If Hitler had won the war

Watch
alex_cs
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
The men in the RAF fought so hard, the german invasion of Britain was thwarted.
But what if they had lost, and the UK was occupied by germany?
  • The UK's medieval parliamentary government would have been replaced by something more modern
  • German efficiency would have rejuvenated the UK's economy
  • Europe would have been united, in a better way than the EU
  • Immigrants would never have been allowed in, making it more easy for british citizens to get a job
  • The mines would never have been closed; as production and honest manual labour was important to the Nazi's, as was full employment
  • The UK would never have had to borrow massive sums of money from the USA, under the Marshall plan, and so we would never have had to be in such debt and poverty
So clearly we should never have fought against germany in the first place. Nearly 400,000 British soldiers died in WW2. All those lives could have been saved.
1
reply
chantalc
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
The fact he created concentration camps to kill groups of people he didn't like isn't an issue for you?
8
reply
El.Guapo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by alex_cs)
The men in the RAF fought so hard, the german invasion of Britain was thwarted.
But what if they had lost, and the UK was occupied by germany?
  • The UK's medieval parliamentary government would have been replaced by something more modern
  • German efficiency would have rejuvenated the UK's economy
  • Europe would have been united, in a better way than the EU
  • Immigrants would never have been allowed in, making it more easy for british citizens to get a job
  • The mines would never have been closed; as production and honest manual labour was important to the Nazi's, as was full employment
  • The UK would never have had to borrow massive sums of money from the USA, under the Marshall plan, and so we would never have had to be in such debt and poverty
So clearly we should never have fought against germany in the first place. Nearly 400,000 British soldiers died in WW2. All those lives could have been saved.
America would have 'liberated' us from Ireland and we would now be part of the USA.
0
reply
BaronK
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by El.Guapo)
America would have 'liberated' us from Ireland and we would now be part of the USA.
Not during the BoB which he refers to in his first line, America was still out of the war.
0
reply
Mary562
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
We would be like these refugees you see on the media everyday :yes:
3
reply
Galaxies
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by chantalc)
The fact he created concentration camps to kill groups of people he didn't like isn't an issue for you?
we probably wouldn't know about it, or be completely thinking it was the normal thing. It's still happening everywhere today....just not publicised - like concentration camps weren't at the time I guess
0
reply
chantalc
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Galaxies)
we probably wouldn't know about it, or be completely thinking it was the normal thing. It's still happening everywhere today....just not publicised - like concentration camps weren't at the time I guess
so you're saying its okay to do?
0
reply
E air
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Hitler had a dank economic plan. He more or less stopped unemployment, through his work schemes.
Germany was the only country post depression to have a growing economy.

His "invasion" of the Rhineland was political genious as well, he got the people on side and one of the most important pieces of German land back.

Imo, if he didn't gas 6m jews, he would have gone down in history as one of the best statesmen of all times.
0
reply
SCIENCE :D
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
We would be speaking German and eating Apple Strudel :eek:
1
reply
angelfox
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Mertesacker wouldn't be such a pussy and actually man up from his illness ffs.
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
If you look at some of the core tenets of fascism - particularly as proposed by Mussolini - you really have to question: how does it differ from what Corbyn (or the left-wing) proposes?

- Restructure rail and transport links, with a view to nationalisation.
- Reduce the voting age.
- Pander to the unions.
- Introduce a minimum wage.
- Introduction of proportional representation.
- A maximum eight hour work day.
- Reduce the retirement age.
- Nationalisation of most military factories.
- Progressive tax on capital.
- Seizure of possession belonging to religious congregations (as is evident, most left-wingers truly despise Christianity).
- Abolition of the upper-chamber.

Really, fascism is just progressivism, hence why so many progressives in the 30's called it 'liberal fascism.'
0
reply
Galaxies
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by chantalc)
so you're saying its okay to do?
nope just that politicians are probably doing it now
0
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by alex_cs)
The men in the RAF fought so hard, the german invasion of Britain was thwarted.
But what if they had lost, and the UK was occupied by germany?
  • The UK's medieval parliamentary government would have been replaced by something more modern
  • German efficiency would have rejuvenated the UK's economy
  • Europe would have been united, in a better way than the EU
  • Immigrants would never have been allowed in, making it more easy for british citizens to get a job
  • The mines would never have been closed; as production and honest manual labour was important to the Nazi's, as was full employment
  • The UK would never have had to borrow massive sums of money from the USA, under the Marshall plan, and so we would never have had to be in such debt and poverty
So clearly we should never have fought against germany in the first place. Nearly 400,000 British soldiers died in WW2. All those lives could have been saved.
It was a world war. What of the people from Britains colonies who fought against Hitler. Were their lives unimportant?
1
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
If you look at some of the core tenets of fascism - particularly as proposed by Mussolini - you really have to question: how does it differ from what Corbyn (or the left-wing) proposes?

