Why is Communism such hot shit here...

I'm not here to shitpost. I believe what I've been taught, and what I've seen to happen. Can you please correct me?

If you want sources for my claims, I can give you a couple off the top of my head.

Medical leaps were made, lots (if not most) of what we know about Hypothermia came from (albeit unethical) experiments performed in Nazi Germany. I don't have any direct links right now, but it's trivial to look up.
This is in addition to engineering marvels, such as the Schwerer Gustav, a massive 1,300 ton railgun capable of firing 80 centimeter explosive rounds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav
See the Holodomor and the Soviet famine of 1932-33.
Name one socialist or communist nation that has thrived economically.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1222764.stm
info.gov.hk/gia/general/201201/12/P201201120303.htm
hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr_2015_statistical_annex.pdf

...

wut?

See Deustch Phsyik, World Ice Theory, the German Nuclear programme, lost generation etc., etc. Almost all 'medical' experiments were worthless and not properly recorded. A majority of the 'advanced' weaponry was outdone by its rivals or simply didn't function

Do you have any real countries?

But at the time, what advancements did Socialist nations make? Germany may not have been perfect, but it made more advancements than the USSR at the time. Space flight didn't kick off until the mid 50s and 60s, well after the fall of the Third Reich.
This isn't even about Germany, this is about capitalism and socialism. While Germany may have failed, other capitalist nations *did* make advancements, while socialist ones made relatively few.

If I recall correctly, didn't America, i.e., a right-wing capitalist nation, produce and use the first nuclear arms?

Kek.

WEW LAD

You're only focusing on the good things of capitalist/right-wing systems while ignoring all the terrible shit they cause while only focusing on the bad things left-wing countries (assuming they are) cause. Sad!

nazis got all that walstreet industrialist moneys

also note how technology has advanced so much yet we keep working as much (and more) as we did 100 years ago, very curious

Then can you give me some examples of communist countries prospering equivalently to capitalist ones? I can't think of a single one. "Muh healthcare" isn't communism and you know it, and that's about the extent most western countries are "socialist".
Why has every single truly socialist (or aspiring-socialist) nation resulted in the death of up to millions (see Venezuela, China, USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, etc), and relatively few capitalist nations have come even close?

My measure for how good a system is is how much it produces balanced with quality of life for citizens. America and other western nations are responsible for nearly every technological improvement of the last century. The motorcar, the computer, the internet, the airplane, modern medicine, etc. And these nations have objectively better standards of living than socialist ones. Would you rather be an average citizen in 60s America, or Russia? Or Vietnam? Or Laos?

Communism has killed far more people through starvation than Capitalism has. Again, would you rather live in America or Laos?

What "terrible shit" do governments do today that are comparable to the atrocities that occurred in socialist nations?

Fuck off already.

Are you dense? Capitalism has starved hundreds of millions of people, especially in China, India, Russia and Africa

I'd love to see a source friend.

who cares?

I have composed a list of posts made by people far too dull to compose any semblance of an argument. Enjoy.

Hey they might kill you and kidnap your families but at least you get some fancy new gadgets to buy with your slavebucks *oink oink*

T - 3 4
-
3
4

Capitalism doesn't have gulags, unlike like every communist nation yet.
If you're saying that happens in Capitalism as well as Communism, sure. There's literally no system that will be free from corruption, it goes against human nature. But Communism has a far worse history of political imprisonments and political murders.

Lmao sure buddy

The difference is, now Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations. Unlike Russia.

I wonder where all those Jews and commies went in OP's fascist wet dreams

oh so a leader is a success if long after he dies the country gets better? Lmao I thought your premise was that right-wing governments are better than communism but now it's fine if they 'have the same problems'. Try harder moron

Those wouldn't really be gulags: more private government zoos, really.

To concentration camps. Nazi Germany is the only example of a gulag-like system in a right-wing nation I can think of. What's your point?

I didn't say that. I said Chile recovered from those problems, communist nations haven't.

...

Gulags are bad but if they're committing dirty wars or outright death squads on political dissidents like in Chile or El Salvador then who really cares I'm only picking and choosing to care about people

That's exactly what you said dipshit. My point is that it's pretty fucking stupid to equate a country's success to a guy who's dead. Pinochet ruled = country was shit. Pinochet dies = country recovers. Gee I wonder if there's a link??????!

