If Hitler Had Won

in #politics8 years ago (edited)


Did you know that Adolf Hitler was named Man of the Year in a 1938 Time Magazine? Even today this man pops up more than anyone else in discussions about politics, morality or even a casual debate with a friend. Apparently, someone eventually starts “acting like Hitler”.

People believe that Adolf was one of the most vicious leaders that have ever lived and that humanity was saved by putting him down. We know deep down that the simplistic plot of Good triumphing over Evil doesn’t seem to be satisfactory. Nonetheless, Hollywood seems to be selling to us more crap than ever by investing on this narrative and we adopt it with everything that goes on around us—from our political history to our personal relationships

Hitler did exactly what most people would do in his position. Whether we take Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Amenhotep of Egypt, Alexander the Great, Roosevelt or Otto the Great, they all acted much the same. Some of them were caught, some others covered their deeds well enough because they emerged glorious.

What disturbs most of us about Hitler’s actions was not so much his attrocious war tactics but rather the treatment of the prisoners—particularly the Jewish ones. At the same time we forget the prison camps in the U.S where the Japanese were treated like trash. Many people are terrorized by human experimentation and eugenics in Nazi Germany, neglecting that the US inspired the Nazis to start their monstrous endeavours.
 


If Hitler had won the war, the world wouldn’t be so different from today. Probably more people would speak German but Europe would still look much the same—puppet states all serving Germany under a scheme called “Something Something Union”.

The third Reich one way or another was successful. After the end of WW2 a massive inflation took place in the US and the only way to salvage the country (and the Allies as a whole) was to lend money in form of gold bonds (that are mysteriously still missing) to the defeated. In less than half a century, Germany, who owned trillions for World War reparations, got to lead the way again in Europe. It got bailed out and nobody was asking how or why.

Much like back then, the same politico-economic fiasco plays out today. Countries function as shell companies serving corporatist empires. Politicians are puppets that keep the masses busy. The players change but the game remains the same. Hitler, Shmitler, things one way or another would still need to be bailed out, no matter who won the war in order to keep the economic scheme going. Human stupidity doesn't need Hitler to flourish.

Most people under a given government fail to understand that the entire world, every single country, is governed more or less by a variation of democratic socialism much like in Nazi Germany.

Although there are plenty of distinctions in political textbooks and one could have hours of pointless conversations wih arm-chair political philosophers, the architecture of a country remains much the same; political governance, drawn in an arbitrary geographically drawn area, divided into some groups of people who use their numbers in order to elect representatives that will impose their will to the rest.
 


We like to believe that good guys won WW2 because we are presented only to one side of the story and it make us feel good about ourselves. History is written by the winners. Most of the things we are taught in school are national propaganda to advance a country’s goals. Most of the things we get to know are also a narrative that someone else wants us to believe.

Information can be very easily manipulated. The human mind can be easily palpated, especially at a young age and then it is very hard to turn it back. Companies know this. Countries know this as will. It is a solid marketing strategy. Once you get a young client, you own them and their mind for life. You can then teach them about history however you want.

If Hitler had won, rebels around the world would still cause problems to his empire much like we have small uprisings today in Middle East clashing with the US. If Hitler had won, much like Bush, he would still raise the Bible and claim that war is “God’s Will”. Eugenics would still advance like they do today and we still be presented with the Americans being the enemies—and we would fall for it much like we buy the American propaganda.
 


Sometimes we seem to forget that human nature is not all that different when it comes to ideas of war and imperialism. As a species we are crafted to group together into different fractions and through our leaders we are tempted to conquer the opposing side. It doesn’t make much of a difference who will emerge after a violent clash. Most of us forget quite easily given the winners supply the citizens with enough comforts.

History is never black and white. History is a gray, out of focus picture that you can barely make what is going on. There is no way to “focus” the image properly but we can tell that a leader was chosen from a group of people to violently lead them against another group. Only that much is clear and only that much should really be instilled in our brains.

