The Nazi Dream

I didn't read the thread, but this statement about economic superpower is not true. Hitler basically bullshitted the German people into believing they were in a sound economic place, when in reality the government was broke or on the verge of being so. At least according to some video i watched in school.
 
Their engineering was horrible in WWII. For a country based around mechanized warfare their tabks were complete shit reliability and production wise.
 
First off... the Nazis controlling Eastern Europe likely would not have been much different than the Soviets.

However, they would be top dogs on the planet. And #2 would be Japan who'd be running all of Asia. None of the asian countries could have taken Japan in the 40s the whole place would be a Japanese colony. USA would be 3rd.

What people have to realize about WWI and WWII is that both wars occured ONLY because Great Britain did not want Germany to control Europe. Basically after Napoleon's reign it became clear that all continental Europeans were PUSSIES and an united Germany was going to dominate the continent and control it. So British policy was to block this in any way shape or form possible because being an isolated island they would be next once Europe was conquered and dominated by someone.

Now as for how bad a Nazi dominated world would be first off it would be A FUCKLOAD better than a Soviet dominated world. I assure you life in Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s would be better under Nazis.

Secondly the eugenic aspect of their reign is a little bit overstated. Sure tehy had some doctors performing nasty experiments but the truth is that stuff probably happned everywhere and was just kept a secret.

Finally, the anti semitism of the Nazi party is completely exaggerated. This will piss off Jewish people but the fact is that the German population was 90% to blame for the haulocast and the Nazis about 10.

Anti Semitism in Germany has deep roots. You need to understand that Anti Semitism to the Nazis is the same thing as Anti Abortion for Republicans. It was a way of getting votes off popular sentiments. The German people hated hte Jews and were the ones who massacred them. Not HItler. HItler was just like any republican politician who decides to be pro life just to gain votes of Christian people. Being anti-Jew was a very popular policy and played a big part in the Nazis gaining power. They were just appeasing the masses with the haulocast.

That is an absolute fact.
 
I don't at all have the research to back this up, but I sort of agree with this... Hitler took the anti-semitism to the next level for sure, there never would have been a holocaust without him, but the german people were not as all-accepting as they want people to believe in hindsight.

Hitler's use of the "master race" ideology and fake historical finds and archeological finds and such was an attempt to reconstruct european culture and religion, where judeo-christianity had absolutely destroyed it. Until about 1300 AD there were still people who believed in Odin and Freyr and Freya and not Jesus. But christianity swept across Europe and more or less crushed all sources of dissent. Caesar actually wrote about these traditions (and to the best of my knowledge he let them be).

Obviously a lot of Nazi ideology revolves around taking history out of context, but somewhere in the mess of ideological bullshit there is a tiny bit of truth and good intent driving what they did.
 
Their armored vehicles after a certain point(mid '43) became very difficult to manufacture and maintain as they were over engineered and designs found in soviet and American tanks allowed the allied forces to vastly out produce the Germans. I;m not talking about the jet program or planes but vehicle wise on the land they were outclassed after the war of production beat them.

The American crews were much more highly trained and well armed and supplied by the end of war. The tanks may have been inferior but the tool does not make the soldier, its vice versa.
 
Well you made the point there. HE just signed off on it. He wasn't at the conference and he wasn't the one who crafted the final solution.

Hitler was a moron post 1940. He didn't sign off on anything, he just gave retarded orders to his generals who were far more competent than he was.

Basically the guy was anti semetic because it benefited him politically being so. But the majority of the blame for the murder of millions of Jews should be at that hands of the German people, not Hitler.

What HItler deserves credit for is being a totalitarian leader who managed to get his country running extremely efficiently in a short space of time. And for his quick sweep through Western Europe. The guy managed to pull his country out of a recession and to conquer the countries that had decimated German ony 2 decades prior in a mere 6 or 7 years.

But after that the guy was an idiot who single handedly lost Germany the war. He did NOT have the balls to take on Britain when Britain was alone in the war and at its weakest. This was pure cowardice. If Germany had invaded and got any foothold in Britain they'd have taken it over within a year because the air support was there after they conquered france.

And if he had been smarter and more tactful he could have conquered Russia. All he needed to do was go in there as a liberator. Or send all of his troops strait to Moscow and not divert most of them to the oil fields in the south or Leningrad.

