posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:59 PM
Are we talking about whether Hitler had achieved his ambitions, or about whether his ideology was right? I'm guessing the former because the latter
makes no sense at all (either he was right or he wasn't, and if he isn't and we are talking about a world in which he was, that means changing the
nature of the world itself).
Anyway . . .
Those who say Hitler's goal during his lifetime wasn't to conquer the world are right, but conquest of the world was his long-term goal for Germany,
to be achieved after he was dead. What he was trying to do was lay the groundwork for that conquest by conquering western Russia. This was to be the
"living space" for a new, vast generation of Germans. After conquering Russia, Hitler meant to depopulate it by working/starving the Russians to
death, and replace them with German colonists. Measures to encourage German families to have lots and lots of children (already in place) together
with all this extra territory, would mean a generation of Germans coming of age in the 1960s that would be able to conquer the world. If he had won,
and if Germany had remained on the track he laid out after his death (a big if), then in the 1960s or 1970s World War III would have been fought, and
most likely all those not of German ancestry would have been killed or reduced to slave-labor status if the Germans won, which would be a strong
possibility given how hard it was to beat them when they were severely outnumbered and outresourced. It's hard to see the world being more advanced
under those conditions than today.
As for whether he was "right" -- about what? The Germans being a superior people? Jews being a diabolical race of string-pullers behind everything
wrong with the world? Democracy being decadent? Dictatorship being a better form of government? Race being the determining factor behind culture
All of this is such total nonsense that a world in which he was "right" about these things is inconceivable to me.
[edit on 28-2-2006 by Two Steps Forward]