Josetta said:
Zeus, Hitler was fighting too many war fronts at once, over hundreds of miles, so his troops became too spread out, and it allowed the allied forces to penetrate the weak spots.
If Hitler had of kept his forces concentrated on small areas at a time, he would have conquered all of Europe in the fullness of time, just like the Romans a couple of thousand years before. 20 million Russian men were killed as the Germans pushed into Russia, and it was only the freezing cold weather and deep snow drifts that finally stopped Russia becoming part of Germany.
The German war machine was potentially unstoppable - Hitler got impatient and his troops got too thin on the ground.
"it was only the freezing cold weather and deep snow drifts that finally stopped Russia becoming part of Germany. "
Debatable, since Zhukov's Siberian troops had not arrived from the Far East sooner due to the threat of a Japanese invasion before Stalin signed an agreement with the Japanese. Russia still could have won, Moscow was not the end game for Stalin.
Now getting back to the point I dispute, "Hitler's defining moment was that other humans did not agree with him about who the breeding Bulls should be." Either it was your ridiculous struggle between two powers to be the "top breeders" if you will, or it was actual causes, such as his international and domestic policies, like ****** eugenics.
If it was between would-be breeders, then how come no African nations were in struggle with Germany like the main Allies were, considering your love of their genetics?
Another point, if his army was "was potentially unstoppable", and based on your previous post histories on a belief of black genetic superiority, then after conquering Europe he would have turned to Africa and either 1) been defeated by African natives (since they are genetically superior), or 2) he would have conquered Africa, thus proving the superior African genes idea to be false. I'm betting on number 2.
And you still didn't answer my question about aid to Africa to prevent a loss of survival of the fittest. According to your last post, you show how medicine was doing the same as nature did in Africa not even a century ago, but in a more humane way. Yet you go on to say that very same technology is now making us weaker. One, long standing changes in peoples genetics don't happen on a permanent scale overnight.
Two, it would seem that the stronger bugs would beat out the weaker for resources. Yes, some weaker ones would remain to take up needed food, yet even after their death the sudden explosion of the strong bugs numbers would result in a following drop in the bugs numbers as resources are eaten. And the process begins again.
Three, it would seem to me that using your train of thought in the long run it would be beneficial to prevent Africa from becoming too first world, because they would eventually be in the same situation of weak genetics. So the solution would seem to be to keep them where they are now on purpose. So what is it?