German Homefront

Carking the 6th wrote:

Shiton does, though.

Point was not to glorify the Glorious Union, my Wehrmaboo friend, but to show show you what happened to the Germans…

See 1941.

Attacked a country lead by an idiotic madman while having the support of multiple countries and all of Europe, and still flopping? I don’t see how that’s impressive. You ended up getting bombed into oblivion and split in half though, so I guess it was worth it? Germany is far better off today. L Fascism.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Attacked a country lead by an idiotic madman while having the support of multiple countries and all of Europe, and still flopping? I don’t see how that’s impressive. You ended up getting bombed into oblivion and split in half though, so I guess it was worth it? Germany is far better off today. L Fascism.

Even more? How exactly? They defeated Germany and their allies combined, so their military wasn’t particularly ineffective. After the death of Stalin they weren’t particularly brutal by 20th century standards (contrary to what CIA propaganda may say). In fact, I’m sure the 50 million people the Nazis killed would rather live in an oppressive regime that fell in a generation than one that would straight up murder them…

Carking the 6th wrote:

Even more? How exactly? They defeated Germany and their allies combined, so their military wasn’t particularly ineffective. After the death of Stalin they weren’t particularly brutal by 20th century standards (contrary to what CIA propaganda may say). In fact, I’m sure the 50 million people the Nazis killed would rather live in an oppressive regime that fell in a generation than one that would straight up murder them…

"Germans were swine but civilized, soviets were just swine".

There’s a saying in Poland that’s probably pro-communist and pro-slaughter all Germans as well, that means nothing. 1/6 of Poles were killed by Germany, much fewer by the commies over the decades. The numbers are simple.

Carking the 6th wrote:

There’s a saying in Poland that’s probably pro-communist and pro-slaughter all Germans as well, that means nothing. 1/6 of Poles were killed by Germany, much fewer by the commies over the decades. The numbers are simple.

What about the Liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto? We can throw whataboutism all we want. Not helpful. After the death of Stalin, Soviet Oppression was far more tame. And even Stalin was better than what the Germans planned - annihilation and colonization. Read about how Germany planned to literally colonize all of Eastern Europe and kill its native inhabitants…

Lebensraum is myth, it is impossible to achieve it.

Are you serious right now? Literally every historian with the slightest credibility knows that Generalplan OST was what they wished for. They literally were slaughtering poles and settling their land before it was liberated as well. You think they murdered tens of millions for no reason??? What Neo-Nazi told you that? Whether it seemed feasible or not changes nothing. I’m sure the Native Americans thought it was not feasible that some mad people from a continent away would kill then and take their land as well. Still happened. There is no credible argument that goes against the fact that the Germans planned to slaughter all inhabitants of Eastern Europe and settle their land.

Why don’t you both drop it and stop trying to justify crimes? They were both very bad, that’s all there is to it.

When did I say anything positive about the Soviets? Right now he’s literally denying Nazi plans, that’s kinda bad…

Nazi plans were vague, to say the least. At one point they were planning to send all the Jews to Madagascar. Didn't happen; and was never VERY serious anyway. At one point, they thought that would be inefficient and just killing them all would be better. That's the plan that won, even if they never quite succeeded. I'm just saying, if they were planning to depopulate Eastern Europe at some point, it wasn't like an ACTUAL plan, something they were about top do, and just having everyone there as a slave MIGHT be the better option for them... because Nazi's argued too. If you have to pick between killing everyone and having them work for you for a scarce bit of potato soup, which one is the right way...?

The Mister Class wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Even more? How exactly? They defeated Germany and their allies combined, so their military wasn’t particularly ineffective. After the death of Stalin they weren’t particularly brutal by 20th century standards (contrary to what CIA propaganda may say). In fact, I’m sure the 50 million people the Nazis killed would rather live in an oppressive regime that fell in a generation than one that would straight up murder them…

Well, there is a saying in Poland."Germans were swine but civilized, soviets were just swine".

