The wrong side won WW2.

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

In all of human history, whenever another military invades a country and defeats them, it usually stems from the fact that they brought superior technology and civilization with them. It explains why the Romans, Achaemenids, Mongols & the British Empires were so great. They greatly elevated the status of any backwards people they found and tried to assimilate them into stronger cultures.

But with WW2, there now exists so much evidence that German/Italy & Japan losing the war was actually bad for us all. A complete anachronism that future historians will have difficulty explaining.

My reasons for this stem not from whether Germany or Japan were brutal in the war, but the fact that it was actually the Allies winning that has caused more suffering than Hitler or Tojo could ever dream of. Things like:

-The complete and utter backstabbing of South Africa & Rhodesia. Britain had designated their own former colonies as evil, despite the fact they forced many White Africans to fight in a war that had nothing to do with them. How was their service repaid? By telling the White soldiers that their nations will be sanctioned unless they elect a 100% black government. They refused, and the end result is Rhodesia completely ceased to exist, and South Africa transformed into a 3rd world warzone overnight. To make matters worse, both the USA, China and USSR pre-emptively declared war on them. So what was even the point of joining WW2, if all your allies ganged up on you when it ended?

-With Germany defeated in Europe, the world was now forced into either two systems. Join Communism and starve to death, or join Capitalism and transform into neo-Brazil with fears of race mixing, LGBT propaganda, Feminism, mass immigration, out of control violence and non-stop consumerism. Any third option was declared "inhumane" or "racist" by the United Nations, and with the Soviets already collapsed, it appears only one system is left. The mass immigration/rampant capitalism one.

-Speaking of superior technology, it was undeniably the Germans who was catapulting humanity forward with new inventions. It's not a surprise that both the USA & USSR were desperate to capture any German scientists as the war was ending. The most notorious being the German scientists who developed the V-2 Rockets.

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

In fact, it makes me a bit annoyed when I read some DAR members who come out against Space exploration, when every bit of technology that even allowed us to go into Space came from the brainchild of Wernher von braun. If Germany had won the war, there is no doubt that Space exploration would have been considered a major government bureau, and by the 2020s, we would have had several Martian colonies by now.

-Japan was inevitably the better Asian superpower than China was. Even in spite of the claims of how excessively brutal Japan was, when China succeeded them, their new communist government ended up killing an estimated 55 million Chinese people. Nobody wants to live in China. Not even Chinese people. Hence why they now immigrate to Western countries and made their real estate expensive. Meanwhile, everyone wants to live in Japan so badly, that Japan has to put harsh limits on immigration so as to not lose their own country.

-Human health and environmentalism have declined significantly since WW2. Because dysgenics gets promoted over eugenics, the worst dregs of human society have been allowed to reproduce freely, whereas Men of good character and fitness are being shunned. Obesity, mental illness, drug overdosing, transgender mutilations are all driving society into the ground. And with environmentalism, Humanity is clearly facing a climate change crisis. And because both liberals & conservative politicians support massive immigration from the third world, it will be impossible to cool the planet, when every Somali & Afghan refugee are given gas guzzling cars, or use up tons of electricity to heat their homes in the Winter.

-But overall, the real reason for why the Allies winning WW2 is such a disaster, is because all our worst fears finally came true. The topic of "racial identity" has been completely censored and subdued, only for the pseudo-scientific myth of "equality" to be promoted in every Western nation, and eventually the world. Men & Women commit vastly different crime rates, but everyone knows it's biology that causes this. But saying Blacks and Whites commits different crime rates gets you fired from jobs, blacklisted from employers, and now with social media, you face humiliation on the world stage. The damage being caused by race denial has reached all levels of government. In countries like Canada, Billions of dollars are being wasted to rename streets that were based on old white people, instead of using that money to defend historical monuments and buildings that get torched by protestors. There has never been a country in a human history that has perfected diversity, or even shown us how is it possible to make every single human being "equal" right down to the DNA level, yet we are now forced to accept these lies since the other options are being called "a Nazi".

top 100 commentsshow all 173
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Richard_Parker 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I have grave misgivings about Hitler, Himmler and the rest, both in terms of military incompetence at a strategy level as well as morally repugnant leadership both with respects to Eastern Europe and as well as Germans themselves. Those misgivings are not at the directive of things like the ADL, but of the sort that German officers and soldiers quite correctly had.

Notwithstanding that, Nazis were the least of all evils I spite of all that, and it just gets worse and worse as the true toll of the Allies way of doing things continues to unfold.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I had the same reservations about the German military as well, but at the same time, I now realize there were some things that no one could have predicted would go wrong.

Hitler probably expected Britain to join the Axis when he spared Dunkirk, which could have saw the entire Western world go to war with the Soviets. But since that condition was never met, Germany was left in a position to invade anyway, since Stalin was just waiting to do the same.

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

I have no reservations about the German military as a whole--just the political leadership. There were a few bad apples though, both soldiers and officers. Read Tapping Hitler's Generals as well as memoirs by Guderian or Manstein, or Frasier's biography on Rommel. On the other hand you have a campaign firebombing that deli Westley targeted civilization population, comp!iciry with wholesale murder, rape and expulsion of Germans by the Red Army, etc.

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

I feel world history was greatly altered when King Edward abdicated. He was in love with Wallis Simpson who was secretly a man. He was based and pro hitler but yeah he was gay and if not for that England would have joined Germany in the war.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not a chance in hell. The monarchy had about as much real power in England then as it does today. In fact George VI hated Churchill and had Nazi sympathies himself. That's why Hess was addressing the letter he carried to Scotland to him and not to a government official.

It changed nothing.

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

you're probably right but compare George's doing of nothing to Edwards working with the nazis thru back channels during the war, and Hitler was going to reinstate him as king if they won. And the royal family still has power, the politicians in UK are just for show, of course Rothschild tells the royal family what to do, but Edward got forced out partly because he wouldn't go along with it.

[–]Salos60000Pragmatic European Nationalism 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I recommend if you want to have this view substantially challenged you should try to post it on the reddit change my view subreddit. Though it would probably cost your account and potentially place you on a watchlist so use a vpn or post at your own risk.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would be pulled down in minutes.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was actually going to do that, but as Richard_Parker said, it would get deleted.

