Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jeffnz

What if Einstein had travelled through time to assassinate Churchill?

Recommended Posts

I read this book and learned that the MI6 director of the time, Sir Stuart Menzies, was in favour of smashing the bolsheviks and leaving Germany alone. Churchill was very unpopular in May 1941. He could possibly have been restrained but MPs and the public were too tolerant of him. If Rudolf Hess had stayed in Germany he most likely could have talked Hitler into retreating from the Russian winter but nope he flew to England and it seems the whole thing was a setup anyway. True, there were influential people in England who would have worked with Hess to stop Churchill from declaring war, but there is also evidence that (some) letters inviting Hess were forged, and that the lights on Dungavel House's air strip were turned off after Hess missed it on his first pass.

hess_book.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

No, please, no. The last thing I would accept the fact that if Einstein went back to the future, he would have eliminated North Korea and the Middle Eastern conflict.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If Rudolf Hess had stayed in Germany he most likely could have talked Hitler into retreating from the Russian winter but nope he flew to England and it seems the whole thing was a setup anyway.

 

And this bit of speculation is supported by what evidence... ?

 

True, there were influential people in England who would have worked with Hess to stop Churchill from declaring war [...]

 

Declare war on whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Rabbit

Sounds to me like jeffnz is implying that Churchill was indirectly responsible for the holocaust.

Share this post


Link to post

True, there were influential people in England who would have worked with Hess to stop Churchill from declaring war,

Declaring what war again? England was at war with Germany for about a year and the Battle of Britain was allready over when Heß tried to negotiate, a bit late to prevent anything.

If Rudolf Hess had stayed in Germany he most likely could have talked Hitler into retreating from the Russian winter

BULL****

 

1. Fighting against the SU was the whole core of Hitlers ideology - the communists were basicly his arch nemesis, everything else was just means to an end to prepare for this. Taking him out if it is unlikely, even delaying it would have been hard since the attack needed to take place in the summer and he wanted to end the war fast.

 

2. Heß was a yes man wo believed that Hitler was gods gift to germany and that his commands should allways be followed, no matter what. Its very doubtfull that he would have tried to argue with Hitler, not to mention to convice Hitler to delay the whole point of this war.

Edited by Stygs

Share this post


Link to post

Oh please, don't argue with this tinfoil hat guy...

 

Churchill was very unpopular in May 1941.

 

Actually, he was very popular after the fail of Chamberlain appeasement policy. Ever heard of "blood, sweat and tears"?

 

 

If Rudolf Hess had stayed in Germany he most likely could have talked Hitler into retreating from the Russian winter but nope he flew to England and it seems the whole thing was a setup anyway.

 

Nope, it wasn't. Although, SeaLion (plan of attacking England) wasn't expected to be ever executed, Hitler and his generals assumed that Brits would break after bombarding civil areas. Surprisingly (to them), it united nation even more.

 

What concerns USSR... The attack was planned long before 1941, and the only reason Hitler attacked Stalin in late June was the break of Pact of Steel with Yugoslavia, which decided to change sides. It postponed the invasion a month or two, which just happens was a decisive decision about fate of USSR.

Also, Hitler had to attack Stalin, because Stalin was preparing his operation somewhere in 1942/43.

 

So yeah, your book has nothing related to modern history research...

Share this post


Link to post

Conspiracy theories, subclass: making things up out of thin air. Been there, done that. Have so many regrets, except discovering they're always written by airheads.

Share this post


Link to post

And this bit of speculation is supported by what evidence... ?

Although Heß slipped down the hierarchy because of Göring's promotion, he was still influential and he was Hitler's best pal from the early 1920s until his flight, then he was dropped completely. Also consider that Mein Kampf was dictated by Hitler but edited and published by Heß.

 

In response to Stygs who says that Heß wouldn't argue with Hitler, I read a new book about the Reichstag Fire and it cites an shouting argument between the two which happened inside the Reichstag, presumably in early 1933. When they left the room together Hitler had his arm around Heß and said: "Heß, you really are quite stubborn" - or something to that effect. Heß was not the lackey he's made out to be, and the evidence for that is who he learned from: Karl Haushofer. If you look him up on Wikipedia, the photo of Haushofer features him with Heß. Heß was not Hitler's ideological lackey, Heß believed in a geopolitical view regarding how Europe should be administered (based strongly on Haushofer's views) so Heß' views were geopolitical not racial (though he always supported Hitler in public).

