You have a nasty habit of using insults for “arguments”.
If I may be so bold to ask, well I’m going to ask anyway, do you identify as a liberal or leftist?? Just trying to make sense of you and your “philosophy”.
“3 massive countries”
“decimated by war”
yeah cause winners tend to be more decimated by war than losers, right
In terms of quality, definitely. They lacked quantity.
I guess gang-raping your enemies is fine, then? Even my WHITE SHARIA wouldn’t promote gang-rapes, but supposedly I’m the bad guy here.
None of it is stable in the long-term, and it is funny that you think there is actually such a thing as “freedom” and “democracy” in the countries claiming to espouse it. Just shows how blue-pilled you still are. I’m not even worried about it, I know it will fall. I just hope it doesn’t pull a Samson and nuke the entire planet along with it. Other than that, meh.
Yeah I have a bad habit of making insults when people are especially stupid. I’m working on it.
I’m don’t call myself either a leftist or rightist, I just want to be rational and get to the truth. In some ways I probably identify with the left, in other ways with the right. But the dichotomy between right and left is really a problem, because people want to defend their ideology more than they want to find better ideas.
Often yes.
And by massive I didn’t mean geography, I meant military might.
Nope, if that were the case then they couldn’t have rolled over so much so fast.
“None of the World War II beligerant countries were prepared for War. The two countries most prepared were Germany and Japan. Hitler had turned Germany into a state with a single purpose–to support a modern military machine that could expand the Reich. And unlike the period leaduing up to World War I there was no military arms race. NAZI Germany began its rearmament program at a time when the Allies were attempting to limit military expenitures to deal with welfare problems resulting from the Depression. This allowed Germany and Japan to gain a significant miltrary advantage over the Democracies. Neither country, however, had the capacity to wage a protracted global war, although as a result of their military suyccesses, bioth countrues substantially imprive their strategic position. Only two countries had the economic capability of waging a protracted global war–the Soviet Union and the United states.”
Yeah, that’s right. Hitler built up a military power while Europe elsewhere was trying to scale back and rebuild, Hitler didn’t give a shit about rebuilding his country so poured all that into military. And look at that, Russia and the US, one of which sided early with Hitler and the other didn’t even get involved at first. Your argument is dead wrong.
I’m not saying it’s fine. I don’t think gang rape is fine. I’m saying it’s the logical consequence of doing what Nazis do.
Is there an argument somewhere in there, because I don’t see it.
History of Nazism (anti-capitalism): 12 years.
History of America (pro-capitalism): 235 years.
Ouch.
Dude it’s a simple fact the allies had far superior numbers. Like I said, Germans inflicted more than double the military casualties to the allies until Germany literally ran out of soldiers, and the allies just kept coming.
If they had equal numbers, Germans would have won, and apparently quite easily too, since even while losing they managed to inflict more than double the military casualties.
Oh wait, it’s actually MORE THAN THREE TIMES, lolol. historylearningsite.co.uk/wo … d-war-two/
If both allies and Axis had 5,930,000 (the allies armies were scaled down), how do you think the war would have went? Honestly, now 
EDIT: Oh and furthermore, if both allies and Axis started with equal numbers but were then allowed to develop for a period of time let’s say a century before they fought,
- allies with freedom, democracy, capitalism, and the modern Western feminism that comes with it causing low birthrates and feminization of the population we can see today, the inevitable logical consequence of your ideals
and - the axis with a militaristic patriarchy which employs eugenics and restricts freedom, nurturing traits like health, intelligence, courage, strength, etc. in its male population and proper feminine, motherly traits in the female population, and subsequently has high birthrates and masculine men
Whose chances of winning would increase, and whose would decrease?
Like I said, that’s an invalid comparison cause not all factors were equalized. Besides, Rome was much smaller and it lasted longer and it still fell.
I mean the very fact that the axis had less than 3 times the military casualties despite 1) being the aggressors and 2) being fewer in number and eventually losing, should tell you all you need to know about the power of their systems.
Usually the attacking armies are at a disadvantage and all other factors equal (ceteris paribus) suffer bigger losses, and usually if you have smaller numbers, if all other factors were equal, you would lose quickly and without inflicting too much damage.
The fact that’s not what happened just shows how superior in terms of QUALITY the axis were.
Germany developed a lethal, world-class military under Hitler because he didn’t give a shit about re-developing his country or economy, all he wanted to do was make tanks and bombs and draft every male (including children) into the military. So what? It proves that if you forsake your own nation and its people to turn them into a military machine, of course you are going to inflict some real damage.
I never said Nazi Germany wasn’t a powerful military force. You are attacking straw men and ignoring the points that I have already made, thus forcing me to repeat them. And as I already said, the Allied nations were ignoring military development in favor of developing their actual societies and economies… you know, what countries are supposed to do. So Germany’s lesser casualty numbers have nothing to do with anything about Nazism itself, it is simply contingent factors of the circumstances. If the other nations had developed militarily on par with Germany then the Nazi offensive wouldn’t have lasted even one year.
And as you yourself admitted, Germany had less people. So yeah, if in a major world-wide war you have way less people than the other side does then you’re not going to lose as many… people. Because before you can lose any more you are out of people, and you lose the war. No shit.
Hitler threw the Germany people into a constant meat grinder, which is apparently what they deserved since they did elect him after all. I might be more hesitant to say that if they hadn’t now elected Murkhole and seem ready to do that again. When will these fucking people ever learn? Never? Ok then. Enjoy the Islamic-German Empire that you have coming to you. You can trade one religion (Nazism) for another (Islamism). Hope that works out for ya.
