all 78 comments

[–]NeoRail 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

All of this is just recycled tropes, there is little of substance here. For example, expressing a preference for Islam over Christianity - if the Table Talks are to be taken as a credible source - still does not refer to what he would have considered the optimal situation. Your understanding of the war is also pretty basic. Already in the early days of National Socialism Hitler said it in Mein Kampf that he planned to wage war on the Soviet Union - it's obvious that there are some states between the Soviets and Germany. His intention was to clear the way to Russia and then conquer it for Germany without interfering with Britain or France. This strategy was based on the accurate understanding that Britain and France could not afford to stop Germany from fighting the Soviet Union without imploding - which is what happened historically. Hitler expected this would mean he'd be given a carte blanche to deal with communism. This did not happen and only became clear at the outbreak of the world war. You can say that even attacking the Eastern European states was a bad idea, both morally and practically, but the 1930s were a different time - the nation-state still had a lot to offer as a free actor in world politics and the most powerful faction in Nazi Germany was the Pan-Germanic one, not the Pan-European one. To criticise the Nazis for being insufficiently pro-European is bizarre, especially given that they had the most comprehensive international system (SS volunteers and guest workers).

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

he planned to wage war on the Soviet Union ...

True. But he also wanted to take revenge on Entente powers like France and the UK and turn Germany into a new dominating European power — which he actually achieved before invading Russia in 1941.

His intention was to clear the way to Russia and then conquer it for Germany without interfering with Britain or France.

How could he have hoped to 'clear the way to Russia' — as in take control of Poland — without British interference if the Polacks had a pact with the Brits?

An act of aggression against Poland certainly meant the UK declaring war on Germany.

This strategy was based on the accurate understanding that Britain and France could not afford to stop Germany from fighting the Soviet Union without imploding which is what happened historically.

Not true.

Germany only managed to defeat the Brits and the French in 1940 campaign because they had signed a pact with Russia. It meant that they didn't have to fight on two fronts and could concentrate their efforts on the West.

I don't understand why you believe that France and Britain wouldn't have been able to crush Germany had Hitler decided to attack Russia first (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Germans somehow bypassed Poland) because a war on two fronts was one of Hitler's greatest (and justified) fears.

This did not happen and only became clear at the outbreak of the world war.

...started by Germany and Germany alone.

the most powerful faction in Nazi Germany was the Pan-Germanic one

I know. And it was the correct position to take, because Pan-Europeanism is cringe (but that's a topic for another thread).

I never criticized Hitler for not being Pan-European; I criticized him for placing the Arabs (non-whites) above Europeans.

especially given that they had the most comprehensive international system (SS volunteers and guest workers).

... which was also extremely cringeworthy.

SS went from being an (somewhat) elite fighting force to a dumpster made of poorly trained volunteer peasants from all around Europe who were only allowed to join the ranks because Germany was losing the war and needed as many troops as possible.

Just a handful of units like Leibstandarte managed to keep their elite status throughout the war.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

wanted to take revenge on Entente powers like France and the UK

You mean after they declared war on Germany? No, he didn't. All his thinking was East, wanting farmland and to quash the very real Bolshevik threat. Imagine a world where the Allied Powers supported Hitler. Supporting Hitler vs. Churchill/Franklin/Stalin is no brainer, unless you're Jewish, which is what all the hoopla is about. Hitler did not like the Jews but AFAIK merely wanted them to stop their fuckery in Germany and deport them. But of course Jews never do anything wrong so only a madman would have that idea.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

...started by Germany and Germany alone.

Britain and France declared war on Germany.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

True. But he also wanted to take revenge on Entente powers like France and the UK and turn Germany into a new dominating European power — which he actually achieved before invading Russia in 1941.

What are you talking about? Hitler had no intention to fight the old Entente, especially not in 1939.

How could he have hoped to 'clear the way to Russia' — as in take control of Poland — without British interference if the Polacks had a pact with the Brits?

They didn't at the time he wrote Mein Kampf and at any rate such a pact would have been unenforceable - that's why Poland ends up under Soviet occupation at the end of the war.

An act of aggression against Poland certainly meant the UK declaring war on Germany.

Not according to Ribbentrop.

I don't understand why you believe that France and Britain wouldn't have been able to crush Germany had Hitler decided to attack Russia first (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Germans somehow bypassed Poland) because a war on two fronts was one of Hitler's greatest (and justified) fears.

Because Hitler had no intention to fight France or Britain at all - he was hoping for a one on one war with the Soviet Union. The democratic powers couldn't have even declared war on Germany without some sort of defensive justification.

...started by Germany and Germany alone.

Germany started a war with Poland. Britain and France escalated that war into a world war. This is not an unimportant detail, it is crucial in order to understand German policy.

I know. And it was the correct position to take, because Pan-Europeanism is cringe (but that's a topic for another thread).

Fuck off lol.

I never criticized Hitler for not being Pan-European; I criticized him for placing the Arabs (non-whites) above Europeans.

Where did he do that, hm? Are you referring to his comments on Islam again? How do those comments "place Arabs above Europeans"?

... which was also extremely cringeworthy.

Zoomer on the internet calls international political army "cringe" - time to pack it up boys, nothing more to discuss.

SS went from being an (somewhat) elite fighting force to a dumpster made of poorly trained volunteer peasants from all around Europe who were only allowed to join the ranks because Germany was losing the war and needed as many troops as possible.

The last defenders of Berlin were Frenchmen of the Charlemagne division.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What are you talking about? Hitler had no intention to fight the old Entente, especially not in 1939.

In case you didn't know, Hitler wanted Germany to become the new European dominating power.

Well, 'revenge', like I said in the post, is probably an oversimplication, I agree.

They didn't at the time he wrote Mein Kampf and at any rate such a pact would have been unenforceable

Then why did you even bring this up when we were discussing 1933-1939 timeline?

Not according to Ribbentrop.

Who cares about Ribbentrop.

Poland had a pact with Britain, and his 'opinion', whatever it may be, can't change that fact.

The democratic powers couldn't have even declared war on Germany without some sort of defensive justification.

And they didn't want to — see my other replies in the thread.

Britain and France escalated that war into a world war.

Escalated?

They merely stayed true to their agreements with Poland.

Hitler knew about the pact and proceeded nonetheless — I'm hoping you know what this means.

This is not an unimportant detail

And neither is the one I just listed :)

How do those comments "place Arabs above Europeans"?

The guy said that the Arabs and (thanks to the other guy who posted the full quote) Chinese and Japanese would always be closer to Germans then French.

The way I see, it pretty much means that if he had to choose between saving a Louis the Frenchman and an Mohammed the Arab, he'd choose the latter.

Zoomer on the internet calls international political army "cringe" - time to pack it up boys, nothing more to discuss.

