provide for your people. Whereas marxist socialism doesnt. Marxist socialism incentivizes you not to work and collect benefits without paying in. You didnt get state welfare for sitting on your ass in Germany.
While state intervention was massive in nazi germany (same could be said about pinochet to some extent btw, he seized a couple of banks), contrary to communist and socialist regimes, private ownership isn't systematically frowned upon in a national socialist regime
"National Socialism permits the private ownership of national resources and production processes. In Nazi Germany, foreign corporations like IBM and Ford were not nationalized when Hitler became the Fuhrer. According to Bel (2006), Hitler’s government privatized four banks and several steelwork companies, and gained a lot of revenue by taxing these large corporations (Loughlin, 2001)."
They let the inferior groups in because the socialism ate away their ethnic pride. The very premis of socialism is to provide for those that cannot. Eventually if you embrace it you will fall into the fallacy of helping the week outside of your group. Once that dakness enters the end will always be inevitable.
My argument is that nationalism is the steel structure that hardens a nation from attack, but socialism is the brine that would eat that structure. In 50 years socialism would eat the nationalism and then what we see today would be the reality. For nationalism to work you have to keep the most resilient processes and people in place. Socialism rewards the week and soft over the hard and resilient.
Once again, it wasn't "socialism" and "nationalism." It's national socialism. To support your conclusion would require significant ideological and political changes which are naturally contrary to national socialism.
Thanks, I don't sweat the downvotes. I would concede that national socialism would outlive other socialistic configurations, but I will always argue that any socialism will have a tendency to rot a civilization. We have seen in the past where a small very coherent group will help socialism exist over a longer timeframe, but in the end, as soon as you look to give others efforts where it doesn't directly affect their express self-interest it all goes to hell. What made the German national socialism work so well was the us against them intensity that the Nazi leadership brought to the table. If you compare it with say the fascists of Italy you can see where it quickly fell apart.
I would say in defense of the idea of national socialism, that they were building a quasi-religion around the Arianism. This did have the potential for longer life of the socialist state in that religion being a deferred reward mechanism can cause people to act in a more universal manner.
All civilizations rot. It's not that you're outright wrong because your statement is a universal truth. That, however, doesn't mean we'd know what it would actually look like today. This is where the disconnection stems. They may well held course for hundreds of years. Steadily corrupted yet still roughly on course.
I would say in defense of the idea of national socialism, that they were building a quasi-religion around the Arianism. This did have the potential for longer life of the socialist state in that religion being a deferred reward mechanism can cause people to act in a more universal manner.
This is a much more interesting line of discussion to me. It's IMHO, one of the things historians (frequently left leaning) abuse and get completely wrong. Hitler knew full well he needed a moral hook to keep things on course over time. So he cleverly grafted a right-wing religious angle onto his left wing politics. Thereby establishing his policies as dogma. Which confuses the hell out of most historians who then bend things to position him as right wing. Some of the historian's bullshit is now unfolding as fascism itself is now positioned as neither left nor right (fascism vs neo-fascism).
This is why I believe Hitler's Germany and NatSo would persist for hundreds of years. Maybe not in it's original form, but something close to it.
It is so hard to see how fleshed out they had the Arian religion part of things. Like you said the historians are really lost on this one. It was clearly important to them considering how many resources were dedicated to creating archeological evidence in support of it. I think why they put that effort in is because they were missing the ability to have the prophet with the revelation from God as the ultimate authority. There was also some side references where they were seeking pagan type influences to fill in the spirituality that would be missing.
I will concede that if they finished out the "Authority" problem and a method to inspire the spiritual side of human nature, they could conceivably create a long lasting quasi-religious state.
Hitler started invading the Soviet Union in June (summer). And rasputitsa (mud season, in spring and fall) is one reason among many the campaign failed.
Barbarossa was delayed by seven weeks in order to get logistics and preparation in order. It was supposed to be launched in mid-May. There are always dozens of 'if Hitler did x differently' theories, especially on Barbarossa.
But I tend to think Patton's words would have served German high command well:
"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Jagon ago
The russians were going to attack. Waiting was suicide.
Jagon ago
Also he had wind of the russians preparing to attack the west, so he decided to attack fiest to make sure he disrupted their supplies as much as possible. It was a move he had to do. Not having to worry about the russians wasnt an.option, both knew they had to go to war at some point. Germany almost won, they just couldnt get rid of everyone at stalingrad on time.
vryheid ago
No worse than the Communists and their sympathisers.
