|
Yep, and one almost emerged in America as well. Fascism, when executed properly, was extraordinary effective in destroying democratic systems from within. Most modern democratic systems are premised on the idea of "equal chance" - that each respective political group, regardless of their political beliefs, has an equal chance to participate in the political process, and, if in a position of majority power, would grant this right to other subordinate groups. Fascism exploited this belief - and the idea of "fundamental rights" within a democratic system - to destroy democracy from within. It really digs into the idea (which I find academically interesting) of what can democratic systems do? Do you restrict free speech? Should elected officials be allowed to agitate for the destruction of the system in which they serve office? Most people interested in Hitler focus on World War II, but Hitler's foreign policy is also worthy of particular attention. Hitler was exceptionally gifted in presenting convincing arguments that utilized popular democratic ideals to agitate for increased German independence. Look at the military reoccupation of the Rhineland (in direct defiance of the Versailles Treaty). When pressed, Hitler's response was picture perfect, and trapped the Western powers in an untenable position: How could Germany, a sovereign entity, not protect itself, and have free reign over its borders? How could Western powers, who were at that vary time trying to roll back the tide of imperialism and promote popular sovereignty and political self-determination, deny those very same rights to Germany? Hitler's effectiveness in structuring his foreign policy decisions to exploit popular conceptions of freedom and fairness in France and England led to the two diplomatic split between the two nations - a split that he proceeded to wedge wider and wider throughout the 1930s. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 22:55 on May 7, 2014 |
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Wouldn't you say what set Nazi Germany apart from other fascist nations at the time was the conviction and fervor that Hitler exuded in public about what needed to be done in his view? That was largely why he rose to the top of the party and why he had such fanatical support across a large base of the German population. It was a cult of personality in a way, but based on his seeming absolute confidence in Germany's mission. Mussolini's sway over Italy was much more tepid by comparison.
|
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Wouldn't you say what set Nazi Germany apart from other fascist nations at the time was the conviction and fervor that Hitler exuded in public about what needed to be done in his view? That was largely why he rose to the top of the party and why he had such fanatical support across a large base of the German population. It was a cult of personality in a way, but based on his seeming absolute confidence in Germany's mission. Mussolini's sway over Italy was much more tepid by comparison. I'd characterize the Nazi regime as a German variant of fascism, but one that was significantly more radical and revolutionary than fascist regimes in other states. This is not only seen in the destruction the Nazi regime caused, but also the way it was governed. Where many traditional institutions in Italy weren't bothered too much, the Nazi system did a good job creating all sorts of chaos within the society. Which makes sense if you're trying to build a Big Brother style cult of personality around Hitler. You want everything run in an ad-hoc, improvised manner. People are always "on the move" as Hannah Arendt put it. They're constantly scrambling to fight off the foreign enemy, which is always changing, while doing it in a state of constant (and worsening) institutional and organizational chaos. In a system like that, Hitler emerges as an icon of security/strength/loyalty.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:The problem with your description of Germany is that you assume Nazi Germany operated under conditions that were in some way unique. Fascism was incredibly popular all across Europe, and if history had taken a slightly different course, a fascist leader could have easily emerged in France or Finland. Many of Hitler's actions were rational and correct if you buy into his particular worldview - too many people make the mistake of viewing Hitler as some frothing moronic madman, but there's many 'good' reasons why people believed in what he said and what he thought. If your worldview is informed by Hitler's unique blend of scientific racism, and you wholeheartedly believe that different races are engaging in combat on a global stage, where losing means the destruction of the very foundation of culture, then why wouldn't you support invading Russia or wiping out the Jews? Clearly the majority of Germans did not buy into this system completely - although most did to varying degrees - but enough people in positions of power did to create a system in which success was predicated on furthering these viewpoints, independent of personal belief. I don't think Nazi Germany was unique, I was talking about fascism in general, which I think is pretty supported by most of the major examples in history (minus the Italians, because goddammit, Italy). I also think it's a pretty far loving stretch to call Hitler's decisions "rational and correct if you buy into his particular worldview." His worldview didn't reflect reality and got millions of people killed, and almost all of his decision were irrational (based on emotion and myth rather than logic) and incorrect (were terrible loving ideas.). Holding abhorrent views doesn't excuse their actions on an intellectual level any more than it does on a moral level. Anyway, does anyone have any idea about fascist movements in general? Are they more violent than other kinds of political movement, or does it just seem that way? Almost every fascist movement I can think of has had major disruptive and violent effects seemingly outside the scope of their actual numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Do you think tagging 'I'm not going to contribute to the perpetuation of the "clean Wehrmacht" myth' on the front of regurgitating the very definition of the clean Wehrmacht myth makes