What, the Americans? Always opponents until each government saw an opportunity.
The British and French declarations of war on Germany in September 3, 1939 came as a shock to Hitler. He was obsessed with making peace with Britain and France as he never wanted to fight them in the first place as all his territorial ambitions lay eastward.
LOL. Hitler was expecting war with Britan and France since the annexation of Chekoslovakia. He couldn't believe that Chamberlain had given in. He was hoping to start a ware then and there. Instead Chamberlain gave him everything he wanted, including political security, and destroyed any attempt to overthrow Hitler from the anti-War movement in Germany that the Brits had previously worked with. Even Mussolini was originally supposed to be a check on Hitler's aggression before that backfired too.
Hitler had hoped to get Poland and Britain to ally with Germany against the USSR but Polish refusal to return the “free city” of Danzig when he had not asked for one single inch of Polish territory caused Hitler to invade Poland.
LOL. "The Poles made me invade them!". Poland was invaded with the full knowledge and support of the Soviet Union as they were allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They had fucking parades together.
That whole second paragraph is retarded beyond recognition. Hitler never was prepared to surrender France and Belgium. I like the idea that Luxemburg is ethnically German, but not the Netherlands. K. The idea of leaving Greece? Total nonsense. If I even assume it to be real, it would be nothing but an utter lie by someone who's clearly winning.
Hess emphasized that his Leader would not quibble over details -- Britain could practically write its own peace terms.”
Hess was dead fucking wrong about all of that, not even close for a second. The man was trying to save a population he thought to be Saxon, and Hitler had no interest in helping a population he saw as already controlled by Capitalist jews.
“restoration of a Polish state” which presumably meant a Polish puppet state aligned with Nazi Germany (which would be much better than having Poland continue under direct Nazi rule)
That would have meant mass, intentional, famines at best. Which is what they got anyway.
They also told the British that Hitler agreed to preserve Britain’s full independence and keep all of its other colonial possessions even proposing a 25-year Anglo-German alliance in which Germany would offer the use of its troops to defend the British Empire, if necessary. One of the express terms of Hitler’s peace offer was “the resettlement of the Jews in Palestine.”
LMAO.
Of all the thigns that happened. This happened the most.
while the Jewish Holocaust (which Hitler did not plan until the British refused two years of his pleas to deport them from Europe) would have been averte
Ha ha ha! He started it before the war! This is just made up bullshit. "Well! I just tried everything I could! Now, I just have to kill all the jews!"
If the US and UK didn’t fight Nazi Germany after June 1941, then Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have likely continued fighting for control of Eastern Europe for many years beyond actual history though a temporary armistice might have been reached. The Soviet Union would have been weakened hemmed in by Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe and Japan in the Far East so the US would not have had to fight a Cold War and lose 100,000 troops in Korea and Vietnam. The Pacific War likely never would have been fought. China and North Korea would never have fallen to Communist control and would be US allies today. Over 100 million innocent lives, including six million Jews, likely would have been saved.
No aspect of any of this is true. Hell, there was no way that Japan wouldn't have continued to be aggressive against British, French, and American interests in the Pacific or China. And the State Department was already filled with Fabian Socialists, which means the US was always going to side with Mao eventually.
Your question will be to conflate Liberalism and Marxism, then ask me a question about Liberalism, which I would affiliate with because Libertarians are from Liberal thought. But maybe I'm giving you too much credit (despite the fact that Marxism is illiberal). Maybe you'll ask me something truly retarded.
White Nationalists are literally just punk-ass National Socialists. Lesser versions of NatSocs. Imagine admitting you're a Socialist.
Cool, you did exactly what I thought you would do.
I'll answer with a follow-up question.
What do you think I should do to you?
As far as I'm concerned, the Marxists and National Socialists have to be treated in exactly the same way. Both of you are hell bent on the extermination of all dissent, individualism, property rights, privacy, and freedom. You want to accomplish this with unrestrained violence and genocide. But, the non-aggression principle suggests that I should defend myself only when attacked... pre-meditated defense doesn't really exist since there's no imminence, and "collective self-defense" flies in the face of individualism. But there can be no denying that the Socialists are always hell bent on a conspiracy to destroy everything we have and stand for.