I was actually motivated to write this after I saw this thread on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/pq4p7a/ontarios_diversity_is_astounding/

700 post thread that was whining about White Canadians. I've never seen such BS in my life, yet we now see that bad guys have won.

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

Maybe a cut and paste. I would not spend too much time writing a variation expounding on this because it would likely just get deleted.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (68 children)

it usually stems from the fact that they brought superior technology and civilization

South Africa transformed into a 3rd world warzone overnight.

Meanwhile, everyone wants to live in Japan so badly, that Japan has to put harsh limits on immigration so as to not lose their own country.

Human health and environmentalism have declined significantly since WW2.

But overall, the real reason for why the Allies winning WW2 is such a disaster, is because all our worst fears finally came true. The topic of "racial identity" has been completely censored and subdued,

These are false statements. Though I appreciate that this is a debate sub, and that I should offer an argument and evidence in response to these interesting points, it would take an hour to write up a proper response, and I don't have an hour, nor do I think anyone really wants to read my arguments. But for what it's worth, here are a couple of concerns:

OP's argument could be addressed thoughtfully, and there are a number of books on it, though the factual errors would have to be removed from the argument in order for it to be an informative approach.

Authoritarian regimes like that in Germany and Japan also existed in previous centuries, and one could compare portions of those regimes to see what they might like about each, or especially what they might not like. In modern history, the French Revolution substantially changed Western public perception about the way they could deal with authoritarian oppression. As for China, however, there has always been some form of authoritarian leadership in that region. Indeed, it's argued that they've not been as competitive with the West militaristically because of their authoritarian abuses and lack of initiative to innovate (until recently). German fascism, much like Italian fascism, was a mass worker program (regardless of what one sees in documentaries that focus so much on other problems of fascism), meant to develop national interests. Hardly anyone in that form of society had any freedom to speak of. They were all worker bees. This was the same for Imperial Japan, and today, working conditions for the Japanese are brutal, though they put up with it. What people seem to forget is that post-war US was remarkably successful because young people could get home loans, decent jobs sufficient for the man of the house (and some women, but not by much), and the benefits of the New Deal enacted a few years earlier, along with industrialization, favorable trade with other countries and so much more made the US the richest in the world for decades. Isenhower Conservatism also helped, though it was not 'progressive'. Since the early 1980s, that balancing act between Democrats and Republicans has come to a screeching halt, now with money in politics. There are some Democrats who are however working for the 99%. If Germany had won the war, and if that authoritarianism had continued, life in much of Europe would have been much like that in China today. If however Germany and Japan defeated Russia, England, Canada, and the US abroad, they'd still would have had to invade the US, England and the rest of Russia in order to maintain government leadership. It would have been a bloodbath and would not have succeeded very well if at all. Military conflicts are won with logistical strategy, much more than with "superior technology and civilization." Germany and Japan could never have won in the long term, thanks especially to Russia and the US. Moreover, authoritarian regimes don't work in the long term. They're weak. Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (55 children)

Moreover, authoritarian regimes don't work in the long term. They're weak. Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

Democracies divide the nation by design, though. It seems you have your entire argument backwards.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (54 children)

Democracies divide the nation by design

Not in the least. I wonder why anyone would believe this.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

Because when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides. Over time, this leads to increasing diversity of opinions and interests, until a state of absolute and total fragmentation is reached. The Western world has already advanced very far along this line of development. Even in the 1940s, you can read plenty of material describing how British leftist intellectuals were cheering at every defeat Nazi Germany would inflict upon their country, because even though they desperately wanted to see fascism defeated, they wanted the Soviet Union to do that, not their homeland.

Individualist democracies endlessly divide the nation. This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants who rely on the weakness of others rather than on their own strength. By playing off different factions against each other, the rule of money remains intact. Properly authoritarian regimes embody the opposite principle, where every disparate element is united in authority, by authority, for the common good.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

when you put up something for debate, by definition you are creating different sides.

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

This makes them the most convenient form of government for plutocrats and tyrants

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship. Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

No - the different sides already existed before the debate, and before the democracy. One can find common ground in debates and in democracies, as has happened quite often.

Your first statement is technically correct, but that's precisely what makes my argument strong and yours weak. Democracy absolutises "the debate" with its different sides, its contradictions and its oppositions. On the other hand, an authoritarian system provides a superior unity which stands above any debates and any disagreements. In other words, it provides what some reactionary thinkers refer to as the "centre". Whatever disagreements there may be "democratically", on the horizontal plane, in the end of the day the entirety of society remains loyal to the vertical centre. If you remove that centre, then naturally the diverging horizontal forces will eventually rip the polity apart.

Your second statement is just wrong. What is sometimes, and only sometimes, reached in democracies, is compromise, not common ground. In the democratic system, plutocratic elements rule with impunity until their excesses provoke a massive and threatening reaction from below. In such cases, a "compromise" is reached as a way to secure the future of the plutocracy. This compromise is unilaterally defined and implemented by the elite, who address or ignore popular concerns at their leisure. It is in this light that reforms like the New Deal, the welfare state etc are to be understood.

No - because a true democracy can limit their power. This is civics 101.

Really? Who are the true democrats, then, the anarchists? In theory, the plutocratic elite could decide to follow the principles they espouse and demolish their own power. Of course, this will never happen, because liberal democracy is a completely cynical system by design.

You do not have a good argument for the benefits of the authoritarian regime, and you'd be miserable in one. If you want someone to dictate all of your choices, there are places where you can get that kind of lifestyle. But generally, no one who wants the 'common good' wants a dictatorship.

Liberal democrats are already trying to dictate everyone's life choices, often with the specific intention of spreading misery and demoralisation. It is on them to give "good arguments" for the existence of their self-annihilating system, since I am yet to see any.

Read On Revolution by Hannah Arendt if you are curious, and perhaps her book, The Human Condition.

You probably could not name a person I consider to be farther from my thinking and from what I consider to be the truth than Hannah Arendt.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

You're conflating Democrats and democracy in some of this. If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it. I see there is no common ground here about the importance of a democracy. With the wise of authoritarian leaders around the world, there are plenty of places for you to consider living, where you won't have to worry about democracy. But don't go to those places if you like your way of life in the US, brought to you by the democratic republic. But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

If we're discussing democracy, you must know that the US is an inclusive, wealthy, leading nation because of it.

