# The Dictator Thread



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

First dictator on the list.
Adolf Hitler








People like to argue Hitlers economic achievements, and that if he didn't end up going on a rampage slaughtering innocent people he would of been a great leader, I believe otherwise.

1. He built up the military.
In doing this, from day one he knew what he wanted to accomplish. You don't plant fields of apples unless you plan on picking them. His military build up was what lead to a pick up of the economy, if he ended up not using this vast military the economy would of fallen anyway.

2. He built up infrastructure.
He had to, after WW1 Germany was in shambles, him having to build roads was a direct result of that. Anyone else who gained power would of done the same.

3. He instituted health care programs and unemployment insurance.
Once again, he had to. After WW1 if he wanted to gain the trust of the people he had to show he cared in someway or another. Also the fact he preached distorted socialism and national unity, if he didn't they would of called him a fraud. These then led to deficits as most of the money was going towards military buildup and with him stopping foreign investment not enough money was coming in.

Hitler was a fascist, corrupted the minds of the youth and lead them to believe they were fighting for the greater good.

These are just a few arguments on why Hitler in my book, was an idiot and nothing more then a glorified warmonger.

So what do you view Hitler as? Was he an economic genius? An idiot fascist? etc.

h1n1, DW, come on in and let's get this thread rolling


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

this will get interesting...


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

I think it will


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)




----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

I never read a question to post about only statements by you traveler...


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)




----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

ZOSICK said:


> I never read a question to post about only statements by you traveler...


My bad, I'll edit the original post.
This is stemming off a conversation elsewhere on the forum from people praising Hitler and his economic greatness.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

"Hitler was dumber than a muthafcka."

- Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

Danny Tanner said:


> SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!


go get your ass kicked by your boys again....


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

bob351 said:


> SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!


go get your ass kicked by your boys again....
[/quote]

Work shall set free!


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

10pointers said:


>


NICE!


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

Danny Tanner said:


> SIEG HEIL!!!!!!!


go get your ass kicked by your boys again....
[/quote]

Work shall set free!
[/quote]
I dare you to reveal yourself to me


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

NEIN ^


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Traveller said:


> I never read a question to post about only statements by you traveler...


My bad, I'll edit the original post.
This is stemming off a conversation elsewhere on the forum from people praising Hitler and his economic greatness.
[/quote]

really? Hitler and greatness?


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

Apparently so.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

[email protected]° said:


> NEIN ^


Stop being a vagina and sack up kid


----------



## FishermanCanada (Feb 12, 2007)

From what i understand Hitler had multiple sclerosis for which he was taking a cocktail of wonder drugs. That is why you see him holding his left hand in films and pictures during the later part of the war.He was living in a dream world. He was on drugs that are illegal today which at the time weren't even known about like speed, mdma(ecstasy), and a few others. He had a personal physician treat him daily with these drugs.

But i believe he was better than the man of steel Stalin. Even if he was mentally unstable.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Stalin made more people just up and disappear.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

Stalin and hitler are both whack jobs, along with many dictators around the world that have failed... if we living under nazi control now i would say hitler is a genius but the 1000 year reich lasted a few years.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

i wanted to partake in a conversation about hitler as his life and the events surrounding him and especially the events that created him, but i see it took but half a page for a bush picture, a bush/obama comment and some youtube video. 
this thread died before it started


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

Central said:


> i wanted to partake in a conversation about hitler as his life and the events surrounding him and especially the events that created him, but i see it took but half a page for a bush picture, a bush/obama comment and some youtube video.
> this thread died before it started


And you expected what exactly??


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

i see no obama picture and we all know bush is way worse than hitler could ever imagine to be









(sarcasm for the retards)


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

i expected nothing i suppose. just wishful thinking. 
/leaves

itll still be interesting to check back in when someone posts seriously. i cant wait to watch the debate start at hitler and end on obama, bush and glenn beck within a page worth of posting


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

go to the what fish can you keep with your rhom if you want to see how this started


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

what fish can you keep with your rhomb? um...in the long run, none. hows that for a short and sweet answer. i need to check this thread out lol


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

read the whole thing or atleast skim through its funnier if you start at the beginning


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

bahahahahahahaha you guys are f*cking hilarious

that has got to be the worst derailment of a thread ever


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

i heard hitler used a george foreman grill in his camps.. take that how you will but i found that extremely interesting


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Anyone who paints the skies green and the fields blue deserves to be sterilized.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Trigga said:


> i heard hitler used a george foreman grill in his camps.. take that how you will but i found that extremely interesting


that explains his ability to keep a slimmed figure while still enjoying full flavored meals


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

if hitler was on mdma,he wouldnt have wanted to kill all those jews.he wouldve rather got naked and body surfed across all of them so im calling shennanigens on that.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

muskielover1 said:


> if hitler was on mdma,he wouldnt have wanted to kill all those jews.he wouldve rather got naked and body surfed across all of them so im calling shennanigens on that.


FTW


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

Do you see how unbelievably funny I am?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

that looks like a rifle seed ^^^


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

Alex Jones seem to hint that the same thing that occurred to Hitler is happening now... in the good ole US with Obama... interesting theories indeed... and to think this kind of stuff just sneaks up on you. Is it all BS or does it have some truth? I really don't know


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

NEVERMIND


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

Maybe next time name the title more appropriately... like "Calling DW & h1n1"... it took me a while before even opening this thread because of the title... (until I read h1n1's updated thread today).


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

Ye, lesson learned.


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

FishermanCanada said:


> From what i understand Hitler had multiple sclerosis for which he was taking a cocktail of wonder drugs. That is why you see him holding his left hand in films and pictures during the later part of the war.He was living in a dream world. He was on drugs that are illegal today which at the time weren't even known about like speed, mdma(ecstasy), and a few others. He had a personal physician treat him daily with these drugs.
> 
> But i believe he was better than the man of steel Stalin. Even if he was mentally unstable.


i see this thread and canyt help but get involved the things stated so far are very wrong its sad that you dont knw anythinhg about the man and yet you make judgement on him. the reason he held his hand was bc he was almost killed in a murder attempt where he lost hearing completely in his right ar and lost most use of his right hand and it shook uncontroalably bc of the boom but h ouldnt let anyone see his flaws bc it was a sign of weekness, but i understand y u think he had ms its common misconseption. but he only took an anti gas pill thats the only thig he would tke he was very openly against cigarettes, alcohol, and all drugs he was fearful of the antigas pill bc he realized that all of things shortendedyour life epectancy and wanted to abolish manily druggs and ciggs. but he was a vegaterian ad began to have gas and stomach problms due to all the vegtables, but that was his look apon drugs. dont just say things that you hear actually read a book befor u make a claim


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

Danny Tanner said:


> Anyone who paints the skies green and the fields blue deserves to be sterilized.


lol yes he was against modern art and was very much for culture and classic art. but not one of his better quotes tho, his best was "those who wish to live must fight and those who will not fight deserve to die" the prime example of what he stood for self reliance. but i also dont stand by people who go out and scream seig heil. bc it is offenive and hitler did terrible things so we should never approve of what he did to jews. it sickens me that there are people like you, the people like you and skin heads who only know him for murder. nothing mre needs to say bout you altought its apparent theres muchto be said....


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Traveller said:


> I guess DW and h1n1 aren't coming to state why they see Hitler as a genius.
> I was getting ready to see some interesting and crazy debate but everyone seems fixated on Obama and Bush.
> 
> P-Fury Allied Mods, you know what to do, lock Hitlers arse away. . .


You made a thread to trap a couple members you disagree with? When your plan fails you want the mods to close it? You my friend are a TROLL and a poor one at that...

Dumb ass!









(Before you report me again I'm sorry for calling you a dumb ass)


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

Correct us then h1n1.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Traveller said:


> Correct us then h1n1.


And he got a nibble, spit out the worm H1N1 while you still can it's not worth it...Oh and


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

ZOSICK said:


> I guess DW and h1n1 aren't coming to state why they see Hitler as a genius.
> I was getting ready to see some interesting and crazy debate but everyone seems fixated on Obama and Bush.
> 
> P-Fury Allied Mods, you know what to do, lock Hitlers arse away. . .


You made a thread to trap a couple members you disagree with? When your plan fails you want the mods to close it? You my friend are a TROLL and a poor one at that...

