I think the experiment worked pretty well.

It showed that nazi ideals are juvenile.

George Carlin said it clearly. "Cause the owners of this country won't allow it"

It was a book first. I read it as a kid in the 90s. Extremely impactful to my young brain.

But such a system needs it obvious that the percentage has it good at the expense of the rest, and that and the rest don‘t have the power to change it. There are a lot of possible arrangements…everyone does good because the few get sacrificed (a strange sacrificial dystopia), the few get sacrificed for no gain and evryone keeps their head down because they‘re worked to death and it doesn‘t affect them directly (US now), or the sacrifices are deliberate and chosen to keep the population at large in fear and controlled (places like Nazi Germany or possibly Russia).

There aren‘t too many realistic situations I can think of where a system would be widely popular while the masses are deliberarely and knowingly killing people to propel it - and I don‘t mean to compare that to something like health care industry ROI to investors by denying claims.

brazil didn't yet have weapons to attack the homeland, france did

we need fewer ethics boards

Funnily enough that's what the Nazis said

I thought they mostly went with the nonperson human supply route

Jews have been the scapegoat since for ever, when stuff didn’t go right pogroms happened. In the case of Nazi Germany, the discrimination lasted long enough to show that the scapegoat keeps being used, even when the minorities have been wiped out. So much of the defeats were blamed on vague and unknown inner enemies, aided by or aiding the Jews, even when there was no supporting evidence for this.

It's not so much that the political consultants don't understand that. It's more that they can't do anything about it: That would mean changing our economic structure to help out the workers, rather than their rich friends.

Eh, Nazi Germany basically attacked Poland to do settler colonialism (or at least that was the regime's justification). Main difference is that the Poles were more developed that e.g. the Native Americans.

IMO the error is assuming that it was likely to be successful and profitable, war/colonialism is generally not sound government policy.

My kids idolize the garbage men and construction workers. Nothing wrong with that, but those are jobs whose purpose and value children immediately recognize. That is unlike, say, a virologist or insurance adjuster.

You're right about colonialism being a net loss for the government. In the Netherlands the NSB (Dutch Nazi Party) based a lot of their messaging around the idea that if the Netherlands were to join up with the allied forces, they would be forced to relinquish their colonies.

This was absolute nonsense but it spoke to people at the time because the idea of giving the colonies their independence had become a popular talking point during the recession because they were no longer profitable (fuckery involving the united fruit company).

During the second world war the Dutch colonies would become profitable but for completely different reasons. Basically a lot of the fosfate used in bombs came from Curacao and the aluminum to craft airplanes came from Suriname.

most of europe had very little income from international trade until 1800 or sth

Even colonialism was frequently a net loss for the governments.

noteworthy the british empire never turned a profit for england at all. it was losses all the way through. the english wikipedia article mentions it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

edit: nvm i can't find it anymore rn. probably i remembered badly

this article (Economy of the British Empire) mentions that it was profitable.

the USA politicians understand perfectly well that it's all about the economic situation. yet they have already decided that they won't tax the rich (because their rich friends say so) so they need to make up excuses and divert the attention to other topics instead. at least that's how it has been for the last 3 elections that i actually looked at up-close.

i was at the military (we have to in my country) for a few months and what we did was 20% eat, 40% sports, 30% sit around and 10% drink.

hitler's policies were wildly popular. and that's the problem. people are dumb and like doing things that are actually bad for them. it's like the chimpanzee that likes eating salty food, even though it kills him.

I mean, I can imagine kids feeling a sense of purpose and belonging. That education is very palpable - girls that age fawn over babies and family life, and boys would rather work the fields as long as they get recognition for it. The open choice of what to do with your life is daunting, so the promise of actual skills instead of algebra is appealing. It's basically the return to "learn a trade" we're going through now.

All in all, a suboptimal hangup for a negative Nazi image. Hitlerjugend etc. were popular programs. Like boy scouts but with (realistically probably "more") indoctrination.