Come on maaaaaan, you can do better than that :P

The last defenders of Berlin were Frenchmen of the Charlemagne division.

Which doesn't refute my point at all.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In case you didn't know, Hitler wanted Germany to become the new European dominating power.

If you think he needed to fight France and Britain in order to achieve that, you are vastly overestimating the resources of interwar Western Europe. Not to mention that your claim is disagreeable in the first place. I know that Hitler wanted colonies and lebensraum for Germany, but I can't remember him ever mentioning that he wanted Germany to "dominate" Europe.

Then why did you even bring this up when we were discussing 1933-1939 timeline?

Because the pact was entirely unenforceable during the 1933-1939 period.

Who cares about Ribbentrop.

Hitler, who was being advised by him.

Poland had a pact with Britain, and his 'opinion', whatever it may be, can't change that fact.

The pact was also suicidal, so most talented diplomats and statesmen assumed Britain was bluffing, as per usual.

And they didn't want to — see my other replies in the thread.

If they didn't want to, they wouldn't have. Simple, no? The real issue is that they never would have been able to mobilise the popular support for an explicitly aggressive campaign against Germany, which is why your two front fantasy has nothing to do with history.

Escalated? They merely stayed true to their agreements with Poland. Hitler knew about the pact and proceeded nonetheless — I'm hoping you know what this means.

They also had a treaty with Germany - you might know it, it's called the Versailles treaty. It obligated Germany to pay the Western powers reparations. Germany stopped paying reparations. The same treaty forbade German military buildup and the militarisation of the Rhineland. Germany did just that. The same treaty and some informal agreements with Italy also guaranteed the existence of Austria. Germany annexed Austria. The Allies also had alliances with Czechoslovakia. Germany dismembered Czechoslovakia even after the Munich agreement. Who could have expected that the democratic powers would actually fulfil their obligations to a pact with Poland at that point? That's the thing though, isn't it - they didn't fulfil those obligations either, since they failed to declare a war on the Soviet Union, not to mention the phoney war fiasco. Got any other intelligent comments to make on international diplomacy?

And neither is the one I just listed :)

Very kind of you, to show you my gratitude I decided to provide some context.

The guy said that the Arabs and (thanks to the other guy who posted the full quote) Chinese and Japanese would always be closer to Germans then French.

Politically, this is true. If you wish to contort that quote to some other meaning, you are free to do so, but few will find your interpretation agreeable.

The way I see, it pretty much means that if he had to choose between saving a Louis the Frenchman and an Mohammed the Arab, he'd choose the latter.

Given that Germany ended up at war with France and the Arabs ended up as informal allies of the Germans, it is not hard to imagine why that would be the case for the time period under consideration.

Come on maaaaaan, you can do better than that :P

I don't need to.

Which doesn't refute my point at all.

That is only to be expected, seeing as you have no real point - all you've got is inane whining about the quality of SS troops, though in all likelihood you yourself are probably obese and uneducated. Statistically speaking, it's quite likely. I provided that extra bit of information on the Charlemagne division for any observers who may be interested into the actual level of reliability and morale within the SS.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because the pact was entirely unenforceable during the 1933-1939 period.

But the history proved that it was, indeed, enforcable.

Hitler, who was being advised by him.

Well, in that case it means Hitler was even a bigger fool for blindly believing him.

The pact was also suicidal, so most talented diplomats and statesmen assumed Britain was bluffing, as per usual.

Care to elaborate how defending a country from aggression is "suicidal"?

The Brits were still the world's superpower by the time WW2 begun, in case you forgot.

If they didn't want to, they wouldn't have.

Exactly!

Finally, you seem to get.

They didn't want to and they didn't — Germany, predictably, turned out to be the aggressor.

They also had a treaty with Germany - you might know it, it's called the Versailles treaty. ...

I get your point, but you fail to consider the very fact you listed — that Germany had already broken multiple promises, and the Brits/French weren't always gonna tolerate the Moustache Man's bullshit.

And they didn't — Poland was the final straw.

The guy was basically playing with fire.

Very kind of you, to show you my gratitude I decided to provide some context.

And I once again returned the favor :)

all you've got is inane whining about the quality of SS troops

Whining?

More like acknowledging that by the end of the war the majority of SS divisions were of shit quality.

though in all likelihood you yourself are probably obese and uneducated

Please don't try to insult me again — you're too dense and naive for that :)

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But the history proved that it was, indeed, enforcable.

You mean to tell me that Britain and France preserved the territorial and political integrity of Poland?

Well, in that case it means Hitler was even a bigger fool for blindly believing him.

Ribbentrop was his foreign policy expert with connections in Britain, bro. Who would you have him rather believe?

Care to elaborate how defending a country from aggression is "suicidal"?

I refer you to the dissolution of the British Empire, the foreign debt it incurred as a result of the war and the rationing system it was forced to maintain all the way into the fifties.

The Brits were still the world's superpower by the time WW2 begun, in case you forgot.

No, not even close. They were powerful, but America had them considerably outmatched. At any case, they did not have the resources to contain Germany.

They didn't want to and they didn't — Germany, predictably, turned out to be the aggressor.

Don't you get tired of pretending to be stupid? Germany did not declare war on Britain or France. They declared war on Germany, because they chose to do so. The Polish guarantee was merely the justification they used. This is easily demonstrable because they disregarded a whole assortment of treaties and guarantees that they had given to other states prior to the war.

I get your point, but you fail to consider the very fact you listed — that Germany had already broken multiple promises, and the Brits/French weren't always gonna tolerate the Moustache Man's bullshit. And they didn't — Poland was the final straw. The guy was basically playing with fire.

States aren't people. They don't get upset or keep count of the number of times they've been wronged. They act according to their interests. The Allies backstabbed all of their dependants, including even Poland itself which they sold out to the Soviets. It's not that Hitler exhausted the patience of the Allies at Poland - it's rather that after acting wisely for most of the interwar period, the Allies finally decided to self-destruct and drag Germany down with them.

More like acknowledging that by the end of the war the majority of SS divisions were of shit quality.

"By the end of the war" it's difficult to describe any German division as a fitting match for enemy troops, which as I said early makes your "point" quite inane.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You mean to tell me that Britain and France preserved the territorial and political integrity of Poland?

By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany.

Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

Ribbentrop was his foreign policy expert with connections in Britain, bro.

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than.

That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler.

I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

I refer you to the dissolution of the British Empire, the foreign debt it incurred as a result of the war and the rationing system it was forced to maintain all the way into the fifties.

I doubt they considered long-term effects.

And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

No, not even close. They were powerful, but America had them considerably outmatched.

Not even close?

Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began.

But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

At any case, they did not have the resources to contain Germany.

Wrong, as always.

Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources.

Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany did not declare war on Britain or France.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

because they chose to do so

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

This is easily demonstrable because they disregarded a whole assortment of treaties and guarantees that they had given to other states prior to the war.

