ITT: Things brainlets say

>What if Byzantium would have survived until WWI.
This was a thread here...

Why is that?

He is just a product of what allies made in Germany, the winners were not fair, and shrugged in the Germans faces their victory

People got angry, Hitler was a socialist and basically created socialism+ nationalities = Nazism, and got everyone attention

He did bad things? of course he did, but what is the difference between him and Genghis?

And how about the millions of people already died to maintain US supremacy in south america?

proxy wars the US has made, cartels which they financed, and political spectrum's destroyed

It is all about the perspective you look it, to Germans Hitler as a good guy, after all he was killing the high class of foreigners and giving the means of production back to German hands.

You're god damn right

Correct.

>The 'Nazi's' rigged the election and were poor peacetime rulers

...

I mean no one except the Germans themselves would have said otherwise during his reign, so even for his time he was evil.

>after all he was killing the high class of foreigners and giving the means of production back to German hands.
Means of production of the whole Europe into hands of a few industrial tycoons?

>Hitler was a socialist and basically created socialism+ nationalities = Nazism
That's bullshit, you are totally ignoring fascist and volkish aspects of Nazism.

>e-everyone else say he's evil so he's the bad guy
ad populi faggot, try again

>Means of production of the whole Europe into hands of a few industrial tycoons?

To be fair it is better to have they in Germans hands then to have them in the hands of the world. Even more when the higher class was basically Jews that invested and bought almost all means of production because Germany economy was broken

centralized? even better for the whole nation that it is about to reclaim a lot of territory from other people, as it is easier to control it.

They basically took back what belong to them pre WW1

> why don´t kick them out?

Because Germans fucking hated what happened to them

>That's bullshit, you are totally ignoring fascist and volkish aspects of Nazism.

It was a oversimplification, Nazism is to me basically a dialectic between fascism and socialism, I can be wrong but I do not want to expand in this topic, I am just saying that perspective matter, not interest in debating what influences Nazism had received

and in a pre WW2 Germany, Hitler actually had a point.

He was no worse than Napoleon.

I wasn't aware Napoleonic France attempted industrial extermination of several groups of people.

>He did bad things? of course he did, but what is the difference between him and Genghis?
Time.
AT his time civil rights were in swing and people began to see races as equal and even then murder was too far and against the law in every country regardless of race.
Genghis is a bad example because people of his time saw him as a menace as well, so let use witch hunters instead. Back then people knew little of the world around them and as such feared for their lives at the possibilities that posed a threat to them. Such ignorance while brutal was understandable and a mistake made from ignorance. Hitler had no such ignorance and willingly chose to do such. He knew what he was doing the momment he hid the details of the holocaust from his people.

Multiculturalism works

>Anarchism can work
>implying stateless society based on volujtary participation have not existed
>what is tribalism

>To be fair it is better to have they in Germans hands then to have them in the hands of the world.
For Germans maybe, the rest of Europe didn't exactely enjoyed being plundered.

>They basically took back what belong to them pre WW1
What excately are you talking about France, Poland, low countries?

>Because Germans fucking hated what happened to them
The Great deppresion? Everyone hated that.

>Nazism is to me basically a dialectic between fascism and socialism
That's terribly naive view, ignorant of German history in 19th century. Volkish aspect was more critical than the socialist part.

>and in a pre WW2 Germany, Hitler actually had a point
What point? Flipping middle finger to paying reparations or looting Europe to maintain ridicolous state budget?

the murder of millions of innocence is morally reprehensible in most moral codes and even then it is a drain of resources and the people killed could have been useful to the state as doctors or at least cannon fodder.

>so let use witch hunters instead.
kek. many political elites became really skeptical of witch hunts pretty fucking soon. some were probably skeptical from the get-go. it became quite clear that the legal evidence was scanty too. that said, it depended on the country; catholic countries tended to have longer witch hysteria, the dutch were at the other end of the spectrum. The French magistrates though eventually came to see the whole thing as futile in time as well

>britain lost the 100 year war

The only thing you are doing is proving that morality was way stronger back then than what people usually think when they say morality is relative to the times they are in. If anything this shows that most people of old and new know that random murder of innocence is always reprehensible

Japan lost WW2. I'm always surprised Americans Make this mistake.

>The Civil War was primarily about states' rights
>Europe was irrelevant until the 15th century
>Christianity saved/destroyed the Roman Empire
>The Entente Powers were just as bad as the Central Powers in WWI
>The French Revolution was necessary, and a good thing for the world overall
>Empires are almost always bad and unstable
>A nation has no right to turn away immigrants/refugees. We are all immigrants.

...

>waaahhhh people died in history
wow

Are there Veeky Forums archives somewhere?

"ITT: Things brainlets say

>The US lost the Vietnam war!"

how did they not lose?

Is... Is this how you activate almonds?

...

yes

>(you)

Are you going to make a single argument?

can you stop being an emotionally driven cunt?