Why don't you read my entire post, instead of the first line? Here's what you missed:
In case you need me to spell it out for you, the implication of the post is not "They had the same problems, so it's ok that we did too", the implication is "They had the same problems, but we've recovered."

we'll by that logic you would have to praise Mao zedong. His people may have suffered at times but the Great Leap Forward led China to now become one of the most prosperous nation on earth. So prosperous that they've now totally cucked the USA trade wise. Oh wait when a communist leader improves his country after he dies the bad conditions are unacceptable right?

It's less that you need to take an economics class, and more that you need a class on causality.

The capitalist center of the world currently has the largest prison population to ever exist, which fuels a barely disguised slave labor industry so large that some consumer goods are made 90% or more through their labor alone. Your entire argument essentially boils down to "it's only bad when you use spooky russian words to describe it".

China is still a shithole.
Trade is not the sole condition for prosperity of a country. Over a hundred million people in China earn less than a dollar a day, and just twenty years ago it was substantially more. China is not exactly a shining example of the merits of Communism. Nearly every western (i.e. Capitalist) nation on earth has a higher HDI than China.

But wait a second there, friendo. The Great Leap Forward accomplished nothing. It was a big fumble.

China's economy didn't start to kick off until they started incorporating capitalism.

We also have uncontrolled gang violence and drug abuse. As much as I think drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, it's still a crime. You don't see political dissidents being shut away or murdered like you see in Communist countries.
I don't buy into this whole "hurr prisons are literal slavery" meme.

Well, germany would have defeated the allies
Attacking the soviet union was just a terrible idea

...

Better artillery and Fanta. Yay. At least tankies gave us satellites and Tetris.
Also, the Nazis were literally anti-reality: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

They weren't. The USSR sucked, but facts are facts.

Capitalist nations fail on a regular basis, they simply rebuild at citizens' expense. M-L and Mautism lack this convenience, for better or for worse.

Chile became stable and prosperous after the social democrats took over. The Chicago school experiment was a bigger failure than even most tankie economies, Pinochet reneged on his free market policies within less than two years.
It also nicely demonstrated that most "libertarians" are just baffled monarchists and stripped them of the right to complain about left wing authoritarianism.

Maoists are retarded. Right communists in general were driven by personality cults, not theory or praxis. Capitalism is necessary to develop the material conditions for socialism.

These nations are simply sovereign tax havens that exploit the brutal slave conditions of other nations.

Your own premise is that it doesn't matter if things didn't improve or in fact actively got worse as long as things got better afterwards. Either both Pinochet and Mao are responsible for their countries' success after their death or neither of them are.

Technically true that it's not literally slavery: you usually get a half dollar an hour in pay out of it. So as CLOSE to literal slavery as you can get without quite being literally slavery, but not, in fact, literally slavery.

They would have never managed a successful sealion and eventually you'd end up with tactical nukes crippling their response to american backed D-day (there's no way roosevelt wouldn't have brought the USA into the war.)

youtube.com/watch?v=yiaqgFDwOjs
US prisons are well accepted to be essentially slave labor to every person in the modern, civilized world INCLUDING other capitalist countries. It just so happens that burgers are the most classcucked people to ever exist and will cling to any argument for why their slave labor, and their extrajudicial murders, and their starvation, and their secret police, and their foreign interventions, and their torture camps are totally different

All of the things people got sent to gulags for were "still a crime" by definition. So either you admit the state is not a proper arbitrator of morality or say that gulags weren't all that bad since they were "technically legal" or whatever other liberal excuse you use. Seriously, what kind of cuck justifies "drug abuse" as a reason people need to be locked up indefinitely in glorified a slave labor system?

Not having to prepare for barbarossa would have allowed them to extend their Navy and Airforce
And someone more competent than Göring in charge of the Luftwaffe would have also helped

To be perfectly honest they probably would have tossed a good chunk of any freed up resources into expanding their extermination of undesirables.

Can you give me some examples of Capitalist nations that have failed as consistently and catastrophically as Communist nations?