Is times like these that critical thinking becomes vital. We might want to change the world to our liking, make it “better” assuring ourselves that this time things would be different. Since WW2, we haven't changed much the way we structure our societies. We rather became more efficient ignoring the truth—letting others feed us information behind a screen. We customised our political narrative. Can we really ever escape from our pitfalls?







Sort:  

The cruel thing is that humanity celebrates their contemptuous leaders history... like nero caesar napoleon stalin hitler

and now Trump?

Obama, Clinton, Trump....all similar. What we get to know about them is only a small measure of truth.

Hitler was a criminal with delusions, nothing else. As a German I do not want to imagine what would have happened if he had won.
He and his henchmen are to burn forever in hell

The victors write the history books!

If we want to know the truth we have to investigate it for ourselves.

I'm not disagreeing with your post - rather I am building on it and encouraging everyone not to blindly accept 'history' as factual. We can see with our own eyes how the Govt's of today have successfully deceived most of the worlds population and put them to sleep. It was much easier to accomplish in days gone by.

@steemtruth

I know, it is rather very hard to examine history since it someone else's account. Rather we could try and distill basic facts and hopefully we can come to a reasonable view of the world.

It's funny how the world can demonise Hitler, while Stalin and FDR get a free pass. When I talk to people about Hitler, it seems like they ascribe him certain subhuman or superhuman qualities. People even wear the hammer and sickle on T-shirts, which makes me recoil a little. Of course, the hammer and sickle have a meaning outside their representation of the USSR... but so does the swastika - in fact, the swastika has much wider use.

As an aside, some say that to demonise the use of the swastika is a kind of mind control, like Newspeak in 1984. Take a symbol that means good fortune, prosperity, and even God, and turn around to mean pure evil.

Another important note is, of course many countries in Europe have a separation of political "leadership" - in Germany, it's the president and the chancellor. In the US, there is no such separation. The very separation which was a key point in Hitler's rise to Führer-ship just doesn't exist. Seems like a somewhat precarious balance.

Thanks for posting. I guess you can take the rigorous debate going on in the comments as something of a compliment haha.

I always try to stir the readers' mind so we can discuss about sensitive topics. Glad you enjoyed it.

This was an interesting article, and brought up some good points about how there were a lot of similarities between what both sides were doing, and the line between good and evil was not so black and white.

I will make the case though that they did have ambitions to totally exterminate entire groups of people though (Jews and homosexuals to name a few), which is something the allied forces did not intend to do. If the allies had lost, and Germany + Hitler had been able to carry out and succeeded with this mission - I would argue that the world today would be a very different place.

The allied forces have long exterminated an entire continent, namely Africa. Entire tribes have been wiped from the face of this earth, tribes that lasted for over 40.000 years.

Same cleansing still continues today with the Aboriginal Australians. Same thing happened with colonial England in Southeast Asia where tribes where also obliterated as "Savages".

The world would not be so different. Things change btu do so marginaly based on current politics determined by specific enviromental factors. For example you could have said that given the view of the States in the early 1900's women would never have had rights and blacks would remain slaves. Hitler would be dead much like Nixon and Roosvelt and things would take a new course. Gays would still exist so it would be impossible to eradicate them completely. Same thing applies to Jews.

Hitler may remind you had women equal to men before even US even thought about giving them rights. Similar respect was hold towards animals.

So as you can see your argument cannot hold. It is a post-hoc argument that can only be made after a situation was formed over the course of a century.

I can't emphasize enough how little our "victorious" books allow us to know.

The "allied forces" only operated in the North of Africa and didn't bother the local population much. I see you have looked up what a "straw man" is, because you have just left the scope of your original arguement to move to pre-war Africa, well away from the Japanese internment.

And if the "entire continent" was "exterminated", who are all these Africans living there today? Atrocities were committed, wars were waged against the unarmed, and many people perished, which is a disgrace. The goal, however, wasn't extermination, but control; once in control, most killing stopped. Fundamentally different from what the Germans did in WWII; once in control, the killing started. Try again.

