Adolf Hitler took an impoverished, jobless, raped Germany and made it a world power. He took four million men off the streets and had them employed. He envisioned a perfect world. Can you really blame him for that? Of course, his methods were despicable and he will unfortunately be remembered only for that.
Yes, very unfortunate. What a truly honourable man he was. It is evident by your wording (which is
not accidental by the looks of things) that you're a bit of a Hitler sympathiser. You believe that the world took nothing positive out of Hitler's reign? Are you on a first name basis with your ostrich partner or did you kick him out to make use of the hole on your own?
After WWI, Germany was in shambles. Hitler took it from there to a power that terrified the entire world.
His mother should be so proud. The fact that you see this as an accomplishment is worrying enough...
His dobermann, Nazi, Hitler posters instilled fear all over the globe. That's remarkable.
Yes, quite remarkable. What a great man!! If I managed to overpower democratic countries with brute force and place placards proclaiming white supremacist power, would you revere me as much as you do Hitler? What a remarkable man. A true inspiration for some, clearly...
And as for the Jews, America sent boatloads of Jewish refugees back to the gas chambers, because America believed Hitler was going to take over the entire world and they really didn't want to house what Hitler viewed as the scum of the earth. Go Yankees.
Sorry, but the glare from your hat is shining in my eyes. Can you please take it off?
No, the Eurasians would be dead! Only Aryans in perfect health would be allowed to happily and continuously copulate to fill the continent with more cute perfectly healthy Ayans.
Jeezuz Kristofer - you need a history lesson on Ayans by the sounds of things.
Moreso, you reckon that's a good thing? Or are you merely stating Hitler's objectives for the sake of stating the obvious? Even more than that is your glaringly obvious lack of economic education. Even by your own bastardly simplified economic assumptions, your outcomes are incorrect. Please educate yourself on economics related to globalisation, which was rife even during WW2 already, if not pivotal. Either Germany and its newly acquired 'states' had to isolate itself from globalisation or it had to initiate its own version, which no other continent would have agreed to. You perfect world, blonde haired, blue eyed banker was never plausible. Come on, use your brain ffs...
So seeing as that your preceding argument is based on what you deem to be irrelevant, we'll take your resultant speech with the same pinch of salt...
Alan, neither of us can win this one because the law of argument states that if you argue correctly, you're never wrong. We both have valid points that can be backed up.
So by that assumption then there is never any point in disagreement or debate for that matter, because neither side is able to 'win'? Evidently you're a lot more naive than you come across from the outset then. You might as well not respond to this post then, based on your own principles. Unless we agree, there is no point in debate. You've clearly never grasped the concept in that case...
A much more debatable and interesting topic is the theory that all prominent politicians are only prominent because of big bucks funders and that, consequently, Hitler was funded by the Rothschild German-Jews so that they could claim the riches of all the gassed Jews.
Bwahahaha - they've got you hook, line and sinker. It all makes a little more sense now. WW2 was a distraction for the lizard-men to secretly take control of the NWO through the underhanded operations of the Illuminati then? Makes perfect sense...unless you're capable of original thought, that is. Ironic that conspiracy nuts tend to follow the mainstream negative stories whilst denouncing official ones in the same breath. Poetically ironic, actually...
When referring to Aryans I mean the tall blonde blue eyed type. Not other Europeans like the Polish or the French, neither of whom fared great in WWII.
So why not refer to them as such then, instead of moulding definitions to suit your weighted position?
Stop quoting me out of context.
Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm...
Being a megalomaniac and caring only for theirself is a sign of a politician. I didn't say other politicians explicitly killed millions of people. I said they all think only of themselves.
Bizarre that you miss the connection! Actually the two (mind your spelling errors) are synonymous, regardless of how you paint your picture. Much like stating that serial killers are not guilty of their crimes because all of them have a screw loose somewhere along the cranial lines. It's exactly the same thing here - you're dismissing a character flaw based on a gross generalisation, using it to back up your own point of view that Hitler wasn't an evil d00s because, well, "all other politicians are". Therein lies your generalisation flaw; and therein lies your blatantly obvious justification problem...
Hitler envisioned a perfect world. His perfect may not comply with your perfect. However, he was somewhat interrupted by WWII in his effort to create the Third Reich. The fact that he took a raped Germany to a world power is more than enough proof that he was fully capable of carrying out his plans, had the Americans not intervened.
NO NO NO. Hitler envisaged a perfect world according to hitler. Please learn to make yourself clear from the outset. This was a world considered perfect only to hitler and those brainwashed or twisted enough to go along with the plan. Do you see it as being a 'perfect world'?
Yes, somewhat interrupted is a rather light way of putting it. It implies that this vision of his was irrelevant to the war. Semantics, whilst overlooked by others, are a hobby-horse for the rest of us and speak volumes about a person.
Now the ending of this post, taken out of context would be ambiguous to say the least. Are you applauding the US involvement or are you negatively judging them based on it? Considering the context of your post, I'd say it's safe to assume that the latter is your intention which in this day and age, is sad to read. Much like those denying the holocaust because Alex Jones and David Icke told them that they have it on good authority that it was a rather large hoax; one in which all jews around the world were in on and deserve oscars for their sterling performances.
Now if I've judged you correctly, then you'll come out all guns blazing, defending your opinions (and by relation, defending hitler), attempting to mock me for pointing out your logical absurdities, stating that I have quoted you out of context, making assumptions about me with which to accuse me of later, using leading questions, and generally just being a vengeful nuisance.
Judgement correct: self-fulfilling prophecy
Judgement incorrect: self-fulfilling doomsday prophecy.
EDIT: judgement appears incorrect. At least you accepted your own argument that debating is pointless...
