"Hero" Double Standard

Blackflag: You have your timeline mixed up. Germany invaded than the allies declared war.
Here's my timeline:
Sep 1 1939 - Germany attempts to occupy its original part of Poland [Germany subsequently argues that Poland had in fact made a de facto declaration of war a day earlier, but this was probably just propaganda]
Sep 3 1939 - War is generally declared by the allies (spearheaded by Britain and France) against Germany after Germany doesn't respond to their ultimatum
Germany responded a few hours later by sinking the SS Athenia, which is generally interpreted as them declaring war back on the allies
Kraków was captured September 6th, and only THEN did the German army begin to move against Warsaw, which they surrounded 10 days later

That is absolutely untrue. General Plan East dealt with all areas currently under German occupation.
Nope. Ost = East in German. It specifically refers to eastern peoples, and more specifically still, from Russia. Not all peoples around the world like you said. It doesn't talk about Indians, Central Africans, Inuit, or countless other peoples.

It called for the deaths of 50% of Czechs, 75% of Russians, 75% of Poles, and 80% of Ukrainians
That's not "everyone".

Hitler was not forced to enact a Slavic final solution
Sure, but what do you expect a nationalist to do?

This was brought up because you denied my evidence that the the majority of allies who entered the war in 1943-1944 had ample war justification.
So you're saying that if somebody does something bad during a war that should never have started at all, then everyone else should enter that war? It's just absurd to me to take part in any war while agreeing it shouldn't be happening at all.

Yes, Hitler wanted to kill 50 million people not out of hate, but out of necessity.
If complete colonization was a premise, then perhaps. At the time war casualties were not yet fully known as the war had not ended, so the figures were provisional at best.

No, it is 13.5 million. They were killed by the SS and Nazi death squads.
So according to your numbers, how many died from the famine in the occupied territories?

I think you are thinking of Zweites Buch. It was never officially published by Hitler, and was a series of manuscripts he wrote in prison.
That too was never published by Hitler, but it was published, and it was (generally speaking) completed. Whereas the third has never been published, because it was never completed.

He wanted extermination
Can you cite a passage?

Hitlers nationalist philosophy does not justify the killings of Soviet citizens
Sure, but it EXPLAINS it. And that's important, because I'm arguing whether a war should have started at all.

He talked in Mein Kampf about conquering Europe and establishing a new world order.
Again, I'm going to need a direct quote on the conquering Europe part, because it's not how I remember it.

The other 6 million were Gypsies, Homosexuals, Poles, ect.
Gotcha. Usually the "holocaust" to me refers specifically to the Jews and not everyone who went through a concentration camp.

Going to war and fighting were conscious personal decision.
Not always. Plenty of people were conscripted against their will. The choice was fighting or death. On BOTH sides, mind you.

greater evils that take place during peacetime.
I literally cannot think of a greater evil than war.

I guarantee you they don't want their pity
They don't want anything. They're dead.

Sep 1 1939 - Germany attempts to occupy its original part of Poland [Germany subsequently argues that Poland had in fact made a de facto declaration of war a day earlier, but this was probably just propaganda]

Sep 3 1939 - War is generally declared by the allies (spearheaded by Britain and France) against Germany after Germany doesn't respond to their ultimatum
Germany responded a few hours later by sinking the SS Athenia, which is generally interpreted as them declaring war back on the allies

Actually this is where you are getting your information mixed up. Germany bombed Danzig and launched an armored spearhead into Poland. It was two days into the fighting when the French and British finally announced their declaration of war.

Britain and France had signed an independence pact with Poland. Hitler knew the repercussions of attacking the Polish army and entering Polish territory with his army. Hitler made a promise to the international community that he wouldn't pursue territorial expansion through the use of the military if the allies didn't declare war after the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Obviously Hitler was lying through his teeth, because the army entered Poland after months of preparations, destroying most of the Polish army and establishing an oppresive military government which severely restricted the liberties of ethnic Poles, who were forced to wear an armband that said the equivalent of "sub-human" in German.

Hitler had plans for a new world order throughout all of Europe. He was poking the sleeping bear, but his intention was to kill it when it awoke.

Nope. Ost = East in German. It specifically refers to eastern peoples, and more specifically still, from Russia. Not all peoples around the world like you said. It doesn't talk about Indians, Central Africans, Inuit, or countless other peoples.
Dude, you are a straight up liar. You can't admit that you are wrong so you bullshit your way out of every truism.

