Mothra said:

---

Native American tribes do not cease to be Native American because of admixture. Tribal identity has never been determined by achieving some arbitrary racial purity threshold. In fact, by your logic, virtually every people group on Earth would lose its identity after a few centuries, including your precious Germans. If ancestry becomes irrelevant once a people experience admixture, then virtually every modern nation loses any claim to indigenous or ancestral identity

---

If you believe this I suppose you also support giving America back to the Native Americans?

At least you'd then be consistent vis-a-vis Palestine and Jews.

Mothra said:

---

What racial hierarchy is central to Zionism?

Jews are "God's Chosen"

What Zionist doctrine teaches that non-Jews are biologically inferior?

The Talmud

What Zionist equivalent exists to the Nuremberg racial laws?

Jews are not allowed to marry non-Jews in Israel is a big one

---

Good luck convincing anyone else who isnt a Boomer Ziocon that Zionism has no racial component and is purely about "self-determination"... whatever the hell that means

"One Jewish life is worth ten million ... Because God chose us. You are jealous."

This is Jewish supremacy. pic.twitter.com/SWyojD3axw

— Mel (@Villgecrazylady) August 1, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

Barmy answer but in line with barB's alternate universe.

---

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: "The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power." William Stevenson noted in A Man Called Intrepid that American-British military staff talks began that same month under "utmost secrecy," which, he clarified, "meant preventing disclosure to the American public." Even Robert Sherwood, the president's friendly biographer, said: "If the isolationists had known the full extent of the secret alliance between the United States and Britain, their demands for impeachment would have rumbled like thunder throughout the land."

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Germany in World War II invaded sovereign states that had no historical connection to Germany in order to conquer territory and build an empire.

---

Incorrect.

Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia (formerly Austria-Hungarian Empire and before that the Holy Roman Empire) and invaded Poland, to reclaim Prussia (taken after WW1), then the UK and France declared war on them.

---

Germany and Austria were always different countries.

And Poland was never part of Germany, in any legitimate sense.

Our resident antisemite seems to jump onto every conspiracy theory that has ever been proposed. Now he's blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor! That's a very old idea that has never had any proof. Is he also a 9-11 "truther"? Some of those nut jobs acted like they thought Pres George W Bush piloted one of the planes into the Twin Towers!

Historical conspiracy theories are almost always false because they are the product of someone's fevered imagination, usually a Leftwing nut job with little knowledge of facts and an axe to grind. Recent conspiracy theories are different because they are based on facts and have been proven correct: the Russian collusion hoax, Hunter's laptop, the stolen 2020 election, etc.

The Holy Roman Empire encompassed most of central Europe including all of modern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland along with significant portions of France, northern Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.

Poland disappeared from the map as a result of three partitions in the later 18th century. It was re-incorporated after WWI out of territories from the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. Those are the three powers that had partitioned it initially.

The borders of Europe have changed many times over the past few centuries through numerous wars and imperial competition, including many times since WWI.

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/12234/holy-roman-empire-in-the-13th-century-ce/

Spent the day in Maine with Tucker.

We had a great conversation.

The mere fact that we sat down with each other and had a civil conversation has apparently really pissed certain people off. I am once again happy to be of service.

It’s out tomorrow. Enjoy.

— Hunter Biden (@HunterBiden) August 9, 2026

Hunter seems like a nice guy and all but he goes around and pretends he's left of center but literally won't concede on a single conservative issue

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Native American tribes do not cease to be Native American because of admixture. Tribal identity has never been determined by achieving some arbitrary racial purity threshold. In fact, by your logic, virtually every people group on Earth would lose its identity after a few centuries, including your precious Germans. If ancestry becomes irrelevant once a people experience admixture, then virtually every modern nation loses any claim to indigenous or ancestral identity

---

If you believe this I suppose you also support giving America back to the Native Americans?

At least you'd then be consistent vis-a-vis Palestine and Jews.

---

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. We were discussing whether a people loses its identity through admixture, not whether every historical conquest or displacement requires reversing present-day political realities. So you failed to address the point.

As for Native Americans, the irony here is Native Americans are actually much closer to Palestinians in your analogy than to modern states claiming sovereignty over disputed territory. Native Americans are a population that lived on the land, experienced conquest, displacement, and demographic marginalization, not unlike the Palestinians. We both know the answer is no to the question of whether they should be entitled to "returned lands."

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Germany in World War II invaded sovereign states that had no historical connection to Germany in order to conquer territory and build an empire.

