# Think Tank > History >  Hitler wanted to take over the entire world (Not necessarily my position)

## Christian Liberty

OK so I got this argument recently against a noninterventionist foreign policy.  Now, I get that Japan attacked us anyways, and Germany DOWed us: and I also get that one unique situation does not destroy an entire foreign policy situation, but do our resident libertarians have a good answer to this?

Of course, everything we learn is through the lens of our media and public school system, so the statement "Hitler would have just came for us next" seems a little over the top but in line with the ideology we were taught.

NOTE: Please DO NOT discuss the Holocaust in this thread.  Keep the thread focused on the topic, was Hitler going to come after us next, and how does this impact libertarian foreign policy?

----------


## Lucille

There would have been no Hitler if not for prog interventionism.  F'n Wilson.

----------


## juleswin

And Hitler wore pink thongs and ate black babies for breakfast and peed on sick pregnant women to get off and and and etc etc etc

So no, Hitler wouldn't have come after the Americans, nobody in their right mind would dare challenge in a conventional war. My belief is that Hitler wanted to retake what was taken from Germany after WWI

----------


## Todd

> And Hitler wore pink thongs and ate black babies for breakfast and peed on sick pregnant women to get off and and and etc etc etc
> 
> So no, Hitler wouldn't have come after the Americans, nobody in their right mind would dare challenge in a conventional war. My belief is that Hitler wanted to retake what was taken from Germany after WWI


So where do the occupation of Caucuses region, and North Africa have to do with what was taken from Germany?

Go read the plans for what Hitler wanted to do once the USSR was defeated.  Mein Kampf clearly lays out world domination including a EurAsian empire.   Even if he would not invade the US, there is much evidence he would have engaged in warfare with other world powers to remain top dog.

----------


## oyarde

> So where do the occupation of Caucuses region, and North Africa have to do with what was taken from Germany?
> 
> Go read the plans for what Hitler wanted to do once the USSR was defeated.  Mein Kampf clearly lays out world domination including a EurAsian empire.   Even if he would not invade the US, there is much evidence he would have engaged in warfare with other world powers to remain top dog.


Well , from Memory , I think with Czechoslavakia , Poland , Denmark ,Norway , Holland ,Belgium , France, bombing Britain , North Africa, Russia. Did I leave any out ?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> would have engaged in warfare with other world powers to remain top dog.


That sounds to familiar.  


Anyway, my understanding is we were having a hostile trade war with Japan that led to them attacking us.  Something about the steel or iron industry I think.  I have to admit, I'm not always the greatest at debating these kinds of facts.  I'm a computer geek not a historian.  I mean, I have a sense of history, but not the finer details like dates when events occurred. 

As for Germany, I think they were functionally a nation under debt enslavement paying reparations for WW1.  By constantly leaning on the Germans it may have created a breeding ground for resentment and extremism. Then they all turned to a megalomaniac who spoke to their sense of pride and nationalism.

----------


## eduardo89

> So where do the occupation of Caucuses region, and North Africa have to do with what was taken from Germany?


Caucuses had oil necessary for the war effort, the war in North Africa was entirely because of the Italians (worst possible ally ever). 




> Go read the plans for what Hitler wanted to do once the USSR was defeated.  Mein Kampf clearly lays out world domination including a EurAsian empire.   Even if he would not invade the US, there is much evidence he would have engaged in warfare with other world powers to remain top dog.


Hitler had no plans for Lebensraum outside of Europe. Germany's borders would have extended as far as the Urals and even that Far East was to have been sparsely populated as a frontier region. Past the Urals would have been left for the Slavs. To the West, Hitler had no plans on annexing Western Europe into the Reich, with the exception of recovering the German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine region which France had annexed after WWI and the Germanic speaking Low Countries. Hitler didn't want to rule over all of Europe. 

Hitler had no plans whatsoever of world domination nor of war with the US or even to challenge Britain's overseas influence and colonial holdings. He even sent Hess to negotiate peace, but Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There would have been no Hitler if not for prog interventionism.  F'n Wilson.


True enough, and I pointed this out.  That said, assume you're President in 1939 and so cannot control this...

The argument is essentially "If we hadn't gotten involved we'd all be speaking German."   Which I get is emotional hyperbole but how do you combat it?




