Jump to content
Cobber

Sweden, Germany and the death of the west

Recommended Posts

Also, I honestly can't tell if you are trolling or not. If you are, you are a shit troll. If you are not, you are an idiotic shit troll who could crack a book. 

How is he a troll if he isn't? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know where mine is :P

 

Apparently being against homophobia is now Nazism. Hitler would be so proud.

 

That's a double negative. I know education wasn't high on the priority list for Nazis, but I'm sure Nazi Germany still had a decent education program for their "ein volk." Hitler is definitely not proud of your abilities to communicate in your primary language. 

 

 

 

Lets be honest buddy, you don't even know who those guys are. If they are respected or not you have no clue on, you simply state it to try and appeal to authority. The simple fact is you are taking a religious sect rising up to war and declaring that Nationalism and not religion is to blame. Heck if we're playing that game we can also say that Mohammad rising up against the Meccans was a Nationalist conflict too and it had absolutely nothing to do with religion. You are desperate and everyone can see it. 

 

And you have been embarrassed in your statement and been forced to try and localise the deaths to a specific small time frame. Islam alone has killed more and it only becomes worse for you when we take religion as a whole (as we should if we're matching it against Nationalism).

 

What I've always said in these things is the problem with Islam in the west (Islam can be what it likes where its dominant) is not the Radicals (Terrorists) who are truly a tiny number, but the Conservatives/Moderates/Normal/whatever you might call them that make up the majority of Muslims. Are they on a spectrum? Of course. However the effect the most nasty are allow to have is great. In these communities of theirs that are built with the ghettos in particular (which I am against) they rule. They drill into even those who grow up and care little about religion that Jews are devils, that homosexuals are horrible, and all the rest. This is allowed to fester in their schools and Mosques where segregation also happens and its like it ain't no bad thing. People who want to leave the faith or be more liberal have to live in fear of damage to their property or getting beaten up (or worse). Then of course there is the fact that many of the young minds infected by these horrible Conservatives are made very vulnerable to being turned into a radical. What is the difference between a radical and a Muslim who thinks Jews are sub human and gays should be locked up/killed? Action. In conclusion all I've said is we should tackle the root of the matter which is what you would call a good Muslim. When being more liberal (accepting of women, gays, Jews, so forth) is seen as the norm, when the Conservative Muslims are properly shamed for the disgusting views they hold instead of being protected as they are, and finally Muslims (who want to) can safely leave the faith without fear for their lives... then we will have solved the issue of Islam in the west I would say. So no I don't believe all Muslims are suicide bombers. I can very clearly see that is a very tiny number and the real problem is with the majority who have been coddled and allowed to continue to spread absolutely revolting views without opposing (as to oppose them is magically racism).

 

Germany requiring land from the Franco-Prussian War? Germany gained land from that war even if we discount the Germanic union that resulted from the French aggression and not the other way around. As for the First World War the spark so to speak was obviously a Serbian Nationalist killing Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. However it famously became the madness it did from that event due to the chaining of alliances which had been built up due to the political balance of power that existed in Europe. So yes, a Nationalist ultimately set the bomb off so to speak but anything would have done it really with how the situation was at the time. 

 

Really? Because its used as a slogan that means its the reason for the war? When Russia declares the Crimean war based off religion, them then saying "Fight for your country and God" suddenly means Nationalism is to blame? When Tribal people rise up against the invaders who are now plundering their land and mistreating them and they are fighting for their people, that makes it Nationalistic? When a leader declares a random aggression and then tells his people they should fight for their country that makes the reason for the war Nationalism? When France declares the Franco-Prussian war to stop the massive growing power of Prussia and they will their people on to fight for France does that mean Nationalism is to blame? No. Nationalism is a great slogan to get people to fight wars, of course it is, both in aggression and especially when on the defense. Thats how strong that bond is which you revile.

What is the reason for the war is simply why it was fought for. For example if France declared war on Ireland now (random aggression) and told its people to fight for France... then no, the reason for the war is not Nationalism. If Great Britain declared war on Ireland now citing "Ireland is de jure Great Britain" then yes the war would be Nationalistic.

 

I still don't see any numbers. The one link you gave me told me 80m in India, and you suggested more without being able to back those words up. Everything I've said you can google. Your argument relies on either you buffing your numbers or discounting the World Wars as nationalist movements. Seeing as how the rest of the world would disagree with you on the World Wars not being nationalist movements, there is only one question left: where is the rest of your numbers?

