Poll of the Day > Let's say for the sake of argument that Nazi Germany never invaded anyone...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...would the Holocaust and other abuses of human rights on the German people be a good enough reason to invade Nazi Germany?

Isn't worse happening in parts of the world right now, and nobody is doing anything about it?
---

Worse was happening during the same time and nobody did anything about either. Only the Nazi's were attacked meanwhile the Jews were already being killed in pogroms all over, the Holodomor resulted in the deaths of 10 million ethnic Ukrainians, and Communism in general was killing people all over the place. I know it sounds kind of wrong but if it weren't the Nazi's Communism would have spread a lot further across Europe. They thought the spread of Communism was a Jewish conspiracy though, and whether it was or wasn't, there were a lot of Jews involved in the spread of it and a good chunk of the major players spreading Communism were Jewish too. When you look at Israel today though, they maintain a Jewish supremacist ethnostate exactly as the Nazi's envisioned for themselves, but for some reason that's ok.
---

RazorX2003 posted...

I know it sounds kind of wrong but if it weren't the Nazi's Communism would have spread a lot further across Europe.

The Soviet victory in 1945 was a "less worse" outcome than a Nazi victory would have been in 1942.
---

Funkdamental posted...

RazorX2003 posted...

I know it sounds kind of wrong but if it weren't the Nazi's Communism would have spread a lot further across Europe.

The Soviet victory in 1945 was a "less worse" outcome than a Nazi victory would have been in 1942.

Only because of the holocaust and fears of nazi victory spreading it.

Hindsight btw we didnt know of the holocaust until after we got into the war.

It was all politics/money when we jumped in, we use morals to justify our actions after the fact.

The communist scourge is still alive btw.
---

The communist menace lives on in high school gay pride clubs and Tumblr bloggers named Suzanne
---

bulbinking posted...

Only because of the holocaust and fears of nazi victory spreading it.

Well yes, that's exactly how you weigh up the lesser of two evils. The worst of Stalin's terror was over by 1942, whereas Hitler's was just getting started.

If it had been Stalin who committed suicide in 1945 and Hitler who died of a stroke in 1953 instead of the other way round, Europe and Asia would have witnessed a far more frightening death toll. We know this, because we know the Nazis were planning the deaths of tens of millions of people -- mainly Jews and Slavs -- in the event of a German victory, and because we know tens of millions of people did not die as a result of Soviet postwar occupation after 1945.

The singular monstrosity of Hitler's regime was such that it made the transformation of most of central, southern and eastern Europe into a huge communist prison camp a price worth paying to see it destroyed.

bulbinking posted...

It was all politics/money when we jumped in, we use morals to justify our actions after the fact.

Reminder: Germany declared war on the United States first. No matter who was US president at the time, a declaration of war on the United States would hardly have left Uncle Sam with diplomatic room for maneuver.
---

Well lool what Israel has been doing to Palestine and now Syria.... Is anything being done?
---

Germany probably could've been seen in a good light
but they were always killing their own politicians, torturing and killing citizens
to put it in perspective when the nazi's were killing all of the people from the ghetto their wives were close by at refreshment stands serving them drinks.
and yeah it'd be easy to say well if no one attacked germany but they were making up propaganda up about poland, so even a german in that situation would be like fuck germany
and had germany won 40% of their occupied terrotory would have been ripped out of their homes and eventually murdered.
the other shitty stuff they did not so shitty compared to the rest of the world, not even that crazy evil compared to britain's colonialism, but it wouldn't have been nice living under a monarchy again, it would've failed no matter what, because at best hitler was never voted in he was chancellor and seized power to make it an imperial monarchy, the only way to rise up was to stab as many people in the back as you can, it was really terrible

VioletZer0 posted...

...would the Holocaust and other abuses of human rights on the German people be a good enough reason to invade Nazi Germany?

In theory, but in practice we never seem to invade developed (or even developing) nations over human rights violations. It tends to be undeveloped nations where we eventually intervene. Also keep in mind that Nazi Germany is *why* we're theoretically inclined to intervene now. Prior to that we didn't have a convention in place. (And, in practice, we *don't* respond until it's much too late -- like how Clinton pushed to keep the US and UN out of the Rwandan Genocide and how we're not doing much to stop a genocide in Myanmar)

wolfy42 posted...

Isn't worse happening in parts of the world right now, and nobody is doing anything about it?

