2 ms·
> I don't deny that it ended up that way. > But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction. > I do think that it c
by ailideex 7y ago
> I don't deny that it ended up that way.
> But it's important to consider how external forces drove its development in that direction.
> I do think that it could have turned out very differently.
So imagine this was written in response to saying "Nazi Germany was angry and suspicious because it was a brutal fascist regime that relied on purging dissidents and killing millions to stay in power."
I think most people would have a bit of a bone to pick ... so ... I dont know - food for thought. I don't think we need to equivocate every time we condemn what the USSR was.
- mirimir 7y agoIf France and Britain hadn't been such assholes after WWI, I doubt that the Nazis would ever have taken over. The Nazis actually did a good job getting Germany functional again. That doesn't excuse in any way all the horrible stuff that they later did. But it does explain how they took over. Watch "Triumph of the Will" sometime, from the perspective of people who had spent over a decade after WWI starving. It's all just cycle of hate. Just how the abused grow up to be abusers. But on a hugely larger scale.
- ailideex 7y ago> It's all just cycle of hate. Just how the abused grow up to be abusers. But on a hugely larger scale. In my view the nature of Nazi Germany was fundamentally different from the nature of German Empire and I do not think that it's nature was an understandable response to the actions of Franz and Britain.
- mirimir 7y agoSo what do you think explains the difference?