Was there ever someone who just wanted chaos?

The result of failing his goals...

You can admit Hitler had goals, other than simple chaos, without going full /pol/. If he wanted to simply generate chaos, there were much more effective ways he coulda gone about it, rather than creating one of the most infamously and meticulously ordered forces of all time, with the clear cut goal of regimental German domination.

Well to me, he seems more like Dylan Klebold with a massive army, than a rational actor with a clear goal.

>If he wanted to simply generate chaos, there were much more effective ways he coulda gone about it

More effective than causing the death of 50 million people, and genociding another 11 million?

I don't think so. That's a pretty effective level of chaos.

Well, to real adults who read books and study history, he seems like a nationalist leader trying to establish German dominance over Europe in one fell swoop. I could see how being an idiot would lead you to your conclusion, though.

Is chaos the end goal or just someone who just didn't really have an end game?

Alexander the great could be argued an agent of chaos. Literally just conquering for the sake of it fuck the consequences or lives no real goal just a straight line from Greece to India for no fucking reason.

It would have been much more effective to simply start sabotaging all the European power structures economically, including his own, from within, rather than trying to unite them all under the single, well ordered and rigorously regulated flag of the Third Reich.

Even Dylan Klebold had a goal, from what he left behind - he wanted to make a statement about the social hierarchy. I suppose they are similar in that Hitler wanted to redefine the social hierarchy, permanently and world wide, rather than simply make a statement.

>he seems like a nationalist leader trying to establish German dominance over Europe in one fell swoop

Well I don't care what it "seems" like, I care what he actually did. And what he actually did was cause a war that killed 50-75 million people, and he personally oversaw the genocide of another 11 million.

Maybe you should try to infer people's motivations from their actual actions than from their stated intent instead because it's probably closer to the truth.

Oddly, the storm of Alexander did almost nothing but leave behind order and uniformity wherever it went.

>It would have been much more effective to simply start sabotaging all the European power structures economically, including his own, from within, rather than trying to unite them all under the single, well ordered and rigorously regulated flag of the Third Reich.

You can't be serious. It's vastly more effective to bomb something than playing political and economic subversion games.

So what point are you trying to make actually? That Hitler was a Chaos Magickian who listened to Current 93 and pretended to read Aleister Crowley? Fuck off

OP's phrasing is in regard to intent, not result. Clearly, his goal was one of infinite draconian order, rather than infinite degenerate chaos. Order isn't necessarily a positive thing, in and of itself.

Undermining a government is a lot more effective than bombing it, for a long term goal of chaos. If your bombing campaign fails to destroy the government in question, it only makes it more powerful as its people rally behind it and become much more willing to accept the burdens it places upon them and their freedoms. Which is more or less what happened, save for those governments that surrendered to the advance, which the Germans were then force to reorganize.

I'm trying to make the point that even if you /pol/tards think that all of this is a game, and that nationalistic LARPing is fun, maybe just maybe, you'll literally elect The Joker; e.g a person who actually doesn't care about anything, and just want to destroy shit, and is opportunistically playing along with your pathetic games.

Be careful what you wish for; or better yet, examine what you yourself actually wish for, because it might not be so fucking nice.

I knew this thread was about the fucking Joker. Grow up you baby. Read a book.

Not. An. Argument.

Whoa there, I don't subscribe to your dialectical ideas about discourse, I'm a TRUE AGENT OF CHAOS

cringe

Oddly, no one here is supporting Hitler yet (which is a bit unusual for this board), and pretty much everyone, save you, has been saying his goals were evil - but a meticulously ordered evil, not a chaotic one. He wanted a very specific rule of law, not simply chaos, or he never would have reorganized the governments he toppled and forced such strict order upon them. Making ludicrous claims about Hitler just fuels /pol/ and their supporters really. What's worse, it distorts the image of history making it harder to learn from, and thus more likely to repeat itself.

Hitler happened for a reason, and if anything, he was a response to chaos. If one forgets this, one just invites more of the same.

Yeah cringe, it's your thread you fucking idiot

>has been saying his goals were evil - but a meticulously ordered evil

No, I'm saying that his actual actions and their consequences implied that he might not have had the goals that people normally attribute to him.

If you successfully launch a war that kills an indiscriminate amount of people and you also start a genocidal campaign against specific subsets of the population, only to commit suicide in a bunker somewhere underground, it's hard to not think this was the whole goal to begin with.

>it's your thread you fucking idiot

No, it isn't. My first post in this thread was But believe whatever you want queer.

Oh so you only made the second-stupidest post? That's still pretty good.

