In the future...

No he will not be and the reason is the current "trajectory" of European civilization is integration with Israel and the Holocaust serves as the foundational myth for the basis of that relationship. I use the word "myth" not because I believe the Holocaust didn't happen, but because it has taken on mythical significance for the identity of Jewish people and as Europe becomes more connected to Israel the Jewish understanding of the Holocaust will become even more dominant than it already is. Unless there is some revolutionary change in the West, the world will literally never forget the six million and that is why Hitler's image will never be rehabilitated.

Heil Hitler

Hitler was utter shit. But to be fair, Napoleon was a loser too - although he, at least, unlike Hitler, made some positive contributions to Europe.

The holocaust isn't going to be something people care about a hundred years from now and neither will most other nazi atrocities, but the nazi policies in eastern europe will always be viewed as being fundamentally stupid and self-defeating.

Hitler will not be viewed as the devil wearing human skill in the future, but nobody will ever view him as being all that smart.

>will Hitler become revered as someone like Napoleon or Caesar?

Probably.

lol no, Israel is going to be overrun and destroyed once US support dries up, and Europe will be pursuing relations with nations that either don't give a shit about jews or actively dislike them.

>once US support dries up

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Trump will be gone in 4 to 8 years. I'm talking longer term here. Israel doesn't have enough to offer to make the alliance worth it once all the evangelicals are dead.

Presidents come and go but AIPAC remains.

>Israel is going to be overrun and destroyed once US support dries up
>Current estimates put the size of the Israeli nuclear arsenal at between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads, and the country is believed to possess the ability to deliver them in a variety of methods including: aircraft; submarine-launched cruise missiles; and the Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles.

What is it with stormfaggots and the consistent inability to strategize?

Aipac only has the influence it does because so many American religious consevatives are pro-Israel. The United States is becoming increasing non-religious and even the religious population has become significantly less observant.

It's not hard to connect the dots here.

Oh and what good is that going to do when the muslim states have arsenals of their own and larger ones at that?

>>stormfag
Not really, I just don't like niggers. I'm neutral on the subject of jews. My opinions about israel's chances come down to the simple fact that tiny states surrounded by enemies rarely last long-term unless they pull a switzerland and become a place where rich people from stronger nations hide all their money from the taxman.

>Current estimates put the size of the Israeli nuclear arsenal at between 75 and 400 nuclear
What are they going to do though? Nuke everything around them and hope for the best?

>>the devil wearing human skin in the future
Speaking of not being all that smart, goddamn.
Fixed.

>Comparing great generals to shitty fanatical politician...

God, im fucking tired of brainlets and wehraboos comparing Napoleon to Hitler...

>Genghiz Khan.
>Admired
There's a long list Asian/Eastern European countries where "Mongol" is an insult.

AIPAC will cater its messaging to whichever audience it needs to so if religious conservatives fade into irrelevance AIPAC will adjust its strategy accordingly; it isn't going anywhere. Also I don't think you appreciate how WWII is perceived in the USA, the average American is on a Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" level understanding of the US' involvement in the European theater and I doubt I need to convince someone like you strongly pro-Israel American media is in general. The point is that Americans are literally being conditioned to view Israel as their greatest ally and this trend will only accelerate barring revolutionary change. The idea that if things continue on their current track that support for Israel will just peter out on its own is so naive you ought to feel embarrassed for even suggesting it.

Sure, but he's still revered in his home country. Germans will probably revere Hitler in a couple of hundred years too.

Napoleon was revered not just in his home country but across Europe. Even amongst his adversaries, in the mere few years he was toppled.

Hitler's name has all been blackened since the war.

If anything Hitler will just lose his controversial image as the centuries go by, but he'll just be another Attila the Hun.

The insult comes from medicine, not history. Doctors used to describe down syndrome people as "having mongoloid features" because they kinda do look mongolian. It has nothing to do with Genghiz Khan, who is almost deified in modern Mongolia

Alright, reddit, it's time for you to go. Move on now.

When westerners cast aside their self-hate and begin mass-murdering all shitskins, Hitler will just be an inconsequential figure.

>The insult comes from medicine, not history.
Nope.jpg.

In Eastern Europe: the blanket word for Mongols and other Steppenigs are "Tatar" and is used as a label of barbarism.

In addition there's this fun tidbit by Babur
>Were the Mongols a race of angels they would still be abomination. Were the name "Mongol" written in gold it would still be filthy.
>Beware least you pluck an ear from a Mongol field. For whatever is sown with Mongol seed has an odious yield.
He founded a dynasty that the Hindus called "Mughal." A name which Babur and his descendants detested, preferring to be called Timurid/Gurkani and living like Persian aristocracy, despising their Mongol/Nomadic roots.