> And Hitler wore pink thongs and ate black babies for breakfast and peed on sick pregnant women to get off and and and etc etc etc
> 
> So no, Hitler wouldn't have come after the Americans, nobody in their right mind would dare challenge in a conventional war. My belief is that Hitler wanted to retake what was taken from Germany after WWI


Yeah, this seems likely.

----------


## eduardo89

> The argument is essentially "If we hadn't gotten involved we'd all be speaking German."   Which I get is emotional hyperbole but how do you combat it?


With facts, but those who say that aren't interested in facts.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

we all have run into someone who attacks someone else just because they are crazy or in a bad mood or just want to prove how manly they are. 

according to Bastiat, politicians are no better than everyone else.

therefore, it is logical to assume that some politician (if not hitler) one day will want to attack other nations for no reason other than they're bored and want to see if they can do it.

----------


## Alex Libman

False dichotomy - people who didn't want to stick their tongue up FDR's anus would not necessarily want to do that to Hitler either.

Hitler didn't want a war in the West, at least not until some speculative 1950s+ possibility.  He wanted to conquer Eastern Europe, where he might actually have been a lesser evil than Stalin, but the Soviets fought like hell to resist the invasion.  Japan didn't want a war with USA either - they were forced into it by the oil embargo.  Socialists go after the low-hanging fruit, and then collapse of indigestion - external war (or threat of war) only improves the health of their state.  A large backward landmass (from Poland to Indonesia) remained socialist and backward, no matter which socialists were in control...

The most important thing to understand is that, back then, options were far more limited than they are today.  Germans under National Socialism didn't have the Internet.  The Hitler analogy doesn't apply to the modern world.  This is why I'm a gradualist.  You can have your WW2 and even Vietnam War parade, but that doesn't give Uncle Sam a blank check.  A lesser-evil government that kills commies (including Hitler commies) is a-OK until we can do better.  And the ability to do better is emerging.

I think the "lesser evil" excuse for war has jumped the shark only in the last decade.  The NATO-backed Georgian aggression in South Ossetia might have been the last straw.  Russia, for the first time in a century, actually did good, while your tax-dollars were on the side of evil, firing missiles into a civilian population for their overwhelming desire to secede!

Remember that Hitler gained much power for being a lesser evil than Stalin.  Faced with this false dichotomy, his supporters gave him a blank check, much like you're giving a blank check to Uncle Sam.

We need to phase out the concept of national war, and deal with commie aggressors through other means, including NGO's.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Caucuses had oil necessary for the war effort, the war in North Africa was entirely because of the Italians (worst possible ally ever). 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had no plans for Lebensraum outside of Europe. Germany's borders would have extended as far as the Urals and even that Far East was to have been sparsely populated as a frontier region. Past the Urals would have been left for the Slavs. To the West, Hitler had no plans on annexing Western Europe into the Reich, with the exception of recovering the German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine region which France had annexed after WWI and the Germanic speaking Low Countries. Hitler didn't want to rule over all of Europe. 
> 
> Hitler had no plans whatsoever of world domination nor of war with the US or even to challenge Britain's overseas influence and colonial holdings. He even sent Hess to negotiate peace, but Hess was imprisoned for the rest of his life...


This^^

----------


## pcosmar

The whole world?? No,, not to my understanding.
He just wanted to secure an Aryan Homeland. The traditional lands of Gods Chosen Aryan people.

It was stupid then and it is stupid now.

----------


## oyarde

> True enough, and I pointed this out.  That said, assume you're President in 1939 and so cannot control this...
> 
> The argument is essentially "If we hadn't gotten involved we'd all be speaking German."   Which I get is emotional hyperbole but how do you combat it?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this seems likely.


Well , my Father , his Father and his Fathers two brothers already spoke fluent German
.My Grandather fought in the trenches, one of his Brothers returned for the Second turn . While that sort of sounds like crap , it is in essence true , because anything imported in the US would be printed in that, not Chinese , Spanish , French etc, most likely..

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Hitler wanted to take over the world. Therefore, we must do it first so that he can't, because vacuums, chaos, Jews, 9/11, terrorists.

----------


## James Madison

The Reich would have collapsed just like every empire before it.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There would have been no Hitler if not for prog interventionism.  F'n Wilson.





> True enough, and I pointed this out.  That said, assume you're President in 1939 and so cannot control this...