 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the war shouldn't have been waged, but this misconception that Poland was invaded over nothing is just plain stupid. Hitler's main purpose was always the protection of German citizens. Not only that, but the fact that GB was forced into a pact with a country that they had no political or geographical. or even historical interest/ ties with is mind boggling as well. you already know which (((special interests))) pressured GB into protecting Poland even after their atrocities against the German ethnic minority in Poland.

 

 

 

more like 

GB: Hey Germany we don't have any interest in European politics, we just want to control africa and asia, just do whatever France tells you to.

France: (still butthurt over being humiliated in WWI and the Franco-Prussian war) Be my [email protected]#$ and never become a great power again, also you need to be a third of the size you were prior to the war - don't forget, you can't touch Poland either because reasons.

Germany: wtf, screw y'all, this is a joke

 

if you wanna get into the treaty of Versailles we already know that Germany was unfairly treated, mostly by France because England didnt care about Europe as much. France being the butthurt people they are. Albeit, Russia should have been solely responsible for Poland imo, cosidering they actually have a clear path to it without having to cross Germany to get to it - unlike France and England. Ah well, you could have the same argument over the Schlieffen plan in WWI.

 

 

 

I mean, sure if you wanna go by traditional economics but that's the argument for every 'failed' socialist sysem - they borrowed their way to their death. You cant deny the fact that everyone in Germany was employed, everyoe in Germany had a role and everyone was more or less happy with the system. If you couldnt work in the private sector, you could join the military or build roads. The economy stagnated because so many people were preparing for war, not because of the effectiveness of the system lmao. If everyone didn't have any beef with Germany, it would have prospered under the NatSocs. Instead of preparing for war so rigorously as they did, they could have invested more in technology or founding new cities and towns, but they were already making so many improvements to infrastructure (roads) that they probably couldn't work on that anymore than they were. I mean, I'm no socialist, but when something works, it works. 

 

Holy shit, this kid is serious. 

 

Remind me, how did the Nazis justify the invasion of the Soviet Union? Or Crete? Or Yugoslavia? Or Greece? Or the Baltic States? Or the non-Sudetenland Czechoslovakia? Did those country kill millions of poor German citizens? Aw... QQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit, this kid is serious. 

 

Remind me, how did the Nazis justify the invasion of the Soviet Union? Or Crete? Or Yugoslavia? Or Greece? Or the Baltic States? Or the non-Sudetenland Czechoslovakia? Did those country kill millions of poor German citizens? Aw... QQ

 

well, if you really wanna go over every war declaration, the USSR invaded Poland as the Nazis were already occupying it, which led to a declaration against the USSR. Italy invaded Greece and Germany had to back them up due to the nature of the axis agreement. Italy wanted to restore the Roman Empire, and thus invaded Greece. Crete is just a Greek island. Invading Yugoslavia was to gain a strategic point against the USSR, as Yugoslavia was all about pan-slavism just as Russia was. Czechoslovakia was home to many ethnic Germans who wished to be a part of the Reich. I guess Czechoslovakia took offense to this and declared on the entirety of the axis bloc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if you really wanna go over every war declaration, the USSR invaded Poland as the Nazis were already occupying it, which led to a declaration against the USSR. Italy invaded Greece and Germany had to back them up due to the nature of the axis agreement. Italy wanted to restore the Roman Empire, and thus invaded Greece. Crete is just a Greek island. Invading Yugoslavia was to gain a strategic point against the USSR, as Yugoslavia was all about pan-slavism just as Russia was. Czechoslovakia was home to many ethnic Germans who wished to be a part of the Reich. I guess Czechoslovakia took offense to this and declared on the entirety of the axis bloc.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there must be more to it than that, Hitler knew he couldnt possibly take on the entirety of the outside world with the flimsy forces of Italy and the questionable strategy of Japan. I refuse to believe that Hitler would throw away the NAP while Germany was still at war with the entirety of the West, its just plain stupid. Although it almost worked, no doubt his forces would have better been allocated in an invasion of England or preparing defences against America. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that Hitler would prioritise his racial policy over winning the war, a war so important it changed the face of the earth forever. Maybe Hitler was militarily retarded, or maybe his ministers didn't work hard enough against, or instead encouraged an invasion of Russia. 

 

Either way, I'd like the topic to remain on the advent of Globalism and the refugee crisis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a double negative. I know education wasn't high on the priority list for Nazis, but I'm sure Nazi Germany still had a decent education program for their "ein volk." Hitler is definitely not proud of your abilities to communicate in your primary language. 

