4 ms·

> people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion. you see there is difference between you and other people, many of us don't care

> people should be "uncompromising" about saving their homeland from invasion. you see there is difference between you and other people, many of us don't care about their "homeland", do you think I would return to my home countries to fight for it? do you think I would fight for country I'm living in? only thing I'd fight for is my own family, I see no reason to fight over some country concept, I'm flexible I can either adapt or leave for different country >if my country surrendered in WW2 many more people would have died you can't possibly know that

gambiting 5y ago
>>you can't possibly know that I think I can, because extermination of people of my nation was explicitly Hitler's goal.
- Markoff 5y ago
  having plans and executing them are often two very different things what we know is the countries which agreed to be Nazi states (Slovakia for instance) were pretty much unaffected by war until the very end (if they switched sides) and more people died during fights with allies/germans in last few months than during years of war for instance there were pretty much no victims in my hometown from Nazis, while Allied bombing at the very end of war killed 1/3 of civilian population of my hometown, but s*t happens, right? meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>having plans and executing them are often two very different things I live right outside Auschwitz, I think the "execution" part worked out just fine for Nazis. Poland was very much on the agenda for total extermination by Hitler. Either way, I can't believe anyone is actually suggesting that not fighting Nazis in WW2 might have been the better choice by anyone. It's truly shocking. >>meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2? Like, no personal offence, but it shows absolutely 0 understanding of 20th century history in Europe to even say such a statement. Nazi Germany was the loser. There is no question about it. Marshall plan was put in place to make sure WW2 won't happen again, as clearly the treatment of Germany post WW1 has contributed to the outbreak of another world war. Again, I'm truly shocked there can be even a discussion about "who really is the winner here". Not Germany. Not by a long shot.
    - Markoff 5y ago
      Germany lost WW1 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe Germany lost WW2 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe yes, this really shows who is the winner and the loser of the war and will for sure discourage anyone from starting another war
      - gambiting 5y ago
        Again, this is a conclusion that only someone who is completely ignorant of history can come to. I'm just baffled that there's people like this on a website as good as HN.
        Markoff 5y ago
        I'm more baffled by personal attacks without arguments (already second attack in row), I'd expect better from HN discussion.

gambiting 5y ago

>>you can't possibly know that I think I can, because extermination of people of my nation was explicitly Hitler's goal.

Markoff 5y ago
having plans and executing them are often two very different things what we know is the countries which agreed to be Nazi states (Slovakia for instance) were pretty much unaffected by war until the very end (if they switched sides) and more people died during fights with allies/germans in last few months than during years of war for instance there were pretty much no victims in my hometown from Nazis, while Allied bombing at the very end of war killed 1/3 of civilian population of my hometown, but s*t happens, right? meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2?
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>having plans and executing them are often two very different things I live right outside Auschwitz, I think the "execution" part worked out just fine for Nazis. Poland was very much on the agenda for total extermination by Hitler. Either way, I can't believe anyone is actually suggesting that not fighting Nazis in WW2 might have been the better choice by anyone. It's truly shocking. >>meanwhile "losing" Nazi countries like Germany, Austria or Italy were doing better already few years after war than most of the "winners", so who was in the end winner and loser of WW2? Like, no personal offence, but it shows absolutely 0 understanding of 20th century history in Europe to even say such a statement. Nazi Germany was the loser. There is no question about it. Marshall plan was put in place to make sure WW2 won't happen again, as clearly the treatment of Germany post WW1 has contributed to the outbreak of another world war. Again, I'm truly shocked there can be even a discussion about "who really is the winner here". Not Germany. Not by a long shot.
  - Markoff 5y ago
    Germany lost WW1 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe Germany lost WW2 - few decades later one of the strongest countries in Europe yes, this really shows who is the winner and the loser of the war and will for sure discourage anyone from starting another war
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Again, this is a conclusion that only someone who is completely ignorant of history can come to. I'm just baffled that there's people like this on a website as good as HN.
      - Markoff 5y ago
        I'm more baffled by personal attacks without arguments (already second attack in row), I'd expect better from HN discussion.