The_barBEARian said:

---

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.

---

Ok Heinrich.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

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.

---

Yes he likely would have had to kill off the Slavs too. The ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been rampant. Your buddy, little Adolf, would have loved it. Such a "great" man, that Hitler.

But the likely scenario is he would have lost to the Soviets, who ultimately would have taken large swaths of Europe and placed them under communist control.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

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.

---

Ok Heinrich.

---

Call me Hans Gruber

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Ok Boomer.

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

You seem triggered... Reality is comporting himself calmly and you are behaving like you are demon possessed.

Of all the people on this board, I dont think I have ever seen Reality lose his temper here and personally attack anyone. Whereas you do that everyday with your puerile insults.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

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.

---

Yes he likely would have had to kill off the Slavs too. The ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been rampant. Your buddy, little Adolf, would have loved it. Such a "great" man, that Hitler.

But the likely scenario is he would have lost to the Soviets, who ultimately would have taken large swaths of Europe and placed them under communist control.

---

Large swaths of Europe WERE lost to the Soviets and placed under communist control.

Attacking Germany was so irrational and counter-productive it makes one wonder if the same people who financed Churchill were also financing the Soviet Union...

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

They were very poor after the war ended. They didn't "win" the same way we did, as we came out stronger on the other side of ww2

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Ok Boomer.

---

Ok Adolf. Not everyone is a Neo Nazi.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

They were very poor after the war ended. They didn't "win" the same way we did, as we came out stronger on the other side of ww2

---

Would have been even worse if they had to go it alone or were isolated in Europe. Way worse.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

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.

---

Yes he likely would have had to kill off the Slavs too. The ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been rampant. Your buddy, little Adolf, would have loved it. Such a "great" man, that Hitler.

But the likely scenario is he would have lost to the Soviets, who ultimately would have taken large swaths of Europe and placed them under communist control.

---

Large swaths of Europe WERE lost to the Soviets and placed under communist control.

Attacking Germany was so irrational and counter-productive it makes one wonder if the same people who financed Churchill were also financing the Soviet Union...

---

As set forth above, all of Europe would have likely been lost to the Soviets had we done nothing. Germany's defeat at the hands of the Soviets would have left Europe completely exposed to Soviet invasion. So instead of a fascist Europe, we would've had a communist Europe. The end result would've been absolutely devastating.

And then, of course, Japan and its imperial army would have controlled most of the orient. We would've been an isolated country, likely trading with the likes of Canada, Mexico, and parts of South America, provided, of course that Japan's imperialism in the Soviets ambitions didn't result in a South American invasion.

Nuclear war probably would've been inevitable. Wouldn't have even been close to the superpower that we are now.

The idea that allowing Germany to its own devices, would somehow make the world or our country better is just such a enormously stupid position that it says the person holding it is likely either insane or a complete and total dumbass. Only a moron would think as such.

The GOP are addicted to losing.

Trump won Ohio by an insane margin.

They could have run anybody on earth besides Vivek, the pharmaceutical parasite, Ramaswamy and won easily.

They’re also about to lose Florida by endorsing a criminal named Byron Donalds. https://t.co/rmxvamCOcm

— Dissident West (@dissidentwest) August 10, 2026

I agree America wouldn't be a super power without the war, competition drives innovation.

But I'm not so sure that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans like you think they would. I think the Germans stand a chance if they can focus all of their attention on the Eastern front

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

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.

---

Yes he likely would have had to kill off the Slavs too. The ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been rampant. Your buddy, little Adolf, would have loved it. Such a "great" man, that Hitler.

But the likely scenario is he would have lost to the Soviets, who ultimately would have taken large swaths of Europe and placed them under communist control.

---

Large swaths of Europe WERE lost to the Soviets and placed under communist control.

Attacking Germany was so irrational and counter-productive it makes one wonder if the same people who financed Churchill were also financing the Soviet Union...

---

As set forth above, all of Europe would have likely been lost to the Soviets had we done nothing. Germany's defeat at the hands of the Soviets would have left Europe completely exposed to Soviet invasion. So instead of a fascist Europe, we would've had a communist Europe. The end result would've been absolutely devastating.