 

As for the theory of Heß being lured to Scotland, I didn't note the sources in the back of the book when I had it leased. The idea was about letters being intercepted and forged but the more important part is that he found the lights on the air strip, flew over, then came back to land and but couldn't find the air strip again because the lights were turned off. We'll never know the full story, in part because many of the letters from royal figures at the time were not due to be released for many, many decades. When the 4 authors of the book tried to find certain evidence they found that letter archives had been moved to an archive where it is still not accessible, even today.

Declare war on whom?

Yes, my bad lol. War was already declared against Germany, in spite of many MPs' wishes. The war declaration was rammed down everyone's throats because Churchill decreed (like a true dictator) that anyone sympathising with the appeasement movement be arrested, jailed and gagged - regardless of who they were. Members of Parliament and Lords with lofty reputations were subjected to the law too, just like ordinary working class people.

 

Sounds to me like jeffnz is implying that Churchill was indirectly responsible for the holocaust.

He certainly wasn't an asset for ending World War II. The safety of Europe's Jews was actually one of the ideas that Beaverbrook and Halifax had, as part of peace terms.

 

1. Fighting against the SU was the whole core of Hitlers ideology - the communists were basicly his arch nemesis, everything else was just means to an end to prepare for this. Taking him out if it is unlikely, even delaying it would have been hard since the attack needed to take place in the summer and he wanted to end the war fast.

The invasion Russia couldn't have been prevented but perhaps a retreated could have happened if Heß had not flew to England. A retreat would have reduced casualties. Hitler ordered that anyone asking for a retreat be shot. If they had retreated at this time, when it was apparent that casualties were high, they would have had 100,000 - 300,000 soldiers to evacuate. Given the depth of territory I don't know how many could have returned to Germany alive, eventually I'll read another book and learn about the logistics of retreating 1,000km, without modern aircraft or truck-and-trailer configurations.

 

Actually, he was very popular after the fail of Chamberlain appeasement policy. Ever heard of "blood, sweat and tears"?

That speech was in May 1940, I was talking about Churchill's popularity in May 1941. It turns out that Churchill's war wasn't very popular. Of course, after the allies won the war, the history books said that Churchill was the reasonable one, and that Hitler was the mad man who wasn't willing to use diplomacy. I think the only reason Churchill won his battle with the peace movement, was because he had supreme dictator status to declare war and censor the opposition. England in 1939 allowed the Prime Minister to declare war without a vote, right?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

History is a debatable subject and we have all been brainwashed through TV documentaries and history. I spoke to my grandmother a few months ago, about the BREXIT from Dunkirk. It seems that most historians praised Churchill and the great "miracle" that happened (the evacuation of the allies' expeditionary force) when in truth Hitler allowed the retreat on purpose as a sign of goodwill. I recommend that everyone watch the Youtube video

by the username "The Impartial Truth" ... but it's banned all over Europe. We can't let the plebs learn these inconvenient facts can we? :)

 

If there was nothing suspicious about this topic then why was Heß jailed for life, and then assassinated? You can read first-hand sources about Heß' assassination. He was due to be released in 1987 because Gorbachev was open to the idea of letting Heß free, then two guys in US Army uniforms show up and are found over Heß' body, personnel who none of the guards recognised. We're told that Heß committed suicide, but his own son says that key facts about the suicide note were almost certainly a forgery based on Heß' writing from 10 or so years prior (the writing didn't reflect Heß' letters from the late 80s). There's almost no chance that Heß could have hanging himself from a cord that was tied 1.4 metres above the ground. He was in his 90s and he could hardly walk and he couldn't raise one of his arms above his chest. The idea that he'd kill himself just before his release is so stupid, no-one who's read about this topic is dumb enough to believe it. Look up what Wolf Rüdiger Hess said about his father's highly unlikely "suicide".

Share this post


Link to post

Oh please, don't argue with this tinfoil hat guy...

