The reason for the deathstar

[User1442]

There was almost no organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. By July 1933 all other political parties and the trade unions had been suppressed, the press and radio brought under state control, and most elements of civil society neutralised. The July 1933 Concordat between Germany and the Holy See ended any possibility of systematic resistance by the Catholic Church. The largest Protestant Church, the German Evangelical Church, was generally pro-Nazi, although a minority tendency resisted this position. The breaking of the power of the SA in the “Night of the Long Knives” in July 1934 ended any possibility of a challenge from the “socialist” wing of the Nazi Party, and also brought the Army into closer alliance with the regime.

All sources agree that Hitler’s regime was overwhelmingly popular with the German people during this period. The failures of the Weimar Republic had discredited democracy in the eyes of the majority of Germans. Hitler’s apparent success in restoring full employment after the ravages of the Great Depression (achieved mainly through the reintroduction of conscription, a policy advocating that women stay home and raise children, a crash re-armament program, and the incremental removal of Jews from the workforce as their jobs were tendered to Gentiles), and his bloodless foreign policy successes such as the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 and the annexation of Austria in 1938, brought him almost universal acclaim.

From wikipedia

[Mr. Oragahn]

Which is interesting because it's argued that Hitler was elected many of the year by Time magazine in 38 or 39 solely for his daring economical boost. However his ethics were not secret either. That would tell us a story about how the school of economics of that time, which is stronger than ever today, always disregarded empathy and respect of life from the capital. That's for the same reason China gets lots of praise and even manages to buy entire mines all across the world to the point it literally threatens European and North American interests. If Standard & Poor started to take a look at living conditions, China's nice notation would bomb like a shell (that, of course, while not falling prey to lopsided anti-China propaganda as we get served with in spades).

To come back to the Death Star, its essence as a secret project really threw off the table all the classical economical rules. While most of the galaxy would understand and adapt to the prospect of building up a large economy while conquering/annexing worlds (from 100,000 to 1,000,000 under the Galactic Empire) and giving many people a lot of recommended and recommendable jobs in ship building and other industries as part of a sort of effort of war against terrorists (Rebels) - plus the entire conscription, which wasn't as high as under Thrawn though, I think the entire system would be like WTF with the existence of a Death Star. It's impossible to communicate on it. The budget is secret. Plus, traditions within "right wing" families would meet such a thing - the big toy - with appropriate scorn, and likely very little people would want to associate themselves to the genesis of a single brick of that mother of destruction.

[Praeothmin]

The NSDAP was elected. Hitler was made chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. After Hindenburg died, there was a plebiscite in Germany about the merging of the presidency with the chancellorship winning 84.6% of the electorate. Through that, Hitler became - perfectly legal - Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany 1934. There was no significant or even organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even the few Wehrmacht officers who participated in their attempted coup d'état from 20. July 1944 didn't really start to resist Hitler until they knew that Germany will loose the war. And all the time, the majority of the German people were behind Hitler. They loved Hitler and many of them were ready to die for Hitler.

I recommend that you do not get your history knowledge only from movies. To say that » when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance « is simply wrong. Maybe you could read that page: German resistance. It's not really good, but good enough for you.

And I didn't want to write more, because

1. I didn't really want to debate with you. That's like debating with a wall.
2. I didn't want to derail that thread any further.

That's why I will not continue this. It's only to show you how wrong you are - again.

W.I.L.G.A, the information you provide is sufficient, you do not need to bait him (see bold text)...
Thank you.

[KirkSkyWalker]

The NSDAP was elected. Hitler was made chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. After Hindenburg died, there was a plebiscite in Germany about the merging of the presidency with the chancellorship winning 84.6% of the electorate. Through that, Hitler became - perfectly legal - Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany 1934. There was no significant or even organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even the few Wehrmacht officers who participated in their attempted coup d'état from 20. July 1944 didn't really start to resist Hitler until they knew that Germany will loose the war. And all the time, the majority of the German people were behind Hitler. They loved Hitler and many of them were ready to die for Hitler.

I recommend that you do not get your history knowledge only from movies. To say that » when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance « is simply wrong. Maybe you could read that page: German resistance. It's not really good, but good enough for you.

And I didn't want to write more, because

1. I didn't really want to debate with you. That's like debating with a wall.
2. I didn't want to derail that thread any further.

That's why I will not continue this. It's only to show you how wrong you are - again.

So you're saying that you're a master debater-- no argument there!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

(That's almost as funny as your implication that the NSDAP was in Iraq ROTFLMAO)

I also like your cute little trick of setting time-limits on my original argument-- thus ADMITING that I was right, since the argument included events which took place AFTER of those limits!
Only a TRUE master debater could lose his own argument like that!