Dumb ass!









(Before you report me again I'm sorry for calling you a dumb ass)
[/quote]
Report you again? Yes I constantly report you, it's all I do, I sign on, find your comments and report them for shits and giggles. You feel better now?

I wanted mods to close it because it was suppose to be bout hitler not obama or bush. DW and h1n1 are the only members I know of on here that wanted to have the discussion, it wasn't to trap anyone.

I guess I need to learn how to troll like you ZOSICK if I am trolling, maybe from now on I'll make comments which can be seen as being racist although they can be argued their personal preference like your dodge one which was directed at me. I guess I'm not as good as a troll as you are.
On an unrelated note, buy any new high heels?


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Traveller said:


> I guess DW and h1n1 aren't coming to state why they see Hitler as a genius.
> I was getting ready to see some interesting and crazy debate but everyone seems fixated on Obama and Bush.
> 
> P-Fury Allied Mods, you know what to do, lock Hitlers arse away. . .


You made a thread to trap a couple members you disagree with? When your plan fails you want the mods to close it? You my friend are a TROLL and a poor one at that...

Dumb ass!









(Before you report me again I'm sorry for calling you a dumb ass)
[/quote]
Report you again? Yes I constantly report you, it's all I do, I sign on, find your comments and report them for shits and giggles. You feel better now?

I wanted mods to close it because it was suppose to be bout hitler not obama or bush. DW and h1n1 are the only members I know of on here that wanted to have the discussion, it wasn't to trap anyone.

I guess I need to learn how to troll like you ZOSICK if I am trolling, maybe from now on I'll make comments which can be seen as being racist although they can be argued their personal preference like your dodge one which was directed at me. I guess I'm not as good as a troll as you are.
On an unrelated note, buy any new high heels?
[/quote]

Hook Line and Sinker









I thought you're thread was about dictators


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2011)

We can't technically call obama and bush dictators even though it seems they are.


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

Traveller said:


> First dictator on the list.
> Adolf Hitler
> View attachment 201805
> 
> ...


now u pretty much made my point for me here and if people knew what u were saying than i would have already won this arguement, but sense no one really undestands what u said i shall clearify. well to start when hitler came into power in jan 1933 germany was the most economically weak country in europe, due to the treaty of versailles which made germany pay off basicaly europes ww1 war debt and germany did a very dumb thing by just printing up the money to pay everyone back which had no backing and caused the money to be worthless, and this was the time of the great depression so things were even worse than should have been. but anway hitler came to power in 1933 an by 1937 germany was the strongest country in the world economically and militarially, bc hitler did build up his army which is the only thing that the gov should be for, they should be just there to protect us. hitler used his army to reunite his country back to what once was germainia by losing under 100 lives through strategy of blitzkrieg, and succussfully reunited germany. the people of his new land accepted him hapilly bc they were embraced by the best workmans social rights programs of the time. he inforced a manditory 2 week paid vacation, 9-5 word day, mon-fri week which was all ground breaking for its time. but his people were admittedly the happiest in the world at the time and were the welthiest in the wrld and his accomplishments were admired at his time when he was the 1938 man of the year germany held the olympics and everyone reported on the greatness of germany and the german people, i mean it just goes on and on but no one sees these accomplishments bc the media did not report on these thing after the start of ww2 justr please go the libary and read a just factual book on hitler and ww2


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2011)

Do you know how they select man of the year? It isn't whether your good or bad, it's the impact you have on the world, how much news coverage you get.

Hitler wasn't even elected into power, his party took power and would of quickly slaughtered anyone who spoke against it. He was an egomaniac, it was all about him not the people. The people served him, not the country. He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius. Women weren't encouraged to work and most of the statistics were propaganda. Remember he was a man heavily relied on propaganda, the power of the German economy was a mere illusion. His racist message was evident in everything he did, further proving his ignorance. Sure you can argue some people were happy under him, but the majority wasn't. He ruled with an iron grip, murdering anyone who opposed him. Germany under Hitler was far from a happy place, that's not even touching on what he did in neighboring countries.

Also whenever you say the German people, you can easily switch it out as the "Aryan" people, Hitler did nothing more then separate the people of the land. The guy was the scum of the earth, a long with Stalin, Bin Laden, Sadam and many more dickheads and the dickheads to come.


----------



## Dolphinswin (Jun 26, 2010)

traveller your a tool for starting a thread on this, I don't feel its even worth a response as I already stated my points on how hitler was actually pretty smart, Don't get me wrong I hate him with a passion, Just saying he's no idiot. If you feel you can copy paste my comment from the other discussion.


----------



## Dolphinswin (Jun 26, 2010)

traveller your a tool for starting a thread on this, I don't feel its even worth a response as I already stated my points on how hitler was actually pretty smart, Don't get me wrong I hate him with a passion, Just saying he's no idiot. If you feel you can copy paste my comment from the other discussion.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

WhiteLineRacer said:


> Do you see how unbelievably funny I am?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

h1n1 said:


> now u pretty much made my point for me here and if people knew what u were saying than i would have already won this arguement, but sense no one really undestands what u said i shall clearify. well to start when hitler came into power in jan 1933 germany was the most economically weak country in europe, due to the treaty of versailles which made germany pay off basicaly europes ww1 war debt and germany did a very dumb thing by just printing up the money to pay everyone back which had no backing and caused the money to be worthless, and this was the time of the great depression so things were even worse than should have been. but anway hitler came to power in 1933 an by 1937 germany was the strongest country in the world economically and militarially, bc hitler did build up his army which is the only thing that the gov should be for, they should be just there to protect us. hitler used his army to reunite his country back to what once was germainia by losing under 100 lives through strategy of blitzkrieg, and succussfully reunited germany. the people of his new land accepted him hapilly bc they were embraced by the best workmans social rights programs of the time. he inforced a manditory 2 week paid vacation, 9-5 word day, mon-fri week which was all ground breaking for its time. but his people were admittedly the happiest in the world at the time and were the welthiest in the wrld and his accomplishments were admired at his time when he was the 1938 man of the year germany held the olympics and everyone reported on the greatness of germany and the german people, i mean it just goes on and on but no one sees these accomplishments bc the media did not report on these thing after the start of ww2 justr please go the libary and read a just factual book on hitler and ww2


perfectly stated!
the german people post ww1 were the poster-children of a country and culture defeated and beat down. under hitler there was a great resurgance of national and cultural pride. there are a lot of burried details in the books that detail pre-ww2 germany, but under hitlers leadership the german people (before the climax of the second war) were once again thriving and within a generation the greatest european nation once again. 
of course in reviewing all the details, yes, you will find many many differing points of view on national image. but the broadly stated view from the above post is dead on accurate. 
one asks themselves how a cultured and industrialized people allowed someone like hitler to come into power and have the ruling ss do the things they did. to fully understand hitler, ww2 germany and the reasons why you really have to start at the first world war. 
the defeat of germany, the years after and the poorly run leadership there afterwards including the stock market crash were all perfectly placed to give rise to the nazi party.

when one speaks of nazi today we conjure images of racist oppression ruling by the barrel of a gun. but nazi was a national labor union of the time is gained momentum. hitler, more then just a great speaker, was the front man who was a proven war hero in the first world war knew what it was to suffer as a german and the things he and his party did for the average citizen in berlin and cities around germany were undeniable. 
quite literally from the 20's to the 30's an average german family went from a poverty striken lifestyle, unable to afford three meals a day, transportation and very little hope of work to a solid middle class lifestyle of plentiful work, available mass produced goods and this general feeling of long dead patriotism. 
yes hitler was not truly the man the average citizen thought him as, history shows us that, but to truly understand hitler you must look past the generic slander of this mad man dictator and truly look into his own writings and the people and country of the time. it makes perfect sense why the german people submitted power to the ss.

hitler is not one to be admired. nor is the nazi party. but the germany of pre ww2 is very understandable when you learn its history around that time. 
of course by the time jewish temples were being burnt by the ss, deportation and "evacuation" (killed), the nazi party had absolute control over its people. this is when you will read about the german peoples mood changing from patriotic to questionable to fearful. the ultimate downfall of hitlers germany was the war with russia. the winter of 1941 was the true push back that snowballed itself back onto germany as nations decended. 
this brings us eventually to stalins red army and russias horrific acts of the time as well. the stories of german civilians after ww2 was over is far from over. the price these people paid for hitlers actions lasted for generations.
and the ultimate rebuilding of post ww2 germany took until the mid 1980's to complete. to understand a true dictator you must understand the peoples story first. not just the individual. there is always a reason, even for the most horrific acts.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

h1n1 said:


> From what i understand Hitler had multiple sclerosis for which he was taking a cocktail of wonder drugs. That is why you see him holding his left hand in films and pictures during the later part of the war.He was living in a dream world. He was on drugs that are illegal today which at the time weren't even known about like speed, mdma(ecstasy), and a few others. He had a personal physician treat him daily with these drugs.
> 
> But i believe he was better than the man of steel Stalin. Even if he was mentally unstable.


i see this thread and canyt help but get involved the things stated so far are very wrong its sad that you dont knw anythinhg about the man and yet you make judgement on him. the reason he held his hand was bc he was almost killed in a murder attempt where he lost hearing completely in his right ar and lost most use of his right hand and it shook uncontroalably bc of the boom but h ouldnt let anyone see his flaws bc it was a sign of weekness, but i understand y u think he had ms its common misconseption. but he only took an anti gas pill thats the only thig he would tke he was very openly against cigarettes, alcohol, and all drugs he was fearful of the antigas pill bc he realized that all of things shortendedyour life epectancy and wanted to abolish manily druggs and ciggs. but he was a vegaterian ad began to have gas and stomach problms due to all the vegtables, but that was his look apon drugs. dont just say things that you hear actually read a book befor u make a claim
[/quote]
From 1942, the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler received daily injections of methamphetamine from his personal physician, Dr Theodor Morell. The Führer was also familiar with cocaine. Hitler's ailments have been attributed to everything from tertiary syphilis to Parkinson's disease. But many of The Führer's clinical signs and symptoms may have been caused by his exotic drug regimen.

In Hitler's Wehrmacht, methamphetamine tablets branded as Pervitin were liberally distributed to German fighting troops throughout the War. Amphetamines are "power drugs" that reduce fatigue, heighten aggression, and diminish human warmth and empathy.

Don't listen to everything grand master dragon 5th level kkk member has to say...


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

Traveller said:


> Do you know how they select man of the year? It isn't whether your good or bad, it's the impact you have on the world, how much news coverage you get.
> 
> Hitler wasn't even elected into power, his party took power and would of quickly slaughtered anyone who spoke against it. He was an egomaniac, it was all about him not the people. The people served him, not the country. He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius. Women weren't encouraged to work and most of the statistics were propaganda. Remember he was a man heavily relied on propaganda, the power of the German economy was a mere illusion. His racist message was evident in everything he did, further proving his ignorance. Sure you can argue some people were happy under him, but the majority wasn't. He ruled with an iron grip, murdering anyone who opposed him. Germany under Hitler was far from a happy place, that's not even touching on what he did in neighboring countries.
> 
> Also whenever you say the German people, you can easily switch it out as the "Aryan" people, Hitler did nothing more then separate the people of the land. The guy was the scum of the earth, a long with Stalin, Bin Laden, Sadam and many more dickheads and the dickheads to come.


its fnny how u know bits and peices of what he was and what hapened but not what aztually happened or who he was. bc he was elected to power as chancler which is sort of like vicepres, and after the death of the president and after a communist burned down reichstag in an act of protest hitler deamonized the communists even more through the use of propaganda and was voted in through bills and laws as the fuhrer for the greman peoples protector so he had more rights to end the terrorism of commuism. but what u keep saying " He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius." well i dont understand how u dont see him building up the army as anything but genius? the military should be the only thing that the government should spend money on. but you are so aggainst propaganda but all it is, is another word for a commercial. every politition uses it same with every company its everywhere in our world.... and yes he was very rasist and he convinced the rest of the country to follow him nd kill millions so what does that say for iggorate human beings it could happen today in america if there was another hitler. the fact that he ws capiable of doing these things makes him godly in a litteral sense of the bible, but i do not agree with him in his murder but he was a genious in the way he was capiable of doing it. and he was an egomaniac just like anyother politition or actor. i see nothing wrong with that.

this might just drive you mad but i honnestly think he was smarter than einstein bc..
1. made the poorest country the strongest in 4 years
2. convinced his people to kill millions( the fact tat he was able to do so makes him genious)
3. built up the military and brought back his country through the military
4. even without einstein in germany he was 3 months away from creating the atom bomb as where america was 2-3 times behind germany

a very short list butu get he point


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

and hitlers was success was from his generals.. one he started to not listen to them and go off his own thought thats when the war took a turn for the worse



h1n1 said:


> Do you know how they select man of the year? It isn't whether your good or bad, it's the impact you have on the world, how much news coverage you get.
> 
> Hitler wasn't even elected into power, his party took power and would of quickly slaughtered anyone who spoke against it. He was an egomaniac, it was all about him not the people. The people served him, not the country. He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius. Women weren't encouraged to work and most of the statistics were propaganda. Remember he was a man heavily relied on propaganda, the power of the German economy was a mere illusion. His racist message was evident in everything he did, further proving his ignorance. Sure you can argue some people were happy under him, but the majority wasn't. He ruled with an iron grip, murdering anyone who opposed him. Germany under Hitler was far from a happy place, that's not even touching on what he did in neighboring countries.
> 
> Also whenever you say the German people, you can easily switch it out as the "Aryan" people, Hitler did nothing more then separate the people of the land. The guy was the scum of the earth, a long with Stalin, Bin Laden, Sadam and many more dickheads and the dickheads to come.


its fnny how u know bits and peices of what he was and what hapened but not what aztually happened or who he was. bc he was elected to power as chancler which is sort of like vicepres, and after the death of the president and after a communist burned down reichstag in an act of protest hitler deamonized the communists even more through the use of propaganda and was voted in through bills and laws as the fuhrer for the greman peoples protector so he had more rights to end the terrorism of commuism. but what u keep saying " He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius." well i dont understand how u dont see him building up the army as anything but genius? the military should be the only thing that the government should spend money on. but you are so aggainst propaganda but all it is, is another word for a commercial. every politition uses it same with every company its everywhere in our world.... and yes he was very rasist and he convinced the rest of the country to follow him nd kill millions so what does that say for iggorate human beings it could happen today in america if there was another hitler. the fact that he ws capiable of doing these things makes him godly in a litteral sense of the bible, but i do not agree with him in his murder but he was a genious in the way he was capiable of doing it. and he was an egomaniac just like anyother politition or actor. i see nothing wrong with that.

this might just drive you mad but i honnestly think he was smarter than einstein bc..
1. made the poorest country the strongest in 4 years
2. convinced his people to kill millions( the fact tat he was able to do so makes him genious)
3. built up the military and brought back his country through the military
4. even without einstein in germany he was 3 months away from creating the atom bomb as where america was 2-3 times behind germany

a very short list butu get he point
[/quote]
what about all the scientific theories Einstein created... prooved and disproved, he could spin circles around hitler, hitler was a good leader not a genius


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

h1n1 you need to learn how to get a point across. i, for one, posted on the documented facts. you are arguing hitler is smarter then einstein.

before you burry yourself too much with a blanket statement like, and i quote, 1. made the poorest country the strongest in 4 years
....you might wish to think of what he ended up doing to his country for the next 4 decades after his death.

and convinced his people to kill millions is incorrect also. the german civilians wanted no part in the killings and if you read a little more on the history you will find they were largly ignorant on what was even happening right under their noses. as for the troops killing millions, the military is a much different beast then your average berlin citizen. if you refused orders you were as good as dead. and many german military men and officials eventually found their way into concentration camps because they refused to follow such orders. he didnt convince anyone to kill millions, he simply had the might and the numbers to silence the opposition.

i believe your take on hitler is idealistic and not realistic. it is a fascinating life to study, but to admire it as to compare him smarter then einstein is a show of ignorance.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

People say, ohh but he conquerd poland and france and a lot of russia,
but come on.... the only true smart conquest he had was of france which surprises me. I mean, poland still used horses!! he wasnt smart, he just used germany's huge economy,army and technology over poland.
And the russians were not ready for an atack from germany.

Hitler some deadly mistakes:

1)After hitler lost in the battle of britain he was like, well i didnt win here ill just move to russia. But because he didnt finish off britain he left and open front! he left half army in western europe!