And then, of course, Japan and its imperial army would have controlled most of the orient. We would've been an isolated country, likely trading with the likes of Canada, Mexico, and parts of South America, provided, of course that Japan's imperialism in the Soviets ambitions didn't result in a South American invasion.

Nuclear war probably would've been inevitable. Wouldn't have even been close to the superpower that we are now.

The idea that allowing Germany to its own devices, would somehow make the world or our country better is just such a enormously stupid position that it says the person holding it is likely either insane or a complete and total dumbass. Only a moron would think as such.

---

So now you are creating a reality where the Soviets and Imperial Japanese are allies?

Japan and Russia had already fought a war that Russia lost.

Talk about insane...

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

I agree America wouldn't be a super power without the war, competition drives innovation.

But I'm not so sure that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans like you think they would. I think the Germans stand a chance if they can focus all of their attention on the Eastern front

---

This is why I brought up geography. There were three crucial problems for Hitler with regard to Russia:

1) Logistics of supplying an extended chain

2) Weather

3) Terrain

A lot of people assume that if Hitler only had to fight a one-front war against Stalin, he'd have won, and this is based on early success in Operation Barbarossa. The truth is that Hitler's early success was on level terrain in good weather, with a short supply line. Once any of those conditions changed, the Nazi attack ran into trouble,

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

I agree America wouldn't be a super power without the war, competition drives innovation.

But I'm not so sure that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans like you think they would. I think the Germans stand a chance if they can focus all of their attention on the Eastern front

---

This is why I brought up geography. There were three crucial problems for Hitler with regard to Russia:

1) Logistics of supplying an extended chain

2) Weather

3) Terrain

A lot of people assume that if Hiter only had to fight a one-front war against Stalin, he'd have won, and this is based on early success in Operation Barbarossa. The truth is that Hitler's early success was on level terrain in good weather, with a short supply line. Once any of those conditions changed, the Nazi attack ran into trouble,

---

Pretty good analysis

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

I agree America wouldn't be a super power without the war, competition drives innovation.

But I'm not so sure that the Soviets would have defeated the Germans like you think they would. I think the Germans stand a chance if they can focus all of their attention on the Eastern front

---

It is possible that the Soviets would have controlled large swaths of Eastern Europe, and Germany the rest, with a flimsy truce. But quite frankly, given the fact Nazi Germany wasn't a free-market, but instead socialist in nature, and given the displacement of millions of people groups, either forcibly or voluntarily, including the Slavs and Jews, it would have been a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, unless of course the Germans simply decided to gas them all.

The end result would have been devastation regardless, and likely would have ended up in some sort of nuclear war. In no scenario could any reasonable or sane person say that would have been better for the world, much less this country.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

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.

---

Yes he likely would have had to kill off the Slavs too. The ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been rampant. Your buddy, little Adolf, would have loved it. Such a "great" man, that Hitler.

But the likely scenario is he would have lost to the Soviets, who ultimately would have taken large swaths of Europe and placed them under communist control.

---

Large swaths of Europe WERE lost to the Soviets and placed under communist control.

Attacking Germany was so irrational and counter-productive it makes one wonder if the same people who financed Churchill were also financing the Soviet Union...

---

As set forth above, all of Europe would have likely been lost to the Soviets had we done nothing. Germany's defeat at the hands of the Soviets would have left Europe completely exposed to Soviet invasion. So instead of a fascist Europe, we would've had a communist Europe. The end result would've been absolutely devastating.

And then, of course, Japan and its imperial army would have controlled most of the orient. We would've been an isolated country, likely trading with the likes of Canada, Mexico, and parts of South America, provided, of course that Japan's imperialism in the Soviets ambitions didn't result in a South American invasion.

Nuclear war probably would've been inevitable. Wouldn't have even been close to the superpower that we are now.

The idea that allowing Germany to its own devices, would somehow make the world or our country better is just such a enormously stupid position that it says the person holding it is likely either insane or a complete and total dumbass. Only a moron would think as such.

---

So now you are creating a reality where the Soviets and Imperial Japanese are allies?