MoreWhiteBabies ago
Uh yeah! He didn't kill ALL the Jews!
Obergruppenkraken ago
Yup.
Obergruppenkraken ago
IMO Himmler should've never been allowed to introduce the degeneracy that he did.
unclejimbo ago
The fucker shot himself instead of picking up a rifle and trying to take a few Russians with him. That alone says he didn't really give a shit about Germany.
bisteot ago
He was doing fine until he decided to go on and try to conquer the world.
DyingEurope ago
Munich Soviet Republic run by bolshevik jews cemented the germans hatred for the jewish revolutionaries. I don't think we can reduce the complexities of their time down to "attacking russia for lebensraum lulz". Bolshevism was a massive threat to all of europe then.
Besides, if you want to blame someone, blame Goering for promising supplies without any ability to deliver them to the front. Blame him for baiting the german army into staying when they should have fallen back.
BumbleTummy ago
Of course! Not making sure the English were wiped out at Dunkirk. Also, not listening to Rommel during D-Day. Requiring HH at the end of all Enigma messages was a biggie. Not locating vital war production below ground earlier in the war. Oh, and that Soviet boondoggle. I'm sure others will come to mind.
9915458? ago
Remember the 60 trillion!
Gargilius ago
Wouldn't the Soviet have attacked anyway had he not started it first?
CobraStallone ago
Well, he failed, so surely he made mistakes. Though sometimes it's hard to evaluate them, for example, I once read that Hitler refused to cooperate with White (as in not communist) Russians during Barbarossa and the Soviet counterattack since he hated Slavs, and one thinks, gee what an idiot, but then I remembered there were Slav SS divisions. So maybe it was propaganda what I read? Dunno.
Was not attacking at Dunkirk a mistake or an attempt to be brotherly with the British and sue for peace? I guess mistake, since the second thing wasn't going to happen.
P8rtsUnkn0wn ago
I'm pretty sure he wanted their farm land for German expansion & saw the slavs as "in the way".
They definitely had a presence in the camps but I don't know if it was ideology (like the jews) or for more practical purposes (land) that got them rounded up.
CobraStallone ago
I generally suspect the Generalplan Ost to be greatly exaggerated, probably by the Soviets. As in, Hitler did want to have all Germanic peoples in one state, maybe some oil and wheat fields in Ukraine but the whole idea of making this Germany wasn't really an established, realistic, existing plan. A problem with Eastern sources on the war is that they had a vested interest in making the Nazis look as worse as possible and themselves better by comparison.
JudgeGuilty ago
This whole thing is a lot deeper than you might expect. Here we go.
The "Nazi" party were not called "Nazi" because they belonged to the NSDAP - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. They were called "Nazi" because they were ashkenazi jews, basically the Khazar's, who under King Bhulan adopted the jewish faith (and who now make up 94% of the so called "semites"...).
The same same people who now have taken over your government.
A little Jack Otto, who also got the good news from our friends, might be in place. He will tell you about the very few running this world: The Chabad Lubavitch sect. Please read up on them.
undertheshills ago
He was a socialists vegetarian.
NeoGoat ago
Does anyone here want to comment on the drug problems that were covered in book published recently?
nralgar ago
Hitler lost, which resulted in the near-complete destruction of German sovereignty and self-determination. A huge proportion of adult German males were killed and something like 3/4 of all German females from 8 to 80 were brutally raped by invading/occupying forces. The German people were literally and forcibly cucked, and are living the outcome of that total failure (the latest punishment being the wholesale importation of Muslims).
Hitler wanted a strong, proud, and free Germany, and in that endeavor he failed utterly.
NeoGoat ago
Did he have a mustache?
Jason_Argo ago
He didn't really have a choice, the Soviets were planning their own attack, Operation Groza.
Uncle_Slob ago
Of course what he did was wrong, you'd have to be a fucking, retarded nigger to think otherwise. He shouldn't have started whit with Stalin, that's what he did wrong.
killer7 ago
Actually, their battle was a foregone conclusion. It's just that he decided to make the first move.
Uncle_Slob ago
Stalin was desperate enough, he wouldn't he have waited.
chaos63 ago
It is a necessary lesson I fear. When you fight, you fight for survival, there is no room for mercy in a clash of ideologies/civilizations. You must pummel the opponent til they no longer pose a threat. Conflict must be avoided if possible but if it is inevitable, you must go all the way. I imagine there would also be a lot less conflict if people thought it would be carried out to the brutal end. They would think long and hard before engaging in it. War must never be easy for either side, it must always be brutal and carried to its bloody conclusion.
greenfascist ago
It's not a good choice of words.
