What’s great about this, and Stephen Fry is brilliant, is not that he’s absolving Musk, or that he’s criticizing Tesla, but that it is an argument likely leading to Elon Musk protesting,

‘No, my cars are good enough that I can be a Nazi!’

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    22 hours ago

    A small country took on the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD (TWICE) and very nearly won. The second time with a lunatic at the helm.

    What does it take to impress you? To what would you assign their disturbing success?

    • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Lmao “very nearly won” is when you start a war your logistical staff and planning department tell you you have no way of winning. But yeah it’s really impressive how they could keep going just by the grit of their teeth and millions of slaves worked to death.
      You’ve been fooled by nazi propaganda lol.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I was arguing that there was a terrible war, and the enemy was dangerous and capable. Many of our and other country’s soldiers died to destroy them, and it wasn’t easy.

        They weren’t “Colonel Klink” from “Hogan’s Heroes”, they were efficient at killing, rounding up and killing millions while fighting on a number of fronts.

        My grandfather fought in World war I, and my uncles fought in World war II. From what I heard the Germans were not incompetent bumbling idiots. They were a very competent and difficult enemy.

        I don’t know what history everybody’s been reading, but there sure as heck are some major changes to history interpretation that have taken place in the last 40-50 years. Probably peer-to-peer instruction, rather than accounts from those who endured it

        • Unruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ok fair enough, I accept the explanation you provided. Folks are taking issue with the following comment in particular.

          What does it take to impress you? To what would you assign their disturbing success?

          In isolation, this sounds a little too close to admiration for the Nazis, which is why we got some reports about it. It seems to me it’s just unfortunate phrasing, because together with the explanation you just provided, it sounds like a reasonable take for you not to want to paint them like some hapless foe that was easily defeated, because that discounts the difficulties faced by those who fought the bastards.

          • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            51 minutes ago

            I wanted to clarify, but there were so many comments coming in, I didn’t see how I could do it effectively. And not seem like I was what some people thought I was

    • gift_of_gab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      To what would you assign their disturbing success?

      I have to ask: What success? They did typical fascist bullshit: They had an economy so bad they had to invade new countries just to loot them to pay for their horrific economy. They picked fight after fight of the smallest kids in the neighbourhood they could find until they met those kids big brothers and sisters. They required fucking slave labour to try to meet their wartime goals because they grossly underestimated just about every single facet of running a country. They privatized state-owned industries, crippling longterm wealth for their people, they instituted tariffs (sound familiar?). Pay remained as bad as they it had been in the depression because while their wages were raised, they were forced to constantly work overtime for no additional pay. Their military was the majority of their economic spending, and they used deficit spending because they were going to literally plunder the countries around them to pay for it. Sound like solid long-term planning? They killed or jailed anyone in the trade unions, and due to their insane tariffs and you know, generally being the worst people in history, lacked incoming trade so things like poultry or clothing was in short supply for the average person.

      Then it took thirty five days for the Nazi German army, along with the Serbian and Soviet armies, to conquer Poland. For every success in the early war they had embarrassing fumbles. They lost entirely because of how fascists work: they need to invade more countries to pay for their insane military spending, make bigger and bigger enemies, then get beat by those enemies, then later people claim they ‘could have if…’

      Yeah, they could have done just fine if they hadn’t been fascist. All of their failings fall to being fascist.

      And the first world war, are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting their insistence on investing in overseas colonies while fighting against the British was a brilliant plan? In both wars they were led by colossal morons who constantly underestimated their opponents, while in the second world war in particular having the worst spy agency of any nation. Their insistence on torturing, raping, and murdering everyone they came into contact with meant they just got the answers they wanted to hear, instead of the actual truth, and were constantly on the back foot. Their evil, cruel, and twisted nature was their own downfall; the insistence of their superiority, as you are doing now, is the very reason they failed.

    • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Incredible. Literally everything you just said was wrong.

      Germany wasn’t “a small country”. They were an industrialised, highly productive and heavily armed global power. They were slightly battered by post ww1 humiliation regulations pressed on them by the winners (because they ALSO lost that one!). But the instant they told the Allies to eat shit and started using what they had, any claim to “smallness” went out the window.

      And they didn’t “almost win”. They got their asses kicked.

      Every single thing the Nazis wanted to achieve, they failed hard. They wanted to prove the genetic superiority of the German people in the Olympics, instead they were soundly beat. They wanted to expand their territory, they got as far as fucking Poland and France and then stalled for years until a double whammy of Americans and Russians basically curb-stomped them, with the last few years of the Reich consisting of lots of propaganda coping hard about how their soon to come wonder weapons would turn the tide, which never happened because said wonder weapons were stupid ideas that only succeeded at getting more Nazis killed when they failed in testing. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, instead half their country became Soviet domain.

      And then their “strongman” leader blasted his own brains out rather than face the fact that he was a loser in every way one can be a loser.