Ok first this isnt an argument
secondly I said that even without morality it was just a waste of time and resources and even actively harmed the economy by killing professionals and draining resources from the state to a passion project that in the end did fuck all except give the foe they were fighting enough empathy to give them a whole nation.

Haha democrats haven't been this angry since republicans ended slavery

Not an argument

>This person or society was wrong because they don't conform to my modern upper class western standards.
I'm no fan of relativism, but I have legitimately seen people dismiss entire cultures and socities because they had different values, and that shit pisses me off. Bonus points if the issue in question has to do with the role of women or slavery

>America won the cold war

Wait after we left didn't the north Vietcongs take over? So we failed to ensure the success of the South Vietcong army as intended, therefore we lost.

>X had it coming
>wrong/right side of history
>history is written by the victors

t. edgy 19 year old who thinks he's redpilled because he reads Mises.org and Hoppe

>The US didn't l-lose the vietnam war!

>ZIMBABWE WAS WHITE GENOCIDEEEE!!!!

>There are people out there who actually think America won the Vietnam War
Please point to South Vietnam on a map please :)

Pls Point to a rich Vietnam allied with China if the US were remotely close to defeating him

>Nationalism and colonialism are the greatest evils of human history

It literally was. How can you even argue against that?

>diversity is strength

>The Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the Russian Revolution and the degeneracy and civilizational decay is Weimar Germany.
>The Jews have never ever done anything wrong in history.

>Nationalism is bad
>Ethnostates are bad

>Happened long after the Vietnam War

>ZIMBABWE WAS WHITE GENOCIDEEEE!!!!
Technically it was ethnic cleansing, not genocide

>People got angry, Hitler was a socialist and basically created socialism+ nationalities = Nazism, and got everyone attention
Goddannit i did not suffer through 10 Night of the Long Knives threads in one week to still encounter this ignorance

Veeky Forums has hope yet

*changes file-name*

>Anarchy can't work
You obviously don't know about Spain during the Franco regime.

>WWI was a pointless war

You're aware that he's playing with you, right ?

But Franco won.
Not being able to defend yourself is a failure.

Only white people enslaved blacks and invaded other countries.

>lmao all he did was murder people chill

>cleetus being this butthurt about the vietnam war
you lost it, you need to accept :^)

Mexicans are not a bunch of mongrels and are true natives of their land.

Mexico should not give their land back to Spain.

>Castro was literally comparable to Hitler

I guess just like Rhodesia then

Yes exactly like Rhodesia

>Hitler was a socialist
>The U.S did bad things that means Hitler wasn't evil
>Versailles was unfair

The war developed in a way not necessarily to Japan's advantage, so they stopped fighting.

Thats a war nobody won. French indo-china was milked of its elite and academics. Yes there were lots of people of european descent. Some say because they sided with the Japanese as it had become a Japanese stronghold. And western resent grew in indo-china. By the time US got there French indochina was a jungle once more depleted of its educated middle class and elite.

One side was for japan the other for china. We sided with Japans allies thinking Japan had no resent for bombings. It was WW3 all over again. Remember the way the war was marketed was not 'we are going to war with indochina or Vietnam.' It was 'war on communism/communists.' Like war on terror or drugs. This is where Bush failed or was succesful. Who knows washingtons intent? But knowing that history in lesson sent latin american militants and intelligence crazy. Immigration upped. It means it was a war against them.

>what is tribalism
mudhuts and poverty

DO IT AGAIN
O

I
T

A
G
A
I
N

Objectively correct.

NV clearly won they took over the south, what are you even talking about.

Things brainlets actually say

>other people are stupid for not agreeing with me!

>white genocide

>"American English is actually closer to Original English than British English".

It's such a ridiculous meme and I have no idea where it came from.

What even is "original" English? Old English? Middle English? Early-Modern English? Non of them sound American.

I think they mean that the American accent is closer to the British accent of the 1700s than the modern day British accent, which started losing their 'r' sounds:

>Around the turn of the 18th 19th century, not long after the revolution, non-rhotic speech took off in southern England, especially among the upper and upper-middle classes. It was a signifier of class and status. This posh accent was standardized as Received Pronunciation and taught widely by pronunciation tutors to people who wanted to learn to speak fashionably. Because the Received Pronunciation accent was regionally "neutral" and easy to understand, it spread across England and the empire through the armed forces, the civil service and, later, the BBC

mentalfloss.com/article/29761/when-did-americans-lose-their-british-accents

>Poland Started it

There is some relatively isolated in America (I forget where) that actually still speaks the dialect that the early Americans and British of that time would have spoken.

>US backs South
>South capitulates to the North
>US won

ok

...

True in some parts of the South if you consider 17th-18th century English "original"

>the vietnam war happened

pbs.org/video/pbs-previews-the-vietnam-war-ac4vcp/

>ITT: Things brainlets say

"There wasn't a global flood, but there was a flood in Mesopotamia!"

youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54