it OK? meat sweats posted:It should be remembered that prior to, really, 1979, the conception of the Holocaust (either of Jews or in general) as the ultimate crime of the Nazis was not widespread. What the leaders were put on trial for and what made the Nazis the byword for evil until VERY recent memory was their violation of international law on conquering & occupying territory. They started a war of aggression, and that is what was considered their crime until pretty much just before the current generation of freshly minted history professors was born. Being in Poland or France at all WAS the crime, regardless of how "honorably" anyone allegedly conducted themselves there. The distinction of the "regular army" from the SS is not only garbage in terms of what it's trying to imply about Holocaust guilt, it's also, ultimately, an attempt to distract attention from the fact that the entire German military apparatus was guilty of war crimes, first and most notably starting the deadliest war in human history in the first place, whether they were involved in the genocide or not. You should ease on the social justice warrioring. Do you think that German military apparatus had only volunteers in it? Some random draftee didn't start any wars or build concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Opposing the romanticization of the Wehrmacht: Social Justice Warrioring.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Opposing the romanticization of the Wehrmacht: Social Justice Warrioring. There's a difference between opposing the romanticization of the Wehrmacht, and saying every draftee was devoting the entirety of his life from 1939 to 1945 to one and only one goal, which was establishing the conditions by which the Jews, Slavs, etc. could be killed.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:There's a difference between opposing the romanticization of the Wehrmacht, and saying every draftee was devoting the entirety of his life from 1939 to 1945 to one and only one goal, which was establishing the conditions by which the Jews, Slavs, etc. could be killed. "The Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Well no, most soldiers in the Wehrmacht didn't think they were fighting for that despite the fact that they were fighting for that by virtue of being in the armed forces of Nazi Germany. E: or to put it another way, no not every German soldier in WW2 was literally Hitler. But they were fighting for Hitler and his vision and that's pretty bad. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 03:49 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Wehrmacht did massive amount of war crimes. But did every member in Wehrmacht do warcrimes?Raskolnikov38 posted:Well no, most soldiers in the Wehrmacht didn't think they were fighting for that despite the fact that they were fighting for that by virtue of being in the armed forces of Nazi Germany. Edit: Ok, answered. What happened to draftees that didn't want to serve in armed forces, farms or factories? I know that no one was shot for not killing civilians or prisoners, they just found some other soldiers to do it. But what happened to people that didn't want to help in lesser ways? I haven't read anything about it. Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure some people did get shot for not shooting civilians.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:I'm pretty sure some people did get shot for not shooting civilians. Didn't someone post in the MilHist thread that there aren't any evidence for this?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:You should ease on the social justice warrioring. This phrase gets more and more meaningless every time its posted.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Are you familiar with anything regarding copper/nickel production in wartime Germany. I was midway through a book that was covering this subject but left it on a plane and for the life of me I cannot remember the book title. The book talked about how the German war situation was hopeless on an economic/industrial aspect from the get-go. I do know that this was a big reason why the Luftwaffe had such big issues with the their jet engines having such a short lifespan. Sorry if this question is too specific about about the military. Also, were the British at all considering terms if Hitler did not stop advancing into Dunkirk? Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are you familiar with anything regarding copper/nickel production in wartime Germany. I was midway through a book that was covering this subject but left it on a plane and for the life of me I cannot remember the book title. The book talked about how the German war situation was hopeless on an economic/industrial aspect from the get-go. You know, what I really want to know about this book is what the hell do you think the person who finds it thinks of your reading habits? "THE BIG BOOK OF GERMAN METAL PRODUCTION, C 1939-1945"?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are you familiar with anything regarding copper/nickel production in wartime Germany. Off the top of my head, Germany imported most of its copper. During the war, Sweden, Finland, Turkey and Spain were important trading partners for Germany in this regard (since they had no access to overseas imports anymore) by 1944, these sources had dried up. Nickel was a similar material that the Germans needed to import and when Finland peaced out in 1944, the Finnish nickel mines at Petsamo ended up on the Soviet side of the border.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are you familiar with anything regarding copper/nickel production in wartime Germany. I was midway through a book that was covering this subject but left it on a plane and for the life of me I cannot remember the book title. The book talked about how the German war situation was hopeless on an economic/industrial aspect from the get-go. Wages of Destruction?