Weird question: WHY did the Allies fight the Nazis?

[FultzNationRISE]

The more I think about this the more it actually seems very surprising.

We all tend to take for granted the fact that they just... did.

But WHY? This is the 1930s we’re talking about. People in Ally countries were still bigoted as FVCK. Nobody cared about jews, gypsies, gays or blacks. Shit was still real as **** back then. Everyday grunts didnt care about minorities. Leaders didnt care about em. There were still tons or racist policies IN allied countries. I mean if you polled the everyday blue collar masses in France or Britain or America and said “hey, the Germans wanna come in here and ‘cleanse’ some of these people you hate anyway, do you especially mind?” the vast majority would be like sure, go ahead, whatever.

Let me be clear, Im half jewish myself not to mention I grew up in the modern era with modern sensibilities, so Im GLAD it didnt happen that way. This is not in any way a fantasy, but something I find very strange.

Why did leaders of the Allies - who WERE predominantly racist white aryans - even care? Most of the Ally public, upper and lower class, were all as bigoted as the average German. Yet... they fought a war that killed millions of their own, to save jews and gypsies?

It actually doesnt make any logical, natural sense and it doesnt seem plausible the Allies resisted German encroachment and waged a full scale war on those pretenses. If Germany says to France “look, we’re gonna come in and cleanse your shit but if you dont make a big deal it doesnt have to be a war...” I dont imagine the average 1930s Frenchman has much of a problem with that. And if Hitler truly just wanted to do a big Holocaust, a diplomatic approach of basically just asking world leaders to let them go ahead would almost certainly be sufficient given the era.

I dunno, something just doesnt quite add up about World War II happening because a bunch of racist white people were outraged over a racist white guy in Germany.

[jstern]

I don't know much about WWII, but I would imagine it had nothing to do with race. Just like people in power, Democrats who pretend to care about black people couldn't care less about them. But they put on a great show.

Just like today, it probably had to do with power and gaining power. If they didn't stop the Germans, then they would gain more and the allies less.

Just follow the money. Since all in power are for a lack of a better word psychopaths, then who behind the scene benefited the most? Are they in the history books or completely unknown?

[FultzNationRISE]

I don't know much about WWII, but I would imagine it had nothing to do with race. Just like people in power, Democrats who pretend to care about black people couldn't care less about them. But they put on a great show.

Just like today, it probably had to do with power and gaining power. If they didn't stop the Germans, then they would gain more and the allies less.

Just follow the money. Since all in power are for a lack of a better word psychopaths, then who behind the scene benefited the most? Are they in the history books or completely unknown?

This still doesnt seem to add up. For instance Britain essentially gave away its own control of India by joining World War II... in order to retaliate over Germany invading Poland? Why not just keep India and save all the lost lives and money?

Is that worth it? And again, if you have a bunch of racist white people leading the west... do they really feel threatened by Germany’s intent to create some Aryan paradise? This is really something the white western world went into a giant war to prevent?? It just seems like a flimsy explanation of events.

We know that whenever we go to war today, the reasons given by gov/media have NOTHING to do with why we’re really going to war.

I cant imagine it was any different back then. I suspect WWII was about completely different issues than what the schoolbooks teach us today.

[jstern]

This still doesnt seem to add up. For instance Britain essentially gave away its own control of India by joining World War II... in order to retaliate over Germany invading Poland? Why not just keep India and save all the lost lives and money?

Is that worth it? And again, if you have a bunch of racist white people leading the west... do they really feel threatened by Germany’s intent to create some Aryan paradise? This is really something the white western world went into a giant war to prevent?? It just seems like a flimsy explanation of events.

We know that whenever we go to war today, the reasons given by gov/media have NOTHING to do with why we’re really going to war.

I cant imagine it was any different back then. I suspect WWII was about completely different issues than what the schoolbooks teach us today.

It's the power of a few. Why would the Democrats be willing to ruin their states with lock downs? Because a few individuals benefit. For example this Corona stuff. Would people in power, Joe Biden and many unknowns, be willing to ruin people's lives, cripple the economy so that whatever force is behind Pfizer could make more money. He and other few are benefiting in someway, and if in the position he would be willing to give away control of India, even if it's of no benefit for the country as a whole. These are just very basic examples that are a lot more complicated. Like I said, those who truly benefit and control things are not in the history books.