Confirmed idiot. Thanks, I don't have to read your walls of text now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding always was he though Stalin was going to betray him and preemptively strike so he preemptively struck himself before that could happen.

 

I still don't see any numbers. The one link you gave me told me 80m in India, and you suggested more without being able to back those words up. Everything I've said you can google. Your argument relies on either you buffing your numbers or discounting the World Wars as nationalist movements. Seeing as how the rest of the world would disagree with you on the World Wars not being nationalist movements, there is only one question left: where is the rest of your numbers?

 

I'm going to assume you have simply conceded on everything else if you are now going back to this. Alright lets add to that 80 million figure shall we.

 

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm- 50 million Orthodox Christians. 

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/- 80 million Africans died as a result of their slave trade (not counting the 20 million who were enslaved instead of dying).

 

Total thus far: 210 million. Amount you wanted beaten: 170 million Status: BTFO

 

This is all not counting people such as Zoroastrians, Christians who were victims of the slave trade (2 million or so I believe), those who lived in Spain, or the Crusades and counter Jihads. 

 

Let me guess your response. Every single death you have listed Nationalism is responsible for, but every death listed here Islam is not responsible for. Ottoman Empire was also a strong state so logically as a state was involved Nationalism is magically to blame! Forget how so many Muslims speak of Nationalism as a great evil they do not partake in, lets just safely ignore that.

 

Also good job on ignoring the lesson on what is responsible wars instead of it being your ridiculous "every war done by a Nation regardless of reasons is to be blamed on Nationalism because they willed their people on by citing the bond they have as a people". The spark for WW1 was a Nationalist killing a dude and hence thats why people primarily attribute it to Nationalism. However the reason it went down as it did was due to the mess of alliances that had developed as a result of the balance of power in Europe which Nationalism has nothing to do with.

Edited by Rozalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there must be more to it than that, Hitler knew he couldnt possibly take on the entirety of the outside world with the flimsy forces of Italy and the questionable strategy of Japan. I refuse to believe that Hitler would throw away the NAP while Germany was still at war with the entirety of the West, its just plain stupid. Although it almost worked, no doubt his forces would have better been allocated in an invasion of England or preparing defences against America. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that Hitler would prioritise his racial policy over winning the war, a war so important it changed the face of the earth forever. Maybe Hitler was militarily retarded, or maybe his ministers didn't work hard enough against, or instead encouraged an invasion of Russia. 

 

Either way, I'd like the topic to remain on the advent of Globalism and the refugee crisis

 

That walk back really hurt my neck. Also, giving the benefit of the doubt to Hitler. lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume you have simply conceded on everything else if you are now going back to this. Alright lets add to that 80 million figure shall we.

 

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm- 50 million Orthodox Christians. 

http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-taught-in-schools/- 80 million Africans died as a result of their slave trade (not counting the 20 million who were enslaved instead of dying).

 

Total thus far: 210 million. Amount you wanted beaten: 170 million Status: BTFO

 

This is all not counting people such as Zoroastrians, Christians who were victims of the slave trade (2 million or so I believe), those who lived in Spain, or the Crusades and counter Jihads. 

 

Let me guess your response. Every single death you have listed Nationalism is responsible for, but every death listed here Islam is not responsible for. Ottoman Empire was also a strong state so logically as a state was involved Nationalism is magically to blame! Forget how so many Muslims speak of Nationalism as a great evil they do not partake in, lets just safely ignore that.

 

Also good job on ignoring the lesson on what is responsible wars instead of it being your ridiculous "every war done by a Nation regardless of reasons is to be blamed on Nationalism because they willed their people on by citing the bond they have as a people". The spark for WW1 was a Nationalist killing a dude and hence thats why people primarily attribute it to Nationalism. However the reason it went down as it did was due to the mess of alliances that had developed as a result of the balance of power in Europe which Nationalism has nothing to do with.

 

Lol. So scholarly articles (which you claim that I have no idea about) are propaganda, but when an Orthodox Christian church publishes on an obscure website about an Ottoman massacre that's fact. For someone claiming to have a lot of insight on the biases of authors, you seemed to turn a blind eye on these ones. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

 

 

My understanding always was he though Stalin was going to betray him and preemptively strike so he preemptively struck himself before that could happen.

