I think I'd rather kill baby jesus.... if there had been a baby jesus.

(November 12, 2015 at 6:59 pm)Skeletor Wrote:

(November 11, 2015 at 10:25 am)Evie Wrote: Adapted?

Yes.

I like you even more now CD.

Awesome fucking game.

Another issue with killing baby Hitler, just your presence might change the timeline enough to alter history and you might now be killing an innocent.

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: Without strong allies though like Japan and Italy, Germany wouldn't have been in a position to start conquering Europe.

You're wrong. Germany started its peaceful conquest of Europe in 1936, well before either Japan or Italy were either able to lend useful assistance; and at no time before Germany's surrender did either other country render useful aid to German intentions.

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: There is another word for war: terrorism.

Equivocation.

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: The biggest terrorist state in the world today is the USA, and second biggest is Israel.

Sources? Lets see your raw numbers.

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: As for war hungry countries like the United States, I hope to God one day that Russia or Saudi or India or China starts war in their country and puts them in their goddamned place.

You're being a dick. Not all Americans support American policy, yet you're wishing evil to befall them no matter.

Dumbfucks like you make me regret the American lives spent rescuing Australia in 1942.

(November 12, 2015 at 7:18 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Aractus Wrote: Exactly, killing Hitler would make no difference. Japan are the ones who started the war anyway, not the Germans.

But it was Hitler burning the last bridges by declaring war on the USA. On december 11th 1941. The only war he ever declared instead of simply attacking.

Hitler lost the war when his troops fired the first shots.  He thought he was fighting an old style 19th Century war instead of a 20th Century war.  He was a good public speaker and he had a lot of charisma but he was an idiot when it came to warfare.  He had no real allies.  His base of operations was too small and he couldn't defend it.  He didn't have a navy or an air force.  He didn't have any useful weapon systems and he couldn't support his troops in the field.  He couldn't even invade England.  Plus his agenda of conquering the
world and killing "undesirables" eliminated him from getting any allies.  That's not a very good and appealing political agenda.  And he had no fifth columnists in other countries to create havoc.  It's also why Japan and Italy were so easily defeated although Japan did have a navy.  

It's interesting that before the war the US knew as early as the 1920s it would fight Japan.  And England thought that its war time enemy would be the US instead of Germany.

I agree with most of what you wrote except this:

(November 13, 2015 at 5:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: He didn't have a navy or an air force.  He didn't have any useful weapon systems and he couldn't support his troops in the field.  

Setting aside the fact that the Luftwaffe was a formidable CAS air force of 3300+ machines at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Germans had a potentially war-winning weapon against the Brits in the U-boat. Had they decided to concentrate on building those instead of fulfilling Plan Z, they could have erected a blockade that perhaps could have won the war for them.

(November 13, 2015 at 12:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: The biggest terrorist state in the world today is the USA, and second biggest is Israel.

Sources? Lets see your raw numbers.

See Noam Chomsky:

https://youtu.be/9CKpCGjD8wg

https://youtu.be/oB1q2tdb-Gw

(November 13, 2015 at 12:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Aractus Wrote: As for war hungry countries like the United States, I hope to God one day that Russia or Saudi or India or China starts war in their country and puts them in their goddamned place.

You're being a dick. Not all Americans support American policy, yet you're wishing evil to befall them no matter.

Dumbfucks like you make me regret the American lives spent rescuing Australia in 1942.

How the fuck am I "being a dick"? I just want what the US military does to other governments and civilians done to the US government and US civilians.

You don't seem to understand the concept of what I'm trying to get across to you. The Israeli occupation in the Levant is no different to if an invading force decided to occupy the United States and then force all the pre-existing North Americans out into tiny reserves, and enslave those who want to live alongside the white invaders. And while you're at it, pass legislation that makes them non-citizens, or citizens with fewer rights.

Oh wait, that already happened, didn't it? A similar thing happened in Australia (although we never enslaved the Indigenous people); and that was because at the time we were following the conventional 18th/19th century wisdom of colonialism and assimilation. Under that world-view the rights of the indigenous populations didn't matter. We now know that such policies are very harmful for people.

Now, if you compare countries by how they treat their indigenous peoples, you find something very interesting. In the vast majority of the world they refuse to recognise the indigenous occupants of the land; so we actually don't know a lot about many indigenous cultures that continue to be oppressed. Almost every country (if not every) in the world has indigenous people - the Māori in New Zealand are probably among the best treated indigenous people anywhere in the world. You have other countries like Canada, Australia, China, India, the USA, and Japan that recognise their indigenous populations and give them some rights, but on a scale of who treats their indigenous populations better - you have places like Canada and Australia, you have the USA that kind of looks at them as a "problem", but gives them some support, and you have places like Japan that unapologetically treat their indigenous people like utter shit.

