I don’t want to be disrespectful or morbid but if Hitler had won the war he probably would have kept on killing Jews, Gypsies, disabled people and homosexuals. It is very seldom said. When I’m at work, I think about things and something today made this pop into my head. Winning the war probably would have not stopped the slaughter. You don’t hear this much, right?
2 Likes
I’ve thought about this many times.
1 Like
I was just a baby at the time so I don’t know how Hitler captured the hearts of the German people the way he did. I suspect that it was an insistent demand for stability for his people that made him want to kill those who were considered different and unstable. This we can’t understand as much because we are not a country that is surrounded by very different nations with very different cultures, languages and situations.
2 Likes
Mate. That really was scary and when you see the rise of the right in our modern world it’s hard not to think back to those dark times. Some decisions either way and the world would be a much different place. 1984 for real. I’m glad we avoided that mess!
3 Likes
Hitler never had a majority of the German people. He had a plurality. Then, shortly after the 1932 election, Hitler burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the communists. He declared himself dictator of Germany, and the rest of the country fell in line. They say that Hitler could never have seized power if it wasn’t for the Great Depression. His form of government could only emerge from darkness. When the allies began their relentless bombing campaign of Germany we created giant firestorms in their major cities. It’s easy to say that they pretty much brought it on themselves, but when you start to get firsthand accounts of what the people on the ground were going through - when you put a human face on the suffering - you can feel sorry for them. If we had a third world war, with nuclear weapons, almost all life on the planet would cease.
1 Like
I hope, in the case of a nuclear war, that we would know enough to surrender after a few attacks, as the Japanese did in WW2.
When ww2 was over the promised themselves no more wars. Over 600 wars were fought since.
1 Like
During the Cold War we had 25,000 nuclear warheads, and the Soviet Union had 30,000. Some scientists were telling us that if we just used five percent of these weapons it would wipe out all life on earth. Today both the U.S. and Russia have around 7,000 nuclear warheads, 2,000 of which are actionable. That is still plenty to destroy all civilization, and probably all humanity. I was looking at a piece on the internet that was saying that if just Pakistan and India got into a nuclear war, and used a few hundred nuclear weapons, it would change the climate enough that a few billion people would die. Personally, if I had to bet my survival and the survival of my friends and family, I would bet on the old doctrine of “mutually assured destruction”. If both sides know that if they ever used nuclear weapons they would be totally destroyed it would be an irrefutable disincentive to nuclear war. The best way to guarantee this nuclear disincentive is through the use of nuclear missile firing submarines. If some air force officer gets an alarm that the other side has launched its land based missiles, that officer is still going to hesitate, and make damn sure the warning is correct before he launches the missiles he’s in charge of, because he knows the nuclear missile firing subs on both sides are invulnerable, and it is impossible to stop them from launching their missiles. This scenario has played out before. As perverse as it might seem, it is best to follow the ancient Roman dictum - “If you want peace, prepare for war”.
1 Like
You ignored my comment about surrendering. Anything else is talking about the leadership gone insane. One can’t be too proud to lose.
That talk of surrendering is very dangerous, because it encourages an enemy to think they can gain something from a nuclear war. We should not use the word “surrender” when making our policy for nuclear weapons public. I don’t feel this way so much now, but during the Cold War it made me really angry when people shouted about the madness of nuclear weapons because it was making nuclear war more likely, not less. If the U.S. ever surrendered to Russia it would set back the progress of civilization by hundreds of years.
1 Like
The progress of civilization is so far climatechange and possible nuclear war.
So what motivated the production of those thousands of nuclear weapons? It wouldn’t surprise me if it was to boost the economy.
That was just passing time. Where should we get lead to ?
I think we should preserve human mankind instead of destruction of planet.
Stop racing start pacing. Just wait for the others to catch up. Race and pace
2 Likes
Hitler was a monster, but a charismatic intelligent monster. Germany’s defeat in WWI rankled a lot of Germans. Hitler played on peoples emotions about that loss and fanned the flames of revenge and patriotism. He simply thought that the Aryan race was superior and plenty of Germans agreed with him. So he got the momentum going and surrounded himself with people who agreed with his views.
2 Likes
Too many people can’t wait to die. Personal happiness is necessary for any country to prosper.
That’s why we prosper. Because we are still the land of opportunity. At least more than any other world power.
Yes, but it is the jealousy of the less fortunate that might be our downfall. Note our fear of communism.
2 Likes
I hear about this through my grandmother.
My grandmother said that the Japanese wanted to kill Koreans. When she was captured by North Koreans during the Korean War, she said she knew that she was going to die. Thank God she escaped.
She is a living memory of the horrors during the war. So horrible.
1 Like
When they are so many people willing to die we should have suicidepacks at the counter. Euthanasia
No offense @PinCushion but it isn’t a matter of pride at stake. WWII was survival and so would a nuclear war be today.