 

Lebansraum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. So scholarly articles (which you claim that I have no idea about) are propaganda, but when an Orthodox Christian church publishes on an obscure website about an Ottoman massacre that's fact. For someone claiming to have a lot of insight on the biases of authors, you seemed to turn a blind eye on these ones. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

 

I said that them being Proto-Communists was state propaganda yes and scholars on the matter will tow that line, even foreign ones as to go against the state in such a way is a quick way to get barred completely from ever visiting China again. Now in regards to deaths... they happened and in these matters the Orthodox church is actually the best (usually only) source for such things as they kept records and so the full scale of death can be seen. Down the line as states developed they also kept records but in certain cases like the Ottomans they purposely created faulty data to try and hide the death they would cause which is why even today there are numerous Turks who will argue that their genocides never happened or that the numbers were tiny. 

 

In the end its utterly irrelevant anyway, such is the level of your defeat. If we were to discount that whole 50 million figure (and you know its valid) I would only need to find 11 million deaths among the Christians killed in the slave trade, Zoroastrians killed, Buddhists killed... heck I could even expand to Muslims themselves (Shia, Ibadi, and other sects) though that would be simply overkill (plus estimates on such things are hard to find). 

 

What is your Wikipedia link suppose to show? Let me check all the places it lists Nationalism real quick.

 

 

The long-term analysis of its origins seeks to explain why two rival sets of powers – Germany and Austria-Hungary on the one hand, and Russia, France, Serbia and Great Britain on the other – had come into conflict by 1914. It examines political, territorial and economic conflicts, militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments, imperialism, the growth of nationalism, and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Other important long-term or structural factors were unresolved territorial disputes, the perceived breakdown of the balance of power in Europe,[1][2] convoluted and fragmented governance, the arms races of the previous decades, and military planning.[3]

 

Nationalism's growth listed as a reason among a multitude of reason and yet to you we should boil it all down to simply one, Nationalism. You'll notice they list Militarism and Imperialism among Nationalism, which to you no doubt reads as them listing Nationalism three times.

 

 

Samuel R. Williamson has emphasized the role of Austria-Hungary in starting the war. Convinced Serbian nationalism and Russian Balkan ambitions were disintegrating the Empire, Austria-Hungary hoped for a limited war against Serbia and that strong German support would force Russia to keep out of the war and weaken its Balkan prestige.[30]

At this stage in the crisis the possibility of determined Russian support for Serbia, and its attendant risks, was never properly weighed up. The Austrians remained fixated on Serbia but did not decide on their precise objectives other than war.[28]

Nevertheless, having decided upon war with German support, Austria was slow to act publicly, and did not deliver the ultimatum until July 23, some three weeks after the assassinations on 28 June. Thus Austria lost the reflex sympathies attendant to the Sarajevo murders and gave the further impression to the Entente powers that Austria was merely using the assassinations as a pretext for aggression.[31]

 

Something that says that in fear of Serbian Nationalism (you against Serbs having independence Mr Hater of Nationalism?) Austria-Hungary messed things up. I suppose when Hitler killed the Jews it was their fault for being as successful as he would say. I mean this is the twisted logic you're operating on. If Serbians had never decided that they should have a Nation instead of being ruled by an imperial power then WW1 would never have happened you say, those damn nasty Nationalists wanting freedom. 

 

 

By the late 19th century a new school of thought, later known as Social Darwinism, became popular among intellectuals and political leaders. It emphasized that competition was natural in a biological sense. In nature there was the 'survival of the fittest organism' and so too in political geography the fittest nation would win out. Nationalism made it a competition between peoples, nations or races rather than kings and elites.[69] Social Darwinism carried a sense of inevitability to conflict and downplayed the use of diplomacy or international agreements to end warfare. It tended to glorify warfare, taking the initiative and the warrior male role.[70] Social Darwinism played an important role across Europe, but J. Leslie has argued that it played a critical and immediate role in the strategic thinking of some important, hawkish members of the Austro-Hungarian government.[71]

 

I assume this is all you have. However what difference did WW1 have from the other many conflicts based off the balance of power? Scale. Why? Because of the multitude of alliances that had been created likely because the balance was now much different with such a powerful Germany in the centre. Nationalism did not increase the scale of the conflict but does Nationalism help will the people on in a fight in all this? Of course it does, so does God and "protecting your women and children". You blame all the ills on Nationalism because you refuse to admit that you are simply wrong. Nationalism does not have to be militant. Nationalism does not have to be imperialistic. Nationalism does not have to be racist. Nationalism doesn't have to be the twisted form you have given it in your mind. Of course I say this to someone who seems to be a zealot so a lost cause it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That walk back really hurt my neck. Also, giving the benefit of the doubt to Hitler. lol. 