You know what's funny?

You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it.

Yes, Hitler broke every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing.

They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit.

And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied.

...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was.

And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

it's rather that after acting wisely for most of the interwar period, the Allies finally decided to self-destruct and drag Germany down with them.

You're not making any sense.

Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military.

If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm.

And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength.

Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later?

If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise?

Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again?

I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

"By the end of the war" it's difficult to describe any German division as a fitting match for enemy troops, which as I said early makes your "point" quite inane.

Yeah, my 'by the end of the war' remark was pretty vague and I should've been more clear.

Fine. I meant by this mid 1944 period and onwards.

(yeah, it's not exactly 'by the end of the war', but then again, I apologize for not being clear enough)

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

By being 'enforcable' I meant the fact the the Brits, in the end, stayed true to their promises and declared war on Germany. Not sure where you got that 'political integrity' take.

When you provide a security guarantee to a country, it is typically expected that you will be trying to secure the country rather than pick a fight with some third party. Was Polish security achieved by the end of the war? Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union when the Red Army invaded Poland shortly after the Germans. Did they honour the promise they made to Poland? What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Should've chosen better foreign experts, than. That's, of course, if we consider for a moment that his advise regarding Poland had any influence over Hitler. I'm 100% sure he would've started the war anyway, given his previous actions and what we know about him and his ultimate goals.

A war with Poland? Maybe, though only the British guarantee made that necessary. A world war? No, not at all.

I doubt they considered long-term effects. And even if they did, they most likely figured out that stopping Germany was more important.

Stopping Germany was more important than not destroying yourself? Why? Plenty of people thought otherwise - for example, there was the "Why die for Danzig?" campaign. Certainly, the politicians had a pretty good idea of what a world war entails, given the devastating shock the first world war gave to the British empire just twenty years prior. The Polish guarantee was suicidal.

Not even close? Yeah, it's true that British power — economic, military, whatever had already been waning by the time the war began. But they still were an incredibly strong state, and there's this:

Incredibly strong by what standard? They were just another European imperial state. There's nothing particularly outstanding about interwar Britain. America was in a class of its own, whereas all the European powers were already heavily reduced in strength as a result of the first war.

Wrong, as always. Germany was always short on resources, and it owes lasting for so long in the war to occupying pretty much all the Europe and exploiting its natural and industrial resources. Their only hope was quickly defeating the Brits and their allies and pushing the former to the sea — which they did in 1940.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people. Neither France nor Britain could hold Germany alone and that much was already proven in the first war. The difference is that while Britain and France burned through a massive portion of their resources, Germany's strength was more or less the same as it had very little to begin with, given its lack of colonial possessions and external markets. No pressure by the British or the French could direct German policy, even if they could muster the will to exert such pressure, which they failed to do.

Germany invaded a state which was allied with those countries, and this is pretty much the same as declaring a war on them.

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

And they chose to do so this time because they were tired of Hitler's lies and broken promises; they figured out that he needed to be stopped because the bastard would just keep breaking treaties and acting aggressively.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies. They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

You know what's funny? You're this close to the truth, but you either ignore it or don't want to accept it. Yes, Hitler broken every single previous treaty and the allies did nothing. They believed that he would eventually stop, but he just kept screwing them and demanding new shit. And the only reason they let him walk free with the previous ones was the fact that Allies didn't want another war in Europe to start, so they kept hoping that, maybe, this time Hitler will finally be satisfied. ...until 1939, when they figured out that he needed to be put down like the savage beast he was. And still, you've only got Hitler's arrogance to blame for the fact that he believed in Britain cucking on its promises.

Are you really this naive? How do you reconcile the belief that the Allies were some sort of moral crusaders that just HAD to oppose Hitler, BUT at the same time sold out a bunch of their allies to Hitler in the name of peace, BUT they ran out of patience at Poland, for some reason? It's such a contorted way of thinking about the war. The much more likely explanation is that the Allies wanted war with Germany far more than vice versa, but were unable to procure the necessary internal unity to prosecute such a war until Poland. The Polish guarantee was merely an instrument to justify the war to the citizenry, nothing more than that. This is the reason why they engage in the phoney war, why they ignore the Soviet invasion of Poland and why they abandon Poland to indefinite occupation in the postwar period - because the French and British statesmen genuinely didn't care about Poland, even remotely, but rather aimed to wage war on Germany.

You're not making any sense. Allies fulfilling Hitler's demands was not 'acting wise', it was acting extremely stupid because it allowed Germany to gain more industrial power and time to fuel its military. If the Allies decided to invade Germany, say, in 1936 (let's for the sake of argument assume that), they would have crushed it like a worm. And considering the fact that Hitler was hellbent on starting a war, it would've been a wise decision — better kill the vicious beast when it's weak and starving than when it's at full strength. Wait, your argument sounds so stupid that I need to clarify: do you really think it was 'wise' to surrender territories to Germany and let it gain strength only to fight the empowered Germany later? If you think that declaring war on Germany after the invasion of Poland was stupid, than what do you think was wise? Let them swallow it whole and become stronger again? I'm really hoping I'm mistaken about you, I mean, I like you, but here you outdid yourself.

The Allies couldn't have possibly declared war on Germany in 1936, because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda and manipulation of public opinion. If we consider the self-interest of the democratic powers, the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union, since France and Britain only stood to lose from another conflict with Germany. Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. This course of action, of course, was still suicidal, but also intelligent insofar as that is possible in this context. The Allies started the war as early as they possibly could, they simply had no other real opportunities to do so. Even the Munich agreement was predicated on the basis of self-determination, which the Allies themselves had vigorously championed just a couple decades prior and by the time the Germans occupied all of Czechoslovakia, the Allied reason for intervention had basically been neutralised.

[–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've grown tired of this discussion and this will be my last reply.

Moreover, you still have not addressed why the Allies refused to declare war on the Soviet Union

Because I've already covered exactly the same question in this thread replying to some guy.

What about their other promise to send in troops into Germany as soon as war broke out, rather than leave Poland to be crushed by Germany as they did historically during the phoney war?

Phoney War is another topic and I don't want to touch here, if I'm not mistaken they refused to invade it from the West because they were disorientiered/relied on defensive doctrine or something like that, can't answer for sure.

Germany "owes" lasting as long as it did in the war to its rearmament programme and the natural strength of its state and people.

...made possible by occupying practically the entire Europe — I'm talking, of course, about post-1940 Germany when the Brits had already tucked tail and retreated from mainland Europe.

You don't think natural resources and factories emerge out of thin air, right?

Good god, that's insane. You mean to tell me that Britain and France were at war with Germany for a whole year after the invasion of Czechoslovakia and no one did anything at all? History sure is strange.