2)Hitler didnt realise how vast russia is and how much resources it has, he only conquerd like a quarter of russia.

3)He thought he would finish off russia by the winter, he did exacly! what napoleon did, enter with a huge army into russia without thinking about the russian winter.

4)WHO OPENS 3 FRONTS WHEN HE DOSENT HAVE TO!!!!!!! Why open a western,eastern AND southern(north africa) front ! divied and conquer!, enter all of your

5)WHY did he think he could take on the united states after he lost so many man in russia. in 1940 the unites states had a population of 130 million and a huge country when in 1937 i think germany had a population of about 70 million.But i guess if hitler was dumb eneough to atack russia(with a population of about 200 million in 1941) he is dumb eneough to fight anybody.
(from another forum)


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

Central said:


> now u pretty much made my point for me here and if people knew what u were saying than i would have already won this arguement, but sense no one really undestands what u said i shall clearify. well to start when hitler came into power in jan 1933 germany was the most economically weak country in europe, due to the treaty of versailles which made germany pay off basicaly europes ww1 war debt and germany did a very dumb thing by just printing up the money to pay everyone back which had no backing and caused the money to be worthless, and this was the time of the great depression so things were even worse than should have been. but anway hitler came to power in 1933 an by 1937 germany was the strongest country in the world economically and militarially, bc hitler did build up his army which is the only thing that the gov should be for, they should be just there to protect us. hitler used his army to reunite his country back to what once was germainia by losing under 100 lives through strategy of blitzkrieg, and succussfully reunited germany. the people of his new land accepted him hapilly bc they were embraced by the best workmans social rights programs of the time. he inforced a manditory 2 week paid vacation, 9-5 word day, mon-fri week which was all ground breaking for its time. but his people were admittedly the happiest in the world at the time and were the welthiest in the wrld and his accomplishments were admired at his time when he was the 1938 man of the year germany held the olympics and everyone reported on the greatness of germany and the german people, i mean it just goes on and on but no one sees these accomplishments bc the media did not report on these thing after the start of ww2 justr please go the libary and read a just factual book on hitler and ww2


now you sem well educated on the facts of ww2 and hitler personally but the german people looked at hitler like a god untill around 1942 even as the british were bombing germany and germans were losing there homes hitler would give them free homes and free supplies (that belonged to tehe jews) but nne theless he worked for his people and loved them like cildren yet he had absloute power. but there was 100% freedom in germany for those whon werent colored, jews, communists. ive read meany darierys of people who idolizd ad talked goly things of hitler and how germany at the time was th ebest place to be untill 1942

perfectly stated!
the german people post ww1 were the poster-children of a country and culture defeated and beat down. under hitler there was a great resurgance of national and cultural pride. there are a lot of burried details in the books that detail pre-ww2 germany, but under hitlers leadership the german people (before the climax of the second war) were once again thriving and within a generation the greatest european nation once again. 
of course in reviewing all the details, yes, you will find many many differing points of view on national image. but the broadly stated view from the above post is dead on accurate. 
one asks themselves how a cultured and industrialized people allowed someone like hitler to come into power and have the ruling ss do the things they did. to fully understand hitler, ww2 germany and the reasons why you really have to start at the first world war. 
the defeat of germany, the years after and the poorly run leadership there afterwards including the stock market crash were all perfectly placed to give rise to the nazi party.

when one speaks of nazi today we conjure images of racist oppression ruling by the barrel of a gun. but nazi was a national labor union of the time is gained momentum. hitler, more then just a great speaker, was the front man who was a proven war hero in the first world war knew what it was to suffer as a german and the things he and his party did for the average citizen in berlin and cities around germany were undeniable. 
quite literally from the 20's to the 30's an average german family went from a poverty striken lifestyle, unable to afford three meals a day, transportation and very little hope of work to a solid middle class lifestyle of plentiful work, available mass produced goods and this general feeling of long dead patriotism. 
yes hitler was not truly the man the average citizen thought him as, history shows us that, but to truly understand hitler you must look past the generic slander of this mad man dictator and truly look into his own writings and the people and country of the time. it makes perfect sense why the german people submitted power to the ss.

hitler is not one to be admired. nor is the nazi party. but the germany of pre ww2 is very understandable when you learn its history around that time. 
of course by the time jewish temples were being burnt by the ss, deportation and "evacuation" (killed), the nazi party had absolute control over its people. this is when you will read about the german peoples mood changing from patriotic to questionable to fearful. the ultimate downfall of hitlers germany was the war with russia. the winter of 1941 was the true push back that snowballed itself back onto germany as nations decended. 
this brings us eventually to stalins red army and russias horrific acts of the time as well. the stories of german civilians after ww2 was over is far from over. the price these people paid for hitlers actions lasted for generations.
and the ultimate rebuilding of post ww2 germany took until the mid 1980's to complete. to understand a true dictator you must understand the peoples story first. not just the individual. there is always a reason, even for the most horrific acts.
[/quote]

woops lol i ment to say

now you sem well educated on the facts of ww2 and hitler personally but the german people looked at hitler like a god untill around 1942 even as the british were bombing germany and germans were losing there homes hitler would give them free homes and free supplies (that belonged to tehe jews) but nne theless he worked for his people and loved them like cildren yet he had absloute power. but there was 100% freedom in germany for those whon werent colored, jews, communists. ive read meany darierys of people who idolizd ad talked goly things of hitler and how germany at the time was th ebest place to be untill 1942


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

if hitler was a genius we would all be living in a nazi controlled country right now, he should have listened to his generals when they all wanted to retreat he might still have a hold in germany

and h1n1 is right aobut them loving hitler most were brainwashed, after the war 1/3 believed in the final solution and hitlers beliefs


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

bob351 said:


> Do you know how they select man of the year? It isn't whether your good or bad, it's the impact you have on the world, how much news coverage you get.
> 
> Hitler wasn't even elected into power, his party took power and would of quickly slaughtered anyone who spoke against it. He was an egomaniac, it was all about him not the people. The people served him, not the country. He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius. Women weren't encouraged to work and most of the statistics were propaganda. Remember he was a man heavily relied on propaganda, the power of the German economy was a mere illusion. His racist message was evident in everything he did, further proving his ignorance. Sure you can argue some people were happy under him, but the majority wasn't. He ruled with an iron grip, murdering anyone who opposed him. Germany under Hitler was far from a happy place, that's not even touching on what he did in neighboring countries.
> 
> Also whenever you say the German people, you can easily switch it out as the "Aryan" people, Hitler did nothing more then separate the people of the land. The guy was the scum of the earth, a long with Stalin, Bin Laden, Sadam and many more dickheads and the dickheads to come.


its fnny how u know bits and peices of what he was and what hapened but not what aztually happened or who he was. bc he was elected to power as chancler which is sort of like vicepres, and after the death of the president and after a communist burned down reichstag in an act of protest hitler deamonized the communists even more through the use of propaganda and was voted in through bills and laws as the fuhrer for the greman peoples protector so he had more rights to end the terrorism of commuism. but what u keep saying " He lowered unemployment because of his development of arms, not because he was an economic genius." well i dont understand how u dont see him building up the army as anything but genius? the military should be the only thing that the government should spend money on. but you are so aggainst propaganda but all it is, is another word for a commercial. every politition uses it same with every company its everywhere in our world.... and yes he was very rasist and he convinced the rest of the country to follow him nd kill millions so what does that say for iggorate human beings it could happen today in america if there was another hitler. the fact that he ws capiable of doing these things makes him godly in a litteral sense of the bible, but i do not agree with him in his murder but he was a genious in the way he was capiable of doing it. and he was an egomaniac just like anyother politition or actor. i see nothing wrong with that.

this might just drive you mad but i honnestly think he was smarter than einstein bc..
1. made the poorest country the strongest in 4 years
2. convinced his people to kill millions( the fact tat he was able to do so makes him genious)
3. built up the military and brought back his country through the military
4. even without einstein in germany he was 3 months away from creating the atom bomb as where america was 2-3 times behind germany

a very short list butu get he point
[/quote]
what about all the scientific theories Einstein created... prooved and disproved, he could spin circles around hitler, hitler was a good leader not a genius
[/quote]

u are wrong there my friend thing turned for the worse bc of his allies and he had to back them mainly mussilini and the gas problem he was rigtht on its mainly his allies that caused his down turn