And this idea that Lebensraum was fake? Come on. You can't be serious

Neither, I suppose. But history shows from how they killed tens of millions… slavery is not much better, anyway. The biggest thing was the fact they had already started slaughtering and removing Poles and Czechs from their land and then settling it with Germans. Lebansraum was one of the most important and primary goals advocated by Hitler in Mein Kampf, and had been suggested by earlier fascists before. It was a core part of their ideology and one of the primary reasons they invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. You have to remember that they didn’t just attack and conquer most of Europe for the fun of it, they did have goals, and dark ones at that. That goal was really to slaughter and enslave most of Eastern Europe, then settle much of it with Germans. Would they have totally erased all cultures of Eastern Europe off the face of Earth? Maybe not, maybe so, but their goals were definitely not positive towards them. Turning them to a slave caste and slowly “breeding them out” like other colonial projects was very possible. You already heard of Lebensborn and projects like that, which they had a variety of plans to commit abhorrent crimes. But in the end it doesn’t really matter, even the most tame of their plans basically involved creating an apartheid system. That sounds a whole lot worse than living in a much more tame in-comparison communist state, which after Stalin included quote a bit of hunger and oppression, along with (don’t get it wrong, much less but still existing) racism. Overall , quite a bit less terrible than literal Nazis.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Neither, I suppose. But history shows from how they killed tens of millions… slavery is not much better, anyway. The biggest thing wa the fact they had already started slaughtering and removing Poles and Czechs from their land and then settling it with Germans. Lebansraum was one of the most important and primary goals advocated by Hitler in Mein Kampf, and had been suggested by earlier fascists before. It was a core part of their ideology and one of the primary reasons they invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. You have to remember that they didn’t just attack and conquer most of Europe for the fun of it, they did have goals, and dark ones at that. That goal was really to slaughter and enslave most of Eastern Europe, then settle much of it with Germans. Would they have totally erased all cultures of Eastern Europe off the face of Earth? Maybe not, maybe so, but their goals were definitely not positive towards them. Turning them to a slave caste and slowly “breeding them out” like other colonial projects was very possible. You already heard of Lebensborn and projects like that, which they had a variety of plans to commit abhorrent crimes. But in the end it doesn’t really matter, even the most tame of their plans basically involved creating an apartheid system. That sounds a whole lot worse than living in a much more tame in-comparison communist state, which after Stalin included some hunger and oppression. Still, quite a bit better than literal Nazis.

And the whole thing about nazi goals being unclear, I disagree with. There's a book called "Hitler's goals" written by a British Historian in 1938 where she analyses Mein Kampf and compares it to Hitler's actions in the previous years, and let me tell you, it wasn't just rhetoric. Originally the book was written as an attack on Britain's appeasement at the time, but it's not at all unreasonable to believe that Hitler's goals for a "German" Eastern Europe were very clear, especially as they were already being carried out.

Talvisota wrote:

Originally the book was written as an attack on Britain's appeasement at the time

I don't know if you've actually read Mein Kampf, but it is mostly a rambling book... everything is bad, and all needs to be "corrected". There's many wrongs identified, but the ideas on how to do something about it are pretty vague. All of THAT developed after they actually came to power, and again, there was much discussion on HOW to achieve the goals in Nazi circles. Goebbels and Himmler disagreed vehemently, for example. They all agreed that Germans/Aryans were superior beings, but they fought hard battles on HOW that supremacy should be exerted. The Holocaust wasn't even planned before 1941; but after Wannsee, it suddenly happened in two years. Surprise surprise, Hitler wasn't present at the Wannsee conference; it was just a bunch of people having a "technical" meeting on how to best execute his general guidelines. If they would have proposed to ship the Jews to Madagascar, Hitler would have likely been fine with it. It were the juniors (relatively speaking) who decided to kill them all instead.

Nazism was an ideology about goals, and not so much about actual implementation. If Germans could live their dream of superiority, they didn't really care how EXACTLY that dream could be made real; that was considered an "administrative" issue.