Sfdebris.net

and actually, in Chuck's review of "Manorial", he says normal people don't need to be told murder is wrong not to do it but then in "Lethe" he says that a belief system that leads to murder isn't automatically born of malevolence? again, I took this hypothetical from Doctor Who but if Hitler's scientists made a virus that would instantly kill every other living thing in existence, do you think he wouldn't use it? after all, he wanted power and what's a greater power for one to have then the power to end all life?

and do I have to say again that America's very first serial killer was born evil by his own admitting?

Gotta disagree there. Hitler wanted to rule the Earth. He wouldn't have unleashed that except during the final days of the war - when he was losing. You'll have nothing to conquer over if everything is dead, after all. And it's not the first time Chuck has contradicted himself. You gotta learn to live with it.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:17 amGotta disagree there. Hitler wanted to rule the Earth.

Um, no. He didn't even plan to invade Denmark, Norway and France in the first place. His ambitions of conquest were only towards the east.

I do think once he started, he wouldn't have stopped. That's just how I see it.

I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have invaded the US, particularly after they A) declared war on him B) if his jet engines and missile tech had been allowed to advance a few years and C) if he had won in Russia and had access to their massive industrial base and resources which was hands down the greatest advantage both the US and the USSR had over Germany. Think of Civilization, you don't attack the biggest block of colour on the map until you have invaded all the smaller blocks of colour.

Given that he also almost beat Britain, if he hadn't turned to civilian bombings for political grandstanding. He also could have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for him wanting to take it ALL so that winter came around, which the native Russians thrive in, the dumbass.

Yukaphile wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:40 pm Given that he also almost beat Britain, if he hadn't turned to civilian bombings for political grandstanding. He also could have taken Moscow if it hadn't been for him wanting to take it ALL so that winter came around, which the native Russians thrive in, the dumbass.

Hmno, to both. The sucess of the Blitz is vastely overblown for propagandistic purposes and Germany never had the bombing capacity to do to the UK, what the UK (and the US) did to Germany and even if, see how long Germany kept going despite the near-constant bombing campaign? Even assuming that the british industry (with the ongoing and only ever increasing support of the US) could have been bombed into submission, Germany would still have lacked the expertise, man-power and technology to invade England in the first place. An Invasion isn't like landing with a boat on the shore. Have a look what the Allies had to do in the Normandy and they were essentially only fighting the rear-guard and whatever the russian theatre could spare of the Wehrmacht at that point.

Same for the run on Moscow. It's not said that Russia would have collapsed with the loss of Moscow and if the Russians had kept on fighting, which I am certain they would have had, Germany was already absurdly overstretching its supply lines and literally victoried itself to death at that point. The vast majority of the experienced troops that Germany managed to accumulate through the campaigns in Poland, northern Europe and the surprise victory in France (who weren't quite that much of a push-over as is often percieved, if you look into the details, starting in Poland) were dead come Winter 1941/1942. Not to even think of how badly staffed the occupational forces in Russia were. The only chance they had to keep that territory under control was, to become the friends of the people, but they opted for terror and mass-murder, ensuring the constant bleeding instilled by the soviet partisans on top of an already precarious situation.

I highly suggest watching a couple of videos and in-depth analysis on these issues from Military History Visualized and it's secondary channel Military History Not Visualized.

but again, I have to remind people about the first serial killer in America who was born evil by his own admition. the beginning of his quote goes "I was born with the devil in me, I could not help being a murderer, anymore then the poet can help the inspiration to sing."

and another early American serial killer, Jane Topan who said she wanted to murder more innocent people then anyone else in history and the only way to accomplish that goal would be to kill off the entire human race.

Some historians think Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world / as much as he could, others think he was probably aiming for land in the East and whatever else he could get once war broke out.

In my experience it's the amateur / journalistic historians who think the former, and the academics who think the latter. Joseph Goebbels did in fact talk about "World Domination" in his diaries, but he might just have meant making Germany the most powerful country on Earth rather than our modern understanding of literally conquering everything.

Based on early drafts of Mein Kampf it seems likely that he didn't even plan on lebensraum until after it became clear that Soviet Russia was sticking around (he thought it would collapse after Lenin died) and wanted to secure German borders, so it's unlikely that he put any serious thought into putting German boots on American land anytime soon. He went back and forth about when he wanted to go to war in the first place (definitely not in 1939) and at times thought that it was something "his successors" would deal with, probably because he honestly believed he was genetically predisposed to an early death and might drop dead in his fifties or sixties.

So, yeah, put me in the "conquer Europe" camp.

Dragon Ball Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:28 am
and do I have to say again that America's very first serial killer was born evil by his own admitting?

Don't know who you are thinking of here (might be H.H. Holmes, but he isn't the first American serial killer) but lots of serial killers have claimed that they were born the way they were or that nothing especially bad happened to them as children. They are almost always wrong, either because they are lying and don't want to admit that events shaped them (due to their own grandiosity), or because like many others from abusive backgrounds they don't realise their childhood was abnormal. While there probably is a genetic component in most case of psychopathy, nurture always plays a part as well whether the subject realises it or not.

my point is that H.H. Homes was proud of the fact he was born evil, not ashamed of it, the end all and be all of his life was murder and that second part is provable because all his activities revolved around his murder hotel, no exception.

and Hitler unleashing the hypothetical doomsday virus would be easy for him in his mind, the logic would go like this: "I want power, killing all life is power, therefor, I must do that."