Why should I be allowed to assume that I am President in 1939 but NOT in 1917? It is an utterly arbitrary restriction which is deliberately intended to "short circuit" and disallow the single most potent, powerful and effective counter-argument to interventionism. DO NOT allow them to get away with that crap. Either insist on being allowed to follow through with the "argument from 1917" or tell them you are not going to waste a single moment of your time playing their rigged "argument from 1939 and ONLY from 1939" game.

The whole point of these hypotheticals is supposed to be to examine the general pros and cons of some policy position/philosophy - for purposes of determining what policy would be most wise for the world of here and now. We do not live in 1939, and restricting ourselves solely to 1939 when considering such matters is extremely dishonest, supid and pointless - it will not illuminate anything. Those who refuse to allow or consider the "argument from 1917" might as well just come right out and demand that you "answer" the question, "Assuming that the only reasonable stance to take in 1939 is interventionism, then what is the reasonable stance to take in 1939? (And why shouldn't we also be taking it today?)" It's complete bull$#@! ...

----------


## fr33

At the very least... all evidence points to that he could not be trusted to not invade any given country if he thought he could get away with it.

----------


## oyarde

> The Reich would have collapsed just like every empire before it.


Well Yeah , you cannot successfully invade the world from Europe and hold it , too many borders.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> So where do the occupation of Caucuses region, and North Africa have to do with what was taken from Germany?
> 
> Go read the plans for what Hitler wanted to do once the USSR was defeated.  Mein Kampf clearly lays out world domination including a EurAsian empire.   Even if he would not invade the US, *there is much evidence he would have engaged in warfare with other world powers to remain top dog.*



In sharp contrast, US minds its own biz and does not occupy other countries or engages in warfare with other non-powers to remain top dog.

----------


## KrokHead

Hitler was going to control as many people as he could.  Luckily he was a terrible military commander and Nazi Germany was way over their heads anyway.

----------


## oyarde

> Hitler was going to control as many people as he could.  Luckily he was a terrible military commander and Nazi Germany was way over their heads anyway.


I can make no sense of his moves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why should I be allowed to assume that I am President in 1939 but NOT in 1917? It is an utterly arbitrary restriction which is deliberately intended to "short circuit" and disallow the single most potent, powerful and effective counter-argument to interventionism. DO NOT allow them to get away with that crap. Either insist on being allowed to follow through with the "argument from 1917" or tell them you are not going to waste a single moment of your time playing their rigged "argument from 1939 and ONLY from 1939" game.
> 
> The whole point of these hypotheticals is supposed to be to examine the general pros and cons of some policy position/philosophy - for purposes of determining what policy would be most wise for the world of here and now. We do not live in 1939, and restricting ourselves solely to 1939 when considering such matters is extremely dishonest, supid and pointless - it will not illuminate anything. Those who refuse to allow or consider the "argument from 1917" might as well just come right out and demand that you "answer" the question, "Assuming that the only reasonable stance to take in 1939 is interventionism, then what is the reasonable stance to take in 1939? (And why shouldn't we also be taking it today?)" It's complete bull$#@! ...


Thread winning post....  Thanks...

----------


## erowe1

So there's a threat that Hitler wants to rule over me, and the solution is to have FDR rule over me?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So there's a threat that Hitler wants to rule over me, and the solution is to have FDR rule over me?


OK, I have nothing but disdain for FDR but I think even he falls short of Adolf Freaking Hitler in the evil department,.  Unless you're a Holocaust denier.

----------


## eduardo89

> OK, I have nothing but disdain for FDR but I think even he falls short of Adolf Freaking Hitler in the evil department,.  Unless you're a Holocaust denier.


The US has no reason to intervene in Europe if you are a philosophically consistent non-interventionist.

----------


## anaconda

> The Reich would have collapsed just like every empire before it.


They couldn't even cross the channel. How would they mount an offensive on the North America?

----------


## eduardo89

> They couldn't even cross the channel. How would they mount an offensive on the North America?


They didn't want to cross the channel. Hitler never wanted war with Britain. Rudolf Heß flew to Britain in 1941 to negotiate peace, but instead he was imprisoned for the rest of his life (died at age 93 in 1987 in prison) by the "good guys."

----------


## anaconda

> Hitler never wanted war with Britain.


Reason for Operation Sea Lion? Battle Of Britain? Incessant bombing of London?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The US has no reason to intervene in Europe if you are a philosophically consistent non-interventionist.


