Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Creating the perfect country; worth it?
Topic Started: May 3 2007, 09:22 PM (1,925 Views)
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
what if the people in a democratic country (Democracy is supposed to = run by the people) wanted to destroy a minority? would it be that countries democratic duty to carry out the wishes of the people and kill/exile that minority?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brutus
May 6 2007, 10:24 AM
Hitler would have made a country that matched what i described exactly, he turned an economically collapsing country into a world superpower that came into a hairs width of taking control of the entire planet. He was an incredible peace time leader he just lacked the military mind to handle controling his own army. If he had listened to Eric von Manstein at the war table then we would all be speaking German.

For starters Nazi Germany came NOWHERE NEAR to taking over the entire planet. Maybe the entirety of Europe, but not the planet. Secondly the economy was entirely reliant on war, with too narrow a focus. Yes, it gave people jobs following a terrible recession (which incidentally was not Germany's fault), but those jobs were reliant on there being a war upcoming. One of the reasons that Hitler rushed into WWII was probably because his nation's economy was so reliant on there being a war (and he was bonkers).

EDIT: As for the question above, no, that's not the case. That would be 'tyranny of the majority'. Those people have rights as citizens. A democracy is not run by the people, it is run by a government elected by the people (in the real world).
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Khan
Member Avatar
HAVE YOU HEARD OF THIS SWEET WEBSITE CALLED FOUR CHAN DOT ORG?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
BohemianG
May 6 2007, 07:27 PM
Secondly the economy was entirely reliant on war, with too narrow a focus. One of the reasons that Hitler rushed into WWII was probably because his nation's economy was so reliant on there being a war (and he was bonkers).

Can you explain this further? Didn't Germany have domestic production and enough infrastructure and taxation to sustain itself?

What does exactly being reliant on war mean?
Wine in hand, in the other, Quran,
Both halal I do and haram,
In this incomplete world of a sham,
Neither Pagan I am, nor Musselman!


Omar Khayyam

Come, come, whoever you are,
Wanderer, idolater, worshipper of fire,
Come even though you have broken your vows a thousand times,
Come, and come yet again.
Ours is not a caravan of despair


Mevlana Jalaladdin Rumi
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Debaser
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's not possible. Human's just aren't built for it.
To hell with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
hitlers economy was not reliant on war, it was built for it, their is a difference.

and he did come too close for words to winning the war.

If he had listend to Manstein then he would have won the war,
if he had maintained his campain against the RAF then he would have won the war
if he had waited before attacking the U.S.S.R then he would have won the war
if he had waited until the war was over before the ethnic cleansing then he would have won the war.

the list goes on and on and on, the allies were un-be-Fucking-leivably lucky to win the war.

in 1939, in order to take over the world you only needed to defeat 5 main countries and then the rest of the world was the easy part because even the combined might of South America, Africa and Asia (excluding japan) could not stand up to one of the major powers.

we know Hitler was planning on taking over the world because he had plans for various countries around the world, such as he planned to turn madagascar into a masssive concentration camp and send all not Aryans their to be killed.


Quote:
 
Didn't Germany have domestic production and enough infrastructure and taxation to sustain itself?


Yes it definatly did.

BohemianG should look up Autarky , it was hitlers Economic goal and he did acheive it by the time war had started, he learned his lesson from what had happened to Germany in WW1 when it almost had to surrender a year earlier because britains navy was stopping food from arriving in Germany.

Quote:
 
One of the reasons that Hitler rushed into WWII was probably because his nation's economy was so reliant on there being a war


Read a history book. that is complete and utter balls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
hitlers economy was not reliant on war, it was built for it, their is a difference.

and he did come too close for words to winning the war.

If he had listend to Manstein then he would have won the war,
if he had maintained his campain against the RAF then he would have won the war
if he had waited before attacking the U.S.S.R then he would have won the war
if he had waited until the war was over before the ethnic cleansing then he would have won the war.

the list goes on and on and on, the allies were un-be-Fucking-leivably lucky to win the war.