>Napoleon or Caesar?
try nero or ivan the terrible

This. If Hitler had dropped the Germanicism and Nordicism, which is pretty nonsensical considering what a mixed European stock the Germans were at that point, and portrayed his eastern adventure as a European civilisational crusade against Bolshevism, he would have found a lot more support in the East, and been in a much better position to take on the USSR.

They had Ukrainians prisoners and military men begging to be let fight against the Soviets, but did not utilise them until it was already too late (and let's not forget that the "good power" as is seen by popular consensus, threw over all these men to be executed by Stalin, even though they had only wanted to fight against a person/State that had genocided them). This is not even going into whatever tactical blunders there might have been.

Nevertheless, his early military successes, economic and military, were still quite remarkable, and it took the combined powers of the world to take down Germany.

Likewise Mussolini and Salazar achieved significant results on the home front that ought to be appreciated. Both effectively modernised their countries when they were ludicrously far behind other powers, and also brought in the longest periods of political stability those countries had had.

But it is hard to ignore that American . You look at the most vehement American Israel supporters and they think Jews are the chosen people in the chosen land--they think it is their divine duty to aid Israel; i shit you not, a crazy amount of Americans actually believe this nonsense. American Protestantism is really quite similar to Judaism--that is why they fit one another so well.

>Napoleon was revered not just in his home country but across Europe. Even amongst his adversaries

Not really. Much of Europe (and America) viewed him as a mad and power-hungry tyrant. Most of the reverence came later.

>nero or ivan the terrible

Just dumb putting those guys on the same level. Ivan the Terrible had some quite remarkable achievements.

Americans regardless of their religious orientation are going to be pro-Israel because all of their institutions are designed to condition them to be that way.

Much like Hitler, there was no reason for it, though. The eternal Anglo propaganda works almost as good as the jewish one.

So did Nero if you're ignoring the glaring character flaws and massive autism which is fair to do if we're talking about Ivan the Terrible.

>You look at the most vehement American Israel supporters and they think Jews are the chosen people in the chosen land

I'll never understand this, my family are as Pentecostal and Evangelical as it comes but they don't share this sentiment for Israel or the Jews. In fact, my dad firmly believes that practicing Jews are living in sin and will only pray for them the same way he would pray for anyone who isn't saved. It makes sense that a Christian would want a Jew to convert since Judaism goes in against the teachings of Christianity (Christ not being the Messiah and all that).

He already basically is among the younger generations, he was a great conqueror. No less than Napoleon. All the bullshit invented by kikes about how he was shit and his generals were super smart is a half truth. Many of them were barely committed to the cause and didn't really care, their plans were literally "lol charge moscow hurp durp that will surely work like it did with napoleon". Also they didn't have many good plans for France, Hitler specifically identified Guderian's modification and promoted it because he was intelligent.

Napoleon or Ceasar were not total fuckups.

>attributing a neonazi’s quote to Voltaire
This deserves a public ban. Go shove 1,488 copies of Mein Kampf right up your gangrenous asshole and then fuck off back to stormfront.

No, he promoted it because a plane carrying Schlieffen Plan 2.0 was shot down and they thought it was compromised. This was also the man who gave the halt order, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

He won’t be hated, but probably looked at similarly to Ghengis Khan or Atilla the Hun

Cringe

>Oh and what good is that going to do when the muslim states have arsenals of their own and larger ones at that?

North Korea is vastly more antagonistic to us than the Israelis are to the Arabs and have a barely functional nuclear arsenal (and a barely functional country altogether). We still haven't gone to war with them in 60 years.

Also, Pakistan not withstanding, no Muslim country has been able to develop a nuclear arsenal to any capacity and in all likelihood, never will. They just don't have the human capital for it. Even Iran, which is a few steps above the Arab world in terms of intellect and has been developing nuclear weapons for forty years, is nowhere close to finishing a working bomb.

Overrated with no persisting legacy

Atila and Genghis were nomadic people and they did just you can expect about this kind of civilization. However Hitler and nazism did very differents things and thinkings to his historical context

>implying we're not allowed to criticize jews

Fuck, you're retarded. Israel might be the most criticized nation of the world. Even UN has an obvious bias against Israel. You stupid /pol/tards really need to go out more

>>North Korea is vastly more antagonistic to us than the Israelis are to the Arabs and have a barely functional nuclear arsenal (and a barely functional country altogether). We still haven't gone to war with them in 60 years.
Except that the norks have only had their arsenal for a short part of that 60 years, even shorter when you take the delivery method into account. The main reason why we didn't go to war with them again was fears of dragging russia or china into the conflict + fears of massive damage to south korea.