>it's hard to not think this was the whole goal to begin with.
No, that's fucking stupid. The intended result was obviously to WIN THE WAR.

Are you going to say anything substantive, or are you just going to shitpost like you're a butthurt 7 year old who is not getting any icecream today?

If you have some evidence to back this up, sure, but no one who has ever written of Hitler, nor any of his own works, suggest his goal was anything other than a new Aryan order and German dominance. All of his efforts seem to be to that end, they simply failed, leaving him with nowhere to turn.

If anything, what you are suggesting, is that everything would have been just fine if he had succeeded in his stated goal, rather than caused so much chaos because the better half of the world powers resisted it.

So why are you supporting Hitler then?

>The intended result was obviously to WIN THE WAR.

So why did they ramp up the Holocaust? Doesn't sound like someone trying to win a war to me.

"There, where I have passed, the grass will never grow again"

-Attila the Hun.

Dude was a fucking animal. Burning fields, sacking and razing cities, slaughtering and raping people for fun. There was a reason they called him the Scourge of Christ.

How am I supporting Hitler by saying that it's obvious he had strategic goals? Literally everyone who's ever studied history (and even everyone who hasn't) would agree with me and not with your fuck-stupid assertion that Hitler was secretly the Joker or whatever

>If anything, what you are suggesting, is that everything would have been just fine if he had succeeded in his stated goal, rather than caused so much chaos because the better half of the world powers resisted it.

I don't see how this is implied by anything I've said in this thread.

Because the stated goal behind the war was establishing a new Aryan order under German control - to overthrow what the advocates there of saw as a degenerate chaos resulting from mongrel and Jewish influence, supported by a nation of peoples who had been economically raped by the shortsighted peace treaties of the previous war.

Such a goal is the opposite of chaos. It's still fucking evil, and you have to burn down the existing order to get there, but it's not a goal of chaos, it's one of fascism.

Substantive? Like saying Hitler is an agent of chaos like the Joker? A character from a childrens cartoon? Yeah real deep analysis their buddy. Go fuck yourself idiot

Actually its my thread m8.

What I have gathered so far is that everyone to some extent is a rational actor, this concept of a pantomime chaos villain and anyone who was a true agent of chaos would lack the support needed to be remembered through history as you gather support by having a cause.
Thanks anons, sage this thread if you will unless there are any other points to be made.

Yeah but the point is you buffoon, is that they started genociding people DURING the war.

If you want to win a war, you don't start using resources and logistics to genocide people. That's obviously fucking insane, and probably one of the reasons they lost the war.

So that argument doesn't work.

It's what you are implying. That if the world had just sat back, and let Hitler implement his stated plans, in a calm orderly fashion, and no chaos resulted, then it'd be fine.

And that's a pretty fucking evil world view.

If you're going to claim his actual goal was just pure chaos, despite all his statements to the contrary, then you're basically saying his stated goal was fine, and it's only this completely undocumented and hidden internal goal of his that was evil.

>If you want to win a war, you don't start using resources and logistics to genocide people.
Worked in Cuba and elsewhere
read some more history, retard

Kill yourself you butthurt /pol/tard. It doesn't matter if it's the Joker or Ted Bundy. The point is the content.

But obviously you're too retarded to understand metaphors and analogies, which isn't uncommon for someone with a double digit IQ like yourself.

>It's what you are implying. That if the world had just sat back, and let Hitler implement his stated plans, in a calm orderly fashion, and no chaos resulted, then it'd be fine.

No, that isn't what I'm implying at all.

>If you want to win a war, you don't start using resources and logistics to genocide people.
Whoa there buddy maybe you should look up the phrase "total war" and also while your at it google "world war 2"

You don't try to win a war while the people whose stated goal it is yours to remove are living among you.

And they did do everything possible to remove the problem the most efficient and orderly manner possible. Again, just cuz shit's orderly, doesn't mean it isn't evil.

How was your first post a metaphor or an analogy? OP asked for "true agents of chaos" and you named some people as answers. Not only do you not know what a metaphor is, you don't even understand your own posts. Truly pathetic.

>Really? Is that why Hitler committed suicide in a bunker after destroying Europe?

user, if you say "I'm going to become the world's best runner!" then you fuck it all up, break your leg, and shoot yourself because you never became the world's best runner, that doesn't mean you lacked a clear goal. It just means you failed to reach it.

Hell you can be morbidly incompetent and still have a goal. Being a fuckup and causing chaos doesn't necessarily mean chaos was the intended result.

Well, which is it then? Was Hitler evil because he caused so much chaos, because his goal was simply chaos - or was Hitler evil because he had the plan of instituting the most genocidal draconian order Europe ever conceived of?