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Didn't someone post in the MilHist thread that there aren't any evidence for this? There is no evidence that German soldiers were forced by their superiors to commit war crimes, no. The German Military Laws of the time stipulated that a soldier could and should disobey illegal orders. Of course, that doesn't mean poo poo in practice. When it comes to shooting your own men for disobedience/cowardice/whatever, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets had the Germans beat by a good margin. I think that in order to understand the Nazi state and the crimes it committed, you have to first realize that it is meaningless to try and divide people into good and bad. The important lesson of the Nazi period, and one that needs to be hammered home again and again, is that its crimes were planned and executed by perfectly ordinary people. Yes, the orders came from monsters like Hitler and Himmler, but they were interpreted and carried out by people who were convinced that they were just doing their job. That's the scary thing, and one people tend to overlook simply because the Nazis have attained near-mythical status in their evil. There is nothing that the Wehrmacht did that, given different circumstances, the US or British Army wouldn't also have done. There is nothing that the planners of Action Reinhard did that, given different circumstances, couldn't just as well have been done by some bureaucrat in Washington or London. All the really disgusting poo poo you outsource to locals (the guards inside the death camps were almost exclusively Ukrainians), which lets you maintain your emotional distance. Most of the accused during the various trials defended themselves claiming that they were only following orders, probably because that was how they rationalized their actions to themselves afterwards. They were just doing their job. Even someone like Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka and Sobibor, claimed that he was just following orders. If he refused, they would have shot him! Or his family! Or they would just have replaced him with someone who weren't as kind to the Jews as he was, so it was better he stayed! Or, or, or... People follow orders, even when they know that those orders are wrong, even when they know that there's no real repercussions to refusing. Not because they are evil, or stupid, but because following orders is easy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Off the top of my head, Germany imported most of its copper. During the war, Sweden, Finland, Turkey and Spain were important trading partners for Germany in this regard (since they had no access to overseas imports anymore) by 1944, these sources had dried up. Nickel was a similar material that the Germans needed to import and when Finland peaced out in 1944, the Finnish nickel mines at Petsamo ended up on the Soviet side of the border. Also Vichy initially controlled Noumea, which is the nickel capital of the world, and the Americans made a point to get there ASAP. But whether they just wanted the thing for the Allies or Vichy actually managed to ship nickel to Europe and the Third Reich I don't know. I once read a funny story but I can't find it anywhere again : when the Americans got there de Gaulle annouced it was cool of them to have started liberating France and so he was allowing them to use the nickel 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:All the really disgusting poo poo you outsource to locals (the guards inside the death camps were almost exclusively Ukrainians) , which lets you maintain your emotional distance. Holy poo poo, really? Either way, I am immediately reminded of a quote from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: Captain Ulrik Svensgaard posted:Of all the employments, working in the brood pit was considered at once the most horrific and the most desirable. Horrific because of what we saw occur day after day, and because of the very nature of the sessile native lifeforms. Desirable because, having been chosen to work in the pit, you were highly unlikely to become one of its victims.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Kuiperdolin posted:Also Vichy initially controlled Noumea, which is the nickel capital of the world, and the Americans made a point to get there ASAP. But whether they just wanted the thing for the Allies or Vichy actually managed to ship nickel to Europe and the Third Reich I don't know. Noumea occupies a pretty important strategic location, so it was used as the South Pacific HQ for the Allies.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Holy poo poo, really? Yup. The outside perimeter and the officers barracks were guarded by SS, but the inmates were guarded by Ukrainian "volunteers" (people recruited from POW camps and the like). Stangl himself, in his interviews with Gitta Sereny, goes on about how brutally the Ukrainians treated the Jews. When Sereny asks "But weren't you in charge of the camp? Couldn't you have stopped them?", Stangl goes "No no, I was just an administrator! That was out of my hands!". E: The way that the Nazis set up and ran the camps was pure genius, in the way it made sure that no single person was actually responsible. Stangl, for example, was recruited under the pretense that his expertise as a police detective was needed to clear up the distribution of "resources" (loot) from an army supply camp under construction. It wasn't until he arrived at Sobibor that he realized what he had signed up for, and then he kept telling himself that hey, the beatings and killings are being done by the Ukrainians and the SS, I'm just here to keep an eye on the loot and administrate construction. Same thing when he got put in charge of Treblinka. The camp was a complete nightmare. There were piles of bodies just strewn about the railway leading up to the gates. There was complete chaos. The guards were drinking themselves into a stupor daily to deal with what they were doing. Stangl was just there to shape things up. He made everything better, even for the Jews. He was just doing his job to the best of his abilities. He didn't kill anyone. A West German court later sentenced Stangl to life in prison for the murder of 900.000 people. Mr. Sunshine fucked around with this message at 09:35 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:Are you familiar with anything regarding copper/nickel production in wartime Germany. I was midway through a book that was covering this subject but left it on a plane and for the life of me I cannot remember the book title. The book talked about how the German war situation was hopeless on an economic/industrial aspect from the get-go. There's a Military History thread, where people might know the answers: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3585027.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Yup. The outside perimeter and the officers barracks were guarded by SS, but the inmates were guarded by Ukrainian "volunteers" (people recruited from POW camps and the like). Stangl himself, in his interviews with Gitta Sereny, goes on about how brutally the Ukrainians treated the Jews. When Sereny asks "But weren't you in charge of the camp? Couldn't you have stopped them?", Stangl goes "No no, I was just an administrator! That was out of my hands!". Werner von braun really put it best: "Yeah, we launched a rocket, but where it comes down isn't my department."