@ocrdu @pinoytravel

I am talking with colonialism long before the war. They were still the same countries.

again. in case you missed it.

nagasaki
hiroshima

native americans.

"And if the "entire continent" was "exterminated", who are all these Africans living there today? "

The tribes were exterminated dude. The tribes. there are thousands of tribes.

"Fundamentally different from what the Germans did in WWII; once in control, the killing started. "

they controlled japan. look what they did. they controlled native americans. look wha they did.

go to bed.

You avoided the question about the USA's intention to kill all internees to make it comparable to what the Germans did.

So, they exterminated all tribes without exterminating all people? Interesting. I must read up on how they went about it.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the dropping of the atomic bombs was militarily unnecessary and therefore a war crime. Fact is, however, the USA didn't control Japan until after the surrender, and however much the Japanese were hated, few were intentionally killed after the surrender, once under control.

When they had the native americans under control, most killing stopped. Very un-Nazi-like.

Your comparisons still don't hold up.

I am far to old to go to bed at this time, but I'm starting to suspect you're not.

You see not all peoples on this planet belong to countries. Some belong to tribes and they are separated from one another.

"Control" can be many different things. USA controlled Japan. They just wanted to show power—much like Hitler, Mao, Lenin, you name it.

The comparisons are just fine. You are still avoiding the wiki page like the plaque. :)

intellectual dishonesty at its best yet from another "murica" man

go to bed.

I am removing my upvote from your post for this. You wrote an interesting article and gave good "food for thought", plus you did a good job defending your position. This last comment though is a personal attack directed at someone who is trying to present an alternative point of view, and is disrespectful and mean.

I didn't see you answering to any of my point while I dismantled yours...and now you are finding an excuse to abandon ship?

same applies to your friends. check the wiki page, open a book. something. i treat the WWII ally-war crime deniers much like i do the holocaust deniers.

sigh. pathetic human beings...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Replying to your last comment here, due to the nesting level.
I thought you made good points, and I had no counter argument. I upvoted your post after you posted your reply to my comment.

Me removing my upvote has nothing to do with the arguments you made or whether your position is right or wrong. It is because of the way you are treating people who are responding to your post.

Good bye.

At least I am treating them linguistically...they deny war crimes.

i have no respect for people who are this ignorant

I've watched the Valkyrie Movie and what I saw there is Africa during WW2 was also under the Germany Regime. And I am talking about partially, the whole continent.

First I have to say that I don't know this for a fact, but I think Hitler, Bush, Obama, Pol Pot, Lenin and others, did not kill or torture anyone, they did not round up the people, hey did not put anyone in a camp or gulag. It where other people. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb's where not dropped by "the president" or "the country", the one's in the planes who pulled the switch they did the killing. They had the choice not to do it, they had the choice not to be murderers.
That's not to say Hitler and company are not guilty at all.

Very very well said! This is exactly my final point if you have read the whole article

I did not get your final point exactly due to tiredness. Maybe I'll read it again another time.

The one who presses the trigger is the one committing the crime. This is true. I just wanted to add that people like Hitler, Bush and Lenin are guilty of creating circumstances under which pressing the trigger is a "normal" or even "good" thing. They all deserve the same sentence, but for different crimes.

Then their voters and supporters and even the voters and supporters of the opponent, and all the obedient and taxpaying people, are guilty for creating the platform (throne) which gave and gives them the possibility for them tho create those circumstances.

Well... I didn't read Hitler's speeches. I don't know what exactly he told people who democratically gave him power. But as far as I know he was a catalyst to nation's feelings at that time, so I guess there is some mass-level guilt to be found there. And as someone once said, civil disobedience was never a problem, it was civil obedience that gave evil the right of way... Or something like that.

I didn't read them either.
But the people today do the same as then, they obey they listen to words.

