@ Tshering 22
Hitler wanted prosperity for his country ,but it was not necessary for him to do ALL that he did
Agree. I am NOT praising him. But I don't despise him either. That's what.
Hitler was a great patriot but then when he destroyed whole Europe he became Germany's biggest Liability
He got over ambitious; when embarking on a project like this, when inner enlightenment is absent, even the most determined minds can be lead astray. That is what happened to Hitler. Had he simply exiled the Jews and let them leave without violently experimenting on them, even then he'd have been considered the finest political leader in the modern history. I mean come on, if Mughals can be praised, Hitler is a thousand times better.
When Russians and French were fighting the German troops they knew that German people were the prisoners of Nazis
That's a false propaganda. Not having the power to vote doesn't mean one is a prisoner in one's country. We have the power to vote and what power do people in India have? We are perfectly the opposite case of what Nazi Germany was in its extremity. Germans didn't need to oppose Hitler; he was their god not just because of Waffen SS patrolling the streets but simply because of the fact that he revolutionized Germany such a way that no one felt the need to oppose him. 90% of the Germans in the peak of Nazi era didn't even know what was going on with Jews. Most of them assumed that Jews were driven out, that's all. Hitler transformed a dying economy into a world industrial power in 4-6 years into taking the power. He had a large dark side which I condemn very strongly, but equally appreciate his dedication for his country. Had evil not clouded his mind so totally, he'd have been really appreciated worldwide.
In The Nazi army there were several officers who were opposed to Hitlers MADNESS and were concerned that due to Hitler the German nation and people would suffer ie when Germany would eventually loose in the end
I agree. Hitler was a man who was consumed by his darkside. As I said: I am not praising him for ALL the things; I condemn his ruthless killing of millions of innocent jews for nothing. Kids, women and even men who were nothing but mere civilians. That was wrong and he did horrendous work. But his principles of administration are still being followed in Germany due to which we can see Germany continuing to peak in every technological venture and retain the state's technological might and economy within a democratic framework.
If you think the Germans never engaged in colonialism, you've obviously never heard of the German Colonial Empire.
Every European power engaged in colonialism; the worst were Spanish and Portuguese. But British were no less in those days and least of all, Germans and French both of whom were more or less benevolent when put behind the Iberian savages and Greedy brutal Brits of that era.
That is quite the moral equivalence you made there, apparently racial supremacy = democratization. What an Orwellian view.
I didn't equate them in literal sense if you re-read my post. I said that every power uses some or the other excuse as agenda to spread its empire. Turks used Islam,Nazis used race, Russians used language and Americans are using "democratization". Okay for your sake, let us take it in literal terms for a moment. I don't think that democratization of Iraq was any different from the wars that Nazis started. Bringing democracy through bombs and jets is not ethical. It is equally forceful as a dictatorship.
I am surprised how you get so blinded by the "power of vote" when half the world's governments don't even run on democracy in true, honest sense.
Not all of todays advanced military technology came straight out of Nazi Germany, and those projects that did; many were based off other European designs and advancements that came before, with some exceptions. Although it is interesting to see you draw a direct parallel between German Jews and German Nazis as somehow being the same, I wonder if you consider Nietzsche, Kant, Beethoven, Mozart to be Nazis by association. Why not Marx and Freud while we're at it?
What European technologies are you talking about? Obviously the first flight was done in US and all that, but who revolutionized all these first inventions? Germans did. Who brought in the jet fighter? Germans. Who designed the assault rifle? Germans. Who revolutionized heavy tank design concept? Germans. The whole point of 5 former world powers fighting and still struggling to find any straight victory for a long time (until later) was because Nazi Germany was 2-3 decades ahead in military technology than US, UK, France and Soviet Union combined.
I never equated Nazis with Jews. I said that most of the modern inventions especially in terms of weapons tech has come from some or the other Germans whether Nazi (mostly) or Jew (Einstein). This again has no direct literal context of comparison.
This I partially agree with, Europe is spineless but for different reasons than you're probably trying to get at, but going between two moral extremes isn't worth condoning; especially if you're going to be against colonialism in the first place.
Anything extreme is wrong. This includes pacifism, secularism, liberalism and all the likes as well. These qualities in extreme just like racism and stuff, tend to weaken the pride, honor, culture and self-esteem of any host country, thus weakening its structure in the society and providing a fertile ground for the downfall of that country. Balance is the key. This is why I said that Hitler crossed that balancing point a little too much and met with a downfall. I'd say that the modern day Chinese are using this balance concept very smartly in geo-strategy (except in some costly goof ups).
Reasons whether different or not, this mannerism of European government shows that the guilt industry wrongly imposed on the continent has become parasitic. The only ones who can save Europe are Europeans if they remove this guilt industry and be reasonably balanced between ethnic/racial/cultural pride and extreme suicidal Gandhian pacifism. This has penetrated India as a result too and you can see that in our puppet PM and his owner.
He could have beat the Russians, sure, but also the rest of Europe, the US, and the world; which would have been screwed. Not an ideal scenario, but then again neither is an Axis victory in WWII either.
It was possible provided he had taken one nation at a time like what US did and learnt from its mistake. Most of US' military strategy of modern time is derived from Nazi Germany's thinking (barring anti-semitism and racial superiority concept). Axis downfall came simply because they confused ambition's rationality with self-smugness. Both are a very dangerous mix and do not fit in the doctrine of a nation's strategy especially when in military aspects.
Not different at all. We were their pawns, and Bose used Hitler as well. If our land wasn't valuable to his enemy he wouldn't have cared. Remember the rule "I have no friends, only interests."?? If the Italians or Japanese ruled India, he would not have done jack sh*t to help us.
The point is, he didn't. But the British did. And no a few decades; 2 full centuries and a half. That's why this discussion on who was better.
The whole Aryan/Master race was not a tool to project around the world. It was only to nation build. Build a new identity for his own people.
I know that. But in your case, "we will bring democracy" is the war cry usually. That's what I was equating to. Inside US, this same tool is mentioned as "the power of freedom and justice". Though it is not bad since it instills pride in your countrymen. Hitler thought of a different method to get that sense of pride in his countrymen. Simple as that.
The Germans have participated in colonization, and if the Nazis had some time to breath in Europe I sure as hell think they would have. Like all the racist Europeans did back then. If you wanted wealth and power back then, you colonized.
But still he didn't. Hitler had only a few selective targets: Jews, Poles and later Allies (whites as well). So race was simply not an issue otherwise he wouldn't have gone to war with fellow white countries using non-white Asians as allies.