---

Incorrect.

Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia (formerly Austria-Hungarian Empire and before that the Holy Roman Empire) and invaded Poland, to reclaim Prussia (taken after WW1), then the UK and France declared war on them.

---

Germany and Austria were always different countries.

And Poland was never part of Germany, in any legitimate sense.

---

Germany and Austria were both German nations that were part of the Holy Roman Empire (First Reich).

And Prussia was never part of Poland, in any legitimate sense.

---

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't "Germany" any more than the Roman Empire was "Italy." Pointing out that Austria and other territories were once part of a medieval empire doesn't establish that they were part of Germany, let alone justify twentieth-century annexation.

Another dumb and illogical argument.

boognish_bear said:

---

Spent the day in Maine with Tucker.

We had a great conversation.

The mere fact that we sat down with each other and had a civil conversation has apparently really pissed certain people off. I am once again happy to be of service.

It’s out tomorrow. Enjoy.

— Hunter Biden (@HunterBiden) August 9, 2026

---

Tucker has lost it.

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Germany in World War II invaded sovereign states that had no historical connection to Germany in order to conquer territory and build an empire.

---

Incorrect.

Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia (formerly Austria-Hungarian Empire and before that the Holy Roman Empire) and invaded Poland, to reclaim Prussia (taken after WW1), then the UK and France declared war on them.

---

Germany and Austria were always different countries.

And Poland was never part of Germany, in any legitimate sense.

---

Germany and Austria were both German nations that were part of the Holy Roman Empire (First Reich).

And Prussia was never part of Poland, in any legitimate sense.

---

The Holy Roman Empire wasn't "Germany" any more than the Roman Empire was "Italy." Pointing out that Austria and other territories were once part of a medieval empire doesn't establish that they were part of Germany, let alone justify twentieth-century annexation.

Another dumb and illogical argument.

---

This is the same exact argument you make for why jews are entitled to the land compromising Israel.

Bcs a bronze age empire existed 3000 years ago.

Are you starting to realize what a hypocrite you are?

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

I didnt know there had been assassination attempts on Churchill!

Learn something new everyday!

What happened to the good ol’ days when Americans would destroy the jews enemies without complaining or asking questions???

The greatest generation were much better slaves than the kids these days… https://t.co/JxeF8CVYj1

— Apolitical (@Apolitical3678) August 9, 2026

i'm survivor of the fall of constantinople of 1453

— I, Dominikos (@iDominikos) August 9, 2026

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

Where were you when you first realized communist won WWII? https://t.co/8QZx786qkb

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) August 10, 2026

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You're arguing against a position that literally nobody on this thread has ever taken.

As you well know, this covenant discussed throughout this thread was the Abrahamic covenant. The only reason we're suddenly talking about the Mosaic Covenant is because your earlier suggestion that the Abrahamic Covenant had ended was thoroughly refuted.

So now, instead of defending your original position, you've quietly switched covenants and are arguing against a point nobody disputed.

Let me ask you for the third time, and see if you are brave enough to answer:

Do you believe the Abrahamic Covenant no longer exists?

Yes or no.

---

The Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional and it exists. All who become disciples of Christ and approach God in faith as the Publican did, regardless of if they are semites, become part of it.

The *MOSAIC* Covenant is *CONDITIONAL* and was cancelled by God.

Practioners of Judaism are part of the MOSAIC covenant. They are not God's chosen. They are not saved. They are in no valid covenantal relationship with God.

This has been my consistent position throughout this thread. It is quite clear, but since this puts your favorite country outside of God's will and plan, you have no ears to hear.

---

Really good to hear you give a straight answer. I know that's hard for you.

Even better to hear that you believe Paul's words in Galatians. You are making progress.

Now tell us, do you also believe Paul's words in Romans 9 and 11? Do you believe him when he says in 11:1-2 that god has not rejected the people of Israel? How about Romans 11:29. Do you believe Paul when he says that his calling of the people of Israel is irrevocable? Do you also adhere to his position in Romans 11 that we shouldn't be haughty or disrespectful toward the Jews since we as gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree? And don't believe his words that Israel will eventually turn to faith in Christ?

Or are your beliefs more akin to the antisemitism we regularly hear from you and others on this board. Is it more akin to the triggering and emotional response you have to any defense of the Jews or scripture concerning the Jews?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

---

Is this not a good enough reason for you?... are you mad public transportation might get too clean and orderly or that there might be less welfare abuse or the streets might feel too safe or our borders too secure?