Once again you misinterpreted my words after pulling them out of context.

Obviously, by that I meant only the Polish pact, which stated that Britain would be forced to declare the war on Germany if it started an invasion.

You've not only ignored my point, but you've also written up a list of accusations that apply equally well to the Allies.

They don't "apply equally well to the Allies" because they were the ones cucking to Germany and fuilfilling its wishes.

They betrayed several of the countries they had promised to protect

Unfortunately, it's true, and I've already explained why.

and they aggressively tried to encircle Germany in every conceivable way just for the sake of frustrating German foreign policy.

By letting Germans shit on all the treaties (including Versailles) and gain new lands?

Are you really this naive? ...

What you've written is that paragraph is just a list of wild guesses which cannot be proven, so you'll forgive me for not replying to this.

because their citizens would not have bothered to die for the sake of liberal warmongering without the necessary propaganda

Here we go again...

the wisest course of action would have been to let the Germans pursue their expansion policy towards the Soviet Union

How is letting Germany grab a huge pile of Soviet land and its enormous natural resources wise?

You realise that had they really allowed Germans to invade Russia and succeed, Germany would've been unstoppable?

Instead, the Allies chose to pursue the so-called policy of appeasement which gave them time to justify war against Germany to the public and to rearm. ...

More wild guesses.

You believe that they were only buying time to brainwash the population and prepare it for the war, I believe that they were genuinely trying to avoid the conflict.

Unless a rock solid proof is brough in, I don't think we can come to an agreement on this one.

Alright, this is it for today.

Since this is my last comment, I dont expect you to reply.

Anyway, I thank you for this discussion — I really do — and wish you good luck, bro.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never criticized Hitler for not being Pan-European; I criticized him for placing the Arabs (non-whites) above Europeans.

From Albert Speer's memoir -- which, again, is a dubious source, self serving and should be taken with skepticism but let's just assume it's true.

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Empirically untrue

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

    He definitely admired Islam for its virility -- as have many traditionalists not that I'd call Hitler strictly one -- and because he thought Bolshevism was basically the 'bastard child' of Christianity but I'm dubious entirely about that quote. Maybe if you want to get a better sense of the man try looking deeper than unsourced quotes and read Table Talk, Irving's work or even one of the standard histories of the man like A.J.P Taylor's work -- I haven't read it and I'm told it's very biased but still paints a more nuanced picture of the man.

    As for your other Wikipedia tier takes on the man they're not worth debating. If you haven't gotten your head around the fact that Hitler and his regime are the most lied about thing I'd say in nearly the entire history of the world then what hope is there for you? Go watch Schindler's List and weep for the Jews if that's the level you're at. What could I do to change that?

    [–]Minedwe 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    because he thought Bolshevism was basically the 'bastard child' of Christianity

    He'd be somewhat right there: Communism is a Jewish attempt to manipulate Christian values and White empathy and youthful gullibility to swindle people into believing in a system meant to wipe them out, just like the same and opposite traits are exploited to promote capitalism.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm Christian but undoubtedly there is some truth to it. I have a very different take and could write a whole essay on the topic but I won't deny there's an aspect of truth to the claim.

    [–]Minedwe 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It's a common Jewish tactic: Take our best qualities and milk and exploit them to harm us and/or benefit them and their shitskin pets.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    Christianity is Jewish. Communism - and liberalism - is just a secularized version of Christianity. It's the same slave morality. Hitler understood this.

    [–]Minedwe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Hitler was a Christian, lol.

    I could go into another multi-paragraph post about how the "Muh Christianity is jewish" shit is absolutely the most retarded stuff ever but I've done that multiple times already and It's very tiring.

    Also "Secularized Christianity" is an oxymoron, if a religion is secular, then it is by definition not a religion (obviously excepting atheism/antitheism)...

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    No, he wasn't. He was raised Catholic but he was lapsed. He was probably an atheist. He was also a pagan. He wanted to revive Nordic paganism and have it replace Christianity.

    [–]Minedwe 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Okay, but answer me this: If Christianity is so evil and bad, why did Whites flourish and explode in success after its introduction? If Christianity is a creation of the Jews, why do Jews hate, fear, and constantly attempt to destroy Christians and Christianity? If Christianity is so tied to liberalism and communism, why have both of those Jewish movements sought its destruction, and why are the opponents to those movements so often Christians? Why did these movements almost always rise and find their creation in the waning periods of Christian control and belief? if the Jews are the puppetmasters of Christianity, why do they insist on editing the Bible and trying to ban it, if they wrote the thing originally, why would they need to?

    The "ties" between Judaism and Christianity have been debunked many times before, and any attempt at connecting them or connecting Christianity to Communism or Liberalism or any other boogeyman (except perhaps conservatism, however most Conservatives can hardly be called truly Christian anyway) ends up being illogical finger pointing.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    If Christianity is so evil and bad, why did Whites flourish and explode in success after its introduction?

    Lol! What? The Roman empire collapsed and ushered in a Dark Age that lasted for centuries because of Christianity.

    If Christianity is a creation of the Jews, why do Jews hate, fear, and constantly attempt to destroy Christians and Christianity? If Christianity is so tied to liberalism and communism, why have both of those Jewish movements sought its destruction, and why are the opponents to those movements so often Christians? Why did these movements almost always rise and find their creation in the waning periods of Christian control and belief? if the Jews are the puppetmasters of Christianity, why do they insist on editing the Bible and trying to ban it, if they wrote the thing originally, why would they need to?

    Because they're rival religions. Liberalism and communism are just political theologies that can't stand an alternative theology to question their existence. Don't forget Christians have slaughtered themselves as well.

    [–]Minedwe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Dark Age that lasted for centuries because of Christianity.

    Good thing the Romans invented the steam engine, created stable nations states, abolished white-on-white slavery, invented the printing press (and practically everything else we use to this day that has founded great nations and furthered humanity and the white race) before that happened then, right? Oh, wait a minute...

    Because they're rival religions.

    Ok, why would the Jews create an obstacle for themselves then? And why would they obviously display themselves as evil Satanists that deserve nothing but contempt and disgust, as they did in the Bible, as you seem to believe they did?

    Don't forget Christians have slaughtered themselves as well

    Yes, and so have people in our movement. Your point? If you mean to say that Communists and Christians are one in the same because Catholics and Protestants have fought in the past, I'd say that's a laughable stretch.

    [–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Good thing the Romans invented the steam engine, created stable nations states, abolished white-on-white slavery, invented the printing press (and practically everything else we use to this day that has founded great nations and furthered humanity and the white race) before that happened then, right? Oh, wait a minute...

    Other than the printing press all of those happened as a result of the Enlightenment

    [–]Minedwe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Stable nation states and the abolition of white-on-white slavery happened largely prior to the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment people were largely still Christians, just markedly less zealous and more "scientific".

