When do you plan to join the nazi party?

[Something completely different]

Ohhhh dear, I sincerely hope no German user or guest will ever stumble across this.

If I will probably have to go through a preachment of how to responsibly handle my peoples history without causing potential offence.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk

[Angrboda]

One of my philosophy groups was discussing a video which compared Nazi political ideology with its supposed roots in Nietzsche's philosophy. In the video, the author made the statement that history had clearly demonstrated the failure of Nazism, to which I posed the question, "In what way did history demonstrate this?" The only response I got was some ribald laughter which quickly subsided as I restated my question to underscore that I was serious. I never did get an answer to my question.

In what way was Nazism itself a failure?

[Zen Badger]

One of my philosophy groups was discussing a video which compared Nazi political ideology with its supposed roots in Nietzsche's philosophy. In the video, the author made the statement that history had clearly demonstrated the failure of Nazism, to which I posed the question, "In what way did history demonstrate this?" The only response I got was some ribald laughter which quickly subsided as I restated my question to underscore that I was serious. I never did get an answer to my question.

In what way was Nazism itself a failure?

If Hitler had refrained from going into Poland when he did history would have been very different.

Nazi Germany would probably still be alive and well.

---

When I'm allowed to be boss of the Luftwaffe.

OMG, I am a total fangirl of th-

I wanted to fly Messerschmitt Me 262...

A company called the Texas Airplane Factory in the US built some replica 262s back in the ninties.





Sweet aircraft.( skip the first 7 minutes of the vid).

[Something completely different]

There are 50 million dead people, whom you could "ask" how nazism was a failure.

@ ZenBadger

If Hitler wouldnt have invaded Poland and stole it`s financial reserves, Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt, a lot of people dont know that.

[Zen Badger]

There are 50 million dead people, whom you could "ask" how nazism was a failure.

The catholic church has tortured and murdered millions more.
It's all about the marketing.

@ ZenBadger

If Hitler wouldnt have invaded Poland and stole it`s financial reserves, Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt, a lot of people dont know that.

Very true, but he already had Czechoslovakia, a much better economy that Poland was ever going to be.(as an aside I've always found it weird that Britain and France were prepared to sacrifice the democracy of Czechoslovakia to Hitler but went to war for the sake of Poland which was a military dictatorship.)
If he had left Poland alone he could have built up the economy till he was able to go to war in the late Forties as he had originally planned.

Though his biggest mistake was not taking Britian when he had the chance.

[Something completely different]

The failure on the British side can be simply outlined under the name Chamberline, the then Britsh primeminister who thought one can "negotiate" with nazi Germany, which was completly idiotic, Churchill never wanted to give up Czechoslovakia.

And the French? They were scared shitless. As soon as nazi Germany took Czechoslovakia they massed up an enormous amount of their troops stationed all throughout the world at their border with Germany, which in the end would be a mistake, since they would be overrun and the biggest part of the French army would end up as POW`s.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

The failure on the British side can be simply outlined under the name Chamberline, the then Britsh primeminister who thought one can "negotiate" with nazi Germany, which was completly idiotic, Churchill never wanted to give up Czechoslovakia.

Appeasement wasn't completely idiotic; most of the political leaders of the late 30's remembered the first world war vividly and wanted to give in a lot to avoid another episode.

[DeistPaladin]

The failure on the British side can be simply outlined under the name Chamberline, the then Britsh primeminister who thought one can "negotiate" with nazi Germany, which was completly idiotic, Churchill never wanted to give up Czechoslovakia.

I have my own theory on Chamberlain and the real reason for "appeasement".

First, a few observations to explain why I don't quite believe that Chamberlain was as weak-kneed as history has painted:

1. In a democracy, one doesn't reach the highest office in the land by being either wimpy or overly accommodating. Whether we call the highest office "president", "prime minister" or "chancellor", clawing your way up the political ladder is often a vicious process and the ultimate goal of election to the highest office is usually only reached over top the smoking remains of the people who thought they were your friends. I therefore would be astounded if Chamberlain really did make a regular habit of giving things away to adversaries.

2. With all due respect to the English, when I think of the "English" and "negotiations" in the same thought, I usually think of velvety voices and razor sharp teeth. To the English readers, don't get me wrong, I love you guys as friends but when I'm across the negotiation table, I've learned (the hard way) to be on guard. Looking at their history, it seems if you're going to sit across the negotiation table with the English, you'd best have either a strong bargaining position or plenty of lube.

So what was Chamberlain thinking? I have an idea expressed in three words:

Bulwark against Communism.

I think Chamberlain was convinced of the old saying "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and spuriously assumed a more powerful Nazi Germany would be a strong force against Communist Russia. There was, after all, a red scare that swept through the capitalist Western nations in the 1920s as the Soviet Union went communist. And if the Czechs and Slovaks had to be sacrificed to create this bulwark, apparently he was fine with that.

Essentially, he created a Frankenstein's monster.

Who could have foreseen the alliance between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union?

It was only when Germany not only invaded Poland, but did so with an alliance with the Soviet Union, clearly showing that the whole bulwark strategy wasn't going to work, that the policy of appeasement was abandoned.

In sum, I think he was trying to create a monster that would fight the communists and the monster turned on him. Still a foolish and tragic decision but for different reasons.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

1 This could be true.
2 Your personal experiences are not relevant to the situation in the 1930's. My grandfather had different encounters with Germans than I have. (Edit; except here, ofcourse :-))

Chamberlain never appeased to germany as a buffer against Russia, he appeased because they were shit scared for another world war with Germany.

And if they wanted to appease because of a bulwark against communism, why didn't the french and english declare war against Russia after the invasion of Poland?