Strange statement to make before immediately proceeding to argue with him... :unsure:

 

Arguing facts with a conspiracy theorist is a futile exercise, if they could tell the difference between facts and "facts", they wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist in the first place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Heß was not the lackey he's made out to be

"Normally the great men that we admire from a distance lose their magic when one knows them well. With Hitler the opposite is true."

 

"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge."

 

"With all our powers we will endeavour to be worthy of the Fuhrer thou, O Lord, has sent us! "

 

Heck, during the Nuremberg Trials he said he was proud of serving Hitler and he had no regrets.

 

So yes, whatever his views might have been, in regard to Hitler he certainly was the lackey he's made out to be.

The invasion Russia couldn't have been prevented but perhaps a retreated could have happened if Heß had not flew to England. A retreat would have reduced casualties. Hitler ordered that anyone asking for a retreat be shot. If they had retreated at this time, when it was apparent that casualties were high, they would have had 100,000 - 300,000 soldiers to evacuate. Given the depth of territory I don't know how many could have returned to Germany alive, eventually I'll read another book and learn about the logistics of retreating 1,000km, without modern aircraft or truck-and-trailer configurations.

What exactly do you mean by "retreated at this time"? Becaus Heß flew to England in May 41, Barbarossa (attack against the SU) startet in June 41 and the first mejor defeat happend in Stalingrad in winter 42/43. I fail to see how Heß flight had any effect on the whole thing.

 

So... what was your point again?

 

Also: A war isnt something you can run away from. Sure, you can retreat, but how does this help to end the war? Both Hitler and Stalin knew that only one could win - there would have been no truce between them, one had to lose.

I spoke to my grandmother a few months ago, about the BREXIT from Dunkirk. It seems that most historians praised Churchill and the great "miracle" that happened (the evacuation of the allies' expeditionary force) when in truth Hitler allowed the retreat on purpose as a sign of goodwill.

Exept there isnt any prove of that. He might have done it out of goodwill or because he was an idiot. Because if he didnt let them escape, the british army would have been crippled and might have agreed to a truce or at least wouldnt be a treat anymore for a while. Letting the enemy escape in the hope they might not continue fighting is incredible retarded - especially as he knew that there was no way he could invade the british isles.

If there was nothing suspicious about this topic then why was Heß jailed for life, and then assassinated?

Are you serious? Are you really asking why one of the most famous Nazi members was jailed for life?

 

If the British were that much concerned about him, why did he get a jail sentence instead of a death sentence (like the soviets wanted). Would have been a way easier solution to the whole thing.

 

And yes, the son doenst believe his father killed himself. Thats ALLWAYS the case when someone famoues dies. Doenst make it true.

history books said that Churchill was the reasonable one, and that Hitler was the mad man who wasn't willing to use diplomacy

By this time (Mai 1941), Hitlers armys had attacked Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Czechoslovakia (well, anexed it against its will), was fighting in Yoguslavia and Greece and was preparing for an attack against the worlds largest country and its allies.

 

Clearly, Hitler was a excellent diplomat who wanted nothing but peace.

 

 

Yes, Hitler wanted peace in early 41 - because the UK was the only enemy left and he knew he couldnt hope to invade the islands. Not because he was a nice person or some other bull****.

Edited by Stygs

Share this post


Link to post

That speech was in May 1940, I was talking about Churchill's popularity in May 1941. It turns out that Churchill's war wasn't very popular. Of course, after the allies won the war, the history books said that Churchill was the reasonable one, and that Hitler was the mad man who wasn't willing to use diplomacy. I think the only reason Churchill won his battle with the peace movement, was because he had supreme dictator status to declare war and censor the opposition. England in 1939 allowed the Prime Minister to declare war without a vote, right?

Oh, so Hitler hasn't had a supreme position in Reich? Also, after the Battle of England the popualirity of Churchill skyrocketed. I have no idea from were Your author gathers the information, but either from pinky or some bull****.

 

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

 

Everywhere I went in London people admired [Churchill's] energy, his courage, his singleness of purpose. People said they didn't know what Britain would do without him. He was obviously respected. But no one felt he would be Prime Minister after the war. He was simply the right man in the right job at the right time. The time being the time of a desperate war with Britain's enemies.

~Ralph Ingersson, american reporter.

If there was nothing suspicious about this topic then why was Heß jailed for life, and then assassinated?