> jails communists without trial
> believes intelligence is hereditary & promotes eugenics
> forces every worker to save up to 1/3 of their income whether they like it or not
> takes that forced savings and uses it to build housing, healthcare and infrastructure
> Singapore ranks… pic.twitter.com/hOH0FpEfWz

— ADONIS (@adonispara) August 10, 2026

NAAAAAAAZZZZZZIIIIIIIII.........................

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

---

Hitler would have never won all of Europe. And even if he conquered mainland, he wouldn't hold it very long. Similar to Napoleon.

His early idea was to unite ethnic Germans under one nation, Lebensraum, which would involve defeating the Soviets and conquering much of Eastern Europe.

As for the Jews, the Nazis originally planned to deport them. I doubt the Holocaust would have happened if the war never escalated the way it did.

---

So a Europe, full of white Germanic tribes united under fascism and an ethically cleansed, Europe, ridded of the dirty Jews, one way or the other. Sounds like a utopia for someone on this board.

But the evil Americans and British prevented his grand plan. How long do you think the German fascist states would've survived? And I'm curious why you think it required the defeat of the Soviets. Hitler seemed perfectly willing to live with them at times.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

---

Is this not a good enough reason for you?... are you mad public transportation might get too clean and orderly or that there might be less welfare abuse or the streets might feel too safe or our borders too secure?

---

Indeed, it sounds like a utopia. A completely white fascist Europe, where nobody has freedoms but we at least have clean subways I'm not sure how capitalism and industry would've survived given state control over the economy, but at least the dirty Jews would be dead or displaced.

And the good news is despite the absence of freedoms and Democracy, at least the undesirable brown and swarthy people groups are eliminated one way or the other.

Sounds like you're kind of place,

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Really good to hear you give a straight answer. I know that's hard for you.

Even better to hear that you believe Paul's words in Galatians. You are making progress.

Now tell us, do you also believe Paul's words in Romans 9 and 11? Do you believe him when he says in 11:1-2 that god has not rejected the people of Israel? How about Romans 11:29. Do you believe Paul when he says that his calling of the people of Israel is irrevocable? Do you also adhere to his position in Romans 11 that we shouldn't be haughty or disrespectful toward the Jews since we as gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree? And don't believe his words that Israel will eventually turn to faith in Christ?

Or are your beliefs more akin to the antisemitism we regularly hear from you and others on this board. Is it more akin to the triggering and emotional response you have to any defense of the Jews or scripture concerning the Jews?

---

This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you at an intellectually high level. You continually resort to name calling and attempt to use the Socratic method without any sense of how its actually supposed to be used.

Anyway, we've been over this several times, so no point doing it again. I've stated my point of view, have a nice day.

---

And this is what you do. When somebody challenges your theological positions, you tuck tail and run from the discussion. It is especially true when there are difficult questions that you are unable to answer. It's like pulling teeth to get a get an answer out of you.


And then, when these things are pointed out, you mischaracterize your opponent's position, and accuse them of being goyim. This post is a perfect example.

The irony here is you're perfectly fine with personal attacks and name-calling until you get a taste of your own medicine.

You''ve been an intellectually dishonest piece of **** since you've been on these boards.

If you ever get brave enough to answer the questions, let me know.

Interesting discussion about what the world would have looked like if the U.S. had never joined the war effort.

Here's Gemini's cliff notes prediction:

Axis Supremacy: Nazi Germany controls Europe to the Urals, implementing devastating territorial and population purges, while Imperial Japan dominates the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Total Soviet Hegemony: The Soviet Union eventually defeats Germany alone, but without a Western Allied front to stop them, the Red Army occupies the entire European continent to the Atlantic.

A Crippled Britain: Starved of American industrial aid and naval protection, Great Britain is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty, collapsing its global empire.

The Fate of North America

Fortress America: The U.S. retreats into extreme isolationism, heavily fortifying its borders against hostile, expansionist superpowers.

Economic Stagnation: Without the massive wartime manufacturing boom, recovery from the Great Depression stalls, and the historic mid-century middle-class expansion never happens.

Fragile Global Finance: The U.S. dollar fails to become the world's reserve currency, leaving global trade fractured into competing regional economic blocs.

A Mutated Cold WarInstead of a two-sided struggle between Washington and Moscow, a multi-sided Cold War emerges among a fascist Europe, an imperialist Asia, a scarred Soviet state, and an isolated America. Without international stabilizing bodies like the United Nations, this volatile global balance carries a significantly higher risk of global nuclear conflict.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

---

Hitler would have never won all of Europe. And even if he conquered mainland, he wouldn't hold it very long. Similar to Napoleon.