General Plan Ost called for the extermination of close to 50 million Poles, Czechs, Russians, Tartars, Ukrainians, and Litgurians. These are facts.

That's not "everyone".
No, it is around 50 million people, and it was the first of many future plans to exterminate all the races the Nazis viewed as sub-human.

Sure, but what do you expect a nationalist to do?
"National Pride has no need for the delirium of race" - Benito Mussolini, Father of extreme nationalism

In relation to what Mussolini said, having a strong national identity doesn't require the extermination of all minorities. If it did, then I would be scorning nationalism.

So you're saying that if somebody does something bad during a war that should never have started at all, then everyone else should enter that war? It's just absurd to me to take part in any war while agreeing it shouldn't be happening at all.
The war itself wasn't abominable. What was abominable was what the Nazis had been doing for a decade unopposed. I'm glad WW2 happened, because it means our children and society isn't being polluted with messages of hate and intolerance, all while non-ethnic Germans are continuously burned at the stake with out backing.

WW2 didn't end wars, but it did streamline human rights and cooperation. Thankfully through WW2, it is impossible that atrocities can happen on a grand scale like they happened under Hitler, and would of continued happening had Hitler's Germany remained a superpower.

If complete colonization was a premise, then perhaps. At the time war casualties were not yet fully known as the war had not ended, so the figures were provisional at best.
Give or take ten million, right? Like all the nazi apologetists that have come before, you feel the need to argue the semantics of how many million innocents died under which context.

So according to your numbers, how many died from the famine in the occupied territories?
Not relevant. 13.5 million had died under orders of the Nazi government. The famine is completely different issue that I don't feel is relevant to this one.

Again, I'm going to need a direct quote on the conquering Europe part, because it's not how I remember it.


Dozens of quotes on the New World Order. Hitler wanted worldwide racial purity. His words.

Gotcha. Usually the "holocaust" to me refers specifically to the Jews and not everyone who went through a concentration camp.
Right, but outside the Jews, over 24 million other people were killed by order of the Nazis, which deserves more recognition than it currently gets.

Sure, but it EXPLAINS it. And that's important, because I'm arguing whether a war should have started at all.
Exactly. No one wanted war but Hitler.

You have to be retarded to admit that Hitler declared war on Czechoslovakia, Poland (with B + F bound by mutual defense), the Soviet Union, and the United States, and STILL claim that the Allies were the aggresors who started the war.

Your missing the point. Hitler started a war, and he wasn't going to stop fighting, even if we did. But we did fight, and thankfully as a result the world is a much better place than it would of been had Hitler got his way.

I literally cannot think of a greater evil than war.
War isn't an evil, it is an event. Evil people often rise to prominence in wars, and in WW2 specifically, the Evil people kept bringing the war to nations which wanted to stay neutral.

Do you think that anyone wanted to go to war with Germany? Hell no, but they had too, because if they didn't, he was going to exterminate our friends and allies and install a reign of terror and oppression on his New World Order for centuries to come. Be thankful that nations didn't just leave Hitler and Tojo conquer the world one nation at a time, your life is much better because of the men who laid down their lives.

Blackflag: I think a lot of our disagreement comes over this phrase, "new world order". The German word Hitler used is "Neuordnung", not "Neue weltordnung", which literally means "new order" (as opposed to "new world order"). Hitler always exclusively used the phrase in the sense we would use hegemonic control. In this day and age, however, "new world order" is closer to direct political control, if not direct authoritarian governance by some shadowy secret government. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used "Neuordnung" two times. How he uses it in context is important. The below quotes are from the 19th ed.

It was the Jew who, through his press, knew, with infinite
skill, how to launch the idea of the 'unpolitical character*
of the defense leagues, as on the other hand in political life,
just as cunningly, he always praised and demanded the
'pure spirituality' of the fight. Millions of German block-
heads parroted this nonsense, without having the faintest
notion that thereby they practically disarmed themselves
and delivered themselves, defenseless, to the Jew.

Here Hitler is clearly describing a Jewish hegemonic control that existed over Germany.

But for this, too, there again exists a natural explana-
tion. The lack of a great, new, creative idea means at att
times a limitation of the fighting power. The conviction of the
justification of using even most brutal weapons is always
dependent on the presence of a fanatical belief in the necessity
of the victory of a revolutionary new order on this globe.
A movement which does not fight for such highest aims and
ideals will therefore never take the ultimate weapon.