[post]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgAVpPNusTs

[diamenz]

i don't know enough about ww2 to credibly comment either, but... maybe hitler's possible over-reaching global ambitions?


Nazi Germany's desire for aggressive territorial expansionism was one of the most important causes of World War II.

Historians are still divided as to its ultimate goals, some believing that it was to be limited to Nazi German domination of Europe, while others maintain that it was a springboard for eventual world conquest and the establishment of a world government under German control.[3]

The Führer gave expression to his unshakable conviction that the Reich will be the master of all Europe. We shall yet have to engage in many fights, but these will undoubtedly lead to most wonderful victories. From there on the way to world domination is practically certain. Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world.

— Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, 8 May 1943


In a subsequently published speech given at Erlangen University in November 1930, Hitler explained to his audience that no other people had more of a right to fight for and attain "control" of the globe (Weltherrschaft, i.e. "world leadership", "world rule") than the Germans. He realized that an extremely ambitious goal could never be achieved without significant military effort.[13] Hitler had alluded to future German world dominance even earlier in his political career. In a letter written by Rudolf Hess to Walter Hewel in 1927, Hess paraphrases Hitler's vision: "World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That [power] can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly".[14]

Heinrich Himmler discussed the territorial aspirations of Germany during his first Posen speech in 1943. He commented on the goals of the warring nations involved in the conflict and stated that Germany was fighting for new territories and a global power status:[15]
[T]he Seven Years' War brought Prussia's confirmation as a great European power. That war was carried on for seven years to ensure that the already conquered province of Silesia would remain part of Prussia. This war will ensure that everything annexed to the German Reich, to Greater Germany, and then to the Germanic Reich in the years since 1938, will remain ours. This war is being carried on to keep the path to the East open; so that Germany may be a world power; to found the Germanic World Empire (Germanisches Weltreich).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_(Nazism)

[diamenz]

I cant imagine it was any different back then. I suspect WWII was about completely different issues than what the schoolbooks teach us today.

funnily enough, ff to 1:44 in the carlin vid above.

[JohnnySic]

I cant imagine it was any different back then. I suspect WWII was about completely different issues than what the schoolbooks teach us today.

WWII, on a base level, was about oil and other resources. The countries that had it (Britain, France, Russia) vs the countries that didn't (Germany, Italy, Japan).

[SouBeachTalents]

You seem to have your WWII history mixed up. The Allies began to fight after the Nazi's invaded Poland in 1939, when it became crystal clear that they weren't going to be able to reason with or appease Hitler, who seemed intent on invading all of Europe. The Holocaust didn't even take place until around 1941 or 42, so stopping that was never the Allies motivation for entering the war.

There are three much more pressing questions I have about that war

1. Why would the Japanese attack the United States and essentially force them into the war? It would seem to me the smartest military strategy would be to defeat the smaller and less powerful countries first, before moving on to the worlds greatest superpower that was thousands of miles away and at the time completely uninvolved in the conflict.

2. Why Hitler and the Axis didn't join forces with Stalin. I admittedly don't know much about this topic, and I do know the Nazi's attempted to invade Russia, but why wouldn't the Axis powers try to get Russia on their side. There were differing ideological views of course, the Nazi's & Italians were fascists, the Russians communist, but you'd think a guy like Stalin would be much more inclined to join forces with Hitler & Mussolini than he would FDR & Churchill.

3. Why the Nazi's attempted to take over the world AND implement the Holocaust simultaneously. It's obvious the Nazi's top two goals were world domination and the extermination of the Jews, but from a tactical and financial standpoint, how did it make any sense for them to carry out both of these monumental tasks at once? I can't even fathom the amount of money, man power, and supplies it would take to carry out the genocide of 11 million people and the imprisonment of countless additional millions. Forget even the moral standpoint, to allocate so many resources to that while simultaneously fighting a war on both fronts in Europe seems like a colossal tactical mistake.

[FultzNationRISE]

The Allies began to fight after the Nazi's invaded Poland in 1939, when it became crystal clear that they weren't going to be able to reason with or appease Hitler, who seemed intent on invading all of Europe. The Holocaust didn't even take place until around 1941 or 42, so stopping that was never the Allies motivation for entering the war.