I mean we could most likely intercept the small number of ICBMs they have, but if they decided to go all in on trashing the south we'd have to mobilize far more of our military then was sent into iraq in order to stop them from doing an absolutely catastrophic amount of damage to the south before being pushed back.

Unlike Napoleon Hitler never achieved anything of note aside from sending millions of white men into their senseless death. He will always be remembered as a failure and a coward who killed himself instead of facing the consequences of his actions.

t. Michel

>shove 1,488 copies of Mein Kampf right up your gangrenous asshole
Hot

doesn't make the quote wrong though

>an obvious bias against Israel

If they didn't have a bias FOR Israel then they'd treat it more like they treated Apartheid South Africa. Criticising Israel is not the same as criticising jews, either. Phil Giraldi only recently got fired from TAC for saying that America's Jews were instrumental in all the wars of the past 15 years (undeniably true).

oy vey

>human capital
>intellectual
That has just about nothing to do with it. Isn't Pakistan the country with the highest rate of co-sanguine marriages in the world?

t. Radola Gajda

t. Schlomo von der Hunnenberg

Certainly not Napoleon or Caesar but probably someone like Hannibal, a great man and formidable adversary who ultimately failed.

nice sources there, just placing a star on a picture doesn't make them magically jewish

xD so funny reddit meme

>A loser will never be revered
Napoleon didn't win

No it’s not you fucking idiot. Black people are objectively doing worse than white people and you still can’t just go around complaining about niggers all day. Well you can but most people will think you’re an asshole and you’ll probably get fired.

>Red Army soldier were raping ever hole in Berlin less than 5 years after his embarking on conquest
>blamed everyone but himself for failure, including the people dying like maggots under a blowtorch to protect to the city
>committed suicide after single-handedly sabotaging his military and overruling his more competent generals
>will Hitler become revered as someone like Napoleon or Caesar

Only if the bar for being like Caesar or Napoleon gets really, really lowered. Hell, if that's the case then maybe I'll get venerated too!

I could say the same thing about every /pol/ infographic

>In the future, when historical figures like Hitler are no longer relevant to the politics at the time and the world is detached from those events
If you aren't braindead that's already the case.
>will Hitler become revered as someone like Napoleon or Caesar
Hitler was a failure

5 out of 7 wars isn't bad. And that's just the Napoleonic Wars. His genius revolutionized warfare in such a way that it changed everything forever.

The Nazis, on the other hand, made some good technological advanced and contributed some lessons to military doctrine, but nothing revolutionary has ever been attributed to Hitler.
I don't think the retards on this site understand how bad Hitler fucked up the war. His bad leadership personally allowed Dunkirk, Barbarossa, Stalingrad to happen as they did... and a thousand battles where the Germans failed because they weren't allowed to retreat to fight another day. Hitler was a corporal doing a generals job, and his incompetence caused the Nazis to fail, which caused catastrophic suffering for his people.

Stop venerating Hitler! There are tons of white supremacists and nationalists who didn't doom their countries to failure and cuckdom. Some of them (not many) even contributed to making their countries better and stronger.

but didn't pol have the largest migration of users from reddit after some subreddit closed down? I might be confusing different stories here I've never bothered to look for any info on it

>His bad leadership personally allowed Dunkirk, Barbarossa, Stalingrad to happen as they did
Not the guy you're responding to, but none of those except the halt order at Stalingrad are directly attributable to Hitler, and his previous year's halt order in the face of the Soviet counteroffensive in the winter of 41-42 WAS successful. He had far, far stupider ideas, and the notion of

>and his incompetence caused the Nazis to fail, which caused catastrophic suffering for his people.
Is only really feasible in the sense that his diplomatic blundering got him into a war that he couldn't win or even survive. His head of state level wartime leadership, while hardly inspired, was hardly as stupid as some of his adversaries, especially the French. WW2 was only lost because Hitler was dumb is just wrong.

Veeky Forums gained a huge influx of anons in 2016. The most used board now is /pol/. Do the math.

>Is only really feasible in the sense that his diplomatic blundering got him into a war that he couldn't win or even survive.
Diplomacy was the area he was best at, Anshluss, Munich treaty, M-R pact and OP Barbarossa were all diplomatic masterplans.

Decisions to go to war were all delibarate and not results of "diplomatic blundering".

They were entirely blunders; Hitler had no plan of action for eliminating the UK, nor for even effectively striking at the U.S. providing material support. There wasn't even a plan of action in place before the war to deal with France, one was essentially improvised on the fly.

And Hitler only got into the position he was in come 1939 by burning so many diplomatic bridges that nobody was willing to trust anything with his signature on it; he had narrowed his options down to total war or nothing, and was up against economies and manpower pools he would be unable to defeat in total war, which left only one possible outcome. If that's not a blunder, I don't know what is.

