Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #74242 > unrolled thread

OT: If Hitler had won the war

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  OT: If Hitler had won the war Axel <none@not.here> - 2026-09-13 17:11 +1000
    Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war Noddy <me@home.com> - 2026-09-13 20:36 +1000
      Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2026-09-13 21:21 +1000
      Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war alvey <Factman@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 13:05 +1000
    Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 02:13 +1000
      Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2026-09-14 08:38 +1000
        Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 08:51 +1000
      Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war Axel <none@not.here> - 2026-09-14 10:21 +1000
        Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 13:12 +1000
    Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:36 +1000
      Re: OT: If Hitler had won the war "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 13:34 +1000

#74242 — OT: If Hitler had won the war

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

-- 
Linux Mint 22.3

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#74244

On 13/09/2026 5:11 pm, Axel wrote:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

Stop cross posting you fucking useless flog. It's quite simple here 
Felix. If you want to post this inane shit into other groups, then fuck 
off and post them there.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74245

On 13/9/2026 8:36 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 13/09/2026 5:11 pm, Axel wrote:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0
> 
> Stop cross posting you fucking useless flog. It's quite simple here 
> Felix. If you want to post this inane shit into other groups, then fuck 
> off and post them there.

The policeman of aus.cars speaks! Expecting others to tremble at your 
*tone* Darren? Hate to break it to you - you've been defanged. Best you 
can manage now is a hillbilly grin!


-- 
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
       (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74258

Noddy wrote:
> On 13/09/2026 5:11 pm, Axel wrote:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0
> 
> Stop cross posting you fucking useless flog. It's quite simple here 
> Felix. If you want to post this inane shit into other groups, then fuck 
> off and post them there.

Awwww diddums.

I don't like you posting your lies and petulant abuse here, so why don't 
*you* fuck off?

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74249

Axel <none@not.here> wrote

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

I'm not convinced that Hitler would have won the
war in europe by successfully occupying Russia
give that he never had the fuel to do that and the
immense size of russia

The author did get it right that there was no possibility
of Hitler winning against the USA even if the attack on
Pearl Harbor had succeeded in wiping out all the
aircraft carriers unless the USA had decided to tell
the japs that if they wanted hawaii they were welcome
to it and had decided not to go to war. But that would
have been politically impossible

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74252

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 02:13:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Axel <none@not.here> wrote
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0
>
>I'm not convinced that Hitler would have won the
>war in europe by successfully occupying Russia
>give that he never had the fuel to do that and the
>immense size of russia
>
>The author did get it right that there was no possibility
>of Hitler winning against the USA even if the attack on
>Pearl Harbor had succeeded in wiping out all the
>aircraft carriers unless the USA had decided to tell
>the japs that if they wanted hawaii they were welcome
>to it and had decided not to go to war. But that would
>have been politically impossible

The only hope of Hitler/Napoleon winning was to quit while ahead then
negotiate for a favorable outcome.   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74253

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Axel <none@not.here> wrote

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

>> I'm not convinced that Hitler would have won the
>> war in europe by successfully occupying Russia
>> give that he never had the fuel to do that and the
>> immense size of russia

> The only hope of Hitler/Napoleon winning was to quitwhile ahead then    
> negotiate for a favorable outcome.

Its very far from clear that the russians were into negotiation

>> The author did get it right that there was no possibility
>> of Hitler winning against the USA even if the attack on
>> Pearl Harbor had succeeded in wiping out all the
>> aircraft carriers unless the USA had decided to tell
>> the japs that if they wanted hawaii they were welcome
>> to it and had decided not to go to war. But that would
>> have been politically impossible

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74255

Rod Speed wrote:
> Axel <none@not.here> wrote
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0
>
> I'm not convinced that Hitler would have won the
> war in europe by successfully occupying Russia
> give that he never had the fuel to do that and the
> immense size of russia

according to the scenario he had occupied Europe and the UK so he would 
have had enormous resources