 

Alright, I concede that Barbarossa was a failure, but you haven't refuted any of my previous points you just called me an idiot and a child

 

 

And this is why we don't talk to or argue with Nazis.

 

I mean, if you'd take the few minutes out of your day to read the reasoning behind it then you might find there's an element of truth behind it. You can't just assume that the nazis were so obviously the bad guys and everything they did was wrong just because that's what you've been told. Yeah, they lost the war, and history favours the victor. Try and find a hole in my point and I might even take your viewpoint seriously - I am a reasonable person - but every time a get into an argument with a progressive it's always "I'm not gonna waste my time with you" or they just continually move goalposts as Caecus has done. We somehow went from "European culture and people are being replaced with citizens of foreign nations" to "the Nazis were ebil and everything they did was wrong". If that's not derailing or goalpost moving then I don't know what is.

 

I think you might find your worldview challenged, and your preconceived notions are, well I don't want to say shattered but a good argument always makes you have second thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt in my mind that the war shouldn't have been waged, but this misconception that Poland was invaded over nothing is just plain stupid.

Never said Poland was invaded for no reason. It was invaded and Germany did have a reason for it. Though linking to statements and numbers provided by Joseph Goebbels to a Press Pamphlet doesn't quite inspire much confidence in the casus belli. Let alone the German affinity for false flag attacks to justify aggressive policies at the time.

 

The only sources I've been able to find citing anything over 500 deaths on "bloody sunday" are a variety of apologia and white supremacist websites.

 

Hitler's main purpose was always the protection of German citizens.

.

Lol no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

 

Not only that, but the fact that GB was forced into a pact with a country that they had no political or geographical. or even historical interest/ ties with is mind boggling as well. you already know which (((special interests))) pressured GB into protecting Poland even after their atrocities against the German ethnic minority in Poland.

Ah yes. The (((truth))) is right here. It had nothing to do with the fact that the previous 400 years of English policy had almost always seen the English intervene on the mainland in the face of an expansionist power who they believed to be attempting to unify Europe(even if they were overall apathetic to the musings of Europe as a whole). First under Monarchy, then under simple expansionism.

 

Nothing at all to do with deterring Germany with the potential of fighting a 2 front war in light of Germany's occupation liberation of Czechoslovakia in violation of yet another pre war agreement.

 

As for atrocities(ignoring Goebbels spiel), if it was anything like the mistreatment of the Germans by the Czech's, then it could best be described as the sporadic and quite frankly rare show of aggression over a 20 year period of time which conveniently picked up in occurrence and intensity as the Nazi's infiltrated and funded various Germanic minorities political and covert actions in other countries It's not to say that tensions between German minorities and their ethnic majority hosts didn't exist(it certainly did), but to the degree the Nazi's claim it so is more than likely not to be outright fabrication.

---------------

 

On another note, while humiliation is not the word I'd use to describe France in WWI, the Franco Prussian war was certainly nothing short of humiliation for France. Loss of her Army, massive infliction of Reparations post war and the military occupation and annexation of territories with gradual withdrawal in some first and others dependent upon payment was certainly not what France had in mind during the course of the Franco Prussian war. Those terms DO sound awfully familiar...though it doesn't change that France was dumb to pursue such a Revanch driven policy before and post Great War.

 

You cant deny the fact that everyone in Germany was employed, everyoe in Germany had a role and everyone was more or less happy with the system.

Easy to have everyone employed when you get to define who or what constitute employment. I'm also not sure the Jews assaulted in the street or who's business were destroyed, deported minorities and 400,000 sterilized German citizens were particularly happy.

 

The economy stagnated because so many people were preparing for war, not because of the effectiveness of the system lmao.

If by so many people you mean Germany then you'd be correct. Ignoring Spain's Civil war and Italy's expeditions into Africa, The only power that could probably be said to be re arming would be the Soviets. British re-armament was basically non-existant until Hitler's withdrawal from the League of Nations and his denouncing of the Geneva Disarmament conference. France had kept a steady pace of advances, not too strange for it, though even it did not fully begin to mobilize for war until a few days prior to the German invasion of Poland. Poland itself was in the middle of preparing for war, but French assurances of support had basically caused them to stop out of request

 

If everyone didn't have any beef with Germany, it would have prospered under the NatSocs. Instead of preparing for war so rigorously as they did, they could have invested more in technology or founding new cities and towns, but they were already making so many improvements to infrastructure (roads) that they probably couldn't work on that anymore than they were.

.