Sampson option

>Hitler had no plan of action for eliminating the UK
Unternehmen Seelöwe
>nor for even effectively striking at the U.S. providing material support
US remained neutral until Pearl Harbor.
>And Hitler only got into the position he was in come 1939 by burning so many diplomatic bridges that nobody was willing to trust anything with his signature on it
The bridges were burnt for significant gains.
>There wasn't even a plan of action in place before the war to deal with France, one was essentially improvised on the fly.
Improvised from a plan of invasion to Benelux.
>If that's not a blunder, I don't know what is.
It was a blunder, blunder of assesing ones forces and enemy forces. Not blunder of diplomacy
>he had narrowed his options down to total war or nothing
Nothing was pretty solid position, if by nothing you mean doing nothing and enjoying free loot from Austria and Czechoslovakia. Going to war was a deliberate choice with a clear intent to win it.

88 is holding 14 back.

>Unternehmen Seelöwe
Something that was conceived of only after the fall of France and discarded almost as quickly as unworkable.
>US remained neutral until Pearl Harbor.
Since when is giving 50 destroyers, lending colossal amounts of money, the rest of lend-lease (The British would ultimately get close to 3 times as much as the Soviets would), and shooting at u-boats "neutrality"?

>The bridges were burnt for significant gains.
But they were gains that could not be held.

>Improvised from a plan of invasion to Benelux.
Improvised.

>It was a blunder, blunder of assesing ones forces and enemy forces. Not blunder of diplomacy
That is part and parcel of diplomacy you idiot. Diplomacy is tied up in the capabilities of your rivals as well as their intentions.

>Nothing was pretty solid position, if by nothing you mean doing nothing and enjoying free loot from Austria and Czechoslovakia.
If you like having your economy crash because you're producing armaments and very little else, then yes, it's an "option". A terrible one. People aren't going to put up with wartime rationing in absence of a war for long.

>Going to war was a deliberate choice with a clear intent to win it.
And it was dumb as hell, because he couldn't win it. Hence "A blunder"

Wait really? That’s fucking hilarious, did creating r/the_dipshit get them reverse colonized?

This

Wasn't Jesus a loser?

Nah he killed himself like a bitch.Those guys didnt. Also those other guys actually led their armies personally in battle.

The death toll would be millions. They have conventional artillery in range of Seoul, hidden in the hills and forest. No way to disable it all before they rain hell on Seoul.

Napoleon and Caesar actually managed to obtain long term success, Hitler couldn't even last 12 years.

Just nuke the hills and forests. Duh

He was too stupid and achieved nothing notable except beat up France and irrelevant Eastern European shitholes.

Assuming you're serious, the fallout would kill even more people since it would hit Japan and China.

>Thousand
>Year
>Reich

Cool

That's not how fallout works.

>discarded almost as quickly as unworkable.
Because they lost the battle of Britain.
>Since when is giving 50 destroyers, lending colossal amounts of money, the rest of lend-lease (The British would ultimately get close to 3 times as much as the Soviets would), and shooting at u-boats "neutrality"?
Since you have to compare it with actual open war.
>That is part and parcel of diplomacy you idiot. Diplomacy is tied up in the capabilities of your rivals as well as their intentions.
Is it? I don't think so. When you declare war on more people you can handle because you think you are masterrace, you are not a bad diplomat you are just a moron. Plus the critical part of the war, invasion of USSR, was result of faulty intel. Diplomacy was on point, Soviets didn't expected the backstab and suffered horrendous casulties because of it.
>because you're producing armaments and very little else
Producing armaments was again a delibarate choice.
>Improvised.
From existing offensive plans.
>But they were gains that could not be held.
I somehow doubt Czechs or Austrian would revolt.
>And it was dumb as hell, because he couldn't win it.
They through they could. It was fault of intelligence, in both meanings of the word.

If you drop enough bombs to saturate every hill and forest in range of Seoul, shit's gonna die.

That's really not how fallout or nuclear warfare works.

>Because they lost the battle of Britain.
Even if they hadn't lost the Battle of Britain (which was also impossible for them to win) they still wouldn't have been able to make Seelöwe work, they had neither the navy nor the invasion force capable of such a thing.

The Israelis are just about crazy enough to do it. Let's just say it's in the world's best interest to let them keep their little patch of dirt, no matter how much the Muslims will complain about it.

>which was also impossible for them to win
They didn't knew that.

>had neither the navy
OK, but that could have been solved from the sky.

>invasion force capable of such a thing.
Their army achieved greater deeds.

>that could have been solved from the sky.
I think it's clear that you're an actual retard.

>They didn't knew that.
Well yeah, but that doesn't make Hitler not a dumbass for being ignorant.

You can't move and supply an invasion force by air.