This is true but Hitler’s ideological reasons for war were known from the beginning, no? He wanted “living space for da master race.” Obviously in the late 1930s western leaders were all white themselves AND the vast majority of constituents with any relevant degree of political/economic influence were germanic in origin. Im not buying the idea people objectively cared if Germany seized land in Poland to propagate more western european white people. Even if Germany becomes powerful, what exactly is the long term THREAT to most people who had the right to vote back then? Germany is a high quality of life country full of people similar to the french and british. Britain essentially forfeited India (!) to retaliate against Germany invading Poland? It makes no sense on the surface.


2. Why Hitler and the Axis didn't join forces with Stalin. I admittedly don't know much about this topic, and I do know the Nazi's attempted to invade Russia, but why wouldn't the Axis powers try to get Russia on their side. There were differing ideological views of course, the Nazi's & Italians were fascists, the Russians communist, but you'd think a guy like Stalin would be much more inclined to join forces with Hitler & Mussolini than he would FDR & Churchill.

Germany and Russia did form a non-aggression pact if Im not mistaken, but eventually Hitler reneged and invaded them. It makes little sense to me why Russia would have formed any alliance with Germany to begin with, when it’s pretty obvious based on Hitlers views and goals that Russia would eventually be next on the menu at some point. Why help them get bigger and stronger when it’s obvious theyre gonna come for you next.


3. Why the Nazi's attempted to take over the world AND implement the Holocaust simultaneously. It's obvious the Nazi's top two goals were world domination and the extermination of the Jews, but from a tactical and financial standpoint, how did it make any sense for them to carry out both of these monumental tasks at once? I can't even fathom the amount of money, man power, and supplies it would take to carry out the genocide of 11 million people and the imprisonment of countless additional millions. Forget even the moral standpoint, to allocate so many resources to that while simultaneously fighting a war on both fronts in Europe seems like a colossal tactical mistake.

Yeah, economically speaking genocide rarely makes sense in modern times, which is why slavery and subjugation are much more common. What is true is that jews WERE an urban and highly reproductive people in Europe at a time when the industrial revolution was diminishing mortality rates and increasing the consumption of energy. They were very insular and often lived clustered in cities that were overcrowded and grimey and so on, and they kept multiplying and multiplying. These jews didnt put women in the work force. They didnt support emerging science and technology. Their general politics were very incompatible with where the world was headed, and they were extremely stubborn. In many respects something WAS going to have to give eventually.

Every major country has intel departments that look at every social and technological trend out there and model the future accordingly well before the average boob is giving it even a moments thought.

What Im getting at is, I wonder how much of World War II was legitimately spontaneous and based on genuine conflict and disagreement and the neurotic hate fueled obsession of some rogue art school failure, versus how much of it was... a theater of enmity masking a low key collaboration.

[SouBeachTalents]

This is true but Hitler’s ideological reasons for war were known from the beginning, no? He wanted “living space for da master race.” Obviously in the late 1930s western leaders were all white themselves AND the vast majority of constituents with any relevant degree of political/economic influence were germanic in origin. Im not buying the idea people objectively cared if Germany seized land in Poland to propagate more western european white people. Even if Germany becomes powerful, what exactly is the long term THREAT to most people who had the right to vote back then? Germany is a high quality of life country full of people similar to the french and british. Britain essentially forfeited India (!) to retaliate against Germany invading Poland? It makes no sense on the surface.
My take on it is, the invasion of Poland signified to the Allies that Hitler was going to continue his invasion all over Europe without military intervention. Just because you're the same race as the Nazi's doesn't mean you're ok with a foreign country inevitably invading your homeland, and imposing laws and policies you're fundamentally against. You're a little too hung up on the racial aspect imo, I'm assuming that after fighting in a world war 20 years earlier, another wide scale conflict was the last thing the Allies wanted to engage in, but they felt they had no other choice but to do so out of self preservation.


Germany and Russia did form a non-aggression pact if Im not mistaken, but eventually Hitler reneged and invaded them. It makes little sense to me why Russia would have formed any alliance with Germany to begin with, when it’s pretty obvious based on Hitlers views and goals that Russia would eventually be next on the menu at some point. Why help them get bigger and stronger when it’s obvious theyre gonna come for you next.
My only question regarding this would be, wouldn't the Japanese fall under this same exact conundrum? They weren't Jews sure, but there's no way the Japanese believed they had any future in Hitler's master race, yet they fought along with the Germans anyway.


