Discussion in 'Russia & Eastern Europe' started by Sobo, Dec 12, 2019.
But not because you reject freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean there are zero consequences for what you say.
The person addressed can contradict this. That is the only consequence. But he mustn't kill me or make the government do it.
Only in the US
Well I can tell you, I am German and proud of it, proud to be a Kraut, but I am also proud to be a European citizens and am proud to have that citizens ship, too.
And I jump up and down when Die Manschaft wins and swear like a sailor when they loose and kick the TV, throw the beer at it and so on.
If they beat France, the Dutch Spain, Italy or those evil folks from that Island, the better, even better if they do it in a Away Game.
NAZIism is not a German from of nationalism. You have it every were, even in the US, which is the hotbed for it, sadly
The godfathers of National Socialism themselves, including Adolph Hitler, declared this ideology as explicitly German. US-Nazis seem to be completely ignoring this aspect.
You are a good, decent German. People like you are the majority in your country. People like @Sobo are the bad guys who never miss an opportunity to stir up hatred between Germans and other peoples.
The Russians weren't sinking our ship right of the east Coast of the United States.
Because I grew up in a time were Germans were hated, dislikes, boches, kraut, fritz, spit at.
But it was the same time were all this changed. It took a lot of work from everybody to overcome the hate and anger. I was spit in the face and beaten up as an exchange student in France, just because I was a German.
Today we are friends. The Sobos can travel the world without being hated, because of the work we did. They are disgusting, misusing it with their hate and arrogance.
And I did. You simply did not do your homework before making that statement about the mass murderer leaving the US alone with no evidence.
Do you have a shred of evidence any quote of Hitler where he said he would leave the US alone? Any quote at all? You are very good at asking others for evidence of their own arguments but not so much when it comes to your own.
2 sources. No evidence either are wrong yet you still want more.
Exactly what I said and the references I linked to said. That Hitler saw America as an enemy and would eventually lead to conflict between the two powers.
You were incorrect in your claim without evidence that Hitler would have left us alone if we had not joined the war.
FDR was a Wall Street criminal who purposely maneuvered America into an unnecessary war with Japan and Germany. And in doing so, FDR helped save the Stalinist dictatorship from being destroyed by Germany. So because of FDR and Churchill, the Soviet empire was able to conquer almost half of Europe for fifty years. FDR and Churchill did more to help the spread of godless communist dictatorship than any other figures in western history.
You didn't provide a direct quote until after I pressed you to. And the quote you finally provided didn't even come close to proving your original claim.
Except the quote you provided doesn't support your original claim at all.
The word "enemy" doesn't even appear in the quote you provided, let alone in reference to America. You are just desperately grasping at straws because you cannot support your original claim with a direct quote from German officials.
The word "conflict" doesn't appear in the quote you provided either. You're just making things up and hoping that nobody will notice.
Nope. My statement was entirely correct. All historical evidence shows that Nazi Germany originally wanted to expand eastward in an attempt to contain the Bolshevik revolution emanating from Russia. Hitler stated numerous times that he admired the British and that he had no intention of trying to expand into western Europe, let alone the United States. Because lest we forget, it was the British and the French who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Sorry if the truth contradicts the WWII mythology that you've been fed your entire life, but that is no reason for you to just make things up in a desperate attempt to buttress your flimsy and completely ahistorical narratives.
Actually it did. And you have provided zero evidence to prove it didn't.
Yes it does and the fact once again you have zero evidence to support yourself says it all.
LOL The inference is there. He also never references the US as an ally. Your desperation to ignore the facts is laughable.
It also never says peace. The inference is there my friend and you have yet to prove otherwise.
What historical evidence? You have provided Nothing. Zero Zilch, Nada. Not a single link to back up a word you are spewing.
Your opinion is worthless if you cannot support it with factual documentation as I have. The "nuh uh" argument doesn't help your case in the slightest.
