Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "Why I reject the ‘MADMAN HITLER’ myth" video.

  1. Can't. He needed oil and resources he didn't have. Due to autarky he wasn't able to buy it from other nation, and even if he did the UK blocked his transports anyway. Hitler had to invade the Soviet Union because if he didn't, he shouldn't have a chance to win against the UK due to the lack of fuel and raw materials.
    3
  2. Or it was born around the Nuremberg trials. It is very easy to blame a dead mad man who can’t defend himself. Then the idea was continued to circulate as you were not allowed to talk about their ideology. Calling him “mad” is the only answer you can reach when you are given BS reason for why he did what he did. Of it doesn’t make any sense, the story you have been told isn’t supposed to make sense. And only a mad man believes in it.
    3
  3. Do you want to know the ratio? It is 7.4k likes and 135 dislikes. What are you on about? Most people just do not like or dislike at all for most videos.
    2
  4. Only problem is that it isn't an excuse for what he is doing. He has no right to demand who countries like Ukraine, Finland and Sweden are allowed to be allied with.
    2
  5. If he was "thoroughly incompetent". How did he manage to take over a whole continent? He also gained the following awards: Iron Cross First Class Iron Cross Second Class Wound Badge Honor Cross 1914–1918 Bavarian Cross of Military Merit, Third Class with Swords Bavarian Medal of Military Service, Third Class Regimental Diploma (Regiment "List") You don't get that from being "thoroughly incompetent". He wasn't incompetent and if he actually was we most likely shouldn't have had WW2 as it played out.
    2
  6. Depends. Dyslexia is a mental disability, but it is not a mental illness. It affect your ability to learn, but have no impact on your intelligence. ADHD is a mental disability and a illness as it is a medical condition that affects both your brain development and brain activity. You can also have PTSD which is a mental illness, but not a mental disability. Even the most normal person can get this if they have suffered trauma and can't let it go. It depends a lot on what type of issue you are talking about and they are not the same as each other.
    2
  7. Saying his political views are mad is looking back at history with the benefit of hindsight. We know they were mad because we have had like +70 years to think about them and why they are wrong. Back then it wasn't that unusual. Antisemitism was something the Catholic Church taught daily to their followers. They just quietly removed that part of their doctrine after WW2 and act like they never once were guilty of anything.
    1
  8.  @Irondevil34  Antisemitism has been parcticed in the catholic church for generations on generations. To say it hasn't is factually false. Jews has been discriminated against and the church has played a large part in that all over Europe. You know, since it was the Jews that put Jesus on a cross. Back then Hitlers views wasn't actually that extreme. It isn't the first time a religious war has been started in Europe. You view his views from a modern perspective which is a post-ww2 perspective. Back then antisemitism and rascism was the norm compared to today. You are literally denying history now to paint Hitler as a madman as you simply refuse he was a man of his time.
    1
  9.  @Irondevil34  "Also in the 70+ Generation the church was not the that big player in opinion like in the 3rd century." - wow. This was a brain dead take. So in the past +1750 years the Catholic Church has not been a big player in opinion like they were between 200-300 AD. Dude. The catholic church was not even established until the 6th century. You are literally making shit up. You are literally skipping everything that has anything to do with European history at ths point. How can the catholic church be influential when it wasn't even an established church?
    1
  10. That isn't true at all.
    1
  11. He did. Years ago.
    1
  12. It is named "FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism"
    1
  13.  @valar7568  If you actually watch that video, you should see that TIK actually makes that point. However. How can you say "“national Socialism“ isn’t necessarily antisemitic" when it literally was? There is no other nation in the world that adopted the ideas of national socialism. National socialism is unique to Germany. You can not remove the antisemitism from national socialism. It is a core tenant in National Socialism ideology. It isn't in fasicism as a whole, but it is for National Socialism. To say anything else is like saying Communism isn't about collectivization. The National Socialist were a antisemitic party. You do not get the holocaust if it wasn't.
    1
  14. ​ @valar7568  You do know that Fascism is an Italian word right? It comes latin word for a bundle of sticks. Mussolini was a fascist because is a founding member of the Fascist ideology, and the Italian party was literally named "National Fascist Party". Nothing in there say National Socialism. National Socialism was something Hitler adopted after Fascism was founded as an ideology and built upon that. The word Nazi is a common name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Mussolini was not a National Socialist. He was a Fascist. Hitler was not a Fascist. He was a National Socialist. I think you are misunderstanding your own position. You say that national Socialism isn't connected to antisemitism. Yet now you say it is. Have you gotten who belonged to which party backwards? It sure seems like it.
