Begin.
Let's hear some real debate on this one instead of mindlessly mashing buttons.
Printable View
Begin.
Let's hear some real debate on this one instead of mindlessly mashing buttons.
surely you jest
I think we might need to wait a few years to figure this one out? I'm sure historians will have some interesting things to say about Bush decades from now. It's too soon to know what the exact ramifications of his actions will be.
They're both puppets, each to his own extent.
Hitler was a puppet? What dark cabal was pulling the strings behind the nazi regime?
How was Hitler a puppet?
And yes, Hitler was way worse. Bush will never be responsible for the deaths of 50 million, the rape of half the women in Eastern Europe, and the torture of 5 million Jews.
What Bush did was spend eight years stealing from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy, tortured several thousand, and is likely responsible for the deaths of a million or so
No comparison
In this context Bush sounds like a stand up swell guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Bush was close to an absolute puppet.
Hitler is trickier. I wish I was sober enough to go into the details. Who am I kidding, I'm no wufugy, so you won't get some long drawn-out post from me about this.
Moral of the story is I read too many books about conspiracy theories.
I went away from my computer for a minute while posting this and had no idea wufugy had posted. I meant that not as a pot-shot, but as something that I'd thought he'd know something about. Apparently that's not the case. My other comment (or maybe it was a thought) still stands, I wish I could relay my thoughts on the computer the way wuf does, but that ain't happening....Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
Anyway, I'm reading a book right now that says Hitler wanted out of the war in 1941 with England, because he knew the real threat was communist Russia, and knew that he had to have England on his side if he were to defeat them. Secret talks were negotiated but stuff happened (a secret flight by Hess to negotiate peace got fucked up when he had to crash land on some guys farm, totally blowing his cover and chance at peace.....at the same time, people within the Royal Family were trying to get Churchill the fuck out of power because he wanted to fight, the Royal Family didn't, etc).
Long story short (long drawn out sentence coming) this book goes on to explain how Hitler was manipulated by many people (Mein Kampf should have been a co-authored book, one of the guys that helped him with the Beer Hall Putsch had a lot of impact on the book), his feelings about Jews were distorted once he became more powerful because of influences of other people (one of his best friends as a youth was a Jew), the way he came to power makes it seem like he "took over the power" but people within the government let that happen, Reichstag Fire happens (so many parallels to 9-11 it's sick), government controlled media was behind him, *AMERICAN* mass media was told to support Hitler, etc, etc......
Who was worse, Hitler or Bush? Fucking slam dunk, Hitler, areyoufuckingkiddingme? Spoon asked for some debate so I thought I'd stir the pot.
I have to stay away from this subject/thread as I cannot possibly be objective, but there were better people to match up against each, comparing these two is a bit of a stretch.
Hitler, no doubt, was influenced by members of his own party, but I have yet to find any credible material claiming that his will wasn't largely his own, and that he wasn't the biggest driving force in the Third Reich.
The thing is that puppet governments are really hard to pull off (if not impossible) in the first place. Even Bush ultimately did what he wanted. His puppetness had to do with him not really caring, being easily influenced, and being backed by the richest guys due to this.
But, yeah, Hitler wasn't the only person to blame. WWII was an extension of WWI and the Great Depression. Most people don't realize exactly how rocked Germany was in the first half of the 20th Century. After they lost WWI, they were basically everybody's bitch, they spiraled into crazy economic turmoil due to this, the Great Depression made this even much worse, this also exacerbated the already proliferate anti-semitism and racism in Europe, and after a couple election cycles the Nazis got a large chunk of the government and the head office, then they power grabbed the entire government, and nobody stopped them because Germany was in such horrible economic and hateful times that enough of them belligerently believed the Nazis were going to lead them to economic superiority.
In fact, the style of protests we're seeing from the crazies on the far right at the health care townhall meetings is very similar to the style of protests the Nazi supporters engaged in when they were a small minority. It's also very similar to the anti-civil rights protests back in the 60s.