Oh, the famous "Hess case". Who told you he was assasinated? He was 93 years old, and he hanged himself. Why would anyone assasinate a guy, who was a lunatic?

He was due to be released in 1987 because Gorbachev was open to the idea of letting Heß free, then two guys in US Army uniforms show up and are found over Heß' body, personnel who none of the guards recognised.

Like anyone cared about fate of this madman.

Look up what Wolf Rüdiger Hess said about his father's highly unlikely "suicide".

This guy. Very reliable. His mother never recognised "inmate no. 7" as Rudolph Hess. Son says, that his father didn't commited suicide... so that guy was his father or not? His mother better new her husband and she visited "inmate no. 7"- i guess - once. I wonder - what his son knew about him? Frankly, i think - nothing at all.

Edited by Plokite_Wolf
Fixed black text, please do not use it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, my bad lol. War was already declared against Germany, in spite of many MPs' wishes. The war declaration was rammed down everyone's throats because Churchill decreed (like a true dictator) that anyone sympathising with the appeasement movement be arrested, jailed and gagged - regardless of who they were. Members of Parliament and Lords with lofty reputations were subjected to the law too, just like ordinary working class people.

 

Churchill was just and MP when Britain declared war on Germany. Where did he get these mystical powers to order other MPs to be arrested from?

 

I recommend that everyone watch the Youtube video

by the username "The Impartial Truth" ... but it's banned all over Europe. We can't let the plebs learn these inconvenient facts can we? :)

 

As someone who's currently online via a European server: The video is watchable and not "banned".

 

Also, Jeff, the guy who owns that channel calls himself a "national socialist" in his Twitter account description. You are linking to a literal Nazi's channel here. Someone who thinks gassing six million Jews is cool. Do you really think Jewish conspiracies are the "impartial truth"?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Are you serious? Are you really asking why one of the most famous Nazi members was jailed for life?

 

On Wikipedia there is a listing for a foreign minister, Baron Konstantin von Neurath, the entry says:

 

"Minister of Foreign Affairs 1932–38, succeeded by Ribbentrop. Later, Protector of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–43. On furlough since 1941, he resigned in 1943 because of a dispute with Hitler. Released (ill health) 6 November 1954 after suffering a heart attack. Died 14 August 1956"

 

And the entry for Albert Speer says 20 years in prison for slave labour (it says slaves were used for the production of armaments). How does someone who uses slave labour and manufacture weapons get only 20 years while Heß spends 40 years in prison?

 

The other two I mention may have expressed repentance, unlike Heß, but what did Heß have to repent for? Although he made the party what it was, he could not have predicted what would happen in the future. Heß essentially left the Nazi Party in 1941 when he flew to England. It doesn't matter how famous he was, the fact that other Nazi Party members got off lightly for wartime activity (e.g. slave labour) is unusual ... and somehow Heß is infinitely more evil because he got crowds excited? It makes no sense to me, and neither did his prison condition: he was not allowed to read books about World War II or discuss World War II with his family. I bet they kept him locked up because he had a dirty secret. Perhaps Heß was used to pass a fake message, that England would not attack Germany, should Germany invade Russia. Perhaps Churchill double-crossed Hitler? That would be sleazy enough to keep secret for hundreds of years.

 

Personally I view Heß as a hero.

 

He wanted to give Hitler "a free hand" against Russia so that Hitler could smash the bolsheviks and transform Germany into the greatest civilisation in the world; Of course the attack against Russia was ruthless and disgusting, but Heß pursued diplomacy in war time and there aren't many politicians like that. As for the lie that Heß was insane, his flight was planned in advance (he had to train) and his decision was based upon his past positive experiences that he had with some notable British people. It was a risky plan but it made sense. Heß had powerful friends across the channel.

 

Churchill should have been the one sentenced to life in prison, for destroying so many cities when Germany had done nothing against England. If it weren't for General Mad-Dawg Churchill, then World War 2 would have been a war between Germany and Russia. Please don't suggest to me that Hitler wanted to invade and bomb every nation on earth, that's ridiculous propaganda.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Regarding suspected censorship that TaxOwlbear didn't detect: one video from the account was banned throughout Europe, the video (titled Adolf Hitler's warning) juxtapositioned Hitler's subtitled speeches with 21st century things. It was an

that could be considered incitement. Look for the comment on that video which reads: "We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: Adolf Hitler's Warning has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s): Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Israel, Italy, Martinique". There is some censorship going on. I had a problem a moment ago while trying to access
- it told me that the video wasn't available in New Zealand. It works now, which is odd. I just assume that was a glitch.
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Aaaand you have absolutely no idea what you're jabbering about.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

And we have arrived at fullblow nazi conspiracy theories.