The phrase 'hitler did nothing wrong' is not in reference to all of his activities, but to a select few which involved rounding up and jailing the jews.
'hitler did a few things wrong' encompasses many more activities while diluting the meaning of 'hitler did nothing wrong'
only a jew shill would pollute the meaning of the phrase.
CrustyBeaver52 ago
The biggest mistake was in not taking Moscow - all roads lead to Moscow. He should have taken it while he had the chance. The disruption would have severely crippled the Soviet war machine.
I believe this decision cost him the second world war.
Just my personal opinion -
MoonMansWay ago
Yeah the Encirclement of the 6th was tragic, and the abandonment of the Afrika Corps too which is hard to forgive him for. There was a reason the General staff called him the Bohemian Corporal behind his back. He wasnt a good Tactician for the smaller to medium sized variables - more of a Bigger picture strategist (which he excelled at) Its just a shame he didnt leave the minute details of doctrine to his generals.
From Julius Caesar to Napoleon, Hitler is just another man to learn from.
MoonMansWay ago
Hitler was under the 'delusion' that England, an Anglo-Saxon Nation, would cast off its jewish banker chains and help fight communism hand in hand with their European brothers. That was ultimately the biggest factor in his decision to invade. Which imo was foolish, but hindsight etc.
22jam22 ago
If u mention anything about hitler on reddit or other sites in any way positive u get blasted with information explaining how horrible everything he did was.
Dysprosium ago
Welcome to Voat niggerfaggot.
22jam22 ago
Lol! Ive been here a decently long time now.. But i apprciate the kind words you cucktard!!!
Whitemail ago
Well, he did lose the war, so I think that's a reasonable thing to say. For propaganda and offensiveness purposes, it's best not to get complicated and just say, "Hitler did nothing wrong."
boekanier ago
He lost the war, what more can you do wrong?
MoonMansWay ago
... okay except that a war like that wouldnt end until one side no longer had the supplies to keep fighting. Eventually Germany would still have to push into Russia to end the threat. And Russia didnt have to motivate its people - It just had to conscript and use order 227. Digging in was the weakest of the two options, because it gave Russia the initiative to continually attempt to break the german line, if in your strategic opinion Germany wouldnt counter attack.
Also Russia didnt lose WW1 it withdrew due to the boleshivik revolution which had been heating up for a decade prior.
chaos63 ago
I don't think there is ever a good time to attack Russia. Countries to not fuck with because their people are tough bastards who will happily die in their millions defending their country; Russia, Afghanistan, Iran. You may kill ten times as many of them as they kill of you but that means nothing if they are willing to die, you may take territory but you will never hold it.
mudbear ago
The Russian people were forced into a meat grinder, i think the germans were there to liberate them from the jewish communists, the Russian people should have allied with them but when they were starved by the jews and had their families threatened with death they pushed onward. A great shame really, Only the jews won on the Russian front
Volcris ago
It's not just that, it's the inevitable fact that no matter when you invade Russia, you will inevitably be invading Russia during the winter time. It's a massive chunk of land to cross and a little scorched earth retreating will wait out anyone.
chaos63 ago
And anyone who has been drinking with a Russian knows those tough bastards are not to be fucked with. Sometimes it is not just about how much you can thrash your opponent but about how much of a beating they can take. And those are some hardcore folks that will take whatever savagery you throw at them and stay stoic. I think it also helps that they are one homogenous group, you can't conquer Russia by turning some Russians against others because they are all white, Orthodox Christian, have the same history, roughly the same values. It isn't like Syria where you can get Kurds to turn on Alawites and Sunnis on Shias. You can't count on turning any of the locals into fighters for your side.
9912448? ago
In the case of afghanistan... If the US didn't intervene by provinding MANPADS among other things, quite frankly, afghans would be history by now
For real
The soviet bulldozer was no joke and afghans stood no chance against su25 and mi24 aircrafts, they barely had any descent guns, no AKs
Imagine arizona getting bombed 24/7 by a10 and apache helicopters while everybody has old hunting rifles, and stuffs like geneva convention/human rights or rules of engagement aren't observed
And that's just for the air campaign, you get the full kit right after, special forces, armored vehicles and all that
...
