Lived through hard times, therefore must have been a strong man

>t. /pol/ false-flagger
fuck off back to your containment board

>Hitler didn't cause hard times
Remind me, who started the war?

>hypothesis
It's not a hypothesis. It never was a hypothesis. It is not a theoretical model to explain changes in the society. It never goes to construct one, it's contained to a single phrase. It's a platitude. Stop posting it.

It was the weak men of france and UK who created the hard times

I never said that /pol/ was responsible for the theory. I just said that it as "/pol/-tier", in other words, it's retarded enough to belong to /pol/.

/pol/
>Hitler was a great leader
historians
>Hitler was lazy and a bad leader the only reason he succeed was because of the people at his side like Joseph Goebbels controlling the population

/pol/ doesn't know what they are talking about he was a shit leader the only thing he was good at was speeches

then why haven't you fucked off to /pol/

...

He was a very weak man. He was governed by his passions (anger, pride, etc) and was also addicted to drugs.

i think i saw that aime you wrote about

Most of /pol/tards think live in an eternal war is a good thing.

If you take your understand of weak/strong directly from a Bannon produces movie and transpose it to history you are either stupid and/or from /pol/.
this

Speeches are only thing survive at the time.

Strong Man/Weak Man is bullshit.

>people thinking this is serious
Severe autism.

If you think about it, /pol/ pretty much wants to live in the society portrayed in the pamphlet in 1984. (not that they would've ever read it, since filthy commie kike author)

Wasnt every single blunder by German high command personally ordered by Hitler?

Dunkirk? Kursk? Normandy?

Sure Hitler might have started the bloodiest war in human history and along the way committed genocide, war crimes, and wanton slaughter with no regard for human life at all, but somehow "Hitler didn't cause the weak times as much as the allies"
This is some top tier fucking delusion

>Does this prove the Strong Man/Weak Man hypothesis wrong?
It's a theory about internal collapse of dominant and long lasting empires and nations, Nazi Germany existed for what, 12 years? Unification only happened in 1871?

Germany wouldn't even be able to qualify under anything long term today.

>Hitler started the war meme
No

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland

>Hitler conducts an unprovoked war of aggression against a neutral nation
>Somehow he did not start the war???

>Hey Germany don't invade Poland
>no

poland made him do it!!

Not to mention they violated the non-aggression treaty that they had with Poland

>It's a call of duty newfags decide to start posting on Veeky Forums thread
It's the same thing as saying Germany started the war for WW 1, it takes such a lack of understanding in how geopolitics works that it's ridiculous.

All Poland had to do was give the Germans bag Danzig while it had massive protests in favor of Pan-Germanims but it was the League if Nations who fucked the whole situation up and lead to conflict.

I think Hitler might have been an opportunist.

I'm not sure if he actually believed the whole racial purity stuff or if he just used it to take out his opposition.

>polniggers are this retarded they have to resort to shifting goalposts

>unprovoked war of aggression
>unprovoked
>Tfw now I'm going to have to deal with newfags from /v/ for months

>Not even knowing what shifting the goalposts means
It's gonna be a rough few months

Please do tell what provoked the Germans to invade Poland and subject them to five years of genocide and enslavement. I am waiting.

>All Poland had to do was give the Germans bag Danzig while it had massive protests in favor of Pan-Germanims but it was the League if Nations who fucked the whole situation up and lead to conflict.
Danzig was an independent city with a Nazi government. What Hitler wanted was the Danzig CORRIDOR, which was Polish land.

>hey gimme ur land
>no
>*invades u* YOU STARTED THIS WAR REEE

>Please do tell what provoked the Germans to invade Poland and subject them to five years of genocide and enslavement. I am waiting.
Long standing tensions between Germans and Poles that went back to the days of Prussia and complicated internal structure caused by previous decades of internal strife in Germany that became worse with the collapse of the German economy during great depression

Plus everything having to do with the Treaty of Versailles. The genocides, as all genocides are, were consequences of blood list occurring from continuously escalating tensions occuring throughout all fronts of the war.

A lot of this having to do with the way the athiestic Soviet Union was seen in that time frame's context. Context being the key word here which newfags have no clue about including in the equation.
>Independent City
>With a Nazi government
Actually the Legaue of Nations gave most if the control of Danzig over to the Polish who also tried to claim the area of the Danzig Corridor (which you are calling the Polish Corridor)
>It was x clay
user plz

>doesn't mention Nazi policy of expansionism even once
>the proof is literally in the seminal work of Germany's then supreme leader

Stop being intellectually dishonest.

