If Hitler Hadn't Gone After Jews...

[marchohare]

I'm honestly not trolling. Reading the "General" forum made me think about this.

If Hitler had only sent homosexuals, drug users and Communists to the death camps, do you think he could have won?

I think it's possible that America would have become his ally. The current-day U.S.A. almost certainly would. He could even add tobacco smokers among those he sent to the camps. I think he would have had a very, VERY popular movement if he'd only left ethnic groups alone.

Here in the U.S., scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans might even work, but that would be a bad idea. It would turn too many countries against us. They might send terrorists. However, I do believe we could start frying gays, druggies, smokers and socialists, and most people would be cool with that. Those that weren't could be ignored; they'd never be heard over all the cheering. Fox News could call them "un-American," and opening your filthy lazy commie hippie mouth could get you killed, too.

We might even be able to take a second shot at alcohol prohibition, given enough time and the correct application of propaganda. Remember, workplace urine testing didn't exist during our first attempt. If we made sobriety a zero-tolerance condition of employment, fired everyone who failed their pee test and sent them to the ovens, I think we could make it work. It would increase productivity, too. Who wants workers with vices? Vices are distractions. The only tolerable vice should be workaholism, but that isn't a vice. It's a virtue.

I think the time might be ripe for a new, non-ethnic form of Nazism... only call it something different. Call it LOVE: Love of self, and Love of country. Love of health and vigor! Love of all that is decent and pure! The LOVE Movement! I like it! No, I LOVE it!

Who's with me here? Who is foolish enough to speak out against Love?

[lapis]

If Hitler had only sent homosexuals, drug users and Communists to the death camps, do you think he could have won?

The US had loaned massive amounts of money to Great Britain, money that would have evaporated in case of a British defeat (and I think this was true for France as well), and when they had a good reason to go to war after Pearl Harbour they did. I don't see what the Jews have to do with this. No one cared about the ghetto Jews in Poland and Hungary etc, we're talking about a handful of bankers and scientists who may have had some influence at best.

Although, yeah, I don't think that a peace between the US and Nazi Germany would have been impossible. If the Nazis had, instead of invading the USSR, held their territory in 1941, and in some way managed to secure oil and other raw materials imports, then the war could have reached a stalemate, basically forcing Britain to make peace after a few years and then the US might have gone along with it. Not sure about Japan, they would probably have been defeated anyway. But even in that case Nazi Germany would not have lasted until the present day due to popular unrest in the occupied territories. This is just my speculation of course.

Anyway, if you want to talk about the susceptibility of the American public to Hitler's ideas then I'm not going to weigh in on that. In any case, I don't think the situation was as dire in the US as it was in Germany (where left- and right wing militias were killing each other in the streets) to allow for an American Hitler to really get 40%+ of the electorate behind him.

[ssnake33]

At 11/2/11 06:38 PM, marchohare wrote: I think the time might be ripe for a new, non-ethnic form of Nazism... only call it something different. Call it LOVE: Love of self, and Love of country. Love of health and vigor! Love of all that is decent and pure! The LOVE Movement! I like it! No, I LOVE it!

You have Bush don't you?

[marchohare]

At 11/2/11 07:05 PM, lapis wrote: The US had loaned massive amounts of money to Great Britain, money that would have evaporated in case of a British defeat (and I think this was true for France as well), and when they had a good reason to go to war after Pearl Harbour they did. I don't see what the Jews have to do with this.

That's a very, very good point. Duh. I'm not sure where my head was at. Chalk it up to the "General" forum leaving me feeling like I'd been hit with a brick.

I still fear we're ripe for the modern version I described, though.

[Elfer]

No, I think the whole "attempted world domination" thing really rubbed people the wrong way too.

[marchohare]

At 11/2/11 07:59 PM, Elfer wrote: No, I think the whole "attempted world domination" thing really rubbed people the wrong way too.

Yeah, well... The U.S. is already doing that, as per the plans of the PNAC. We haven't stopped just because Bush is gone, either. It doesn't matter who's in the Oval Office, because both major parties and a majority of our elected officials are owned anyway.

[kakalxlax]

well considerating that jews are the smarter part of the population and many scientist (including einstein) ran away from germany then.....

and guess who helped to finish the atomic bomb :)

[marchohare]

At 11/2/11 08:41 PM, kakalxlax wrote: well considerating that jews are the smarter part of the population....

I don't believe Jews are inherently smarter than any other ethnic group. I do, however, believe they possess a subculture that values learning and intellectual endeavors, while most American subcultures consider it "geek stuff" and severely punish anyone naive enough to display intelligence. You'll get slapped down for that, big time! Idiots with IQs forty points lower than yours will call you "retarded."

Also, Jews are absolutely TERRIFIC at sticking together, networking and giving each other a hand up.