You're right. But, another reason he lost was due to his own arrogance....which equates perfectly into what you're saying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
yeah, his arrogance and his determination, he would never ever take a step back, a stategy which his generals wanted to use was luring the soviets into eastern europe by backing up and letting them in, they would have advanced too far too quickly and be cut off from the rest of the army and easily killed, this would have won the war for them but Hitler denied the plan because it requiered taking a step back which is Not an option to him.

some of the things which helped the allies are things which are so small that no-one has ever heard of them yet we couldn't have won the war without them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Brutus
May 7 2007, 03:34 PM
and he did come too close for words to winning the war.

If he had listend to Manstein then he would have won the war,
if he had maintained his campain against the RAF then he would have won the war
if he had waited before attacking the U.S.S.R then he would have won the war
if he had waited until the war was over before the ethnic cleansing then he would have won the war.
year earlier because britains navy was stopping food from arriving in Germany.

Oh yes, he came close to winning the war with Britain and many of the other Allies at various points, but I still seriously doubt he could have taken on the USSR and the USA, as was necessary, and he still came nowhere near to taking over the entire globe. And I did find it a bit insulting to be told to 'read a history book' - I have an A-level in History don'tchaknow ;) As for Autarky - they came close. They came rather too close for comfort. But they still. Didn't. Manage. It. I think this 'OMG HITLER' trend in recent years is a bit dangerous - he really wasn't that great. I mean, the point is he DID make all those terrible mistakes and misjudgements. We can sit here and say "What if he hadn't attacked Stalin so early" etc. all day, but it's largely irrelevant, because that was the way it went doowwn. And his economy WAS reliant on the manufacture of weapons, and that's not to say it didn't prosper for a while because of it (USA during WW1 anyone?). There was a lack of skilled labour in Germany, mainly because he'd fired anyone that looked funny, while most of his shitty road-building plans could only be sustained for a while. It speaks volumes that the Nazis came nowhere close to their pledge of a car for all citizens...
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
Hitler was great not for fighting the war because he did an absoloutly awful job of fighting the war, he was great for turning Germany into a superpower from nothing.

And he did come incredibly close to conquering the world, as i said before their are only 4 major hurdles, (U.K, France, Soviet Union, America) once youve beaten them, the rest of the world is the easy bit. His army defated one of the largest empires on the planet (France) in 6 weeks by which time it controles all of eastern Europe and all of western Africa, that was in 6 weeks!, that shows the sheer power of his army when it was focused on one opponent. so if he had took his time then he would have won, even with those mistakes he was making.

i'll explain what i mean (i havn't explained well)

Hitler Invades Poland and France and Britain Declare war on him,
He defeats France and takes their Empire in 6 weeks
for almsot a year he is only fighting the U.K and his campaign against the RAF (which if succesful would leave Britain defencless) was about to succeed but Hitler called it off because he thought it wasn't working but the RAF was acually on the brink of defeat.

theirs one thing, if he had waited a week before calling it off he would have defeated britain and what i am about to say would have happened.

if he had waited until he had defeated britain then he could have focused his entire army on the Soviets and have defeated them in probably one year(ish), then he could turn and do the same to America (with Japans aid), then (after a few years of peace so he can recover) he could turn on his former allies (Italy and Japan) and conquer them then their is the easy bit (south america and the rest of Asia) and Viola!!!

The world is under the control of Nazi Germany.

And the reason his economy was so reliant on producing weapons was because he built it himself, the economy of Nazi Germany was designed to power a Nation at war, he was making the weapons to fight the biggest war the world had ever seen, so you need a few rifles and what not.

And the car ownership rate in Germany was incredibly high, much higher than the rest of Europe and America, and VolksWagon is one of the worlds biggest car companies and guess who founded it?

Shitty road building plans? he made the Autobans! they are anything but, probably one of the finest run road systems on the planet (even in the 30s).

he came to within a hairs width of conquering the whole damn planet, Fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The original Autobahns were of terrible quality, and car ownership was actually very low. The 'Strength through Joy' programme was a resounding failure - yes the programme created VW, but at the time very few people actually got to drive a 'People's Car'.