For sure. Bourgeois systems relentlessly pursue the generation of wealth at the expense of everything else. How that wealth is spent and distributed is, of course, an entirely different question.

But I also hope you don't believe what you've written to the extent that you would join anti-democratic groups and movements. This creates division.

In my opinion, this is the type of hypocrisy that really decisively discredits democracy. Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions I wish, join whatever movements I wish and hold whatever divisive opinions I wish? You would think that these things would fall under the category of "freedom of thought", but of course, that is not the case, because "freedom of thought" is merely a cynical slogan.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Is it not my democratic right to hold whatever opinions...

No one suggested this. No one is attacking your "freedoms". Rather than worry about any of that, think about the Big Corp and wealthy influencers who've lied to you about the dangers of democracy, so that you'll support the corporate destruction of that democracy. Hence my comment that "I hope you don't believe" that nonsense, but I am not telling you not to believe the corporate propaganda. If however you want to promote that anti-democratic propaganda, then you don't want to promote freedom, and the US may not be the place for you. For example, Steven Seagal moved to Russia, perhaps because he didn't like the US.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

Unfortunately, I am forced to conclude that you lack self-awareness and reading comprehension.

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

No - because a true democracy can limit their power.

Democracy doesn't limit their power, it only masks their power. It creates the illusion that power is centralized in the State and that the people have influence over the State by voting. NGOs, corporate/final elites, Zionists, etc, these are the areas where real power lies and they weld it over the State.

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

None of this is related to the standard approach of a 'representative democracy' as the US calls itself. It's a type of governance with the potential to limit corruption, abuse &c. When it's not working, there is corruption. It's that simple.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Who is pushing all this bullshit like CRT, BLM, LGBTQ, etc.? The Democrats who stand for "democracy". It all causes division.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Jews

[–]Rob3122 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Correct! Because they own damn near every single piece of shit politician that we have in this country. They're doing the same thing in every white European country too. The jews are the cancer to the human race

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lol yep

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No - it stands for inclusion, free speech, the American Dream, etc, etc. Those pushing hatred for others are trying to divide people. These special groups want to be included. GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included. (Edit cross through 'special')

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

GOP and "alt right" want to sow hatred and division between groups, to let them know they aren't included.

I have a question for you? Can you explain why this "racist" Nazi is sitting next to a room full of black people?

https://files.catbox.moe/g36m8r.jpg

That's the infamous George Rockwell, and yet he had no hatred for Malcolm X. Both leaders wanted the same thing. Racial separation. Yet their requests were denied. What makes one side more hateful than other, when they were both willing to agree to it back then?

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

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples. There is a field of history called, micro history, but it's mainly focused on providing more information about a context, rather than taking examples out of context. I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again - you've plucked from history a micro-example - indeed just a person - to make a very broad point that cannot be argued with micro examples.

No, it's a pretty major example. Segregation had not actually been outlawed in the U.S, hence why Malcolm X & Rockwell were allowed to support their ideas and even opposed the government from taking it all away.

It's like saying the alt-right today is a micro example of anti-immigration, even though Joe Biden or Trump talked about it when they were in office.

I am also not a fan of Malcolm X, who was critical of the Civil Rights movement, preferring - where possible - relatively violent methods of change.

And why do you think that was? He was a black man, so it can't be "white supremacism" that the media likes to smear.

Maybe... just maybe, he wanted racial separation because it was the more moral option? Giving blacks their own country would mean Blacks would be in charge of their own governments, their own schools, their own police force, their own hospitals. No one would be able to pin the blame on Whites or complain they were somehow a bad influence.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What makes any of those groups "special"? They are trying to push all the bullshit I mentioned in schools to kids. Kids like Democrats act on emotion. Teaching them CRT is teaching them to hate. BLM...I don't even need to explain that bullshit. LGBTQ is trying to convert children to be gay and tranny freaks. Chaos is all it creates which is why the jew scum are pushing it through all the Democrats they own.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This changes the argument.

The argument is about inclusion, not about who is 'special'.

The argument is not about Democrats, but about democracy.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said they were special. I asked why and you didn't answer...instead YOU changed the argument. You don't even know what democracy is, all you know is Jewocracy posing as democracy. Wake up!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Though I've called these groups 'special' the point remains that the topic is 'inclusion', not 'special'. I've now edited the statement so that 'special' is crossed out. You don't have to focus on the 'special' word, but instead consider the argument about inclusion.

It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division? Does the group that wants to exclude other groups want division? Think about it, rather than worry about an unrelated word. Don't fall for the right-wing divisive propaganda. They don't want unity and exclusion. They want to divide and take your money and that of the 99%. They're robbing you.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know the Republicans don't want it either. But they're not pushing all the catering to negroids, they're not pushing CRT, they're certainly not pushing the acceptance of gay and tranny shit. All that shit causes division.

"It's basic logic, Rob: who wants division? Does the group that wants inclusion also want division". The group that lies to your fucking face and then turns around and does the opposite. Just look at BLM. The dems cater to that bullshit movement and then what do they do? They make sure the attorney general's and judges keep letting the negroids who are shooting people back onto the street. Then they act surprised when the shoot and/or kill again.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

These are false statements. Though I appreciate that this is a debate sub, and that I should offer an argument and evidence in response to these interesting points, it would take an hour to write up a proper response, and I don't have an hour, nor do I think anyone really wants to read my arguments.

Summarize your points. It's actually a meme that long debate =/= good. If you can type a rebuttal using just a few words, I would be impressed.

. German fascism, much like Italian fascism, was a mass worker program (regardless of what one sees in documentaries that focus so much on other problems of fascism), meant to develop national interests. Hardly anyone in that form of society had any freedom to speak of. They were all worker bees.

This ignores what German "freedom" looked like before Hitler. The country was saddled with massive debt, with certain German cities being host for Communist violence. Hitler had revitalized his nation and restored dignity to the German people, instead of being slaves to the Treaty of Versailles or risking Soviet takeover.