    [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    He definitely admired Islam for its virility

    He didn't merely 'admire' Islam. He believed that Germans would've been better off had they been converted to it instead of Christianity, as well as placed the Arabs above fellow Europeans.

    unsourced quotes

    The quote I listed is an undisputed one.

    And it falls perfectly in line with the Moustache Wearing Retard's other quotes/views regarding Islam.

    As for the rest of your 'reply'... Well, I expected as much.

    "Haha, I'm not gonna even try to refute a single point because everyone knows The Truth™. And if you don't... well, fug off and go worship dem Jooz."

    I bet you're also the kind of guy who laughs at leftists whenever they refuse to discuss controversial topics like effects of diversity/crime statistics/Jewish nepotism because 'racism is bad and not worth debating'.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    The quote I listed is an undisputed one.

    What's the source out of interest? The site you link to doesn't give one.

    I bet you're also the kind of guy who laughs at leftists whenever they refuse to discuss controversial topics like effects of diversity/crime statistics/Jewish nepotism because 'racism is bad and not worth debating'.

    No and I'll be happy to continue the discussion if any valid criticisms come up -- as I'm sure there will and of which I know there's many to make about Hitler and Nazism. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed or that criticism of the man and regime aren't valid but when it comes to your points they're just so beneath what I would like to discuss about the period that there's not much there. What am I supposed to say to someone who calls Hitler a 'mustachioed retard' and thinks Germany was actually the aggressor in WW2. Do you expect serious and honest responses with talk like that?

    [–]Lugger[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    What's the source out of interest? The site you link to doesn't give one.

    You can type that quote in Google and choose any source you like.

    For example, this book

    who calls Hitler a 'mustachioed retard'

    I explained why I feel that way about him.

    and thinks Germany was actually the aggressor in WW2

    Hmm... maybe because it's true?

    Or it wasn't Hitler who attacked Poland — which, in turn, had a pact with the UK that stated it would be obliged to intervene in case of German aggression?

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Found the full quote -- no thanks to you -- and surprise surprise he's saying something completely different to what you claim. So Wikipedia gives the source as the author Wistrich in his book Hitler's Apocalypse: Jews And The Nazi Legacy. I'll repeat the quote in full from Wistrich's own book. The quote appears on page 58:

    Germany will always recruit its staunchest friends among those people who are actively resistant to Jewish contagion. I am sure that the Japanese, the Chinese and the people of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy.

    Name the fucking lie.

    Can you please edit your original post to include the full quote which puts the entire thing in a completely different light. That would be honest. It's clear that he's saying that the Chinese, the Japanese and the Islamic people, unlike the French, are not doing the Jews bidding like Germany and therefore are closer to the Nazi perspective on Jews while still acknowledging their fellowship with the French in blood. Your truncated quote is completely misleading and dishonest.

    [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Wow. I literally just wowed.

    Not only you are a toxic POS, but also you are willing to twist/change quotes so that they fit your own narrative.

    Listen up, people, here's where this guy bullshitted:

    I am sure that the Chinese, the Japanese and the people of Islam will always be closer to us on that than

    I just double-checked the book. There is no "on that", it was completely made up by the guy.

    Those two words make all the difference.

    Here's how the quote really sounds.

    Hitler doesn't say that those non-whites are closer to Germans because they're "closer to the Nazi perspective of Jews".

    He's saying that they don't bow to the Jews and they're closer to Germans — I mean, Germans, not their perspective.

    See the difference?

    Now, care to explain why did you add this "on that" bullshit??

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The quote makes it quite clear that Hitler is saying France is a Judaized country and that the Chinese, the Japanese and the Islamic people are closer to the Nazis when it comes to that issue. You're right I just checked. There is not 'on that' I made the mistake. I'll edit the quote. I also mixed up the order in which he says Japan and China. Again neither of those things change the fact that the full quote means something completely different to what you're implying it does.

    Anyway edit your post to include the full quote and let others decide.

    [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    You're right I just checked.

    Kinda suspicious that the most important words were a mere mistake, but I'm not spiteful and will pretent that it's true.

    Again neither of those things change the fact that the full quote means something completely different to what you're implying it does.

    No, it doesn't.

    Now, what did you want me — and the rest of the anons — to believe?

    That would be honest. It's clear that he's saying that the Chinese, the Japanese and the Islamic people, unlike the French, are not doing the Jews bidding like Germany and therefore are closer to the Nazi perspective on Jews

    This could have been the turning point.

    But it turned out to be complete bullshit.

    Hitler really believed that the non-whites listed above were 'closer to Germans' — not some perspective — just like the original quote implies.

    Anyway edit your post to include the full quote and let others decide.

    I must admit, I didn't see the full quote when I made the OP post.

    But I will not make any changes, because, as we figured out, the meaning remains the same.

    And if you're still not convinced, I advise you to read closely:

    ...and the people of Islam will always be closer to us

    'Always' means exactly that — no matter their position regarding the Jews, they will always be closer to Germans, just like the OP post implies.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Listen this is just a matter of interpretation. Given the source is the Bormann-Diktate and that Irving claims its publisher Genoud admitted to him it was a mere fabrication based on what Genoud imagined Hitler might have said I have doubts but I'll take it fully at face value and assume it's true.

    I think any person who examines the full context is going to come to somewhere closer to my conclusion than yours. He's talking about the 'Jewish contagion' and how China, Japan and the Islamic people are not suffering from it and therefore can be recruited as friends UNLIKE the French which he acknowledges are people related by blood to the Germans but unfortunately a Judaized nation. This is nothing any White Nationalist would disagree with then and certainly not today.

    As I said just edit your post and include the full quote not your truncated one and let others decide.

    [–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It's quite obvious that the full quote is talking about closeness ideology/weltanschauung. It mentions "despite having blood relations with the French", so obviously he's aware that they're not biologically closer, so he has to be referring to something else when speaking about closeness.

    OP should edit his original statement to include the full quote. The stupid "on that" "gotcha!" is irrelevant. It sounds like you were typing it out and your own thoughts/interpretation got included in your typing.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    He believed that Germans would've been better off had they been converted to it instead of Christianity

    Yes, but that doesn't mean he wanted Germany to become an Islamic state. He wasn't actually doing that. He was trying to bring back paganism. That was his ideal.

    as well as placed the Arabs above fellow Europeans

    In a spiritual sense, yes. I do to. I have more respect for a Jihadist than a Western bugman.

    [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Yes, but that doesn't mean he wanted Germany to become an Islamic state. He wasn't actually doing that. He was trying to bring back paganism. That was his ideal.

    Hmm. Here's his another quote:

    Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

    Still not convinced that the guy was a Muslim lover?

    I mean, he doesn't even hide how much he adores Islam. It's all over the place.

