An hour of Tucker Carlson getting owned...

6,379 Views | 112 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by The_barBEARian
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54a, 10/11/26
https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/10/resisting-the-nazis-was-the-wests-finest-hour/
Reply Quote
DallasBear9902
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 1:48p, 10/11/26
Osodecentx said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/10/resisting-the-nazis-was-the-wests-finest-hour/

Thank you for posting this.

This author, and so many others like SRM and Anne Applebaum seem not to get it.

Let me concede his point that standing up to the Nazis was the West's finest hour. He uses that to flow into something much more than that.

I would like to focus on this paragraph:

Quote:
Today, the United States faces threats almost as complex and dangerous. Conservatives have a responsibility to reject the voices of appeasement and retreatism, especially as so many come from the far right. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden proved incapable of checking Vladimir Putin, the Iranian ayatollahs, and the Chinese Communist Party; if conservatives do not rouse the opposition, the world may very well fall into a new dark age of multipolarity and geopolitical instability. We cannot afford to heed the conspiratorial ravings of Carlson and his ilk.

The unipolar world fashioned by classical liberalism looks something like this:

The US subsidizes the national defense of the vast majority of NATO members. This subsidy is both in dollars and in bodies. In exchange, the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency. NATO members, some additional allies and the Gulf Arab states will primarily conduct trade in the dollar. They will buy weapons from us.

In order for the US Dollar to maintain reserve currency status, we will need to export dollars. To do that, we will need to run fiscal and trade deficits and shrink our manufacturing base to lower cost countries around the world. The fiscal and trade deficits will be extremely important for a bazillion reasons. Our allies will run trade surpluses with us (the ledger has to balance) and without having to (fully) pay for their own defense (we subsidize it) they will expand their social safety nets to levels that ordinary Americans can only dream of. Our allies will also, to some extent, become fat and happy with this arrangement and ultimately be weakened by it.

That's the basic deal.

In the beginning of this arrangement, the American people will overwhelmingly benefit form the trade. But as the trade matures, a certain ever-growing segment of the domestic American population will be losers in this arrangement. You see it in the hollowed out towns of the rust belt and rural communities. The young people that can't get jobs. An ever-shrinking pool of Americans will be winners in this deal. Primarily those in the financial sector and asset owners (low-interest rates are great for them). Defense driven spending will also generate wealth for those in the tech sector.

What drives me crazy about this debate is that somehow people like the TNR guy seem to believe that the ever growing group of losers in the trade should just be happy and take it or continue to be committed to this project. It makes no sense whatsoever and it drives me bananas.

Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:55p, 10/11/26
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
ATL Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
ATL Bear said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
DallasBear9902 said:
ATL Bear said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
DallasBear9902 said:
Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.



Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?

I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.

Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.

Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.

Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.


You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.

Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.

Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…

Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.

That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).

LOL. This is quite a retreat.

I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.

And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.

If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.

Now, back to Tucker.

Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.

Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.

Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."

That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.

You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.

So let's try this again:

What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?

I'll wait.


A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?

Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.

To get to your specifics.

Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.

So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.

TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).

SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).

Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:

TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.

SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.

Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:

Presumably we agree that:

The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:

WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)

We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:

European theater of WWII
Iraq I

Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).

Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.

Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.

LOL. This is getting ridiculous.

I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.

You responded by asking me about Iran.

I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.

Your response was to ask me about Iran again.

And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.

I have an idea. Start your own thread.

Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.

And after all these words, you finally concede my point:
Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."

There we go. That wasn't so hard.

I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.



Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?

The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:

When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.

I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.

So, let me spell it out for you:

Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?

Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.

What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.

And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.

First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.

They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.

That's what I called a dismantling.

But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.

So far, you've done everything but that.

It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:

TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.

The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.

********

I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.

Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.

You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.

Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.

Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?


I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.

Who has suggested that the bombs didn't end the war or save lives?

That is a different argument from suggesting that deliberate targeting of women and children is justified under Christian ethics or Just War Theory. Note, I'm not suggesting your position is invalid or immoral (essentially you are making a tribal argument). I think your position is a defensible position to take.

But do you think Jesus would say it was a good thing that women and children were deliberately killed at scale in order to preserve American troops? Do you really think it was proportionate to what Japan had done?

Proportionate?? Japan killed more than 5 million Chinese citizens before the U.S. even entered the war. They killed as many or more Chinese in the Rape of Nanking than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And they did it ruthlessly in mostly mass executions.