I don't want to debate you either: in a battle of wits, I'd never fight an unarmed man!

[User1442]

The NSDAP was elected. Hitler was made chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. After Hindenburg died, there was a plebiscite in Germany about the merging of the presidency with the chancellorship winning 84.6% of the electorate. Through that, Hitler became - perfectly legal - Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany 1934. There was no significant or even organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even the few Wehrmacht officers who participated in their attempted coup d'état from 20. July 1944 didn't really start to resist Hitler until they knew that Germany will loose the war. And all the time, the majority of the German people were behind Hitler. They loved Hitler and many of them were ready to die for Hitler.

I recommend that you do not get your history knowledge only from movies. To say that » when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance « is simply wrong. Maybe you could read that page: German resistance. It's not really good, but good enough for you.

And I didn't want to write more, because

1. I didn't really want to debate with you. That's like debating with a wall.
2. I didn't want to derail that thread any further.

That's why I will not continue this. It's only to show you how wrong you are - again.

So you're saying that you're a master debater-- no argument there!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

(That's almost as funny as your implication that the NSDAP was in Iraq ROTFLMAO)

I also like your cute little trick of setting time-limits on my original argument-- thus ADMITING that I was right, since the argument included events which took place AFTER of those limits!
Only a TRUE master debater could lose his own argument like that!

I don't want to debate you either: in a battle of wits, I'd never fight an unarmed man!

I don't see where he's implying the NSDAP wa in Iraq. And wheres your rebuttal? What part of your argument took place after those limits?

[Mr. Oragahn]

The NSDAP was elected. Hitler was made chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. After Hindenburg died, there was a plebiscite in Germany about the merging of the presidency with the chancellorship winning 84.6% of the electorate. Through that, Hitler became - perfectly legal - Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany 1934. There was no significant or even organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even the few Wehrmacht officers who participated in their attempted coup d'état from 20. July 1944 didn't really start to resist Hitler until they knew that Germany will loose the war. And all the time, the majority of the German people were behind Hitler. They loved Hitler and many of them were ready to die for Hitler.

I recommend that you do not get your history knowledge only from movies. To say that » when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance « is simply wrong. Maybe you could read that page: German resistance. It's not really good, but good enough for you.

And I didn't want to write more, because

1. I didn't really want to debate with you. That's like debating with a wall.
2. I didn't want to derail that thread any further.

That's why I will not continue this. It's only to show you how wrong you are - again.

So you're saying that you're a master debater-- no argument there!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

(That's almost as funny as your implication that the NSDAP was in Iraq ROTFLMAO)

I also like your cute little trick of setting time-limits on my original argument-- thus ADMITING that I was right, since the argument included events which took place AFTER of those limits!
Only a TRUE master debater could lose his own argument like that!

I don't want to debate you either: in a battle of wits, I'd never fight an unarmed man!

What about actually noticing that WILGA is not limiting his observation on a period that's narrower than the one you addressed? What about dropping the strawman arguments and providing proper counter arguments, or simply just admitting being wrong and leaving it at that?
What you're doing here is hardly going to get you more appreciated here. It's embarrassingly ridiculous.

[Praeothmin]

I don't want to debate you either: in a battle of wits, I'd never fight an unarmed man!

I'll simply give you a verbal warning since I did the same for WILGA's.
Please let go of the insults, and stick to the matter at hand.
In other words, bring up some counter evidence or conceed.

[KirkSkyWalker]

Get real; he's selectively cut-and-pasting from a Wikipedia article here, while omitting the parts that prove me right and him wrong!

That's as intellectually dishonest as it gets, and I don't debate liars, nonstop cut-and-pasters, or plagiarists-- and he's all three. I see this type all the time online, and I refuse to waste my time with them, since that's all they love to do.

[KirkSkyWalker]

What about actually noticing that WILGA is not limiting his observation on a period that's narrower than the one you addressed? What about dropping the strawman arguments and providing proper counter arguments, or simply just admitting being wrong and leaving it at that?
What you're doing here is hardly going to get you more appreciated here. It's embarrassingly ridiculous.

You're not a moderator, so you have no business sticking your nose in other people's.

[Who is like God arbour]

Saddam Hussein didn't take over a democratic republic, however-- he was a barbaric dictator who took over a barbaric dictatorship, so there was no real diference.
Likewise, tn contrast, when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance.

You must come from an Earth from a parallel-universe because your history differs significantly from the history of this Earth.

Such as? Iraq has never been a democracy; meanwhile the Weimar Republic held free elections prior to Hitler's appointment, while mounting a strong resistance after it-- if you can't read so well, at least see the movie "Valkyrie."