Furthermore, the Nazis got very lucky in terms of the economy. Hitler had some quite talented men at his disposal yes (Speer for example), but the world had also emerged from a recession and was on the bounce-back. He hardly created a world power 'from nothing', either - yes, Germany had been crippled by the Depression, but prior to that it was a thriving democracy in which extremism was actually on the decline, and there were still a great many natural resources available to the Germans even in their homeland alone.

The fact that his economy was reliant on weapons production was significant. It helped to stimulate the economy, but some have argued (this is by no means an original idea of mine, before you tell me to 'read a history book' again) that the Nazis went to war before their time, not just because of Hitler's ambition but also because an economy geared towards arms manufacture needs a war. It's supply and demand.

By the way, don't confuse 'Hitler' with 'the Nazi party' and 'the German government'. I'm sure Hitler would love you to think that he single-handedly 'saved' Germany from recession, but he hardly worked alone. In fact much of the time he got up at midday and watched movies all afternoon (apparently King Kong was one of his favourites).

Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
he came to within a hairs width of conquering the whole damn planet, Fact.


Not really. He came within a hairs width of conquering Europe, but not the entire planet.

Quote:
 
then he could turn and do the same to America (with Japans aid),


Interesting theory, and possible, on paper. But, after suffering casulities and loss of equipment and resources, could Germany have really made an attempt on the U.S.? Figure in the fighting with the Soviets and I would estimate....not likely. Now, if both Japan and Germany could have united and taken on America with both being at full strength, then I would say America would have been in trouble. But, basically, Germany and Japan would have had to take on every single "superpower" at the time, all simultaenously. A feat that would have been pretty much impossible for that time. Remember, we're talking about a war in which nukes weren't developed until right at the end.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brutus
Member Avatar
Planning World Domination
[ *  *  *  * ]
if no-one else interfiered then nazi Germany and Japan could defeat America, remember, this was before America and the soviet Union were superpowers, at the start of the war the superpowers of the world were the Colonial Empires of Britain and France both of which lost their superpowerhood during (France) the war or a couple of years after (Britain).

what i am trying to say is, Hitler would have won the war if he had managed to make sure he only fought one or two of the allies at a time, which is somthing he would have managed if he had waited a week before calling of the anti-RAF campaign or decided to wait until he defeated britain before attacking the soviets and the Americans.

America and the Soviet union were not superpowers at the time they joined in the war, America and the soviet union emerged as superpowers largly because of the war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Actually America WAS a major world power at the start of WWII. Even after the Wall Street Crash they were the wealthiest and strongest nation in the world - even if they didn't go out and conquer everywhere. Conquering America would have been quite some task without nuclear weapons.

The USSR was weaker, but was no pushover.
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
if no-one else interfiered then nazi Germany and Japan could defeat America,


But, this was a World War, not a war between the Axis and America. So, just to come all the way across the atlantic just to get into a scrap with America would have been expensive and pointless. Also, I already made this point earlier:

Quote:
 
Now, if both Japan and Germany could have united and taken on America with both being at full strength, then I would say America would have been in trouble.


So, we both agree on this point.

Quote:
 
America and the Soviet union were not superpowers at the time they joined in the war, America and the soviet union emerged as superpowers largly because of the war.


You are right. I mis-used "superpower", were I should have said something along the lines of maybe.....strongest of industrialized nations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BohemianG
Member Avatar
Voted Most Likely to End the World
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
May 9 2007, 08:34 PM
You are right. I mis-used "superpower", were I should have said something along the lines of maybe.....strongest of industrialized nations.

Indeed. The old colonial empires of Britain and France were stronger before WW1, but that little fiasco set them on the inescapable road of decline (what a horrible turn of phrase...I digress). America, relatively untouched by WW1 and bolstered by its considerable profits from arms sales to the allies and natural resources, emerged as the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, and was so even in the 1920s.
Mister 'Balls' Sinister
 
Normandy took more balls than Vietnam, it took more balls than Korea, it took more balls than facing mustard gas on a battlefield full of giant ditches with nowhere to run. It took more balls than the world will ever be able to ante up again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.