Five of swords

No, danzig was supposed to be a free and independent city. And Austria totally wanted to join germany...Germany actually had a functioning economy. And wtf lol. So Germany also has the right to torpedo any boats unrestricted. Just don't get caught, I guess

As they should. We were sending munitions to their enemies

Uh...Hitler just wanted to unite all the germans in one country. Austria and sudenteland actually voted to become part of Germany. Poland was occupying danzig, which was a German city. It was western powers that declared war on germany and invaded germany.

Uh...Hitler was literally the high point of Germany in history. The country flourished under him. What is the lesson supposed to be? Germany was doing so well that the 3 greatest empires on earth became terrified that his ideas would spread so they had to destroy Germany. And you can tell they are experts because they reinforce your dogma

I know quite a lot about Hitler...

In general, politics is just about emotion and identity and nobody bothers to take a serious look into politics rationally. 99.9% of humans, including in this forum, suffer from absurd internal contradictions in their politics which reveal that politics per se is not their real concern...they are simply attempting to help their team 'win' via talking. There is a very short list of internally consistent political worldviews, and I want to just add clarity to what they are and what axioms they are based on as a quasi mathematical exercise: 1) theocracy/monarchy : a human being is fundamentally considered a servant of God (or the gods). The legitimacy of the state stems from the priest class and is based on how good the state is at following the commands of their God. What the commands of their God actually is winds up being the difficult part of governance...sometimes it is written in a book and the book is usually vague and open to interpretation. Theocracy is intrinsically vulnerable to the priest class simply deciding to exploit the masses, if the priest class is simply capable of lying. Iiberalism: I mean actual liberalism that overtook monarchy as the dominant political philosophy in Europe during the 'enlightenment'. In liberalism a human is an 'individual'...tabula rasa is an important prior to liberalism being legitimate...because in essence liberalism is anti political and logical consistency in that paradigm tends towards anarchy (and anarchists tend to be the most internally consistent liberals). But the main goal of liberalism is meritocracy, and it functions exactly like the 'invisible hand' of capitalism but applied to society as a whole rather than merely the economy. The basic assumption is that if individuals compete in a fair game, the result is the uplifting of those individuals with the most merit. There is a subtle aspect of darwinian natural selection to liberalism because if people fail, it is generally implied that it is because they were weak and unworthy, because failure is a choice, because tabula rasa. Liberalism is actually fundamentally inconsistent with democracy because while liberalism is anti political, democracy politicizes the masses and naturally result in voting blocks based on identity, and identity is a primarily a birthright (such as race) that refutes the principle of tabula rasa. Liberalism being so individualist also makes teamwork and collaboration next to impossible, because some individual has to be the winner and the other the loser. Communism: most people who think they are communist don't seem to be, because the most important foundation of communism is the materialist dialectic, which means that wealth (or class, or 'ownership of the means of production' or whatever fancy term you use) is the ONLY thing that matters. All other issues are distractions from that issue. Race, colonialism, etc are therefore irrelevant in a communist paradigm. Communism is also intrinsically globalist because 'workers' exist all over the world. Communism and libertarianism share the concept of a human being primarily an economic unit. The role of government for communists is to provide all people with their material needs.. while libertarians would suggest that the role of government is to protect property rights and allow the 'invisible hand' of liberalism/capitalism to do its thing. So I woukd categorize libertarianism as a mix of the individualist and competitive part of liberalism with the communist obsession with wealth and property. Communists seem to believe that wealth inequality is the source of a exploitation so I suppose the most fundamental ethical principle of communism is that exploitation is bad. Libertarianism: libertarians seem to be drastically focused on the ethics of property rights and they will artistically deduce policy based on the principle that property rights are good. But they also throw in an extra principle with at first glance seems arbitrary: the 'non aggression principle'. The way I read that, however, is that aggression is bad because unlike some economic transaction, it is involuntary. The foundation of liberalism therefore seems to be the belief that as long as everything is voluntary, society will be good. I would say libertarians have an unrealistically optimistic view about the human condition and it simply isn't true that people will always have the knowledge or the willpower to do the right thing...that is why leadership is needed. This philosophy is borderline for me on the 'admissible consistency' meter because the very fact that some people reject libertarian philosophy kinda undermines the essence of their assumptions about reality. People like hoppe might attempt to fix this issue by basically violating the NAP but that winds up being ideologically self defeating. National socialism: this political philosophy rests on the assumption that human beings are a biological life form. Rather than attempting to deny or change our fundamental human nature, natsocs simply accept and embrace it. The role of a national socialist state is the survival and thriving of a particular people..such as an ethnic group...who are born into their identity rather than it being voluntarily chosen. The essence of social cohesion and altruism in thr country is understood to be a product of the people's sense of belonging...and this may be linked to genetic similarity as is observed in kin selection. A mother cares more about her own child than that of a stranger, and that principle generalized is how a natsoc views how to construct the most functional society. This may of course involve the exclusion of people who do not belong, which will potentially make people who don't belong sad...but at least if you go live elsewhere a natsoc state isn't going to bother you because imperialism involves absorbing people into your empire who do not belong, and that violates the fundamental principle. The 'socialist' part of national socialism is perfectly accurate, because natsocs do see it a responsibility of the state to provide the people with the material needs and opportunities required for them to thrive and have a decent quality of life. If some private capitalist institution is causing a problem in that way, the state is expected to step in and correct it.

The good guys won ww2

Why do you keep suggesting Hitler was misunderstood? He wasn't. Hitler was a nationost and that was why he had to be destroyed. Lot of irony here. People typically compare putin to Hitler in an attempt to support going to war with Russia. You are saying he 'provoked' you. But at the same time you suggest provocations are not possible?

Well yeah. Exactly. The Fascists keep losing ww2.

This is not limited to 'leftists'. All politicians lie.

Fascism is the only way to preserve civilization

So...what if you don't want to stop fascism?

It doesn't matter because politicians don't have any real power. They are just actors. Someone else behind the scenes writes the script for them to follow. Complaining about career politicians is about as meaningful as complaining about career actors. Does it bother you that Marlon Brando was in a lot of movies? Why?

Lol...Hitler never claimed he could completely solve crime or poverty. That is absurd. But it is also absurd if you think germans were not better off before ww1 compared to after, especially with the global financial collapse. Hitler did not privatize business. He nationalized them. He had total control over the reichsbank. He could dictate to Volkswagen what they would produce and what wages they offered their workers. He actually had more direct control over the German economy than Stalin had over the ussr, lol...especially because Stalin was not divorcing his country from global trade and finance.

The sort of thing you are asking is quite impossible. The heroic allies defeating the evil nazi regime is the creation myth of the usa, and the legitimacy of our system is based on it. You cannot simply educate yourself on the reality of this subject with a Google search. If you find it difficult to believe that the usa curates available information on this then I suggest you read this book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/struggle-for-the-files/96DCF61A08CE042FF58C6B116F3EB839 In fact, the usa actually destroyed a massive number of books following ww2 if they supported the nsdap narrative. But if you search for book burnings you will only find stories on the 'nazis' (and the nsdap never called themselves nazis). If you want to find out about war crimes against civilians in ww2 you will only learn about how evil the nazis were...despite the fact that stuff like the firebombings of cities (and nuking of cities) by the allies was the most remarkable aspect of that subject. Because this is so politicized, education on this subject actually takes work. You can't just watch a Hollywood movie or look up a Wikipedia article and decide you know the truth about the matter. Sorry. But one thing that SHOULD give you pause is how absurdand contradictory the narrative you were fed was. How on earth could Germany be the greatest threat to the uk when the person who was expanding most aggressively was Stalin? That just doesn't add up. And in fact there is a period inhibitory known as the 'cold war' which should be a clue about the objective threat that the ussr posed. Hitler in practice never did anything but attempt to unite germans under one banner. Even when he conquered France he opted not to keep it. He instead just set up Vichy France and allowed many of the administrators to be people who had aggressively opposed him prior to conquering the country. Why? Because Hitler wanted to rule the germans, not the French. His was a nationalist movement. Besides, France (and the uk) simply did not have the resources (oil and farmland) that germans desperately needed. Stalin, in contrast, had an internationalist vision. He had no problem at all with consuming Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, and poland. You really ought to be wondering about that. If the uk was so scared of threats to its empire, why were they such good friends to Stalin? It simply doesn't make sense.

Misunderstanding? There was no misunderstanding. Germany wanted to be free so global powers crushed germany.

Uh...what claim exactly do you want a source on? That Henry Ford was concerned about jewish global power?

Uh...Henry Ford, for example, strongly supported Hitler because clearly they agreed on some important points. But Henry Ford was just a rich guy...he would not qualify as an elite as pareto would define it. Jonathan Greenblatt is clearly an elite of the usa, and he isn't even a billionaire.

Politians in Poland even wanted to concede and accept the peace deal Hitler offered, which included protection from the ussr. FDR demanded Poland not take that deal. You just don't seem to know the history, bro. Why would the uk care so much about Poland? Sure...Germany ended up being a threat after the uk declared war...and Hitler attempted peace a dozen times with thr uk...including when he had their entire army trapped at Dunkirk and he simply decided not to kill them all.

Britain and France did not care about Poland. That was purely an excuse. They didn't declare on the ussr when it invaded...

Poland invaded danzig first. Germany reacted to that. The ussr also invaded Poland and nobody declared war on the ussr. Nor with their invasion of Finland... Britain and France didn't give a damn about the borders of Poland (or finland). They just hated germany.

Where is the lie?

World War 2 started when Britain and France declared war on Germany. It had nothing to do with anything Germany did. Neither country cited any harm Germany did to their own country.

Americans did not want to, but the elite certainly did...which was also true with ww1. Hitler and mussolinni were not sworn enemies. And actually, western elites were more willing to side with mussolini than they were Hitler. Probably because Hitler was more opposed to jewish power. They desperately tried to get mussolini to oppose the annexation of Austria, which he did a little bit. But there was never any potential of war between Germany and italy.

Sure. Morgenthau just loved Germany.