Man the 20th century had such amazing leaders when you think about it (Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mao, Gandhi etc etc).

Not all of them were good (especially not Hitler) but they were great desu. I can't think of another time this has happened on a global scale.

That's quite incoherent post, are you feeling OK?

>Long standing tensions between Germans and Poles that went back to the days of Prussia
>Germans attacked Poles in the past, therefore when they attack them now it's OK to attack Poland

>The genocides, as all genocides are, were consequences of blood list occurring from continuously escalating tensions occuring throughout all fronts of the war
>Genocides are OK, because Hitler started bloody wars

>Context being the key word here which newfags have no clue about including in the equation.
Hillarious to see neo-nazi on Veeky Forums calling others newfags.

>Actually the Legaue of Nations gave most if the control of Danzig over to the Polish who also tried to claim the area of the Danzig Corridor (which you are calling the Polish Corridor)

>over to the Polish who also tried to claim the area of the Danzig Corridor
Tried? It was part of Poland inhabited by Poles with critical importance for Polish economy.

Lebensraum? Oh yeah, you mean the though of Germans taking land Eastward for living space. Now, what areas east of the current state of Germany in 1933... Hmm... Could it be the lands that were literally carved out of German Empire after trying treaty of Versailles?

Naaahhh. Also, the Hunger Plan was a war doctrine meant to counter the Soviets who had a likewise policy of scorched Earth and resource prioritization going to the army. Because if they didn't, the Russian would steam roll over them. Generplan Ost thus occurred consequentially as part of this epic war between margsist lebinism and national socialism.

The einzatsgruppen and holocaust occurred because Krauts get butthurt really easy and after some partisan actions against them , they eventually went full autist.
youtu.be/LQdDnbXXn20

War is far, far more complicated than what you think user.

>"germany best nation"
Dear good, naziboos are the political version of fans of Kirino of /a/?

>Germans attacked Poles
>Never vice versa
user ffs
>Genocides are okay because Hitler started the war
>This is what people with zero reading comprehension actually gather from what I said
No, topkek. Genocides occur after you dehumanize the enemy enough, after which tensions between two groups who commit violence against each other beceom bad enough to the point where the dominant force genocides the other, or sometimes both together.
>Neo-nazis
The first amerindian neo-nazis it seem. So just because I can actually view WW 2 beyodn what you see in your little video games and movies I am now a nazi? Wonderful.
>Poland wanted the area because it was crucial to their economy
Yes, which was Poland's claim to the area, access to the sea. Germany wanted it because it used to be German lands and was about half(ish) German. It's basically thr aslauce Loraine of Poland and Germany, it was very contested lands.

Of course maybe if the League of Nation had more foresight and realized that the Russians we're looking for any excuse to get into Poland, they would've given the land to the Germans instead of letting the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact drop

>Be me
>Not even German
>Not even white
>Get called Nazi German supremacist over and over again because I think the war was more complicated than Germans coming out of nowhere and invading Poland for no reason but just to be dicks
U mad?

>Oh yeah, you mean the though of Germans taking land Eastward for living space. Now, what areas east of the current state of Germany in 1933... Hmm... Could it be the lands that were literally carved out of German Empire after trying treaty of Versailles?

>imperial Germany stretched from the ruhr to the volga
No. Lebensraum included much more than old german areas, it also dictated mass expulsion and genocide of slavic populations over a massive area, with the Ural mountains as a theorised border populated by german farmer soldiers, inspired by the Military Frontier of Austria-Hungary against the Ottomans.

>The einzatsgruppen and holocaust occurred because Krauts get butthurt really easy and after some partisan actions against them , they eventually went full autist.

The Holocaust and Einzatsgruppen were a logical consequence of the concept of Lebensraum and the inherent notion of racial superiority of the Nazis. It didn't just "occur" because of partisans, it was a """necessity""" caused by Nazi ideology. The Holocaust didn't start with the invasion of Russia, it started with undesirables within Germany itself being killed.

social decay is a much larger historical force than materialism, feminism, race struggle

>Hehe I'm not white though :^)
Sure pal

>German Empire after trying treaty of Versailles?
What were polish lands of before the partition of Poland?
Also, we have the treaty brest litovsk.

>Could it be the lands that were literally carved out of German Empire after trying treaty of Versailles?
It had more to do with the fact, people who lived there were not Germans. The land was held by force, once Germany was defeated it would be silly to expect Entente to let Germans opress Poles.

>Also, the Hunger Plan was a war doctrine meant to counter the Soviets
That's just plain wrong. Goal of the plan was to reduce "surplus" population by ~20M (number comes from Goering).