That wasn't me. And as I said in , China is still not a "success". Chile under Pinochet was not a "success" - note how I said "after Augusto Pinochet's rule" - and Communist China is not now, nor has been, a "success". I don't consider over 100,000,000 living on less than a dollar a day a "success", and you don't see that happening in many western (i.e. Capitalist) nations.

USSR, china, and other ML states are not the only models for socialism. they're relatively idiotic ideas of how to implement socialism, the term "social democracy at gunpoint" has been used.
By the argument that socialism is the worst system because USSR, I co uld say socialism is obviously the best system because norway/other prosperous, happy socdem states.
Both arguments are wrong though.

I'm not even the guy you're arguing with but I'm going to advise you against this line of questioning, since literally every failed state to exist except for the relatively small handful of communist ones would be an example and that is a really, really dumb track to go down. Statistics just won't be on your side here

Is a dollar a day and fed worse or better than a hundred times that and hungry?

I'm a different guy, and I'm saying that citing the Great Leap Forward as anything but a massive blunder is ludicrous.

There is such a thing as acceptable casualties, and inevitable suffering, but you can also go above and beyond on both of those fronts.

Maybe I should have expressed what I was trying to say differently.
I don't think people should go to prison for drug abuse, I don't think "it's still illegal" is an excuse. It also should not have happened in the USSR, etc.

Except for people on the right wing. People believing prisons are slavery doesn't mean prisons are slavery.

It also just so happens that you will see this exact same behavior in literally every extremely powerful nation on Earth. It happens in the US. The UK. Russia. China. India. I'm not saying "they do it so it's ok we do it too", but it's not a partisan issue. "Slave labor", extrajudicial murders, starvation, secret police, foreign interventions, and torture camps will happen in any sufficiently powerful country regardless of economic system because that country wishes to stay in power and has the ability to do so.

Sorry then. Unfortunately when you're anonymously arguing on the internet you tend to get mixed up with people vaguely on the same side as you. In any case I'm not sure anyone actually has defended the great leap forward. It looks to me like it's ALL been in comparison to pinochet so if you're NOT defending pinochet then you should have no argument with "if pinochet good mao also good" because it implicitly states "if mao bad pinochet also bad."

I'm another different guy trying to keep this conversation as confusing as possible, and I'm just here to say that it's super dumb to judge an ideology based on post-industrial class systems on the revolutions of pre-industrial agrarian backwaters. Unfortunately this is always an unavoidable association, as it's fairly obvious that the kind of places more likely to have violent revolutions are the places with the worst material conditions for its people. Even more unfortunately for those revolutionaries, however, you can't just fully skip or rush through the whole capitalist stage no matter how badly you'd like things to work that way

So you should agree this isn't a particularly strong argument against communism then

Ignoring first of all that most "communist" nations were already either really poor or being actively undermined from day one

Zimbabwe
Somalia
Nazi Germany
The United States, which can't even give its citizens clean drinking water
Greece
Portugal
Italy
Spain
All the formerly "communist" eastern bloc nations that have since liberalized and completely failed to become "capitalist success stories"
And pretty much every other country as global capitalism continues into its 9th year of economic stagnation bordering on failure which hasn't been fixed, much less ameliorated, after printing and distributing trillions of dollars.

Almost. "People died and live in bad conditions :(" itself is a shitty argument. What I'm saying is that Capitalist nations have at least improved upon that, they produce positive things in addition to the negative. While Communist nations do produce good things as well, they produce good things at a far lower rate and produce the negative at a far higher rate.
Capitalism has some bad and some good, Communism has a lot of bad and a little good.

I was referring to this post

to whom I was initially replying, in which he said that the Great Leap Forward led to China's industrialization.

Lol, by your own definitions ever single fucking communist nation is a failed capitalist nation. This was a terrible counterpoint.

All of which are capitalist states

Gosh, isn't that weird?

wow i wonder who made this post lol

...

Again by my reading it's only taking the logic of pinochet being good and applying it to china. Pinochetanon didn't provide any link between any policies of pinochet and later success in chile, they just went "well history influences the future so they must have had SOMETHING to do with it." The great leap forward was in china's history. Later they had economic success. According to pinochetanon it must have had SOMETHING to do with it.

see

But I'm saying that the prison system in the US is incredibly corrupt and inhumane, and has one of the highest incarceration rates per capita of any nation to ever exist (and maybe even the highest, been a long time since i've checked on the numbers but it's truly outrageous). You only say there's an improvement because living today is better than living a hundred years ago, but that's just a fact of technological progress (which if you'll remember from the cold war isn't exactly unique to one system over the other).