Those two things alone are enough to make them winners, and make no mistake about it, they are WINNERS! If you doubt it, just count the number of Jews in the Fortune 500, then look up their percentage of the global population, and finally, apply the logic of Affirmative Action.

Rewarding intelligence + ethnic favoritism = WIN!

It's nothing to hate them for, but they're hated for it. Other subcultures should be imitating them instead, but they don't.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/2/11 11:38 PM, marchohare wrote: WINNERS!

i find it interesting how people still want to get rid of them even though its really starting to seem that they may actually have God on their side.

[marchohare]

At 11/3/11 01:33 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i find it interesting how people still want to get rid of them even though its really starting to seem that they may actually have God on their side.

They don't have God on their side. The Old Testament God is an imaginary boogeyman, now used primarily for scaring the shit out of Goyim. As I said, what they have is a culture that praises and rewards intellectual pursuits as opposed to athletic ability, physical appearance and pure simian meanness.

That's why Woody Allen, looking the way he does, slept with Louise Lasser, Diane Keaton, Stacey Nelkin, Charlotte Rampling, Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi Previn, while you've slept with who you've slept with... assuming you've ever slept with anyone at all, that is.

[kakalxlax]

At 11/2/11 11:38 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/2/11 08:41 PM, kakalxlax wrote: well considerating that jews are the smarter part of the population....

I don't believe Jews are inherently smarter than any other ethnic group.

quoting limit bla bla

i considerate both culture and genetics as things that makes jews superior

[SolInvictus]

At 11/3/11 01:49 AM, marchohare wrote: ...assuming you've ever slept with anyone at all, that is.

i see there is no comedy allowed in this thread.

[marchohare]

At 11/3/11 02:31 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i see there is no comedy allowed in this thread.

Absolutely not. I am as serious as cancer.

[Dogbert581]

Roosevelt and many key figures in US politics supported Britain and France as they were seen as fighting for democracy against tyrannism. And even though the other groups (eg homosexuals) weren't exactly popular in the US, they still faced no where near the level of persecution they faced in Germany.

Also bear in mind, that Hitler actually declared war on USA not the other way round. So it can be said that even if Hitler had not persecuted Jews, after the attack on Pearl Habor he would still have been likely to declare war on USA.

[Emma]

The holocaust was actually a minor factor in the Allies's reasons for taking him down. So, I highly doubt he would have won, but the war may have lasted longer with less resources spent on capturing so many people. Germany fell because they were idiots who severed ties with Russia for no reason in the middle of winter.

[SolInvictus]

At 11/3/11 04:17 AM, marchohare wrote: Absolutely not. I am as serious as cancer.

what about coming to the conclusion that they are the master race, and not all those upstarts that wanted to kill or subjugate them?

sure, they're not all tall and blond; but unless you're a model who spends his days getting stuff off the top shelf, i don't see how that would help.

[Cercan]

At 11/2/11 06:38 PM, marchohare wrote:

The current-day U.S.A. almost certainly would.

I stopped reading right there, your a fecking idiot. ( am allowed to swear? )

it's one thing to say that all americans hate gays and druggies and communists. But collecting them up and killing them? Are you seriously that culturally dense? NO ONE would go for that. Besides like 50% of americans don't really care one way or the other about gay marriage. I'm sure as hell they think even less of druggies and ect.

[The-Last-Guardian]

At 11/2/11 06:38 PM, marchohare wrote: I think the time might be ripe for a new, non-ethnic form of Nazism... only call it something different. Call it LOVE: Love of self, and Love of country. Love of health and vigor! Love of all that is decent and pure! The LOVE Movement! I like it! No, I LOVE it!

Blind fascism? This is idiocy.

[marchohare]

At 11/3/11 11:33 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote: Blind fascism? This is idiocy.

Or extreme sarcasm, but I really should learn not to use that. It worked thirty years ago, but most people can't spot sarcasm anymore.

If Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" today, he'd probably be lynched.

[Ericho]

At 11/4/11 01:43 PM, marchohare wrote: If Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" today, he'd probably be lynched.

Are you kidding? In today, that would be as popular as the Aristocrats joke!

[marchohare]

At 11/3/11 06:11 PM, Cercan wrote: I stopped reading right there, your a fecking idiot. ( am allowed to swear? )

Or, it could be that I see something in the black heart of American culture to which you are completely oblivious. One of us is definitely a "fecking idiot," but I've noticed that idiots are always the first to call their betters idiots. It's like a law of nature.

So, how can a casual observer tell who the real idiot is? Well, for one thing, one of us knows the difference between "your" and "you're." For another, one of us has a Mensa card with his name on it in his wallet. Oh, look! That would be me!

