Have you not read the 25 point plan?

Yes and MK

Detail to me whats extreme about it

Lebensraum is right there in black and white. is that not extreme to you?

Unification of the german people is bad?

It was a reaction to the treaty of Versailles

Lebensraum is not unification. It is invasion of non-german countries.

I started responding to you ignorant of your belief in german national socialism. That was clearly a mistake. Have fun dying in the wars your ideology will inevitably start and lose.

Imperialism is good for the race; in general

More land = More germans

That's just factually incorrect. There are now more Germans who are more wealthy than there were when Germany was larger.

National Socialism turned out to work just about as well as Soviet Socialism.

Who classifies ones own wealth as their overall quality of life ? Who knows how many germans could of existed in GREATER germany

https://youtu.be/qd_ZWEjXzPU

You can't date liberals. The retard game is fun.

We don't have to guess at "could have" because we know what was and what is. Your argument of what ifs is no different than notrealcommunism(tm).

No it's really not, if the density of Germany is maintained and they have more land. That would result in more germans

Simple mathematics, often beyond the scope of liberalists

Not liberals, leftists

There's not really any correlation between land area and population in Germany or elsewhere. Russia has the largest land area of any nation on the planet. This has not resulted in a large amount of Russians. This is really basic shiman.

Just imagine how many New Yorkers there would be if it was Wyoming 🤔

libs are the og leftists

@Jym that's because of siberia

Ah yes

Because America, despite being founded on Lockean liberal values, was *definitely* leftist, and definitely *not* right-libertarian

locke was an og leftist

It's always the ones with statues as their pics...

iirc locke supported equality before the law and a popular legislature

Siberia is not in Wyoming. Really you can't point to anywhere that landmass correlates with population. It was rotated to even suggest it would or worse that it is mathematically valid.

you're not controlling for confounding variables

you're just pointing out that population density varies

Well whatever confounding variables you can think up they apply universally because there's *no correlation between landmass and population * at all anywhere.

Given the original left-right divide originally referred to the actual seating arrangement in the French parliament in the 19th century, liberals were originally on the left.

if you have a group that controls x amount of land and you give them y amount of land in addition there will likely be more of them than if they hadn't received the additonal land

the right traditionally supported hereditary privileges extending to legal privileges, legislative representation to be based on social class (in and of itself hereditary in regards to certain classes) if it is to exist at all, and an order based on divine right, not any sort of social contract

locke was certainly a leftist in his day

Ehh, only if you were to kill everyone that’s already on that land. It’s not like the Ottoman, Roman and Austrian empires became filled solely with Latins, Turks and Germans. Hell Hitler bitched about how the Germans in Austria were becoming more and more of a minority despite them supposedly controlling the whole country.

"only if you were to kill everyone that’s already on that land"
<:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

It’d be debatable and reduce the gains from conquering it in the first place. There’s a reason Poland and Western Russia aren’t densely populated to begin with.