Why is NatSoc bad?

...

Nazi Germany lashing out at is neighbors wasn't the result of a failed economy, Hitler genuinely admired the foreign policy of Balkan countries in that the only interaction you should have with foreign states is one of belligerence and hostility. The world was one in which competition and violence were the only objective truths, and any foreign policy that wasn't outright war was a mere concession of time until outright war was possible.

You shill this same piece of shit every single thread and all evidence that keynesian economics work and expansion was an aside are just ignored by you. How long are you going to keep up with this routine? Funny thing is, the first few times I saw this I thought maybe you were onto something.

Nuh uh, check the file names, i never did this before, it was another guy.

It's bad when white people do it because a collection of subversive groups have deemed it bad for a western country to achieve supremacy.

It's good when China does it because they stomp the shit out of subversion.

...

...

...

>Nuh uh, check the file names, i never did this before, it was another guy.
How fucking obvious can you get. How about try using actual arguments instead of shitting up this board more.
>It's bad when white people do it because a collection of subversive groups have deemed it bad for a western country to achieve supremacy.
This.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Taiwan

Out of all the arguments against Germany during the period, anti-Keynesian is the weakest.

Then they violated the "National" part of their own credo, didn't they kiddo.

>It's good when China does it
Who says that?

I am speaking the truth damn it. Stop blaming me for things i didn't do!

>Then they violated the "National" part of their own credo
No?

Wait a second-did we have this exact same thread, comments and all? I'm getting serious deja vu from this...

>Nationalist party
>Expansionist

You people really are low information folks, aren't you.

You might be actually be retarded. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

>annexing the Czechs
>"nationalistic"
pick one

If America did a fraction of what China did, it would literally be Hitler's vision, yet the liberals of the west do a variation of ignore/defend/worship China's actions including their oppression of their Muslim population. You know why? Because they fucking stop subversion, the deciding factor for the strength and stability of a nation evidently.

The casus for that annexation was that there was a significant German minority, which is unifying the nation. Expanding the nation even without that is nationalist. How is making ones nation geographically larger not nationalist?

They'd already acquired the area with the German minority at Munich dickhead

Well look at Israel, it being exclusively for jews doesn't stop it from expanding into other people's lands.

The only narrative I've found prevalent was criticism of their censorship polices. I wasn't aware they approved it.

holy shit this webm is to real

>They'd already acquired the area with the German minority at Munich dickhead
Which is the first casus. That's why I added this bit:
>Expanding the nation even without that is nationalist. How is making ones nation geographically larger not nationalist?
...Response? "Dickhead",basically an admission your IQ can't be higher than 80.

It's bad because the epistemology is entirely reliant on race and blind, unthinking loyalty. Criticism is banned, and "Un-German" literature is burned. Dialectic is impossible, and the intelligentsia are wiped out. Undesirables, dissidents, and those convicted of thought-crime are murdered. Property is no longer guaranteed, as with gun ownership. Your continued existence is mandated by the state, and your rights are subject to the collective. You have no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. You become a pawn of the regime, and become subservient to an unquestioned authority.

It's not bad, it's just incoherent vague bullshit.

Germany was in 125% debt of its GDP by 1939. They started a ruinous war with ruinous debt.

>It's bad because the epistemology is entirely reliant on class and blind, unthinking loyalty. Criticism is banned, and "Un-progressive" literature is burned. Dialectic is impossible, and the intelligentsia are wiped out. Undesirables, dissidents, and those convicted of thought-crime are murdered. Property is no longer guaranteed, as with gun ownership. Your continued existence is mandated by the government, and your rights are subject to the collective. You have no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. You become a pawn of the regime, and become subservient to an unquestioned authority.
This post was fitting in the context of the USSR. Look at the books they were burning(voluntarily). Look up the Berlin sex institute as well. Nazi's actually loosened up gun laws, and private property was guaranteed for citizens.

>Germany was in 125% debt of its GDP by 1939. They started a ruinous war with ruinous debt.
Japan had three times it's GDP in pure debt in modern times. That's standard for Japan. They had that boom and small bust in the 80's, and never crashed into full recession like anti-keynesian brainlets promised it would. There was an estate bust, but that's basically because land is limited for the large population of Japan. Which ironically expansionism would've solved.

As might you be, pleb.

It's not even at full Israel yet, faggot. Just sit and wait. Nile to Turkey to Saudi

It's not hard to condemn catholics for voting for Hitler; they're the most evil and vile people on earth. They'll vote for the devil himself when their pope tells them to.

What.

>60 million reasons

How is Taiwan Nat Soc?

>This post was fitting in the context of the USSR.
You're absolutely right, except you'd have to replace race with the collective identity of class

> Look at the books they were burning(voluntarily).
They weren't voluntarily burned by the public. The DSt did so on the authority of the party.

>Look up the Berlin sex institute as well.
I did. What's wrong with it?

>Nazi's actually loosened up gun laws, and private property was guaranteed for citizens.
That's a fairly held and common misconception among sympathizers. There was no guarantee of rights to firearms on the grounds of your ethnic background or political beliefs, and Jewish citizens had all of their private property and possessions taken.

Things happen for a reason user.

This was during war mobilization in a time where debt couldn't be restructured as it is today. Nazi Germany was operating on the illusion of economic prosperity spurred by unlimited spending.

Hitler was an authoritarian dictator who killed millions.

to save...no one.

What do you mean.

Mises Institute has a good write up on it.

mises.org/library/nazism-socialism

>How is making ones nation geographically larger not nationalist?
Because you are diluting your own nation, Germans weren't civic nationalists

>What's wrong with it?
Did you not see the bits about incest or the foreshadowing of the gender spectrum? Or the pro-youth transgender conversions?

>This was during war mobilization in a time where debt couldn't be restructured as it is today.
>where debt couldn't be restructured as it is today
You might just well have admitted you don't know what the fuck you're talking about lmao I was really hoping you'd make a debt to GDP argument. Anti-keynesian brainlets always lose when it get's brought up because they think a budget in debt to itself has to be balanced-as if a nation in debt to itself is going to bankrupt itself or lower it's own credit rating.

>Because you are diluting your own nation
Explain this. The natural birth rate was designed to counter this problem. Nazi Germany is one of the very few countries that had a solution to this problem, which began some decades before. ffs it's even in the graphic here:

>you are diluting your own nation

hmmm but I don't see jews becoming palestinians