I mean my Grandparents were Ukranian peasants who saw the Nazis as liberators (but thought what they did to the Jews was fucked up.) Both my Grandparents happily went to Germany during the war as indentured servants. They liked Germany.

Russia would have collapsed easily they hated Stalin the guy fuckin starved them.

If one of the assasination attempts on Hitler had succeeded from 1939-1942 Germany is probably controlling the planet. And it is probably not that evil of a regime. It would be a far better regime to live under than the USSR or China.
 
Funny how the decline in their technology coincides with the allies winning the air war. Would have been very interesting if the germans were able to bomb the united states for awhile
 
American soldiers did not have superior training to the Germans. That is completely false.

And here's a list of things that Germans built better than the allies:

Guns

Tanks

Ships

Aircraft

U boats

Jet aircraft

Stealth aircraft. ( although didn't go into production)

Rockets

Basically the Germans made everything better

The legendary ak47 is simply a slightly modified mp44. Both the Russians and the us went to space and to the moon on German rocket technology. German tanks were literally indestructible- Americans had to bring literally cannons on wheels to stop them.

German engineering has always been awe inspiring. Drive a 20 year old Porsche and you'll get it. :)
 
well this has been taken out of proportion

Hes clearly not for the actions that took place but, hes just opening up a discussion. Dont be so quick to hate him, I think its a good subject of discussion. Just basically take out the sentence about would it be good if they won the war. Maybee more along the lines of what if this ideal society was acheived differently. If we could, in a more peacefull way, create a society of superior individuals... sort of accelerating evolution.

Controversial thought coming: Sometimes I think that it would be good to stop certain people from having children. Some parents are just completely unfit to have children. The kids grow up with bad parents in bad situations and end up being degenerates. The kids of those kids are even worse off! This is downwards evolution.

It will never happen because of the stigmas of abortion and freedom but sometimes it makes me cringe to think that you are allowed to buy a gun at 18 but can have a kid when ever it happens, even if you are 15.

Dont karma rape me for this, im trying to get this thread back on track. Its a good controversial discussion to be had!
 
L2TuT.png

 
It's true. Most of the people who shouldn't have kids are the ones having the most kids. Having kids should not be considered a right. If you can't afford or manage proper child raising then you should not have kids
 
but how do we decide which traits are "superior" and which are "inferior?" and who is allowed to decide? hopefully you see the problem here...
 
Add also: child molestors, pedofiles, mentally unfit parrents, schitzos, criminals, people who have always lived off of welfare... the list goes on, not everyone is fit for kids. Its bad for the children and society.

By doing this, there would be less mouths to feed with tax money, less crimes commited, less poverty, smarter society.
 
Simple. If you want to be fair you should perform an effective poll as to who is most valuable to each person. You seem to not understand that people vote with their dollars. For example when people spend 500 dollars on an I phone, they are voting for Steve jobs rather than a bum in the street who offers them nothing of value. So in the end you'll find that most people who become rich do so because they are voted (through dollars) as a very valuable part of society. There is no problem. People who are rich are either rich because they are incredibly valuable to society or the people who were valuable to society gifted their inheritance (within their rights) to someone they chose (usually their offspring)
 
Start by convicted criminals, certain crimes could receive this as penalty, depending on the nature of the crime.

Pedophiles, rapists...every sexual crime or deviant should have his rights revoked. Im even for Chopping off genitalia from pedophiles so they can never enjoy sex ever.

There could be criteria in order to be allowed to have a child.
 
so you told me how you would start. what would you do after that? cause, hopefully you realize, you can't create a "master race" simply by stopping such a small percentage of society from reproducing
 
If their ships were so superior, how come their surface fleet was non existent after the Graf Spree and Bismark were lost? The tirpitz was moot after being attacked in some Fjord i think..

The only truly excellent gun the Germans designed was the MG42. The MP-44 is iffy as it didn't see much combat.

Tanks? After 1943 when they went after PzKzw V and the whole Tiger tank spree. No. They would've been better off working off of the Pzkzw IV chassis. The more advanced and bigger tanks were not a good fit for Europe at the time. There are many reports of the heavier tanks plunging through bridges in Russia and elsewhere. The americans made something like 40,000 Shermans and the Germans cranked out less than 2000 Tiger I's. They made even less of the II variant.

Aircraft, beginning of the war the Bf-109 was top of it's class after the Zero. When the US introduced the P51 and the P47 were upgraded the playing field leveled and then the US took the cake. Sure the ME 262 was an amazing aircraft. But again it wouldn't have changed the war. Rockets, the allies really had no point for them, we'd blown the shit out of the fatherland.