Capitalism has some bad and some good, Communism has a lot of bad and a little good.
Incredibly tenuous and qualitative point. In order to grant you this you'd have to demonstrate that, in relative terms, the improvements made under capitalism are greater than the improvements made under communism (which of course if you're making an honest comparison includes the factor that communist revolutions happen by definition where things are shittier to begin with)

Really poor and somehow capitalism has managed to leave them even fucking worse

yeah that post was made after most of those posts the retard quoted LOL

I wouldn't say Nazi Germany is really a fair one. With them being far more on the Conservative Socialist side of Capitalism, and being destroyed from outside forces before their economic policies had been in place long enough for their long term sustainability to be determined.

Also, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and others on your list are hardly stories of catastrophic failures of capitalism. Sure, things haven't always been the best for them, but they still have enough of an economy to exis as an entity, which is more than can be said for most of the entries on Communism's list of failures.

They really weren't and it really was already determined. They actively murdered the left wing of their own party and privatized everything, and they largely relied on plundering the economies of conquered states which is by definition not sustainable.

And again, you also have to look at crime rates. While 17.5% of the prison population is from drug-related offenses (I don't know if they're solely drug related or in addition to other crimes), which I think is pretty crappy. But after that, you have robbery and murder (at 13.5% and 12% respectively), which make up more than drug offenses. I don't think you can really argue people shouldn't be going to prison for violent felonies such as murder, and I hardly think it constitutes slavery.

There being so much crime suggests something fundamentally wrong with the society in question.

"I don't have an argument to what you actually said, so I'm just going to argue something else!" the post

Move on folks

You said the inclusion of nazi germany wasn't fair for x reasons, i posted my disagreement with x reasons with the implication that therefore the inclusion of nazi germany is fair. Very much an argument to what you actually said.

I agree. I think America is pretty retarded socially. We have massive amounts of gang violence, we border an incredibly violent country with little protection on our border, and we're one of the most populous nations on earth. You don't see these problems in other mostly-capitalist countries, like in Europe. It's a social issue, not an economic one.

scoff
They were "destroyed from outside" directly because of their economic policies.

Italy is currently teetering on the brink of a banking crisis that threatens to drag the entire Eurozone and possibly the entire global economy down with it. Greece is being ruined and its people enslaved as a direct result of capitalism and the designs of capitalists. In many places of Spain the unemployment rate is 50% or higher and millions of people have been evicted from their homes while their king shoots lions in Africa.

Japan has been suffering under economic stagnation for nearly three decades now and South Korea too is starting to feel the effects of neutral economic growth where 60%+ of their elderly population live in poverty while also suffering the highest rate of suicide in the country.

Despite three quarters of a century of rapid and dramatic economic advancement under the "socialists," liberal Russia has only declined economically and socially, and kept only barely afloat by their petrochemical industry.

The only reason the US et al aren't on fire right now is because their currency is literally the only way a country can buy petroleum, and even that is only just keeping their necks above water.

Capitalism is a shell game that produces the illusion of the possibility of wealth, and much like a shell game its the ones running it that profit at the expense of the needy and desperate.

No, I don't. The "crime rate" is literally just a measure of the number of things that happen that the state disallows. If a country banned jerking off the "crime rate" would be much fucking higher, doesn't mean there's anything worth stamping out.

Yes, you do. After drug abuse, which I agree is wrong, the crimes that contribute most to prison population are murder and robbery. Nearly 50% of the prison population is from people who commit violent crimes, mostly gang members. Are you really saying that murder and robbery being criminalized is akin to criminalizing jerking off and "not worth stamping out"?

This completely disregards the massive economic turn around that happened before the conquests.

The only notable Nazi technology was useless experiments and overengineered weaponry that failed and was surpassed by the simple yet reliable designs of the Red Army. So much for complicated mechanics.