Japan and Russia had already fought a war that Russia lost.

Talk about insane...

---

Not a student of history, I see. That's no surprise, given your ignorant takes.

The Soviets and Japanese agreed to coexist during WWII. They signed a non-aggression pact in 1941 which remained in place for more than 4 years, until the Soviets retook Manchuria from Japan at the close of the war.

There's no reason to believe that truce couldn't have remained in place, or that the Soviets could not have co-existed. Japan didn't have the manpower to defeat the Soviets, that much is certain.

Our biggest mistake wasn't entering the war. Indeed, that was a great strategic decision, and anyone who says otherwise is a complete and total fool. Our biggest mistake was partnering with the Soviets.

No question that Europe has some very real problems, many of its own making. The real question is whether a Nazi victory in 1945 would have produced a more stable and peaceful world over the long haul. On that question, the historical evidence points the other way.

Nazi Germany was not a status quo power. Its leadership openly embraced territorial expansion, and racial conflict. A German-dominated Europe would not necessarily have been a stable Europe. Germany's planned invasion of Britain and subsequent turn toward even larger eastern ambitions illustrate that Hitler's goals extended far beyond securing existing borders.

One reason the postwar world remained relatively stable is that Germany and Japan were decisively defeated and incorporated into an international order led primarily by the United States. If instead the world contained a Nazi superstate in Europe, an Imperial Japanese empire in Asia, and a Soviet Union either seeking survival or eventual revenge, there is little reason to assume that another world war would not have been inevitable. I would submit that the likelihood of future major wars was much higher under that scenario than what actually occurred.

The nuclear question is particularly important. The actual Cold War featured two superpowers that, despite many dangerous confrontations, eventually developed mechanisms for deterrence and arms control. A world with three or four competing superpowers, including regimes built around aggressive expansionist ideologies, could plausibly have been even more volatile and prone to catastrophic miscalculation.

So the real comparison is between 1) an imperfect democratic Europe that has remained largely free from great-power war since 1945; or 2) a world dominated by rival totalitarian empires whose leaders viewed military conquest, ethnic conflict, and authoritarian rule as legitimate tools. For all of Europe's current warts, I think the vast majority of historians would conclude that the second world is at least as likely, and probably more likely, to produce another catastrophic world war.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Judaism is the worst plague ever unleashed upon humanity.

---

What's interesting about this statement is the fact that far more people have been killed by Islamists than Zionists, and it's not even close. The number one spreader of terrorism in the world today is Islam. Pretty much every country that adheres to it is a huge purveyor of violence and a squelching of basic human rights.

Likewise, on the list of religious killings, Hinduism has also killed far more people than Judaism.

And if we are going to condemn ideologies beyond those that are religious, communism has killed 94-100 million people in the twentieth century alone.

If we consider WWII deaths, Nazism killed at least 10 million, and that is a very low estimate.

In short, if we are talking about the worst plagues, there are a number of them that make the list before Judaism. But of course, it has an outsize place in your pea brain because you're a neo-Nazi.

Mothra said:

---

What's interesting about this statement is the fact that far more people have been killed by Islamists than Zionists, and it's not even close. The number one spreader of terrorism in the world today is Islam. Pretty much every country that adheres to it is a huge purveyor of violence and a squelching of basic human rights.

---

What a coincidence... same is true of every country that adheres to Judaism.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

What's interesting about this statement is the fact that far more people have been killed by Islamists than Zionists, and it's not even close. The number one spreader of terrorism in the world today is Islam. Pretty much every country that adheres to it is a huge purveyor of violence and a squelching of basic human rights.

---

What a coincidence... same is true of every country that adheres to Judaism.

---

Even if we assumed for sake of argument that your position was in anyway accurate, that in and of itself disproves your silly statement that "Judaism is the worst plague ever unleashed upon humanity," given the fact that only 1 country in the world adheres to Judaism as its predominant religion.

But it's just like you to ignore that. There is a Jewish bogeyman that haunts your thoughts. I've never seen someone perseverate so on any one particular subject.

Are you autistic?