Uhhhh, kinda no because nothing happening is on par with the Holocaust. There's certainly genocide going on right now that isn't being tackled, but it's nothing as egregious.
---

Not likely. Today we have multiple nations with a drastic amount of human rights abuses that have distinctly not been declared war upon. In fact, assuming that Hitler hadn't declared any wars, it's more likely that America, England, France, and so-forth would have ended up allying with him in order to protect against the encroching Communist threat than oppose him. Sure, he would have not been liked and almost certainly considered a monster, but so long as he didn't declare war it's a bit more likely he would have been pro-capitolism than communism. Especially since his views on race and the like would have made him a mortal enemy of Russia.

However Hitler probably wouldn't have been a fan of capitolism either considering that nazi-ism is its own unique beast that doesn't really show up on the communism/capitolism scale.
---

You want to know whether or not germany would've been good on it's own
just look at how good it is today
or how good japan is
we obviously did something right even if it did push us into war
I don't think anyone in their right mind would be ok living in that time period

Funkdamental posted...

bulbinking posted...

Only because of the holocaust and fears of nazi victory spreading it.

Well yes, that's exactly how you weigh up the lesser of two evils. The worst of Stalin's terror was over by 1942, whereas Hitler's was just getting started.

If it had been Stalin who committed suicide in 1945 and Hitler who died of a stroke in 1953 instead of the other way round, Europe and Asia would have witnessed a far more frightening death toll. We know this, because we know the Nazis were planning the deaths of tens of millions of people -- mainly Jews and Slavs -- in the event of a German victory, and because we know tens of millions of people did not die as a result of Soviet postwar occupation after 1945.

The singular monstrosity of Hitler's regime was such that it made the transformation of most of central, southern and eastern Europe into a huge communist prison camp a price worth paying to see it destroyed.

bulbinking posted...

It was all politics/money when we jumped in, we use morals to justify our actions after the fact.

Reminder: Germany declared war on the United States first. No matter who was US president at the time, a declaration of war on the United States would hardly have left Uncle Sam with diplomatic room for maneuver.

Firstly you are undercutting the atrocities of Stalin after WW2

Secondly I never heard plans of more exterminations after mazi victory. Thats not what the postwar building period plans were at all.

Thirdly Stalin was not the only practicer of communism, but all communism spread from the russians so all attrocities related to communism are higher than the attrocities related to mot only nazism but violent nationalist groups combined.

They are still around and China is getting ready for some power grabbing. Lets see how many more the communists kill.
---

Communist aren't bad people
forming union's isn't necessarily evil if the workers run the business
that is an aspect of communism we can all agree with

dictatorships are bad, stealing peoples food and not paying them is bad, that's not what communism is about, communism is about taking from the rich and giving to the poor

and like you said, I too have my doubts about some of the evidence used at the nuremburg trials, but who the heck knows, killing unarmed civilians is a war crime regardless of whether or not they're your civilians...

if you wanted to make the arguement america kills citizens in other countries with bombs that'd be fine, our police after all engage in asset forfeiture but they don't actively kill us yet

RoboXgp89 posted...

Communist aren't bad people
forming union's isn't necessarily evil if the workers run the business
that is an aspect of communism we can all agree with

dictatorships are bad, stealing peoples food and not paying them is bad, that's not what communism is about, communism is about taking from the rich and giving to the poor

and like you said, I too have my doubts about some of the evidence used at the nuremburg trials, but who the heck knows, killing unarmed civilians is a war crime regardless of whether or not they're your civilians...

if you wanted to make the arguement america kills citizens in other countries with bombs that'd be fine, our police after all engage in asset forfeiture but they don't actively kill us yet

*sigh* Of course you're this stupid.

No. That's not what happens at all. Communism can't work. Who redistributes the wealth? It sure as hell isn't some divine and incorruptable yet totally fair and unbiased being. It's the government. In order for the government to perform this sort of task it needs an excessive amount of power. After all, it needs to access every citizen's personal wealth and belongings in order to properly catalog and then redistribute the wealth and make sure it stays redistributed. Then, of course, it needs to keep this power in order to ensure that things keep going which means cracking down on anyone who 'threatens' the government, equality, or anything else. Plus it becomes insanely insular because external goods throw the whole system out of whack since a Belgan chocolate would be worth so much more than a normal one. People who liked chocolate would be driven to seek out the Belgan goods which would threaten the control the government has. This also means that wealth within cannot be obtained since the only way to ensure that people would get their 'fair share' would be to make basically everything effectively government property. Needless to say this means that the economy would quickly dissolve away and things begin to spiral out of control. Dissenters and people who so much as question the government would need to be silenced to ensure their continued absolute authority and things will keep going.

THIS IS ASSUMING A BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT WITH NO CORRUPTION DEDICATED ONLY TO SERVING IT'S PEOPLE!

