Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.0K

Hitler was fucking wrong about a lot of things. He lost the war, which demonstrates that he wasn't right about everything. His leadership lead to the largest slaughter of Germans in world history. He adopted the Nazi movement, he co-opted it. He became the face of it, and ultimately, that worked against the German people.

Even if he had the right enemies, his errors exceeded his accuracy.

The world of his victory likely would have been no better than Stalin's empire. I am not sure that there was going to be any good outcome from WW2, no matter who won.

Hitler was fucking wrong about a lot of things. He lost the war, which demonstrates that he wasn't right about everything. His leadership lead to the largest slaughter of Germans in world history. He adopted the Nazi movement, he co-opted it. He became the face of it, and ultimately, that worked against the German people. Even if he had the right enemies, his errors exceeded his accuracy. The world of his victory likely would have been no better than Stalin's empire. I am not sure that there was going to be any good outcome from WW2, no matter who won.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 0 pt

You're reacting to my statement as though it injured you. If you don't worship Hitler, what do you find objectionable about what I said?

[–] • 1 pt

Partly I was just making a joke about triggered smokers that was too dry to land. But since you're asking, I do find vague, passive aggressive whineposting to be kind of objectionable. This isn't reddit, you can argue with people directly here.

[–] • 0 pt

Fair enough.

Sorry the smoking thing didn't work out.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

If you don't worship Hitler, what do you find objectionable about what I said?

The fact that someone would assume the only basis for objection stemmed from idol worship is the mark of an idolator.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume the failure of hitler is casually connected to any lack of merit in the idealogy thereof.

Put the national socialists and the soviet bolsheviks at odds. Did the soviets succeed because their ruling policies were superior to the national socialists? Can you say the conclusion follows for sure? What about the contrapositive, that the national socialists failed because their policies and ideologies were inferior to their enemies?

but then we assume the outcomes were not set from the outset based on the resources, manpower, technology, geographic positioning, and blind luck, on all sides involved.

If as your argument implies, hitler and national socialism was awful, therefore it failed, what can we say of stalin and maos communism beating hitler and going on to kill 80 million+ people? Does that not prove your argument that the worse something is, the more successful it is. No? Then the jewish bolsheviks succeeded, without being worse than hitler. Otherwise, they succeeded by blind luck or circumstance, while hitler was perhaps all the more deserving of success. Your argument implies one or the other: attack judaism as butchers and worse than hitler, or admit military success is not contingent on moral and political merit or lack thereof.

What a terrible and foolish game you play. Whichever option you choose, you lose.

I guess that means you're awful. Just like hitler. lol.