Jump to content

Home

Was stopping the Nazis necessary?


Ray Jones
 Share

Was it necessary to stop the Nazis?  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Was it necessary to stop the Nazis?



Recommended Posts

Split from thread and merged with this one. Post #12 is the original post #1 for this thread. ~tk

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.
Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

 

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

 

*reboots*

 

Phew. That was close. :p

 

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. © The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nazis nearly took over all of Europe and spread their influence to Africa, allying with the Japanese who attempted to conquer the Pacific rim they did a pretty good job of taking over the world until we started fighting bsck, plus there was things such as the Holocaust. I guess we should have ignored all that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

 

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

 

*reboots*

 

Phew. That was close. :p

 

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. © The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

 

What in the hell is you talking about, Ray? :lol:

The Nazis would rule the world now if Britain didn't stall them long enough until D-Day arrived.

The Holocaust would probably still be going on today, in full gear, you underestimate the evil the Nazis

brought. :)

Even though they was evil, the Nazis had genius, scientists and engineers working for them, if Britain didn't stall them, and they had time to fully and wisely implemented, the Heinkel He 343 bomber jet, Messerschmitt Me 262 fighter jet, Arado Ar 234, bomber jet.

Also not forgetting Japan's experimental jets, :Nakajima Ki-201, turbojet interceptor/attack and Nakajima Kikka, Turbojet Interceptor.

If Germany with help of Japan could had fully implemented these fighters, intercepters and bombers early in the war, like around the Battle of Britain( July, 10 1940 – 31 October 1940) and Britain was conquered; they would have won the war, no question, because the allies wouldn't have had nothing to counter that millitary air tech later.

And shroud of evil will blanket the world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nazis nearly took over all of Europe and spread their influence to Africa, allying with the Japanese who attempted to conquer the Pacific rim they did a pretty good job of taking over the world until we started fighting bsck, plus there was things such as the Holocaust. I guess we should have ignored all that though.
Err, Nancy, I'm German, I know very well what happened. And seriously, Germany was already running out of resources. Not necessarily weaponry, but humans and supplies. The fact that Hitler had to sent thousands of frightened teenagers into the fight and that the troops were more than underfed does not suggest otherwise.

 

Besides that, I just take a short look at what happened to the oh so powerful US Army when they visited Vietnam. You really want to tell me Germans would have made it through there? Ha ha, Germans in the jungle. No way. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you understand that regardless of any argument or scenario that you propose, there is always an action that causes the least amount of distress to others? Whether you're able to figure out what action is and whether you decide to act accordingly is up to you.

 

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't try and act as morally as we possibly can. To say that we shouldn't have even gone to war against the Nazis however is well beyond the pale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have thought this through, did you read what I wrote? The Nazis would have been sorted out on their own. They would have never succeeded in taking over the world. NEVER. No martial attempt to do so in human history did ever succeed. You cannot just go conquer and oppress the world and expect everybody to play along. So, from a certain point of view, it wasn't necessary to take them out in order to make the regime go away. Maybe you read more into it, but I didn't say anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I have thought this through, did you read what I wrote? The Nazis would have been sorted out on their own. They would have never succeeded in taking over the world. NEVER. No martial attempt to do so in human history did ever succeed. You cannot just go conquer and oppress the world and expect everybody to play along. So, from a certain point of view, it wasn't necessary to take them out in order to make the regime go away. Maybe you read more into it, but I didn't say anything more.

 

Usually, "don't play along" is more or less synonymous with "violent uprising". There's very few revolutions that I know of that didn't involve violence. You could say that yes, there has been cases where peaceful protests have succeeded, but when it comes down to it for the vast majority of humanity, waving your hand and saying "stop" isn't going to prevent a machine gun from doing its work.

 

I'm also not sure what you mean by stating that no attempt at martial dominance has ever worked in history; the Roman Empire was vicious, brutal, and war mongering, yet it lasted for a 1000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And certainly the Nazis might not have been able to take over the world, they might have only been able to force all of Europe under their rule. Oh, that makes everything Hitler did alright then. Y'know a lot of people may not agree with that so I've opened a poll on whether or not stopping the Nazis was necessary. Feel free to vote, I'm sure it'll be a most interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, "don't play along" is more or less synonymous with "violent uprising". There's very few revolutions that I know of that didn't involve violence. You could say that yes, there has been cases where peaceful protests have succeeded, but when it comes down to it for the vast majority of humanity, waving your hand and saying "stop" isn't going to prevent a machine gun from doing its work.
I did not say something else. On the other hand, to me it seems pretty much a hard task to refill the gaps when you kill like 90% of the earth's population. And it seems impossible to control the whole world when you only got a handful citizens to fill up 50 villages and 10 cities. As an example, it took 250 years alone for the Europeans to get back from nature after the black death in the 14th century. Plans to take the world are always big, but what comes next?

 

I'm also not sure what you mean by stating that no attempt at martial dominance has ever worked in history; the Roman Empire was vicious, brutal, and war mongering, yet it lasted for a 1000 years.
Yes, but did the Roman empire conquer the whole world? No. And where is the Roman empire now with all its brutality and viciousness? Gone. Mainly due to internal problems, be it military, economic, or with their populace, that made it also easier for external aggressors to defeat them.