Lol in order to develop a military you already must have developed other significant aspects of economy. You can’t have military clothes, food supplies, materials for vehicles/ammo/weapons etc. without a proper economy. What is it exactly that NatSoc economy lacked that is relevant in any way?
So according to you countries should adopt a strategy that I’ve proven to be, ceteris paribus, less effective? Good to know.
If 6 million Axis soldiers can cause 18 million ally casualties, then if Axis and Allies fought and they both had 6 million, Axis would win easily since 18 million allies are needed to kill 6 million Axis soldiers and 6 million Axis soldiers can kill 18 million ally soldiers, which makes killing 6 million allies a piece of cake for the Axis boys.
Under the assumption that both sides have equal quality, the side with more quantity will win, and the more quantity it has the easier it will win and with fewer losses.
Only under the assumption that one side (Axis) has superior quality can you explain the fact that it inflicted so much damage to the other side despite the other side being so much more numerous and despite the fact that Axis were aggressors which puts them at a disadvantage.
What’s complicated here? Are you really too stupid to grasp this?
Not like it’s news that fascist/NatSoc men tend to be masculine and value physical and mental fitness while the more liberal a man the more likely he is to be a weak effeminate faggot who wouldn’t last a second on the battlefield, either because he is physically unfit, or a pussy who might decide to do a non-violent protest in front of enemy machine guns instead, trying to guilt-trip them into losing or something.
So in short the only reason allies won is that they had a huge starting advantage in numbers.
Given more time to develop, if axis caught up in numbers to the point the numbers were equal they’d win easily.
What’s more, if after catching up in terms of population the Axis continued growing instead of going to war it’d outclass the allies both in quantity AND quality.
This is my entire point… all other factors equal, a system like fascism/NatSoc or any patriarchal, militaristic system based on acknowledging NATURE is the most powerful possible form of social ordering and ceteris paribus, the best bet at winning a conflict.
After classical liberalism has run its course, the population which adopted those values will have been mostly replaced in their own former countries.
But… everybody was having a ‘gay’ time, I suppose.
Libertarians, before the movement got dieversified and liberalised, was basically this…
People who wanted to be left alone by the hyenas but who didn’t have the necessary out-of-the-(liberal)-box kind of thinking to understand that without aggression you don’t get to keep your socio-economic space.
welp, maybe also things weren’t bad enough at the time to break their low testosterone cycle.
Good point, Libertarians want to be left alone, but don’t realize privacy has a very high cost (of aggression), that only gets more expensive over time. Humanity has expanded to pervasively that the last remnants of privacy are drying up. Someday privacy will become a luxury that nobody on earth can afford.
Wow that is such a great argumentation man.
If the allies had waited for the nazis to grow big and strong, the nazis may have won. Because of nature.
It’s really basic stuff, I don’t know how anybody could even claim to dispute it.
If 6 million soldiers X can kill 18 million soldiers Y then it’s clear who has the higher quality and who’d win if 6 million X and 6 million Y or 18 million X and 18 million Y would fight.
I mean it really isn’t news nor does it take a genius to understand that far-right men are more masculine and why…
Doesn’t take a genius to figure out who will win in a conflict:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWwm14MGl3E[/youtube]
or these guys:
Nor does it take a genius to figure out which group will have higher birthrates, and why.
So why are you van-clan bitchboys trying to dispute these basic facts?
The casualty difference also comes down to geometry, in addition to the other reasons I mentioned. Germany represents an inner space surrounded by an exterior, and the surface area of the inner space means that the Allies needed to surround Nazi encroachments and attack from all sides, which is exactly what happened. It’s tantamount to an army attacking another army that is up on a hill: the army up on the hill has a geometric geographical advantage of height, so that the surrounding armies must literally expose far more of their soldiers to combat in order to surround and defeat the army on the hill.
A smaller army inside a circle (Germany) compared to a much larger army outside that circle and trying to press into that circle. In such a logistical situation you’re going to see more casualties on the side that is surrounding, because of the requirement that they surround. One small region in the circle can defend against more space outward at the edge and beyond the circle. It’s simple logic. The Nazis were literally surrounded on all sides and can thus inflict more causalities upon the encroaching forces surrounding them.
Does it really matter? It is the same oligarchy progressivists that run and operate all political isms.
“Nothing really matters, to me…” - Queen
I really liked how you turned a thought provoking comment into a musical quote. sarcasm
If you’re claiming that literally every political system or party is the same, then you’re not making any sort of “thought provoking comment”.
It is the same because only the ruling classes benefit and gain anything while a majority of the population doesn’t. The only difference are the tactics and strategies utilized but the end result always remains the same. The final destination or outcome is always the same politically.
All political factions have more in common than what they don’t, it takes eyes of real politik to see all of this and a majority of simpletons do not unfortunately possess.
I agree, most people assume far too much difference between the major parties than is actually the case. Left and right have more or less collapsed into neoliberalism and neoconservatism, which are more or less the same. But there are still outside parties and outside candidates that are not part of this, and in any case I see more people are waking up to it. And there are small variabilities even within the sold-out major parties, at least in America. It is upon those small variabilities that Trump was able to edge himself in and rise superior.
Trump’s win proves the neolib/neocon globalist hold is far less certain than they thought. Hence their 24/7 tantrum frenzy right now, and the new religion of Trump-hate trying to get him out by all costs.
These motherfuckers do not like reality and will fight to the death to maintain their fantasy against the reality right in front of their eyes. They are required to blind themselves, and that is what they are doing. Quite tragic and frustrating for us sane people, but also can be highly entertaining. We can at least sit back and enjoy.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmMo9gd38A[/youtube]