    1
  15.  @valar7568  Why are you lying. "But when you examine German National socialism, which is BASED On fascism, and Italian fascism, you find that Italian fascism essentially IS national socialism minus the anti semitism" "well thanks but he seems to be conflating “National socialism “ and “anti semitism.” " " But “national Socialism“ isn’t necessarily antisemitic per se." "Hitler was essentially a fascist, and added anti semitism to it. Otherwise there’s essentially no difference to their beliefs." I do not believe this many contradictions in your own statement can possibly be genuine. You are either trolling or lying. - It is YOU that are making the argument that National Socialism isn't antisemitic in it self. - It is YOU that is arguing that the difference is the difference between National Socialism and Fascims is antisemitism. - You are also calling Mussolini a National Socialist, a Nazi, when he never was. He was never part of the National Socialist party. - You are also saying that you ofc know he was never a National Socialist. Dude. You are contradicting yourself with every single comment you are making. It is no wonder you do not know the difference. You don't seem to understand your own thoughts one comment from the other.
    1
  16.  @valar7568  I see you either removed a comment or it was removed by Youtube. You asked me to provide where you contradicted yourself and I did in my previous comments. Those 4 quotes are YOUR comments. They say vastly different and opposing things to each other. A textbook example of a contradiction.
    1
  17.  @valar7568  Why should I repeat them when my comments have been nothing but pointing out what you have said? You can press on the ream more and read what you yourself said just like I can. That you don't seem to understand what I am talking means you haven't read what I have said. So I guess I repeat them. Contraction #1 THIS: ""well thanks but he (TIK) seems to be conflating “National socialism “ and “anti semitism.” " CONTRADICT THIS: "Hitler was essentially a fascist, and added anti semitism to it. Otherwise there’s essentially no difference to their beliefs." IT IS A CONTRACTION BECAUSE YOU OBJECT TO TIK BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION YOU YOURSELF MAKE. HOW CAN YOU MAKE AN OBJECTION TO SOMEONE THAT DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU YOURSELF DO? Contraction #2 THIS: " But “national Socialism“ isn’t necessarily antisemitic per se." CONTRADICT THIS: "But when you examine German National socialism, which is BASED On fascism, and Italian fascism, you find that Italian fascism essentially IS national socialism minus the anti semitism" IT IS A CONTRACTION BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING THAT FASCISM IS NATIONAL SOCIALISM WITHOUT ANTISEMITISM. YOU ARE BY THIS MAKING THE POINT THAT ANTISEMITISM IS A KEY COMPONENT OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM. WHICH MEANS THAT NATIONAL SOCIALISM ESSENTIALLY INCLUDES ANTISEMITISM. BY YOUR ARGUMENT ANTISEMITISM MUST BE INCLUDED OTHERWISE IT IS JUST FASCISM.
    1
  18.  @valar7568  There is no other National Socialism other than the German one. We are not talking about the national and the socialism. National Socialism is one term, not two. There is no other nation in the world that has used that ideology. This makes National Socialism a synonym to the Nazis. They are the same thing. You are trying to split hairs when that is impossible.
    1
  19.  @valar7568  You have made up a fantasy version of National Socialism that doesn't exist and say I am wrong because reality doesn't follow your fantasy.
    1
  20.  @valar7568  And which other countries adopted the ideology of National Socialism? You are literally arguing semantics here. You are not actually talking about what have actually existed. If we are going to compare what Socialism means. National Socialism isn't socialism as Socialism tends to follow Marxism.
    1
  21.  @yingyang1008  There is a difference between being a bomber pilot and being a death camp guard. You also have to consider that those bombs might also had saved more lives than what they took. Japan was not going to give up easily and without a fight. Do you think the total death toll on both sides should have been less than 230.000 people? You must remember that more than 30.000.000 soldiers and civilians had already died in the Pacific theater. In Europe only 15.000.000 - 20.000.000 people had died. If those nukes made Japan surrender, it ended the war faster which means less people died on both sides. The outcome should have been that Japan lost regardless, the nukes only give them less death.