The point im trying to make is that the Germans may have made excellent tanks or planes/w.e but they were difficult to maintain and sucked up tons of resources.

The Tiger's and PAnthers were simply such a hassle to maintain in the field. Look up Battle of the Bulge or Nordwind(?) pics and all you'll see is abandoned Tigers and Panthers because of supply problems not limited to but including fuel and ENGINE PARTS.

Fighting wise those tanks may have been the best in the world but reliability...horrible.

The Americans stuck with the Sherman because it was reilable, fast and manueverable. It may have been a sweet little target that roasted its crew because it burned(gas engine) but they were easy to make and easy to train a crew to use.

American soldiers were better than the Wermacht after '42 or so once the whole war machine really started rolling....

/nerdgasm over
 
You said that. Not me. If you can't afford your kid it should be nobody else's business to provide what you can't. Having children should be reserved for people who are responsible, not criminals, and can provide for their own children. Why do you jump to a fucked up conclusion?
 
you said we should decide by having everyone vote for the most valuable person in their life. and then went on to talk about voting with your dollar for some reason and that rich people are rich because people consider them valuable. sounded like that is what you were saying, more or less. you think most people would consider steve jobs or someone like that more valuable in their life than, say, their family members?
 
lol, Its not about creating a holocaust and rebooting evolution.

yes its a small percentage but evolution developps over millions of years. that small percentage would have an effect within 10 years tops.

To the person asking if the things I said were hereditary: Probably not for the most part, but behavior is a huge part of evolution. Monkeys learning how to use tools by their parrents, being observed by other monkeys, eventually tool use is widespread by monkeys even in distant tribes. this can be observed in recent history, how behavior has an impact on evolution.

If a branch of humans survives by doing crimes, selling drugs... the behavior is immitated by others arround and very often by the kids in this environment. Kids living in ghettos growing up are like any other animal, they have to learn what it takes to get by in life. When you see drugs and crime giving you access to nice sneakers, cars, jewlery etc, just like the monkeys, you pick up on this behavior and follow this route.

Now take away the right to breed from this bad branch of people and slowly the behavior will go away, being observed less and less. Less kids being born and immitating their degenerate surroundings.
 
what? you said in your original post you were talking about accelerating evolution. now i'm lost.

and...what? re-read your sentences. you're right, evolution takes millions of years. there is no way that stopping criminals from reproducing would have any noticeable effect in 10 years. unless that isn't what you meant, in which case please articulate yourself better.

and it's pretty scary that you are willing to make a blanket statement saying that all kids growing up in ghetto's who sell drugs are bad people. jesus. you know jay-z sold drugs before he started making money off his music, right? do you think he should have been stopped from reproducing because of it?
 
Im saying you would see a difference within 10 years, not a fucking utopia! Fuck, just changing something as stupid as the price of speeding tickets would have an effect on evolution. And your saying that what Im suggesting would have no effect on evolution? whaaat? I expect accusations of totalitarianism or comparisons to nazis more than I expect someone telling me it would affect evolution. This just shows me you did not understand the reasoning.

Im not saying that all kids who grow up selling drugs are bad people. Im saying they follow the laws of evolution. Monkey see Monkey do.

Im saying we dont like crime and drugs (for the most part :p) so I propose a way to stop it.

Take a tool out of a monkeys hand, he will make a new one and keep doing what he does.

Now take the monkey who uses the tool and prevent him from having kids. He can no longer show the tool to the next generation. Less and less monkeys learn to use the tool over time until it is unknown. Im not saying we should take tools away from monkeys haha, all the contrary. See it as a metaphor.
 
...can you read? i think it's pretty clear i said it wouldn't have an effect in 10 years, not that it would never have an effect.

okay. i still think it's a bit rash to say we shouldn't let any kids who sell drugs or get into other crime when they are young reproduce, but if you think so, fair enough
 
Just fucking stop. That is not a "law of evolution", that is a pattern advanced organisms living in communities have developed as a survival technique. Evolution affects genetics. So unless kids in the hood are actually a different species with a different DNA sequence, you're wrong.

And look at Australia. At one point it was 90% criminals, now its a pretty chill place in comparison to a lot of the world. The problem is that our grand nation was once reliant on lower wage jobs mostly in manufacturing. This created steady work for most Americans even after WWII, but with so many jobs going overseas combined with poorer education in low income areas, more kids are getting popped out with less work suited for them. So why would they not sell drugs?