If Germany had won the war, and if that authoritarianism had continued, life in much of Europe would have been much like that in China today.

The similarities come to an end when you realize Germany has always been a better place to live than China was. Why is this? German culture is still much more friendlier and hospitable. China sees it citizens as something to exploit and make the one party system rich. The German Elites were still interested in seeing Men getting married and producing big families. They also gave everyone a free car or helped subsidize it. A much better roadplan for the future than the current Capitalist & Socialist dynamics that favor keeping everyone a slave forever.

Military conflicts are won with logistical strategy, much more than with "superior technology and civilization."

Superior strategy derives from having a super civilization. The Zulu or Native Indians quickly fell to the Europeans because they possessed neither. That's a fact.

Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

Democracy only works when nations are homogenous. In Japan it's ok where everyone is Japanese and the politicians represent them, but in countries like Canada or the U.S, that imports millions of third worlders a year, you end up with special interest groups who must be pandered in order to be elected.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Summarize your points

I did.

This ignores what German "freedom" looked like before Hitler.

This is an interesting point, and there are important books on the way in which the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII, and various arguments against it. Regardless: none of this gave Germany the right to annex countries, ship undesirables to camps, and invade Russia (REAL stupid). Germany was on the path to rebuild, and was not bothered when it annexed some of the initial territories. Thus your argument should also address the ways in which Germany fucked up.

Germany has always been a better place to live than China was.

Not true, and it's not appropriate to compare those very different territories. If you read about "German" history, you'll see that it's been remarkably divided into competing sections well into the 19th century.

Superior strategy derives from having a super civilization. The Zulu or Native Indians quickly fell to the Europeans because they possessed neither. That's a fact.

No - it's not a fact. There are numerous examples of military successes that were due to logistics and strategy by a group that might not have been considered a "super civilization". Consider Khanate invasions, for example. Before gunpowder, the equestrian warrior was unstoppable across much of Eurasia.

Democracy only works when nations are homogenous. In Japan it's ok, but in countries like Canada or the U.S, that imports millions of third worlders a year, you end up with special interest groups who must be pandered in order to be elected.

Absolutely not true. Democracies work especially in diverse countries. Ask anyone in the Uyghur community if they'd prefer democracy to the genocide of their people by the government of China. Minorities often suffer in authoritarian countries.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I did.

You took excerpts on South Africa, Human Health, Environmentalism and a Racially Egalitarian society but provided no rebuttals. So answer them now.

This is an interesting point, and there are important books on the way in which the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII, and various arguments against it. Regardless: none of this gave Germany the right to annex countries, ship undesirables to camps, and invade Russia (REAL stupid). Germany was on the path to rebuild, and was not bothered when it annexed some of the initial territories. Thus your argument should also address the ways in which Germany fucked up.

Britain had waged its own imperialist wars, and the Soviets had also been just as guilty as expanding (hell, they invaded Poland twice. In 1920, and again in 1939). Looks like Hitler was just copying what everyone else was doing back then except only they were demonized for it.

Not true, and it's not appropriate to compare those very different territories. If you read about "German" history, you'll see that it's been remarkably divided into competing sections well into the 19th century.

What makes China a better place? It can't be wealth because they were always poor. And if the Covid virus they just inflicted on the world tells us something, it means they're not very sanitary either. So be my guest and go live in China if you think it was always paradise, when not even Chinese people wish to stay there.

No - it's not a fact. There are numerous examples of military successes that were due to logistics and strategy by a group that might not have been considered a "super civilization". Consider Khanate invasions, for example. Before gunpowder, the equestrian warrior was unstoppable across much of Eurasia.

I literally named the Mongols in the OP, who I consider superior. You need more examples or else your paragraph is a lie.

Edit: Also, the Mongols were known for more than just horses. They did understand biological warfare, even though it was a shady and dangerous tactic.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/biological-weapon/Biological-weapons-in-history

Absolutely not true. Democracies work especially in diverse countries. Ask anyone in the Uyghur community if they'd prefer democracy to the genocide of their people by the government of China. Minorities often suffer in authoritarian countries.

That's a fallacy. You're saying democracy can't have genocide? A majority group couldn't just vote for the same thing? Democracy is mob rule, and it's made worse when immigration is used to bloat voter count.

If the entire population of Africa moved to Japan today, the Japanese would never be able to vote themselves to power. A 100 million Japanese votes would still fail next to 1 billion African votes. The only solution would be for Japan to close their borders if they want to keep representation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Looks like Hitler was just copying what everyone else was doing back then except only they were demonized for it.

No - that's certainly not what happened. In 5 or 10 minutes you can see on Wikipedia the trajectory of development in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

What makes China a better place? It can't be wealth because they were always poor. And if the Covid virus they just inflicted on the world tells us something, it means they're not very sanitary either. So be my guest and go live in China if you think it was always paradise, when not even Chinese people wish to stay there.

So the debate has ended, has it? No China was not always poor. For centuries it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and is quite wealthy now. Income inequality has been a bit of a problem, but that's true also for Germans.

I literally named the Mongols in the OP, who I consider superior. You need more examples or else your paragraph is a lie.

Also false. Mongols, Gauls, and numerous tribes of other continents. are certainly not considered to have developed "superior civilization" and technology to those of many of the lands they conquered. It's not a reliable argument. For example, Khanate Samarkand developed not because of the Mongol invasions, but because of the Islamic civilization that was there already.

That's a fallacy. You're saying democracy can't have genocide? A majority group couldn't just vote for the same thing? Democracy is mob rule, and it's made worse when immigration is used to bloat voter account.

As with your other comments, none of this is true. Democracy is certainly not "mob rule", especially in the electoral and checks and balances system of the US, which is more of a republic than a democracy.

If the entire population of Africa moved to Japan today, the Japanese would never be able to vote themselves to power. A 100 million Japanese votes would still fail next to 1 billion African votes. The only solution would be for Japan to close their borders if they want to keep representation.

I don't think anyone is seriously discussing this kind of scenario, for any country. Your comments here and above appear to indicate that you want to blame social difficulties in a society on blacks. This doesn't help the general argument.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No - that's certainly not what happened. In 5 or 10 minutes you can see on Wikipedia the trajectory of development in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

So what DID happen then? You don't seem to care that the Soviets or Imperial Britain had waged their own wars and annexed territory for themselves. Had Hitler won, you would not be making the same arguments because history is written by the victor.

So the debate has ended, has it? No China was not always poor. For centuries it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and is quite wealthy now. Income inequality has been a bit of a problem, but that's true also for Germans.

China did not even have railroads before the Germans did, but you want to convince me that China was some beacon of prosperity? You're losing this debate right now...

Actually, you want to know something funny? If China was so great, why did they have to reach out to Germany for modernization? Shouldn't it have been the Germans who needed civilizing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_(1926%E2%80%931941)

Also false. Mongols, Gauls, and numerous tribes of other continents. are certainly not considered to have developed "superior civilization" and technology to those of many of the lands they conquered.

Uh, the Gauls got conquered by Rome. And please stop saying "numerous". Actually name the tribes you are talking about or your claims are baseless.

As with your other comments, none of this is true. Democracy is certainly not "mob rule", especially in the electoral and checks and balances system of the US, which is more of a republic than a democracy.

Except Democracy exists at a municipal level. Who do you think elects mayors or governors? And when you have a majority of people who identify with one group, it absolutely turns into a mob. A majority black city like Detroit votes exclusively for black politicians who are openly Democrat.

I don't think anyone is seriously discussing this kind of scenario, for any country.

No, that's absolutely what immigration and democracy leads to. There are more Africans on this planet than there are Japanese. An unrestricted border policy would mean any politician can invite them in and curate a new voting bloc to stay power.

Similarly, in Canada, the majority of new immigrants are coming from India. India has a billion people, yet the average Canadian can not compete against such a larger population via birth rates. As a result, various ethnic enclaves have showed up in recent years, and they exclusively vote in one direction (liberal).

Your comments here and above appear to indicate that you want to blame social difficulties in a society on blacks. This doesn't help the general argument.

I rather take aim at liberal immigration policies that invited black people to live next to predominately white societies, and created ethnic and social strife. If black people don't want to be blamed... WHY don't stay in their own continent where they wont be surrounded by non-black people? It's a solution that keeps every group happy.

However, they sure as hell will be blamed for social difficulties, when increasing black immigration has lead to disproportionate crime rates and violent protesting. Don't want to be blamed? Then don't move next to Whites...

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

Again - you're taking minute examples from history and making arguments about them that do not work because they're not only out of context, the arguments made here are completely avoiding the context. In order to discuss any of this, I'd have to write a history text. I recommend you read about the history, rather than make false assumptions about what happened. It's impossible to carry on a discussion that continues with false information. To make your arguments you shift the discussion to other false claims and by the time I've responded to the other false claims, we've left the original discussion, context, history &c. It's simple - Germany was initially allowed to attack and abuse its neighbors, genocide prisoners, put people in churches and burn down the churches - and then some of those countries defended themselves. It's that simple. If you were being bombed in London in 1940, whilst listening to the appeasement nonsense from the prime minister, you wouldn't be saying - well, we did this kind of thing in other countries - so let's let Germany do it to us. And why do you only think of the past 200 years? Perhaps read Edward Said's 'Orientalism'. Almost everything in the East was considered superior to the Western countries before 1700. And no - democracy won't result in a kind of planet of the blacks. That's just not happening. And read about ancient Gaul. Romans had great difficulty dealing with them, so much so that various migrations groups were the most powerful in the 2nd - 6th centuries, and sacked Rome in the process. Any success against Gauls was fleeting. If you hate immigration so much (I also don't like it, but I don't conjure up Hitler as a solution) and you think a Nazi government would deal properly with that problem, consider also the history of migrations. They don't come to a definitive end when an authoritarian is in power. Migrations continue as they have done.

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

It's simple - Germany was initially allowed to attack and abuse its neighbors, genocide prisoners, put people in churches and burn down the churches - and then some of those countries defended themselves.

And the Soviets didn't do this shit either? Before Hitler had came to power, do you know what event was taking place in Ukraine? Millions had died in a manufactured famine. Yet who did Britain & France still decide to ally up with? They went with the Soviets....

And why do you only think of the past 200 years? Perhaps read Edward Said's 'Orientalism'.

Is Egypt considered a superpower now just because the Pyramids are still standing? It's not considered impressive to say China was somehow a good place to live, when the comparison was about the time Hitler had to came power, and what both countries were doing around this period. Case and point, China had seeked out Germany's help first with modernizing, not the other way around. Why would this be, if China had some kind of advantage or parity? Spoiler alert: they fucking didn't.

And no - democracy won't result in a kind of planet of the blacks. That's just not happening.

Just last week, a whole bunch of Haitians showed up at the Texan border uninvited. Border patrol was able to hold them off temporarily, but Liberal politicians and the media wanted them in. Why would they support that, instead of jettisoning them all back to Haiti? Because they want votes, and votes only...

And read about ancient Gaul. Romans had great difficulty dealing with them, so much so that various migrations groups were the most powerful in the 2nd - 6th centuries, and sacked Rome in the process. Any success against Gauls was fleeting.

I'm not sure what your point is. The Gauls put up some resistance. Cool? I would say that makes them at least competent, but that's because Gauls and Romans belonged to the same European race. The gulf in civilization was nowhere as huge, like the spear chucking Zulu vs modern firearms of the British Army.

If you have immigration so much and you think a Nazi government would deal properly with that problem, consider also the history of migrations. They don't come to a definitive end when an authoritarian is in power. They continue as they have done.

If you're not Aryan and decided to illegally immigrate to Nazi Germany, you would not last very long. For starters, every law is race based. Which then leads to politics. The government is made of Germans and put German interests first. You now have to compete for jobs and housing that the German government have complete control over. If you somehow survive this then congratz, you probably are a German. But someone who is Black, or Chinese or Mexican would probably be questioned first, and then forcibly deported for being a complete foreigner.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just some advice: Use more spacing in your replies, to cut them up into more paragraphs. Right now, your reply is basically just unreadable (except for the beginning part, where the spacing was done correctly).

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

It's not unreadable.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

German fascism, much like Italian fascism, was a mass worker program (regardless of what one sees in documentaries that focus so much on other problems of fascism), meant to develop national interests. Hardly anyone in that form of society had any freedom to speak of.

Just liberal propaganda. One of worst aspects about German defeat and conversion to liberal democracy is it helps allow this liberal perception of the world go unchallenged. An authoritarian Germanic nation like Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany became the economic superpowers of Europe. They were extremely innovative and the most industrious nations of Europe. In regards to Imperal Germany they were producing the greatest artists and thinkers in Europe despite not having the same "freedom" as liberal countries supposedly had.

Once Germany was defeated there was no illiberal power to challenge the liberal world view. Every other part of the world had significantly lower living standards so the myth that any system outside liberal democracy is a backwards oppressive dystopia could go unchallenged.

Moreover, authoritarian regimes don't work in the long term. They're weak. Democracies are strong, if we want to consider what has more power, united we stand, and all that.

This is a historically illiterate comment. The entire human history is what we would call authoritarian government with only brief experiments with democracy in the West that usually last a couple hundred years.

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

Have a look at the history of Germany and Italy in the 1930s, and what happened to the workforce in each country. It's easy to locate. No it's not propaganda. It's well known.

Notice that my comment on authoritarian government is contarasted with democracies, meaning that my assessment is post 1800. Moreover, there are numerous examples in history of the instability of authoritarian rule. But my comment is obviously in reference to the past 200 years.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Weren't you defending the US role in blockading and goading Japan into an attack the other day?

Why the sudden shift?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I said in the OP that my issues came from the fallout of losing, not the actual strategies that were employed by one side.

My reasons for this stem not from whether Germany or Japan were brutal in the war, but the fact that it was actually the Allies winning that has caused more suffering than Hitler or Tojo could ever dream of.

Obviously the USA or Britain still had to do what they thought was right back then. But if they saw what their actions had lead to, they would have changed their minds about it.

In fact, there is a great quote of U.S Servicemen who said they didn't want to be in Europe if segregation got abolished.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously the USA or Britain still had to do what they thought was right back then

Lol you mean what the ratkikes telling them to do demanded of their shabbos goys

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I definitely think the Allies were duped into thinking Hitler was a bigger threat then he actually was. Or that they completely misunderstood his intentions.

They created the vacuum with the poorly written treaty of versailles, and demanding excessive reparations that bankrupted the German state. What they didn't realize was that Germany had just fought a civil war against Jewish Communists, and Hitler was basically their reaction against all future Bolshevik aggression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919

In fact, I never learned the last tid bit in school. We were always taught that Hitler was just using Jews as a scapegoat, but completely ignored the fact there was actually a war in Germany that many Jews had took up the opposing side.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (60 children)

In all of human history, whenever another military invades a country and defeats them, it usually stems from the fact that they brought superior technology and civilization with them.

That is incorrect.

In fact, it makes me a bit annoyed when I read some DAR members who come out against Space exploration

I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

That is incorrect.

If you want to build an empire, you're typically going to need the smartest men you can get. Or it comes with a greater advantage instead of just sending Men with clubs to conquer the rival tribe who has the exact same thing. And yes, these civilizations with better technology did uplift the people they conquered.

When Spain & Portugal reached the new world, the Native Indians were still in the Iron Ages. It's only after getting conquered, did they now learn about firearms or how to build multi-story buildings.

Of course, this isn't ALWAYS the case, as I just explained that Germany lost WW2 despite how ambitious they were with new technology. But that should be seen as an exception.

I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

Space exploration is another branch of science. What is science? How humans attempt to understand their surroundings. It's actually pathetic to see Space research shunned, when there could be so much out there that actually explains where we came from, instead of just growing old and dying on this floating space rock like every other human before us.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I don't think space exploration is possible because of the vastness of it and how inhospitable it is for life.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

From 1945 to 1970, we saw the first Satellite launch, the first man in orbit, and the first man on Moon. All that happened thanks to a single German brain.

If all the money that was ever wasted on diversity was used to make multiple clones of Von Braun instead, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

satellites are good tech ok but don't need to space travel for that just shoot those out into orbit. Man never went to the moon, it may be possible but they faked it just because they pocketed all the taxpayer cash at NASA and had to show something for it. Braun was brought over for his knowledge of missile tech, NASA was a cover.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Man never went to the moon, it may be possible but they faked it just because they pocketed all the taxpayer cash at NASA and had to show something for it. NASA was a cover.

A cover for what? Do you think Space is fake or something, considering we've sent astronauts before but some perished on re-entry?

I don't really don't give a damn about tax hoarding. Every government agency does that. If anything, be angry at the military industrial complex since they embezzle a lot more money, yet going to war with the Middle East has done nothing positive for us. As you said, at least NASA gave us Satellites which are good for something.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

hard to say with spoace but the proof that it's a hoax is the coverup, that's how it goes with a lot of conspiracies.

I wouldn't call it tax hoarding I mean I suppose it would be ok if the govt didn't do things detrimental to us. Are the sattellites 100% good? They are used to spy on us.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

China has successfully landed a rover on the moon so I'm not exactly sure why would they try to hide this?

"A white guy went to the moon? Oh shit, we better scrub all evidence of this so a Chinese guy can beat us to it instead"

Are the sattellites 100% good? They are used to spy on us.

And they can also spy on other nations too. I'm sorry, but the anti-space arguments are weak. We only have one life, and life itself is short. Every past generations of humans was given resources to understand the world, but now we're expected to learn nothing about where we actually came from? I can't accept that, sorry.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

lol is this a chinese shill. fun!

I can buy them sending robots to the moon and other planets but no humans are going. Or else show proof. Recently they supposedly had Bezos and Musk sending people into space but can't show footage.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There's a segment of the far-right that appears to be on the low end of the bell curve.

Humans have already gone to Space since 1961. What exactly is the purpose of faking this achievement, when it's no different to getting in an air balloon or airplane and just flying really high?

Are you religious and scared that Men going to space would disprove the bible? Instead of being scared, I would treat it as a chance to possibly meet god or whatever supernatural beings have supposedly visited Earth. This beats getting on your knees and praying since that has no evidence at all!