And unlike you I continue to quote the second book proving Germany viewed America not only has a power rival but only through conflict could it be overcome. He identifies that Germany's land and soil richness cannot support the Germany he wants to see for the future and acknowledges America's size and soil make it a threat. He then argues even through a unified Europe it could not compete economically with the US and that war not economic growth will have to be the solution.
International relations between nations have become so easy and close through modern technology and the communication it makes possible, that the European, often without being conscious of it, applies American conditions as a standard for his own life. But he thereby forget that the relation of the population to the soil surface of the American continent is infinitely more favorable than the analogous conditions of European nations to their living spaces.
And if a further increase of the population were possible for Italy or Germany through the utmost industry, then this would be possible in the American Union up to a multiple of theirs. And when ultimately any further increase in these two European countries is no longer possible, the American Union can continue to grow for centuries until it will have reached the relation that we already have today.
If a really vigorous people believes that it cannot conquer another with peaceful economic means, or if an economically weak people does not wish to let itself be killed by an economically stronger one, as the possibilities for its sustenance are slowly cut off, then in both cases, the vapors of economic phraseology will be suddenly torn asunder and war, that is the continuation of politics with other means,steps into its place.
Consequently this stimulus will never die out and one day either a discrepancy will arise between the living standard of these peoples and those poorly provided with land, or the latter will be forced, or believe themselves forced, to reduce their number even further. The German people’s prospects are hopeless. Neither the present living space nor that achieved by a restoration of the borders of 1914 will allow us to lead a life analogous to that of the American people. If we want this, either our people’s territory must be considerably enlarged, or the German economy will again have to embark on paths already known to us since the pre-war period. Power is necessary in both cases. Specifically, first of all in the sense of a restoration of our people’s inner strength, and then in a military mounting of this strength…
But even if Germany were to master all her increasing economic difficulties,she would still be in the same spot as she had already been on August 4, 1914. The ultimate decision as to the outcome of the struggle for the world market will lie in power, and not in economics. It has been our curse, however, that even in peacetime a great part of the national bourgeoisie, precisely, was permeated by the idea that power could be renounced through an economic policy. Today, its chief representatives are also to be sought in those more or less pacifistic circles who, as the adversaries and enemies of all heroic, Völkisch virtues, would be glad to see a state-preserving, indeed even a state-forming strength in economics. But the more a nation accepts the belief that it can maintain its life only through peaceful economic activity, the more will its very economy be surrendered to collapse.
For, ultimately, economics, as a purely secondary matter in national life, is linked to the primary existence of a strong state. The sword had to stand before the plow, and an army before economics. If it is believed that we can renounce this in Germany, our people’s sustenance will be wrecked.
Thus, just as here history was slowly shaped by the racially more valuable peoples of the Occident, the danger likewise arises that the importance of racially inferior Europe slowly is leading to a new determination of the world’s fate by the people of the North American continent. That this danger threatens all Europe has, after all, already been perceived by some today. Only few of them wish to understand what it means for Germany. Our people, if it lives with the same political thoughtlessness in the future as in the past, will have to renounce its claim to world importance once and for all. Racially, it will increasingly atrophy until it finally sinks to degenerate, animallike feed bags lacking as well the memory of past greatness. As a state in the future order of world states, they will at best be like that which Switzerland and Holland have been in Europe up to now.
If, however, the importance of the threatening American position of hegemony seems to be conditioned primarily by the value of the American people and then only secondarily by the size of this people’s given living space and the favorable relation between population and soil resulting therefrom, this hegemony will not be eliminated by a purely formal numerical unification of European nations,so far as their inner value is not higher than that of the American Union.
Next time have more than your opinion to back up your claims. Don't pretend your word has any real value in a debate.
I've linked to the direct text. Go ahead and prove your laughable claim that Germany did not see America as a threat or a reason to go to war.
I can't wait for you to at least once try to back up your baseless opinion with some actual evidence.
Patton occupied Berlin?
Somebody must rely on the BBC or CNN for facts.
Patton went to Berlin to meet with the Soviets. Therefore, he "occupied" it for a time.
Separate names with a comma.