And thats for totally ignoring any of the points I made in my posting above.

And the entry for Albert Speer says 20 years in prison for slave labour (it says slaves were used for the production of armaments). How does someone who uses slave labour and manufacture weapons get only 20 years while Heß spends 40 years in prison?

Are you even aware what Heß did? He was one of the people responsible for the Holocaust - a lot of the anti jewish laws were based on his suggestions. And, as Hitlers second in command, he knew about and supported the nazi crimes.

Please don't suggest to me that Hitler wanted to invade and bomb every nation on earth, that's ridiculous propaganda.

No, not every nation. Just those who opposed. Again, by 41 germany was allready at war with most of europe.

Perhaps Heß was used to pass a fake message, that England would not attack Germany, should Germany invade Russia. Perhaps Churchill double-crossed Hitler?

How would that even work? He could have passed a message from England to Germany since he was imprissoned and the Germany was at war with England LONG before the attack against the Soviet Union.

Churchill should have been the one sentenced to life in prison

England and France declared war on Hitler AFTER his armys attacked Poland, one of Englands allies. Hitler KNEW that could happen and still risked that. You cant really blame Churchill for keeping his promise to his allies.

Even if Einstein had removed Churchill, I doubt the UK would have broken the alliance.

for destroying so many cities when Germany had done nothing against England.

Ever heard of the London Blitz or the Battle of Britain? The Luftwaffe bombed London every night for about 2 month in a row, long before the Royal Air Force could attack german cities.

Or have you heard of german subs and their battle in the atlantik against british trading ships and the Royal Navy?

 

And all of this happend before Heß flight to England.

then World War 2 would have been a war between Germany and Russia

And Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg and all the other countries that were neither England or the SU and still would have been attacked by germany for varius reasons .

 

 

 

But as Plokite_Wolf allreays said, you seem to have absolutly no idea what your talking about, so I guess this is my last posting in that regard.

Edited by Stygs
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I had to vote for Plokite and Stygs posts, because i am astonished that we have to discuss Nazi ideology here...

 

Dear Jeff,

First of all i would like to suggest You to familiarize with term General Plan East. I would like to remind You, that Nazis were "so kind", that they've planned to exterminate about 90% of my fellow countrymens. Ethnic Cleansing.

Secondly, i'd like to remind You that Hitler in many speeches accused Jews for

.

 

I am just - literally - dying to see some pasted by Jeff texts from Stormfront.

Share this post


Link to post

I am just - literally - dying to see some pasted by Jeff texts from Stormfront.

 

I had no idea such a forum existed. Considering its size and the fact it's been around since 1996, why has nobody taken it down yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Rabbit

Cause it's based in the United States where our freedom of speech laws allow for such websites to exist.

 

As long as the forum isn't shown to be used as an organizational site for planning crimes of violence in the name of hate, then there's nothing stopping it from existing in accordance to US law.

Share this post


Link to post

Freedom of speech is one thing, using freedom of speech as an excuse for spreading hatred as another. I just checked, hate speech is an actual legal offence in Europe (including non-EU countries, Russia among them), Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Chile and even the somewhat restrictive Singapore, but I can't find an equivalent law for the US. Go figure.

 

However, they have subforums in various other languages, originating from countries where such things are prohibited.

 

As long as the forum isn't shown to be used as an organizational site for planning crimes of violence in the name of hate, then there's nothing stopping it from existing in accordance to US law.

 

That seems like a very convenient wording loophole for them, albeit lobbying against people who don't belong to their twisted idea of a white master race actually includes discrimination and the spreading thereof, which does lead to harming others.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind if someone is posting garbage out of Stormfront. I agree with Zee Hypnotist in this case - they can say whatever want to. As long as they don't violate anyones other liberties or use force against some groups, they may express themselves on such or other forum. I don't give a damn.