    In a spiritual sense, yes. I do to. I have more respect for a Jihadist than a Western bugman.

    Why even choose between those two evils?

    Both Jihadists and liberals are pathetic, just in different ways.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Still not convinced that the guy was a Muslim lover?

    I never said he wasn't. He was talking about choosing between Christianity or Islam. He wasn't talking about the other option, Nordic paganism, which is what he was actually reviving. Are you really this dense?

    Why even choose between those two evils?

    Ideally we wouldn't have to choose between those two, which is why I want Europeans to go back to their pagan roots, but if I had to choose I would choose Islam over liberalism, any day of the week.

    By the way, what he said about Christianity preventing Germanics from conquering the world is spot-on. Just look at the US. If the US was Muslim instead of Christian they would have castrated every male black slave. The only reason why MENA countries don't have leftovers from black slave populations is because they castrated all the male slaves. The US would have no black problem today if they did the same. Christian slave morality prevented them from embracing their domination as masters. The moment you feel any sympathy for slaves and the weak is the moment you deserve to be crushed.

    [–]Lugger[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I never said he wasn't. He was talking about choosing between Christianity or Islam.

    Exactly.

    He believed that the religion of i**d gt f****s was more suitable to Germans than Christianity.

    but if I had to choose I would choose Islam over liberalism

    Whatever. I'm not American, I'm a 'Eurocuck' (Dutch) and my experience — both in my country and in greater Europe — tells me that liberalism is 1000 times better than Islam.

    I guess it's a matter of perspective, hehe.

    If the US was Muslim instead of Christian they would have castrated every male black slave.

    Yep, I know that Arabs castrated their black slaves, which is why they don't suffer from Black plague the way the U.S. does.

    But are you sure that it was because of religion, not Arab's mentality?

    Christian slave morality prevented

    Christianity was pretty based until it got subverted by globohomo.

    Don't forget about muh crusades, inquisition n sheeit whenever you want to tell about Christian inherent slave morality.

    Don't forget that Islam also aims to convert as many people as possible, which means that, if it was really Whites' mentality, not religion (like I suggested), that prevented them from castrating the slaves, the Islamized America would probably end up with tens of millions of Muslim free blacks. Islam combined with Black aggressiveness would probably be a complete shitstorm.

    But that's just a 'What if' guess and we'll never learn the truth.

    The US would have no black problem today

    I'd also argue that greed definitely played a part in a decision not to castrate the slaves.

    "Why waste time and money transporting them across the atlantic when you can let them breed and create more and more slaves on their own."

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    But are you sure that it was because of religion, not Arab's mentality?

    Yes.

    Christianity was pretty based until it got subverted by globohomo.

    No, it wasn't.

    Don't forget about muh crusades, inquisition n sheeit whenever you want to tell about Christian inherent slave morality.

    Last time I checked they lost on both counts. And the inquisition was mostly retarded.

    [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    This guy is a fucking idiot. Arab (Islamic) mentality is wholly driven by Islam and it's religious dictates. Why do you think their religion has them pray 5x a day? To keep them in line and coming back to the source of how they're supposed to live. It's like reinforcing something you want to do more in a manner suggested by Atomic Habits.

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

    This quote doesn't make sense because Arab victory in Europe would also mean racial mixing with Arabs. It is either fake or not sincere.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    He definitely admired Islam for its virility -- as have many traditionalists not that I'd call Hitler strictly one

    I admire Islam's virility as well, but just like Hitler I think we should go back to our pagan roots. He was also a modernist by the way. Traditionalism is mostly LARPing.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    He was also a modernist by the way

    Exactly which is why I said he wasn't a traditionalist or a perennialist like other German figures. I don't know if it's accurate or not -- probably is all bull but who cares it's funny -- but I remember watching a documentary ages ago where lip readers were trying to interpret what Hitler was saying in those home movies filmed at the Wolf's Lair and one of the quotes was, according to them, Hitler laughing at Himmler for all his 'Mystic nonsense.' Who knows if it's true but it always makes me laugh.

    [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Traditionalism is mostly LARPing.

    Nowhere near as LARPy as returning to 'our pagan roots' but I get what you're saying.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    You're either serious about blood and soil, or you're just a pretender. Paganism is being serious about European identity. Christianity is not European. It never was and never will be.

    [–][deleted]  (13 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Unfortunately, Wikipedia cites some book and not a speech to verify this, but let us assume, the quote is correct. He then obviously talks about their spirit and not their ethnicity.

      See my comment elsewhere in the thread. I dug up the full quote and it's completely different to the OP's assertion. Looking through the notes as well the source is something called 'Testament' published in 1945 which I originally thought meant Hitler's final testament but Islam is not mentioned in that so it must be something else.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Which is obviously a fake by Genoud anyway even though the quote is saying something different to the OP.

        [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

        Did he take some actions, that escalated the situation? No doubt, but you can say the same about all major powers. Hence, the claim "wage an aggressive war[...]" seems false. He literally tried to prevent this and offered a bunch of times to keep the peace or restore peace even after the war broke out.

        You're wrong about a very important thing: he didn't try to 'prevent' the war, he started it.

        How?

        He invaded Poland, and Poland had a pact with Britain.

        In fact, he believed that it would not stay true to its promises and leave Poland to him, but was wrong — but still stupid.

        There's only so much the Brits can stand down.

        It's worth mentioning, that he did not cite these events in his declaration of war.

        Doesn't change the fact.

        that there had been real attacks by Polish soldiers in August 1939.

        Don't know if it's true, but I'll take your word for it. Then what stopped him from using those attacks as a casus belli?

        Why did those Germans had to die?

        Arguably Britain (and maybe America) would have tried to start a war anyways. Even though they would have needed another reason for this.

        I doubt it. They were scared shitless of Germany and tried everything to appease it before Hitler crossed the line.

        [–][deleted]  (8 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Lugger[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

          Why did he stop the order to attack a couple of times, telling the army he needs more time for negotiations?

          Never heard of this, but even if true, it doesn't matter because he still attacked Poland unprovoked (unless you count the false-flag attack, of course).

          Why did offer peace on September 2nd (this offer was presented to the British government this day) - before France and Britain had joined the war?

          Offered peace?

          Sorry, but he had already invaded Poland, and the UK had to honor the agreement.

          The only 'peace offering' he could have made was asking the Brits to stand down and betray their allies — and obviously they weren't going to do it this time.

          Yeah, because Poland wanted German territory

          I don't even want to know where you read this, but even if true — which I'm sure isn't — it's still a piss-poor excuse for aggression. Up until 1939 Germany had been scaring the shit out of Europe, and you want me to believe that Poland and its pathetic army wanted to challenge German might?

          Britain wanted to keep "the balance of power"

          Britain tried to appease Hitler and fulfilled his every demand up until 1939. What they wanted was avoiding another war.