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

you want a millitary genius, america uses his tactics to this day


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

h1n1 said:


> now you sem well educated on the facts of ww2 and hitler personally but the german people looked at hitler like a god untill around 1942 even as the british were bombing germany and germans were losing there homes hitler would give them free homes and free supplies (that belonged to tehe jews) but nne theless he worked for his people and loved them like cildren yet he had absloute power. but there was 100% freedom in germany for those whon werent colored, jews, communists. ive read meany darierys of people who idolizd ad talked goly things of hitler and how germany at the time was th ebest place to be untill 1942


most definitely i agree h1n1. the people admired him with a feirce passion. im just letting you know that the last post you made came across very strange. people here will attack you if you let yourself slip up like that (assuming it was a slip). 
just understand that the simple subject of hitler is one to be debated only with great knowledge. you will have to dig deep and hard to make a "good" point about hitler to anyone. that is why i simply would reference the period of time he was alive. i would not speak of him in a modern context as being someone of great standings. 
in the long run, what he ended up doing to germany was sending them into generations of welfare, post war chaos and cultural decay. the german people were left picking up the pieces from the third reichs rule. there were very real psychological damages done to germany after the war. the world had no pitty for these people because of their former ruler. that was hitlers ultimate legacy with germany. whatever his initial intentions, you must take history from beginning to end. 
if you show my just the year 1937, etc, i would call hitler an ambitious man. if you showed me just germany in 1945 i would call him a failure. take the entire war, the entire events that took shape into mind before refering him to be smarter then einstein.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

he was not a general, when his generals said they should retreat from russia and not get circled in stalingrad he like nahh f*ck that were gunna stay anyways since we need a city with no value just because i need to wipe stalins name off the map

he was by no mean an idiot but not a genius ad 100% not a general, he had some of the best generals the world has seen however


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

bob351 said:


> if hitler was a genius we would all be living in a nazi controlled country right now, he should have listened to his generals when they all wanted to retreat he might still have a hold in germany


^^^ another downfall of hitlers power. if you educate yourself on his military structure you will find it was a mess! the chain of command was splintered and fractured right up to hitler. this made for a mess when he ultimately was invaded by the allies. i think most war experts would have given hitler a failing grade for this very reason.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

if he just listend to his generals then he would have won the war 100%...

also he obviously did not realize that he needed a navy instead of just subs


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

bob351 said:


> People say, ohh but he conquerd poland and france and a lot of russia,
> but come on.... the only true smart conquest he had was of france which surprises me. I mean, poland still used horses!! he wasnt smart, he just used germany's huge economy,army and technology over poland.
> And the russians were not ready for an atack from germany.
> 
> ...


i really dont want to have to type his whole military stratigee but........
first he had had planed on attacking russia 5 months before winter but his alie mussiline had trouble conqureing etheopia and need hitlers help at the same time hitler had planned on invading russia. so he had to send his troopes etheiaopa which took 3 months round trip and which ment there was only 2 monhs untill winter and decided he was going to still invade which worked for the first 2 months where he had pretty much wiped out russia and if he had left when planned he would have beat russia eaidly but italy made him late.. and he realized that if he controaled russia than the us wouldnt dare to join in the war bc they woudnt be strong enough to beat germany,and than there was only 2 fronts hen he invaded russia which sould have been an easy win like poland, france, and auatria... learn your facts before you try to claim u know something


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

not to mention wanting to rule the world, no army in history has ever even come close



h1n1 said:


> People say, ohh but he conquerd poland and france and a lot of russia,
> but come on.... the only true smart conquest he had was of france which surprises me. I mean, poland still used horses!! he wasnt smart, he just used germany's huge economy,army and technology over poland.
> And the russians were not ready for an atack from germany.
> 
> ...


i really dont want to have to type his whole military stratigee but........
first he had had planed on attacking russia 5 months before winter but his alie mussiline had trouble conqureing etheopia and need hitlers help at the same time hitler had planned on invading russia. so he had to send his troopes etheiaopa which took 3 months round trip and which ment there was only 2 monhs untill winter and decided he was going to still invade which worked for the first 2 months where he had pretty much wiped out russia and if he had left when planned he would have beat russia eaidly but italy made him late.. and he realized that if he controaled russia than the us wouldnt dare to join in the war bc they woudnt be strong enough to beat germany,and than there was only 2 fronts hen he invaded russia which sould have been an easy win like poland, france, and auatria... learn your facts before you try to claim u know something
[/quote]
when you attack an unprepared country obviously you will penetrate deep into it.... once russia had some tanks and was ready to counter the wermacht retreated with there tails inbetween there legs (against hitlers orders)... no point on arguing with you he lost the war that prooved good enough he is not the genious you think he is


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

h1n1, i disagree america would not have joined the war from your above post. america was attacked by japan. america had virtually no choice but to fight. 
ok, i gotta run...you gentlemen enjoy your discussion.


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

Central said:


> h1n1 you need to learn how to get a point across. i, for one, posted on the documented facts. you are arguing hitler is smarter then einstein.
> 
> before you burry yourself too much with a blanket statement like, and i quote, 1. made the poorest country the strongest in 4 years
> ....you might wish to think of what he ended up doing to his country for the next 4 decades after his death.
> ...


well you hitler blinded the germans to believe that the jew was the devil much like in salam mass where people killed bc they thought everyone was a witch hitler just tricked the people to seeng that jews were out to get you and were trying to destroy germany so may people in germany beguan to hate jews. as where they say that people didnt know what was going on but hitler openly said that we must kill jews, colords, retards, communists and he said this very reguarly listen to his english translations its quite shocking what he said but the people did what he said and many willingly kiled jews and wrote about how much they enjoyed it. its honestly sad, but i stand to my point that he was smarter than einstein

heres why hitler was smarter
he only mad 1 mistake in his military plan and that was to have italy as an allie if no italy wed today be under german rule. and yes ofcourse one was a scientis and one a ruler but hitler as a person was smarter and had more of a positive effect on gremany at the time, oviously he destroyed it in the ed but he was a genious of his time in all the things hes accomplished (i dont want to repeat them all gain bc there ALOT)


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

hitler only made 1 mistake in his campain







this is getting comical

stop focusing on just the good and look at the whole picture


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Please keep the pictures and conversations clean.


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

bob351 said:


> hitler only made 1 mistake in his campain
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its hard not to see the whole pic but i must focus on the good bc no one knows the good bc the media keeps the people blind from te truth


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

speak your opinion h1n1. fully explain your side. lets openly discuss


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.

also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

Hitler got the majority of his power because of German memories of 1700-1930. This population saw a lot of civil and international war during those periods and many believed Hitler was a superior choice to the Weimer Republic. At least this is what my research into the revolution last year revealed to me.



gjohnson1989 said:


> h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.
> 
> also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


What are your qualifications?


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

10pointers said:


> h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.
> 
> also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


What are your qualifications?
[/quote]

2 combat deployments to afghanistan and being a non-commissioned officer in the united states army. h1n1 doesn't know crap about tactics and ops, and i don't want him to act like he does. he can argue all the facts from books he wants, but leave military strategy to himself bc im going to go out on a limb and say he, nor you, have any military knowledge.


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

Central said:


> that looks like a rifle seed ^^^


 It's a Potato but in the shape of a dick. Hence Dick'Tator!!!!!!!

I am wastes here today


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

WhiteLineRacer said:


> that looks like a rifle seed ^^^


 It's a Potato but in the shape of a dick. Hence Dick'Tator!!!!!!!

I am wastes here today
[/quote]

I must be dense, but, I just got that one


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

gjohnson1989 said:


> h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.
> 
> also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


What are your qualifications?
[/quote]

2 combat deployments to afghanistan and being a non-commissioned officer in the united states army. h1n1 doesn't know crap about tactics and ops, and i don't want him to act like he does. he can argue all the facts from books he wants, but leave military strategy to himself bc im going to go out on a limb and say he, nor you, have any military knowledge.
[/quote]

That's impressive, but the reality is two combat tours does not necessarily make you more qualified than anyone else when it comes to military strategy. You do not need to be a soldier to be interested in the motives, armament's and logistics of a battle. Saying so would be like you calling me a liar for claiming Englands victory at Agincourt was a success because I never fought in a war.