I can guarantee you Soviet citizens starved much worse during the Nazi invasion of Russia than the "Holodomor"" Even when the policy of grain acquisition contributed to the 1933 famine, farmers only started perishing en masse once drought struck. The failure was mostly the result of provincial Ukrainian party members trying to fill pre-drought grain quotas even as grain production declined, causing many to starve.

Except most of them didn't, even under massive pressure from capitalist powers. The Soviet Union and People's Republic of China were some of the most successful economic experiments of all time. Cuba was sanctioned and embargoed during 60 years and yet it's one of the most developed countries in Latin America. The Soviet Union collapsed only after they implemented free market reforms that crashed the economy for over a decade, and the magic of capitalism was nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile Hitler took Germany, a fully industrialized, developed country and left it in ruins.

Pinochet destroyed the Chilean economy with retarded neoliberal reforms pushed by Friedman and his boys. Chile's growth during his rule was the slowest of any south American country. The economic recovery happened years later when Pinochet was no longer in power, it had nothing to do with him.

"Failed to gain prosperity", have you even read Mao's achievements? He doubled the life expectancy of a country in a decade, something no other political figure has done in history. Industrial output grew at an annual rate of 10%. Literacy rate jumped from 15% to 90%, population grew from 500 million to 900 million.

I suppose you've never read about the massive inequality in HK, literally the only people enjoying that high standard of living are the super rich. Your laissez faire paradise is no more than a giant firm.

Kill yourself you stupid shill.

According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses alone. Violent crimes are the second highest indeed, but still lower. The fact that you could literally cut the federal prison population in half by removing drug charges doesn't alarm you?

And that's of course ignoring more egregious imprisonment like guantanamo, and some shady domestic loopholes that have brought back virtual debtors prisons for some areas

In federal prisons, yes. In state prisons, no.
If you look at state and federal prisons, violent offenses make up 47.7%, while drug offenses make up 20.5%.
If you look at state prisons alone, violent offenses make up 53.8% and drug offenses only 16%.
This makes for a net of almost 48% of prisoners in for violent offenses, and only 20% for drugs.
felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

You mean a puppet for the CIA who singlehandedly fucked over Chile's economy?

In regards to the economy

1/2

2/2

Yep, and if you let out every single non-violent drug charge in the country you'd thus drop the prison population by "only" 15%. If you want real parity with the rest of the world you'll need to look at things like sentencing and actually fucking fixing the fucked up parts of your society. But now we're not really discussing communism/socialism vs capitalism, we're in a whole new ball game of morality and structuring society even beyond economic systems.

I agree that would be a good thing. But are those 15% non-violent? The page I was looking at didn't seem to make a distinction between non-violent and violent drug charges. I doubt 16% of the prison population is there for smoking a joint or taking a hit of acid.

Oh thanks, all we need to do is just fix the problems. That makes it so simple! Why did nobody think to just "fucking fix the fucked up parts of society"?
Oh, that's what people have been trying to do. But maybe it turns out it's not as easy as just "fucking fixing the fucked up parts".

Non-argument.

Oh, honey, economic policies are different from foreign policies.

Your examples provide no unheard of horrors or abnormal atrocities. Those economies have suffered, but nothing that can't be recovered from.

Not unlike every yet to be seen example of Communism or Socialism.

You're free to show me otherwise, but I distinctly remember the stats I checked saying that those 15% were specifically those where drug crimes were their highest offense

Pithy, but this was meant as a concession to your earlier point that "it's not an economic thing" and to potentially share in the agreement that one way or another it isn't necessarily an indictment on the economic system under which it occurs. If you want to toss aside this olive branch I'm happy to come back to my insistence that a higher per-capita incarceration rate is still a worse number, and that if the ills of society are entirely the fault of the economic system of that society then it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that worse results = worse system.

Foreign policies and economic policies are quite tied actually.

I'm really curious, what do you understandby abnormal? Miserable people are acceptable when it happens in a certain way?

Ah yes so i better forget about all those global financial crisis' that should happen

Only to fall back into chaos, cause giant gaps between the rich and the poor and leave people unemployed and in poverty.

WRONG

If anything workers co-ops are more productive and effective than private companies.

In anarchist spain, production improved, living standards improved, and life overall was better than it once was under capitalism. And that was all done under economic blockades placed on Spain.