Yeah, economically speaking genocide rarely makes sense in modern times, which is why slavery and subjugation are much more common. What is true is that jews WERE an urban and highly reproductive people in Europe at a time when the industrial revolution was diminishing mortality rates and increasing the consumption of energy. They were very insular and often lived clustered in cities that were overcrowded and grimey and so on, and they kept multiplying and multiplying. These jews didnt put women in the work force. They didnt support emerging science and technology. Their general politics were very incompatible with where the world was headed, and they were extremely stubborn. In many respects something WAS going to have to give eventually.

Every major country has intel departments that look at every social and technological trend out there and model the future accordingly well before the average boob is giving it even a moments thought.

What Im getting at is, I wonder how much of World War II was legitimately spontaneous and based on genuine conflict and disagreement and the neurotic hate fueled obsession of some rogue art school failure, versus how much of it was... a theater of enmity masking a low key collaboration.
I don't think the Nazi's carried out the Holocaust based on any logical basis or projected trends. Sure, they could've seen the Jews as an economic threat, and they clearly used the Jews as a scapegoat during their ascension to power, but the Nazi's seemed to act, based on my interpretation, on pure unabashed hatred and anti-Semitism. As I stated earlier, there's nothing the Nazi's gain by exterminating the Jews to that extent, and if anything, I think their commitment to the Holocaust greatly hindered their military efforts. So for whatever reason, exterminating the Jews seemingly held equal precedence to the Nazi's as world domination did.

[Off the Court]

Not a single mention of Pearl Harbor :facepalm after which the US declared war on Japan, and then Germany declared war on the US.

It is impossible that the US got involved because of race due to the fact that the holocaust and the extermination of the Jews wasn't revealed until much later. Most of the citizens of Germany didn't even know it was going on. It had to be a secret to all or word would have gotten to the Jews.

These basics should be known by all but surprisingly they are not.

[bladefd]

My take on it is, the invasion of Poland signified to the Allies that Hitler was going to continue his invasion all over Europe without military intervention. Just because you're the same race as the Nazi's doesn't mean you're ok with a foreign country inevitably invading your homeland, and imposing laws and policies you're fundamentally against. You're a little too hung up on the racial aspect imo, I'm assuming that after fighting in a world war 20 years earlier, another wide scale conflict was the last thing the Allies wanted to engage in, but they felt they had no other choice but to do so out of self preservation.


My only question regarding this would be, wouldn't the Japanese fall under this same exact conundrum? They weren't Jews sure, but there's no way the Japanese believed they had any future in Hitler's master race, yet they fought along with the Germans anyway.


I don't think the Nazi's carried out the Holocaust based on any logical basis or projected trends. Sure, they could've seen the Jews as an economic threat, and they clearly used the Jews as a scapegoat during their ascension to power, but the Nazi's seemed to act, based on my interpretation, on pure unabashed hatred and anti-Semitism. As I stated earlier, there's nothing the Nazi's gain by exterminating the Jews to that extent, and if anything, I think their commitment to the Holocaust greatly hindered their military efforts. So for whatever reason, exterminating the Jews seemingly held equal precedence to the Nazi's as world domination did.

We all know Germany was fascist and controlled by one man appointed for life. It was not a democracy where citizens would vote for the next leader once Hitler dies. The party insiders would choose the next leader so it's not a democracy. If Germany were successful in ww2, we would still all be answering to one man. The moment Hitler took over, democracy was over in Germany. The rest of Europe had to fight that from spreading into their land because they did not want to be ruled by this one man. It almost always comes down to the question of power.

The axis, if they won, would have split the world essentially into two parts: one Nazi controlled and other Japanese controlled. Knowing the Nazis though, I think it seems inevitable to me that the war machine would not have stopped and eventually gone for the Japanese too down the road.

As for the holocaust... Germany was also coming out from severe hyperinflation. Their quality of life had significantly plummeted until the mid-30s (arguably they didn't technically have a great economy even throughout the war so one could argue that their quality of life wasn't actually all that great). They needed a scapegoat. It became all about blaming someone for their problems, and it became the affluent jews.

However, I don't know if the Nazis saw the extermination camps as revenge more so than trying to exterminate what they saw was an inferior race. Gypsies, gays, and disabled were also thrown into these camps. These were all seen as inferior people by the Nazis. They also saw blacks as inferiors so had they won the war, it seems inevitable that they would have setup extermination camps in Africa too.