Since you are both dedicated to our deaths in this conspiracy; you are an enemy faction hell bent on violence. Is that not imminence? Can an individual Socialist not be considered a threat, but two are (by definition) a threat? Do we stop you from meeting each other at all? Do we need to have a mandatory value standard? If you don't agree to the NAP, do you need to be physically removed? Is it appropriate to stop you ahead of time? What force needs to be used to stop you from destroying the very society we work for? What do I need to do to stop you from raping and murdering my wife and children in front of me, since you will do it given the first opportunity. Since you're equally the same threat, because you are the same people... what I do to the Marxist, is what I must do to you. No exceptions. A Liberal society shouldn't punish collectively... but if you insist only on collective violence, then do we have to treat you as individuals? If you renounce your individualism, do I respect you and treat that as the collective threat you present?
So, think carefully. What do you want me to do to you?
What, the Libertarians? Always opponents.
What, the Americans? Always opponents until each government saw an opportunity.
LOL. Hitler was expecting war with Britan and France since the annexation of Chekoslovakia. He couldn't believe that Chamberlain had given in. He was hoping to start a ware then and there. Instead Chamberlain gave him everything he wanted, including political security, and destroyed any attempt to overthrow Hitler from the anti-War movement in Germany that the Brits had previously worked with. Even Mussolini was originally supposed to be a check on Hitler's aggression before that backfired too.
LOL. "The Poles made me invade them!". Poland was invaded with the full knowledge and support of the Soviet Union as they were allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They had fucking parades together.
That whole second paragraph is retarded beyond recognition. Hitler never was prepared to surrender France and Belgium. I like the idea that Luxemburg is ethnically German, but not the Netherlands. K. The idea of leaving Greece? Total nonsense. If I even assume it to be real, it would be nothing but an utter lie by someone who's clearly winning.
Hess was dead fucking wrong about all of that, not even close for a second. The man was trying to save a population he thought to be Saxon, and Hitler had no interest in helping a population he saw as already controlled by Capitalist jews.
That would have meant mass, intentional, famines at best. Which is what they got anyway.
LMAO.
Of all the thigns that happened. This happened the most.
Ha ha ha! He started it before the war! This is just made up bullshit. "Well! I just tried everything I could! Now, I just have to kill all the jews!"
No aspect of any of this is true. Hell, there was no way that Japan wouldn't have continued to be aggressive against British, French, and American interests in the Pacific or China. And the State Department was already filled with Fabian Socialists, which means the US was always going to side with Mao eventually.
Lmao imagine admitting to being a Libertarian.
Yes you side allied with Marxists. And you still do it to this day.
And I can prove it with your answer to one question.
Your question will be to conflate Liberalism and Marxism, then ask me a question about Liberalism, which I would affiliate with because Libertarians are from Liberal thought. But maybe I'm giving you too much credit (despite the fact that Marxism is illiberal). Maybe you'll ask me something truly retarded.
White Nationalists are literally just punk-ass National Socialists. Lesser versions of NatSocs. Imagine admitting you're a Socialist.
No my question is if Marxists have the right to speech and own guns.
Cool, you did exactly what I thought you would do.
I'll answer with a follow-up question.
What do you think I should do to you?
As far as I'm concerned, the Marxists and National Socialists have to be treated in exactly the same way. Both of you are hell bent on the extermination of all dissent, individualism, property rights, privacy, and freedom. You want to accomplish this with unrestrained violence and genocide. But, the non-aggression principle suggests that I should defend myself only when attacked... pre-meditated defense doesn't really exist since there's no imminence, and "collective self-defense" flies in the face of individualism. But there can be no denying that the Socialists are always hell bent on a conspiracy to destroy everything we have and stand for.
Since you are both dedicated to our deaths in this conspiracy; you are an enemy faction hell bent on violence. Is that not imminence? Can an individual Socialist not be considered a threat, but two are (by definition) a threat? Do we stop you from meeting each other at all? Do we need to have a mandatory value standard? If you don't agree to the NAP, do you need to be physically removed? Is it appropriate to stop you ahead of time? What force needs to be used to stop you from destroying the very society we work for? What do I need to do to stop you from raping and murdering my wife and children in front of me, since you will do it given the first opportunity. Since you're equally the same threat, because you are the same people... what I do to the Marxist, is what I must do to you. No exceptions. A Liberal society shouldn't punish collectively... but if you insist only on collective violence, then do we have to treat you as individuals? If you renounce your individualism, do I respect you and treat that as the collective threat you present?
So, think carefully. What do you want me to do to you?