the correct historical term is National Socialists or NatSocs.
This is how fucking stupid you are.
First of all, no one would call them "NatSocs" or "Nat Socks" as a historical term in the 1920's-1940's. Even "National Socialists" was clunky for the written word. After all, thier real name was the NSDAP. Or, in german:
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
Enhance.
Nationalsozialistische
Enhance.
Nationalsozialistische
ENHANCE!
Na ... zi ...
MOTHER OF GOD
IT WAS IN THE NAME THE WHOLE TIME
That is how fucking stupid you are.
Also, David Irving is an explicit liar.
They shot the dogs, that were purchased by others, to prevent the dogs' rightful owners from crossing provincial lines to pick them up. There was never anything wrong with the dog. They shot the dogs to dissuade the people who owned them.
That is the level of evil we're talking about.
Holy fuck, that's the scariest fucking active shooter situation you can possibly have.
Active gunman directly intermingling with a hundred bystanders, chasing suspects into piles of victims, and forcing you to have to go hands on to stop him.
FUCK
I'm not the biggest fan of the concept of police, but you always gotta give the good ones credit.
Not in normal life, but typically on the internet because I normally choose to assume good faith questions.
And to be entirely honest, I choose to assume good faith questions and criticisms from you more than others.
You don't know anything about the German Unification movement, so you try deflect to Weimar. I'm not even sure you've heard of it. You don't know anything about the Interwar Period, so you assume that the German government just never involved itself in those wars taking place to it's immediate east. Because you don't know anything about the Interwar Period, you are assuming there wasn't a damn good reason why the Poles didn't tolerate a German """"alliance""". Here's a hint: it's for the same reason Stalin shouldn't have tolerated a German """alliance""".
I don't have a hate boner for Germany, I just don't take every piece of Nazi propaganda as gospel truth. You're not even historically equipped to talk about this.
I don't even understand your complaint. I'm literally saying both victors and the defeated can commit war crimes. As for how war crimes actually exist, read my exchange with Beefy Belisarius in this thread. I quoted from Clausewitz who goes over the concept quite quickly and simply.
That being said, I also agree with The Fat Electrician in that "It's not a war crime the first time".
I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler aligning with the Chiang Kai-shek.
The State Department was already filled with Socialists, so they would have been favorable to Mao, but siding with the Nationalists in China might have broken Japanese relations. Weirdly, there's a chance that Nationalist troops don't stop the war with Mao because of anti-Communism of the Germans. But then, what if Hitler sees it as a better opportunity to just have the Nationalists open up a southern front against the USSR instead of fighting with Mao, and leaving Mao to fight the Japanese alone.
Even if the Japanese still bomb Pearl Harbor, without an alliance with Japan, the US can't justify going to war with Europe, especially if Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini come out condemning Japanese aggression.
Obviously Chinese Nationalists aren't going to march on Moscow, but an early Sino-Soviet conflict with an invading German Army, and no involvement with the Americans... does that turn the war? Does Hitler actually get to the Caucuses if the Soviets have to fight a war in the South-East without direct American economic support? I get the feeling they might. It was really close as it was, and the USSR wouldn't have made it without major US involvement.
Depending on who wins the war, God only knows how this plays out in the Cold War. If the Germans lose, do you get a Pro-Mao USA? Does Taiwan and Hong Kong cease to exist? Do you get a fully communist Korea? Are the Russians facing a pro-USA Communist China? Or, does Mao (as crazy ideological as he is) betray the US anyway? If the Germans win... Well, fuck if I know. What do you do if the Soviet Union breaks up into a dozen states, but Japan still gets conquered by the USA? Does the Chinese Civil War now become a major front for a Fascist v. Democratic Socialist west? Does the US ever invade Europe? Does the use of nuclear weapons become normalized in China to defeat both fronts having armies of hundreds of thousands?
I don't fuckin' know. But it would be a fun Alternate History novel.
Such a belligerent neighbor that they had similar levels of aggression as the rest of Eastern and Central Europe.
What you're looking at is the inherent flaw of Progressive Nationalism. The claim that a government has an inherent obligation to represent all of an ethnic group, wherever that group may lie. If they are a majority of a region, then that land should fall under the control of a government. If they are a minority, then the government should step in to protect them. They may even offer duel citizenship to the ethnos within that political boundary, then claim that "discrimination" gives them the right to invade across that political boundary and claim it for themselves. Germany did all the same shit. As you noticed, sometimes in the same place at the same time.
Poland's rush for land and power after having come into existence is what it is, but it's also not too different from what happens when any other countries emerge from the collapse of empires, and it also not an excuse to start making ridiculous claims that Germany was the international dindu nuffin.
If you really want to argue that Progressive Nationalism is the problem, then fine, but blame Progressive Era Leftism and Woodrow Wilson.
The only humans that might need characters that look like them are very small children. Literally toddlers. They may need that in order to understand some base level personification, and to occasionally help them understand that they might not literally be what they are seeing, typically in their friend group. Most of the time, toddlers need to look like their partners, and there's been some issues with adopted children having some issues if they look properly different.
But that's it. Any adolescent that's demanding characters look like them is someone suffering from major mental health issues like Narcissism. If an adult needs to see people that look like them, then we don't need to wonder if it's Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it just is.
Meanwhile, can someone explain to me why, under this concept, people keep playing as Dragonborn characters in Baldur's Gate 3? Is it because these players are actually interdimensional, shape shifting, alien, reptiles that rule over our civilization, or is it because the whole premise of this hypothesis is wrong? Perchance they are all other-kin?
Or... or... hear me out... let's assume that the premise here is true, and society burdens certain demographics with negative stigma, and as such we need to make people feel represented. But what if society is so negative towards a demographic, that that demographic learns to self-hate and disassociate to such a degree that they have to actually pretend to be animals. So, let's say, a white male kid chooses to play as the anthropomorphic character because he's been taught by society that being white is worse than being a reptile. Should we go with that line of thinking?
You're right. They're clearly the interdimensional alien reptiles.