This isn't conjecture either as this is a common fate of communist nations. But stop to think for a second. Let's say you worked hard to become a doctor. Maybe you're not the best but you spent years in medical school and then years dedicating your life to training and refining your skills to save people. How much stuff should you have in comparison to the fry cook who can barely speak your language and spends his time getting high? How would you feel if you sat down and, though hard work and effort, raised your little 'whittle toys out of wood' garage shop into a successful business chain with a vast variety of toys only for the government to come along and strip it all away because 'rich people should give to the poor'. What about luxury goods like smart phones? Do you think Apple would have even considered trying to invent one if any wealth that they got from it would have been stripped away?
---

What if you had the GALL to buy and own your own land? A status symbol that would place you well above the pleb who spends his days squatting in a motel? How would you feel if the government stripped you of it in the name of 'progress'?

Then throw censorship and the like into the mix. Do you feel race relations are bad in the U.S.? Imagine if the government could just swoop in and send anyone who voiced dissent to a lifetime in the salt mines because their local official police chief is a racist and that makes the government look bad? Or if you suddenly found out that the kindly old police officer whom dedicated his life to helping the elderly and children and has thirty 'cop of the year' awards and whatever is suddenly a member of a terrorist group that bribed him with promises of immense wealth just a few days after he implied that the government might not be entirely on the up and up? Any info you tried to find would quickly reassert that the government was in the right and the person who questioned it was a horrible monster. Who else can you turn to? The government owns all the media after all.

Then we have actual corruption. Do I even need to explain how easy it is to censor and cover up how wealthy someone is when the government basically controls everything? How many loopholes conveniently appear for those who support the current in-power people? Yet you can't even raise your own voice without being sent to prison.

Communism. Doesn't. Work. What I described above isn't just some terror tale about what 'could' happen, it's an effective recount of what HAS happened in places like Russia and China. In order for it to even function as a government it needs an obscene amount of power and trust in its government and an obscene LACK of power for 'the worker'. If the worker can hold on to luxuries and wealth the whole thing breaks apart because they then become the wealthy, the people whom they wanted the wealth taken away from in the first place. Plus it lets those people in power retain that power and render the 'common man' worthless since the only people they need to care about are the ones who hold power as well. The common masses? Even the weakest local official holds more political sway than the entire district he presides over. The party can cover his ass if he gets in trouble. You decide to not be part of that party? Well, you aren't in trouble. You don't exist any more and non-existent people can't get into trouble.

It's easy to make it SOUND awesome. Every worker getting their fair share while the rich jerks who buy ferrari's on whims pay for it and you can finally get a car that has working air conditioning! Yet, in reality, it falls apart swiftly.
---

@Unbridled9

For future reference you can literally take nothing he says seriously. I'm actually convinced he isn't trolling, he's just really, really, really, really uninformed, for the sake of not being moderated.
---

Cacciato posted...

For future reference you can literally take nothing he says seriously. I'm actually convinced he isn't trolling, he's just really, really, really, really uninformed, for the sake of not being moderated.

I'm still on the fence myself.
---

Communism is just the best word we have... what would be a better word for a totally decentralized economy focused on workforce independence and self-sufficiency?
---

Lokarin posted...

Communism is just the best word we have... what would be a better word for a totally decentralized economy focused on workforce independence and self-sufficiency?

Anarcho-capitalism?
---

Funkdamental posted...

Well yes, that's exactly how you weigh up the lesser of two evils. The worst of Stalin's terror was over by 1942, whereas Hitler's was just getting started.

The Russians killed 2 million Germans and displace 12 million Germans. While mass raping German woman. Watch the documentary "Hellstorm".

let's get one thing straight

Any sort of "moral" nonsense justifying war in Syria is 110% BS. The entire reason why we want to invade Syria is because Israel wants to keep the area unstable, and because Assad said no to the US putting down a pipeline that would bisect their country.

Lokarin posted...

Communism is just the best word we have... what would be a better word for a totally decentralized economy focused on workforce independence and self-sufficiency?

The entire principle behind Communism is a centralized economy.

Zeus is right, what you refer to is Anarcho-Capitalism or some other flavor of Capitalism.

VioletZer0 posted...

let's get one thing straight

Any sort of "moral" nonsense justifying war in Syria is 110% BS. The entire reason why we want to invade Syria is because Israel wants to keep the area unstable, and because Assad said no to the US putting down a pipeline that would bisect their country.

Preeeeety much.

Also flexing on russia, which everybody seems to enjoy doing nowadays.
---

VioletZer0 posted...

Lokarin posted...