Not to mention the atrocities and mass starvation they caused throughout East Asia during their time of conquest and occupation during WWII. Make no mistake, they were just as brutal and in many cases more so than the Nazis.


Jesus explicitly teaches against and rejects "an eye for an eye." So I don't think that is what proportionate means in Christian teaching. I'm not entirely sure you are suggesting "eye for an eye", but that's how I'm reading your post. Also, the poor wording of my post practically begged for your response.

Aquanis uses proportionate to mean in response to the danger presented and necessary to outweigh the evil prevented.

Over time as war has evolved, I think proportionate should also reference the specific circumstances at the time an act is carried out.

That's not how I understood ATL's point.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I didn't read his reference to Japanese atrocities as an argument for revenge or some sort of "eye for an eye" morality. I read it as a reminder of what kind of regime the Allies were dealing with and why ending its war-making capacity mattered.

A government that is carrying out mass murder, conquest, starvation, and atrocities on a continental scale is not merely another belligerent in a territorial dispute. It is an ongoing source of immense human suffering. The moral question isn't just whether force causes harm. It's also whether failing to stop such a regime allows even greater harm to continue.

The same problem exists with the familiar claim by several on this thread that Hitler should simply have been appeased and allowed to conquer most of Europe. Respectfully, I am not sure about Catholicism, but Christianity is not a philosophy of standing aside while the innocent are victimized.

Indeed, scripture repeatedly calls believers to defend the weak, rescue the oppressed, and protect those being led to destruction. If a regime is systematically invading its neighbors, enslaving populations, and committing mass murder, the moral obligation is not merely to avoid violence. It is also to confront evil and defend the victims.

And that to me is where the pacifist and isolationist position badly misses the mark, and borders on heresy.


I think this analysis glosses over a super important fact: Japan had no war making capacity in August of 1945. Tokyo looked worse than Dresden. They had no coking coal and could not get diesel. They were looking at a primarily rice diet as they couldn't even muster a fishing fleet for protein. There was no import of desperately needed minerals and supplies that Japan couldn't possibly make war without.

We weren't stopping a regime from carrying out continental carnage in August of 1945. By that time we were stopping a regime theat had done those things previously but had no meaningful capacity to do at that moment in time. You're either stopping them because they've done it or you're stopping them from potentially doing it I the future. But they weren't doing it at that moment in time and had no real capacity to do so.

Even then, the women and innocent children are NOT the regime. It is not consistent with a Christian ethic to kill the daughter in order to compel the father's behavior. If your beef is with the regime, then target the regime. But we simply don't visit the sins of father upon the child in Christianity.

Yes, scripture calls for us to defend the weak and oppressed by defeating the oppressors and the tyrants. Not the women and children of the oppressors and tyrants. The women and (especially) the children simply were not the oppressors and tyrants.

And as I said above, the atrocities and harms that imperial Japan was committing around the indopacific had ceased by August of 1945. So either we are referencing those harms for retribution or on some basis of preemptively stopping those harms in the future in a hypothetical scenario where Japan rebuilds. We are called to defend and protect the weak, not avenge them.

If I'm missing some tangible and immediate danger that Japan was posing in August of 1945, please correct me. Japan had barely any offshore deployed military assets in August of 1945. What was left had either been isolated and contained or couldn't muster any kind of a defense and was quickly overrun.

So what danger existed in that moment?

If the regime posed the danger, the answer can't be scale mass killing of women and innocent children. The answer is destroy the regime.

First, thank you Mothra for generally explaining the intent of my reply.

Second, you couldn't be further from reality. Just because Japan didn't have full capacity supply lines like they had earlier in the war has nothing to do with their intention or capability to fight.

There were millions of Japanese troops deployed outside of Japan all across Asia in August of 1945. Heck, there were a million in China alone, and they were actively fighting in multiple theaters. Tens of thousands were dying from execution, starvation, and depravation under Japanese occupation in Korea, China, Malaya, Indo-China, and elsewhere all Summer of 1945.

Next you've got the "kill all" orders that were being followed everywhere Japanese positions were being compromised by allied forces who were still fighting through August. And by "kill all" it wasn't just PoWs, it was also the enslaved laborers. Some extremely heinous stuff.

