Well either Germans couldn't do shit, or he *personally* wasn't sufficiently capable of getting it done, no? What's the alternative? Dude was in charge and baited multiple countries into open war

If fighting the right fight, but losing, is cucked, then there is literally no gain to engaging. Might as well sell your daughter to a sheik, invite the landscaper in to fuck your wife in the ass, and lay down and die.

There isn't a argument to be had because the premise is absurd on its face.

Is it the right fight if you're going to lose? Dude picked a fight with France, England and then fucked his forces in Russia at the same time. Is this to imply that there's nothing that can be done whatsoever? That sounds like admission of interiority

>picked a fight with
Lmao. Imagine being this much of a historylet.

Yeah you're right, Germany was the religion of peace

>if I just post pictures surely everyone will see that I'm correct
Galaxy brain shit my dude. Really showing off that average Ohio IQ

You do realize that that is verbatim what you're doing with catchphrases rather than pictures... right...?

No, I'm throwing out a conclusion about data, and rather than asking about it further, or making a counter claim, you're just saying I dont know the history. I'm aware of Versailles and Germany's economic situation, as well as how land was carved from it for surrounding territories. I'm also aware of what went into World War 1, and which countries pushed ahead for military control, as well as what happened to territories taken by the Third Reich. Even without it being a blunt black and white conflict, there were enough major issues with the German war effort that it was fucked based specifically on administrative decisions. This includes, but is not limited to, who to fight and when

And literally none of that supports your claim that the NSDAP "picked a fight with" France, much less Britain.

You *could* argue they picked a fight with the Soviets.

But your claim was asinine.

What do you call intentionally violating Versailles - an agreement that necessarily called for military backing? It would be one thing to quit while they were ahead, but they continued to push into other countries. Appeasement is still viewed as a shameful policy to this day

Calling breaking supranational agreements, especially illegitimate ones, "picking a fight" is just flat out dishonest.

"Illegitimate"
It's all based on force. What's a "legitimate" surrender agreement?

And the "pushing into other countries" was something they not only had the right, but the obligation to do.

See above wrt the "rights" of nations as well

>nations don't have the right to defend their own people
Lolwut.

You only have a "right" insofar as you have capability. "Your own people" is similarly vague. Most nations as they exist now have had multiple separate ethnicities throughout history, with many being born from conquest

Further, by that logic Germany was in the wrong for the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, and retributive action should have been taken in the first place

Finally this glosses over the fact that Germany did not stick to its pre-war borders, nor did it have any intention of doing so.

So?

"You have the right to defend your own people"
"They invaded other countries, beyond their pre-war borders, where their own people never were, and beyond what they needed for any reasonable economic growth"
"So?"
There it is again

> where their own people never were
Try again fam.

Oh wait, are you doing that fake and gay thing where you pretend a nation is a piece of paper?

>go beyond borders
>but those people are all mine though
Where is the rightful home of the Czechs? Bohemia existed as a nation long before the infant-state that is modern Germany
And no, I'm just not ignorant enough to assert that nations as they are now were always one singular people

The notion of rightful place is built on an arbitrary standard that glosses over the genuine ethnic diversity found in the history of Europe. And I dont mean people who came there from Asia or Africa

I'm not making a "rightful place" argument. Quite the opposite in fact.

Germany has the right, and obligation, to defend ethnic Germans. No matter where they live.

It has the same flaw

are we going by one drop?

Or Nuremberg? Or some other standard

*sigh* Oh good.
The tactical retardation game.

There has to be a standard because if it's one drop most of Europe has to protect most of Europe, and it extends to North America. Even if we set that aside... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherusci

The consolidation of multiple peoples into one singular ethnicity is somewhat concerning, no?

@@Legalize I don't particularly care, as I'm not German. That would be for Germans to decide. But the continuum fallacy is still a fallacy.

> The consolidation of multiple peoples into one singular ethnicity is somewhat concerning, no?
Not in the slightest.

It's not a fallacy if I'm just asking for one standard with which to examine the problem. You could list any standard you wanted, and I wouldn't critique the standard itself.
So wait, if we consolidate Germans into the Polish population by force, that isn't a concern?

Sure. 100% Germans decide what percentage of non-German admixture is acceptable.

@Beemann Who is "we"?