Watching OP make straight out fallacious claims, acting smug and calling out people when no one bothers correcting him and finally ignore the posts that do take the time to correct his revisionism is quite amusing.

Good thread OP!

HOLY FUCKING KEK, look up "German Physics" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
They literally abandoned the scientific method in favour of retarded identity politics (Einstein was a jew, so all his scientific discoveries are bullshit!!!).
This was one of the main reasons that hindered the german nuclear programm.
The reason why their technological development was still advancing in other nonrelativistic and nonquantummechanical fields, was because they still had the world class scientific institutions that were set up during the second Reich and all the educated scientists (except of course the jewish ones and the ones who didn't want to suck Hitlers dick).
Fascism is death for the free spirit (wihch science needs to flourish) and fascist supporters are the ultimate cucks.
Also see

Alright, I was just asking for clarification.

Again, it's just an American thing. Other European countries don't have the same incarceration rate, and I remember reading that excluding gang crime (and drug charges, but we both agree on that) America is comparable to other European countries in terms of violent crime. Which leads me to believe it's a social issue, not an economic one.

Wrong.
Wrong
And? Do you seriously think that voting is virtuous?
youtu.be/zqDo4TuDb6E
War.
For traitors and dissidents.
Of subversive material that would hinder the nation, like those bad Marxist ideas that brought the German arms industry to its knees in WW1.
You say that as if it's something bad. What is your argument against genocide? Death is perfectly natural, and killing is perfectly natural - every organism is capable of both, even bacterial strains.

Subversive material like Einstein's ideas, Gustav Mahler's music and Kafka's books?

Subversive stuff such as science made by Einstein?

Better not succumb to those Jewish tricks!

Did you not read his post?

And how would Einstein's theory of relativity hinder the nation? How would Mahler's music be any more decadent than Hitler's favourite Wagner, or Beethoven whose music was played on his very birthday? How can you justify this beyond "they were Jewish i.e.bad"?

Just because it was executed poorly in the past doesn't mean it can't be executed properly today. We don't need to follow every step the Nazis took exactly. was saying that burning "subversive material" in general is a good thing, not that we must burn only Einstein's ideas, Gustav Mahler's music, and Kafka's books because the Nazis did.

Not if the whole "democratic" system is in the hands of the capitalist ruling class, which doesn't give a fuck about the wellbeing of the poor worker and still exists under fascism. Under fascism the bourgeosie have simply tricked the working class into thinking that they give a fuck about them, because both share the same skincolour.
Yes and those "traitors" were everyone Hitler and his goons didn't like or didn't submit to the infallible will of the Führer. Also don't forget the millions of slavs and other people that were enslaved and murdered because they were deemed "subhuman" by the nazi rulers justified by pseudoscientific crackpot biology.

As Himmler said it during his infamous Posen speech (look it up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches):

"Don't read this subversive stuff prole!!! Remember: An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded".

You people always come up with the most nonsensical reasons to justify your amoral, antiscientific and completely irrational shitstain that you call an ideology.

TOPKEK, if you truely buy into this "Genocide is ok, the strong should purge the weak" mentality then why are you complaining about the "jewish conspiracy" of which you think it exists. Why not acknowledge the Jews "who managed to control the world and enslave the goyim with their ursury despite being only few in number" as the true masterrace and just submit to them because they have proven themselves as the surperior race. Why are you not happy that the black guy (the strong one) in this video youtube.com/watch?v=UFMsCnJh8jw beats up the white guy (the weak one)?

No, those traitors were everyone who risked the stability and unity of the nation. A wildly diverse nation is unstable, just look at America. Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Greece. Or…

Nobody, or at least very very few, was outright murdered, they were all put in concentration camps but poor conditions and overworking killed off some of them.
Or because they risked the stability of prosperity of the nation.
Racial inequality is not "pseudoscientific crackpot biology", it is a well accepted fact. Look at real scientific papers other than liberal media, and you will see that genetic differences pose huge gaps in intelligence, which in turn affects behavior, criminality, impulsiveness, etc. In other words, people of certain races are "inferior" for the stability of the nation than people of other races, and it's in the best interest of the nation that these people be removed.