I agree.  Which was the point of the thread. I still don't think comparing FDR to Hitler is entirely fair.  I agree that we shouldn't have attacked.

----------


## eduardo89

> Reason for Operation Sea Lion?


Yes, it was planned, but Hitler always hoped to negotiate peace with the British. 




> As England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, still shows no signs of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English Motherland as a base from which the war against Germany can be continued.


Hitler never wanted war with the British in the first place and never even wanted to compete with them as a colonial power, just as he never wanted confrontation with the US.

----------


## erowe1

> OK, I have nothing but disdain for FDR but I think even he falls short of Adolf Freaking Hitler in the evil department,.  Unless you're a Holocaust denier.


I'm not a Holocaust denier. And I didn't mean to rank the two.

But the tendency of every tyrant is to expand their power as much as they possibly can. There is no limit at which they will be content. This was true of both Hitler and FDR. They are limited not by their ambition but by what their subjects allow them to get away with. Hitler could not have succeeded at ruling the world. It's absurd. FDR pushed the very limits of how much the regime in DC could expand its powers over us. Hilter wouldn't have been able to do more to us. I don't see why we should be told that we have to endure the former because, somehow if we don't, then we'll have to endure the latter.

Furthermore, it's not just about FDR and Hitler. It's about leaders again and again letting crises not go to waste as excuses to accrue more power. There's always something just around the corner that threatens our freedom, and the solution is always to give up more of our freedom to empower the regime. We don't get more safe by giving the people with power over us even more power, we get more safe by giving them less.

----------


## anaconda

> And Hitler wore pink thongs and ate black babies for breakfast


Rumor has it he was a vegan.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I totally agree.  +1.

----------


## anaconda

> Yes, it was planned, but Hitler always hoped to negotiate peace with the British.


My original point was that when they tried to gain the air superiority as a precondition for a cross channel invasion, they got their asses handed to them. Imagine trying that on a trans-Atlantic scale on a country 50 times the size and 50 times more powerful.

----------


## eduardo89

> My original point was that when they tried to gain the air superiority as a precondition for a cross channel invasion, they got their asses handed to them. Imagine trying that on a trans-Atlantic scale on a country 50 times the size and 50 times more powerful.


The problem with what the Luftwaffe did is once they had the RAF almost destroyed they instead began bombing cities instead of fully destroying the RAF. The Nazis made some extremely foolish tactical mistakes, and that is the one that cost them the western front.

----------


## Danan

They would have imploded from the inside very soon. Nazi-Germany was not economically stable at all.

In fact, I'd argue that the war was the only thing keeping them in power for so long. The uniting foreign thread which the Nazis were able to make responsible for the terrible living standards and the fear of losing yet another major war probably prevented an intern revolution to arise.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They would have imploded from the inside very soon. Nazi-Germany was not economically stable at all.
> 
> In fact, I'd argue that the war was the only thing keeping them in power for so long. The uniting foreign thread which the Nazis were able to make responsible for the terrible living standards and the fear of losing yet another major war probably prevented an intern revolution to arise.


A good point that is often left out.

----------


## KrokHead

> Rumor has it he was a vegan.


And an animal lover.  Too bad he hated humanity.

----------


## klamath

> True enough, and I pointed this out.  That said, assume you're President in 1939 and so cannot control this...
> 
> The argument is essentially "If we hadn't gotten involved we'd all be speaking German."   Which I get is emotional hyperbole but *how do you combat it?*
> 
> Yeah, this seems likely.


Not the way you are trying to. Hitler had severe domination desires. Possible not world domination in the short term.  
The simple answer is peace through strength, not peace through continual war. Had our fleet be out of pearl harbor in full readiness the Japanese would not have risked losing their fleet attacking. Had they not attacked pearl harbor the Germans most likely wouldn't have declared war on us.

----------


## Cleaner44

Defeating the U.S. military in North America would have been even more difficult for Hitler than it was in Europe.  If the U.S. had taken a defensive position against Hitler it is my guess that we would have lost fewer lives and inflicted greater causalities against the German military.  Remember the Alamo!  Even if we pretend that Hitler wanted to take over the entire world, that is much easier said than done.  Rolling into France and rolling into the United States are two completely different challenges.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Reason for Operation Sea Lion? Battle Of Britain? Incessant bombing of London?