I don't really get your last sentence maybe because English is not my native language.
Can you tell me if this is what you mean?
And as someone once said, civil disobedience was never a problem, it was THE LACK OF civil obedience that gave evil the right of way...

I.m.o. anyone that follows orders a command or law, has no excuse by saying I was just following "the will of the people" or Hillary or Trump or whoever, there will always be someone who is persuasive or playing the feelings of the masses. Every individual is responsible for the evil stuff they do.

Well I have one last thing...you say: They all deserve the same sentence, but for different crimes.
let's make that; Hitler deserves the same sentence but for a different crime.
What would the accusation be, what crime did he do?

This is the dilemma he did not do something, but saying he is not guilty of anything is to hard for most of us, or me, to admit. Cause I can understand why people got caught up, why people did what they did, and why they wanna shift the blame for allowing the evil that's in all of us manifests in reality.
"You" wanna make "the leaders" responsible for leading you/me in the wrong direction, but it's always you/me that choose to follow words and do the deeds.

English is not my native language either, so... Please let me explain: civil obedience, as opposed to civil disobedience, is what allows evil to exist, especially if it is evil of the state, dressed as good. Hitler was elected and civil obedience allowed him to still have power after he started doing really bad things. Civil disobedience is when humans think for themselves and don't let government order them to go to war, kill other people, etc. Civil obedience is saying "our leaders decided to kill those other guys, so I shall obey".
Now, what is Hitler guilty of? He did not press the trigger after all. And I'm not shifting responsibility, I'm saying that responsibility is... shared, for the lack of better word. There are different things here to consider:

  1. Soldier is 100% guilty of pressing the trigger and killing another person.
  2. His leader is guilty of giving the kill order. This goes up to the very top, in this case Hitler himself. His (or rather theirs, plural) crime is creating circumstances under which killing a person is a good thing. Is it not a crime? On one hand I understand your argument that ultimately the person executing the evil order (pressing the trigger) is guilty - this is of course true. But someone who used words to convince the soldier I also consider guilty. Process of training soldiers, as we can see in so many movies, is like brainwashing. Not even "like", it is brainwashing, it is mind control. Are the people brainwashing other people not to be blamed for what they are doing? Leader, officer, superior by giving an order is pressing metaphorical trigger. In this chain of command the only innocent being is the gun, because the gun is not capable of thinking for itself. And about people outside the chain of command... People producing bombs, people in governments buying bombs, simple hard working men paying taxes, thus providing money for the bombs... To a (very) varying degree we're (almost) all guilty.

I'll put it here there is no reply button under your last reaction.

Thanks for the explanation I got it.

To give sort of an answer to the question you ask. Are the people brainwashing other people not to be blamed for what they are doing?
Well if they know that they are brainwashing other people (not being brainwashed themselves) and ignore it commanding other people to do evil stuff.. yes. If they didn't know because they where brainwashed themselves......I don't know.

It's hard to talk about guilty or not over things from the past. Even until now people are not aware, they are brainwashed, and the same mechanism is still in place. (maybe I am brainwashed still in certain areas that I don't know of, I always keep that in mind for what it's worth)

I guess we have to take the past as an example to explain to people, how they are still brainwashed, and ask them to maybe please make other choices.
All I can do is explain and ask. If the people that are around me that I know, they know what I mean, but still go on doing their evil stuff. I remove myself.
I've had enough of their authoritarian behavior, group think, and indirect violence.

You say//To a (very) varying degree we're (almost) all guilty. //
That's true
I know I am too paying taxes, and I don't have a say or clue what is exactly bought from that. I'll try to get around paying taxes as much as I can. But sales tax and gasoline tax, etc. looks fairly impossible. We'll see.

Ah, so there is a limit of number of replies to replies :) I see "reply' button here, so... Ok, it seems we're on the same page, thank you for your time and... last thing to mention is that maybe Steemit is a step in the right direction, which is building non-taxable economy? A bit like Open Source Ecology project... There must be a way out.

Someone's been watching "The Man in the High Tower" @kyriacos

In WWII, the Germans killed 3.3 million Russian POWs, over 10 million Russian civilians, 3 million non-jewish Poles, over 5 million Jews, and a couple of million others. Your comparison with the internment of the Japanese, however wrong it was, is absurd.

"Hitler did exactly what most people would do in his position", you say, and then you come up with a list that isn't "most people". Flawed reasoning, at best.

"Most people under a given government fail to understand that the entire world, every single country, is governed more or less by a variation of democratic socialism much like in Nazi Germany." Most countries don't kill their own and other countries' inhabitants by the millions, nor are they dictatorships, so they are nothing like Nazi Germany.

I'm one of those silly people who have actually done research on WWII atrocities using primary sources. It's always good to get the facts straight before you write something.

There is a comparison. I didn't see him mention numbers. He mentioned acts. I can compare 1 apple to a bushel of apples. They still share traits. Had he said one number was no worse than another you might have a point, and then all he would need to do his go to the numbers of Stalin or Mao to see who the clear winners are in the most kills game.

I didn't make it explicit, but it is of course also about the intention to kill, the reason why; that is when numbers start to matter. Hate crime on an industrial scale across borders is incomparable with what happened with the Japanese during their internment, what "most people would do", or the way most governments behave.

Indeed I find it absurd (and kinda disturbing) when people value attrocities based on numbers. The act belittles humans into cattle, sheer numbers.

Stalin knew that people make such poor comparisons and acted like he did. In his words
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic"

@orcdu

Really? We are going to compare numbers in order to calculate the level of attrocity? Does it make much difference if you entrap and torture 100, 10000 or 10000000? are we really doing the "numbers" game here?

Most people in political power do exactly what Hitler did. Open a history book. The only difference is that obviously not not all people become politicians. Most that do become though our of sheer statistical occurance, use their state to coercively impose their will.

"Most countries don't kill their own and other countries' inhabitants by the millions, nor are they dictatorships, so they are nothing like Nazi Germany."

Not at first but they do give you a gun and ask you to sacrifice yourself. Nn case of war they would give you a one way ticket to become a murderer. Refuse to pay taxes and you end up in prison. Refuse to follow and you are shot. The only difference with Hitler and the other fighting parties was that they didn't have any choice. Even today with small time wars much the same murders occur all around us.

"I'm one of those silly people who have actually done research on WWII atrocities using primary sources. It's always good to get the facts straight before you write something."

Facts are only good if you present them properly to an argument. What you are doing here is rather "dick parading" saying "i studied better than you therefore you are wrong". Knowledge without critical thinking is useless my friend.

You did not present any logical argument about your position. You rather strawmaned your way through.

First of all, it is intentional deaths versus ill treatment in the Japanese internment. So, still an absurd comparison.

And yes, numbers do matter, especially when talking about the intentional killing of civilians versus collateral damage. The carnage intentionally caused by the Germans, and the reasons why, is comparable maybe to what Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and the like did, but not to the Japanese internment or the political behaviour of "mosts governments".

No, most people in political power don't do what Hitler did. That is a nonsensical statement which only shows you haven't opened any history books yourself.

I'm not saying that I studied better than you, therefore you are wrong. I'm saying your facts are wrong because you haven't studied enough. You can't do critical thinking based on myths and folklore.

Go ask the japanese if it was "ill treatment" thousands died. Others vanished for secret experiments. what? do you think you would know if Hitler has won about the Jews?

By your definitions the means of some goverments justify the end. Hitler chose a path with no respect to human life. Americans did much the same. they did the same attrocities when it came to human experimentation (you see to conveniently by-pass this fact.

Hitler just killed more people and got more rep. Same exact attrocoties were done from the U.S, the Japanese, the Russians. really, almost all leaders. I actually dare you to find one case that it is not

I actually gave you links. You haven't provided shit yet

So, you are saying the USA had the firm intention to kill all Japanese internees? Because that is what it would take to make the two comparable.