The jews are crafty, I'll give them that. But we're able to see the jewish conspiracy and have, in the past, done something about it. And we can do something again.
>Why are you not happy that the black guy (the strong one) in this video youtube.com/watch?v=UFMsCnJh8jw beats up the white guy (the weak one)?
See what I said above. Black "societies" are inferior, just because they individually posses greater physical strength does not mean they are superior to whites. Look at any white nation, and compare it to any black nation and you will see the shocking, night-and-day difference. You do not because a civilized race by living in mud huts in the year 2017.

Sieg Heil!

Which was also a terrible idea
Spending ressources to kill a good chunk of your population while fighting a war is stupid

Everyone who does not submit to the totalitarian will of the government is obviously deemed a "risk to the stability" in a fascist nation.
Also the retarded nazi leaders were often the biggest hindrances when it came to achieving their own goals. Their stupid german-supremacist opinions led to aliennating many slavic nations who could have been won as allies if the nazis just were nicer to them.

There we go, historical denial of the holocaust and all the other massive slaughterings of the nazis for which there is tons of evidence. Yes keep on being a victim of your own confirmation bias.

I am not denying the fact that people are born with different genetics and talents, those tumblr sjw liberals who believe that "everyone is totally equal" are also retarded, I was talking about the "le blue eyed, blond haired nordics are le masterrace and everyone else is inferior, look at these skull shapes" bullshit.

You didn't adress my argument at all, and btw the way you are "able to see the jewish conspiracy" is the same way people are able to see the illuminati conspiracy or the lizardmen conspiracy or the cemtrails conspiracy or the flat-earth conspiracy on so on…
You are all living examples of the Dunnning-Kruger effect: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect.

See what I said above. Germanic "societies" are inferior, just because they individually posses greater physical strength does not mean they are superior to Romans. Look at any Roman region, and compare it to any Germanic region and you will see the shocking, night-and-day difference. You do not because a civilized race by living in mud huts in the year 100 A.D.
t. Tacitus

not the guy you replied to, but

And who might that be, excactly. Everyone that doesn't agree with your specific way to run a nation? Also, if you say that Germany and Sweden are "unstable nations", point me to a country today in the world that is completely stable.

top kek. In Greece alone, 56.225 people were executed, 105.000 prisoners died in camps, 600.000 died from hunger and also count 300.000 deaths from birth deficit. Overall, counting other causes of death (resistance, bombardments ect), the death toll sums up to 1.106.922 people. In Greece alone, which back in 1940 had a population of 7.344.860 people.

But I'm sure that was just in Greece, in other countries the Nazis didn't do that shit.

so why invade their countries in the first place? Just to have more of them?

PINOCHET DID NOTHING WRONG

In a (national) socialist nation people who cant work or contribute to society are a drain on your resources.
Thats why socialists societies often kill the feeble and disabled etc.

except most of those are actually argument that prove OP wrong, just hastily and lazily done, but still…

you didn't think very far

do you know what a railgun is ? this was a RAILWAY gun, which is a lot less useful, actually it was an awesome waste of resources and not very impressive on a technological front (a bit more on the technical one, but its just a very big gun), but yeah, pretty pictures

still lost tho LMAO

Exactly. Any emerging country, especially a fascist one, needs to take extreme measures at the start to ensure it's existence, and eventually to ensure it's stability. This includes "oppressing" people who are deemed a risk to the stability of the nation, i.e., everyone who does not submit to the will of the government.
After the country is established and stabilized these measures can go down, of course, but some level of peace-keeping must continue.

Not an argument.
Telling me "it happened, you're wrong" does not constitute an argument.

You can believe "le blue eyed, blond haired nordics are le masterrace and everyone else is inferior, look at these skull shapes" is bullshit all you want, and I'm inclined to agree. Some of the pseudoscience of Nazi Germany is total bullshit, like the World Ice Theory. That doesn't change the fact that certain groups of people - i.e., blacks - risk the stability of the nation. A black has lower intelligence and more aggression, contributing much, much more to crime than whites. Which is obviously bad for the nation.
Even ignoring that, even if blacks and whites were somehow equal, it would be beneficial for the nation to ensure racial homogeneity. With wildly diverse nations come large problems between the races themselves, and with a single race the people feel more unified to their culture and country.
Which is, obviously, beneficial.