PS- For the record, I too disagree with h1n1


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

Another one of the worst in history...this guys death toll could even rival Hitler's.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

10pointers said:


> h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.
> 
> also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


What are your qualifications?
[/quote]

2 combat deployments to afghanistan and being a non-commissioned officer in the united states army. h1n1 doesn't know crap about tactics and ops, and i don't want him to act like he does. he can argue all the facts from books he wants, but leave military strategy to himself bc im going to go out on a limb and say he, nor you, have any military knowledge.
[/quote]

That's impressive, but the reality is two combat tours does not necessarily make you more qualified than anyone else when it comes to military strategy. You do not need to be a soldier to be interested in the motives, armament's and logistics of a battle. Saying so would be like you calling me a liar for claiming Englands victory at Agincourt was a success because I never fought in a war.

PS- For the record, I too disagree with h1n1








[/quote]
Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).


----------



## Bawb2u (May 27, 2004)

Why all the focus on two? What about someone like Idi Amin? Have any of you ever heard of him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

Bawb2u said:


> Why all the focus on two? What about someone like Idi Amin? Have any of you ever heard of him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin


Africa is littered with dictators like him. they made a film about him called 'The last king of scotland' was a pretty good film


----------



## h1n1 (Apr 5, 2011)

10pointers said:


> h1n1, what makes you think you can discuss military strategy in any capacity? do you have any time in the military? how would you know he is some great leader in a military strategy sense? were you at the round table during discussions of tactics and operations? i didnt think so. state the facts you may or may not have read in some book or watched on some nat geo documentary but keep your thoughts about military strategy to yourself bc you have no idea what youre talking about on that front.
> 
> also, learn how to spell a word. your attempt at sounding educated is greatly hindered by your second-grade level spelling.


What are your qualifications?
[/quote]

2 combat deployments to afghanistan and being a non-commissioned officer in the united states army. h1n1 doesn't know crap about tactics and ops, and i don't want him to act like he does. he can argue all the facts from books he wants, but leave military strategy to himself bc im going to go out on a limb and say he, nor you, have any military knowledge.
[/quote]

That's impressive, but the reality is two combat tours does not necessarily make you more qualified than anyone else when it comes to military strategy. You do not need to be a soldier to be interested in the motives, armament's and logistics of a battle. Saying so would be like you calling me a liar for claiming Englands victory at Agincourt was a success because I never fought in a war.

PS- For the record, I too disagree with h1n1








[/quote]

your right i no nothing personally about military stratage but, ive read what his ideas were, wat his stragaties were and they were perfect under the circumstances, especiall when he went against his generals every one thinks he made mistakes but when you lear his ideas and methods he was genious


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

> Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).


If you have served, you may be more qualified to talk about matters that are important to a soldier, a more micro-managed look at warfare, am I right?

Would you training as a NCO make you more qualified to discuss macro-management of a multi-front war, using weapons and tactics largely different from todays, involving politics and logistics specific to that 1940's time period?

Do you see why I doubt that one of today's soldiers may not have any more right to an opinion on the matter of WW2 strategy and diplomacy than someone interested in history?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

gjohnson thinks he's a general because he joined the army. This is the type of military superiority complex that pisses me off to no end.

the art of war,written by a general
battle studies, written by a colonel
tank in attack, written by rommel

there are a plethora of books written by people who have employed strategies on the war front. A soldiers strategy is much different than that of a military leader, so please, stop with the elitism.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> gjohnson thinks he's a general because he joined the army. This is the type of military superiority complex that pisses me off to no end.
> 
> the art of war,written by a general
> battle studies, written by a colonel
> ...


i never once said that i know that of a general. but i know more about military strategy than anyone on this forum. and the tactics used in WW2 are the same used today. the only thing different is equipment and intelligence. tactics and ops are the same, WW2 soldiers and soldiers in OIF and OEF all use the same battle drills. they have been around since the revolutionary war. little has changed in that sense. so yes, i can talk about those bc i know them better than all of you. i know why they work, what personnel is needed, what equipment is necessary and how you execute these strategies. reading books does not give you this knowledge, doing it does. you might get the basic concept but not anywhere near the knowledge of a person that has been deployed in a combat zone. military superiority complex? good one, pal. i just simply stated that no one on here has the knowledge to discuss TAC/OPS. so leave it out of the discussion because you just sound ignorant.

and whats your fascination with officers? you know what the majority of generals and colonels have done in today's army? not sh*t. they were all officers during peace time and got that high rank before we even got into these 2 wars. the majority haven't even seen combat. so get off your high horse talking about officers and their superior knowledge. ask anyone who has ever been in any branch on the military, "who does all the work?" 99% will say NCO's. so if you want to know about all these tac/ops, ask hitler's plt sgt's and squad leaders, not the generals. hitler didn't know sh*t about tac/ops (i assume) bc most leaders don't.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

10pointers said:


> > Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).
> 
> 
> If you have served, you may be more qualified to talk about matters that are important to a soldier, a more micro-managed look at warfare, am I right?
> ...


again, i said nothing about politics or multi-front wars. i simply stated to leave military strategy out of this discussion. politics and having multiple war fronts have nothing to do with being a good military strategist. 
I'm not following your "micro-managed look at warfare", please elaborate.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I served in Vietnam, a real mans war and gjohnson you have a lot to learn kid. Have you ever seeN your best friends face explode right infront of your eyes? I have, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME MAN.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

Danny Tanner said:


> I served in Vietnam, a real mans war and gjohnson you have a lot to learn kid. Have you ever seeN your best friends face explode right infront of your eyes? I have, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME MAN.


im call gonna call your bluff bc anyone who has served isnt going to talk about the losses they experienced, esp not in detail. tool.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

"He who has lost shall speak upon his loss with great pride of his loss"

- Stanley Mcchrystal


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2011)

DT *is* a decorated war vet.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

I was never one to brag about it, but when I see these kids thinking their all that, I cant help but speak up.


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)




----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

gjohnson1989 said:


> > Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).
> 
> 
> If you have served, you may be more qualified to talk about matters that are important to a soldier, a more micro-managed look at warfare, am I right?
> ...


again, i said nothing about politics or multi-front wars. i simply stated to leave military strategy out of this discussion. politics and having multiple war fronts have nothing to do with being a good military strategist. 
I'm not following your "micro-managed look at warfare", please elaborate.
[/quote]

You are stumbling over yourself - We are discussing why Germany fell, you are saying that we should not talk about strategy, and yet we should somehow leave out politics and other variables of that strategy.

Your opinion would be more valuable if we were discussing how to take out an enemy artillery piece, in the Middle East, using modern equipment, but I don't see how because you have fought a war you are somehow more equipped to talk about the fall of Germany and the possible causes, including the importance of losing battles and the variations in strategy.

That is all though. I hope we can continue with the thread now. Feel free to get your last word in, but I won't bite.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i use military strategy when i play battlefield on my xbox. from a soldiers perspective, duck, cover, shoot, and most importantly, TAKE ORDERS.

the downfall of the nazi's was that their leader was ill equipped to run an army, and out of all the mistakes he made in his war campaign, perhaps his most fatal was the decision to attack russia.

it's a 2 part mistake, because A. he attacked stalingrad instead of moscow, and B. he clung to his misguided idea that the oil fields were russias prize, and so they needed to be captured and guarded. given the great success of hitlers attacks on other fronts in such short amounts of time, and the german-russian treaty which was signed shortly before the invasion, the russians were caught off guard, and the germans easily advanced. "scorched earth" ensued, and the further germany advanced, the closer they came to the russian winter. at the same time, hitler was supplying troops to rommel in N.Africa instead of the 3 front war in russia. germany was so deep into russia that it was incredibly difficult for the front lines to get supplies from the south. germany had to sh*t or get off the pot, so they attacked stalingrad and were surrounded by russians. that was the beginning of the end.

another miscalculation was hitlers choice in allies. idealogically they all had the same objectives, but they hardly shared the same interests globally. hitler underestimated FDR. when japan attacked pearl harbor, hitler thought the US would be pre-occupied with japan instead of coming to europes aid. the USA pumped in an obscene amount of materials and supplies, and mounted attacks along the allied front. once italy fell in 1943 (after a little more than a month of fighting), it provided a perfect location for the allies to mount their offensive on berlin. D-day came in 1944, and the vengeance rocket failed miserably. the rest is history.

hitler lost that war for the germans, had he invaded moscow, russia probably would've surrendered before the winter, had he provided them more soldiers given the conditions, the same outcome would've occurred. total german losses have been estimated at 9 million people. there were many miscalculations by the germans (hitler), but another thing you cannot discount, is the clear economic, technological, and numerical superiority that the allies posessed by the time america entered the war.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

10pointers said:


> > Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).
> 
> 
> If you have served, you may be more qualified to talk about matters that are important to a soldier, a more micro-managed look at warfare, am I right?
> ...


again, i said nothing about politics or multi-front wars. i simply stated to leave military strategy out of this discussion. politics and having multiple war fronts have nothing to do with being a good military strategist. 
I'm not following your "micro-managed look at warfare", please elaborate.
[/quote]

You are stumbling over yourself - We are discussing why Germany fell, you are saying that we should not talk about strategy, and yet we should somehow leave out politics and other variables of that strategy.