[Patrick Chewing]

We all know Germany was fascist and controlled by one man appointed for life. It was not a democracy where citizens would vote for the next leader once Hitler dies. The party insiders would choose the next leader so it's not a democracy. If Germany were successful in ww2, we would still all be answering to one man. The moment Hitler took over, democracy was over in Germany. The rest of Europe had to fight that from spreading into their land because they did not want to be ruled by this one man. It almost always comes down to the question of power.

The axis, if they won, would have split the world essentially into two parts: one Nazi controlled and other Japanese controlled. Knowing the Nazis though, I think it seems inevitable to me that the war machine would not have stopped and eventually gone for the Japanese too down the road.

As for the holocaust... Germany was also coming out from severe hyperinflation. Their quality of life had significantly plummeted until the mid-30s (arguably they didn't technically have a great economy even throughout the war so one could argue that their quality of life wasn't actually all that great). They needed a scapegoat. It became all about blaming someone for their problems, and it became the affluent jews.

However, I don't know if the Nazis saw the extermination camps as revenge more so than trying to exterminate what they saw was an inferior race. Gypsies, gays, and disabled were also thrown into these camps. These were all seen as inferior people by the Nazis. They also saw blacks as inferiors so had they won the war, it seems inevitable that they would have setup extermination camps in Africa too.


:(

[bladefd]

You seem to have your WWII history mixed up. The Allies began to fight after the Nazi's invaded Poland in 1939, when it became crystal clear that they weren't going to be able to reason with or appease Hitler, who seemed intent on invading all of Europe. The Holocaust didn't even take place until around 1941 or 42, so stopping that was never the Allies motivation for entering the war.

There are three much more pressing questions I have about that war

1. Why would the Japanese attack the United States and essentially force them into the war? It would seem to me the smartest military strategy would be to defeat the smaller and less powerful countries first, before moving on to the worlds greatest superpower that was thousands of miles away and at the time completely uninvolved in the conflict.

2. Why Hitler and the Axis didn't join forces with Stalin. I admittedly don't know much about this topic, and I do know the Nazi's attempted to invade Russia, but why wouldn't the Axis powers try to get Russia on their side. There were differing ideological views of course, the Nazi's & Italians were fascists, the Russians communist, but you'd think a guy like Stalin would be much more inclined to join forces with Hitler & Mussolini than he would FDR & Churchill.

3. Why the Nazi's attempted to take over the world AND implement the Holocaust simultaneously. It's obvious the Nazi's top two goals were world domination and the extermination of the Jews, but from a tactical and financial standpoint, how did it make any sense for them to carry out both of these monumental tasks at once? I can't even fathom the amount of money, man power, and supplies it would take to carry out the genocide of 11 million people and the imprisonment of countless additional millions. Forget even the moral standpoint, to allocate so many resources to that while simultaneously fighting a war on both fronts in Europe seems like a colossal tactical mistake.

1. Japanese had invaded and taken over most of the smaller countries. They had China/Mongolia, southeast Asia all the way west to Burma, South to Indonesia, and all of the islands worth anything. USA was next. Japan had intel that the entire US fleet was sitting in Hawaii so they thought if they took out the US fleet there, USA would be a giant without means to defend herself. Of course, the Japanese screwed that up by not knowing that the aircraft carriers were not there during the attack. They also screwed up during the attack itself, missing lots of key targets. It was a complete screw up, and they obviously did not accomplish their goals.

2. The communists were always Hitler's ultimate enemy. He wrote about it in mein kampf and also blamed the communists for the reichstag fire (it was most likely Nazis who burned it down). They would never have sided with the Soviets due to ideology differences.

3. It actually didn't take that much manpower to carry out the holocaust and later the extermination camps. They had the gestapo and the ss to watch over the domestic control. It wasn't like the holocaust happened overnight anyways. Holocaust started sometime in the early 30s and lasted through the end of the war. When it came to the extermination camps, they didn't actually need very many guards. A few well-armed guards can keep watch over hundreds of unarmed starving men without much difficulty (women, children and elderly were typically exterminated when they entered the camps).