>after some partisan actions against them
And those partisans just popped out for no reason at all?

>War is far, far more complicated than what you think user.
It certainly is far more complicated than what you can compreghend.

>Hitler didn't cause hard times

>decide to destroy what's left of German infrastructure and industrial factories because he thought the Reich should die with him

Not an argument.

It is pretty normal around the world. Looks for nazis from Peru. Also, you still naziboo.

...

>not an argument
Just say you're wrong user

You never presented an argument in the first place.

That is a great argument.

>Mass expuslion of Slavs
From Germany , and the actual method of killing Slavs came about from the Hunger Plan which was a war doctrine designed to counter the soviets.
>Holocaust
Hitler's final solution didn't occur until operation Barborosa (against the Jewish communists of Russia, which was perceived that way because most documentation of the revolution reported heavy jewish elements of the Bolsheviks (not so much the Mensheviks oddly enough) which also became worse once they established themselves as s nation firmly rooted in athiesm, keep in mind how this must've been seen by other nations especially the Germans)
The Holocaust itself was meant to just be the mass expuslion of Jews from Europe but evolved into genocide due to the opening of the eastern front. The actusl mass killings started in 1941 after Barborossa , which was literally seen as a war against the Jewish rulers of Russia.

Slavs were mostly just indirect targets of the Holocaust as well, it was all against Jews in specific

I mean I have some in me, but I'm Puerto Rican. I'm probably about 50% ish amerindian. Also, in the popular series "the Turner Diaries" I am sent to a death camp.

Not really a Nazi fan

What the fuck. Those have to be LARP'ers. I knew there were some Germans in Chile who tried to the the natsoc thing, but they weren't amerindian ffs

>against the Jewish communists of Russia
Yeah, those evil fucking Bolshevik infants and old ladies

>"It is a mistake to think that transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, which have not been destroyed, or have only been temporarily put out of action, can be used again for our own ends when the lost territory has been recovered. The enemy will leave us nothing but scorched earth when he withdraws, without paying the slightest regard to the population. I therefore order:
"1) All military transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, as well as anything else of value within Reich territory, which could in any way be used by the enemy immediately or within the foreseeable future for the prosecution of the war, will be destroyed."[3]

No, no. Is typical people third world think they are white so they can be nazis.
Looks for Mexican nazis too.

Former Prussia
>Goering
The actual quote from the wiki you just read
>The plan as a means of mass murder was outlined in several documents, including one that became known as Göring's Green Folder, which quoted a number of "20 to 30 million" expected Russian deaths from "military actions and crises of food supply."
It was a consequential genocide, it happened literally because the Nazis decided to prioritize the military over civilians
>Partisans dropped out or no reason
???
Never said that, but when you are dealing with a concrete other from either the German , Polish, Jewish, Fascist, Communist, etc atrocity is met with atrocity as "blood list" sets in.

An eye for an eye, so to speak.

>Never vice versa
Oh please do tell me when did Kigdom of Prussia attacked Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.

>Genocides occur after you dehumanize the enemy enough, after which tensions between two groups who commit violence against each other beceom bad enough to the point where the dominant force genocides the other, or sometimes both together.
Oh so now it is OK because Germans were dehumanizing Poles for long enough?

>The first amerindian neo-nazis it seem.
So...You are a burger who tells other people that they "get their history from vidya and movies"? Thats even more ironic.

>Germany wanted it because it used to be German lands and was about half(ish) German
It used to be German, but it was primarily populated by Poles. The part that was populated by Germans was under League of Nations.

>Of course maybe if the League of Nation had more foresight and realized that the Russians we're looking for any excuse to get into Poland, they would've given the land to the Germans instead of letting the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact drop
Dafuq did you even meant by this? It doesn't make sense.

Also, look this.

>He thinks I believe that
Again, you have to understand the CONTEXT of the events. An athiestic communist revolution that slaughters Christians and dethrones the king?

How do you think Christians are going to perviebe that, especially when you had an ant-semitic reporter say that 90% of the top tankies were Jews?

Also you clearly do understand how ethnic tensions work I'd you think women and children are sparred

>From Germany

Germany never stretched to the Dniepr, nor the Volga or the Urals. Expelling slavs from slavic lands is not the same as expelling them from the Reich.

>Hitler's final solution didn't occur until operation Barborosa

Mainly because the huge influx of undesirables after the invasion could not be killed off fast enough, which leads me to this:

>The Holocaust itself was meant to just be the mass expuslion of Jews from Europe but evolved into genocide due to the opening of the eastern front.