Anyways, what I was getting at was that Germany was fucked up a shitload by international bullying and debt, the sleeping giant US was isolationist, and there was great will in the German people to fight back. This is actually similar to the history of North Korea. We like to think that the leadership is just a bunch of power-hungry dictators (which they are right now), but we don't realize that the ideology behind this regime arose out of NK getting raped and pillaged over and over by its neighbors, then they finally stood up, got super militaristic, and said they weren't gonna take it anymore.
Also, if the US had not been isolationist, I don't think that WWII would have been nearly as huge, and it may not even have happened. Hitler really didn't want to fight the US, but he knew that we would mind our own business unless we were attacked, so he never attacked us. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the rest of the world, Hirohito had the balls to awaken the US colossus.
Anyways, had the League of Nations been more powerful, and had the US been heavily involved in foreign militaristic relations, WWII would have been much, much different.
[quote="UG"]This totally blows my mind, but at the same time makes a lot of sense. NH UG. What book is this? I might want to take a look at it even though ive never been one for conspiracy theories, this one sounds good.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
Thread obviously exists because of potential lols of snapvoting GWTARDHEAD as worse than Hitler.
[x] lolzgetfail
By the standards being set in this thread, Christianity shouldn't have lost to Scientology.
Only way Hitler's gonna lose is if he's put up against Canadians amirite
[quote="dranger7070"]The Rise of the Fourth Reich, by Jim MarrsQuote:
Originally Posted by UG
I'm only about a third of the way through it, but I'm past the WWII part where Hitler is supposedly dead so I thought I could use my insight here. Apparently it details how maybe the Nazi party lived on somehow, and how they've infiltrated the United States through various ways, how they're trying to destroy the country and ultimately.....whatever.
It's an interesting read so far, to say the least. I've seen bits and pieces of it in other books but this one really brings it together. As an American History teacher it's just funny how much my textbooks for class and everything I read differs so much. So much is left out, so many attempts are made to try to make America look good, and the bad guys look really bad.
Hitler is still awesomely terrible.
I suspect that what Spoon is hinting at is the long term global effect of Bush's reign. E.g. the illegal war in Iraq, ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, ignoring climate change and so on.
This is pretty hard to fully assess though.
hilter
If something beat Christianity, then there's something out there that can beat Hitler.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by XxStacksxX
lee jones obvQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Hitler v UIGEA obv
ez game.
Fuckin AQuote:
Originally Posted by XxStacksxX
Hitler vs Poker Players Who Are Better Than Me. Hitler loses hands down
Thank god for America eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You've kinda forgotten that the war was all ready being fought by the British for a long, long time before Pearl Harbour and America decided to join in.
A more convincing argument would be along of the lines of if it not being for the British and partically the RAF there probably wouldn't be a world left except a Nazi one.
And Hitler/Bush? too silly to even vote for.
/Rant.
the brits would have lost eventually, it simply becomes a war of attrition, and theres no way a small island nation can win that. Even so its possible that the russians would have still won, but this is unlikely as things were looking pretty dire on the eastern front and that was while the gerries were fighting on two massive theaters. But lets say the russians did win... would a stalin run communist europe have been any better?
You kinda misread part of my intent in adding US to this context. US foreign policy back then was the exact opposite of what it is now, as well as international cooperation being less than now. Had the US been much more active and other nations been more unified before the war even began, the Nazis wouldn't have gotten as far as they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by WillburForce
On to the war at hand, yes the Brits were fighting since the beginning (Britain was afterall the first nation to exit the Great Depression due to ramping up military spending in response to Germany), but one important reason why Britain was not obliterated by the Nazis early on like France and Poland was due to geography. Britain could more easily defend against traditional assaults due to being an island, but also the infamous Nazi blitzkrieg could not be utilized for this reason. Geography was one of the key factors in Soviet Union beating back Germany, as well. Supply lines were way too long, some advanced German machinery could not withstand the winter, and blitzkrieg was pretty much worthless due to supply line length, as well as the Soviets, unlike the rest of Europe, were able to adapt to blitzkrieg.