Yeah it would be a fucken genocide, mostly
...
https://imgoat.com/uploads/82be0c5cdc/32258.png
(look how he's happy now!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War#U.S._aid_to_insurgents
chaos63 ago
Perhaps? But didn't American escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan show that taking territory with superior firepower is easy but holding that territory is another story, even against a poorly armed opponent? I definitely concede that the Americans arming the mujahideen helped them take on Soviets who had air dominance and tanks whilst the Afghans had AKs. Does this mean that the Soviets would have managed to hold and rule an Islamic, Arab country of that size whilst the Soviet Union was facing dire economic pressures and struggling to manage and admminister such a huge empire? I don't think so.
A Taliban sticking to assymetric warfare, sabotage, sporadic attacks and suicide bombings (which the Algerian liberation war was showing the effectiveness off and which were already tied to Islam) would, I think, have killed the Soviets a slow death os a thousand pin pricks, then escalated into swaths of terriroty being ungovernable and under Taliban rule and eventual Soviet surrender.
9913913? ago
Sure, taking a position is one thing, holding it is an entire different ball game
"Does this mean that the Soviets would have managed to hold and rule an Islamic, Arab country of that size whilst the Soviet Union was facing dire economic pressures and struggling to manage and admminister such a huge empire? I don't think so."
I think without external support, any local opposition to the soviet war machine would have been exterminated, plain and simple
...
Even as dirty as it seems , keep in mind that the west is playing the war game nice and civilized ,(even when considering droning, fuck geneva, black ops, etc)
...
You have what? Thousands of nukes availabe for immediate delivery ? What else ? Bacteriological weaponery ?
Please.
It took half of the world to defeat nazi germany and it was a short win
Imagine what a US sized nazi germany would be like
chaos63 ago
The problem with the big guns is you can almost never use them. If the Soviets had dropped a nuke on anyone, even a country that wasn't a US ally, the Americans would have loved the excuse to nuke them right. Also, nukes mean everyone is dead but thanks to radiation, you can't take over that territory anyway. SImilarly, chemical and biological weapons sound like fun but if you are not facing an army on a battlefield but a resistance movement hiding within the local population, what are you going to to do, kill every living Afghan? And if you do, who is left to rule over? You can't even brutal wipe out a few villages and hope everyone takes the lesson to heart and surrenders because it is a holy war and people are happy to die. The more Arabs you kill, the more Arab civilians are ready to die. Fighting to defeat an army is a hell of a lot easier than fighting to hold and control territory, with functional infrastructure to bring the resources you have captured back home and rule the local population. No matter how savage you are willing to be, you need to keep enough people alive to provide labour and enough infrastructure working to justify your conquest. I don't think the Soviets could have done it.
9914260? ago
"The problem with the big guns is you can almost never use them. "
For ethical and legal reasons yes, not for technical reasons...
" Also, nukes mean everyone is dead but thanks to radiation, you can't take over that territory anyway. "
..hhhmmmmm... Japan ? Hiroshima is pretty suitable for life.
Ever watched this video ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
Granted not all were airborne, but still
A global nuclear war already happened regarding fallouts, and when it comes to it, it's the first weeks that trully matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131
You and I will probably die from a cancer or with one, depends, but we're far from being born with 3 arms and shit, and no global nuclear war ever happened, officially, but I digress
"SImilarly, chemical and biological weapons sound like fun but if you are not facing an army on a battlefield but a resistance movement hiding within the local population"
And that's my whole point
Local population
Who gives a shit ? ... See what I mean ? The west, and let's forget the west, the US (because let's face it, 3/4 of the west's force de frappe is the US) isn't playing an anihilation game when it comes to war, while it certainly could, technynically speaking
...
"what are you going to to do, kill every living Afghan? "
Why not ?
...
Imagine a saudi arabia with the force de frappe of the US and the territory and empire the size of the US, with nobody capable to stand in their way.
You think they would give a fuck for one fucking second about your white face ? Your civilization ?
look at yemen for a hint
...
"The more Arabs you kill, the more Arab civilians are ready to die. "
The lambs want to jump in the meat grinder ? Since when is it a problem ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ZpXyrFSds
ShowMeYourKitties ago
I could see some millionaire in arizona having a MANPAD, or some AA guns just for kicks.
KingChem ago
Yeah he did a few things wrong but, "Hitler made a few errors" doesn't really have the potential to trigger snowflakes.