To convince the British to agree to peace.  Most of these "we'd all be speaking German" dolts don't even know that France and England declared war on Germany, not the other way around.  Germany never wanted war in the West.

----------


## oyarde

> To convince the British to agree to peace.  Most of these "we'd all be speaking German" dolts don't even know that France and England declared war on Germany, not the other way around.  Germany never wanted war in the West.


Not as bad s he wanted Poland , Russia etc.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Not as bad s he wanted Poland , Russia etc.


His beef with the USSR was "Judeo-Bolshevism", not taking territory, as far as I can prove.

----------


## Demigod

Hitler did not even control most of Europe let alone the world.

The SU was always going to crush him in the end,and even if it did not as soon as there was no more war spoils from which to maintain the economy Germany would have started to fall apart.

----------


## oyarde

> Hitler did not even control most of Europe let alone the world.
> 
> The SU was always going to crush him in the end,and even if it did not as soon as there was no more war spoils from which to maintain the economy Germany would have started to fallen apart.


Which is why it does not make sense.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hitler did not even control most of Europe let alone the world.
> 
> The SU was always going to crush him in the end,and even if it did not as soon as there was no more war spoils from which to maintain the economy Germany would have started to fallen apart.


I agree with this^^

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Just a few questions...

Who took away Americans right to Freedom of Speech during the 40s? Hitler or FDR?

Who put American minorities in concentration camps during the war? Hitler or FDR?

Who implemented the first gun control in the United States? FDR or Hitler? 

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

Also, the United States in 1939 (depression conditions) had higher industrial output than Germany, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, Japan, and Italy combined. Even if the United States were all on its own, Germany was like a bug compared to the US. Tey were completely incapable of waging war against the US.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just a few questions...
> 
> Who took away Americans right to Freedom of Speech during the 40s? Hitler or FDR?
> 
> Who put American minorities in concentration camps during the war? Hitler or FDR?
> 
> Who implemented the first gun control in the United States? FDR or Hitler? 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


+rep

----------


## Cutlerzzz

For whatever its worth, in Paul Kennediy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers", he lists the war making potential as a percentage of the entire worlds war making potential for each country. By his metric...

US: 41.7%
Germany: 14.4%
USSR: 14% 
UK: 10.2%
France: 4.2%
Japan: 3.5%
Italy: 2.5%

Bear in mind that if the US stays out all of these countries are going to be exhausted by the end. Like really exhausted. USSR vs Germany and Japan vs China are going to be utter attrition that take years and bleed everyone besides China white. By the time Germany is done fighting the USSR they will have lost an entire generation. The the German, British, Soviet, and Japanese Empires all bankrupt America would be be in a stronger, safer situation. No Cold War.

----------


## anaconda

> For whatever its worth, in Paul Kennediy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers", he lists the war making potential as a percentage of the entire worlds war making potential for each country. By his metric...
> 
> US: 41.7%
> Germany: 14.4%
> USSR: 14% 
> UK: 10.2%
> France: 4.2%
> Japan: 3.5%
> Italy: 2.5%
> ...


So much money to be made in these attrition fights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> For whatever its worth, in Paul Kennediy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers", he lists the war making potential as a percentage of the entire worlds war making potential for each country. By his metric...
> 
> US: 41.7%
> Germany: 14.4%
> USSR: 14% 
> UK: 10.2%
> France: 4.2%
> Japan: 3.5%
> Italy: 2.5%
> ...


Truth^^

----------


## TheTexan

At that time, and still very much true today, the seas make an invasion of the US impossible.

Hitler was not going to invade the US.

If people wanted to "save the jews" they certainly can volunteer to do that.  On a volunteer basis only....

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> At that time, and still very much true today, the seas make an invasion of the US impossible.
> 
> Hitler was not going to invade the US.
> 
> If people wanted to "save the jews" they certainly can volunteer to do that.  On a volunteer basis only....


Remember that when the US entered the war and when Roosevelt was trying to get the US into the war, the Holocaust had not begun. The Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with US entry into the war. When the US entered the war Hitler's kill count was less than ten million and Stalin's was 25+ million. 

You and most probably know that, but it needs to emphasized that the US had no humanitarian motive.

----------


## oyarde

> Remember that when the US entered the war and when Roosevelt was trying to get the US into the war, the Holocaust had not begun. The Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with US entry into the war. When the US entered the war Hitler's kill count was less than ten million and Stalin's was 25+ million. 
> 
> You and most probably know that, but it needs to emphasized that the US had no humanitarian motive.