 

 

Oh, that makes everything Hitler did alright then.
Who said that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as the title says, people can argue about Iraq and Afghanistan all they want, but what about the big one? What about stopping the efforts of Hitler and the Nazis to conquer Europe, exterminate the Jews, with them spreading the war to Africa and their allies Imperial Japan taking the war as far as America, or seeking a supernatural way to win the war and desicrating historical sites and writing Nazism into their history? Was it necessary to stop them? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you are. Since you are such an expert surely you would know Hitler was seeking a scientific way to win the war. He conducted the Jews to medical experiments in order to find new ways to wipe out his enemies. That the Hitler Youth and SS Gestapo where thugs were conscripted to do Hitler's dirty work were standered procedure, nothing to do with desperation. Saying that it wasn't necessary to stop the Nazis, such thoughts makes me stand by my assessment that you're a kook and you're dangerous, not to mention either too cowardly to realise that the Nazis had to be stopped and justice for the millions of those theykilled had to be served or you're in support of their efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be kidding me. Where did I say Hitler did right? Please be so kind and give me a quote. All I said he was doomed to fail and would have failed even if we had not stopped him, hence there was not necessity in stopping him. So would you pleas calm down and try to understand what I actually am trying to say. :/

 

he conducted the Jews to medical experiments in order to find new ways to wipe out his enemies
vvv
to me it seems pretty much a hard task to refill the gaps when you kill like 90% of the earth's population. And it seems impossible to control the whole world when you only got a handful citizens to fill up 50 villages and 10 cities. As an example, it took 250 years alone for the Europeans to get back from nature after the black death in the 14th century. Plans to take the world are always big, but what comes next?

 

 

you're a kook and you're dangerous
Because of an opinion? Because of a rational statement? Because I can provide a logical reasoning for my thoughts?

 

not to mention either too cowardly to realise that the Nazis had to be stopped and justice for the millions of those theykilled had to be served or you're in support of their efforts.
Nancy. Please I did in no way ever state what the Nazis did was good or the like. And just for one moment, assume the Nazis would not have been stopped, what now? Maybe the US had not dropped 2 a-bombs over Japan. Maybe Vietnam would not have happened? No Korea? No gulf conficts? None of those wars? No 9/11?

 

Let me tell you something - as bad as Nazis may have been - from the historic point of view - at the end of the day, it couldn't be worse than the fact that no one stopped Christian religion in the medieval times and so many died terrible deaths and suffered horrible pain in the name of any god. Or do you suggest otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you are so obsessed with it. It wasn't a necessary thing to do as history suggests, whether it was a nice thing to do or not, or what would have happened otherwise is another question. I didn't even say it was bad to roll in and end the regime. All I said was the Nazis had no chance of achieving their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not say something else. On the other hand, to me it seems pretty much a hard task to refill the gaps when you kill like 90% of the earth's population. And it seems impossible to control the whole world when you only got a handful citizens to fill up 50 villages and 10 cities. As an example, it took 250 years alone for the Europeans to get back from nature after the black death in the 14th century. Plans to take the world are always big, but what comes next?

 

You don't need to kill 90% of the population; only around 10% at most is needed and the rest will follow in fear. If you think all of them will lay down their tools and stop working for the greater good of things, then I think you're too expecting of humanity's dedication to morality.

 

Yes, but did the Roman empire conquer the whole world? No. And where is the Roman empire now with all its brutality and viciousness? Gone. Mainly due to internal problems, be it military, economic, or with their populace, that made it also easier for external aggressors to defeat them.

 

There isn't much of a difference between conquering a continent and the world, as least as far as violence is concerned. Once you get to that point, it's more a matter of culture and tradition, which always leads to conflict sooner or later. And the fact that the Roman Empire is gone has less to do with its reliance on violence and more of the ephemeral nature of governments. It certainly lasted longer than any entirely pacifist country, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that the whole World War was immoral, meaning that fighting against the Nazi's totalarian rule was immoral. I think that answers your question.

 

As for what if, have a look at what the Nazis had accomplished before we started fighting back. England was about the only free country in Europe. The Nazis had invaded Africa. Their allies Imperial Japan were taking over the Pacific Rim. You can rest assured that if we hadn't thought there would have been no Vietnam, no 9/11, because there would have been no Vietnamese or Muslims in the world, they would be under the heel of Nazi rule. Maybe that's what you want, but about six billion people in the world don't want that, not then and with the knowledge of what atrocities Hitler was behind certainly not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

 

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

 

*reboots*

 

Phew. That was close. :p

 

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. © The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

 

Happy now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you are so obsessed with it. It wasn't a necessary thing to do as history suggests,

 

It WASN'T NECESSARY!

As I say again, what in the hell is you talking about? :lol:

*sigh* I don't know what to say.

Because this is ridiculous!

 

 

 

 

All I said was the Nazis had no chance of achieving their goal.

They had every chance of achieving their goal, if Britain was conquered early in the war, and Hitler didn't invade Russia, they would rule the world now.

Man, I don't know what in the hell, you're not seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I so obsessed with it? After chasing away one crazy creepy crawly I need a new chew toy. Guess who drew the short straw. Why? The following is a registered trademark of ET Warrior, copyrighted 2007.

 

You are in a debate forum. People are going to debate with you when they believe you are stating things that are not correct.

 

I believe the notion that fighting against the Nazis was immoral and uncessary is open to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misconceiving something here Nancy. No one said the Nazis did alright, or should not have been fought back, or it was immoral to act against them. It was said that a possible Nazi empire would sooner or later have fallen down even without US intervention, not to mention the fact that conquering the whole world plus having the reliable support of the invaded nations for a longer period of time is not one of the things you do between breakfast and lunch. Not more not less.

 

Oh, and debate me all you want Nancy, I am "invincible" :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're misconceiving something here Nancy. No one said the Nazis did alright, or should not have been fought back, or it was immoral to act against them.

 

All of World War Two was immoral, your words. Are you going back on that now and saying that we did the right thing? If so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the war would have turned out completely different if Hitler wouldn't have attacked Russia. Fighting a two-front war is just plain stupid.

 

And regarding the main question here, yes I think it was necessary to stop their war campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...