>
> The author did get it right that there was no possibility
> of Hitler winning against the USA even if the attack on
> Pearl Harbor had succeeded in wiping out all the
> aircraft carriers unless the USA had decided to tell
> the japs that if they wanted hawaii they were welcome
> to it and had decided not to go to war. But that would
> have been politically impossible


-- 
Linux Mint 22.3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74260

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Axel <none@not.here> wrote

>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

>> I'm not convinced that Hitler would have won the
>> war in europe by successfully occupying Russia
>> give that he never had the fuel to do that and the
>> immense size of russia

> according to the scenario he had occupied Europe andthe UK so he would    
> have had enormous resources

He would have got bugger all resources from britain
once the USA was no longer supplying the UK and
his problem was primarily a lack of FUEL and there
was fuck all of that from the UK and europe

>> The author did get it right that there was no possibility
>> of Hitler winning against the USA even if the attack on
>> Pearl Harbor had succeeded in wiping out all the
>> aircraft carriers unless the USA had decided to tell
>> the japs that if they wanted hawaii they were welcome
>> to it and had decided not to go to war. But that would
>> have been politically impossible

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74256

On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 17:11:33 +1000, Axel <none@not.here> wrote:

>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0
>
Sound like Albanese Labor's plan
 “Hunger Plan” ….

The architect was an agriculture official named Herbert Backe
[BACK-eh], and the logic was coldly practical. Germany wanted the food
grown in the Soviet breadbasket to feed its own army and people, so
the plan diverted that food westward. The planners wrote the number
down: 20 to 30 million people in the occupied East were expected to
starve. The Nazis understood that going in. It was the point of the
policy.
>
The destruction of food in Australia happening now
Tasmania and Riverina (goodbye Rod and his neighbors)

The heart of a massive, brewing political and social crisis in
regional Australia. 
Many rural communities, agricultural advocates, and economists share
frustration, arguing that sacrificing prime, food-producing
agricultural land just to generate corporate carbon credits is
incredibly short-sighted.
This exact tension—often called the "Food vs. Carbon" debate is
causing a major political backlash across the country for several
critical reasons:1.
The threat to food security australia’s premium agricultural zones,
like the NSW Riverina or the Tasmanian agricultural flats, have taken
generations of farming families to develop, clear, and optimize for
food production.
When a foreign investment firm uses taxpayer-backed subsidies to buy a
functional, productive dairy or grain farm and carpets it in a pinus
radiata monoculture, that land is effectively locked out of the food
supply chain for decades.
Critics argue that during a time of global food insecurity and rising
grocery prices, taking highly productive Australian soil out of
rotation to act as a "Pollution sink" for heavy industries is a
dangerous policy failure .2.
 Sucking regional communities dry the damage isn't just to the soil it
fundamentally alters the fabric of regional towns.
The "Ghost town" effect:
 a traditional broadacre, dairy, or irrigated crop farm employs local
workers, uses local mechanics, buys from local grain merchants, and
supports local schools.
The forestry reality: 
once a carbon-credit pine plantation is planted, it requires almost
zero labor or local input for the first 15 to 25 years until harvest. 
The local families leave, businesses close, and vibrant rural
communities slowly hollow out
.3. 
Subsidizing the destruction of local agriculture what infuriates local
farmers the most is the unfair playing field created by the Australian
carbon credit unit (accu) scheme and entities like the clean energy
finance corporation (cefc).Local farming families who want to produce
food cannot compete at auction against global multi-billion-dollar
asset managers.

Because these foreign firms are backed by government green subsidies
and the promise of lucrative carbon offsets, they can easily outbid
local farmers, artificially driving up the price of farmland and
locking young Australian farmers out of the market
-- 
Petzl

Our Australian commonwealth has survived numerous recessions, one
major depression, and two world wars. 
Doubt if it will survive under a Albanese Labor Government.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74261

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Axel <none@not.here> wrote

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9QtBSJUq0

> Sound like Albanese Labor's plan
>  “Hunger Plan” ….