 

The only reason why i've mentioned forum for white skinheads was to illustrate that some people from around the world share same view about Hess (and Hitler) like Jeff. I don't understand why anyone would perceive Hess as "hero"... Guy supported one of the most totalitarian systems ever conceived by a man. System, which excluded every other nationality except "germanic", which established - along with bolshevism - it's own instituion (SA, and later on SS) to build labour and death camps for eradication of political enemies and all the others, who were unworthy to live in "thousand year Reich"... I guess i also don't find anything wrong in it...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Rabbit

Freedom of speech is one thing, using freedom of speech as an excuse for spreading hatred as another. I just checked, hate speech is an actual legal offence in Europe (including non-EU countries, Russia among them), Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Chile and even the somewhat restrictive Singapore, but I can't find an equivalent law for the US. Go figure.

 

However, they have subforums in various other languages, originating from countries where such things are prohibited.

 

 

That seems like a very convenient wording loophole for them, albeit lobbying against people who don't belong to their twisted idea of a white master race actually includes discrimination and the spreading thereof, which does lead to harming others.

 

The subforums are still hosted in the United States, which essentially means it is up to the individual countries to block them as they see fit. While I don't necessarily agree with the content discussed in the forums, our country was founded on the concept of being able to speak your mind about whatever you want, regardless of how distasteful it may sound. It's essentially what the United States of America is based on. The freedom to speak against a tyrannical government. The freedom to own guns in case of a necessary uprising against a tyrannical government. The freedom to believe in what we want, to preach what we want, to say what we want, as long as we aren't directly infringing on others right to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post

But not going topless as a female in Tennessee. We can't have that! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

But not going topless as a female in Tennessee. We can't have that! ^_^

 

Of course not, they need to cover up BUT NOT TOO MUCH because that'd be Islam lol

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Although I'm passionate about history and different perspectives, I'd rather be reading a library book than breaking my wrists typing in this thread. I hope other forum members feel the same way. In 2009 I read a book titled Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity by Harry Bruinius. Every time someone tells me that the Nazis were evil because of eugenics, I will refer them to this book :) But politics aside, it is worth reading. The stuff that happened in America from 1900 throughout the 1930s was insanity, it actually went on for longer than that (to a limited extent) which shows that nobody learned anything from Nazi atrocities and authoritarianism. Whoops politics again. Anyway, I don't think that folks should debate which is worse - forced euthanasia; or simply killing a person's genetic line by forced sterilisation, surely both are highly unacceptable? 100 years ago it was completely normal to conclude that someone was "feeble minded" or "a low-grade moron" based on a quick question survey. Afterwards they would sterilise the woman in question. It was akin to a religious crusade. A scientific war to eliminate bad genes (even though genetics hadn't been discovered!)

 

Thought: if Hitler was bad because he occupied dozens of nations in Europe, then why is America good (according to CNN) for occupying most of/all of the nations of the Middle East? :naughty:

 

War = Progress. Our superior ideology must be spread :D

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Rabbit

Thought: if Hitler was bad because he occupied dozens of nations in Europe, then why is America good (according to CNN) for occupying most of/all of the nations of the Middle East? :naughty:

Not that I'm saying it makes America "good," but Hitler occupied countries with the intent of taking them over, exterminating lesser races, and uniting everyone under his own rule. The United States kills (what we feel are) dictators, steals oil, and attempts to instill somewhat of a democracy, even if it is really just a puppet. Sure, there are civilian casualties, but I don't think the US kill rate hit even close to the Nazi's numbers. Edited by Rabbit

Share this post


Link to post

Every time someone tells me that the Nazis were evil because of eugenics, I will refer them to this book

I don't know if you intended this as a response to anyone or if you are just making a random statement, but in case of the former, I will point out that this is the first time anyone has brought up eugenics in this topic (which would make it a straw man).

 

Eugenics was actually a popular scientific interest globally prior to World War II. Hitler and the Nazis were not evil just because they supported eugenics, rather, the world started to consider eugenics as evil because Hitler supported it. Hitler is considered evil regardless of his stance on eugenics.

 

By the way, if you hadn't noticed, eugenics has been back in scientific interest again for about the past two decades.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×