However, even though we learn in school that it was the Russian winter that stopped Hitler, I don't think it was exactly. Yes, that was a significant issue, but another important one that isn't nearly as recognized is that after losing their first battle (I think outside Stalingrad), Hitler got pissed and took over strategic command from his generals, went foolishly ballistic, and lost every other battle thereafter. Had Hitler listened to his generals after that point he possibly still would have been able to march on Moscow.
What's ironic is that Hitler was about 90% finished with the Soviets before he lost it all. For the entire war up till Moscow was about to fall, Stalin had ignored his generals and did what he wanted. He subsequently lost every single battle. But once he realized that Moscow was going to fall in short order, and they would lose the war, he gave up and let his generals take strategic command, and they then won the next battle, and subsequently swept through German forces. Just goes to show how ego kills
Now, about a hypothetical Nazi takeover of all Eurasia, I still think they would have lost the war. Obviously, whoever built the bomb wins ultimately, but without the bomb, the Allies would still probably have won even if Britain and Soviet Union fell. The reason for this IMO is that Germany was spreading itself extremely thin, they were hated by everybody they conquered, and they would have seen tremendous trouble at home fighting off insurgencies, and their ability to hold all of Europe and Russia is just laughable given exactly how much border they would have to cover and how long supplies would have been.
No, the Nazis couldn't have held the entire region for that long.
On the flip side, I don't think people realize exactly how powerful the US was in WWII. We basically beat the shit out of a massively militarized Japan. We kicked them out of all of their territories, we carpet bombed the hell out of their homeland, and it was so bad for them that they began drafting students out of universities and making them kamikazes; all without taking any damage to our homeland. They were going to fight to the absolute death, both sides would have lost tremendously more than already, but had the US not dropped the bomb, Japan would likely have been obliterated. This is all the while US support in Europe turning the tides on the Western Front.
I'm not saying that the US was in anyway better fighters than any other nations, what I am saying is that the geography made the US the power that it became. A huge yet not ridiculously hard to defend unified landmass full of natural resources galore separated from its enemies by two vast oceans. Britain was hard to beat up because of the sea between it and the mainland, but US would have been a hundred times harder due to geography.
IMO, the Nazis were doomed from the start. They couldn't beat up who they wanted to beat up without getting Britain involved as an ally (probably due to Nazis having to go through Poland to get at the Soviets whom they hated). I honestly don't know why US didn't get heavily involved until Pearl Harbor. Hirohito was one stupid motherfucker though. Bombing Pearl Harbor has got to be one of the dumbest things any world leader had done in the 20th Century. I do think, however, that the US government was preparing for full scale war with Germany by that time.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be stupidly patriotic about the US. We elected Bush to a second term, we're idiots. And if it wasn't for France, we would probably have lost our Revolutionary War
Yeah, Stalin was a bad dude. I recall him pillaging entire towns after the war simply because one person with the same ethnicity as that town was an alleged Nazi spy. He also exiled, killed, or imprisoned all his generals so he could take the credit for the great victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The war on the East was so much different than the West. Germans and Soviets fucking hated each other, and it showed in their prison camps. In the West, the Nazis actually treated most POWs somewhat humanely, but in the East the Nazis treated the POWs like rodents, and I think the numbers are 90%+ of POWs on the Eastern Front died.
And then this happened all over again when the Soviets beat them back. They even fucked up their own people. The stats for East Germany during the Soviet invasion are that half the women were raped by Soviet soldiers. That just blows my mind.
But as fucked up as that is, being a Soviet soldier pretty much equaled to death. Many of them were sent into battle without weapons, and if they retreated they were shot by their commanders. Yeah Stalin was a fuckhead. In fact, IMO he was worse than Hitler. At least Hitler was good to his own people (to a degree. They got health care too). Stalin was a bitch to his own people
pearl harbor was not in anyway a blunder on the part of the japanese. They had no choice, they did not have adequate access to extremely critical resources such as rubber. The us had waged an economic war on them through a very strict embargo. If they were not able to acquire more resources their military would have run out of steam and left them helpless.