The Holocaust does not just revolve around jewish victims. Ethnic germans were also killed in concentration camps established years before Operation Barbarossa, within Germany proper. They included homosexuals, political dissidents, social democrats, socialists, communists, strasserists, opposition clergy, the disabled as well as jews.

>Slavs were mostly just indirect targets of the Holocaust as well, it was all against Jews in specific

Slavs are specifically mentioned in mein kampf as targets for elimination through expulsion and genocide.

>Former Prussia
Fake and gay.

Well I'd explain more about the nature of genocide because this has been a fun convo but I have work in like 20 mins sry

>mein kampf
That was Hitler in the 20's, the actual Holocuast only targeted Jews. Look it up

>The actual quote from the wiki you just read
???

>It was a consequential genocide, it happened literally because the Nazis decided to prioritize the military over civilians
That was only one of the reasons, second was genocide of "racially inferiour people".

>Never said that, but when you are dealing with a concrete other from either the German , Polish, Jewish, Fascist, Communist, etc atrocity is met with atrocity as "blood list" sets in.
Try again chief. This doesn't make sense.

I take that as a white flag.

>That was Hitler in the 20's, the actual Holocuast only targeted Jews. Look it up

Are you implying that all the other people I mentioned just vanished of their own accord? Look it up yourself, Hans.

>That was Hitler in the 20's, the actual Holocuast only targeted Jews. Look it up
???

Slavs were still the target of extermination and enslavement, but "Holocaust" is generally only used in reference to the Jewish genocide.

Even the (((wikipedia))) don't agree with you
>A broader definition still includes ethnic Poles, other Slavic groups, Soviet citizens and prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, black people, and political opponents.

key word is "generally"

>muh keyword
>frogpost
Oh vey.

>Anime reaction image

Anime website.

Not an anime board

Everyboard is anime board.
This board was made for the LoGH fans :^).

>Other guy leaves for work
>"I see you've conceded your points"
You realize that this is Veeky Forums and not /b/, right?

Bump

It's bullshit
even the most toughest ruler can fail under any circumstances even if his desire is for the people

I mean... You can't blame him for being zooted out 24/7 by his doctors.

/pol/ isn't a boogeyman, though - it's an actual, existing big assemblage of mostly retards that's next door to here.

No? The Hitler never listened to his generals meme is almost as stupid as the Stalin never listened to his generals meme.

>Everyone who is far right is le /pol/ boogeyman
>Don't forget to point out that there views are different from yours and make sure you don't actually confront the things they say
P L E B I A N

Oh, and what does this "hypothesis" do to describe social decay? A general statement based on undefined parameters (strength/weakness). As I have said, it is not a hypothesis, just a platitude that's posted way too often because some people think that it coincides with their political views.

It's literally a historical theory encapsulated in an aphorism that posits why dominant and successful societies have an internal collapse then become new societies.

What exactly is political about that? All it is saying is that as societies become successful and change over time whatever mechanism which lead to their success fades over time as well.

>It's literally a historical theory encapsulated in an aphorism that posits why dominant and successful societies have an internal collapse then become new societies.
That's what I'm talking about. It's not. First define your parameters, then actually explain the theoretical model and how it can be used to explain/predict social change, and then show how the theoretical model interacts with reality based on examples. That's not something you do. You do not describe what "strong" or "weak", "hard" or "good" means, you do not allow for any outside influence in social decay (and let me tell you, there are hundreds of influences you would need to take into account), you do not describe in what way your parameters interact with each other (what about "hard" times creates "strong" men) or with the "hypothesis" itself (in what way do "strong" men negate social decay) etc. That's why I'm saying it's a platitude. It's far too general and nondescript to say anything.
>What exactly is political about that? All it is saying is that as societies become successful and change over time whatever mechanism which lead to their success fades over time as well.
You know the context in which this "model" is used.

This. Hitler was good at seizing state power, but he sucked at using it. He was very incompetent at geopolitics, grand strategy, diplomacy, and so on. So stormtards either say, "But at least he tried!" or come up with ridiculous ahistorical narratives to try to make it seem like the war was inevitable, rather than something Hitler triggered by rejecting the British ultimatum on the day of the invasion on Poland.

>Describe the model
Do you just not know who Spengler is?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism

Just think if "strong men" in a Darwinian sense and you are half way there.

>Context in which the model is used
Would support liberalism, fascism, or marxism depending on what sustained itself longest in the most beneficial way for those who practice is