Then you had what was happening on their homeland. Aside from the mass effort to make the thousands of aircraft they still had into Kamikaze vessels, and the 2 million troops there, go look up Kokumin Giyu Sentotai. The Emperor basically mobilized every man and woman of certain age brackets (15-60 in the case of men) in June of 1945. It was made compulsory not volunteer as originally created. They were training teen girls how to fight with bamboo spears for goodness sake. The Empire intentionally blurred the lines between civilian and combatant.

Just War Theory as you're following addresses the intentional targeting of civilians. Hiroshima was the headquarters of Japan's Southern defense and Nagasaki was the home to Mitsubishi Arms. There were much better targets if civilians were the intent.

Finally, what type of "Caritas" would it have been to wait out the Japanese with blockades while not only thousands continue to die under the Japanese through out Asia, but what about the carnage as thousands died in Japan itself? You seem to have forgotten that not only were we liberating Asia from the atrocities of Japanese occupation, but we were also liberating Japan from an oppressive Imperial system made more so by active war.


When Imperial Japan does it, it's bad.

When Israel does it, it's beautiful.

You Boomers are so f***ed up and hypocritical.
If I'd told you the JAPs doing this were Jewish American Princesses, you'd have starred the hell out of my post.


At least you didnt deny you are a hypocrite and celebrate war crimes when jews do them


The idea that Israel has done anything remotely comparable to what the Nazis did is pure fantasy. But let's be honest - you don't have a problem with war crimes and genocide when Jews are the target. In fact, you celebrate it.


Israel would do worse if they could get away with it. But let's be honest - you don't have a problem with war crimes and genocide when Jews are the ones committing it. In fact, you celebrate it.


To the contrary, I've been very consistent. Anyone that's committing a war crime is wrong. I don't excuse certain war crimes like yourself. But I don't hate any particular people groups as you do.

Goodness, you hate so many groups of people it's difficult to count. It's no surprise of course. Atheist are the most genocidal and murderous people on the planet. Their hatred consumes them. It's what happens when you are your own God and lack a moral compass. So you are in good company.


Yeah... no one has ever been killed in the name of religion.

You're delusional.

And no, i've never seen you make a single post condemning Israeli war crimes but in that regard you are far from alone on this Boomer board.


So once again - this is what you would call a straw-man. Never said or suggested that religion has not been responsible for countless deaths. What I said is that atheists are the most murderous and genocidal people on the planet. The numbers back that up. See Mao and Stalin for starters.

As for war crimes, if you show me verifiable evidence that Israel committed war crimes, I will of course, condemn it.

As for this board, I suspect the vast majority of the people on this board aren't boomers. We might have a small handful, but most are probably Gen X or millennial. But if it makes you feel better to hate on boomers, that's what you do.



Sounds like your problem is w/ communism which was conceived of and implemented by.... let's see if he can figure this one out....
Reply Quote
1 edit
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46p, 10/11/26
Reply Quote
2
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 1:43p, 10/13/26
The_barBEARian said:


I don't think any legitimate historian disputes that the treatment of Germany latterly contributed to Hitler coming to power.

But the idea that the Germans had no agency in his popularity or rise to power is a new one.
Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 3:10p, 10/16/26
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:


I don't think any legitimate historian disputes that the treatment of Germany latterly contributed to Hitler coming to power.

But the idea that the Germans had no agency in his popularity or rise to power is a new one.

Reply Quote
1
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 7:05a, 10/17/26
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:


I don't think any legitimate historian disputes that the treatment of Germany latterly contributed to Hitler coming to power.

But the idea that the Germans had no agency in his popularity or rise to power is a new one.



So you believe Hitler and the Nazis were really benevolent and good. That's of course no surprise.

It's odd than that you bristle so that people calling you a neo Nazi. Are you scared of that label? Why not just openly embrace your beliefs?

Edit: by the way, it's interesting how quickly you change the subject when your ridiculous logic is pointed out.
Reply Quote
2 edits
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 12:55p, 10/18/26
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
The_barBEARian said:


I don't think any legitimate historian disputes that the treatment of Germany latterly contributed to Hitler coming to power.

But the idea that the Germans had no agency in his popularity or rise to power is a new one.



So you believe Hitler and the Nazis were really benevolent and good. That's of course no surprise.

It's odd than that you bristle so that people calling you a neo Nazi. Are you scared of that label? Why not just openly embrace your beliefs?

Edit: by the way, it's interesting how quickly you change the subject when your ridiculous logic is pointed out.


Hey... at least they arent speaking German...

Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.