          He literally cites them in his declaration of war.

          You didn't get my point.

          I was asking why did Germany have to conduct a false-flag attack and murder its own citizens if the Poles had previously done something similar.

          Because Poland wanted to gain more territory and cleanse "their" country from foreigners (Ukrainians, Germans, etc.).

          Poland had a right to do whatever it wanted within its territory and nobody would have cared.

          Those were different times; there was no global police force like NATO that intervened to stop poor minorities from persecution (something-something-Serbia).

          So why did London refuse to host a conference with regards to the Danzig question?

          Look, as I've already mentioned, I don't know if what you're saying is true.

          But even if I once again take your word for it, the UK simply might have had enough with Hitler's bullshit and expansionist policies and didn't want to surrender anything else to him.

          Remember, they had already kept a blind eye on Rhineland, end of the Treaty of Versaille, Ruhr and so on.

          tell Warsaw to not negotiate with Germany

          What negotiations are you talking about?

          Germans didn't even attempt to 'negotiate' with the Poles, they conducted Operation Himmler and launched an invasion.

          [–][deleted]  (6 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

            Why do attacks on commercial airplanes and raids on civilians do not count as provoked?

            Look, as I said, I don't know where you got the information about those attacks on German property, but I have a very serious reason to doubt it because, as I've also said, entire Europe was trembling in fear at the idea of war with Germany, and I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to directly raid their territory — especially a country like Poland which knew it would be crushed like a worm.

            Yes, he offered a cease fie and to retreat from all conquered territories except for Danzig. Germany would even pay reparations to Poland and in addition to this offer financial support for new investments.

            Look. It's no surprise that the Allies rejected this peace offer, and you know why?

            Because Hitler had already proven himself to be a liar; he had proven that he spat on all the pacts he made.

            Come on... Rhineland, Versailles, Ruhr... The allies had figured out that the guy couldn't be trusted. They just wouldn't fall for his 'peace' BS that time.

            So do you claim the 16-points plan was just a bluff or what? What about the above mentioned proposal on September 2nd? What about all the other peace offers?

            I think the answer I printed above covers that question.

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

              Still, one might ask if it was needed to escalate the Danzig question to the biggest war in history.

              I'm not super well-versed in history, but after reading The Fall of the House of Habsburg by Crankshaw I asked the same question about WW1. The heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was just assassinated. Trying to find more information, but given the communist coups of royal families at that time period, I can't help but wonder if the Black Hand was also a communist organization, or influenced/led by communists. Anyway, I don't find it unreasonable for a nation to exact revenge on a country or whoever was responsible for that assassination. I find it more appalling that the other powers didn't act in a way to ensure justice for that assassination instead of total war.

              If you know more, please let me know.

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Interesting, thank you for the write-up.

                [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Poor grug Gavrilo. The serfs always end up doing the dirty work.

                (Thanks for the info BTW.)

                [–]Minedwe 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

                Such an inspiring figure for White Nationalists, isn't he?

                Considering France was a liberal shithole, he was right at the time. He was, however, too harsh and quick to jump the gun, the French people are not to blame for their ever-retarded rulers, just as the British people are not.

                His decision to wage an aggressive war against neighboring (white) countries was as stupid as it gets.

                Poland had rightfully German land, and repeatedly badgered Germany. Hitler did not start any war, the British and French had a vendetta and attacked Germany. What about the Soviets? They also invaded Poland, yet they were left out of any war declarations and, as we all know, were invited to join the Allies despite the fact that the soviets repeatedly fucked with their "allies" efforts.

                Germany would've become the envy of the entire world and Hitler himself would be probably revered as one of the greatest rulers ever.

                The Jews wouldn't allow that to happen in a million years. The war was inevitable because Britain, the USSR, America, France, etc. were all under their control and were used as puppets against Germany.

                There are also plenty of mistakes that Hitler did make that would also endanger this state.

                He utterly failed to solve the Jewish problem in Germany by deporting them to Madagascar (or elsewhere) while he was one of the few rulers who finally had the chance.

                And what did he do with this chance? He sent the Jews to labor camps to serve as free work force. LMAO.

                He got more use out of them than killing them all would have, arguably. But killing them all wasn't really possible, nor would it do anything. If the Holocaust HAD happened, the pushback against Germany would be even greater than it is now.

                Also, I notice EVERY TIME you post this (you have spammed this multiple times) the user u/ShiversRussia2017 commenst the EXACT SAME THING and you have the EXACT SAME RESPONSE. See this thread, for those interested: https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/6y5o/germany_political_dissident_ursula_haverbeck_sent/

                [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

                Poland had rightfully German land

                Germany lost WW1 and ceded that land to Poland. It has been a way of things for the entire human history.

                But even if he was somehow justified (but he wasn't), tell me, why did he have to conduct a false-flag operation and have his fellow Germans killed?

                EDIT: To clarify, I called Rhineland a 'rightfully German land' in my OP post because it was a special case: a legally German, yet foreign-occupied demilitarized land.

                Hitler did not start any war, the British and French had a vendetta and attacked Germany.

                Wrong.

                Poland had a pact with Britain and any act of German aggression against Poland meant British retribution.

                Hitler knew this and invaded it nonetheless.

                Hopefully you'll be able to put 2 and 2 together and come to a conclusion.

                What about the Soviets?

                Nor Britain nor France were obliged to declare a war on Russia if it attacked.

                Yeah, it may sound strange, but that was how the pact I mentioned above worked.

                Furthermore, the Soviets only invaded Poland after Polish Army had been effectively defeated and the fate of Poland had been sealed, so the lands the Soviets took would've falled into German hands otherwise.

                I guess this, and the fact that they also decided not to anger a possible ally against Germany, played a role in not declaring a war.

                The Jews wouldn't allow that to happen in a million years. The war was inevitable because Britain, the USSR, America, France, etc. were all under their control and were used as puppets against Germany.

                What a bunch of bullshit.

                By the time the war started the Jews in Germany were working their asses off in labor camps and had no influence over Hitler.

                And once again: there would be no war had the Hitler the Retard not invaded Poland.

                He believed that the UK and France would step down and allow him to carry on with the aggression just like they did with Czechoslovakia, but miscalculated.

                He got more use out of them than killing them all would have, arguably. But killing them all wasn't really possible, nor would it do anything. If the Holocaust HAD happened, the pushback against Germany would be even greater than it is now.

                I didn't say 'kill them', I say deport them to Madagscar as he (likely) considered.

                'Got more use of them' — yeah, just like the American slaveowners got more use of blacks instead of sending them back to Africa. See my point?

                Also, I notice EVERY TIME you post this (you have spammed this multiple times)

                Wrong again. The guy only replied to me 2 times (does this qualify as 'every time' for you), and (probably) only because I linked that comment in my OP post.

