4 ms·

> ...hardly an accident It was accident that the dude also wanted to conquer the world, and doing so at the heart of the western civilization. So of course peo

by nsonha 2y ago

> ...hardly an accident It was accident that the dude also wanted to conquer the world, and doing so at the heart of the western civilization. So of course people had to get rid of him. There are regimes similar to the Nazi today that kept going on because it didn't bother the powerful guys that much.

roenxi 2y ago
The "conquer the world" part was the majority of the problem. If the Nazi's had stuck to conquering one or maybe even 2 countries they'd just be another unpleasant crowd in the unpleasant soup of history. Ethnic cleansing programs aren't that unusual. There are a couple of high profile ones going on today. I'm no history buff but it is a stretch to say Germany stands a head above the other mass killings in history. Even at the time the European colonisers were not gentle men. The Germans obviously made the especially egregious mistake targeting wealthy Europeans who are supposed to be above that sort of thing and also heavily involved in the media which means they get much worse publicity than say, the Ottomans. They weren't a threat on the same scale as getting Communists in the government. The Communists had a habit of escalating from run-of-the-mill ethnic cleansing to a sort of combined mass-death/economic collapse/generational poverty/social implosion disaster. They were literally the last people anyone should want to be politically empowering. The right option really was a no-compromise dedication to freedom, capitalism and liberalism .
- nsonha 2y ago
  > the communists had a habit of escalating from run-of-the-mill ethnic cleansing to a sort of combined mass-death/economic collapse I don't agree with this assessment. Regardless of the fact that ethnic cleansing can happen under communism, at the end of the day, their ideology isn't about that. It's about "common ownership of the means of production". On the other hand, social hierarchy, master race and so on, are major parts of Fascism (and "conquering the world" is not necessarily in it) And even if you want to argue that their ethnic cleansing isn't that bad, what really bad is the dictatorship with no real coherent ideology other than some guy saying so, and the persecution of dissidents/intellectuals. I have no doubt that had they not lost in WWII, they would run the economy into collapse/slow death similar to the USSR anyway.
  - me_me_me 2y ago
    ... who cares about ideology when stalin decides to starve your nation to death in manufactured famine? Yes we are going to be starved to death but its for the common good of a working man! Nazi economy was going to collapse, it was based on expansion and looting. Many historians make case that hitler started war too soon, but they forget that germany was running out of time and needed war to prevent collapse of their economy. Arguing about which regime was worse is silly. Counting victims and who kill who and why is meaningless. Both were bloody and run by paranoid morons who left their nations in way worse state
  - lazide 2y ago
    Maoism/lysenkoism? Hello? The idealogy is fundamentally about delusion and feel goodism over what works, which is why it is prone to authoritarianism and economic collapse (and famines, etc).
    - nsonha 2y ago
      > The idealogy is fundamentally about delusion and feel goodism over what works what's your point? Reminder that some people is arguing this is somehow worst than some ideology that has an explicit goal to kill people en-masse.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Lysenkoism killed approximately 30-40 million Chinese via completely avoidable starvation during the ‘Great Leap Forward’. Far more than Hitler killed (intentionally) through extermination. And anyone with half a brain saw it was insanity - which is why those who spoke up got shot or sent to the Gulag. Because the ideology was fundamentally one that no one was able to question safely. So they’re both mass murdering genocidal ideologies.
        nsonha 2y ago
        > the ideology was fundamentally one that no one was able to question safely. so according to you there are only 2 ideologies in the world: dictatorship and non-dictatorship. I guess simplification is always a great start for an intellectual conversation. By saying that, you essentially dismissed the entire premise of this discussion, because fascism and communism are the same thing I guess, so what are we even talking about? Also if you're going to compare body counts, then do it right - First of all, all communist statistics are unreliable estimation, they didn't exactly brag about that to the outside world, do they. - Second of all, communism was deployed to a much larger population, during a longer time frame, unlike fascism. Seems like you're arguing communism is worse because it's not bad enough to die early, so it lasted and did more damage, which is a ridiculous argument.

by nsonha 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

The "conquer the world" part was the majority of the problem. If the Nazi's had stuck to conquering one or maybe even 2 countries they'd just be another unpleasant crowd in the unpleasant soup of history. Ethnic cleansing programs aren't that unusual. There are a couple of high profile ones going on today. I'm no history buff but it is a stretch to say Germany stands a head above the other mass killings in history. Even at the time the European colonisers were not gentle men. The Germans obviously made the especially egregious mistake targeting wealthy Europeans who are supposed to be above that sort of thing and also heavily involved in the media which means they get much worse publicity than say, the Ottomans. They weren't a threat on the same scale as getting Communists in the government. The Communists had a habit of escalating from run-of-the-mill ethnic cleansing to a sort of combined mass-death/economic collapse/generational poverty/social implosion disaster. They were literally the last people anyone should want to be politically empowering. The right option really was a no-compromise dedication to freedom, capitalism and liberalism .

nsonha 2y ago
> the communists had a habit of escalating from run-of-the-mill ethnic cleansing to a sort of combined mass-death/economic collapse I don't agree with this assessment. Regardless of the fact that ethnic cleansing can happen under communism, at the end of the day, their ideology isn't about that. It's about "common ownership of the means of production". On the other hand, social hierarchy, master race and so on, are major parts of Fascism (and "conquering the world" is not necessarily in it) And even if you want to argue that their ethnic cleansing isn't that bad, what really bad is the dictatorship with no real coherent ideology other than some guy saying so, and the persecution of dissidents/intellectuals. I have no doubt that had they not lost in WWII, they would run the economy into collapse/slow death similar to the USSR anyway.
- me_me_me 2y ago
  ... who cares about ideology when stalin decides to starve your nation to death in manufactured famine? Yes we are going to be starved to death but its for the common good of a working man! Nazi economy was going to collapse, it was based on expansion and looting. Many historians make case that hitler started war too soon, but they forget that germany was running out of time and needed war to prevent collapse of their economy. Arguing about which regime was worse is silly. Counting victims and who kill who and why is meaningless. Both were bloody and run by paranoid morons who left their nations in way worse state
- lazide 2y ago
  Maoism/lysenkoism? Hello? The idealogy is fundamentally about delusion and feel goodism over what works, which is why it is prone to authoritarianism and economic collapse (and famines, etc).
  - nsonha 2y ago
    > The idealogy is fundamentally about delusion and feel goodism over what works what's your point? Reminder that some people is arguing this is somehow worst than some ideology that has an explicit goal to kill people en-masse.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Lysenkoism killed approximately 30-40 million Chinese via completely avoidable starvation during the ‘Great Leap Forward’. Far more than Hitler killed (intentionally) through extermination. And anyone with half a brain saw it was insanity - which is why those who spoke up got shot or sent to the Gulag. Because the ideology was fundamentally one that no one was able to question safely. So they’re both mass murdering genocidal ideologies.
      - nsonha 2y ago
        > the ideology was fundamentally one that no one was able to question safely. so according to you there are only 2 ideologies in the world: dictatorship and non-dictatorship. I guess simplification is always a great start for an intellectual conversation. By saying that, you essentially dismissed the entire premise of this discussion, because fascism and communism are the same thing I guess, so what are we even talking about? Also if you're going to compare body counts, then do it right - First of all, all communist statistics are unreliable estimation, they didn't exactly brag about that to the outside world, do they. - Second of all, communism was deployed to a much larger population, during a longer time frame, unlike fascism. Seems like you're arguing communism is worse because it's not bad enough to die early, so it lasted and did more damage, which is a ridiculous argument.