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Nazis took on world in one war, and lost.

      “WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! THE PUREST OF THE PURE! STRONGEST OF THE STRONG!”

      [Fights one (1) war]

      “Guess we’ll shoot ourselves in a bunker and lose in a big lopsided defeat.”

    • droplet6585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Small country? They were a highly industrialized, highly educated and still quite materially wealthy colonial power going into the wars. They didn’t need to be competent. Enough people went along with them and there was plenty of residual wealth to burn on the war machine.

      You don’t need to be an architect to burn down a building.

      • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Germany didn’t really have much wealth after WW1 due to the restrictions placed on them from the western powers.

        Most of the reason the Nazi party was popular early on was them championing a number of socialist policies designed to bring the country out an economic morass.

        This is a really good book on the subject (and part of a really good trilogy of books about understanding Nazi Germany): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/319473.The_Coming_of_the_Third_Reich

        • droplet6585@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I get what you’re trying to get at. But I’m talking inherent developed material wealth of a region. Actual physical infrastructure like rails, mines, factories, universities and everyone with the required education and training to run all of it.

          If the victors of the first war received the dividends of that real infrastructure- that matters right up until the moment that they don’t anymore.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      At no point did they “nearly win” against the world. In World War 1 they made desperate attempts to break out of trench warfare because the blockade was obliterating their wartime economy. In World War 2 they were cooked the second they invaded the USSR and the USA landed in the UK. Those were unwinnable areas for them. Even if they eventually managed to wear down the British, the Americans were right behind them manufacturing 100 tanks a day and 15 Aircraft Carriers in 1943 alone. Which means all of those tanks are getting to the European theater.

      And once the USSR got it’s production under way the Germans were on the defensive all the way back to Berlin.

    • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      21 hours ago

      To what would you assign their disturbing success?

      Material support from the Western ruling class who wanted Hitler to destroy communism for them.

      • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        21 hours ago

        This, the biggest mistake Germany made was interfering with dominant western European capital (i.e. the US, UK, and France). If they had just devoured the eastern European countries and fought Russia then capital would not have batted an eye.

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      At no point were the Nazis close to winning. After the Soviets won the battle of Stalingrad in 1943 the Nazis were on full retreat until Berlin got captured.

      Even leading up to up 1943, Germany had its oil nearly cut off. They became dependent on Romania for their supply. This may sound like a cartoon, but Nazis were dragging their tanks to the frontline using horses.

      Germany simply did not have the industrial or logistic capacity to win WW2 at any point. The Nazis had already ransacked the German economy through privatization reforms and selling off anything that wasn’t nailed down. Invading Poland incurred a bunch of sanctions and embargos that resulted in Germany’s only primary oil trade coming from uhhh…the Soviet Union, so the Nazis had the brilliant idea of declaring war on their main source of gasoline.

      • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I think that they were winning before they invaded the Soviet-Union.

        In an alternate timeline where they kept the alliance with the USSR, I think they would have won.

        The USSR had resources while Germany had engineers and technology.

        And without an eastern Front, they could have held off the allies on the western front.

        But they got cocky, paranoid and greedy.

        And I am glad they lost.

        • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          “The alliance” 🙄 in that alternative reality they’d have been merked by the USSR once the red army had been reorganized.

          Also “if they didn’t invade the USSR” is such a stupid take. Sure, but the whole reason the Nazis came to power was to fight their idea of “judeo bolshevism” and invading the east for “lebensraum”. Hitler was deadset on destroying the soviet union. You’re basically saying “if the Nazis weren’t Nazis they would have won.” Which, yeah, maybe, but if they weren’t Nazis would they even have started the war? No way to know.
          Completely ahistorical dipshit take.

          Here’s two videos that are easy enough to watch Germany could not win wwii and Germany could not win wwii part two

    • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Germany was always the second strongest imperial power in Europe behind Britain from 1871 onwards, and without the English channel that would be debatable.

      The Nazis’ initial success in WW2 is entirely dependent on France falling apart the second they were invaded and the Reich getting to loot the entirety of it and the low countries to keep their economy alive. Had France put up even token resistance Germany would have imploded within a few months and the European half of the war would’ve been a minor footnote in the history books next to Japan invading all of Asia.

    • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      What does it take to impress you? To what would you assign their disturbing success?

      Meth chocolate, fascism, and taking on armies using WWI tech and tactics

        • REgon [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I guess they were a bit better than France when it came to how to use tanks and the whole “allowing leaders on the ground to take the initiative” but that’s about it.

        • Bloobish [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Yup, biggest thing is that their attack, though expected by quite a few powers, came out of left field and add in the rushing forward on armies still using cavalry units and the early massive land grab via Germany makes sense

    • Sonori@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Do Japan and Italy just not count as part of the world? I mean Japan took over half of Asia and the Pasific while Italy took the Mediterranean countries. Germany took over part of northern Europe and helped a bit of North Africa.