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

Let's waste endless finite resources to shoot metal into the black sky past the blue sky. They might even find barren rocks to put little RC cars with cameras on, AWESOME SAUCE.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Finite resources only exist on Earth. You are actually making the argument for why space exploration is important.

What happens when we simply run out of stuff here? We'll all just die and have to wait for the next billion years for an intelligent species to evolve again.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

How do you propose efficiently mining asteroids? Are you familiar with the basis of peak resources? There is a point where extracting a particular finite resource becomes untenable because it would cost more resources to extract it than what would be gained thus even if there's still 'billions of litres of oil' it doesn't matter because to extract 1 barrel would cost 1 barrel or more.

Any mining that requires materials and fuel to travel millions of miles through space, then be able to set up mines and transport stuff back isn't even going to begin being anywhere close to efficient. How are you going to power a mine in space? What technology is capable of automatically extracting the resources? Every kg of a metal somehow magically mined from the moon would cost thousands or 10s of thousands. It's legit just ridiculous.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You need to think more pragmatic. I never claimed to hold all the answers to Space, nor did I say it would be solved in a day.

That's the job of private companies or a government agency. We pay people SPECIFICALLY, to brainstorm those problems and answer them.

Like today, the thought of mining an Asteroid might come across as cumbersome and expensive, but what happens 20 years from now when Elon Musk unveils an Asteroid mining machine that does it affordably? Do you just tell him to scrap it?

Humans still have some time left on this planet, so there is no need to RUSH things. Hell, it might even be 500 years before we do send more humans to try and live on another planet. Me and you will both be dead by then, but I rather die knowing some other human generation got a chance to do something cool that I never did, instead of everyone being forced to suffer in the future because we made no plans to ever get off this rock when it was too late.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

it might even be 500 years before we do send more humans to try and live on another planet. Me and you will both be dead by then, but I rather die knowing some other human generation got a chance to do something cool that I never did

How is living on another planet "cool"? Do you have any idea how inconvenient, difficult and unpleasant such a life would be? Not to mention that there is no purpose to doing such a thing.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Scientists have discovered Earth-like planets for a long time. Having a back-up option is good, since our planet could be hit by an asteroid, or a super volcano erupts and covers the entire planet in poisonous soot.

Or it could just be cool to try and live somewhere else. I would love to go vacation on Mars and see how different the environment is compared to our own planet.

Or stay in a Moon hotel. It makes life a lot more interesting knowing there's more to the universe.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This might be impolite to say, but that sounds really superficial.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well as I said before, we only have one life. Any chance at doing something you really like is limited to where you grew up, and how healthy your body is. But once you've hit your expiry date, you disappear from the universe forever.

Billions of humans have all come and gone without being as close to Space technology like we are. Why celebrate being the exact same as dead people, when they themselves would have been impressed at what is currently possible?

I really doubt the German scientists had built those long range rockets just for laughs. Had they lived longer, they would have created a Jetson's future for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JJL8CUfF-o

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

Billions of humans have all come and gone without being as close to Space technology like we are. Why celebrate being the exact same as dead people, when they themselves would have been impressed at what is currently possible?

This seems like a restless and unhealthy mentality to me.

I really doubt the German scientists had built those long range rockets just for laughs.

They built them to blow things up.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Like today, the thought of mining an Asteroid might come across as cumbersome and expensive, but what happens 20 years from now when Elon Musk unveils an Asteroid mining machine that does it affordably? Do you just tell him to scrap it?

You mean what happens when our resources have further been depleted making it even more relatively expensive lol

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sunk cost fallacy.

Every business spends money without actually expecting a return on it.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not the sunk cost fallacy lol

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/

The Sunk Cost Fallacy describes our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.

There's already money being spent on Space research. Probably even more in projects that are hidden behind NDAs.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's already money being spent on Space research. Probably even more in projects that are hidden behind NDAs.

Exactly, so you're into the sunk cost fallacy. I'm not at all concerned about the sunk cost into fake and gay space delusions.

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      Citation needed

      [–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

      That's more or less it, yeah. I just don't see the point. There's way more interesting and relevant stuff here on earth. There's literally nothing to do in space. Even if we create utopian sci-fi level technology while somehow magically avoiding all the possible threats posed by technological progress, I still do not see what could be gained by venturing into space. It's still just a big, empty void. Space colonisation wouldn't really make that much of a difference as a form of "insurance" either, but it would introduce endless complications to everything about our political and economic life.

      [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

      Splendid

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

      That's another thing I find strange.

      >there's a bunch of gas and some big rocks floating in space

      >therefore we are insignificant

      [–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      I've always thought of the insignificant part as a matter of scale, i.e. quantitative rather than qualitative.

      https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0NjQxMzA4OTY1NTQ1OTc0/the-size-of-the-sun-as-compare-to-the-other-stars.jpg

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

      Neil de grasse Tyson popularized this particular brand of stupidity.

      [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      I have no idea what you people see in space exploration.

      Within a couple of hundreds of millions of years from now, the Sun will become so bright that it will boil the Earth, guaranteed to kill all complex life on Earth. In around 5 billion years, when the Sun will start to reach the end of its life cycle, it will massively grow in size and literally swallow the Earth.

      So for people like me, reasons for supporting space exploration aren't just because "it's cool" or "I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE!!", it's literally about survival. If you want the white race, or the human species as a whole, to survive long term (which I do), developing interstellar space travel, and the subsequent colonization of Earth-like exoplanets, will be an absolute necessity.

      Alternatively, we could try to develop highly advanced technology to move the Earth further away from the Sun, and try to harness enough energy from the Sun (with a Dyson sphere or something similar) to be able to actually power this technology, but given how unfeasible this would be even compared to something like interstellar space travel, we're probably better off continuing to focus on developing more advanced and efficient space travel technology in the hope that it will eventually enable us to reach for the stars and spread our posterity all throughout the Galaxy.

      [–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Within a couple of hundreds of millions of years from now, the Sun will become so bright that it will boil the Earth, guaranteed to kill all complex life on Earth.

      To be more specific, its more like 600-1000 million years.

      When considering how quickly humanity has advanced technologically in the past several centurys alone, it is difficult to imagine what they might achieve in several millenia. Especially when realising that the Earth will be ruled by superintelligent agents by then. Civilisation is only about 2500 years old, imagine what it might achieve after 10,000 years. Technologys such as Dyson spheres are utterly impossible with our current technology, but who knows what might happen in several millenia.