Then you need a new hearing aid or your first hearing aid

> The architect was an agriculture official named Herbert Backe
> [BACK-eh], and the logic was coldly practical. Germany wanted the food
> grown in the Soviet breadbasket to feed its own army and people, so
> the plan diverted that food westward. The planners wrote the number
> down: 20 to 30 million people in the occupied East were expected to
> starve. The Nazis understood that going in. It was the point of the
> policy.

Nothing even remotely like that in this country

> The destruction of food in Australia happening now
> Tasmania and Riverina (goodbye Rod and his neighbors)

That is complete and utter mindless pig ignorant bullshit

Nothing even remotely like that is happening in the MIA
and even the Farrer electorate only produces about 4%
of the food produced in the country anyway. Tasmania
produces fuck all and none of what it produces has
been replaced by pine plantations and none of the pine
plantations there has been done by the Albo govt

> The heart of a massive, brewing political and social crisis in
> regional Australia.

Complete and utter bullshit

> Many rural communities, agricultural advocates, and economists share
> frustration, arguing that sacrificing prime, food-producing
> agricultural land just to generate corporate carbon credits is
> incredibly short-sighted.

Complete and utter bullshit

> This exact tension—often called the "Food vs. Carbon" debate

There is no such debate

> is   causing a major political backlash acrossthe country for several    
> critical reasons:

BULLSHIT

> 1.
> The threat to food security australia’s premium agricultural zones,
> like the NSW Riverina or the Tasmanian agricultural flats, have taken
> generations of farming families to develop, clear, and optimize for
> food production.

None of that has been removed and replaced by pine plantations
for carbon credits.

> When a foreign investment firm uses taxpayer-backed subsidies

The subsidy is in fact sweet fuck all

> to buy a   functional, productive dairy or grainfarm and carpets it in a  
> pinus   radiata monoculture,

None of that is happening in either region

And NO ONE does pine plantations on irrigation
land, its MUCH too valuable for that

> that land is effectively locked out ofthe food  supply chain for decades.

That doesn't happen

> Critics argue that during a time of global food insecurity and rising
> grocery prices, taking highly productive Australian soil out of
> rotation to act as a "Pollution sink" for heavy industries is a
> dangerous policy failure .

That isn't happening here

> 2.
> Sucking regional communities dry

Nothing like that is happening

> the damage isn't just to the soil it
> fundamentally alters the fabric of regional towns.

> The "Ghost town" effect:

Just another silly little fantasy and isnt happening

>  a traditional broadacre, dairy, or irrigated crop farm employs local
> workers, uses local mechanics, buys from local grain merchants, and
> supports local schools.

And NONE of that is being replaced by pine plantations

> The forestry reality:
> once a carbon-credit pine plantation is planted, it requires almost
> zero labor or local input for the first 15 to 25 years until harvest.

More pig ignorant bullshit

Pine plantations are ALWAYS over planted and later
thinned LONG before harvest so you get decent
straight trees at harvest, you pig ignorant clown

> The local families leave, businesses close, and vibrant rural
> communities slowly hollow out

That hasn't happened anywhere where there are pine plantations

> .3.
> Subsidizing the destruction of local agriculture what infuriates local
> farmers the most is the unfair playing field created by the Australian
> carbon credit unit (accu) scheme and entities like the clean energy
> finance corporation (cefc).Local farming families who want to produce
> food cannot compete at auction against global multi-billion-dollar
> asset managers.

More complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

Farming land has in fact increased a hell
of a lot where there a NO pine plantations

> Because these foreign firms are backed by governmentgreen subsidies    
> and the promise of lucrative carbon offsets,

Those subsidys are in fact sweet fuck all and are in fact
available for food trees like almonds and olive trees you
pig ignorant clown

> they can easily outbid   local farmers,

More complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit
and there is nothing even remotely like that
happening here

> artificially driving up the price of farmland and
> locking young Australian farmers out of the market

More complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web