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
There's no definitive answer to the question of consequences for refusing to participate in war crimes. What we do know, though, is that based on some historical research (particularly into "police battalions," which were reserve companies created through the incorporation of local reserve forces and municipal police forces and tasked with guarding occupied areas) that if you didn't want to shoot civilians, you could get excused. If you're interested in this subject, I suggest you read Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men." There's been some recent debate about the accuracy of his central thesis, but his book does an excellent job in examining how one unit participated in war crimes in Poland, and what happened to the members of the unit who refused (nothing, or were transferred).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:There is no evidence that German soldiers were forced by their superiors to commit war crimes, no. The German Military Laws of the time stipulated that a soldier could and should disobey illegal orders. Of course, that doesn't mean poo poo in practice. When it comes to shooting your own men for disobedience/cowardice/whatever, I'm pretty sure that the Soviets had the Germans beat by a good margin. Yep, this is the lesson of the Holcoaust - the "banality of evil." By and large most perpetrators of the Holocaust were neither fanatics nor strict ideological anti-Semites. Instead they were soldiers and administrators who followed orders either out of a sense of duty; acted in a way that would attract the attention of their superiors and help their careers; acted in isolated instances in response to a particular motivating factor - ie: partisan attacks in Russia; or simply did nothing while those around them killed. It's also tough for some people to grasp that there wasn't much in the way of central organization or administration when it came to creating and administrating the mechanisms to murder milllions. The Nazi state was incredibly disorganized, and dominated by power-hungry officials who clung to their petty fiefdoms and fought amongst themselves. It's really fascinating to study how the different Gaultier (regional administrators) acted once Germany was dooomed: a very few stood and fight, some tried to arrange a seperate peace with the Allies, some fled to die with Hitler in Berlin, and some simply fled. Beyond a few instances (especially late in the war) they had a ridiculous amount of freedom to act as they pleased. A really great book on the last days of Nazi Germany is Ian Kershaw's "The End." He's one of the first scholars to explore what is probably a pretty key question: why did Nazi Germany fight to the bitter end, something that's surprisingly unique in modern warfare? And how was the state able to function (and function at a high level) when its borders had fallen and much of its territory was under control of the Allies? One of my favorite examples of Nazi... compartmentalization (I guess you could call it) comes from the Berlin University system. In the last weeks of the war - when Germany was surrounded, the Russians were encircling Berlin and the Americans and British had defeated the Germans in the west - university administrators were meeting to award assistantships to foreign students and inviting them to attend campus. As if the university was going to have Fall classes, business as usual. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 12:52 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:A really great book on the last days of Nazi Germany is Ian Kershaw's "The End." He's one of the first scholars to explore what is probably a pretty key question: why did Nazi Germany fight to the bitter end, something that's surprisingly unique in modern warfare? And how was the state able to function (and function at a high level) when its borders had fallen and much of its territory was under control of the Allies? Sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to add it to my reading list.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:You should ease on the social justice warrioring. Do you think that German military apparatus had only volunteers in it? Some random draftee didn't start any wars or build concentration camps. Tell me more about how awesome the Nazi army was and how disliking the actual, literal Nazis and the actual, literal launching of World War II and the Holocaust is equivalent to shrieking about a TV show because it used the word "tranny." Are you just an autistic shithead who gets a boner at the pretty tanks and refuses to admit context, or are you an actual Neo-Nazi doing exactly what I said you people do?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Wehrmacht did massive amount of war crimes. But did every member in Wehrmacht do warcrimes? The invasion of other countries for the purpose of establishing Hitler's racial empire was a war crime, irrespective of whether they personally executed Jews or not. This has been the consistent moral and legal fact since Nuremberg. All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:59
|
|
meat sweats posted:The invasion of other countries for the purpose of establishing Hitler's racial empire was a war crime, irrespective of whether they personally executed Jews or not. This has been the consistent moral and legal fact since Nuremberg. All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism. Were all members of the US armed forces who invaded Vietnam guilty of war crimes?