Gotta be honest I don't think that's why kids idolize them. I think that's just the heavy machinery

Funnily enough, that's what I expect a government to do (except for the war part). Invest into the future, reap the rewards later. It's very difficult to bring about change without credit of some sort. That's why I'm always confused by the debt ceiling debate in the US - assuming the money would be invested into the country and not siphoned off, which I know is naive. But investing money it doesn't have (yet) is one of the main levers a government has, usually supported by taxes in the following years.

Basic for me involved polishing boots/shoes, folding shirts, making bed, keeping room clean, ironing clothes, gym, laundry, hastily gobbled meals, cleaning rifle, academics, drill and about three weeks of combined field training with sleep deprivation.

Humans are basically diseased chimps so... go figure.

TBH the "Economy of the British Empire" article is poorly sourced, especially for the claim that Britain profited from its colonies - the linked source is a Fortune article (even if it has help from an economic historian from Stanford), with only one paragraph on the British empire, and the relevant sentance seems to be this:

"At the height of the British Empire, about 6% of its total output came from its colonies, more than any other Western power."

I don't really understand what this is supposed to mean, since according to the table in the Wikipedia article, British India's GDP was higher than the UK's. 6% certainly doesn't sound impressive. But even then, GDP =/= profit, and being the worldwide dominant power is not really a status that most colonial powers can hope to achieve.

This was the premise of the TV movie The Wave that came out in the early 80s.

You're not wrong. If you could be reasonably certain that you're 1. going to win the war and 2. win the war without too much damage to your own country, it would be a sound investment. The Nazis probably had enough overconfidence to believe both of those.

Jesus Christ. This comment made me remember that American schools actually do that daily. It was like a repressed memory. I had to actually look it up to make sure it wasn't a fever dream or something. I never participated because even as a kid it just seemed so fucking weird to me. Nobody ever gave me shit about it. We weren't forced to do it or anything. But it was still a daily occurrence before the morning announcements.

Popular? They were also compulsory.

Also, duckduckgoing it, there are quite a few sources that still claim that the British Empire wasn't profitable for the government in Britain, or regular British people, e.g.:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2598015

https://iea.org.uk/media/empire-and-slavery-did-not-make-britain-rich-finds-new-iea-book/

(I'm not that knowledgable about the quality of these particular sources, just demonstrating that the claim isn't rare)

it’s obvious some people just have 0 empathy

Uhh, why is Voyager wrapping code blocks?

summit wraps it too

When I learned that we didn't have to do it I stopped. But my home room teacher was a veteran and he did not take it well. Sent me the principal's office (they just sent me back). A few other kids then stopped too.

Wake up at 5am and do your bed and Iron your clothes before some dickhead screams you up a hill and then teaches you a class of shit you still don't care about? Then you get to shovel some pig shit?

Wow. Sign me up.

/S

once again proving that veterans are some of the worst people

You don't see many kids idolizing roofers or brick layers... So I think you're on to something.

Spoils and plunder isn't really trade. Rome wasn't trading for slaves, Spain wasn't trading for gold, England wasn't trading for anything that they could lift...

It has been remade several times, but the original is the best.

It's only 40 minutes and available on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D55LkspO5ZU

which people?

most people use 'empathy' as a word to bully other people and feel superior about themselves. and believe empathy is only given to select groups who have 'victim' status. so you are not allowed to empathize with germans or members of the nazi party, only the victims of the nazi state.

they are the rich.

fastest way to become a multi-millionare is to be elected to federal government.

lmao

girls that age fawn over babies and family life,

Tell me you have never met a 14 year old girl without telling me.

There is a new pledge.

https://invidious.tiekoetter.com/watch?v=mS7VNJk9ms4

https://youtube.com/shorts/mS7VNJk9ms4

This seems like a bad behavior, I wonder why. The whole point of code blocks is to not wrap.

https://iea.org.uk/media/empire-and-slavery-did-not-make-britain-rich-finds-new-iea-book/

thanks, especially this second link seems convincing to me. they argue fairly well, with clear arguments and meaningful logical conclusions.

The Wave is a movie about it.

Legit we need to educate people on how fascism sells itself