- Restructure rail and transport links, with a view to nationalisation.
- Reduce the voting age.
- Pander to the unions.
- Introduce a minimum wage.
- Introduction of proportional representation.
- A maximum eight hour work day.
- Reduce the retirement age.
- Nationalisation of most military factories.
- Progressive tax on capital.
- Seizure of possession belonging to religious congregations (as is evident, most left-wingers truly despise Christianity).
- Abolition of the upper-chamber.

Really, fascism is just progressivism, hence why so many progressives in the 30's called it 'liberal fascism.'
Fascism typically says "I hate this group of people" just because they happen to be born a certain way, or belong to a certain religion...
1
reply
garfeeled
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
If you look at some of the core tenets of fascism - particularly as proposed by Mussolini - you really have to question: how does it differ from what Corbyn (or the left-wing) proposes?

- Restructure rail and transport links, with a view to nationalisation.
- Reduce the voting age.
- Pander to the unions.
- Introduce a minimum wage.
- Introduction of proportional representation.
- A maximum eight hour work day.
- Reduce the retirement age.
- Nationalisation of most military factories.
- Progressive tax on capital.
- Seizure of possession belonging to religious congregations (as is evident, most left-wingers truly despise Christianity).
- Abolition of the upper-chamber.

Really, fascism is just progressivism, hence why so many progressives in the 30's called it 'liberal fascism.'
you forgot facism (in the italian form) also includes
strict gender roles
condemnation of homosexuality
condemnation of most forms of contraception
supported strong military and the use of force
was highly nationalistic to the extent of supporting reclaimation of "lost italian lands".
facism supports a single party state
had a contempt for the weak


fascism is frankly incredibly hard to pin down on the traditonal left right narrative because it combines elements of both extremes.
0
reply
Gears265
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by chantalc)
The fact he created concentration camps to kill groups of people he didn't like isn't an issue for you?
You forget you are amongst left wing holocaust deniers on here. I am yet to meet one who actually thinks it happened, even with all the mounting evidence. They come out with things like it was a made up story by the zionists and the illuminati or the Chinese communists or liberal fascists or whatever they come out with next.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by alex_cs)
The men in the RAF fought so hard, the german invasion of Britain was thwarted.
But what if they had lost, and the UK was occupied by germany?
  • The UK's medieval parliamentary government would have been replaced by something more modern
Like dictatorship? Quite, I suppose...

  • German efficiency would have rejuvenated the UK's economy
No it wouldn't, the Nazi economy ran on war so the very conquest of the UK would have helped bury it.

  • Europe would have been united, in a better way than the EU
Proud peoples under the undemocratic centralised bureaucracy of their German conquerors?

Oh, wait....

  • Immigrants would never have been allowed in, making it more easy for british citizens to get a job
See economy point above, also without immigrants they would just have started killing off British undesirables, reducing British demand and resulting in the loss of jobs

  • The mines would never have been closed; as production and honest manual labour was important to the Nazi's, as was full employment
Yes, populism always was more important than moving with the times economically for the Nazis.

  • The UK would never have had to borrow massive sums of money from the USA, under the Marshall plan, and so we would never have had to be in such debt and poverty
We finished Marshall Plan repayments in 2005 and mainly paid them back in military bases, you really think they are the cause of the Western economic slump? Bit difficult to explain why it started in America in that case really isn't it?

So clearly we should never have fought against germany in the first place. Nearly 400,000 British soldiers died in WW2. All those lives could have been saved.
A similar amount no doubt taken under the Nazi regime, but we'd never have found out about the camps I suppose so we'd never know. Plus in terms of quality-adjusted life years it would be far worse.
3
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by garfeeled)
you forgot facism (in the italian form) also includes
strict gender roles
condemnation of homosexuality
condemnation of most forms of contraception
supported strong military and the use of force
was highly nationalistic to the extent of supporting reclaimation of "lost italian lands".
facism supports a single party state
had a contempt for the weak


fascism is frankly incredibly hard to pin down on the traditonal left right narrative because it combines elements of both extremes.
None of what you have mentioned, with the exception of 'condemnation of homosexuality' (which could be a facet of 'social conservatism'), are traditional right-wing policies. In fact, a few of them aren't even policies, they are just thought processes and entirely subjective.

Even looking towards the SNP, or Podemos, or Syriza, all are far-left parties (at least culturally, The SNP are probably centrist in terms of economic policy), all are 'nationalist'. There are many parties and leaders on the far-left who support militarism, i.e. Stalin and The Soviet Union.

