Prior to the invasion, the countries traded with each other. Stalin himself sent a telegram to Hitler congratulating him on his capture of France.
True. But in the end, alliances would have been held, and Stalin would have interfered, because Russia considered itself one of the greater powers in that time. Which it was...
Hitler could have won the war had he captured Britain before launching an attack on the Soviets, which he nearly beat even with scores of divisions in the West.
Yes he could have, and I'm happy he did not. Thing is, without a good mind, (as in, not a complete retard), you can't conquer half of Europe.
Thanks
He created employment by building a huge army from a huge population. The surrounding counties couldn't match the economical mite. Admittedly, Hitler was very successful in turning the economy around, no one has argued that.
He created employment. You can't run an Economy if nobody earned anything, Thank you.
Are you saying that a life where you may get slightly offended is a life not worth living ?
Not really. Where did you get this from? Are you smoking something?
Agreed, of course Hitler introduced some good things, the economic turnaround for a start. The burning and censorship of Art and Literature was most certainly not a positive contribution.
I agree, it was bad. BUT it was NOT the reason why everything turned so badly. This means, that legislation was NOT at fault, for what happened to people. The fault lies by the politics in that country at that time. If they had been better at predicting, and playing against his political powers, there would have been less issues.
That's pretty hypothetical.
True.
VW as it is now is based on the company that Britain was put in charge of running after the war ended. It's relationship to Volkswagen before and during the war extends to nothing more than the car designs, since even the factories didn't survive the war as they were specifically targeted by bombing raids and the management (including Ferdinand Porsche) was jailed for war crime at Nuremburg.
Wow, these 2 posts are so different, I could let them contradict each other... Saves me the typing.
He created employment by building a huge army from a huge population. The surrounding counties couldn't match the economical mite. Admittedly, Hitler was very successful in turning the economy around, no one has argued that.
The U.S. declared war on Japan for attacking Pearl Harbor. That doesn't mean, and in fact would not have meant (because popular opinion was still that it was a "European affair), that the U.S. would have declared war on Italy or Germany had Germany not declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.
And the Soviet Union, while undoubtedly planning at some point to attack Germany, certainly didn't plan on doing it in the Fall of 1941. All Germany accomplished by invading the USSR was waste resources and open up a two front war that it at that point couldn't win.
Yes, but with most of Europe at war, America would have interfered. Before or after 1945, we dont know. But they would have, definitely.
And this is relevant how?
Difference between Europe and America. You guys want me to explain my attitude towards America, there you go.
Which means you don't know anything. I talk to someone from Colombia, and several people from Britain, and several people from Canada; and I talk to them every day for several hours a day. And yet I don't pretend to know enough about their cultures to make sweeping statements about them.
Which means I know enough to base a basic opinion. I do not disrespect the culture, but the average personality in America, when considering strangers.
The irony of your statements considering your own conduct once again is lost on you.
What irony? Do explain. I may seem very extremist, but in real life, you know... You would never see me hurt anyone purposely. Tbh, I'm one of the most caring and emphatic people I actually know.
Are you really so naive to think that those undesirable people that Germany shipped off to various spots in the country after forcibly removing them from their homes weren't put to work on Hitler's various pet projects? That their stuff which was stolen from them wasn't used to fund those projects? It's not like this stuff isn't common knowledge. Even Volkswagen admitted that their factories were staffed with slave labor during the war, and were sued over it.
For someone who claims to know about WWII, you're missing out on some grade-school-level history about it.
Who says, that I say there were no slaves? But not everyone that worked for Hitler was a slave... Most people actually weren't.
You're asking us to look at all the good things that Hitler did as backup for your argument. That by itself should tell you something.
No, I'm merely pointing out that legislation on itself could never lead to such drastic stuff as what happened in those times. There must be MORE than just legislation.
It implies that music being banned because a Jew wrote it is one example of the types of things that were banned and the reasons that they were banned for. It implies that because that is almost word for word what I said.
Stop chasing shadows. that aren't there.
Yes, but seeing you agree with me that there is more music that got banned, than only music made by Jews, you could state that the legislation provided to ban the works by 'not-jews' is bad, but doesn't actively hurt someone. It does have a negative impact on the seller, for example, BUT this person can change. Get another job for example. If that would be needed, to make other people have a lot better lifestyle, so be it.
You said that with your arguments over the course of the past two threads. Including that sentence you just said explaining.
Life isn't made of absolutes ffs. Don't twist my words. If I had to choose between art, and a humans life, I would choose the human their life. Why? Not because I hate art, but because I value life more than something that doesn't live.
So what you're saying now is that racists make up a majority?
And by the way, the "specific group" part is the important part of that sentence.
So, the Americans living in America is a minority? Right... No, they aren't. Legislation would affect all Americans. Although, some people would have to adapt less than others.
Good lord, do you ever think about what you're saying? You are not going to change people with legislation. You are not going to change people through restricting their rights and their freedoms, and by setting consequences for having an opinion that a minority don't like. Do that and people will rise up against the state.
