The wrong side won WW2.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I did.

You took excerpts on South Africa, Human Health, Environmentalism and a Racially Egalitarian society but provided no rebuttals. So answer them now.

This is an interesting point, and there are important books on the way in which the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII, and various arguments against it. Regardless: none of this gave Germany the right to annex countries, ship undesirables to camps, and invade Russia (REAL stupid). Germany was on the path to rebuild, and was not bothered when it annexed some of the initial territories. Thus your argument should also address the ways in which Germany fucked up.

Britain had waged its own imperialist wars, and the Soviets had also been just as guilty as expanding (hell, they invaded Poland twice. In 1920, and again in 1939). Looks like Hitler was just copying what everyone else was doing back then except only they were demonized for it.

Not true, and it's not appropriate to compare those very different territories. If you read about "German" history, you'll see that it's been remarkably divided into competing sections well into the 19th century.

What makes China a better place? It can't be wealth because they were always poor. And if the Covid virus they just inflicted on the world tells us something, it means they're not very sanitary either. So be my guest and go live in China if you think it was always paradise, when not even Chinese people wish to stay there.

No - it's not a fact. There are numerous examples of military successes that were due to logistics and strategy by a group that might not have been considered a "super civilization". Consider Khanate invasions, for example. Before gunpowder, the equestrian warrior was unstoppable across much of Eurasia.

I literally named the Mongols in the OP, who I consider superior. You need more examples or else your paragraph is a lie.

Edit: Also, the Mongols were known for more than just horses. They did understand biological warfare, even though it was a shady and dangerous tactic.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/biological-weapon/Biological-weapons-in-history

Absolutely not true. Democracies work especially in diverse countries. Ask anyone in the Uyghur community if they'd prefer democracy to the genocide of their people by the government of China. Minorities often suffer in authoritarian countries.

That's a fallacy. You're saying democracy can't have genocide? A majority group couldn't just vote for the same thing? Democracy is mob rule, and it's made worse when immigration is used to bloat voter count.

If the entire population of Africa moved to Japan today, the Japanese would never be able to vote themselves to power. A 100 million Japanese votes would still fail next to 1 billion African votes. The only solution would be for Japan to close their borders if they want to keep representation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Looks like Hitler was just copying what everyone else was doing back then except only they were demonized for it.

No - that's certainly not what happened. In 5 or 10 minutes you can see on Wikipedia the trajectory of development in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

What makes China a better place? It can't be wealth because they were always poor. And if the Covid virus they just inflicted on the world tells us something, it means they're not very sanitary either. So be my guest and go live in China if you think it was always paradise, when not even Chinese people wish to stay there.

So the debate has ended, has it? No China was not always poor. For centuries it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and is quite wealthy now. Income inequality has been a bit of a problem, but that's true also for Germans.

I literally named the Mongols in the OP, who I consider superior. You need more examples or else your paragraph is a lie.

Also false. Mongols, Gauls, and numerous tribes of other continents. are certainly not considered to have developed "superior civilization" and technology to those of many of the lands they conquered. It's not a reliable argument. For example, Khanate Samarkand developed not because of the Mongol invasions, but because of the Islamic civilization that was there already.

That's a fallacy. You're saying democracy can't have genocide? A majority group couldn't just vote for the same thing? Democracy is mob rule, and it's made worse when immigration is used to bloat voter account.

As with your other comments, none of this is true. Democracy is certainly not "mob rule", especially in the electoral and checks and balances system of the US, which is more of a republic than a democracy.

If the entire population of Africa moved to Japan today, the Japanese would never be able to vote themselves to power. A 100 million Japanese votes would still fail next to 1 billion African votes. The only solution would be for Japan to close their borders if they want to keep representation.

I don't think anyone is seriously discussing this kind of scenario, for any country. Your comments here and above appear to indicate that you want to blame social difficulties in a society on blacks. This doesn't help the general argument.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No - that's certainly not what happened. In 5 or 10 minutes you can see on Wikipedia the trajectory of development in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

So what DID happen then? You don't seem to care that the Soviets or Imperial Britain had waged their own wars and annexed territory for themselves. Had Hitler won, you would not be making the same arguments because history is written by the victor.

So the debate has ended, has it? No China was not always poor. For centuries it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and is quite wealthy now. Income inequality has been a bit of a problem, but that's true also for Germans.

China did not even have railroads before the Germans did, but you want to convince me that China was some beacon of prosperity? You're losing this debate right now...

Actually, you want to know something funny? If China was so great, why did they have to reach out to Germany for modernization? Shouldn't it have been the Germans who needed civilizing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1926%E2%80%931941)

Also false. Mongols, Gauls, and numerous tribes of other continents. are certainly not considered to have developed "superior civilization" and technology to those of many of the lands they conquered.

Uh, the Gauls got conquered by Rome. And please stop saying "numerous". Actually name the tribes you are talking about or your claims are baseless.