And then you have Israel. They believe they are the rightful owners of the land because they are Jewish; but the Palestinians believe they are the rightful owners because they have been indigenous to the land for 12 centuries. This whole conflict was started by the UK invading Palestine in 1917. If not for that colonial invasion Palestine would today be a united State.

Anyway, my point is by continuing to support Israel, the United States is supporting them to oppress the indigenous Arab population of the land. And that is exactly what Israel has been doing from the start - they are displacing the indigenous population so they can possess the land for themselves. The way they did this was by purchasing the land from Arabs, putting it into a fund (Jewish National Fund) with the proviso that the land can never be sold back or even leased to the Palestinian people. It's a policy of deliberate oppression, expansion, and conquest. The problem the Palestinian people have is that they were not supported by other Arab States.

So you can't fucking tell me with a straight face that America doesn't deserve to feel the same oppression that they have bestowed upon others. I'll be very happy when someone invades America (again) and displaces the present inhabitants and confines them to tiny camps and settlements, and maybe that will stop them from instigating wars everywhere else.

(November 13, 2015 at 5:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(November 12, 2015 at 7:18 pm)abaris Wrote: But it was Hitler burning the last bridges by declaring war on the USA. On december 11th 1941. The only war he ever declared instead of simply attacking.

Hitler lost the war when his troops fired the first shots.  He thought he was fighting an old style 19th Century war instead of a 20th Century war.  He was a good public speaker and he had a lot of charisma but he was an idiot when it came to warfare.  He had no real allies.  His base of operations was too small and he couldn't defend it.  He didn't have a navy or an air force.  He didn't have any useful weapon systems and he couldn't support his troops in the field.  He couldn't even invade England.  Plus his agenda of conquering the
world and killing "undesirables" eliminated him from getting any allies.  That's not a very good and appealing political agenda.  And he had no fifth columnists in other countries to create havoc.  It's also why Japan and Italy were so easily defeated although Japan did have a navy.  

It's interesting that before the war the US knew as early as the 1920s it would fight Japan.  And England thought that its war time enemy would be the US instead of Germany.

Actually, no.  Britain's national policy from 1918 onwards was while war with the US was unlikely, it nonetheless must proactively prevented any serious conflict with the US literally at all degree of appeasement necessary.   While Britain was still a real global military power, Britain accepted all sorts of American demands in the hopes of making America realize Britain would voluntarily weaken herself and deprive herself of the ability to wage war effectively against America in the hopes that America would not consider war with Britain necessary to gain its own ends in the case of dispute.  Britain's policy of appeasement literally started with the US, not with Germany.

That is the point those who scream "appeasement" at the slightest hint of rational compromise prefer no one remembers.  For Britain such compromises was indeed rational.

Quote:He thought he was fighting an old style 19th Century war instead of a 20th Century war.

I don't agree, Wyrd.  The German Army prepared to fight the next war rather than the Allies who prepared to fight the last war all over again.  Germany was outnumbered by the British and French who had more and better tanks.  It was German tactics of blitzkrieg warfare which overwhelmed the Allies in 1940.

(November 13, 2015 at 12:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I agree with most of what you wrote except this:

(November 13, 2015 at 5:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: He didn't have a navy or an air force.  He didn't have any useful weapon systems and he couldn't support his troops in the field.  

Setting aside the fact that the Luftwaffe was a formidable CAS air force of 3300+ machines at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Germans had a potentially war-winning weapon against the Brits in the U-boat. Had they decided to concentrate on building those instead of fulfilling Plan Z, they could have erected a blockade that perhaps could have won the war for them.

Sure, Germany had a few good fighter planes but it didn't have any long range heavy bombers.  It had some submarines but it didn't have a fleet of battleships and aircraft carriers.  It didn't even have any row boats to use to invade England.  It didn't have any effective weapon systems except for tanks and a few V2 rockets, which didn't carry effective warheads.  Hitler couldn't stop the Allies from bombing Germany at will 24/7/365.  He couldn't maintain his army in Russia and couldn't keep them supplied.  He could never reach the Russian war industry.  He was basically an idiot as a military commander.  If he had had any worthwhile military commanders they would have blown his head off for being stupid.