All everyone told Germany to do was chill. Instead Germany because a program of secret re-armament at first from as early as 1919, that was later exposed during NatSoc rule and subsequently caused reactionary mobilizations. No one was interested in war. That's why the Anglo-Franco diplomats pushed appeasement as hard as they did to start off. As for the towns and cities, I direct you again to Lebensraum. The ultimate and driving goal of Nazi Germany was to find NEW living space for Germans which they could not find in Germany. In order to get a Germany which does not engage in the preparation of war, NatSocs and most SocDems would probably have be disqualified outright or the concept of Germanic expansionism needs to die with WW1.

 

I don't disagree that public works are good. Though as you yourself have pointed out, there needs to be some type of reliable return on investment. The Military, of which is the worst of these options.

 

there must be more to it than that, Hitler knew he couldnt possibly take on the entirety of the outside world with the flimsy forces of Italy and the questionable strategy of Japan. I refuse to believe that Hitler would throw away the NAP while Germany was still at war with the entirety of the West, its just plain stupid.

The Italian Regia Marina was the only reason the Germans were able to do anything in Africa. Unlike the Kriegsmarine, the Marina also had to take on the full forces of the British Surface fleet in the Mediterranean, while the Germans spent the whole war attacking allied convoy transports instead. On the note of Japan, they really didn't have any other outlook outside of straight surrender. Japan got absolutely BTFO by Russian Mechanized divisions when they attempted to enter through the Russian-Mongolian border. They were running out of supplies via embargoes and some of the world's most abundant natural resources lie in SE Asia, who's colonial overlords were preoccupied largely in Europe. The US was always a problem in these plans, though Japan seemed convinced that it could copy Germanic gambles and get away with it.

 

Secondly, the funny thing about war is that you don't always get to dictate the terms on which you fight it. Germany was running into larger and larger resource shortages in 1940. The bulk of its war effort subsidized by Soviet ore and oil that Stalin had been supplying. Germany's options were to either synthesize its material, which it wasn't anywhere close to in quantative amounts, continue waging a futile war of attrition against the British which it had no statistical chance of winning at that time, or it could take a gamble as it had done before in the Ardennes, in its militarization, in the annexation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately for Germany, and fortunately for not quite everyone but a decent amount of everyone else, they failed.

 

It isn't Italy's or Japan's fault that the Germans, despite knowing the limitations of their own industry, continually pushed them over what they were able to manage.

 

It wasn't either's fault that Germany, rather than build smart, economical weapons of war instead devoted itself to producing some of the most complex and questionably reliable weapons of war(I'm looking at you Gustav). Though at least they looked good.

 

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. The Germans were great at the former but completely brain dead when it came to the latter Also I'm not going to reiterate again just how central the Racial policies were to Germany's goals so i won't.

 

his forces would have better been allocated in an invasion of England

Operation Sea Lion was, is and will continue to be nothing but a meme.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070504051527/gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

http://johndclare.net/wwii6_sealion.htm

 

If you want a more accurate real life example of what would have happened, the Chinese have just the thing for you: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/66540c7b-a562-42af-8f30-14f5563b8d83/TheBattleOfQuemoy.aspx

 

My understanding always was he though Stalin was going to betray him and preemptively strike so he preemptively struck himself before that could happen.

Stalin WAS planning to betray Hitler and vice versa. The difference was that Stalin thought they'd attack later rather than sooner and Hitler thought he'd be attacked sooner than later.

Yeah, they lost the war, and history favours the victor.

History favors the one who can write history. The Huns, Mongols, Vikings and such for example. Just about every single major piece of information we know about them was written by the literate classes of the people they conquered. The Lost cause of the South is another example of the losers of the war rewriting history. The Peloponnesian War accounts are almost entirely from Athenians, who ended up losing the war. Hell, the entire Easter Front of World War 2 and our collective knowledge of it TODAY is still damaged by the fact that most of the history was written by the Germans. The HUMAN WAVES meme, the One soldier carries the gun while the other carries the ammunition myth, the Polish cavalry charge into tanks myth ect...

 

Movies such as Enemy at the Gates don't do much to help dispel any of these myths, even if they are quite a nice watch.

We somehow went from "European culture and people are being replaced with citizens of foreign nations" to "the Nazis were ebil and everything they did was wrong"

In other words, we went speaking about European culture and people were being replaced with citizens of foreign nations in Current Year, to Speaking about European culture and people being replaced with citizens of foreign nations in the early-mid 20th century.