Well, both are a problem and undoubtedly evil.

Let me use an analogy then.

Do you think Mao's Great Leap Forward was actually motivated by deep empathy for his fellow Chinese, and a hope that it would solve the problems in their society?

It killed an estimate 45 million people; but you can either argue that this was a negative consequence of his higher ideals, or you can argue that this was the goal to begin with.

I tend to assume the latter. Either way it would be evil to kill 45 million people, but sometimes people don't even understand that they supposedly "noble ideals" can actually murder millions of people.

There needs to be another pol purge

>I tend to assume the latter.
Because you're literally retarded and completely removing these events from their historical context. You have no place on this board, so fuck off.

Yeah, but my point is that the underlying true goal can be total chaos and destruction, but on the surface it can appear as rational and even noble.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. I mean, Communists are especially guilty of this.

Not an argument.

Do you even know what the Great Leap Forward was? If the goal simply to kill millions of people, why would you do it by moving intellectuals out into the country and making them into shitty farmers and steelworkers? Why wouldn't you just shoot them? You're idea is retarded, to be honest.

actually its very much an argument, sorry that you're retarded

Well, in fiction i guess

But that means it's not a good villain

If you're unwilling to accept that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, you're going to get there real fast.

Sadly, I'm sure Mao's intention wasn't to starve his people to death. Bit less certain about Stalin's atrocities, but his goal too, seemed to be the opposite of chaos - everything he did was to maintain order and power.

People tend to justify everything they do to themselves. Very few people are evil for evil's sake, and even less often do such people come to power (and when they do, it tends to be a matter of hereditary succession).

...and most of the evil in the world is done in the name of fighting evil - committed by folks who forget this simple fact.

>If the goal simply to kill millions of people, why would you do it by moving intellectuals out into the country and making them into shitty farmers and steelworkers? Why wouldn't you just shoot them?

Maybe because people are entirely deranged and like to play nihilistic jokes on people.

Sort of like hanging "Arbeit macht frei" on the entrance above a camp where people are murdered simply for aesthetics.

>Maybe because people are entirely deranged and like to play nihilistic jokes on people.
[citation needed]

>Sort of like hanging "Arbeit macht frei" on the entrance above a camp where people are murdered simply for aesthetics.

You know Mao wasn't God, he didn't have sole control over every person in China. You clearly don't know too much about the history of the Chinese civil war and the following revolution, or else you would realize that Mao was a politician and revolutionary and not a comic book character.

not an argument and entirely unrelated
post a source showing people are deranged and like to play nihilistic jokes

I never said he was a cartoon character, but excuse me for not taking peoples' word for it when they claim to have noble and virtuous motives.

>post a source showing people are deranged and like to play nihilistic jokes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

>MAD

>not taking peoples' word for it when they claim to have noble and virtuous motives.
What?? It's not like I'm personally Mao telling you how great I am. This is the rational behind an actual even that already really happened in reality. We're not advocating Mao to you, we're telling you what REALLY HAPPENED. And you just persist in being like "well what if Mao thought x, y and z?" Well, yeah wow, what if? Nobody knows what Mao really thought. That's sort of like central to studying history, which is obviously not something you're familiar with.

literally didn't even read your own source
> It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.
thats literally the exact opposite of what you're trying to say; it's not people being deranged, its people desperately trying to survive

I don't think so. I think that acronym was cooked up by someone who wasn't right in the head, and thought 50000 nuclear weapons pointed between two nations was funny.

>I don't think so.
nobody gives a shit what you "think", retard. what matters is the historical context in which things happened, and if possible the thoughts of the people behind them. YOUR opinion is utterly irrelevant unless you back it up with these sources.

>a bunch of facts
>"I dont think so"
fuck off back to /x/

>what matters is the historical context in which things happened

Yeah, the acronym *just* had to be "MAD" right because hurr durr historical context.

Kill yourself.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that Hitler's true underlying goal was total chaos and destruction though.
>Communists are especially guilty of this.
How do you figure?

>post a source showing people are deranged and like to play nihilistic jokes
Youtube...

Posting a source proving that these particular rulers overall goal was a derange and nihilistic joke, on the other hand...

It's a lesson to be learned from, and an important one - that the highest and loftiest of goals can lead to the darkest and most depraved acts of death and suffering.

And the sad truth is, historically speaking, that's been the case more often than not. The asshole who comes in and says, "I'm here to fuck your shit up!", is most often less destructive than the saint who proclaims, "I'm here to save our people and show them the way."