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism. This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. Yes, it would have been wonderful if every German had the moral courage and insight to refuse to participate in the Nazi state, but holding every single member of the state and military morally responsible is just childish. E: You realize that you are setting up a moral standard which is impossible to live up to, right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The invasion of other countries for the purpose of establishing Hitler's racial empire was a war crime, irrespective of whether they personally executed Jews or not. This has been the consistent moral and legal fact since Nuremberg. All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The invasion of other countries for the purpose of establishing Hitler's racial empire was a war crime, irrespective of whether they personally executed Jews or not. This has been the consistent moral and legal fact since Nuremberg. All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism. It is good to know that German Jews and other undesirables were guilty of Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The invasion of other countries for the purpose of establishing Hitler's racial empire was a war crime, irrespective of whether they personally executed Jews or not. This has been the consistent moral and legal fact since Nuremberg. All members of the German state and military were guilty. Refusing to admit it = Nazi apologism. This is the one. This is my favorite post in whatever this thread turned into over the last couple of days. Jesus Christ. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Good thing everyone else saw that post as equally abhorrent as me. It's like he thinks he's an actual critically thinking person and not someone swept up in the post WW2 victor mythmaking that sought to demonize Germany in every possible way so as to make the Allies look not as culpable in total war. People don't control narratives by telling you how to think, they do it by manipulating how you feel. That post was a prime example of the effects of such conditioning. Raw hatred for an entire country because they were the losers, as well as on the receiving end of victor propaganda. This does not exonerate the Nazis in any way, a war for domination of an entire continent is intrinsically a tragic thing, but at least try to have some perspective and perception about it. Many people in Germany were powerless to oppose the Nazi regime, whether they wanted to or not. Larger forces were at work than the individual. You couldn't "just say no".
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Maybe you should "ask me/us questions about Nazi Germany" instead of defending the morality of the Nazi army, and then you won't have to hear why you're terrible. Would anyone like to ask questions about Nazi Germany?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Is every employee of the US government morally responsible for the Iraq war? No, because that would be a ridiculous opinion to hold. Next time, think for five loving seconds before you poo poo up the thread.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Maybe you should "ask me/us questions about Nazi Germany" instead of defending the morality of the Nazi army, and then you won't have to hear why you're terrible. Would anyone like to ask questions about Nazi Germany? Gonna have to ask/tell you to shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
brb gonna travel back in time and tell von Stauffenberg that he's morally responsible for WWII so maybe he should blow up himself instead of Hitler
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:brb gonna travel back in time and tell von Stauffenberg that he's morally responsible for WWII so maybe he should blow up himself instead of Hitler Look, do you want to actually discuss this or just start bleeding from your crotch every time someone suggests that Nazis are bad? Because if you do, I'll point out that Stauffenberg wrote memos on how to run better slave camps in Poland and more efficiently cleanse the East of Jews. The July plotters wanted to kill Hitler because they thought he was incompetent at their mutual goal of exterminating non-Germans and establishing Nazi military dominion over all of Eurasia, not because they opposed it. What is this goddamn fascination with vindicating every single person in the Nazi leadership as morally virtuous and only acting because Hitler had a gun to their heads 24/7?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 17:11
|
|