I respectfully disagree. But I refuse to do the forensics on this thread that would be required to fully cite my reasons. Perhaps you will quote for me an instance or two where posters have attended to the idea that Rome was an exploiter which killed only when resisted and otherwise was satisfied with collecting taxes, leaving the locals to govern themselves.
Germany, otho, was a genocidal destruction machine bent on destroying Russia to own it.
Aloha
“I’m right, but I refuse to explain why!”
You’re going to have trouble fitting in around here, with that attitude.
It seems to work for Mars Tully 
"This statement, more than any other you’ve made, illustrates that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
… and, no, I’m not going to explain it to you.’
Mahalo
Aloha
Right. 
Aloha
Perhaps you will quote for me an instance or two where posters have attended to the idea that Rome was an exploiter which killed only when resisted and otherwise was satisfied with collecting taxes, leaving the locals to govern themselves.
[/quote]
This implies you’re no longer interested in your own OP or in reading any of the posts people wrote in response to it. That definitely inspires me to go out and do some research to engage in a discussion with you.
Wonderful. Let’s go do some beer.
Aloha
So Hitler basically claimed that he started to hate Jews while he was living in (some random place, I forget where) and observed the way (he thought) they controlled things from behind the scenes (or some such nonsense).
Without any other evidence, I would assume:
(a) Hitler did in fact live in that place at that time
(b) that’s when he began, at least consciously, to hate Jews
(c) he in fact observed some number of people who he thought were Jewish doing things that at some level resembled some of the things he accused them of (that is, what he did was closer to misinterpreting and overextrapolation than fabrication-from-whole-cloth).
I mean, what would be his incentive to lie at that level? I suppose it’s possible that he really hated Jews because Ira Cohen stole the girl he loved in 1921, and he decided that he should fabricate an entirely different story in order to make the whole thing seem less like revenge on poor Ira, but I’d rate that as less likely than the simpler explanation.
I think an equally simple explanation is that Hitler was delusional and this (or major parts of this) were a delusion.
Correct that to “I’m right, but I refuse to explain why ad infinitum.”
Concisely sum up what you took my words to mean. Convince me that you’ve actually read the OP, have given it some thought and have some honest disagreement with it.
Then, I’ll get back to you.
Aloha
No. What contradicts the rest of your OP was a fairly extensive list of demonstrations that Hitler demonstrated no genius, actually being a blithering idiot in a number of situations. That knocks the props out from your thesis, because, if he was not the “genius” that you asserted he was, there is no need to address any of your other claims.
Had you wanted to simply discuss Roman success vs Nazi failure in the context of colonization vs ownership with a dash of racism, you should have left off the nonsense about Hitler’s genius and simply posted the point that you quoted in the post from which I have quoted you. You muddied the waters by setting up a false premise that really had little to do with what you now claim was your actual point.
In your several posts following the one I have quoted, you have danced around without actually addressing the issue in a way that suggests that you are simply trolling for reactions. This is not appropriate behavior. I strongly suggest that you not continue to engage in behavior that will bring a judgment of trolling from the staff.
[ /Moderating ]
Quite so. With that stipulated, would it be possible to continue?
Aloha
You could provide some evidence Hitler was a genius, or at least do something about the evidence that has been supplied that he was not.
Claiming Hitler was a ‘genius’ seems a little much, but my impression on reading Mein Kampf was that he was an extraordinary (if not always right) analyst of politics, society and even economics. For fun I googled Hitler genius and found this website that consists of statements about Hitler during the course of the Nuremberg trial made by people who had personal contact with him -
http://comicism.tripod.com/iq.html
You can read the statements yourself, they all very positive.
I also came up with a series of videos by David Irving, who spent 10 years researching his book on Hitler, and interviewed many people who knew him personally. Many of Hitler’s staff we alive when Irving did he research, and as he had already written his first book on the bombing of Dresden they were willing to talk to him, he gives his account here …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeAr_DPpivk
It is consistent with the Nuremberg statements.
Note: the Irving vid was made when he still believed the holocaust narrative.
You expect us to agree that Hitler was “extraordinary” because some Nazis agreed with him? I have kind of a low opinion of Nazis.
What would your opinion of the Nazis be if you could the Jews and the holocaust out of the equation?
Also note that every enemy of the ‘Empire’ is demonized beyond all rationality, it is standard operating procedure. Remember the Kuwait incubator hoax for GW1 and the people shredder hoax for GW 2. It has been worse with Hitler because of the holocaust but the dynamic is the same.
Why would we take that out of the equation? (They’d still get credit for starting World War II, so the answer would still be “very fucking low.”)
No, some people (and some groups) have earned their reputation. The Holocaust happened and Hitler and the Nazis were responsible.
Hitler’s biggest strength as a political leader was he could see the weaknesses in other people and how to exploit them. He always knew the best point of attack against an opponent. Now that’s not an insignificant gift and it certainly helped him in his rise to power but it’s not enough to build a long-lasting regime on. Destruction alone isn’t enough - at some point you’ve got to construct something and Hitler never had the skills for that. At most, he could put up monuments.
Hitler’s own point of weakness was he couldn’t accept the idea of anything being more important than Adolf Hitler. He had to keep everything smaller than he was. A man who’s afraid to create something greater than himself is guaranteed to fail.
Hitler was extraordinary. Imagine a destitute Tea Party type somehow becoming President 15 years from now.