MoonMansWay ago
The decision to fight back instead of live as slaves under usury. There was always going to be a war as soon as they cast out the banking cabal. Hitler just underestimated how much influence the bankers had on superpowers of the time.
chaos63 ago
Unfortunately, much as he is portrayed as ruthless and bloodthirsty, he was nothing of the sort. If he had wiped out the British and the leftover French at Dunkirk there would have been no one to invade on the western front; He could have finished off the British air force but told the Luftwaffe to change targets and go after military complexes, not airfields.With the troop wiped out at Dunkirk and no air force, the UK would have fallen and America would have been unlikely to join a war against Germany if Germany had all of Western Europe.
svsvosm ago
That guy was literally Hitler, IMO
alalzia ago
Adolf perfectly demonstrated that men with a little charisma and enough capacity to game the system can achieve many things . Outside of that he did everything (with the exception of the propaganda war towards the French) wrong .
chaos63 ago
I don't know about doing 'everything' wrong. People forget the German military takeover of the Sudetenland was simply retaking German territory and citizens from before the Treaty of Versaille chopped off bits of the country. If anything, the bloody French did the most to push Germany into war, with the Versaille nonsense, the reparations, the abuses of French troops in the Weimar Republic, France declaring war on Nazi Germany etc
alalzia ago
It is common knowledge that the resolution of the first war caused the second .
"Simply retaking territory" was the case of 2 brutal Balkan wars so there is nothing simple about it .
chaos63 ago
I meant simply retaking territory as in this wasn't the thirst for conquest that it is portrayed as. It was a predictable response to cutting off parts of Germany and calling them Polish or French. The way the last war ended made another war inevitable. And now, more than half a century later, the unification of Europe under a single government which was thought to be the way to prevent another European war seems to be creating the new existential threat that is tearing European countries apart.
alalzia ago
I agree with the second part of the post , as about the first nothing is enough for nationalists and i did mention the Balkans where a soup of religious minorities became countries and invoked some long dead ancestors to claim lands from one another .
MoonMansWay ago
The Russians were preparing to invade Nazi occupied Poland and attack first before declaring war, Hitler only had two options; dig in and hold it, or Attack first and have a chance of taking the soviet union out of the war. It was the long supply lines across vast territories harassed by partisans and the impassable mud that saw Germany's defeat in Russia.
Cheesebooger ago
Hitler should've actually had extermination camps instead of the work camps. Jews are the biggest threat to humanity
Optick ago
Not genociding the Jews was one mistake.
Mad_Dog91 ago
Yes, because he did numerous things wrong
Helios-Apollo ago
He didn't actually have a holocaust of Jews, unfortunately.
Dysprosium ago
I was so sad when I learned this fact.
RoundWheel ago
Actually he did. Just not in the way we're all told. And not nearly the numbers we're all told.
Obergruppenkraken ago
Then was it really a Holocaust?
MoonMansWay ago
they were being deported until the war started and then in the last year of the war they died of disease and malnutrition because of Allied saturation bombing. There was never a policy of extermination.
Obergruppenkraken ago
Sauce? Need something to show normie friends.
MoonMansWay ago
Haavara Agreement for deportations.
And then no concrete on stop shop of a source for the deaths of disease. Its a compilation of sources. The more you read into the holocaust the more you find. It deals with several factors namely the allied bombing campaign which bombed everything and anything on purpose. Leading to mass starvation of the German people and by extension the political prisoners (who are you going to feed - Your soldiers and people, or prisoners?). Malnutrition leads to disease and death. Hundreds of thousands likely died this way and their bodies were burned to prevent the spread of more disease.
RedditSuxBalls ago
Now that is some fucking bullshit
Please go and cut your balls off so you don't breed if you already have not done so. It's just a pity that your parents did not have the forsight to have terminated their own pregnancy you vile piece of shit.
Why don't to just face up to the fact that whatever hatred you have of Jews stems completely from your own failure at life. Well I'm sorry but Jews didn't make you a fucking loser that wastes their time gutlessly spreading crap on internet forums that can be debunked within literally five minutes.
Cunt.
MoonMansWay ago
Read the entirety of the comment chain fucking retard you might learn something. Dont be another one of these "im right because my bias told me so" fags. The wansee conference was over what to do with the jews while at war, during the conference not once did they suggest total annihilation. If you cant be bothered to actually know your own 'facts' then dont fucking argue with others.
edit: Nice edit after the fact to throw in more personal shit flinging - keep it up you might come out on top!
RoundWheel ago
None of that contradicts what I said. Those people would not have died if not for Hitler's policies. Also, it appears Hitler's lieutenants had a different agenda than Hitler himself. Which is where @MrPong's comment comes into play. There was a "final solution", and Hitler did turn his eyes away to allow it. Yet the facts remains, almost everything people are told about the details are factually incorrect.