    1
  22.  @yingyang1008  Japan was still in war with the US. A war THEY started. They still threatened the US, they were still in war in China and they were a direct threat to Philippines. You are just talking shit if you say they were not. You are also ignoring that the reason Japan "wasn't a threat" was just because the US defeated their armies. If they should have surrendered, they shouldn't have been nuked. But they didn't. No. It was not a war crime. It doesn't even reach the (actual) war crimes Japan themselves did during those times.
    1
  23. As if this comment isn't all copium because you do not want to accept he wasn't mad.
    1
  24. Yet people believe he was mad. That he wanted super weapons and stopped the attack on Dunkirk because he wanted to develop this new bomb to attack the beaches with. It isn't just what you pointed out. People have said everything from that he was high on drugs to that his brain didn't work. I meet people shocked at the very idea that he might have been resonable and made logical decisions. I meet people face to face that acting like he was literally mentally insane. They think that because they do not understand what the ideology even say. They do not examine why people believe what they believe. so they fall back to their programing, and when that fail they have no answer and can only say he was "insane" or "mad". Just like people are saying about Putin today. Oh he isn't thinking in ways that make logical sense to Russia and him. He is just completely mad and mentally unhinged.
    1
  25.  @mwbright  You are talking BS. You are also having some serious misconception. 1. You forget that it was France that was the biggest problem in Europe at the time. France had the biggest army in the world. Germany only won because they took a massive gamble and it worked. 2. The USSR was NOT a super power and no one considered it a super power. The USSR was a complete mess after the civil war and had not recovered. The whole reason they signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact was because the USSR needed time to gear up for the war, which they had not done when Germany invaded. Which is why Stalin broke down. The initial Allied reaction to the USSR invasion was "Damn. I guess the USSR is gone now". No one expected the USSR to stand up against the Germans. 3. Hitler didn't go to war against everyone at the same time. The UK was only a super power because colonies and those can be blocked through blockades. The goal was also to peace out with the UK after giving them a beating. The USA didn't enter the war until 11 december 1941, and that was because Japan started that war. WW2 started in 1939 btw. So saying Hitler started that war is incorrect. Hitler invaded the USSR in June 22, 1941. The reason for it was because the UK didn't peace out after getting their arse handed to them in France, and Germany needed resources. There also wasn't really anywhere else to go. You either fought a war over the UK and allowed your resources to be drained, or you looked for resources elsewhere. 4. You are making the assumption that the German Generals where always compitent and everything they wanted was just interfeared with because of Hitler. That is incorrect. Many Generals made poor and bad decisions that cost them the war. Want me to give you an example? Look at Romel and Operation Crusader. The battle was so bad for the British that the British lost the battle they started without Romel even knowing it was a real battle. The only reason Romel lost was because Romel decided to take his armor and ride into the sunset leaving the whole army without a command structure as he got stuck behind enemy lines. Is that a compitent move according to you? If Romel did that, what do you think the other generals did? Halder in operation barbarossa changed the whole battle plan and went against direct orders. He wanted to win by taking Moscow and hoping the USSR just surrenders after that, just like the Frence did. However that was never going to happen. You have so many misconceptions are are outright wrong so many times. You don't even know why and when people entered the war. You are also acting as if you are incompetent when you can unite a whole nation and take over most of a continent Europeans have fought literally CENTURIES to attempt to do. Do you have no idea how much of a big deal it is to actually take over Europe? You must be American or something if you think that isn't a big deal.
    1
  26. I just want to give a hint. Use puctuations. Your first sentance is 106 words long (if we exclude what is in the parentheses). There is no way anyone can say all of that within a single breath and it become hard to read.
    1
  27.  @ilirlluka6789  No it is a genuine advice. I got dyslexia and I hate the grammar N*is as much as you do. But 106 words is way to much. People are not going to read what you have to say when it becomes to hard to read. A sentence should be able to be said in a single breath. If you can't do that, restructure your sentence. At least if you want people to read what you have to say.
    1
  28.  @ilirlluka6789  Well it isn't debilitating. You just have to spend a lot more effort and energy into reading and writing. I actually ended above my peers in most subjects back when I was in school. You can just consider it that I have to spend 3x the time and energy to read the same passage you do and read it correctly.
    1