There is never a humanitarian motive .

----------


## oyarde

If I recall , Germany's Foreign Policy as stated in Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler was available in English by 1936, published by Freinds of Europe.I imagine written by Katharine Stewart-Murray.You may find her position on things interesting.

----------


## Ender

Most of what we are told is "history" is a bunch of BS.

First of all, if the US had never entered WWI, basically a European territorial conflict, there would never have been a WWII. Although Britain et al were just as much to blame for the conflict, Germany was made to pay for all of WWI and left in subject poverty. This gave rise to Hitler.

The US also started the war with Japan by taking all their oil sources away from them and then waiting for the desired retaliation. Stalin was FDR's best global buddy and we all now realize that he made Hitler look like a saint. 

The US did not enter the war for Jews- they were a hated people and were not allowed to come to America as an escape; not until the 1960's did it start to become cool to like the Jews.

----------


## robert68

Britain suicided Rudolf Hess right before he was to be released from prison so that he wouldn't be able tell about the proposals to end the war he brought to Britain on Hitlers instruction.

----------


## oyarde

> Britain suicided Rudolf Hess right before he was to be released from prison so that he wouldn't be able tell about the proposals to end the war he brought to Britain on Hitlers instruction.


Why would they have thought that would turn out differently than it did? ( Hess /Hitler)

----------


## eduardo89

> Why would they have thought that would turn out differently than it did? ( Hess /Hitler)


Because WWII was the first time that something like that ever happened. Name me one other war where the guy from the losing side was imprisoned for the rest of his life after trying to secure peace.

----------


## oyarde

> Because WWII was the first time that something like that ever happened. Name me one other war where the guy from the losing side was imprisoned for the rest of his life after trying to secure peace.


All I can say is , Hitler / Hess made a mistake I would not have, I can easily predict that one, I am thinking they may have had the baggage of " respect" , I have seen such before , where someone may pretend that others may have some semblence of respect for them where there is and will be none....

----------


## robert68

> All I can say is , Hitler / Hes made a mistake I would not have, I can easily predict that one, I am thinking they may have had the baggage of " respect" , I have seen such before , where someone may pretend that others may have some semblence of respect for them where there is and will be none....


Perhaps, but the deal would have been made with the British Monarchy, not Churchill. And they are of German extraction. Also, this was before the Pearl Harbor bombing and the US fully entering the wars.

----------


## The Bavarian

Hitler did not want a war with America, hell, even his personal train was called "Amerika" until he declared war due the alliance between Germany and Japan. 

Hitler did want to restore Germany to it's pre-WW1 borders however, but a full scale war was actually not planned until 1942/43ish, that's how long Germany and italy decided it would take for them to be ready. However mistakes were made...

#1 Hitler shouldn't have attacked Czechoslovakia, even though it was to restore Germany's territory it was a dumb mistake, why? Because now France+Britain put their foot down and gave Germany no more "breaks" sort to speak. The reason I say this was because Poland had been encroaching on Germanys territory and now with France and Britain backing it, it wasn't going to be in the mood to play nice with Germany. A letter was sent from Germany to Britain for Britain to play mediator between Poland and Germany but the letter was torn up, it wasn't just Germany and Poland that was edging towards War, there was a big element in Britain that was keen to see Hitler slip up and get his ass handed to him in a war. Afterall, how could Germany arm itself in a 4 year period and take on Britain/France and Poland all at the same time on 2 fronts?

#2 The battle of Britain was a huge waste of resources, resources that were not replenished in time for the invasion of Russia. 

#3 Denmark and Norway were invaded to keep Britain from taking over vital German interests in Scandinavia. (Ever notice how sweden was left alone?)

#4 War with Russia was inevitable. Germany and Russia started gearing up in the 30's, whether you believe this or not. Since the start Europe only had room for one of them. 

#5 Italy was an incredibly unreliable ally, their military was completely outdated with terrible leadership and due to Mussolini wanting to restore the roman empire in north africa and greece, they got their asses handed to them by the brits which in turn caused Germany to divert vital resources from the Russian campaign to invade and occupy Greece and get mixed up in the war in north africa. This delayed the planned invasion of RUssia by several months, which doomed the invasion due to the harsh russian winter. If italy had not gotten Germany mixed up in that mess, moscow would probably have been taken. Stalin did not want to leave moscow under any circumstances meaning he would have been caught, Soviet Russia wouldve lost all morale and would have been split up like when Germany defeated it in ww1. The western part the germans would've taken, the eastern part would've probably been set up to be a puppet russian state loyal to germany. 

