If Hitler succeded.

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Johnxz, Jun 8, 2009.

  1. Johnxz

    Johnxz New Member

    Do you think the world would have been better off unified under one rule or not?

  2. HappyFace

    HappyFace Registered Member

    Not under a Nazi rule.

    They wanted to bring about one race, to eliminate all ethnicity and to also resurface the lost traditions of the Knights Templar.

    They were a disturbing lot.
  3. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    A world rule that would have costed hundreds of millions of people their lives and brought oppression on all others? Nope.
  4. HappyFace

    HappyFace Registered Member

    A One world Government is both scary and beautiful, if this government is the joint sucess of freedom and peace then hellz yes I'd love it but if it is put in place but international bankers or by extreme military force then no way.
  5. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Hi my name is SuiGeneris, and I am a recovering Devil's Advocate. Unfotunately for y'all, I'm having a relapse.

    Alright let's say Hilter succeded in WW2. THe world would not be unified, you'd have to wonder what would happen once Japan and Italy were also claimed victors. Do you think Japan would just go back to straight isolation with their utopian society, but what of Italy? They would be my big question.

    Aside from that, he's only other road block would indeed be the concentration (fored labor/death) camps. It's been noted that most cities had no idea what was going on or that these camps were built. However, you have to assume that one day those secrets would come out. How would the general public react? Could Hitler cover up 11 million deaths by saying they were simply criminals and the like? Most probable.

    So we look at it. One unifed nation controlling two other nations. (Italy/Japan..yeah they are still kicking) So what happens? Decades from now, assuming the regime is still kicking, you would see the absolute destruction (possibly) of Jews and many ethnic minorities. However, could hitler really risk such a dangerous manuever, knowing well that the people he had just conquered may one day stumble upon one of these. I highly doubt it, I read an interesting article once that basically said the Jew destruction was nothing more than a political stunt to gain the highest support of his people. While he did not love Jews, he neither dreamt of making camps that would systametically (they were real good at it) kill thousands of people a day.

    A lot of the negativity and propoganda that we found in germany were already dead in germany. They were stepping stones (more like leaping stones) from which Hilter built trust/fear and commitment.

    if a skillfull leader such as himself control the only worl dgovernmetnI ould see it working. Not becase there would be (in the end) less casualities, but because he's basic principles and ideals spoke more of freedom than the damnation of the Jews. Many scholars argue that he only set up one tiny camp as an exmaple, and other offices and generals built up the rest themselves, He wanted to make a statement to the country, and guess what...he made one hell of a statement.

    I think over all Hitler would have been a good leader for the world. Very limited fights would happen. A revol here a revolt there. But hehy only 40 pople die out of those. now let's take it to modern day where Nazi soldiers were shotif they were recognized.

    Conversly you could argue that the germans would do the same thing, however American soldies had the highest kill rate tan any other countr.

    So let's assume that it wokrs out. No body rises up, and frankly,

    I don't see why not?
  6. HappyFace

    HappyFace Registered Member

    Have you ever heard of a man named Heinrich Himmler(I believe that is the spelling). He was a very powerful man in Nazi Germany and was very interested in this book called Ostaria which basically outlined how to cleanse the earth of all ethnicities. To say that Hitler didn't also have this in mind is startlingy ignorant. So basically he was setting up his own utopian society of the aryan race, he was definatley thinking of Freedom but in the most horrible way imaginable, by getting rid of everything that might possibly stand in his "perfect" world's way.

    Also Hitler was not a good leader he sanctioned the mass murder of an a race, how is that good leadership? He was also Militarily inept he pretty much shot himself in the foot in world war 2.

    Also, Nazi's were pagan by religion so we're talking about complete reversal of everything that has happened religously over the past 10,000 years, they may have been getting more technologically advanced but some of their ideals were inherently bad and primitive.

    Hitler would have made a terrible world leader.
  7. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    Well dammit. I was hoping to say the same thing about Hitler's success doesn't mean unification under one rule. But Sui beat me to it and he's more in a chatty mode.

    Anyway the world would not be better, but it's possible that once the nightmare would be over (because I don't see it lasting), we'd have learned more things from it than we did from the real WWII, and come out better than today.
  8. HappyFace

    HappyFace Registered Member

    If Hitler had succeeded I doubt it would have stopped at just beating the Allies into a pulp, if he had planned things better and not betrayed Russia at such a fucking crucial moment there is like a 99.9999999% chance that the Nazi's would have the world in their hands, because Nazi Germany was incredibly powerful in those days however in the end they succumbed to their own arrogance, Hitler thought he could to much.
  9. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    Bringing up that lovely, ethnocentric, man doesn't show how Hitler, Himself, wanted to systematically kill all the Jews. Some historians are now thinking he used the Aryan race as a propoganda tool to get tight support from his officers (like Himmler) and strike fear/respect in his population. Saying he wasn't a charismatic and unifiable leader is startingly ignorant.

    Again, his advisers and what not did more of that then he did. The Aryan race was just propoganda. You do realize that WW2 was a retaliation war from WW1 right?

    So would you say that Alexander the Great was a bad leader?

    He also unified an entire nation. Expanded it's borders almost two fold, until Japan made an ignorant attack on America. Without Japan messing up Germany would have been a lot more established before America even thought about attacking Europe. Did you ever think about that? And just b ecause you can't shoot a gun doesn't mean you're not a good tacticianer or a good leader.

    You do realize that EZ company (American paratroopers, who basically made Dday and Normady possible) lost 3 men to shooting themselves accidentally. (Example: In the leg) And that's in Americas best European company during WW2.

    :covereyes: Because every religion is brand spanking new. Their..ideals...were inherently bad..and primitive...because..they were pagan. Aside from the fact that this argument is more startingly ignorant than anything said thus far, it has no substance nor any supporting facts. I"m just going to leave this as blatant generalizations before this gets heated.

    Yes because he was pagan...
  10. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    Can't really see the world being better off with a lunatic who feels there is one "master race," coupled with the fact of having 12 million people exterminated over the course of the deadliest war ever. And then with that in mind trying to conquer the rest of the world by force much like the Romans or Alexander tried to.
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009

Share This Page