NOT EVEN CLOSE, as much as I hat GWB, he didnt kill millions just for the sake of killing people. He is an asshole who should be remenbered as being suckh, but seriaously, Hitler is a fucking super killer. killing people just because they were jewish is BS. Hitler is soo fucked up.
Pearl Harbor didn't necessarily have anything to do with that. Resource acquisition involved occupying Allied territories in Southeast Asia. Japan made the mistake of thinking that US already declared war on them (as well as a mistake that they could win a war against US). By attacking Pearl Harbor they bit off more than they could chew. The US was no doubt going to declare war on Japan eventually, but not necessarily if Japan only went after Allied colonies in SE Asia, and Japan made the huge blunder in awakening the US manufacturing giant with an attack on the homeland.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The Pearl Harbor bombings set everything up for the vast majority of US citizens to bend over backwards for the war. Had Americans not felt this blow to the heart, there would have been substantially less public will. I recall that after Pearl Harbor, the US government *ordered* the cease of all automobile manufacturers to shift into building military machines. This is a huge feat, and meant that the American people were gung ho about fighting back
My comment really just had to do with Japan making a huge mistake in engaging in war that crossed paths with total war with the US.
You pretty much just fucked up round 7 for me, WAY TO GO WUFWUGY.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In previous rounds the number of deaths the contestants were responsible for has not been the guiding criterion, nor has the contestants' reasons for killing people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
Additionally, Jews weren't the only group targeted by the Nazis.
It's interesting (though expected) that no one has argued for anything good that either contestant has done. In before spoony hates Jews.
lol sorry, after I posted that I thought I'd fucked up. Most don't read my posts though so it would probably still work as a round
"George Bush hates black people." ~ Kanye WestQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge." ~ Rudolf Hess
Was joking =PQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I was considering postponing it, but I think if Hitler is in too many of these in a row then people will vote for the new guy. But still, I want to do a funny one with Hitler against something off the wall before we go for Stalin.
without hitler we would have never gotten inglourious basterds, or the plethora of video games based on the sheer joy that can be had by slaying countless nazis.
How about Mengele?
I nearly pissed myself when I read the word contestants.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
As for the war, anyone discounting the importance of the Russians and Hitler spreading his troops and fighting on too many fronts needs a fucking history lesson,
Hitler fucked himself at Dunkirk when he let the British escape back to their country. He let them live thinking that one day they'd be fighting as allies against the Russians, but shit got fucked up and that didn't happen and he had to fight a two front war. Then Hitler went all ape shit and started controlling the military (as wuf pointed out) and it was all down hill from there.
I bet if they could have a "do over" Hitler would wipe the English off the face of the earth at Dunkirk (he had a week to do it but chose not to, from what I recall).
That's good, otherwise Abe Lincoln would lose to W.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The idea though that there are criteria or sense to the votes in these rounds is kind of ridiculous though. Ppl are just messing around for the most part and the voting population isn't necessarily the same in each round.
Also, Hitler would lose vs. Diarrhea.
Hitler vs fatb would be close. fatb is horribal
bush was real asshole but give me a break he was no hitler. But Obama on the other hand is a complete replica of Hitler and his Bastard brother Bush
[quote]Hess' flight to England to try for peace was acting on his own accord. He was not there with Hitlers blessing. He was stripped of reputation and office after the incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by UG
Yes Hitler didnt want a long war with Englan b/c he didnt want to stretched out on 2 fronts Eastern and western europe, which was taxing on his manpower and arms.
It was his decision to invade Russia after making war with England. Had he kept up with just england and attacking the RAF, Germany most likely would have succeeded in winning (tough to tell for sure but probably). He just couldnt wait to deal with Russia...