His early idea was to unite ethnic Germans under one nation, Lebensraum, which would involve defeating the Soviets and conquering much of Eastern Europe.

As for the Jews, the Nazis originally planned to deport them. I doubt the Holocaust would have happened if the war never escalated the way it did.

---

I agree Hitler would not have won all of Europe. That said, he was positioned to make Germany a hegemon for the foreseeable future.

The 'ethnic Germans' schtick was political. While some in high positions were very much into Eugenics, Hitler himself just wanted power.

As for the Jews, everything I have read from official documents and statements made by people who knew indicates there was always a murderous hatred of them. Hitler wanted to expel as many as possible, but every Jew, down to infants, was in deadly peril as long as they were in German control or the Reich continued.

The war was always going to escalate. Between Geography, Stalin, the Economy of the time or the social climate, only someone completely oblivious or deliberately ignorant could maintain the fiction that the war could be avoided.

Hitler and Stalin were vicious cancers on Mankind. We are all better with such monsters gone.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

I meant no disrespect towards your grandfather.

As you pointed out, he was just a patriotic kid that was manipulated and thrown to the wolves. He thought he was doing the right thing.

The fault is entirely with the politicians of the day - Roosevelt and Churchill.

---

Indeed, he was a patriotic kid that did the right thing - fight against the evil and tyranny that was Hitler and the Nazis. He was on the right side of history.

If only those assassination attempts on one of the most evil men in the history of humanity had been successful...

---

Every man who died to save Britain wasted their life. https://t.co/YVEczHdv7F

— Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷 (@marcorandazza) August 9, 2026

---

It's interesting that you blame the current make up of Great Britain on Churchill. I suppose you believe if the Nazis had won then the ethnic cleansing that would've resulted would've prevented the current demographic.

In what ways do you feel the world would've been better if Hitler had conquered all of Europe? I mean, I guess it's a given that most of the Jewish people would've been wiped out in a genocide. You would of course view that is a good thing. What other positive aspects do you see coming from the Nazis winning?

---

Hitler would have never won all of Europe. And even if he conquered mainland, he wouldn't hold it very long. Similar to Napoleon.

His early idea was to unite ethnic Germans under one nation, Lebensraum, which would involve defeating the Soviets and conquering much of Eastern Europe.

As for the Jews, the Nazis originally planned to deport them. I doubt the Holocaust would have happened if the war never escalated the way it did.

---

So a Europe, full of white Germanic tribes united under fascism and an ethically cleansed, Europe, ridded of the dirty Jews, one way or the other. Sounds like a utopia for someone on this board.

But the evil Americans and British prevented his grand plan. How long do you think the German fascist states would've survived? And I'm curious why you think it required the defeat of the Soviets. Hitler seemed perfectly willing to live with them at times.

---

If Hitler defeated the Soviets without Western Powers joining the war, I think they would've lasted a few decades but eventually would've balkanized at some point. He would also have to do something about the massive Slavic population.

In regard to your last question, Hitler never desired a long-lasting peace with the Soviets. He hated them and everything they stood for, they were his natural enemy. The treaty was purely strategic so he could defeat Poland, France, and England.

Mothra said:

---

A Crippled Britain: Starved of American industrial aid and naval protection, Great Britain is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty, collapsing its global empire.

---

They lost their empire by "winning" too. Matter of fact, I would argue they hold onto parts of their empire longer if they would never entered the war. Maybe they would have a few more World Cup titles if they did.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

A Crippled Britain: Starved of American industrial aid and naval protection, Great Britain is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty, collapsing its global empire.

---

They lost their empire by "winning" too. Matter of fact, I would argue they hold onto parts of their empire longer if they would never entered the war. Maybe they would have a few more World Cup titles if they did.

---

The Boomer mind is incapable of understanding this truth.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

A Crippled Britain: Starved of American industrial aid and naval protection, Great Britain is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty, collapsing its global empire.

---

They lost their empire by "winning" too. Matter of fact, I would argue they hold onto parts of their empire longer if they would never entered the war. Maybe they would have a few more World Cup titles if they did.

---

I would submit them losing their empire had nothing to do with defeating Germany. It would have very likely hastened their demise.

One thing is for sure - the world would have been much worse off had the allies not won the war.