The biggest mistake, of course, was fighting wars on 2-fronts. Nazis originally planned to invade England then focus on the Soviets. However, Hitler got restless in summer of 1940 after he had the mainland Europe under his control. Instead of going onto England, which he probably would have captured within a year, he was afraid he would not have the manpower left to go after the soviets if he waited. I suspect he was probably also paranoid of getting hit from behind while going after England. He never trusted the communists to keep their non-aggression pact so he broke it himself, catching the Soviets unprepared as he rolled all over the Soviets in 1941. He thought it would be a very quick war in the east. However , that made him overconfident and he went in unprepared for the winter. He thought he would invade in spring and be done with the war by the end of the summer. That was where he also screwed up. Had he been prepared for the Soviet winter, I think the Nazis still had a very good chance of taking down the Soviets. The winter was the end of the Nazi machine, and the soviets began to push back. The US also declared war in December of 41, and it was all but over for the Nazis. Their best bet was to finish the job in England then prepare for the soviets... The two front war was too much for them.

[FultzNationRISE]

We all know Germany was fascist and controlled by one man appointed for life. It was not a democracy where citizens would vote for the next leader once Hitler dies. The party insiders would choose the next leader so it's not a democracy. If Germany were successful in ww2, we would still all be answering to one man. The moment Hitler took over, democracy was over in Germany. The rest of Europe had to fight that from spreading into their land because they did not want to be ruled by this one man. It almost always comes down to the question of power.




Except this is not how politics works in real life.

A bunch of people have more power than one person, and there is always a tangled web of alliances within the palace, including alliances among leaders who outwardly appear as enemies.

No individual is so smart or powerful he can sustainably override a collective of other smart and powerful people swarming around the top of the pyramid looking for a bigger piece of the pie. There is always a negotiation and an arrangement to be had, and this includes among various countries themselves.

For simplicity, publicity, and duplicity's sake, dictatorships are often presented as the rule of one man in a demagogic fashion, because the public understands things like "doctor man good, orange man bad" type stuff. (Actually bladefd is exactly whom you would expect to see things through that prism). But it's not how things really work. There are always way more moving parts beneath the iceberg than what it visible at the surface.

Of course most eyes are simply not trained to see it, and therefore they dont have a prayer at ever doing so.

Again... bladefd.

[Off the Court]

Plenty of examples of a single individual holding fear and rule over all others. Genghis Khan comes to mind. Drug lords today do it. Who in NK is crossing Kim Jong Un? No one that is a death sentence. WW2 was largely Hitler's vision and that is pretty well documented.

[FultzNationRISE]

Plenty of examples of a single individual holding fear and rule over all others. Genghis Khan comes to mind. Drug lords today do it. Who in NK is crossing Kim Jong Un? No one that is a death sentence. WW2 was largely Hitler's vision and that is pretty well documented.

I assure you there was more than one shrewd, capable, ambitious person in all of the Mongol empire, in all of Germany, or in all of gangland.

Have you ever read Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus? Im guessing not, but it’s a perfect illustration of the subversive elements ever present and swarming around any figurehead.

Financiers, industrialists, intelligencia... every society has plenty of these people with their own avaricious intentions and agendas, and they dont just all go “sure chief, whatever you say!” Thats not how these things work.

To overturn an establishment takes tremendous manpower and resources. One art school drop out does not rise to that position by posting up flyers and selling lemonade. People with big picture interests GET him there over time, because what he will do benefits them. And if he doesnt answer to them, they have the smarts, connections, and resources to have him undermined. One guy cannot fight a room full of guys.

Youre incredibly naive if you believe otherwise.

[Off the Court]

I assure you there was more than one shrewd, capable, ambitious person in all of the Mongol empire, in all of Germany, or in all of gangland.

Have you ever read Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus? Im guessing not, but it’s a perfect illustration of the subversive elements ever present and swarming around any figurehead.

Financiers, industrialists, intelligencia... every society has plenty of these people with their own avaricious intentions and agendas, and they dont just all go “sure chief, whatever you say!” Thats not how these things work.

To overturn an establishment takes tremendous manpower and resources. One art school drop out does not rise to that position by posting up flyers and selling lemonade. People with big picture interests GET him there over time, because what he will do benefits them. And if he doesnt answer to them, they have the smarts, connections, and resources to have him undermined. One guy cannot fight a room full of guys.

Youre incredibly naive if you believe otherwise.
It's not hard to believe that there were people or even entities around Hitler trying to sway him in various directions. But his overall vision was set in stone early on and I do not think anyone was going to pull him too far away from that vision.