 

Edited by Jose Rodriguez III
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that them being Proto-Communists was state propaganda yes and scholars on the matter will tow that line, even foreign ones as to go against the state in such a way is a quick way to get barred completely from ever visiting China again. Now in regards to deaths... they happened and in these matters the Orthodox church is actually the best (usually only) source for such things as they kept records and so the full scale of death can be seen. Down the line as states developed they also kept records but in certain cases like the Ottomans they purposely created faulty data to try and hide the death they would cause which is why even today there are numerous Turks who will argue that their genocides never happened or that the numbers were tiny. 

 

In the end its utterly irrelevant anyway, such is the level of your defeat. If we were to discount that whole 50 million figure (and you know its valid) I would only need to find 11 million deaths among the Christians killed in the slave trade, Zoroastrians killed, Buddhists killed... heck I could even expand to Muslims themselves (Shia, Ibadi, and other sects) though that would be simply overkill (plus estimates on such things are hard to find). 

 

What is your Wikipedia link suppose to show? Let me check all the places it lists Nationalism real quick.

 

 

Nationalism's growth listed as a reason among a multitude of reason and yet to you we should boil it all down to simply one, Nationalism. You'll notice they list Militarism and Imperialism among Nationalism, which to you no doubt reads as them listing Nationalism three times.

 

 

Something that says that in fear of Serbian Nationalism (you against Serbs having independence Mr Hater of Nationalism?) Austria-Hungary messed things up. I suppose when Hitler killed the Jews it was their fault for being as successful as he would say. I mean this is the twisted logic you're operating on. If Serbians had never decided that they should have a Nation instead of being ruled by an imperial power then WW1 would never have happened you say, those damn nasty Nationalists wanting freedom. 

 

 

I assume this is all you have. However what difference did WW1 have from the other many conflicts based off the balance of power? Scale. Why? Because of the multitude of alliances that had been created likely because the balance was now much different with such a powerful Germany in the centre. Nationalism did not increase the scale of the conflict but does Nationalism help will the people on in a fight in all this? Of course it does, so does God and "protecting your women and children". You blame all the ills on Nationalism because you refuse to admit that you are simply wrong. Nationalism does not have to be militant. Nationalism does not have to be imperialistic. Nationalism does not have to be racist. Nationalism doesn't have to be the twisted form you have given it in your mind. Of course I say this to someone who seems to be a zealot so a lost cause it would seem.

 

So, you're saying that nationalism played a backseat role in the First World War. But Islam is always in the driver's seat for anything deaths related to Muslims? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're saying that nationalism played a backseat role in the First World War. But Islam is always in the driver's seat for anything deaths related to Muslims? 

 

Poor show! You set the rules and I am merely playing by them so don't complain when you get beat at your own game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orbis does a great job enhancing stereotypes

You should've seen some of the old GPA guys from PaW Alpha round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor show! You set the rules and I am merely playing by them so don't complain when you get beat at your own game.

 

You are challenging my rules, not playing by them. Here are the rules: explain to me how Islam as an ideology or religion is somehow uniquely more violent (which I assume is your justification for your intense hatred of Muslims). I'm not saying Islam isn't violent, I'm just saying that they aren't uniquely so for your hatred of them to be warranted without you having a hatred for ultranationalism, Christianity, the Mongols, the Conquistadors, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are challenging my rules, not playing by them. Here are the rules: explain to me how Islam as an ideology or religion is somehow uniquely more violent (which I assume is your justification for your intense hatred of Muslims). I'm not saying Islam isn't violent, I'm just saying that they aren't uniquely so for your hatred of them to be warranted without you having a hatred for ultranationalism, Christianity, the Mongols, the Conquistadors, etc. 

 

Playing by your rules to the letter because if you want to nail Nationalism as you are doing then I can do that sort of thing too. A lesson on why you should play fair.

 

Uniquely? When I at the start included Christianity as one that like Islam has killed far more people than Nationalism? There has been no unfairness from me and I'll happily admit Christianity has killed massive amounts which only continues even today in methods people don't even think about, such as all the Aids deaths as a result of the Roman Catholic Church being against condoms. 

So why attack Islam? Because I want for Muslims in the west to be good ones that can integrate and the way towards that isn't continuing the pathetic appeasement that gives Conservative Muslims absolute power in their ghettos. Because I want people to have freedom of religion without fear they will be attacked or worse killed if they want to leave the faith. Because I don't want the continued implanting of hideous ideas (Anti-Women, Homosexual, and Jew) that they share with those Neo-Nazis you're so against into young minds

 

I'm perfectly rational in what I say about Islam. Its the appeasers who try and pretend it'll all be alright if we leave it alone who are irrational.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing by your rules to the letter because if you want to nail Nationalism as you are doing then I can do that sort of thing too. A lesson on why you should play fair.