Nowhere do I say that the means justify the end (sic), or the other way around, for that matter.

Hitler didn't "choose a path with no respect for human life", he intentionally killed millions. That is a different thing.

"almost all leaders"? No, a small minority of leaders, especially when talking about the 20th century, intentionally went out there to kill millions because of race, religion or politics.

I have no links to give you; the sources and literature I use take up 6 meters of my library wall.

Dude, they dropped 2 nuclear bombs. They treated them like trash. Everyone hated the Japanese much like they hated commies. Just the shallow evidence is overwhelming.

Here is a short link to remind you are "intentionally killing"

here is some more reading to add to your research:

https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/the-untold-story-of-american-war-crimes-in-japan-part-1/

@ocrdu, how about the genocide of the Native Americans and other indigenous people around the world? How many millions of people were killed in the conquest of the Americas?

Now we're getting somewhere. That, I think, is comparable, apart from one thing: once in control, most killing stopped, as opposed to what the Germans did in WWII: once in control, the killing started.

And it still is silly to compare those atrocities to the Japanese internment, or state that it is "what most people in power would do", or comparable to the behaviour of "all governments".

enough with your mantra of control vs continuing.

Here.

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

Planned extermination of entire nations doesn't compare well to incidents like those mentioned on that wiki page. I don't think it compares at all. While you have some good points in your post, there is a question of scale, motivation, purpose... You are talking about the world not being black and white. Yes, there may be only shades of gray, but they do range from, say, close to white to almost black. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, they are close to black. Who, of the leaders of Europe today, can be compared to them?
And about extermination of entire tribes in Africa/America - these are real and horrible crimes too, no doubt. Leaders guilty of making/letting them happen are as guilty as Hitler, and they do deserve to be considered vicious and evil - which is the opposite thing to calling Hitler "just another leader". All evil leaders are leaders, not all leaders are evil leaders. What Hitler did was specific to him. Would, say, Hollande do the same? I doubt it.

that's not "intentional killing" according to him. is "collateral damage"

You read as sloppily as you write.

Open a book then points to a wiki page. lol
Are you not aware how fucked up wiki is now days?
-smh-
if anyone points out where you are wrong about something you always flip out don't you? do you even realize you can be wrong? lol

I dare you to deny anything from the wiki page. Stop doing the blocktrades tactic. Just because i owned you once it doesn't mean you have to support the opposing view all the time.

you see? even a skeptic can be a moron

LMFAO!
Yes pleas go back and see how he "Owned me" LMFAO
https://steemit.com/plagiarism/@skeptic/a-look-at-your-logical-fallacy-is-by-kyriacos
I guess you think me showing the truth and you acting like a flaggot is owning. LOL

Wiki is bias and if you don't realize it then that might be part of the problem. I did not say it was wrong I said it was fucked up. also you tell someone to read a book then point to a wiki page. im guessing that is the book you get your information from because of that. I have no idea what the block trades tatic is. I do know your tatic of red herrings and ad hominim because its all you have.

Wiki might be biased but the events described there are real and well documented. If you disagree bring counter evidence or shut the fuck up.

In a way everything can be perceived as biased. no argument here.

There are also books references in the wiki page if you care to look.

Be glad I am even bothering to answer to dimwits like you.

Whats about Stalin? Stalin was the one who organized the genocid of 10 million russians at let them die without food somewhere in sibirsk..

What about the jews world wide if he had won? I see nothing in your post about his quest to rid the world of a religion. O.o

"What about the jews world wide if he had won?"

Same thing that happened to African Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans...and many others

Many will die and eventually they would be given rights.

Ahh so more mass genocide world wide till everyone is Christian.
Saying that, and that the numbers of deaths would have incresses forever till almost all were inslaved or killed, can you really compare anything to the numbers of deaths that would have produced? are you supporting the ideas of mass genocide because of religion?
Sounds a lot like islam right now. are you in support of islams fight to clean the world of anyone that is not muslim? if not why?