I added the emphasis there. This passage immediately follows the previous. Here Hitler is describing how that control is broken, with the "ultimate weapon" of a "new order". Hitler goes on to cite the French and Russian revolutions as examples of such weapons which changed the old order. He speaks of replacing the old Jewish hegemony with a German one in Germany, Germans controlling Jews much like Jews once controlled Germany.

The second time he talked about a new order, was in a passage where he's describing Germany's ideal foreign policy. He argues England and Italy are Germany's two most natural allies with these words:

A further consequence would be that Germany would be
freed from its adverse strategic situation at one blow. The
most powerful protection of the flank on one side, the com-
plete guaranty of our supply of the necessities of life and
raw materials on the other side, would be the blessed effect
of the new order of States.

Here the "new order" is his proposed alliance, and again, Hitler clearly saw the alliance as a means to control in context. Indeed the very next sentence uses "new union" in much the same way as this one did "new order".

Zweites Buch doesn't mention a new order once, at all. Hitler bought it up a few times in speeches, but ALWAYS in this context - hegemonic control. Not unlike the hegemony currently enjoyed by the USA. Hitler might as well have cited the American revolution along with the Russian and French.

I couldn't source your exact quote other than in a book by some random American nut. It certainly does not appear in Mein Kampf.

Britain and France had signed an independence pact with Poland.
They had done the same with Czechoslovakia! Prior to the war, there is ample evidence that Hitler personally asked his ambassadors in several foreign countries, including Great Britain, whether the allies would attack if Hitler were to seize part of Poland at that time. Their response was negative.

General Plan Ost called for the extermination of close to 50 million Poles, Czechs, Russians, Tartars, Ukrainians, and Litgurians. These are facts.
I'm not denying them. I'm saying that the plan referred SPECIFICALLY to how to settle western Russia after a German conquest. And nowhere did it say "once we conquer the world, we will kill all non-Germans". That was NEVER the plan, because Hitler NEVER intended to conquer the world. Hence why the peoples you mentioned are also all the peoples who were living in that area at the time.

In relation to what Mussolini said, having a strong national identity doesn't require the extermination of all minorities. If it did, then I would be scorning nationalism.
I do scorn nationalism

Hitler had an extreme view on nationalism. It was fundamentalist. Alles Fur Deutschland, the party slogan, became twisted to mean every OPPOSED to the rest of the world. This is the danger of nationalism.

I'm glad WW2 happened, because it means our children and society isn't being polluted with messages of hate and intolerance, all while non-ethnic Germans are continuously burned at the stake with out backing.
I've said this before, but I'd rather die at the stake having failed with an attempt at peace, than condemn the world to a terrible war. Just my opinion. The way I see it, this is the best time to be alive, simply because of the low number of wars, relatively speaking.

it is impossible that atrocities can happen on a grand scale like they happened under Hitler
They said the same after WW1...

Not relevant. 13.5 million had died under orders of the Nazi government. The famine is completely different issue that I don't feel is relevant to this one.
I think it is. I think I can show your figures cannot possibly be correct because there would be nobody left alive in Russia at all. How many Russians died, in total, in Nazi-occupied territories during WW2?

Hitler wanted worldwide racial purity.
Sure (I think you're paraphrasing but still), but two problems:
1) Victorian racial purity did not imply there only being one race, but rather that different races had no kids together.
2) His means of achieving this was through indirect control (hegemony over) of foreign governments rather than by directly ruling the world.

Exactly. No one wanted war but Hitler.
Actually, I think the only ones who really wanted war were Japan.

What Hitler wanted was to take as much land as possible to the east, allowing German Lebensraum. If he could avoid war in the realization of that aim, he would have. If he wanted war, he would never have compromised for peace in the first place.

STILL claim that the Allies were the aggresors who started the war.
Both sides started the war. It takes two to fight.

Hitler started a war, and he wasn't going to stop fighting, even if we did.
With all due respect I think peace could have been given more of a chance.

War isn't an evil, it is an event
War to me is the ONLY evil. I cannot think of anything else bad when compared to war. War is the ultimate exercise is removing freedom and reducing equality. It destroys peoples and nations. There is no worse event.