MoonMansWay ago
Ill refer you to my reply to @MrPong https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/2010092/9912874
RoundWheel ago
I'm fully aware of that as common commentary. Yet it completely ignores the fact that "the final solution" is well documented (albeit commonly misappropriated and attributed) and everyone's version of history supports my statements.
MoonMansWay ago
which documents? the Wannsee Conference?
RoundWheel ago
The link previously provided to you does in fact document "the final solution." It's undisputed as it's a matter of written record. Clearly it denotes a continuation of previous exchanges which remained undocumented or were built upon previous verbal exchanges. Regardless, "The final solution to the Jewish question", while open to debate, is not difficult to ascertain given the behavior of some of Hitler's lieutenants. Given Hitler's well documented management style (for each their own, let them figure it out), this too is entirely in keeping with all documented management behaviors with Hitler. Meaning, the final solution is mis-attributed to Hitler, yet Hitler knew full well what was going on. At least to the extent he was turning a blind eye.
In other words, according to all documented and uncontested history, Hitler's solution was to eject Jews. They were later used as slave labor to facilitate the war effort and to expand scientific endeavors. In Hitler's mind, this is just punishment. His lieutenants, on the other hand, had different ideas. Something Hitler knew and acknowledged. While the gas chambers certainly did not exist, they had no trouble using Jews and other undesirables as highly expendable slave labor. Yes, they were fed and clothes until it became inconvenient to the war effort. This is still 100% of Hitler's responsibility. The work conditions combined with the Ally bombings and finally sudden inrush of food is what caused the lion share of massively over reported deaths.
But none of that abdicates Hitler from responsibility. Which brings us full circle to my statement of, "Actually he did. Just not in the way we're all told. And not nearly the numbers we're all told. Every modern view of western standards of ethics and law, it's impossible to correctly claim, "Hitler did nothing wrong." That, however, doesn't legitimatimize the absolute bullshit thrust upon the western world.
MoonMansWay ago
Just also want to clear up that we both agree it THe final solution was not to exterminate the jews, but thats what (((they))) claim it was
from wiki
RoundWheel ago
You are correct that I did not mean to be ambiguous. Please allow me to clarify. When I say, "undisputed", I mean there is documented, undisputed evidence of a, "final solution." What historians speculate on is exactly what that final solution was to be. Bluntly, we don't know exactly what the final solution was to be. What we do know is that many under Hitler were intent of kill Jews. Was this the final solution? Possible but unlikely. The vast majority of records fully substantiate that the final solution was a slave labor force. Anything beyond this was Hitler's lieutenants; albeit with Hitler's knowledge. But that significantly changes the scope and scale. Hitler's solution was very likely not genocide. That doesn't mean his underlings didn't believe otherwise.
To be clear, this doesn't paint a picture of Hitler entirely without fault, as in, "he did nothing wrong." But it's also nothing close to the lies and propaganda which has been force fed to us. Which is largely unsubstantiated by the documented record.
MoonMansWay ago
100% agree with everything except that "It's undisputed as it's a matter of written record" since the argument is about whether it was the policy of the Nazis to seek the total extermination of jews in europe. Not one document says the plan was to exterminate every jew in Europe. The written correspondence between senior members regarding Labor or executions of prisoners by no means supports a doctrine of total extermination. And since the senior leadership was compartmentalized with free action it only further orchestrates the point that there was no total extermination plan. Thats what Ive been arguing. Im not trying to make hitler a good guy or excuse him from responsibility.
Also the Slave labor came from criminals. Not all Jews were in harsh labor camps only the ones who had committed crimes were put in those intensive camps. Otherwise brick factories, armament factories etc were for the non criminal jews. Im not an apologist - i recognize some of the jewish massacres in villages like in Ukraine by SS troops (Ukrainian SS) but I just like all aspects to be represented fairly.
9912613? ago
" There was never a policy of extermination."
There was a thing called "the final solution"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
Final, as in when all else failed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
MoonMansWay ago
The Final solution was made up because (((they))) didnt have any actual evidence the Germans were systematically exterminating jews. Its manufactured evidence based on supposed 'euphemisms' used by Nazi command. Just like how they used Zyklon B to gas them - even though it was a delouser that even the Germany armed forces used on themselves. But because it was a german product that no one else had heard of and it was on all the supply manifests its an easy piece of 'Evidence' they can use.