[Famas]

At 11/4/11 07:17 PM, marchohare wrote:

One of us is definitely a "fecking idiot," but I've noticed that idiots are always the first to call their betters idiots.

I've noticed that people who call themselves better than others actually aren't.

Well, for one thing, one of us knows the difference between "your" and "you're."

Typos: clearly the mark of the intellectually inferior.

For another, one of us has a Mensa card with his name on it in his wallet. Oh, look! That would be me!

Congratulations on pretending to belong to a completely useless organization that claims to be a congregate of intelligence yet fails to actually utilize it in any measurable way!

Hitler lover

[marchohare]

At 11/4/11 07:30 PM, Famas wrote: Congratulations on pretending to belong to a completely useless organization that claims to be a congregate of intelligence yet fails to actually utilize it in any measurable way!

That's the kind of thing a lot of people who will never, ever qualify for membership say. Don't bust a blood vessel now, y'hear? LOL!

[Cercan]

Thanks for the support Famas but this guy Is obviously trolling or really dense. He didn't address any of my points and just decided to attack me. Maybe he thinks himself smart or he is angry at me. Either way I didn't come here to just throw insults around and see who has the bigger ego. I'm leaving this thread.

[Demongod86]

Historical fail IMO. As far as I understand history, most of WW2 was "Allies vs. Axis". The Axis were headed by some dude who loved red flags with a black funny-looking cross thing on a white background, trolled everyone with lengthy rants, and was trying to take over Europe. On the other side of the world, a bunch of imperalistic Japanese people were trying to make sure we couldn't stop them from taking over Asia (might have been a good idea in hindsight to let them).

Anyways, it was basically after the Nazis were getting their asses kicked for a while that some generals (I forget who) stumbled across concentration camps and went "Oh. Holy mother of god."

So regardless of who Hitler sent to the camps, it made no difference. WW2 wasn't about freeing people from concentration camps, but about keeping a maniac from taking over the world. The fact that the generals happened upon those camps is a different story altogether.

[Famas]

At 11/4/11 09:19 PM, marchohare wrote:

That's the kind of thing a lot of people who will never, ever qualify for membership say. Don't bust a blood vessel now, y'hear? LOL!

Apologies, you must be part of Mensa because I'm sure their legion of snobby pre-teens isn't capable of decent trolling.

[Atlas]

I think we would probably would've become allies. But if we would've we probably would've tried to talk him out of killing them and just torturing them until they quit whatever they were doing to get taken to the death camps. Another possibility is we become Hitler's ally only to kill him early in the war with a spy . There so many possible outcomes when you change that one variable. If you change it from Jews to murders we wouldn't have cared but since they were innocent people we cared and everyone else in the world except for his collaborators and him cared.

[Camarohusky]

Nothing would have changed much. Maybe some things would have been slightly different, but Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews was pretty low on our list of reasons to fight them (see the fact that they declared war on us)

[kakalxlax]

At 11/2/11 06:38 PM, marchohare wrote: If Hitler Hadn't Gone After Jews

then people would called him a lier

[Bolo]

At 11/5/11 12:30 AM, J-Rex wrote: I think we would probably would've become allies. But if we would've we probably would've tried to talk him out of killing them and just torturing them until they quit whatever they were doing to get taken to the death camps. Another possibility is we become Hitler's ally only to kill him early in the war with a spy . There so many possible outcomes when you change that one variable. If you change it from Jews to murders we wouldn't have cared but since they were innocent people we cared and everyone else in the world except for his collaborators and him cared.

This post is wrong in so many ways. America would never have become allies with Nazi Germany; we feared their aspirations of domination, their blind populism, highly authoritarian government, military supremacy, Pan-Germanism, willful defiance of international law, lack of respect for national borders, desire for total ethnic homogeneity, desire to eliminate democracy, and half a dozen other central platforms of Nazism. Not to mention that our greatest allies, France and Britain, were already aligned against the Germans. There is simply no way the US would have allowed an alliance to form with the Nazis.

In terms of the plight of Jews in Eastern Europe, it's safe to say that for the most part it was a secondary concern for the allies at best. The US either did not care, did not fully believe, or failed to comprehend that Jews were being subjected to genocide. It was not at all a reason for our entrance into the war, and only became another retroactive justification of going to war with the Nazis after concentration camps were unveiled in 1945. As in, "look at this, we were right to go to war with these Nazi savages after all!"

Equating Jews with murderers is nonsensical because it ignores the point of the genocide, which was not based on the explicit actions of the Jews, but the perception of the inferiority of their "race" by the Nazis. Murderers are imprisoned for concrete actions. In this case, the Jews were imprisoned simply because they were Jews, not because they committed what we would define as a "crime" from our perspective.

So, in essence, you're totally wrong about everything.