 

Uniquely? When I at the start included Christianity as one that like Islam has killed far more people than Nationalism? There has been no unfairness from me and I'll happily admit Christianity has killed massive amounts which only continues even today in methods people don't even think about, such as all the Aids deaths as a result of the Roman Catholic Church being against condoms. 

So why attack Islam? Because I want for Muslims in the west to be good ones that can integrate and the way towards that isn't continuing the pathetic appeasement that gives Conservative Muslims absolute power in their ghettos. Because I want people to have freedom of religion without fear they will be attacked or worse killed if they want to leave the faith. Because I don't want the continued implanting of hideous ideas (Anti-Women, Homosexual, and Jew) that they share with those Neo-Nazis you're so against into young minds

 

I'm perfectly rational in what I say about Islam. Its the appeasers who try and pretend it'll all be alright if we leave it alone who are irrational.

 

Oh, we agree. Wtf, you could have started with that... O.o

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, we agree. Wtf, you could have started with that... O.o

 

I am well aware I can be pompous but I've always tried to get across those very rational positions if people will engage to hear them out. The problem with how things are, especially now, is to speak to people anything other then the appeasement as I have referred to it as here (I don't often refer to it as such but as I have here then I'll refer to it as that) gets you labelled a Nazi and thrown in with those sorts which certainly exist out there but are irrelevant. Once that happens people are no longer engaging with a person but a caricature they have in their head of these big bad Nazis (or some other term) which have magically popped out of hiding in their apparent millions.

 

Such a thing happens outside the internet too which is massively damaging as it means nothing gets done most of the time, and worse if something is done then the push back against it predictably will be tremendous which is why only the likes of Trump, Le Pen, and such are brave/staunch/whatever enough to even talk of taking measures which are certainly not perfect, but at least its something which is more than their opponents can say. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but it's always amusing when people assume hitler and his cronies were "efficient" and use that as justification for some ridiculous point when the truth of the matter is far far different. The idea that the nazis somehow implemented a better economy is one of these "myths". The nazis' policies led to an economic boost in state controlled productivity but a massive deficit in the consumer based economy which in turn led to their imports of much needed raw imports significantly declining. This was perhaps the main reason for their initial expansion, the acquisition of raw resources by military means since their inefficient economy was unable to obtain these resources by any other means due to simply poor economic policies in comparison to traditional capitalism. In terms of economic output, the nazi's policies were simply inefficient and caused massive declines in the consumer driven economy and the German consumer based economy was stagnating long before the war itself even started with the living standards for ordinary Germans actually dropping due to their being limited purchase options available in shops and stores, as a result the German people largely stored these savings in fixed savings accounts which were then used by the nazis to finance more industrial development which only worsened the problem itself.

 

Even the idea of "colonising" the newly conquered lands with Germans became an organisational disaster, it's estimated by some sources that nearly 10% of these newly settled Germans were suffering from starvation before the invasion of Russia commenced! The nazis' economic policies were simply inefficient and if you take that "myth" away from them, they really have no other leg to stand on.

 

Their foreign policy was insanely stupid, they conquered nations who welcomed the Germans as liberators from the soviets and somehow managed to alienate these nations and turn them into enemies. I believe "nationalism" is to blame for that one. Nationalism itself isn't a bad thing for that matter, in moderate quantise it is a great thing and modern western civilisation owes much to it. However, as in all things, an excessive amount is often quite detrimental.

 

Also, the nazis view on eugenics didn't originate within the nazi party, they merely incorporated the idea of racial superiority from the German colonial experience in africa. Notably Namibia where many of the colonial leadership had sons who later assumed positions of leadership within the SS and nazi party.

Edited by Nemesis
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amusing to see many liberals in the West defending Islam at all cost. Even though, they may know that Islam isn't compatible with any liberal values. To be honest, I really wanted to know the reasoning behind their ultimate defense of Islam, though.

 

In my humble opinion, Islam and Muslims, in particular, need to deradicalize themselves and renounce some of the violent and unjust values in Islam before starting to flock the West.

Edited by Luckynako
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to just circle-jerk conservative arguments without anyone disagreeing being able to post contact Sheepy and maybe he'll make a conservative safe space for you guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.