Which West German Chancellor would you say is most responsible for mass immigration into Germany?

submitted by Nasser from self.debatealtright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chancellors_of_Germany#Federal_Republic_of_Germany,_Bundeskanzler_(from_1949)

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

Hitler.

His foolish war not only destroyed Germany but permanently delegitimized right wing views and opened the road for liberal takeover of the west.

The war might've still been won had Hitler not tried to micromanage and cause a series of blunders.

Going to Kiev instead of Moscow in autumn 1941, not stopping before Moscow and digging in when winter had come, firing the professional old guard of the general staff after 1941, diverting army group B to Stalingrad, launching the suicidal Kursk offensive, firing Manstein, giving HIMLER command of the army, not negotiating a separate peace with the Soviets.... the list goes on.

I'll admit that the regime as a whole made a serious mistake by not launching total mobilization in 1940 or 1941, they only began in 1943 when the war was already lost.

The war never had to happen. He didn't need to invade Poland for Danzig. He could've simply bided his time, build up German forces and industry, built up and incorporate Romania, Hungary and the Balkans into his German sphere and wait for Britain to lose its Empire. Ideally, financing independence movements in the British colonies.

Instead he launched a suicidal war that lead to the occupation of Europe by American and Soviet forces.

Yes, he was a great leader and a true patriot. But he was a man who grasped beyond his abilities. He was a enlisted soldier who tried to act like a Field marshal, and failed. His failure not only lead to the destruction of Germany, but the potential death of Western civilization.

Hitler's life is an example of how importance class is. His blunder is what happens when the reins of power are taken by the working class, rather than the well bred middle and upper classes. In a weird way, the nazi revolution was the word's first working class revolution.

[–]Ethnosomniator 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Low IQ take extraordinaire. He fought, he lost. Only he who dares wins. And he had to dare, as the russian warmachine was set to overrun everthing east of Madrid. "Remember not to fight, goy!" And armchair generalship is trivial.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'd advise you look at a map of Europe but you're probably too dim to understand it. The Soviet union was separated from Germany by Poland. It acted as the perfect buffer for Germany. If the Soviets actually invaded, then Poland would be on the German side and they'd have 38 million extra population on their side. Not to mention the Allies would never allow the Soviets to take over all of Europe.

It was always british policy to prevent a continental hegemon. The nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima essentially to warn Stalin against further expansion. The Normandy invasions had the same purpose.

Stalin deliberately refrained from attacking Europe because he realized this fact. A soviet invasion would be met by a united Western European response and Moscow would fall for real. Thus he patiently waited for the Germans to start a war with France and fracture Western Europe, so it would be ripe for the taking.

Unfortunately for him, he like everyone else at the time predicted a long war of attrition like WW1 that would bleed the Germans dry. The Germans instead overran France in 6 weeks at the cost of just 27k dead. This resulted in the nightmare scenario of Stalin having to face them alone and at full of strength.

Still, Stalin planned an invasion of Germany eventually, the red army was wholly offensively oriented. The T-26 tanks were made to traverse the roads of Germany and the IL-2 plane was made to interdict German ground forces. However, preparations would only be complete by 1942 and Hitler attacked one year earlier.

Had he not started this foolish war, despite the British guarantee to Poland, Stalin would never have gotten the chance. Poland at the time was explicitly an anti-communist military dictatorship that had fought a war with the USSR as recent as 1920.

[–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Now your edgy low IQ take swoops in for an encore. Poland was no buffer for anyone because it was small in all relevant criteria (landmass as physical buffer, soldiers, good officers, equipment, economic output), chaotic and it was losing the fight against its own enemies within. The bitter truth was this: Poland was bound to be a victim in a conflict between giants. Under Pilsudski they might have co-aligned, sure and that was probably one of Hitler's great regrets.

Even if we pretend that Germany (along with the SU) would not have attacked it and the serious ethnic problems could have been deferred, Poland's chaotic nationalism somehow soothed and it's jewish problem (even though Poland enacted a bunch of literally anitsemitic laws it was all but done) magically disappeared. Stalin commanded a never before weaponised amount of resources and enjoyed vast influence in a Europe that was on the brink of boiling over. He certainly did not wish to waltz through Poland into Germany although his army was large enough that neither Poland nor Germany could have done anything against just that. Stalin would have started a diversion, an escalation, a crisis that might have forced Germany's hand just like it did in 39. In fact, the anti German national fervor probably WAS Stalin's or rather the jew led NKVD's evil work. But all major powers feared the newcomer and tried to reassure Poland they'd help in any conflict which the new political generation simply naively believed.

The nuclear bomb was the only magic device that accomplished what the toothless brits, who already checked out of world history never managed to do on the continent. You seriously overerestimate the US' capabilities, the Brits feebleness, the French disinterest in losing another generation while underestimating the Russian war machine. Until the actual deployment of Fat Man & Little Boy, world diplomacy was completely unaware of its capabilities. So that's not only not an argument, it's either deep ignorance or a talmudic angle from your side.

But then you admit that Stalin was preparing his move for 42, a conservative (if not kosher) estimate by analysts - could have been earlier. Stalin assumed quite logically that his best play was a massive attack from behind, while Germany was occupied in the west. Poland's quick loss in 39 was caused partly from the SU deception because its strategy assumed Stalin to be an ally. So the MO was already established. But even in the worst case he would have had no trouble at all creating an ethnic casus belli, then blitzing through Poland, Germany and France in a couple of weeks, because his numerical advantage was that vast.