Communism is just the best word we have... what would be a better word for a totally decentralized economy focused on workforce independence and self-sufficiency?

The entire principle behind Communism is a centralized economy.

Zeus is right, what you refer to is Anarcho-Capitalism or some other flavor of Capitalism.

I'm fully accepting of new terminology.
---

Had Germany not attacked the USSR, and Japan not attacked USA, Eurasia would be approximately four or five countries, right now.

Cacciato posted...

@Unbridled9

For future reference you can literally take nothing he says seriously. I'm actually convinced he isn't trolling, he's just really, really, really, really uninformed, for the sake of not being moderated.

Tbh I'm pretty sure he's a methhead

bulbinking posted...

Firstly you are undercutting the atrocities of Stalin after WW2

Not at all. Killings under Soviet rule between 1944-53 were in the order of hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as a million, but they did not approach the several millions who died under Nazi rule.

bulbinking posted...

Secondly I never heard plans of more exterminations after mazi victory. Thats not what the postwar building period plans were at all.

The first point to note is that in the event of a Nazi victory, the exterminations that began during the war but fell short of their goals because of Germany's defeat would have been successfully completed instead. In Europe, a Nazi victory would have entailed the deaths of possibly another three million Jews.

Secondly, postwar plans drawn up by Wirtschaftstab Ost, the principal German economic planning agency for the East, envisaged an artificial famine: they dictated that no agricultural surplus should be transferred to the deficit areas -- the food-importing areas of the USSR -- outside the black-earth region of the south; instead, the population should be allowed to starve to death. In its own words, WiStab Osts plans anticipated the extinction of industry as well as a large percentage of the human beings in the hitherto deficit areas. That means tens of millions of people.

(Sources: Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder: Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940-1941, Alex J. Kay, 2011; German Rule in Russia 1941-45, Alexander Dallin, 1981.)
---

Unbridled9 posted...


Nothing you said has anything to do with a 'communist party' which would respect the people of this nation by redistributing the wealth for social services
in a democratic system 'communism' wins every single time and when people vote against the interest of the worker it shows with things like high crime, high suicide rates, massive amounts of homeless people. That is what a capitalist system does, so you could have a utopia in a capitalist system but still have hobo's sleeping on the side walk because the rent is based on dual income and not monthly earnings.

Saying my workers don't have a right to go on strike is saying that the person who owns the business owns all of the work. The boss is taking credit for the fruits of that persons labor. In a capitalist system if the business is successful the money will go to the stock market instead of the worker so the money pools at the top.

Say the 1% have 20% of the economy and the lower 4 classes have the other 20% of GDP. Well that is equal right, so the rich must have like 50% of the economy in reality. That's where you're wrong, the 1percent has 70% of the economy at all times through monopoly while the workers at the bottom have less then a percent. A CEO makes 10-1000 times more money then someone else in the same time period. Some CEO's in a hour make more than most of their workers in a day.
Letting workers organize unions and not firing them result in a fairer distribution of wealth.
No one is saying to give money to the government or to let them seize your lands with out paying. This is more about workers rights then collectivism or a government monoply.

Riiiiight...

I believe what the others said about you being either a troll or terminally uninformed. So all I'm gonna say is you should look at other nations like Russia, China, Venezuela (Great because it's unfolding right now), Albania, Ukraine, and basically any nation that was a Soviet satellite and see how that turned out. Cause if you really can't get the idea through your skull after that I suspect that nothing short of a gulag would make you rethink communism.
---

croney capitalsim and facist dictatorships arent' communism

5 million people die every year because they don't have access to anti-biotics, vaccines, etc.
that's not communism that's capitalism lol

RoboXgp89 posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/12/non-profits-300-hepatitis-c-cure-as-effective-as-84000-alternative

The treatment is expected to be available in Malaysia within one to two years. DNDi has also signed deals in Latin America to make it available for $500 for the 12 week course, with a provision to bring the price down to $300.

Why the hell is it taking two years?

Since the fall of the USSR and the rise of capitalism around the world, world poverty has been in free fall.

VioletZer0 posted...

Since the fall of the USSR and the rise of capitalism around the world, world poverty has been in free fall.

http://redpanels.com/102/

Questionmarktarius posted...

RoboXgp89 posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/12/non-profits-300-hepatitis-c-cure-as-effective-as-84000-alternative

The treatment is expected to be available in Malaysia within one to two years. DNDi has also signed deals in Latin America to make it available for $500 for the 12 week course, with a provision to bring the price down to $300.

Why the hell is it taking two years?

Not a big deal apprently

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?'

RoboXgp89 posted...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?'

At the very end of the article, the answer seems to be "yes" anyway.