Your opinion would be more valuable if we were discussing how to take out an enemy artillery piece, in the Middle East, using modern equipment, but I don't see how because you have fought a war you are somehow more equipped to talk about the fall of Germany and the possible causes, including the importance of losing battles and the variations in strategy.

That is all though. I hope we can continue with the thread now. Feel free to get your last word in, but I won't bite.
[/quote]
my apologies to DT, from my experience, people don't talk about friends they lost in combat. and that is a lot of the reason why people have PTSD, but i regress. and DT, don't talk down to me like you're better than me because you served in 'Nam. Both are/were shitty and unnecessary wars. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I KNOW that i know more about military tac/ops than 99.9% of people on this forum.
out of curiosity; what was your MOS, time in service, and rank during combat?

I am referring to a statement that h1n1 made like 2 pages ago. He stated something along the lines of how hitler is a great military leader because blah blah blah. Whatever it was doesn't matter. The only thing I'm stating is that he, nor anyone else, should try to talk about hitler was a great military strategist because the majority of people don't know sh*t about military strategy. I'm not stating I know more about the politics involved in WW2 in Nazi Germany, because I certainly do not know much. But I do know enough about military strategy to state that Hitler failed horribly in military strategy by not listening to his officers in command. Hence why they lost. Great military leaders listen to their subordinates, disseminate information, macro-manage, plan, and revise those plans after input from subordinates. hitler did none of these things.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i think you're misguided, because honestly, i've never served in the military, and i know plenty about why hitler was a horrible military leader. im not going to go so far as to say i know more than any particular person, but i've read enough to know the majority of circumstance surrounding hitlers WW2 campaign. you need not to have served to read a history book.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> i think you're misguided, because honestly, i've never served in the military, and i know plenty about why hitler was a horrible military leader. im not going to go so far as to say i know more than any particular person, but i've read enough to know the majority of circumstance surrounding hitlers WW2 campaign. you need not to have served to read a history book.


as stated before, reading a history book does not equal real world experience. also as stated before, before someone says it was over 60 years ago, the military in the 40's employed the same battle drills as the military in the 21st century.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Danny Tanner said:


> I served in Vietnam, a real mans war and gjohnson you have a lot to learn kid. Have you ever seeN your best friends face explode right infront of your eyes? I have, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME MAN.


Thank you for serving Mr. Tanner.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

gjohnson1989 said:


> > Agreed, everyone can be interested in motives and logistics. BUT, being interested in comparison to having real world experience, IMO, does make me more qualified than anyone else that hasnt served. being interested and actually doing those things you're reading in books are 2 completely different things. Being an NCO, my job IS military strategy, operations, and tactics. Your reference to England has no ground bc the difference is that i did fight in a war and used military strategy and you didn't (i assume).
> 
> 
> If you have served, you may be more qualified to talk about matters that are important to a soldier, a more micro-managed look at warfare, am I right?
> ...


again, i said nothing about politics or multi-front wars. i simply stated to leave military strategy out of this discussion. politics and having multiple war fronts have nothing to do with being a good military strategist. 
I'm not following your "micro-managed look at warfare", please elaborate.
[/quote]

You are stumbling over yourself - We are discussing why Germany fell, you are saying that we should not talk about strategy, and yet we should somehow leave out politics and other variables of that strategy.

Your opinion would be more valuable if we were discussing how to take out an enemy artillery piece, in the Middle East, using modern equipment, but I don't see how because you have fought a war you are somehow more equipped to talk about the fall of Germany and the possible causes, including the importance of losing battles and the variations in strategy.

That is all though. I hope we can continue with the thread now. Feel free to get your last word in, but I won't bite.
[/quote]
my apologies to DT, from my experience, people don't talk about friends they lost in combat. and that is a lot of the reason why people have PTSD, but i regress. and DT, don't talk down to me like you're better than me because you served in 'Nam. Both are/were shitty and unnecessary wars. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I KNOW that i know more about military tac/ops than 99.9% of people on this forum.
out of curiosity; what was your MOS, time in service, and rank during combat?

I am referring to a statement that h1n1 made like 2 pages ago. He stated something along the lines of how hitler is a great military leader because blah blah blah. Whatever it was doesn't matter. The only thing I'm stating is that he, nor anyone else, should try to talk about hitler was a great military strategist because the majority of people don't know sh*t about military strategy. I'm not stating I know more about the politics involved in WW2 in Nazi Germany, because I certainly do not know much. But I do know enough about military strategy to state that Hitler failed horribly in military strategy by not listening to his officers in command. Hence why they lost. Great military leaders listen to their subordinates, disseminate information, macro-manage, plan, and revise those plans after input from subordinates. hitler did none of these things.
[/quote]

Apology accepted brother. I call you brother because we both served this beautiful country regardless of our politics.

In my experience in Vietnam and training troops in Alabama, I have seen some brilliant military stratedgies and ideas born from people who have never seen an NVA **** up close.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

gjohnson1989 said:


> i think you're misguided, because honestly, i've never served in the military, and i know plenty about why hitler was a horrible military leader. im not going to go so far as to say i know more than any particular person, but i've read enough to know the majority of circumstance surrounding hitlers WW2 campaign. you need not to have served to read a history book.


as stated before, reading a history book does not equal real world experience. also as stated before, before someone says it was over 60 years ago, the military in the 40's employed the same battle drills as the military in the 21st century.
[/quote]

it does translate, because people have learned from the mistakes of the past...they've even written books about it









the military of today cannot be compared to the military of the 40's. you may run the same physical routines, but the battle strategy is vastly different. with the implementation of technology like laser guided bombs, satellite imaging, mach+ jet fighters, shoulder fired heat guided missiles, tanks with gun ranges measured in MILES...the stationary mortars of yesterday have been replaced with gun mounted grenade launchers, and automatic grenade launchers. face it my friend, the battlefront of today resembles nothing of the 40's.

someday you should read a book...you might gain some perspective that you maybe haven't thought of thus far in your life.


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> i use military strategy when i play battlefield on my xbox. from a soldiers perspective, duck, cover, shoot, and most importantly, TAKE ORDERS.
> 
> the downfall of the nazi's was that their leader was ill equipped to run an army, and out of all the mistakes he made in his war campaign, perhaps his most fatal was the decision to attack russia.
> 
> ...


I disagree completely. Everything objective I've ever read about WWII conclusively points to Germany's strong economy and their amazing technological advances as one of the big reasons why a country could accomplish so much against such great numerical disadvantages. One of my favourite hobbies is an interest in WW2 airplanes, I used to visit an air museum close to my old house which was the home of one of the fdew remaining Lancasters. The German technology regarding aircrafts and battleships, along with tanks is exciting to read about.

I think had Germany been in a position of_ relative_ geographical safety like the States had been during much of the war, they would have been able to pump more resources into R and D and would have been able to come up with better counters for the dominant Mustang P-51 and the war-changing B-17 Flying Fortress.

On a side note, my grandfather flew in a Lancaster - he was a very nice and peaceful man, and as a tail gunner, (my mother tells me) he was horrified by the bombing of cities and civilians.