#6 Japan broke their peace with china instead of attacking russia and helping Germany out. Also, they got Germany mixed up in a war with america.



The point is, if anything, Japan and Italy forced Germanys hand at every turn to get into more wars. :V

----------


## oyarde

I think it is time to just accept that Hitler was a raving mad retard with no predictability and less military talent than the Army Corporal he once was.

----------


## TaftFan

Hitler was an enraged, possibly possessed individual with a superiority complex. I have no doubt he would have waged war on the U.S. sooner or later.

----------


## fr33

His invasions and attacks on multiple countries were a de facto attempt at monopolizing trade. I have no doubt that if he could have secured enough resources and kept intact a functional military, he'd invade and attempt to take over any country he could.

----------


## oyarde

> His invasions and attacks on multiple countries were a de facto attempt at monopolizing trade. I have no doubt that if he could have secured enough resources and kept intact a functional military, he'd invade and attempt to take over any country he could.


Absolutely , ego like that is feed with victories , he may not plan them today , but since he is nuts , he will expand tomorrow , I find it difficult to believe people do not understand such a person .....

----------


## TaftFan

> Absolutely , ego like that is feed with victories , he may not plan them today , but since he is nuts , he will expand tomorrow , I find it difficult to believe people do not understand such a person .....


For some America is always the greatest evil, whether they admit they believe it or not.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I think it is time to just accept that Hitler was a raving mad retard with no predictability and less military talent than the Army Corporal he once was.


Indeed ...

FTA: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William...Teppichfresser



> William Shirer writes in his works _Berlin Diary_ and _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_  that on the morning on September 22, 1938, prior to Hitler's meeting  with Neville Chamberlain over the future of Czechoslovakia, "Hitler was  in highly nervous state. On the morning of the twenty-second I was  having breakfast on the terrace of the Hotel Dressen, where the talks  were to take place, when Hitler strode past on his way down to the  riverbank to inspect his yacht. He seemed to have a peculiar tic. Every  few steps he cocked his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping  up as he did so. He had ugly, black patches under his eyes. He seemed to  be, as I noted in my diary that evening, on the edge of a nervous  breakdown. _"Teppichfresser!"_  muttered my German companion, an editor who secretly despised the  Nazis. And he explained that *Hitler had been in such a maniacal mood  over the Czechs the last few days that on more than one occasion he had  lost control of himself completely, hurling himself to the floor and  chewing the edge of the carpet.* Hence the term "carpet eater." The  evening before, while talking with some of the party leaders at the  Dreesen, I had heard the expression applied to the Fuehrer -- in  whispers, of course."

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> For some America is always the greatest evil, whether they admit they believe it or not.


Or....

Some people recognize the logistics of INVADING America.

Pot shots will put a dent in any army.

That's while ignoring Smedley Butler.

----------


## TaftFan

> Or....
> 
> Some people recognize the logistics of INVADING America.
> 
> Pot shots will put a dent in any army.
> 
> That's while ignoring Smedley Butler.


Did Hitler invade Britain? Look what happened to them.

Thank God Hitler died before more advanced Nazi technology, including nukes, were not developed.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Did Hitler invade Britain? Look what happened to them.
> 
> Thank God Hitler died before more advanced Nazi technology, including nukes, were not developed.


What is your opinion of Iran developing nuclear weapons?

----------


## oyarde

> Indeed ...
> 
> FTA: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William...Teppichfresser


That Dr he had , giving those shots may have had a bit to do with that  maybe he forgot the distemper. lol

----------


## TaftFan

> What is your opinion of Iran developing nuclear weapons?


I don't like it.

----------


## Origanalist

I am just entering blindly here, not reading the thread. But has anybody hypothesised what would have happened if we just let them beat the $#@! out of each other and stayed home?

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't like it.


What is your opinion on Israel having nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons?

----------


## JCDenton0451

I don't know about Hitler, but the Soviets definitely wanted to take over the entire world, and we have managed to avoid a major war with them...I guess that's because we had nukes and the Soviets understood this was a war they couldn't win...In an alternative reality, if the US had abstained from intervention and Germany was allowed to win the war in Europe, I can imagine the subsequent "Cold War" between the US and Nazi Germany would follow a similar scenario and with a similar outcome.