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

What's interesting about this statement is the fact that far more people have been killed by Islamists than Zionists, and it's not even close. The number one spreader of terrorism in the world today is Islam. Pretty much every country that adheres to it is a huge purveyor of violence and a squelching of basic human rights.

---

What a coincidence... same is true of every country that adheres to Judaism.

---

Even if we assumed for sake of argument that your position was in anyway accurate, that in and of itself disproves your silly statement that "Judaism is the worst plague ever unleashed upon humanity," given the fact that only 1 country in the world adheres to Judaism as its predominant religion.

But it's just like you to ignore that. There is a Jewish bogeyman that haunts you're thoughts. I've never seen someone perseverate so on any one particular subject.

Are you autistic?

---

Sen. John Fetterman: "That's my red line. If Democratic Party becomes official anti-Israel, then that's when I would force me out." pic.twitter.com/Z8kDy4rM3Y

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) July 17, 2026

"I'm not with you, I'm with Israel. I will be with Israel til our dying day." - Sen. Lindsey Graham pic.twitter.com/tdj0HqRcR4

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) July 12, 2026

Ted Cruz says: “I came into Congress to serve Israel and I work every day to do that.” pic.twitter.com/qPhaAklhzb

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) December 7, 2025

and the list goes on and on and on........

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

What's interesting about this statement is the fact that far more people have been killed by Islamists than Zionists, and it's not even close. The number one spreader of terrorism in the world today is Islam. Pretty much every country that adheres to it is a huge purveyor of violence and a squelching of basic human rights.

---

What a coincidence... same is true of every country that adheres to Judaism.

---

Even if we assumed for sake of argument that your position was in anyway accurate, that in and of itself disproves your silly statement that "Judaism is the worst plague ever unleashed upon humanity," given the fact that only 1 country in the world adheres to Judaism as its predominant religion.

But it's just like you to ignore that. There is a Jewish bogeyman that haunts you're thoughts. I've never seen someone perseverate so on any one particular subject.

Are you autistic?

---

Sen. John Fetterman: "That's my red line. If Democratic Party becomes official anti-Israel, then that's when I would force me out." pic.twitter.com/Z8kDy4rM3Y

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) July 17, 2026

"I'm not with you, I'm with Israel. I will be with Israel til our dying day." - Sen. Lindsey Graham pic.twitter.com/tdj0HqRcR4

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) July 12, 2026

Ted Cruz says: “I came into Congress to serve Israel and I work every day to do that.” pic.twitter.com/qPhaAklhzb

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) December 7, 2025

and the list goes on and on and on........

---

And there's that bogeyman...he's gonna getcha!

Occasionally you come across a little bit of information that tells a truth that it was never intending to tell.

Some years ago, I looked at the spread of the cultivation of ancient grains over time as a proxy for the general location where Noah's Ark made landfall after the flood.

This 1996 study from the Journal of Allergy falls into that category.

Hypersensitivity to pollen of Olea europaea in Israel

Its abstract provides the relevant information.

"The incidence of skin-tested sensitivity to olive pollen allergens among subjects with suspected atopic respiratory allergy was investigated in various populations of Israelis. This incidence was correlated with the olive cultivars, with the abundance of trees in the patient's neighborhoods, and with the history of exposure of the studied populations to olive pollen. Positive skin reactions to olive pollen, among atopic patients of the Jewish population, is rather high where olive trees are abundant (66%), and lower (29%) where trees are scarce (P < 0.003). Sensitization was significantly lower (P < 0.003) among a population of Israeli atopic Arabs (16%), though these Arabs have lived in an olive-rich area for several generations."

The TL;DR for this is that a large percentage of people who are supposedly native to the region are actually far more allergic to the olive trees that define that region than the Arabs (who are genetically semites). The obvious conclusions of this article - that a large segment of the Israeli population is not actually native to the Holy Land - are rejected by Zionists because they say that this only speaks of people referred to allergy clinics. While that may be true, it still doesn't explain the large difference (66% vs 16%) among that patient population that was in fact referred.

This study does give weight to the idea that the majority Ashkenazi population of Israel is in fact a European population of people who practice Judaism and have no historic claim to land in the middle east as they are not descendants of Abraham