      If a civilisation can build a Dyson sphere, then they can influence the evolution of their own home star. There is a hypothetical process called star lifting whereby a portion of a stars mass can be removed from its surface, which lessens the gravitational pressure on its core, which consequently reduces the amount of hydrogen the star must burn. Star lifting could extend the lifespan of a main sequence star far beyond what would normally be possible. It sounds insane, but it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

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

      As far as I am aware, according to the current data, the modern human species is considered to be about one hundred thousands years old. Doesn't it seem excessive to plan "hundreds of millions of years" into the future? It would be interesting to see if humanity can even reach a million.

      load more comments (2 replies)

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

        Wow, coming from "Radical Centrist", I am very impressed. You are correct of course. We are now headed full steam ahead towards worldwide totalitarian communism.

        [–][deleted]  (10 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

          What do you mean? They ARE the government. The figureheads in office are just their highest ranking servants.

          [–][deleted]  (8 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

            I even mentioned in the OP that the Soviets collapsing actually created a stigma against Communism or wealth redistribution.

            We live in a world that is clearly hyper-capitalist. All the BLM and Gay flag merchandise you see are inventions of the 1%. They make huge profits off of identity politics, and liberals are the useful idiots that don't see the irony in this.

            load more comments (6 replies)

              [–]RichtoffLud 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

              Good text. I think it's almost unanimous (here) that Allies were the real villains of the WWII, they committed a series of massacres and tried to hide as much as possible from the history books or try to lessen the responsibility (rewriting the facts), such as Katyn Massacre, Dresden massacre, Bloody Sunday, Bromberg, Bleiburg massacre and Cossacks, and many others, like the denials of peace that Churchill received from Germany. But, how could the Axis win the war? the economic union of the allies was much higher, and they still had the help of Jewish bankers, which controlled the entire economy of the allies (and who also occupied the highest positions in the USSR)

              [–][deleted]  (16 children)

              [deleted]

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

                Germans had several shots at victory but they missed them. First was not fully mobilizing the economy from 1940 or 41 onwards utilizing the immense industrial resources of Germany and occupied Europe.

                Another chance was to knock Britain out of the war by concentrating on bombing British ports particularly London, Liverpool, Southhampton and Kent. Mass destruction of ports would've starved Britain of food and oil. The Luftwaffe was instead devoted to ineffectual attacks against the RAF and then terror bombing British cities.

                The other chance was after the battle of Kiev and before the battle of Stalingrad. If the Germans didn't divert towards Moscow and Stalingrad and instead took Kuban, Krasnodar and the areas in the Donetsk and Don river basins, the Soviets would've faced mass starvation and would've been on their knees.

                [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

                Germany was working on a long range bomber that was suppose to reach the U.S. Combine this with atomic weapons (since every side back then was researching it), and that might have been their only chance at forcing a surrender.

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

                [–]Bullet-Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

                Nazi nukes is a pretty big longshot. The Nazi's had neither the knowhow, resources or will to pursue the nuclear option.

                The material used in the trinity test was bought specifically by the Allies to prevent Germany getting it and German facilities that could even be involved in a nuclear program were surgically targeted by Allies bombing and special forces.

                Any German program will be years behind an Allied one and I shudder to imagine the Allied bombing campaign dropping more nukes than they did historically.

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

                Source on Germany being decades away from a-bomb?

                Every anecdote says the opposite, but it wouldn't have been as powerful as the weapons used on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

                https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/nazis-and-the-bomb/

                By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device. At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Rather it is an example of scientists trying to make any sort of weapon they could in order to help stave off defeat. No one knows the exact form of the device tested. But apparently the German scientists had designed it to use chemical high explosives configured in a hollow shell in order to provoke both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reactions. It is not clear whether this test generated nuclear reactions, but it does appear as if this is what the scientists had intended to occur.

                load more comments (7 replies)

                  load more comments (1 reply)

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

                    Capturing the BEF at Dunkirk and forcing Churchill to negotiations would probably have been the best chance.

                    It probably would be the best chance but even then it is not likely. By the time Churchill was PM he had utterly united the British nation behind the war effort. The was no political will to call it quits then.

                    Even had the British been interested in talks, Hitler's word was extremely suspect by 1940, with Czechoslovakia and all that.

                    The next best chance would have been, if Japan had started a second front against the Soviet Union. In this scenario, Stalin would have had to split up his army. This might have been enough for the Axis to win some of the important battles.

                    This is a real longshot. By 41' Japan had no capacity to launch an invasion of the Soviet Union and after Khalkhin Gol likely wouldn't have won anyway.

                    The most significant thing the Japanese could have done is close the Pacific lend-lease route. However in '41 and '42 Allied lend-lease to the USSR was fairly limited and by the time it came into effect in significant amounts Germany had definitively lost the initiative in the East.

                    Theorising about ways for the Axis to win WW2 is possible but you often have to go further back than '39 or even '33, in order to create a believably chain of events that would lead to a German victory.

                    load more comments (1 reply)

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

                      If history teaches us anything, it’s that occupying countries with different languages and different cultures is a bad idea (unless the people in the occupied places are mostly slaughtered, like native Americans). Germany and Japan tried it and it was a disaster: how does Germany occupy European Russia (its huge) or Japan occupy China? Even if they had won, they’d have to occupy these huge lands forever and it’s not possible. It would be like Rhodesia where 5% of the people want to run the other 95%. Maybe for a short time but sooner or later, out they go.

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

                      how does Germany occupy European Russia (its huge) or Japan occupy China?

                      Japan already had experience with occupying Korea, so they would apply their same administration to China. In fact, they actually set up their own puppet state called "Manchukuo" to assist with this.

                      As for Germany & Russia, they would have gone the way of the "Native Americans" if the anti-slavic sentiments were to be believed. But once again, history is written by the winners. Israel did the exact same thing with Palestine, and today they're given billions of dollars just for existing. At least the Slavs would have been liberated from Communism, and the most German looking ones would have been able to assimilate very quickly.

                      load more comments (2 replies)