Sorry to sound totally ignorant but I have no idea what you mean...could you explain?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hitler made all women quit their jobs because he thought they should only be involved with children, church and kitchen (kinder, kirche, kuche). If his influence was wider, then people would have wanted more women to work, if only for the sake of being different from Hitler, and once given that chance, women would be able to prove themselves and there would be less discrimination.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You don't think his pan-european jew-, gay-, jehovah's witness- and disabled-slaughtering self was enough for people to want to disassociate with him? Plus, if he expanded more, then more people would end up under his influence wouldn't they? how would that bring more people to equality? North Korea is a tiny country of just 23 million - and yet the more people know about who they are the more they want nothing to do with them. By your logic, we should let North Korea take over South Korea in order to "make that clearer to people"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It was. I'm saying if HItler were even more horrible, people would want to disassociate themselves so much that they would defy their 'logic' and let and encourage women to work. IF he expanded more, the only people who would be influenced by him in this aspect are those who are already sexist. Most everyone would just hate him from a more informed point of view, and would shun his policies even more. Everyone knows a lot about NK because of today's level of media. THey didn't have internet, or even TV back in the 1930s an 40s, so most people would just hear of a horrible man taking over Europe, and some vague descriptions of his policies. If he had tried that shit today, first he would be nuked, but let say he wasn't. Everyone would have the same level of information as if he had taken over.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The current regime in North Korea is AS bad if not worse than hitler's, and yet we do nothing about it. If we are as you seem to think we are, why not nuke North Korea? What makes you think that we'd have done any more than we did based on more media-based information? You also talk as though intelligence is based upon media development. It may have escaped your notice, but good intelligence agencies DON'T get their bad news from CNN or the BBC. The British for example knew of many many bad things going on in Germany that the public wasn't informed about outright. It all came out years later, owing to the "30-year rule" on certain secret documents. Finally, "If Hitler was a little more horrible" what does that even mean?! You mean if he'd butchered a few thousand more? Or taken over a few extra thousand square miles? Maybe invaded Spain? What are you GETTING at? Hitler's reach was already foul and devastating enough, I can't believe you'd think it would be beneficial for him to have gained more influence