The NSDAP was elected. Hitler was made chancellor by president Paul von Hindenburg. After Hindenburg died, there was a plebiscite in Germany about the merging of the presidency with the chancellorship winning 84.6% of the electorate. Through that, Hitler became - perfectly legal - Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany 1934. There was no significant or even organized resistance to Hitler’s regime in the period between his appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 and the crisis over Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even the few Wehrmacht officers who participated in their attempted coup d'état from 20. July 1944 didn't really start to resist Hitler until they knew that Germany will loose the war. And all the time, the majority of the German people were behind Hitler. They loved Hitler and many of them were ready to die for Hitler.

I recommend that you do not get your history knowledge only from movies. To say that » when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance « is simply wrong. Maybe you could read that page: German resistance. It's not really good, but good enough for you.

And I didn't want to write more, because

1. I didn't really want to debate with you. That's like debating with a wall.
2. I didn't want to derail that thread any further.

That's why I will not continue this. It's only to show you how wrong you are - again.

So you're saying that you're a master debater-- no argument there!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

(That's almost as funny as your implication that the NSDAP was in Iraq ROTFLMAO)

I also like your cute little trick of setting time-limits on my original argument-- thus ADMITING that I was right, since the argument included events which took place AFTER of those limits!
Only a TRUE master debater could lose his own argument like that!

I don't want to debate you either: in a battle of wits, I'd never fight an unarmed man!

I'll simply give you a verbal warning since I did the same for WILGA's.
Please let go of the insults, and stick to the matter at hand.
In other words, bring up some counter evidence or conceed.

Get real; he's selectively cut-and-pasting from a Wikipedia article here, while omitting the parts that prove me right and him wrong!

That's as intellectually dishonest as it gets, and I don't debate liars, nonstop cut-and-pasters, or plagiarists-- and he's all three. I see this type all the time online, and I refuse to waste my time with them, since that's all they love to do.

1. Liar:
   Please show, where I have lied. Is it true or is it not true, that, when Hitler took over Germany 1933/1934, that there was no organized resistance? And please show, where in the Wikipedia article is anything written about significant or even organized resistance against Hitler's seizure of power?
2. Nonstop cut-and-pasters: Show in the posts above only one single sentence, that was only copied and pasted and then show that I'm doing it non-stop.
   
   Furthermore, explain what is bad with copy and paste in itself.
3. Plagiarists: Show me, where I have taken someone else‘s work or ideas and have passed them off as my own. I have even given the link to the Wikipedia article,

[KirkSkyWalker]

Playing word-games is even worse: you first counter that Hitler was legitimately appointed, but then conflated it with "took over" regarding usurpation of authority.

However this took place after the dates you mentioned, when Hitler's Reichstag government extended the term of its own emergency-powers doctrine. (Sound familiar?)
And there was organized resistance in response to that.

[Praeothmin]

Get real; he's selectively cut-and-pasting from a Wikipedia article here, while omitting the parts that prove me right and him wrong!

Although he is actually providing articles to back up his claims, while you still provide nothing except your own opinions...

That's as intellectually dishonest as it gets, and I don't debate liars, nonstop cut-and-pasters, or plagiarists-- and he's all three. I see this type all the time online, and I refuse to waste my time with them, since that's all they love to do.

And where in the article is your position supported?
Reading it, I find more support for his position than yours...
Debate or conceed...

[Praeothmin]

What about actually noticing that WILGA is not limiting his observation on a period that's narrower than the one you addressed? What about dropping the strawman arguments and providing proper counter arguments, or simply just admitting being wrong and leaving it at that?
What you're doing here is hardly going to get you more appreciated here. It's embarrassingly ridiculous.

You're not a moderator, so you have no business sticking your nose in other people's.

But he is a debater here and he has every right to comment on your debating style and your lack of backing up any of your claims...

[KirkSkyWalker]

What about actually noticing that WILGA is not limiting his observation on a period that's narrower than the one you addressed? What about dropping the strawman arguments and providing proper counter arguments, or simply just admitting being wrong and leaving it at that?
What you're doing here is hardly going to get you more appreciated here. It's embarrassingly ridiculous.

You're not a moderator, so you have no business sticking your nose in other people's.

But he is a debater here and he has every right to comment on your debating style and your lack of backing up any of your claims...

And I have the right to tell him to butt out. Contrary to your beliefs, failure to understand or agree is not "lack of backing."

[User1442]

But he is a debater here and he has every right to comment on your debating style and your lack of backing up any of your claims...

And I have the right to tell him to butt out. Contrary to your beliefs, failure to understand or agree is not "lack of backing."[/quote]

Ok, we understand that your getting frustrated, and maybe we're being harsh in some way. But can't you just back up your statements? Please?