Do you think that anyone wanted to go to war with Germany?
I think Churchill did. Hence why he wasn't liked much in England before the war started. There were many others like him.

Be thankful that nations didn't just leave Hitler and Tojo conquer the world one nation at a time, your life is much better because of the men who laid down their lives.
Romans were terrible, violent, uncultured people who eventually bought about the Pax Romana. History is full of contradictions like that.

There's the old story about the woman who confronted Hitler about the concentration camps, the only person who survived known to have done so. By her own account, Hitler's face darkened and he said "we are in a war". It's just apparent on every account that Hitler would never have authorized the Holocaust if it wasn't for war.

I'm not denying them. I'm saying that the plan referred SPECIFICALLY to how to settle western Russia after a German conquest. And nowhere did it say "once we conquer the world, we will kill all non-Germans". That was NEVER the plan, because Hitler NEVER intended to conquer the world. Hence why the peoples you mentioned are also all the peoples who were living in that area at the time.
How is it specifically Russia when it deals with the extermination plan for a total of 3 countries.

By the way, I've told you this in other threads, and I was silent about it up until now. The Soviet Union IS NOT Russia.

They had done the same with Czechoslovakia!
False. They didn't have an independence pact with Czechoslovakia. Stop making stuff up please.

I've said this before, but I'd rather die at the stake having failed with an attempt at peace, than condemn the world to a terrible war. Just my opinion. The way I see it, this is the best time to be alive, simply because of the low number of wars, relatively speaking.
The reason there has been only one major war since WW2 is because the international community has been active in discouraging belligerence.

War isn't necessarily bad either. Saying you would rather die than condemn the world to war is just being overtly dramatic.

I think it is. I think I can show your figures cannot possibly be correct because there would be nobody left alive in Russia at all . How many Russians died, in total, in Nazi-occupied territories during WW2?
Dude, that is a really retarded thing to say. There were over 200 million people in the Soviet Union , so your claim that there are only 13.5 million Russians just proves my anaylisis that you make shit up.

As for your question , about 30 million Soviet citizens died in total during WW2. 13.5 million citizens killed under orders from the Nazis, 12 million Soviet soldiers killed (estimate, including executions by Nazis), and the rest were killed for other reasons over the course of the war, like Stalin or how Soviet artillery would fire danger close to settlements.

1) Victorian racial purity did not imply there only being one race, but rather that different races had no kids together.
Hitler wasn't a Victorian racial purist, or whatever that means.

Him and other national socialists believed that the Aryan race was superior to every other race on the planet, the rest being sub-human. This is a fact m8.

With all due respect I think peace could have been given more of a chance.
You said it takes two to fight, well it also takes two to have peace.

Hitler was belligerent, declaring wars on his neighbors and his own people.

War to me is the ONLY evil. I cannot think of anything else bad when compared to war. War is the ultimate exercise is removing freedom and reducing equality. It destroys peoples and nations. There is no worse event.

War is bad is just overly simplistic. People who lived through wars are stronger because of it. It brings out the best and worst of people, and those kinds of experiences progress our society and our compassion all the more.

Romans were terrible, violent, uncultured people who eventually bought about the Pax Romana. History is full of contradictions like that.

Do you know why the Romans brought about Pax Romana? They unified people under a single banner and brought civilization to the known world. Through warfare.

Of course by our standards the Romans appear uncivilized, but compared to what they were dealing with at their times, the Romans were the most socially advanced nation of their time, and centuries after their demise in the dark ages.

If you want to see uncivilized, try living outside Rome. No irrigation, no civil code, poor health and lots of disease, ect.

There's the old story about the woman who confronted Hitler about the concentration camps, the only person who survived known to have done so. By her own account, Hitler's face darkened and he said "we are in a war". It's just apparent on every account that Hitler would never have authorized the Holocaust if it wasn't for war.

Yeah, the story doesn't make a difference. General Plan Ost, the Holocaust, and the Nazi death squads weren't necessary towards winning the war, and I don't even see how one could intepret them being related to the war at all.

Even during peacetime, the Nazis were depopulating ghettos and cities that had a oversized Jewish population. It started by denying them food and basic human needs, and progressed to outright street executions

Of course by our standards the Romans appear uncivilized, but compared to what they were dealing with at their times, the Romans were the most socially advanced nation of their time, and centuries after their demise in the dark ages.
* The Romans demise LED to the Dark Ages