All of the policies I've highlighted are almost exclusively left-wing. Yet, this doesn't even matter - do you know what really, really annoys me? Take a look at how the left-wing controls the narrative:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

That's the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'fascism.' To many it's a small thing, to me it's everything. It demonstrates that right at the very core of society there's a prevailing logic that the worst outcomes belong to the right-wing, when, in reality, it's anything but - the majority of fascistic policies are modern policies of progressive or left-wing governments.

It's the basis for referring to everything and everything 'bad' as 'right-wing' yet, in reality, the right has next to no association to it, particularly at the policy level.

It's particularly evident on the BBC, where 'far-right' is a euphemism for everything orientated around individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism. Incredibly, they even label parties like the National Front - proponents of economic protectionism and nationalisation of industry - 'far-right.'

Why? Because they oppose mass immigration. Yet, so have hundreds of traditionally left-wing parties. This one definition, to me, controls the political narrative and the conceptualisation of what people perceive to be 'moral.'
1
reply
garfeeled
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
None of what you have mentioned, with the exception of 'condemnation of homosexuality' (which could be a facet of 'social conservatism'), are traditional right-wing policies. In fact, a few of them aren't even policies, they are just thought processes and entirely subjective.

Even looking towards the SNP, or Podemos, or Syriza, all are far-left parties (at least culturally, The SNP are probably centrist in terms of economic policy), all are 'nationalist'. There are many parties and leaders on the far-left who support militarism, i.e. Stalin and The Soviet Union.

All of the policies I've highlighted are almost exclusively left-wing. Yet, this doesn't even matter - do you know what really, really annoys me? Take a look at how the left-wing controls the narrative:

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

That's the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'fascism.' To many it's a small thing, to me it's everything. It demonstrates that right at the very core of society there's a prevailing logic that the worst outcomes belong to the right-wing, when, in reality, it's anything but - the majority of fascistic policies are modern policies of progressive or left-wing governments.

It's the basis for referring to everything and everything 'bad' as 'right-wing' yet, in reality, the right has next to no association to it, particularly at the policy level.

It's particularly evident on the BBC, where 'far-right' is a euphemism for everything orientated around individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism. Incredibly, they even label parties like the National Front - proponents of economic protectionism and nationalisation of industry - 'far-right.'

Why? Because they oppose mass immigration. Yet, so have hundreds of traditionally left-wing parties. This one definition, to me, controls the political narrative and the conceptualisation of what people perceive to be 'moral.'
Firstly I was comparing facism with Crobyn not fascism with left wing in general.

But to compare left wing and fascism as well as fascism and right wing it's quite obvious that fascism is a blend of the two.

For example gender roles. Right wing traditionally views social inequality as inevitable or desirable while left wing traditionally tries to reduce it or completely remove it.

Fascism supports the right to private property something that the far left does not.

Fascism is socially Darwinian, the left generally is not

Fascism is anti communist and ain't socialist. Criticising it for its egalitarianism

"Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism..."
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by garfeeled)
Firstly I was comparing facism with Crobyn not fascism with left wing in general.

But to compare left wing and fascism as well as fascism and right wing it's quite obvious that fascism is a blend of the two.

For example gender roles. Right wing traditionally views social inequality as inevitable or desirable while left wing traditionally tries to reduce it or completely remove it.

Fascism supports the right to private property something that the far left does not.

Fascism is socially Darwinian, the left generally is not

Fascism is anti communist and ain't socialist. Criticising it for its egalitarianism

"Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism..."
I think you've missed the more obvious one, fascism - and Stalinism for that matter - were both ruthlessly opposed to individual liberty and laissez faire capitalism, much like the modern left. That, and every left-wing movement in existence has always orientated around change (like fascism, which sought to introduce a new world order), whereas conservatism has always been far more concerned with preserving the status quo.

Anyway, for argument's sake let's ignore semantics (I could present a great deal in challenge to your arguments - starting at the most obvious point i.e., why does no-one ever refer to the Nazi Party by its full name? - but I will forego): how is it fair the Oxford Dictionary universally categorises fascism and Nazism as 'right-wing'? When, as all the evidence above demonstrates, it can't be described as 'right-wing'?

For me, this is central to the universally held conception that left invariably means 'good' and right invariably means 'bad', or individual liberty means 'bad, collectivism (group think) means 'good.' This, for me, is the central construct from which all 'bad' in society is defined (relative to its worst possible outcome); the term 'fascism' has been *******ised beyond all recognition - largely by left-wing academics, who predominate in the HE sector - to be conflated with 'right wing', despite all examples to the contrary.

This definition should be removed from the Oxford Dictionary. It's downright offensive and, more importantly (feelings are irrelevant), factually incorrect.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (287)
55.73%
I don't have everything I need (228)
44.27%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed