Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show

oldjones · May 25, 2019

Insidious Von said:
Decided to look into Cazzelino's assertion of good policies by the Nazis.

Most of what is listed were innovations implemented by Bismarck.…

Back in the days when authoritarian monarchists understood healthy happy subjects made for a prosperous and peaceable kingdom, and that was well worth the investment in social spending.

Think today's corporate capitalists will ever catch up to that XIXth century wisdom? Think a political system that falls for yet another incompetent egomaniac ever can?

Darts · May 25, 2019

oldjones said:
Back in the days when authoritarian monarchists understood healthy happy subjects made for a prosperous and peaceable kingdom, and that was well worth the investment in social spending.

When was that? Surely, not Louis 16th or the Tsars.

oldjones · May 25, 2019

Darts said:
When was that? Surely, not Louis 16th or the Tsars.

As with Presidents, not all Monarchs are smart enough to hire and listen to smart guys like Bismarck (Chancellor of Prussia, then of Germany from the 1860s to 90s, famous for his progressive social reforms as well as statesmanship. I forget who was King-Emperor). As Insidious already noted above. Britain's constitutional monarchs after their Revolutions — Glorious or otherwise, and after a Reform Bill or two — might also qualify as similarly wise.

Care to tell us when unhappy, impoverished subjects made any kingdom prosperous and peaceable? Seems to me both your examples support my point.

Knuckle Ball · May 25, 2019

oldjones said:
And Hitler Youth kids helped little old ladies across the street. You are actually saying we shouldn't be kind to animals and little old ladies because long-ago Nazis were? Clearly it's your cortex that's really small, not just your cock.

INDEED!!!!!

:rofl:

Insidious Von · May 25, 2019

oldjones said:
Care to tell us when unhappy, impoverished subjects made any kingdom prosperous and peaceable? Seems to me both your examples support my point.

Certainly not France's Ancien Regime. After his army was decimated at the ill fated Siege of Torino, Louis XIV promised the peasants that he would alleviate their taxes if they rallied to his cause. It worked, the peasant army fought the British and and the Austrians to a bloody stalemate at Malplaquet. His successors reneged on the promise, Louis XV was a piece of shit who ruled by terror and lost every battle he fought, Louis XVI had no backbone in dealing with the nobility and the clergy. He paid for it with his head.

mandrill · May 25, 2019

Darts said:
British generals ordered troops to charge machine gun fire (not very smart). The Australians had their own commanders and so did the Canadians later in the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_I

Darts, you have read no actual military analysis of WW 1 at all. If you have, cite me some of the titles.

Waste of my time, as usual.

oldjones · May 25, 2019

Insidious Von said:
Certainly not France's Ancien Regime. After his army was decimated at the ill fated Siege of Torino, Louis XIV promised the peasants that he would alleviate their taxes if they rallied to his cause. It worked, the peasant army fought the British and and the Austrians to a bloody stalemate at Malplaquet. His successors reneged on the promise, Louis XV was a piece of shit who ruled by terror and lost every battle he fought, Louis XVI had no backbone in dealing with the nobility and the clergy. He paid for it with his head.

Popular insurrection is the most primitive form of democracy, but it does work and it's always available even if the price in blood runs high. That's why it's enshrined in Article 2, so we're told.

However your detailed description of monarchs betraying their own people to their personal cost — the Brits convicted their deposed king of treason against their kingdom — is more supporting evidence of the genius of Prince Bismarck and of his progressive social legislation. The people of other German principalities wanted to join his Empire. 'Social' being another way of saying the 'people' rule, without actually saying it.

But getting back to the OP: I still say the piece is really about the guy with the funny hair, not the guy with the funny moustache.

Darts · May 25, 2019

"Many critics have argued that brave men went to their deaths because of incompetent and narrow-minded commanders who failed to adapt to the new conditions of trench warfare: class-ridden and backward-looking generals put their faith in the attack, believing superior morale and dash would overcome the weapons and moral inferiority of the defender.[20] British public opinion often repeated the theme that their soldiers were "lions led by donkeys".[21]

French military commanders in WW 1 were even worse than their British counterparts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_French_Army_mutinies

Darts · May 25, 2019

One of the favorite songs of WW II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Marleen

Smallcock · May 25, 2019

oldjones said:
And Hitler Youth kids helped little old ladies across the street. You are actually saying we shouldn't be kind to animals and little old ladies because long-ago Nazis were?

No, that's the argument you and your ilk are making.

'Everything Hitler did was wrong and he was a failure. Don't do what he did'

jsanchez · May 25, 2019

oagre said:
Darts, you have read no actual military analysis of WW 1 at all. If you have, cite me some of the titles.

That's just Skyrider trolling, don't hold your breath waiting for those titles.

oldjones · May 25, 2019

Smallcock said:
No, that's the argument you and your ilk are making.

'Everything Hitler did was wrong and he was a failure. Don't do what he did'

Them's your made-up words Smally, not an argument you heard. Quote someone who actually said anything like them.

Like masturbating, you're just doing it with yourself otherwise.

But "Don't do what Hitler did, is sound advice." Which I think was kinda the writer's point about the Presidency.

HungSowel · May 25, 2019

Smallcock said:
You extreme lefties are going to have a hard time with this one: The Nazis are responsible for what we call the Animal Rights movement today. When you get your panties in a bunch over Chinese eating dogs, remember that it was the Nazis who were the first to condemn brutality toward animals. Let all your vegan buddies know ASAP!

The first group of people who condemned brutality towards animals was likely Buddhists, not just for the cute animals either.

oldjones · May 25, 2019

HungSowel said:
The first group of people who condemned brutality towards animals was likely Buddhists, not just for the cute animals either.

I seem to recall the Jains (beginning around 700 BCE) were big on rescuing ants and earthworms when gardening and farming.

Smally's point seems to be that some nasty folks in history having a mix of virtues and vices absolutely requires some other contemporary people only he can identify to abandon any virtue they may share with his previously named villains. Or mebbe he means they aren't to be called villains any more because they loved puppies and Black Beauty. In any case, it's the supposed failings of the contemporary folks he's on about, not the villains of the past

He'll have to 'splain how all that works, I can't.

Smallcock · May 25, 2019

HungSowel said:
The first group of people who condemned brutality towards animals was likely Buddhists, not just for the cute animals either.

It wasn't just for cute animals in Nazi Germany. It was illegal to boil a lobster in Nazi Germany. No more trips to Red Lobster for you and your girl.

Smallcock · May 25, 2019

oldjones said:
Them's your made-up words Smally, not an argument you heard. Quote someone who actually said anything like them.

Like masturbating, you're just doing it with yourself otherwise.

But "Don't do what Hitler did, is sound advice." Which I think was kinda the writer's point about the Presidency.

If that was his point, it was lost in the milieu of his blatant lies. There is no need to revise history to make a case against Hitler.

onthebottom · May 25, 2019

Perhaps but his army went through Europe like a hot knife through butter.

Darts · May 25, 2019

onthebottom said:
Perhaps but his army went through Europe like a hot knife through butter.

In WW I the combine British and French forces were able to fight the outnumbered Germans to a stalemate. The big unpleasant surprise in WW II was how quickly France fell. The Germans simply went around the Maginot Line. That left Britain to face Germany alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

The other small European countries were no match for Germany however fierce resistance by the Greeks delayed Germany's invasion by a month. The rest is history.

basketcase · May 25, 2019

Smallcock said:
I don't care what it seems like to you. Argue the facts based on their merits....

Like when you argued Jews control the world? Please.

Smallcock · May 25, 2019

basketcase said:
Like when you argued Jews control the world? Please.

I didn't argue that Jews control the world. My argument is much more nuanced than that.

Hitler Was Incompetent and Lazy—and His Nazi Government Was an Absolute Clown Show

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

My head is my home

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Well-known member

CanBarelyRe Member

Active member

Active member

Never Been Justly Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member