by Anonymous 11 years ago

North Korea is not threatening to start a world war. That's why we can't nuke them. I'm saying, in the 1940s, there was already an element of Hitler's policy, and he took it too far. Hitler conquered a relatively small portion of the world. I'm saying, if his occupation (not influence) was bigger, that area could then go all out for total gender equality after the war, and then serve as a core for the rest of the world to progress around. I mean a larger area by more horrible. I didn't say it wouldn't come with costs, or that it was worth it, just that there is a possibility that it would bring us closer to gender equality. Intelligence is not based on media, but in the 40, everyone knew about Hitler, but only MI-6 and CIA etc knew exactly what was happening. For NK, most people have a decent idea of what's going on, but a lot of their problems are either non-existent or already being fought everywhere else. I didn't say people woudl do things to Hitler, just that people would shun his policies more vehemently after the war.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You don't think the way we shun them already is vehement enough? Saudi Arabia's sex equality rules are far more draconian and evil than Hitlers, and yet still we don't have full gender equality - the taliban were even worse. And still...do you really not see how there's no logic to your reasoning. I think you underestimate just how much of an impact Nazi Germany had on the world. Also, NK not threatening war? They have god-knows how many missiles pointed at seoul, and a 2-million man army ready to strike at a moments notice. They have a brainwashed population living in a cult of personality, and currently are the most militarized nation on earth. Plus, they have nukes. Not a threat? You're naive.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Korean war =/=World War III. Nukes are illegal outside of world wars. The Muslim nations work according to religion, which is traditionally highly sexist. No one can do much about it without being labelled as intolerant. I didn't say it was a definite outcome, just a probable one. And no, I don't. As long as a decent proportion of men still think women who have the ability to work shouldn't, I will not think we're doing enough about it. Maybe when the older two generations die off...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know this is a bit late but I want to clarify your comment about Islam being traditionally sexist. What you see happening in these middle eastern countries is due to the cultural aspect rather than religion regardless of whether they claim it to be religious, it's not.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nukes are illegal outside of world wars! hahahahaha Yes, because nations like N Korea and Iran are famous for their adherence to international laws. Hitler operated on political and social ideology, the Taliban on religion...is there really any difference, it's all a load of bullshit based on someone's personal belief. What is religion if not politics with magic? And no, it's not a probably outcome, what you're saying would have just made more death for people for the same outcome - they would have been defeated in the end, the iron curtain fell on europe, the cold war began. It was the inevitable result of the war, the moment the order for the invasion of the Soviet Union was given.You obviously don't quite know enough about the real impact of the nazis on the minds of people, and what their message really represented. If you think it would have taken any more expansion to create a greater effect, then you're deluding yourself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Those aren't the country's that might nuke NK. The only country that might is the US, and it has to adhere to international laws. I don't think my religion is any more valid that Islam, but I find their laws very unfair. If I brought up that point to them, they'd probably lynch me, or call me intolerant. The Taliban is killing in the name of misinterpreted religion, and they've been told, so it's no longer in the name of religion. I can say that more expansion would lead to more people hating the policy, but I can't say if that hate would translate into more action taken. The way I see it, the information was kept away for many years, but if it had come out sooner, it would have combined with people's greater hatred of Hitler, because it was something that had just happened. Everyone would be strongly against it, and we wouldn't have 30 years of new people who hadn't experienced it first hand. Everyone knows about Hitler now, but we didn't live through it. If all the people currently on the planet had lived through Hitler's reign, we would all probably hate him more than if he were just a topic in History class. This is not a replacement for the outcomes, just an additional one

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm sure if every generation lived through and hated Hitler's reign on a personal level, all movements would be more effective than if only people 60 years and older knew first hand what happened.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But this is totally meaningless. If we'd all lived through Genghis Khan's time, we would hate what he did a lot more. Why are you singling Hitler out in this way. Anyway, my point is, your illogical area is the way you talk about how more people living under the regime would have been beneficial to the world at large in the long term. This I cannot agree with. The best way to ensure people reject such ideology is to educate them. Just as we have with NK. And btw, you're missing the point entirely where I mentioned NK and Iran, but it's another topic anyway. Addressing your point, there is absolutely enough hate, IMO, for what Hitler stood for, and millions of free people in Europe sacrificed their lives to protect us from it. Saying what you are saying is regarding their sacrifice as meaningless.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't see the connection. It's good that hitler fell, and once again, it would not be worth it to let him take over more areas. Especially since its only a chance. I'm just using hirler as an example because he's the tyrant I know the most about. I still maintain that havin people hate hitler on a personal level would PROBABLY lead to more opposition of all elements in his regime.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Crazy - seriously crazy. I can't believe the hate that already exists isn't enough for you. I also can't believe any human would contemplate a single extra person having to be put through what those others went through. Harness your imagination a bit better man, it's running amock!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Iran doesn't even have nukes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, of course, and also their nuclear ambitions are "strictly peaceful" haha.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Lol! Of course. But either way, they don't have the capital or the resources to develop or acquire real nukes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's what everyone said about N Korea. If China in the 1960s managed it, Iran can manage it today. Especially as they're in bed with Russia and China.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe I am being optimistic here but I would hope that for their own sakes, Russia and China would not sell weapons of mass destruction to a country run by extremist Islamic leaders. But then again, optimism when it comes to these things is nothing short of foolishness.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Indeed, and you're forgetting, China operates on very different rules when it comes to diplomacy. They've maintained a policy of maintaining relations with as many countries as possible regardless of regime since the communist takeover in 1949. It's Zhou Enlai's golden rule of diplomacy. So far, it's served them quite well. And as their economic and military clout continues to grow, they will have less and less to fear from western ramblings.

by Anonymous 11 years ago