I say we're better off for not going to war with the Soviet Union...

----------


## JCDenton0451

> What is your opinion on Israel having nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons?


It's not going to save them.

----------


## robert68

> For some America is always the greatest evil, whether they admit they believe it or not.


The US government was intervening militarily before the Pearl Harbor attack and the declarations of war. 




> In the *Destroyers for Bases Agreement* between the United States and the United Kingdom on *September 2, 1940,* fifty mothballed destroyers were transferred to the United Kingdom from the United States Navy in exchange for land rights on British possessions. The destroyers became the Town-class, and were named after British towns if there was a United States town of the same name, as the agreement contained rigid clauses regarding naming.





> *Lend-Lease* (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 3034, enacted *March 11, 1941*)[1] was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, the USSR, Republic of China, Free France, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939. *This was nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.* Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.


...

----------


## JCDenton0451

It wasn't America itself that was evil, but its government. President Roosevelt in particular was a true monster, most diabolical figure in American history.

----------


## oyarde

> It wasn't America itself that was evil, but its government. President Roosevelt in particular was a true monster, most diabolical figure in American history.


He was very , very bad , but Wilson and LBJ could be worse.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> He was very , very bad , but Wilson and LBJ could be worse.


FDR created the welfare/warfare state in its current form.

Also, I'm inclined to believe that he manipulated Japan into attacking the US, just so he could convince the nation to get involved in the European war. Diabolical.

----------


## The Bavarian

What's the true crime here is that every german of age pays a *monthly holocaust tax*.

It didn't stop with reparations and an apology, my newborn nephew will still be paying this when he joins the work force. 

That's why I don't want to go back to germany, I don't want to live in a country that discriminates its own citizens and shoves guilt down their throat at every turn. 


I realize that was very off topic, but I'm just sayin...

----------


## fr33

> What's the true crime here is that every german of age pays a *monthly holocaust tax*.
> 
> It didn't stop with reparations and an apology, my newborn nephew will still be paying this when he joins the work force. 
> 
> That's why I don't want to go back to germany, I don't want to live in a country that discriminates its own citizens and shoves guilt down their throat at every turn. 
> 
> 
> I realize that was very off topic, but I'm just sayin...


I want to know if that's actually true. I typed it into a google search and there really is no info on it. 

<<<Very Skeptical.

----------


## JCDenton0451

I don't know about any "Holocaust tax", but the reparations Germany actually paid to Israel in the 1950s were ridiculous.

----------


## fr33

I'm pretty sure we've attracled some nazi sympathizers and thats why they make up $#@! like holocaust taxes. It's been proposed but it doesn't exist. $#@! socialists of any race. I'm full blood german and damn glad my people fled that hell-hole. Germans were late-comers to the concept of government. I'm more proud of my barbaric ancestors than my statist ones.

----------


## oyarde

Germany has a church tax .

----------


## eduardo89

> That's why I don't want to go back to germany, I don't want to live in a country that discriminates its own citizens and shoves guilt down their throat at every turn.


Having lived and gone to school in Germany I can say this is very true. Every chance possible the "collective eternal guilt" is shoved down their throats. It is quite sickening.

----------


## eduardo89

> Germany has a church tax .


Yup. 




> Taxpayers, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or members of other tax-collecting communities, pay between 8% (in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg) and 9% (in the rest of the country) of their income tax to the church or other community to which they belong.


However, if you are not a registered member of a religious community you do not pay the church tax. Obviously you don't get a cheaper tax bill...the government keeps it for itself.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm pretty sure we've attracled some nazi sympathizers and thats why they make up $#@! like holocaust taxes. It's been proposed but it doesn't exist. $#@! socialists of any race. I'm full blood german and damn glad my people fled that hell-hole. Germans were late-comers to the concept of government.* I'm more proud of my barbaric ancestors than my statist ones.*


+1  ...and I'm only some ~30%-40% German or so.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

the way global dominance is waged today is not in plain sight. Just like how middle eastern countries are occupied, the popular thing to do is just take what you want from a given country, and let them keep all of their problems. It actually becomes better than invading and officially claiming the land as your own, giving citizens benefits of your nation.

----------

