That's presumptive and erroneous on a whole lot of levels.
Your implying that by virtue of being fascist Germany had to do things outside it's own borders that result in war.
It also a bit historically illiterate when you realize Hitler offered numerous peace treaties to England before the war full on kicked off and he had the ability to destroy England but opted not to because he didn't want to kill innocent or even their military. Churchill declined every peace offer.
The west didn't decide fascism = bad so we have to destroy Germany. Because we didn't destroy Italy. And Communist Russia was 15x worse and we for whatever reason (wink) didn't destroy them although we could have.
Any frankly an country could have done with Germany did (the real reasons we attacked them) without being fascist and the US would have done the same thing. Just like we killed Gaddafi.
Anyone who tries to untangle themselves from Fiat, globalism, and communism gets attacked. They did it to Hitler and Gaddafi and John McAfee and to this day assert themselves against anyone who tries to make crypto platforms, or silk road, or privacy communication systems.
Your implying that by virtue of being fascist Germany had to do things outside it's own borders that result in war.
Not necessarily, but I observe that it did, as did fascist Italy. Fascism seems to be militarily aggressive, quite unsurprising given its nature.
It also a bit historically illiterate when you realize Hitler offered numerous peace treaties to England before the war full on kicked off
My God, you're trying to 'historically illiterate' card on people while taking seriously Hitler's rhetoric? As it happens, there are more countries than England, and it wasn't England that destroyed Germany, or Italy.
because he didn't want to kill innocent or even their military
It's funny when people believe that politicians are decent people. It's even funnier when the politician they think is decent is Adolf Freaking Hitler.
The west didn't decide fascism = bad so we have to destroy Germany. Because we didn't destroy Italy. And Communist Russia was 15x worse and we for whatever reason (wink) didn't destroy them although we could have.
Italy and Germany were both conquered, "Communist Russia" was not 15x worse, and you most certainly could not have destroyed it.
My God, you're trying to 'historically illiterate' card on people while taking seriously Hitler's rhetoric? As it happens, there are more countries than England, and it wasn't England that destroyed Germany, or Italy.
It's funny when people believe that politicians are decent people. It's even funnier when the politician they think is decent is Adolf Freaking Hitler.
I'm looking at everything. You're looking at history books written by the victors who claim he's the 2nd in line behind Satan. Did Hitler destroy the Arch de Triumph? The Louvre? Countless other priceless things? or did the Germans actually try to avoid collateral damage? Why? Maybe they weren't these 100%, irredeemably evil, 1 dimensional caricatures that pop culture paints them to be. So yes, I am calling you historically illiterate because it suits you.
Italy and Germany were both conquered
conquered != destroyed
"Communist Russia"
Why did you put it in quotation marks?
was not 15x worse
Was it worse to any degree in your opinion?
Their death count was unarguably higher.
You're looking at history books written by the victors who claim he's the 2nd in line behind Satan.
Which ones do you mean? And how exactly do you know they are wrong? Just because they were supposedly "written by the victors"? Of course, you don't have any problems trusting the most outrageous claims about the USSR "written by the victors", so you are not exactly consistent.
Did Hitler destroy the Arch de Triumph? The Louvre? Countless other priceless things?
Paris was declared an open city. Same for Rome. Talking about historical illiteracy.
or did the Germans actually try to avoid collateral damage?
They most certainly didn't. Especially not in the USSR. Of course, you either want to ignore all that, or to pretend that it's good to kill Russian peasants because they had earlier suffered under communism.
Maybe they weren't these 100%, irredeemably evil, 1 dimensional caricatures that pop culture paints them to be.
Neither was Stalin. Doesn't mean that he was a good guy like you pretend. And in fact, the history books you've never read point this out.
Why did you put it in quotation marks?
Because it was the Soviet Union.
Was it worse to any degree in your opinion? Their death count was unarguably higher.
Of Stalin? How do you come to that conclusion? By ignoring all the wars? And I'm curious how you got at the "15x". Not taking any issue with that specific number, but you clearly mean 'way worse'.
That's presumptive and erroneous on a whole lot of levels.
Your implying that by virtue of being fascist Germany had to do things outside it's own borders that result in war.
It also a bit historically illiterate when you realize Hitler offered numerous peace treaties to England before the war full on kicked off and he had the ability to destroy England but opted not to because he didn't want to kill innocent or even their military. Churchill declined every peace offer.
The west didn't decide fascism = bad so we have to destroy Germany. Because we didn't destroy Italy. And Communist Russia was 15x worse and we for whatever reason (wink) didn't destroy them although we could have.
Any frankly an country could have done with Germany did (the real reasons we attacked them) without being fascist and the US would have done the same thing. Just like we killed Gaddafi.
Anyone who tries to untangle themselves from Fiat, globalism, and communism gets attacked. They did it to Hitler and Gaddafi and John McAfee and to this day assert themselves against anyone who tries to make crypto platforms, or silk road, or privacy communication systems.
Not necessarily, but I observe that it did, as did fascist Italy. Fascism seems to be militarily aggressive, quite unsurprising given its nature.
My God, you're trying to 'historically illiterate' card on people while taking seriously Hitler's rhetoric? As it happens, there are more countries than England, and it wasn't England that destroyed Germany, or Italy.
It's funny when people believe that politicians are decent people. It's even funnier when the politician they think is decent is Adolf Freaking Hitler.
Italy and Germany were both conquered, "Communist Russia" was not 15x worse, and you most certainly could not have destroyed it.
Which ones do you mean? And how exactly do you know they are wrong? Just because they were supposedly "written by the victors"? Of course, you don't have any problems trusting the most outrageous claims about the USSR "written by the victors", so you are not exactly consistent.
Paris was declared an open city. Same for Rome. Talking about historical illiteracy.
They most certainly didn't. Especially not in the USSR. Of course, you either want to ignore all that, or to pretend that it's good to kill Russian peasants because they had earlier suffered under communism.
Neither was Stalin. Doesn't mean that he was a good guy like you pretend. And in fact, the history books you've never read point this out.
Because it was the Soviet Union.
Of Stalin? How do you come to that conclusion? By ignoring all the wars? And I'm curious how you got at the "15x". Not taking any issue with that specific number, but you clearly mean 'way worse'.