And yes, some get greedy, but they don't cause a worldwide depression, and they usually go to jail for their crimes.

To be honest, coming from someone who was once part of the same demographic you so ignorantly blanketed into one group, just lives to survive. Stopping their reproduction would only solve the problem for richer white Americans. Believe it or not, those people whose culture and future lives you want to see destroyed, are just as important as you're pasty ass.

The solution is more American jobs not based on moving around fake money, such as installing solar panels on rooftops in the hood and bringing back factories to our own soil. Which means that fancy Iphone 5 you're snap chatting on might cost $200 more, and it might mean more blacks and latinos receiving a better education and competing for the same college/jobs you want, but NEWSFLASH: America is more than you, or your family, or your race or age. It is supposed to be for all of us. And while it might not be that way right now, you're solution of dehumanizing an entire group is just not a solution.
 
For some reason this has branched off towards drugs which I dont even see as such a big issue. I was just talking about the idea in general and drugs seemed to be irritating people so I just used it as an example.

Selling drugs and hustling are just a good example of behavior, rather than genetics, influencing evolution.

If you dont think behavior influences evolution, there is not point in continuing any intelligent discussion with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_behavior_%28ecology%29

Behavior changes allowed man to settle when they learned to farm, allowed them to form bigger groups, teach the young about things other than just survival and where to move. Farming is an example of behavior that absolutely changed our evolution. I could even take it back to when Homo Habillis started using tools leading evolution eventually to Homo Sapien. So yes behavior influences evolution.

about generalizing the ghetto: I didnt mean to, like I said, Drugs to me are not even a big issue. Im just talking about bad behavior in general. And im not saying everyone in the ghetto is bad, I never said that. Coming from a guy who sais 90% of australia was criminal, I think you were quick to tag me about generalising. The fact is, I did not really specify What criteria would influence the rights of reproduction. I just introduced a subject that was controversial and in the same direction as the OP.

Do I beleive in this theory and weather or not it would work? yes. Do I beleive it is nice and should be implemented? NO. Im simply having a discussion about controversial issue.

Now to the twat who keeps insulting me and telling me I cant read: LOOK UP THE WORD UTOPIA! I will dumb it down for you since you clearly have a hard time with big words. 10 years would not be the time that it takes for a perfect, strong and moral society to arise (happen). 10 years, however, would be enough time to see a little difference, a small improvement. Tiny little hints that show how the changes are influencing society and evolution.

 
Did you seriously just endorse solar panels? Haha.

And chances are the people he describes ARE NOT as important. The value one adds to society is strongly correlated with that persons aquired wealth
 
As a gay, polish, black, jewish, handi-capped person, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you.
 
really? the value one adds to society is correlated to wealth? MLK, Einstein, Mandela, Gandhi, Newton, Darwin, Locke. The list goes on, but those that have contributed the most to society weren't rich when they did what they became known for.
 
i mean i was kidding before, but...CAN you read? i know what "utopia" means, don't worry. not sure why you are under the impression i don't; you are the one who keeps using it, not me.

i don't know why you keep saying this. i understand what you mean. you think 10 years will be enough time to see small, evolutionary changes in the population. i disagree. i think it will take much longer than 10 years. that is all. and, yes, i understand you mean small changes, hence the reason i used words like "noticeable" instead of "big."
 
Ok, maybe you are referring to cultural evolution, but scientifically it has been proven over and over that changes in the environment drive natural selection which is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. And the 90% was a dumb guess, in reality most of Australia's population came from gold miners and the infrastructure around them. But it was a colony with an extremely high percentage of convicted criminals to non-convict citizens that still managed to become successful without castrating their criminals.

And back to evolution, read this:

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio%20101%20lectures/Natural%20Selection/natural.htm

basically sums up the idea that changes in nature causes changes in reproduction chances, which causes noticeable changes in a population leading to a new species. Humans began using farm tools in response to a warmer mediterranean environment forming farm-able land. Tools were a result of our gradual evolution, and not the cause.
 
Society could easily put enough selection pressure on a population to see changes in the demographic within 10 years. If we took away welfare, the ow of children born would start to increase dramatically as long as those on welfare stopped reproducing. The iq of people on welfare is between 10 to 20 pts lower than the nat avg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top