[FultzNationRISE]

It's not hard to believe that there were people or even entities around Hitler trying to sway him in various directions. But his overall vision was set in stone early on and I do not think anyone was going to pull him too far away from that vision.

But people IN power control the narrative. The sheep will cling to it. Sheep always stick with the mainstream. If Big Pharm is bad one day, then to the sheep theyre baaa-aaa-aaad. If, the next day, the news is comes down that theyre the good guys... then you, blade and rr3 will run for your boosters. Its just how stuff works.

People in power - in EVERY major country - would have been monitoring Hitlers rise. Just like Bernie was allowed to get to a certain point, but special interests eventually had him yanked off stage by the ol hook. Easy as pie. The mistake is to think that is a new or anomalous phenomenon. It is the same pattern of all history. REAL history is made behind closed doors. The public narrative is just sheep feed.

One man does not just “get to be Hitler” on his own. It is completely unrealistic to how society and politics works. Just like there will be no formal record of the DNC and all its shadowy financiers who talk a big woke game, gave Bernie the hook because theyve already decided on a different political future. Generations from now people will believe whatever a teacher tells them about that election, that Americans just “wanted Joe Biden” just as you and blade believe whatever the mainstream narrative “teaches you” about Nazi Germany.

[bladefd]

Plenty of examples of a single individual holding fear and rule over all others. Genghis Khan comes to mind. Drug lords today do it. Who in NK is crossing Kim Jong Un? No one that is a death sentence. WW2 was largely Hitler's vision and that is pretty well documented.

Yup. Gestapo, ss, wehrmacht (sp), luftwaffe all answered to Hitler. Obviously they each had leaders who handled the micromanagement stuff, but they all answered to Hitler. There was no congress or parliament that oversaw this or that. It was Hitler who oversaw everything. He was literally the head of the hierarchy. Nobody or no group inside Nazi Germany had more power than Hitler. He singlehandedly overrode all other Nazi leaders, even collectively.

Just look at one example. On the morning of D-day, the Nazis had couple panzer units they could have sent in to essentially wipe out D-day. However, only Hitler could give the order, and his own generals/aides/etc were too scared to wake him up. By the time he woke up and gave orders, it was too late. The allies had a foothold and German defenses were neutralized or under allied control.

[FultzNationRISE]

Yup. Gestapo, ss, wehrmacht (sp), luftwaffe all answered to Hitler. Obviously they each had leaders who handled the micromanagement stuff, but they all answered to Hitler. There was no congress or parliament that oversaw this or that. It was Hitler who oversaw everything. He was literally the head of the hierarchy. Nobody or no group inside Nazi Germany had more power than Hitler. He singlehandedly overrode all other Nazi leaders, even collectively.

Just look at one example. On the morning of D-day, the Nazis had couple panzer units they could have sent in to essentially wipe out D-day. However, only Hitler could give the order, and his own generals/aides/etc were too scared to wake him up. By the time he woke up and gave orders, it was too late. The allies had a foothold and German defenses were neutralized or under allied control.

Well, as usual, mine and bladefd’s understanding of something is at odds.

So... take that for what you will.

:confusedshrug:

[Off the Court]

But people IN power control the narrative. The sheep will cling to it. Sheep always stick with the mainstream. If Big Pharm is bad one day, then to the sheep theyre baaa-aaa-aaad. If, the next day, the news is comes down that theyre the good guys... then you, blade and rr3 will run for your boosters. Its just how stuff works.

People in power - in EVERY major country - would have been monitoring Hitlers rise. Just like Bernie was allowed to get to a certain point, but special interests eventually had him yanked off stage by the ol hook. Easy as pie. The mistake is to think that is a new or anomalous phenomenon. It is the same pattern of all history. REAL history is made behind closed doors. The public narrative is just sheep feed.

One man does not just “get to be Hitler” on his own. It is completely unrealistic to how society and politics works. Just like there will be no formal record of the DNC and all its shadowy financiers who talk a big woke game, gave Bernie the hook because theyve already decided on a different political future. Generations from now people will believe whatever a teacher tells them about that election, that Americans just “wanted Joe Biden” just as you and blade believe whatever the mainstream narrative “teaches you” about Nazi Germany.
Not everything is carefully plotted and planned. The world is largely a chaotic and unpredictable place. Scary stuff. I'm sorry mate. :(

[FultzNationRISE]

Not everything is carefully plotted and planned. The world is largely a chaotic and unpredictable place. Scary stuff. I'm sorry mate. :(


I think a lot more of it is than what you are able or willing to appreciate.


https://youtu.be/0SfbLp_XRow

Do you think he’s lying?

