11
Stephen Fry released a statement: "Elon Musk is not a Nazi. Nazis make really good cars."
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
What's great about this, and Stephen Fry is brilliant, is not that he's absolving Musk, or that he's criticizing Tesla, but that it is an argument likely leading to Elon Musk protesting,
'No, my cars are good enough that I can be a Nazi!'
Hur hur. I'd wish people would stop assigning hyper-competence to Nazis. They never were. Hitler was a drug addict and the trains didn't run on time.
Exactly this. My grandmother lived under the Nazis and she said they were fucking idiots. Exactly the same type of incompetent blowhards. The whole hyper scientific ubermensch BS in the cultural zeitgeist is so frustrating. I blame all the WWII video games and movies that played up the myth to have more interesting villains than the sleazy shit stains that they actually were.
The strength of the Germans was that I.) they had a really good industrial base, and ii.) the traditions within the army meant they had extremely well trained soldiers. Both of these predate nazi-rule. For instance, Germans also arguably had the best (equipped) army in WW1.
Not entirely. You should read the scathing after action reports from Wehrmacht generals who lead the Polish campaign. Basically, they wanted to postpone all offensive operation for at least 3 years because of the high armor losses and correct the deficiencies. The fucktard, Hitler, sent his best generals to desk jobs and replaced them with yes people to continue the war. This is what Bush did during the build up against Iraq and Afghanistan and exactly what Orange Nero wants to do too.
And drugs.
It's hard to convince people that they've been had by a bunch of morons.
This is why the left can't have nice things.
Like this isn't the point here. You don't need to be pointing out this stuff. Just dog pile
Minor clarifications aren't the end of the world. The left is fine. Stop being sensitive
A small country took on the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD (TWICE) and very nearly won. The second time with a lunatic at the helm.
What does it take to impress you? To what would you assign their disturbing success?
Um it did not take the entire world, for a lot of their early success most of the fighting was against countries that were unprepared and devastated after ww1.
At no point were the Nazis close to winning. After the Soviets won the battle of Stalingrad in 1943 the Nazis were on full retreat until Berlin got captured.
Even leading up to up 1943, Germany had its oil nearly cut off. They became dependent on Romania for their supply. This may sound like a cartoon, but Nazis were dragging their tanks to the frontline using horses.
Germany simply did not have the industrial or logistic capacity to win WW2 at any point. The Nazis had already ransacked the German economy through privatization reforms and selling off anything that wasn't nailed down. Invading Poland incurred a bunch of sanctions and embargos that resulted in Germany's only primary oil trade coming from uhhh..the Soviet Union, so the Nazis had the brilliant idea of declaring war on their main source of gasoline.
Lmao "very nearly won" is when you start a war your logistical staff and planning department tell you you have no way of winning. But yeah it's really impressive how they could keep going just by the grit of their teeth and millions of slaves worked to death.
You've been fooled by nazi propaganda lol.
Material support from the Western ruling class who wanted Hitler to destroy communism for them.
This, the biggest mistake Germany made was interfering with dominant western European capital (i.e. the US, UK, and France). If they had just devoured the eastern European countries and fought Russia then capital would not have batted an eye.
Nazis took on world in one war, and lost.
"WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! THE PUREST OF THE PURE! STRONGEST OF THE STRONG!"
[Fights one (1) war]
"Guess we'll shoot ourselves in a bunker and lose in a big lopsided defeat."
Not even close dumb fuck and fucking Nazis betrayed the German people with their bullshit.
Meth chocolate, fascism, and taking on armies using WWI tech and tactics
It can't be discounted the amount of luck they had early on, as well.
I guess they were a bit better than France when it came to how to use tanks and the whole "allowing leaders on the ground to take the initiative" but that's about it.
Yup, biggest thing is that their attack, though expected by quite a few powers, came out of left field and add in the rushing forward on armies still using cavalry units and the early massive land grab via Germany makes sense
At no point did they "nearly win" against the world. In World War 1 they made desperate attempts to break out of trench warfare because the blockade was obliterating their wartime economy. In World War 2 they were cooked the second they invaded the USSR and the USA landed in the UK. Those were unwinnable areas for them. Even if they eventually managed to wear down the British, the Americans were right behind them manufacturing 100 tanks a day and 15 Aircraft Carriers in 1943 alone. Which means all of those tanks are getting to the European theater.
And once the USSR got it's production under way the Germans were on the defensive all the way back to Berlin.
What is this, the Übermensch Expanded Universe? Maybe actually learn history.
Do Japan and Italy just not count as part of the world? I mean Japan took over half of Asia and the Pasific while Italy took the Mediterranean countries. Germany took over part of northern Europe and helped a bit of North Africa.