You can make caricatures out of these rulers, claim they were simply evil, and ignore that lesson, but you ignore a basic precept of human behavior and psyche in the process, and more or less doom yourself to the fate of those folks who followed them, believing someone else to be evil and so readily dehumanizing the detractors who tried to warn them.

mongols and turks

what the fuck kind of argument is this
are you legitimately mentally challenged

You're the retarded one here m8. Making a joke about the fact that the Western world could be annihilated at any time(E.g the acronym "MAD", as in "This is mad"), is someone's idea of humor should disturb you, but apparently it doesn't.

No dude, YOU'RE retarded. It's supposed to be that way because it's propaganda, it's an idea used to ensure that no nation uses nuclear weapons in conflict. Propaganda is more effective when it's simple and memorable. What's your theory? That's its some lizardman international conspiracy?

>It's supposed to be that way because it's propaganda

So what? I don't think it's funny propaganda, but someone in an office somewhere thought so.

>There's absolutely no reason to believe that Hitler's true underlying goal was total chaos and destruction though.

Hmm... So what kind of death toll and annihilation in the world is justified in calling something total chaos and destruction then?

the idea that someone recognizing the absurdity behind a situation that threatened to wipe out all human life disturbs you is pretty pathetic
once again you continue to take everything out of historical context because you literally cannot argue your garbage points any other way
why don't you start talking about how old surgeons were objectively horrible, cruel, and deranged people because they didn't know they should wash their hands before performing surgery

Who the fuck cares what you think?

>mongols
Assuming you are referring to the Mongol Empire, Mongols never aimed to just create chaos. In many ways they reduced the amount of chaos in their territory. They made the silk road a lot safer, for example, which allowed for a lot more trade and prosperity.
>Turks
How so?
You're so stupid it hurts. What makes you think the acronym "MAD" was simply devised to be funny? The other user even pointed out a much more logical theory, it's propaganda.
You need to learn that goals don't equal results, you fucking retard.

Apparently you, since you have continued to respond to me the entire thread like some smug know-it-all.

>You need to learn that goals don't equal results

What are you talking about?

>What makes you think the acronym "MAD" was simply devised to be funny?

It certainly is an attempt at black humor.

>Nero
>bad
You do know that during the Great Fire of Rome, Nero stood with the first responders and helped put out the fire, right? According to Wikipedia, "Nero focused much of his attention on diplomacy, trade and enhancing the cultural life of the empire, ordering theatres built and promoting athletic games, but according to the historian Tacitus (writing one generation later) he was viewed by the Roman people as compulsive and corrupt."

You try to refute my point that there's no reason to believe that Hitler's goal was total chaos and destruction by saying "but that is what he caused". Just because that is what he caused doesn't mean it was his intention. The goals do not necessarily equal the results you achieve by pursuing them.
Actually, after looking it up, it was indeed meant to be humorous. The acronym was devised by John von Neumann, who had a taste for humorous acronyms. I don't understand why this would be scary though. Some of the darkest things are most often joked about.

Protip: when considering if someone's intentions are in line with what they say their intentions are, look and see what their supposed good intentions allow them to get away with and usually that is what their intentions actually were, whether they were aware of it or not.

>Topic of the thread is "Figures who WANTED to cause chaos"
>Anyone with a fucking high school education knows that Hitler had a clear and concise goal, but fucked up in achieving it, thus causing chaos unwillingly.

Idi Amin

>but fucked up in achieving it

And denounced the German people as weak anyway and deserving of nothing, and then committed suicide.

>t. The Man Without a Source

>Hasn't read Traudl Junge's account of the last days in the bunker with Hitler
>whines about sources

Ok bruv

>implying both the nazis and the soviets weren't violent reactions against the death of god.
>"B-but we were just doing it for the fatherland, we didn't mean for nobody to get hurt we dindu nuffin"
>implying their entire ideology isnt simply what they tell themselves to justify their atrocities.

see

This is what I've been trying to say the entire thread, but people are too retarded.

(and all of your other retarded posts)
So? He failed to reach his goals and fucked off by blowing his brains out.
If he wanted to create Chaos, why were they trying to establish stable governments loyal to them everywhere they could? Why did they just kill specific groups of people instead of just taking whatever they could and then denying useless towns water, electricity and food?
Sure you could argue that the Third Reich needed the resources to first win the war, but that implies that once they'd actually win (let's say control whole of Europe and somehow make the US a complete non-threat to them) they would start just literally burning down the entire continent for teh chaotic lulz.

>Believing the word of a woman
Ok dude, but their goal still wasn't simply chaos. Please try and read the thread.

Results != intentions.
If hitler had an ideal world, he would have got everything he wanted without any war at all.