                [–]Minedwe 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

                But even if he was somehow justified (but he wasn't), tell me, why did he have to conduct a false-flag operation and have his fellow Germans killed?

                I'm not saying he's without flaw, I'm simply pointing out some of the stuff in your post I find debatable. He definitely did get quite a bit of stuff wrong.

                Poland had a pact with Britain and any act of German aggression against Poland meant British retribution. Nor Britain nor France were obliged to declare a war on Russia if it attacked.Yeah, it may sound strange, but that was how the pact I mentioned above worked.

                The thing is, why would they have entered into this treaty with such a stipulation? Does that not signal at leats some kind of animus against Germany and at least cursory tolerance for the USSR?

                By the time the war started the Jews in Germany were working their asses off in labor camps and had no influence over Hitler.

                Jews existed outside of the Third Reich, I hope you know. They had lots of pull in the USSR, Britain, France, the USA, and plenty of other countries too.

                I didn't say 'kill them', I say deport them to Madagascar as he (likely) considered.

                Even that would spark hatred and propaganda against Germany. And then, they'd just set up Israel in Africa, and we'd have a slightly less Arab-centric issue than we have today.

                'Got more use of them' — yeah, just like the American slaveowners got more use of blacks instead of sending them back to Africa. See my point?

                I do indeed see your point, but I believe the original intention was to deport the Jews and their internment was somewhat temporary. I don't have much support for this however, so it is rather shaky, but it makes logical sense: They couldn't be deported at that time due to the international strife making the possibility of any deportation efforts being thwarted far more likely. If true, this would also draw a parallel to slavery in the US in a way, as the slaves were originally meant to be sent back to Africa or split off into their own state, per the ideas of many abolitionists.

                Wrong again. The guy only replied to me 2 times (does this qualify as 'every time' for you), and (probably) only because I linked that comment in my OP post

                Sorry about this, I seem to have jumped the gun. I reviewed your post history after making the comment and realized what I said wasn't accurate. I'm very wary of shills and fedposter types, as multiple places (including here) have recently seen something of a spike in disingenuous actors.

                [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                Jews existed outside of the Third Reich, I hope you know. They had lots of pull in the USSR, Britain, France, the USA, and plenty of other countries too.

                It would be worth it for most people to take the time to read Alison Weir's book Against Our Better Judgment. It's like 100 pages with another 100 pages of footnotes.

                If what she outlines is true, then America entering WW1 to help Britain was facilitated by American Jews (e.g. Warburg, Schiff, Brandeis, Frankfurter, etc.) manipulating Wilson and others with an agreement/understanding with the British that British Palestine would be given to the Jews. This is back in the mid-to-late 1910's that they were capable of finessing this, so they obviously had entrenched power structures in America and likely elsewhere.

                https://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/history.html

                [–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                If what she outlines is true, then America entering WW1 to help Britain was facilitated by American Jews

                Indeed. This is practically undeniable. Even relatively normie historians admit that bankers had tons to do with entering WWI, they simply omit the fact that almost all those Bankers were Jews.

                [–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                I would add that they were Zionist Jews. From that book, it's quite apparent that there wasn't a consensus on creating Israel and there actually was anti-Zionist Jews.

                Gets kind of weird with the factions and their motives, reasons to support or not support based on reciprocity, etc.

                [–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                It's clear there are factions of Jews or colliding interests if you look at obviously jew sponsored things that are often contradictory. Some of it I chalk up to sectionalism within Jewish circles, and some is just incompetence or cockiness.

                [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Name someone who fought against International Finance even to 1/1000000th of the effect he had and i'll consider your libtard tropes

                [–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                My position on this is actually very nuanced, and something most probably could never understood. Ernst Nolte is a good starting point. In summary, National Socialism is correct in ideology in philosophy and fundamental premises. The problem was always of leadership.

                I am very much a shameless Wehraboo. I love and worship the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht. And it is actually my main hobby as I like to build models, almost exclusively of the hardware and weapons war of Nazi Germany. In my study of Nazi Germany especially in terms of military history, I am if not anti-Hitler, certainly adverse to Hitler.

                In short, Hitler lost the war that Germany had essentially won. Some discount this as after the war revisionism by generals and others who wrote self-serving memoirs, but it is the truth. Another problem with Hitler that I do not believe most Germans subscribed to was that he was by no means Pan-European, but not just a German nationalist but a supremacist who brutalized white slavic Europeans, often times with dubious meaningless distinctions where they grind down blue-eyed Poles but ally themselves with Croats and Slovakians....

                Ultimately, I do not buy into the Allied propaganda. At best the Allies are just as bad as Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and those guys. I suspect that the Third Reich is rightly the lesser of all evils. And if you consider the injustices of the Versailles Diktat, the legitimate threat of Soviet Bolshevism, the extreme profilgacy and decadence of Weimar Berlin, the Germans, absent the advantage of hindsight, certainly had legitimate reasons to follow Hitler.

                Above all, those feldgrau columns of heroes that were that the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht and Waffen SS were paragons of military discipline, and fought and died for sacred Germany and ultimately were Europe's best chance to avoid falling in the post-modern abysss that is unfolding now. God I wish they won. Just imagine, no porn, no fucking rap music, no Coca-Cola or McDonalds. no Katy Perry no Madonna.

                [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Not many people know this, but Hitler was a Muslim lover. He believed Islam to be the best religion for German people and even once said 1 : "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France".

                There is no proof he ever said such things but even if his quotes about Islam are true he never said Islam was the best religion for Germany. He only says he prefers it to Christianity because its main figure is a warrior.

                And reading the wikipedia of the supposed false flag operation it mentions nothing about killing innocent German civilians.

                [–]ShiversRussia2017 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

                I agree with all but I strongly recommend you delete this. You simply won't change any minds and will likely get banned.

                [–]Lugger[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

                The sub is called debate alt right, isn't it?

                [–]ShiversRussia2017 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

                That's a topic that we simply can't debate, it's an unofficial rule.

                [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                That was true on reddit, but we have a lot more freedom here in terms of what we can leave up.

                [–]ShiversRussia2017 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

                Still not worth the risk, its the mods here that are sensitive to discussion about Nazism not the owners of the site.

                [–]NeoRail 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                You seem way more sensitive about discussing Nazism than any of the mods I am aware of.

                [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                It's funny how often this same comment is made over and over in this community by people outside of the alt-right looking to debate.

                [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

                Hitler was a pagan, not a Muslim.

                [–]Lugger[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Never said he was.

                [–]weaselWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                I thought he was a pantheist.

                [–]VarangianRasputin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

                What do you think of Hitler's opposition in the NSDAP? Gregor & Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetal in particular.

                [–]Lugger[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

                Sorry, I've read very little about them and therefore can't give a decent answer.