I have to ask: What success? They did typical fascist bullshit: They had an economy so bad they had to invade new countries just to loot them to pay for their horrific economy. They picked fight after fight of the smallest kids in the neighbourhood they could find until they met those kids big brothers and sisters. They required fucking slave labour to try to meet their wartime goals because they grossly underestimated just about every single facet of running a country. They privatized state-owned industries, crippling longterm wealth for their people, they instituted tariffs (sound familiar?). Pay remained as bad as they it had been in the depression because while their wages were raised, they were forced to constantly work overtime for no additional pay. Their military was the majority of their economic spending, and they used deficit spending because they were going to literally plunder the countries around them to pay for it. Sound like solid long-term planning? They killed or jailed anyone in the trade unions, and due to their insane tariffs and you know, generally being the worst people in history, lacked incoming trade so things like poultry or clothing was in short supply for the average person.
Then it took thirty five days for the Nazi German army, along with the Serbian and Soviet armies, to conquer Poland. For every success in the early war they had embarrassing fumbles. They lost entirely because of how fascists work: they need to invade more countries to pay for their insane military spending, make bigger and bigger enemies, then get beat by those enemies, then later people claim they 'could have if...'
Yeah, they could have done just fine if they hadn't been fascist. All of their failings fall to being fascist.
And the first world war, are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting their insistence on investing in overseas colonies while fighting against the British was a brilliant plan? In both wars they were led by colossal morons who constantly underestimated their opponents, while in the second world war in particular having the worst spy agency of any nation. Their insistence on torturing, raping, and murdering everyone they came into contact with meant they just got the answers they wanted to hear, instead of the actual truth, and were constantly on the back foot. Their evil, cruel, and twisted nature was their own downfall; the insistence of their superiority, as you are doing now, is the very reason they failed.
What point are you trying to make here @Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com?
I was arguing that there was a terrible war, and the enemy was dangerous and capable. Many of our and other country's soldiers died to destroy them, and it wasn't easy.
They weren't "Colonel Klink" from "Hogan's Heroes", they were efficient at killing, rounding up and killing millions while fighting on a number of fronts.
My grandfather fought in World war I, and my uncles fought in World war II. From what I heard the Germans were not incompetent bumbling idiots. They were a very competent and difficult enemy.
I don't know what history everybody's been reading, but there sure as heck are some major changes to history interpretation that have taken place in the last 40-50 years. Probably peer-to-peer instruction, rather than accounts from those who endured it
Ok fair enough, I accept the explanation you provided. Folks are taking issue with the following comment in particular.
In isolation, this sounds a little too close to admiration for the Nazis, which is why we got some reports about it. It seems to me it's just unfortunate phrasing, because together with the explanation you just provided, it sounds like a reasonable take for you not to want to paint them like some hapless foe that was easily defeated, because that discounts the difficulties faced by those who fought the bastards.
I wanted to clarify, but there were so many comments coming in, I didn't see how I could do it effectively. And not seem like I was what some people thought I was
I know, it's difficult when people pile on with bad faith takes. Anyway don't worry, I think it's clear what you meant now.
Germany was always the second strongest imperial power in Europe behind Britain from 1871 onwards, and without the English channel that would be debatable.
The Nazis' initial success in WW2 is entirely dependent on France falling apart the second they were invaded and the Reich getting to loot the entirety of it and the low countries to keep their economy alive. Had France put up even token resistance Germany would have imploded within a few months and the European half of the war would've been a minor footnote in the history books next to Japan invading all of Asia.
That's just ignoring history. There are plenty of good reasons to hate the Nazis without needing to do that.
In the similar way, it's not necessary to dismiss Soviet Union's early modernization successes in order to blame them for their crimes against humanity.
Dismiss what? Fascism is catabolic. They can't build anything. They can only loot until they run out of weak neighbors.
The projections of hyper competence and secret knowledge are part of their branding.
Stop being a fascist apologist.
Honestly, this shit needs to stop. Acknowledging that some fascists have been good at something at some point does not detract in any way from being anti-fascist.
If you claim that fascist are dumb, stupid and can achieve nothing, what do you think the masses will think about your message when the fascists turn out to be competent? They will wonder what other things you are wrong about.
So I say to you: stop being a fascist enabler.
I seem to have struck a nerve. I wonder why this bothers you so much?
Fascists are great at: bullshitting, terrorizing and thieving. Fascism is catabolic. It is organized crime with the aesthetic of a political movement.
Obviously that's not the image they present to population of the regions they take. But you knew what I was claiming they are incompetent at.