Knowing they have had to back pedal on the more obvious lies theyve made; Lamp shades out of skin, Soap out of Jew fat, Homosexual orgies, The various survivor books and horror stories - And the the implausible numbers that when the math is done forces them to lower the counts at places like Auschwitz which was first at 4 million killed, dropped to 2 million, and now is at 1 million, yet the total 6 million is still in place. With these inconsistencies I can make the informed guess the Final Solution theory they put forth is a fabrication.
As for the Haavara Agreement I cant find the Palestine immigration census anymore on google but the population surge during the 30s was close to 2 million of jewish immigrants - obviously dont take my word for it, but consider it.
9913151? ago
I don't know for sure how far goes the fabrication
What I do know for sure is that "Lamp shades out of skin, Soap out of Jew fat" is total fabrication, that official numbers, the so called 6 million figure is garbage too, and on top that, it's forbidden by law to question the oficial narrative on this particular part of history in some well known western countries, and that in itself, is highly suspicious
TAThatBoomerang ago
I think Hitler did a few things wrong and I really doubt this is an uncommon opinion. It seems that even among NatSocs, it is only the ... maybe not so intelligent / borderline shills that truly believe Hitler did nothing wrong.
Keep in mind that much of the time when people write that, it's a meme. So it's not to be taken literally.
Ywis ago
Should not have attacked Russia. He might have won if he could have kept the eastern front from turning to war
RoundWheel ago
But Russia was always the actual target. Up until war started between Germany and the British Empire (BE), Hitler legitimately thought the BE would join him in attacking Russia and communists globally. Hitler's BE ambassador was a lying, self-serving, incompetent, imbecile who consistently mis-read and inaccurately conveyed western international perceptions and positions back to Hitler. As such, Hitler was confident the BE would join him in attacking communists everywhere and help expel Jews. Globally, expelling the Jews was not necessarily an undesirable goal. The BE also had a large, minority support, including royalty, who did support the Nazi, nationalist movement and hoped to do the same with the BE.
svsvosm ago
Your history is wrong AF, bro
RoundWheel ago
You really need to pick up a history book and stop talking about things of which you have no clue. Seriously.
Ina_Pickle ago
Nah. He did do some things wrong. No reason to make him out to be either the devil or a deity. He was human. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes really bad ones.
Justsomeone ago
Waging a war with that many fronts, with sparse allies and scarce supplies could be counted as wrong.
Also, not betting on submarines to cut england off.
OKythen ago
If you consider starting a world war, attacking Russia and losing said world war, "a few things wrong"....
StuntmanMike123 ago
implying that the Germans started WW2.
I bet you also believe the six gorillion were all gassed and burned in 6 years, too.
chaos63 ago
The Germans started WW2 like they started WW1, which is not at all. They merely reacted to conditions created by the rest of Europe, and the German reaction was inevitable. If we count the invasion of Poland as the start of the war, Germany was merely reclaiming German land and people who had been put under Poland after WW1. Or if the start of the final phase of the war was the invasion of France, the French were the ones who declared war on Germany.
OKythen ago
fuck you are retarded.
StuntmanMike123 ago
I'll take that as a "yes, I do believe everything the ZOG wants me to."
OKythen ago
Yeah. Thats right The Polish made him invade! It was all their fault
And the Czechs. They MADE Shitler invade!
Oh And sorry I did miss that part where Shitler actually won the war he didn't start. I must have missed that day at school!
Fuck some of you people are retarded and weird!
9911000? ago
Hitler did plenty wrong; that man made some horrible foreign policy decisions. However, his domestic policy was pretty spot on.
svsvosm ago
Planned economies don't work
MoonMansWay ago
All economics doctrines crash. Free markets are manipulated too, just not by the government.
individualin1984 ago
I don't agree. His socialism platform would have lead to Sweden in about 50 years.
svsvosm ago
Would've led to being one of the most prosperous countries in the world with the highest standard of living?
MoonMansWay ago
wholeheartedly disagree! Sweden would be a beacon of socialist economics today if it wasnt for the millions of niggers and muds they let in who are draining the state of funds. A National Socialist nation is about its own people and taking care of just them. Nazi Germany expected you to work and provide for your people. Whereas marxist socialism doesnt. Marxist socialism incentivizes you not to work and collect benefits without paying in. You didnt get state welfare for sitting on your ass in Germany.