I do not understand how you could say the world would be the same now if all the jews and blacks were exterminated. I know I wouldn't be alive (my great grandmother was a camp survivor.)

you say many would die but eventually they would be given rights. your talking about after they submit to Christianity right? what about the idea of blond hair blue eyes being the master race and trying to rid the human race of what was considered inferior jeans? Do you really think it would have only been the jews they would have tried to wipe off the plannet?

Its funny to me that all this came from a black haired brown eyed son of a jew that was a meth addict.

Oh, what about the whole deal with fascism? the world pushing fascism from ww2 on is a good thing to you? how do you feel about the whole communits/fascism side of the whole thing?

how can you say it would be the same for the " African Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans" when hittler would have killed them for the color of their skin given the opertunity.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005479

he was doing the same to blacks as the jews.

Many would die but much like native americans few would survive and eventually rights would be given.

Minorities where already be hunted from the allies for centuries and still survived.

everything else you said is logical fallacies from strawman to loaded questions but i can't really quote them because the comment section is fucked up

corrupted and does not make sence.
I did not strawman anything, I asked some questions to better understand your side of the argument that you were having with others in the comments of your post. are you now trying to say that if hitler won all of a sudden the killing would have stopped? no more killing the jews because ww2 was won by hitler?

none of the questions were loaded questions as none of them are worded in a way that can not be answered without looking guilty. unless you think your opinion about some of the questions might get looked at in a bad way by others but nothing I asked was loaded to make you guilty of something. well maby guilty of proving yourself wrong and a hypocrite.

maybe asking you a question that shows your a hipocrit is loaded to you?

You should really learn more about the fallacys you try to call out because as I have stated many times you do not seem to understand how they work and keep calling out fallacys when they aren't there or calling them out by the wrong name.

good luck with the question dodging and gold metal level mental gymnastics you have done so well of showing off.

also the commet is corrupted so I cant really read it all. I think steemit is fucking up again.

Killing would have stopped because politics change. in much the same way the turks eventually stopped killing the greeks. mongolians other nations. seriously. open a book.

stop wasting my time.

yeah I think we have heard this shit from the sjw's before.
don't back up anything and tell people to go educate themselves then resort to more ad hominim after the red herrings don't work.
LMFAO!
I did educate myself and your wrong!
:P

//yeah I think we have heard this shit from the sjw's before.//

strawman

we are talking about basic history. assuming that a ruler would eradicate completely millions of people while others in the past have tried and failed is rather silly. you can't possibly kill all people from one race unless they are a few hundreds like in the african and aboriginal tribes.

so yeah. go educate yourself about very basic history. e.g you don't even know Hitler was Christian and then you turned the argument around.

you see? you ARE a moron.

(calling me a SJW is like calling A Black Man , Milky)

go to bed

LMFAO!
i never said he wasent Christian, i said he was born from a jew mom.
you just keep proviong my point more and more.
Good job!
xD

//skeptic56 · 1 hour ago
What about the jews world wide if he had won? I see nothing in your post about his quest to rid the world of a religion. O.o//

christianity IS a religion. darn your I.Q is potato level...

Weird i thought the post was about "If Hitler Had Won".

Thought all my questions had to do with "If Hitler Had Won".

Strange that you are saying that is not what it is about and that it is about "basic history".

if it is not all a hypothetical about what if he won then what the fuck are you crying about?

my questions had to do with the post. if you can not handle them that is fine. resorting to ad hominim is childish and unmature.

Good luck with all that.

yes it is a religion. dose not have anything to do with him trying to rid the world of jewish people and Judaism (Its a religion too) from the earth. are you even reading this stuff before you reply?

This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.

Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.

Built by @ontofractal

The intro pic is hilarious. Almost like a Southpark Hilter, haha.

i was going for something cure @the-stoned-ape to it could contrast the bloody hands around it. I think humanity most of the time looks like a farse rather than a species.