As with your other comments, none of this is true. Democracy is certainly not "mob rule", especially in the electoral and checks and balances system of the US, which is more of a republic than a democracy.

Except Democracy exists at a municipal level. Who do you think elects mayors or governors? And when you have a majority of people who identify with one group, it absolutely turns into a mob. A majority black city like Detroit votes exclusively for black politicians who are openly Democrat.

I don't think anyone is seriously discussing this kind of scenario, for any country.

No, that's absolutely what immigration and democracy leads to. There are more Africans on this planet than there are Japanese. An unrestricted border policy would mean any politician can invite them in and curate a new voting bloc to stay power.

Similarly, in Canada, the majority of new immigrants are coming from India. India has a billion people, yet the average Canadian can not compete against such a larger population via birth rates. As a result, various ethnic enclaves have showed up in recent years, and they exclusively vote in one direction (liberal).

Your comments here and above appear to indicate that you want to blame social difficulties in a society on blacks. This doesn't help the general argument.

I rather take aim at liberal immigration policies that invited black people to live next to predominately white societies, and created ethnic and social strife. If black people don't want to be blamed... WHY don't stay in their own continent where they wont be surrounded by non-black people? It's a solution that keeps every group happy.

However, they sure as hell will be blamed for social difficulties, when increasing black immigration has lead to disproportionate crime rates and violent protesting. Don't want to be blamed? Then don't move next to Whites...

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

Again - you're taking minute examples from history and making arguments about them that do not work because they're not only out of context, the arguments made here are completely avoiding the context. In order to discuss any of this, I'd have to write a history text. I recommend you read about the history, rather than make false assumptions about what happened. It's impossible to carry on a discussion that continues with false information. To make your arguments you shift the discussion to other false claims and by the time I've responded to the other false claims, we've left the original discussion, context, history &c. It's simple - Germany was initially allowed to attack and abuse its neighbors, genocide prisoners, put people in churches and burn down the churches - and then some of those countries defended themselves. It's that simple. If you were being bombed in London in 1940, whilst listening to the appeasement nonsense from the prime minister, you wouldn't be saying - well, we did this kind of thing in other countries - so let's let Germany do it to us. And why do you only think of the past 200 years? Perhaps read Edward Said's 'Orientalism'. Almost everything in the East was considered superior to the Western countries before 1700. And no - democracy won't result in a kind of planet of the blacks. That's just not happening. And read about ancient Gaul. Romans had great difficulty dealing with them, so much so that various migrations groups were the most powerful in the 2nd - 6th centuries, and sacked Rome in the process. Any success against Gauls was fleeting. If you hate immigration so much (I also don't like it, but I don't conjure up Hitler as a solution) and you think a Nazi government would deal properly with that problem, consider also the history of migrations. They don't come to a definitive end when an authoritarian is in power. Migrations continue as they have done.

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

It's simple - Germany was initially allowed to attack and abuse its neighbors, genocide prisoners, put people in churches and burn down the churches - and then some of those countries defended themselves.

And the Soviets didn't do this shit either? Before Hitler had came to power, do you know what event was taking place in Ukraine? Millions had died in a manufactured famine. Yet who did Britain & France still decide to ally up with? They went with the Soviets....

And why do you only think of the past 200 years? Perhaps read Edward Said's 'Orientalism'.

Is Egypt considered a superpower now just because the Pyramids are still standing? It's not considered impressive to say China was somehow a good place to live, when the comparison was about the time Hitler had to came power, and what both countries were doing around this period. Case and point, China had seeked out Germany's help first with modernizing, not the other way around. Why would this be, if China had some kind of advantage or parity? Spoiler alert: they fucking didn't.

And no - democracy won't result in a kind of planet of the blacks. That's just not happening.

Just last week, a whole bunch of Haitians showed up at the Texan border uninvited. Border patrol was able to hold them off temporarily, but Liberal politicians and the media wanted them in. Why would they support that, instead of jettisoning them all back to Haiti? Because they want votes, and votes only...

And read about ancient Gaul. Romans had great difficulty dealing with them, so much so that various migrations groups were the most powerful in the 2nd - 6th centuries, and sacked Rome in the process. Any success against Gauls was fleeting.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Gauls put up some resistance. Cool? I would say that makes them at least competent, but that's because Gauls and Romans belonged to the same European race. The gulf in civilization was nowhere as huge, like the spear chucking Zulu vs modern firearms of the British Army.

If you have immigration so much and you think a Nazi government would deal properly with that problem, consider also the history of migrations. They don't come to a definitive end when an authoritarian is in power. They continue as they have done.

If you're not Aryan and decided to illegally immigrate to Nazi Germany, you would not last very long. For starters, every law is race based. Which then leads to politics. The government is made of Germans and put German interests first. You now have to compete for jobs and housing that the German government have complete control over. If you somehow survive this then congratz, you probably are a German. But someone who is Black, or Chinese or Mexican would probably be questioned first, and then forcibly deported for being a complete foreigner.