Do you think this does not happen in politics among the world’s most talented, ambitious, and powerful people?


Then again maybe you and blade just see things a little clearer than Im able to.

Who knows.

[Off the Court]

Bezos is simply saying that his mind is 2 years deep rather than in the immediate future. There is nothing he could do to drastically change the quarterly results in front of him, those plans are set in stone. This probably happens in politics I am sure it does, changes take time. All of that is much different than thinking that Bezos isn't actually in charge of Amazon and shadow government got together and agreed to put him in charge. And that no one can just "get to be Bezos" on their own. But Bezos story is well documented and although he had plenty of help (and luck) his place was largely his own doing.

[FultzNationRISE]

Bezos is simply saying that his mind is 2 years deep rather than in the immediate future. There is nothing he could do to drastically change the quarterly results in front of him, those plans are set in stone. This probably happens in politics I am sure it does, changes take time. All of that is much different than thinking that Bezos isn't actually in charge of Amazon and shadow government got together and agreed to put him in charge. And that no one can just "get to be Bezos" on their own. But Bezos story is well documented and although he had plenty of help (and luck) his place was largely his own doing.


You think guys like Bezos and Gates and Musk and Zuckerberg, and a bunch of low profile rich people as well, dont influence who comes into power, and make sure the policies always favor them?

Actually... Im not even gonna do this with you.

We disagree, so one of us must be seeing clearer than the other, but neither of us can prove it or will convince the other.

We’ll just have to each work with the perspective we have.

[Jasper]

putin learned his lessons from Russia's past.

Russian's are expendable :
Showing results for how many Russians died in WW2

Deaths by Country
Country Military Deaths Total Civilian and Military Deaths
Soviet Union 8,800,000-10,700,000 24,000,000
United Kingdom 383,600 450,700
United States 416,800 418,500
Yugoslavia 446,000 1,000,000

So the world should of stood by and let Hitler take over all of Europe , Russia and his puppets Japan and China ?
When you murder millions of people because of their religion , it no longer is a free world.
Trust e Putin wants to do the same thing to have a power play in the history books,, whether all of russia becomes expendable or not.

[FultzNationRISE]

putin learned his lessons from Russia's past.

Russian's are expendable :
Showing results for how many Russians died in WW2

Deaths by Country
Country Military Deaths Total Civilian and Military Deaths
Soviet Union 8,800,000-10,700,000 24,000,000
United Kingdom 383,600 450,700
United States 416,800 418,500
Yugoslavia 446,000 1,000,000

So the world should of stood by and let Hitler take over all of Europe , Russia and his puppets Japan and China ?
When you murder millions of people because of their religion , it no longer is a free world.
Trust e Putin wants to do the same thing to have a power play in the history books,, whether all of russia becomes expendable or not.


Jizzo...........

[tpols]

All of the world wars were setup by the financial powers that be. Its no coincidence the state of Israel was created right after world war 2. Put 2 and 2 together.

[Norcaliblunt]

The goal was never to stop the Nazis, but to crush the German people. Nazis won, Germany lost. That’s why we rat lined all those Nazi scientists over to this part of the world after the war.

[FultzNationRISE]

All of the world wars were setup by the financial powers that be. Its no coincidence the state of Israel was created right after world war 2. Put 2 and 2 together.

Maybe, tho I still think the more logical bet is that a full scale World War happened because a disgruntled art school flunkee threw a tantrum and declared PaSsOveR MAn BaD!

Because if you think about it, nobody had ever really hated jews before. Once the first anti semite in history came along, everybody else decided to let him make the unilateral decision if they should do a big war and holocaust or not.

[Jasper]

Maybe, tho I still think the more logical bet is that a full scale World War happened because a disgruntled art school flunkee threw a tantrum and declared PaSsOveR MAn BaD!

Because if you think about it, nobody had ever really hated jews before. Once the first anti semite in history came along, everybody else decided to let him make the unilateral decision if they should do a big war and holocaust or not.

You obviously do not know Russian history ...
For centuries Russian Jews were segregated from the normal Russian society.