A perspective on Hitler's motivations

[Smitty-48]

For the PLA, they had enemies on both sides, the Americans were a peril, but so were the Soviets, because the Soviets were their mortal enemies as well, but they were dependent on the Soviets, so they needed to get off that Soviet train as fast as possible. which proved out, when the Soviets turned on them in 1968.

The GLF was a crash program, to gain some leverage on Moscow, luckily for Mao, the GLF included the hydrogen bombs, because as soon as he had one, the Soviets rounded on him.

In Mao's mind; 45 million expended downrange to gain leverage on the brink of nuclear war? Beats 450 million, nuclear war is a harsh realm.

I mean, kids these days, they think the Cold War was a big joke, 20-20 hindsight; no biggie, everyone was just bluffing, but in real time, they didn't think so, they were expecting ther breach, at any moment.

Mao was preparing to fight the Third World War, or at the very least, keep it at bay, and in Third World War terms, 45 million is a drop in the bucket.

[Smitty-48]

It was the same for America, just on a smaller scale, you can ask "how could they possibly think it was worth it to expend 60,000 killed, 300,000 wounded downrange into the jungles of Indochina"; but you have to look at it through the lens of the stakes they thought they were playing for, which was 60,000 killed, 300,000 wounded, in the first 60 seconds, come the breach.

Even limited option, contained to Europe, if the Soviets come across the trace, you lose more by the end of the first day, then you lose in the entire Vietnam War.

[GloryofGreece]

Why did the Soviets "turn" on the Chinese?

Could it be a better motivation to protect your way of life and civilization and argue that involves killing other people to protect it? Would all just be relativist thinking and rationalizing to you? Even when you compare Stalinist Russia with Constitutional United Kingdom or United States an so on?

[Smitty-48]

Why did the Soviets "turn" on the Chinese?

Ostensibly over a territorial dispute, but in reality, because Mao went off the reservation and put himself between the Soviets and the Americans, as a swing vote, which all played out to China's and America's interests, against the Soviet's interest, when Nixon went to China and won the Cold War for Chimerica.

Could it be a better motivation to protect your way of life and civilization and argue that involves killing other people to protect it? Would all just be relativist thinking and rationalizing to you? Even when you compare Stalinist Russia with Constitutional United Kingdom or United States an so on?

When it comes to World War Three, I deal in realpolitik, idealism is a dangerous thing, to say the least, on the brink of a nuclear war.

Your assumption that the humanitarian impulse and rational arbitrage would save you, is deeply flawed, particularly in the fog of war on the event horizon of World War Three, it's paradoxical, none the less, the Balance of Terror is what keeps the nuclear peace, if it was the Balance of Tennis, they would have called it that.

[GloryofGreece]

Why did the Soviets "turn" on the Chinese?

Ostensibly over a territorial dispute, but in reality, because Mao went off the reservation and put himself between the Soviets and the Americans, as a swing vote, which all played out to China's and America's interests, against the Soviet's interest, when Nixon went to China and won the Cold War for Chimerica.

Could it be a better motivation to protect your way of life and civilization and argue that involves killing other people to protect it? Would all just be relativist thinking and rationalizing to you? Even when you compare Stalinist Russia with Constitutional United Kingdom or United States an so on?

When it comes to World War Three, I deal in realpolitik, idealism is a dangerous thing, to say the least, on the brink of a nuclear war.

Your assumption that the humanitarian impulse and rational arbitrage would save you, is deeply flawed, particularly in the fog of war on the event horizon of World War Three, it's paradoxical, none the less, the Balance of Terror is what keeps the nuclear peace, if it was the Balance of Tennis, they would have called it that.

I'm just trying to figure out if you believe the "differences" between Britain, United States, and Russia or China to be fundamentally arbitrary as far as their crimes against humanity (if you will)?

[TheReal_ND]

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=Ck-TEamhLBk

[Smitty-48]

I'm just trying to figure out if you believe the "differences" between Britain, United States, and Russia or China to be fundamentally arbitrary as far as their crimes against humanity (if you will)?

Not arbitrary, but perhaps subjective, to the Nazis, the Jews and Slavs were as the Blacks and Indians were for America in the 19th century, all the Nazis really did, was bring 19th century rules into the 20th century, and then inflicted it on Europeans.

Whether or not that is more evil than what America did to counquer the West, depends on your point of view, but from the Nazis point of view, it was just doing as America did, and they said the only reason that America would oppose it, is because Americans had become a mongrel race who were under the influence of the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy.

[Smitty-48]

To the Nazis, the Jewish-Bolshevik Conspiracy was an existential threat, if they had had hydrogen bombs and it was all concentrated in one place, they would have nuked it right down to the wood as America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but since they didn't have hydrogen bombs and they asserted it to be in their midst, mixed in amongst them, when they came to the threshold of nuking it, they basically "nuked" it with Zyklon B.

All in the face of us "nuking" the Nazis to stop them, because by that point, they were backs against the wall facing total annihilation themselves, as we were by then, leveling their cities without quarter nor mercy, and the Soviets were not defeated, but rather coming off the mat with a vengeance.

The way they saw it, this Jewish International Financier conspiracy had taken control of America, Britain and France, and the Soviet Union was simply the next phase, a massive slavic horde pointed right at the heart of Germany, with intention to take Treaty of Versailles all the to total anihilation, so the Nazis basically went "nuclear option", before nukes were actually available to them.

Pay no mind to the fact that Britain, France and America, run by international finance, did in fact employ the Bolsheviks as a massive slavic horde to totally annihilate them in end; self fulfilling prophecy.

None the less, how the Second World War played out, is exactly what the Nazis feared was going to happen, so their whole plan was simply to try to preempt it, so they would at least have a chance against these overwhelming odds, and in the final judgement, Hitler basically said "we were too weak to stop it, so they got us, der krieg ist forlorn".

And you see, their whole Nietzchean doctrine, their ruthlessness, their brutality, their lack of remorse, they felt that to be a necessary evil, because they felt like without being the hardcore of the hardcore, they didn't stand a chance in the face of the overwhelming odds against them.

[TheReal_ND]

Zyklon B was used for delousing. That's why the heads were shaved before they were sent to the "gas chambers."

[Speaker to Animals]

Zyklon B was used for delousing. That's why the heads were shaved before they were sent to the "gas chambers."

Zyklon B is literally an admixture containing cyanide.