----------



## gjohnson1989 (Dec 19, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> i think you're misguided, because honestly, i've never served in the military, and i know plenty about why hitler was a horrible military leader. im not going to go so far as to say i know more than any particular person, but i've read enough to know the majority of circumstance surrounding hitlers WW2 campaign. you need not to have served to read a history book.


as stated before, reading a history book does not equal real world experience. also as stated before, before someone says it was over 60 years ago, the military in the 40's employed the same battle drills as the military in the 21st century.
[/quote]

it does translate, because people have learned from the mistakes of the past...they've even written books about it









the military of today cannot be compared to the military of the 40's. you may run the same physical routines, but the battle strategy is vastly different. with the implementation of technology like laser guided bombs, satellite imaging, mach+ jet fighters, shoulder fired heat guided missiles, tanks with gun ranges measured in MILES...the stationary mortars of yesterday have been replaced with gun mounted grenade launchers, and automatic grenade launchers. face it my friend, the battlefront of today resembles nothing of the 40's.

someday you should read a book...you might gain some perspective that you maybe haven't thought of thus far in your life.
[/quote]
go back and read what i said before, sir. i said battle drills. battle drills don't include modern technologies. and the battle drills are the same, as i stated. you just rambled for no reason because i said nothing about the modern weapons of today. the modern weaponry is great. but where is the battle won? on the front line. and what is used on the front line? the same strategies from 60+ years ago.

for your information, the military doesn't measure in MILES, try kilometers. that shows your vast knowledge.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2011)

Military warfare is a thing of the past, it's economic warfare now.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

gjohnson1989 said:


> i think you're misguided, because honestly, i've never served in the military, and i know plenty about why hitler was a horrible military leader. im not going to go so far as to say i know more than any particular person, but i've read enough to know the majority of circumstance surrounding hitlers WW2 campaign. you need not to have served to read a history book.


as stated before, reading a history book does not equal real world experience. also as stated before, before someone says it was over 60 years ago, the military in the 40's employed the same battle drills as the military in the 21st century.
[/quote]

it does translate, because people have learned from the mistakes of the past...they've even written books about it









the military of today cannot be compared to the military of the 40's. you may run the same physical routines, but the battle strategy is vastly different. with the implementation of technology like laser guided bombs, satellite imaging, mach+ jet fighters, shoulder fired heat guided missiles, tanks with gun ranges measured in MILES...the stationary mortars of yesterday have been replaced with gun mounted grenade launchers, and automatic grenade launchers. face it my friend, the battlefront of today resembles nothing of the 40's.

someday you should read a book...you might gain some perspective that you maybe haven't thought of thus far in your life.
[/quote]
go back and read what i said before, sir. i said battle drills. battle drills don't include modern technologies. and the battle drills are the same, as i stated. you just rambled for no reason because i said nothing about the modern weapons of today. the modern weaponry is great. but where is the battle won? on the front line. and what is used on the front line? the same strategies from 60+ years ago.

for your information, the military doesn't measure in MILES, try kilometers. that shows your vast knowledge.
[/quote]

name a single war since WW2 that has been won on the front lines...

10 pointers, you're right, the germans had great technology...but they invested unwisely in failed programs like the V2, and the amerika bomber. another thing to consider is when germany launched operation sealion against britain. britain had a much more advanced radar and air defense system, which during the invasion, the german luftwaffe was unable to destroy, or even significantly damage. hitler redirected his resources to attacking russia, and britain gained a moral victory.

the german's had inferior weaponry to the allies. the m1911 was a much more powerful, and more reliable gun than the german luger. and the M1 garand/carbine shifted the battlefield advantage greatly to the allies favor. not only did it shoot a high powered .30 caliber round, it could do so with each successive pull of the trigger. it could do it reliably, and when the bandolier ejected, it was quick and easy to insert a new, fresh one.

the germans placement machine guns were vastly superior however. the MG42 was an absolute monster of a weapon which truthfully, the allies didn't have much of an answer for. it was very simply and well designed, and was one of germany's major battlefield advantages. the operator merely had to flip a lever and the scorching barrel would eject, allowing for a fresh, cool barrel to be placed on the reciever. it was an ingenious design.

the MG 151 and the MG FF were also incredible armorments for the time period. automatic 20mm cannons. (there's a scene in saving private ryan where a group of nazi soldiers rolls one of these in on a trailer and opens up on the allied soldiers).

beyond that though, the major components weren't there to sustain a prolonged war. their entire military had been built underground basically so that they wouldn't be caught in violation of the treaty of versaille. the military was less than 10 years young when WWII was underway.

their tanks were superior to allied tanks as well, but as it proved, the major outcome of the war was not dictated by any one superiority in tank technology.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

this might be wrong and correct me if I am but i don't think there have been any true conventional full scale wars since ww2, most have been guerilla wars.

and i would thing the 50 cal browning would be better than the mg 42 overall, mg was better anti personnel


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

the MG had nearly twice the cyclic RPM's as the browning, and the M2 wasn't designed with a quick change barrel in that time period. it was also a vehicle mounted weapon. the MG was much like a modern m249, where a single soldier could pack up and change positions with it. a browning really had to be mounted, since the recoil is tremendous in auto mode.

the video speaks for itself. this was a killing machine.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

ChilDawg said:


> I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


You don't say Chil? The kid is you're typical foreign D-Bag like I'm to the poor domestically and foreigners that have IMO idiotic opinions









R1 your embedding failed.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

thanks for clearing it up, i know the mg is deadly i wasn't aware the 50cal had to be mounted to be effective


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

ZOSICK said:


> I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


You don't say Chil? The kid is you're typical foreign D-Bag like I'm to the poor domestically and foreigners that have IMO idiotic opinions









R1 your embedding failed.
[/quote]

Your fat. You fulfilled your American prophecy.


----------



## JeanLucPicard (Nov 15, 2010)

Danny Tanner said:


> I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


You don't say Chil? The kid is you're typical foreign D-Bag like I'm to the poor domestically and foreigners that have IMO idiotic opinions









R1 your embedding failed.
[/quote]

Your fat. You fulfilled your American prophecy.
[/quote]

Ive never seen ZO but the prophecy part is funny


----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)

Danny Tanner said:


> I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


You don't say Chil? The kid is you're typical foreign D-Bag like I'm to the poor domestically and foreigners that have IMO idiotic opinions









R1 your embedding failed.
[/quote]

Your fat. You fulfilled your American prophecy.
[/quote]
Ahahahahaha


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Danny Tanner said:


> I think DT is playing you on having served in Vietnam. Trust your instincts...


You don't say Chil? The kid is you're typical foreign D-Bag like I'm to the poor domestically and foreigners that have IMO idiotic opinions









R1 your embedding failed.
[/quote]

Your fat. You fulfilled your American prophecy.
[/quote]

I could buy your family and make them my servants...stop being a bitch and sack up kid, post a pic of your dumb ass... Tell your family to get use to saying "yes um masta I carry yo ducks."









Hell my old lady has been posted many times lets see your ugly asses pimple ridden prom date from this year...Did she let you touch her this year? Or did u run home with your tail between you're legs again.

Oh and the dictators in this thread are in the past...P-fury members apparently like to concentrate on the past, lets move on kids.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

wow this got way off topic
and to whoever was posting about knowing more then anyone here about military tactics, thank you for your service, but you seriously sound like a jack ass saying that. you served in the military so now you're the reincarnation of sun tzu? please man. 
hey i cooked a frozen pizza yesterday so i know more about italian cuisine then anyone else on these threads now......right

anyways can we get back to discussing dictators and stop trying to have the a bigger c*ck then the guy who posted before you now?


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

ZOsick your wife is absolutely beautiful. A stunning women.

You on the otherhand look like absolute sh*t (no offense to the fecal matter that exits my bowels around 10am daily).

For a man with such a lucrative lifestyle you come across as a career forklift operator.

If 300 years of ******* inbreeding and good business sense met and fucked, and then had a miscarriage at a Nascar event, that disgusting, bloated, embryonic mess in the toilet would be you.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

^^^ wow


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

oh my! what a thread


----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)

BURNT !!! lol


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2011)




----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)

ahhh another "good" thread


----------



## Smoke (Sep 8, 2010)

BLAAAAAP!


----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)




----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

^ PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!


----------



## Piranha-Freak101 (Dec 8, 2010)

Central said:


> ^ PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

This thread has clearly become AQHU. AQHU is its own thread. Go find that.


----------