9912567? ago
While state intervention was massive in nazi germany (same could be said about pinochet to some extent btw, he seized a couple of banks), contrary to communist and socialist regimes, private ownership isn't systematically frowned upon in a national socialist regime
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/the-differences-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/
"National Socialism permits the private ownership of national resources and production processes. In Nazi Germany, foreign corporations like IBM and Ford were not nationalized when Hitler became the Fuhrer. According to Bel (2006), Hitler’s government privatized four banks and several steelwork companies, and gained a lot of revenue by taxing these large corporations (Loughlin, 2001)."
Just don't fuck with national sovereignty or else
MoonMansWay ago
why did you send this to me... im arguing National Socialism is not Marxist Socialism.
9912695? ago
In total support of your point mein fuhrer
MoonMansWay ago
roger
individualin1984 ago
They let the inferior groups in because the socialism ate away their ethnic pride. The very premis of socialism is to provide for those that cannot. Eventually if you embrace it you will fall into the fallacy of helping the week outside of your group. Once that dakness enters the end will always be inevitable.
MoonMansWay ago
which Nazi National Socialism did not do, and was against. You had to work and provide to earn the benefits of the Nation (excluding the elderly)
RoundWheel ago
Extremely unlikely. It wasn't "socialism" and "nationalism." It's national socialism. In fact, nationalism alone would have kept Sweden safe.
individualin1984 ago
My argument is that nationalism is the steel structure that hardens a nation from attack, but socialism is the brine that would eat that structure. In 50 years socialism would eat the nationalism and then what we see today would be the reality. For nationalism to work you have to keep the most resilient processes and people in place. Socialism rewards the week and soft over the hard and resilient.
RoundWheel ago
Once again, it wasn't "socialism" and "nationalism." It's national socialism. To support your conclusion would require significant ideological and political changes which are naturally contrary to national socialism.
For what it's worth, I didn't down vote you.
individualin1984 ago
Thanks, I don't sweat the downvotes. I would concede that national socialism would outlive other socialistic configurations, but I will always argue that any socialism will have a tendency to rot a civilization. We have seen in the past where a small very coherent group will help socialism exist over a longer timeframe, but in the end, as soon as you look to give others efforts where it doesn't directly affect their express self-interest it all goes to hell. What made the German national socialism work so well was the us against them intensity that the Nazi leadership brought to the table. If you compare it with say the fascists of Italy you can see where it quickly fell apart.
I would say in defense of the idea of national socialism, that they were building a quasi-religion around the Arianism. This did have the potential for longer life of the socialist state in that religion being a deferred reward mechanism can cause people to act in a more universal manner.
RoundWheel ago
All civilizations rot. It's not that you're outright wrong because your statement is a universal truth. That, however, doesn't mean we'd know what it would actually look like today. This is where the disconnection stems. They may well held course for hundreds of years. Steadily corrupted yet still roughly on course.
This is a much more interesting line of discussion to me. It's IMHO, one of the things historians (frequently left leaning) abuse and get completely wrong. Hitler knew full well he needed a moral hook to keep things on course over time. So he cleverly grafted a right-wing religious angle onto his left wing politics. Thereby establishing his policies as dogma. Which confuses the hell out of most historians who then bend things to position him as right wing. Some of the historian's bullshit is now unfolding as fascism itself is now positioned as neither left nor right (fascism vs neo-fascism).
This is why I believe Hitler's Germany and NatSo would persist for hundreds of years. Maybe not in it's original form, but something close to it.
individualin1984 ago
It is so hard to see how fleshed out they had the Arian religion part of things. Like you said the historians are really lost on this one. It was clearly important to them considering how many resources were dedicated to creating archeological evidence in support of it. I think why they put that effort in is because they were missing the ability to have the prophet with the revelation from God as the ultimate authority. There was also some side references where they were seeking pagan type influences to fill in the spirituality that would be missing.
I will concede that if they finished out the "Authority" problem and a method to inspire the spiritual side of human nature, they could conceivably create a long lasting quasi-religious state.
Travisty ago
Hitler started invading the Soviet Union in June (summer). And rasputitsa (mud season, in spring and fall) is one reason among many the campaign failed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa
obvious-throwaway- ago
It failed because the United States and the United Kingdom didn't stand beside our Allie and instead sided with our enemy.
goat2017 ago
Barbarossa was delayed by seven weeks in order to get logistics and preparation in order. It was supposed to be launched in mid-May. There are always dozens of 'if Hitler did x differently' theories, especially on Barbarossa.
But I tend to think Patton's words would have served German high command well:
"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Yuke ago
So he learned nothing from Agincourt? Unforgivable!
hedidnothingwrong ago
He lost.
GeorgeLRockwell ago
Nobody is perfect.