Hitlers troops did, in fact, save Europe and remove the jewish influence from Poland (who would be pretty much on par with the Ukraine right now in terms of orderliness and jewish dominance) through their sacrifice.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're writing makes it abundantly clear that you're a teenager

[–]Nasser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok after in the short term which of the West German Chancellors would say is most to blame?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Ethnosomniator 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Rather the opposite

    [–]Bagarmoossen 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    Which chancellor is most responsible for massive immigration into Germany? Adolf Hitler. His extreme incompetence and insane military goals have wrecked Germany's demographic potential by killing off a vast proportion of the male youth. In fact the Gastarbeiter Program was implemented in the mid 50s due to extreme labour shortages due to young gemans having been genocided in a scale not seen since the 30 year war. Also anti-racism, globalism and other jewish idologies were strengthened by the horror show that Nazism caused in Europe. Not to talk about the genocide of European Russia (how ironic that the most "racially nordic" areas of Russia were the ones most depopulated by the nazi invasion during the war, forever shifting the Russian genetic makeup towards the south and east).

    Moreover, Nazism itself was a degenerate, massified political movement. Instead of preserving regional traditions, it erased them in favour of an artificial, anti-historical and anti-christian personality cult.

    If we include the descendants of Eastern Aussiedler, the genetic makeup of Germany proper (especially western Germany) has changed unlike that of any other country in the last 80 years. This has created a nation of people cut off from their historic roots and alienated from their regional cultures. Modern Germany has been shaped by the catastrophic Nazi failure, and no subsequent chancellor has done nearly as much damage, by a long shot.

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    No Slavs were ever killed for being Slavs by Nazis. A genocidal goal of exterminating 'subhuman" slavs is Soviet propaganda. What ever the true death toll is it was caused by war and the USSR's lack of resources to keep its population alive during the struggle not mass murder policies.

    They did not erase regional tradition but they rejected any separate nationalist ideology for the various regions of Germany which is a good thing and few Germans had any interest in such things. We need less petty nationalism not more. The real issue for Nazism is it wasn't massified enough and exclusively focused on a new Germany rather than a larger more marketable new Europe goal.

    Mass immigration is not just a German issue, in fact Germany is currently better off than many other Western European countries. If Hitler is the cause of German migration policies why is the UK, France, and Sweden even worse? If you are going to blame Nazis for todays immigration problems then you don't understand the liberal capitalist system which was already heading in this direction.

    [–]Bagarmoossen 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I obviously don't think the Nazis were the sole cause of our current problems but their incompetence and madness has made pro-european and anti-jewish politics unviable for generations. Only now the effects of that trauma are just starting to recede.

    Some of the intentions were good, and the sentiments that gave rise to it were mostly positive, but fatal mistakes were made that assured Adolf Hitler would enter the history books as a supervillain figure. Too many of his decisions were simply awful, it's likely he was just batshit insane. As another user pointed out, he was uncultured, fanatic, low class and that was showing in his actions.

    Anti-Slavism was absolutely a part of the German völkisch movement at the time, the Nazis brought it to the extreme, in fact one of the reasons for the loss in the war was the fact that instead of embracing the millions of easterners who were ready to welcome Germans as liberators from bolshevism the german leadership decided to treat them like cattle. Nazis treated slavs as if they were negroes.

    [–]Ethnosomniator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "because he lost we have to suffer, if only he did not put up a fight...." Really shortsighted.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    No Slavs were ever killed for being Slavs by Nazis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Poles_by_Nazi_Germany

    This is Eric Striker tier denialism

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Expulsions are not equivalent to extermination.

    [–]asterias 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    A genocidal goal of exterminating 'subhuman" slavs is Soviet propaganda.

    A genocidal campaign did take place under the Pavelic regime. Not to mention the Gertrude plan.

    The situation in Poland is what made Wilhelm Canaris object to the goals of the war.

    [–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well Merkel certainly made it worse but this presents the issue in a false way. There is no successful Western country that is not experiencing mass immigration. This doesn't happen because the wrong politician or party got into "power". Many different leaders and parties have been in charge and migrations flows continue. The forces driving this exist above the system.

    [–]Ethnosomniator 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Merkel is an abysmal chancelor, as was her predecessor. Both are beautiful examples of the kosher sandwich, how it works and the surreal consequences, cultural copes and dissonances.

    "the economy is down, we HAVE to take in those highly educated refugees to get out of the hole! Also, as liberals we need to see the humanitarian side of things",

    "the economy is booming, now is the time to take in highly educated refugees and see our profits rise! Also, as cuckstians, we need to be good christians and open our doors and hearts"

    [–]Mr_Tee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    I don't know much about post-War Chancellors, but I can say I do not like Willy Brandt. Helmut Schmidt, a German of Jewish ancestry on his father's side somewhat admitted the mistakes of immigration and multikulti. And Merkel...well she's pretty modern, so I've got no shit to throw at her.

    [–]Nasser[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Was Schmidt the Chancellor who opened the country to mass non white immigration?

    What's bad about Brandt?

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Ethnosomniator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Kohl certainly had to kowtow to economy bosses and the cowboy but his vision alone united Germany. That is rare today and that makes him probably the best one. The others are either a mixed bag (Schmidt, Brandt), horrible or difficult to gage (Adenauer)

      [–]Nasser[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Who would say is horrible?

      [–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Again, merkel and schröder certainly were horrible.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Ethnosomniator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        You can't really fault him for the exploitation because no leader now goes that far into the economical weeds. His advisors fucked up and in a better world they would be executed like they do it in China with administrative failure of the highest level. Why they did not take Königsberg I don't know. of course I would have wished a transaction of that kind to have taken place. On the other hand, Kohl wanted to send the Turks home, his senility (probably due to his fatness) prevented him from play a more prominent role in his final years.