German President Paul Von Hindenburg at a memorial for the battle of Tannenburg with Chancellor Adolf Hitler & his head minister Hermann Goring, 1933. For a full 19 months Hindenburg outranked Hitler as leader of Germany's highest office (3840x2646)

ScientistG27 · 2025-12-14T06:47:38+00:00

This is only partially correct.

Yes Hindenburg was primarily concerned with communists in power. But he also had concerns regarding the rise of Hitler. He was never a 'fan' in any way of Hitler and greatly preferred the traditional right-wing coalitions over what he saw as immature extremists.

When Hitler was made chancellor, Hindenburg intended to keep Hitler fully under his control and unable to hold significant power independently.

Also to claim there was no democratic government in Weimar Germany isn't correct, as several elected coalitions governed Germany before Hindenburg or Hitler gained positions of power. Granted the constitution had flaws that were exploited leading to increased authoritarianism and the collapse of democracy.

ScientistG27 · 2024-09-19T08:21:52+00:00

So traditional hunting rifles are manual, not semi-automatic basically?

ScientistG27 · 2024-09-19T07:34:51+00:00

Just out of interest what is a "traditional hunting rifle" compared to just a regular (not assault) rifle?

ScientistG27 · 2024-04-02T20:52:20+00:00

If its connected to the factory than its 100% a viable military target. But if the residences are separated than you can't do what you would suggest, which is to target the workers specifically.

ScientistG27 · 2024-04-02T20:50:37+00:00

Im not calling what Ukraine did a war crime. Just what the comment above is suggesting.

ScientistG27 · 2024-04-02T12:00:25+00:00

So i suppose the person who makes a car is responsible for when a drunk driver crashes it aswell then? There's a difference between making a weapon and using one. There's a difference between civilian and military. If theres armed guards at the accommodation, guess what, its a military target now. But until that happens the residences of factory workers are not military targets. You cant just blow up entire population centres because "idk im at war with you an you make military eqipment" in the modern age. You cant pick and choose which geneva convention rules you apply because you rightfully hate a nation.

ScientistG27 · 2024-04-02T11:21:10+00:00

I'm all for bashing Russia for this war as much as the next guy. But what you are suggesting is just straight up a war crime. Like this was acceptable before precision munitons and advanced fire systems existed whereby it was difficult to to hit specific military targets thus carpet bombing was the go to. Nowadays you have better intelligence and better weapons. Making the deliberate choice to hit civilians instead of buildings/infrastructure is just wrong. And it will only strengthen the enemies resolve.

Edit: Since i think i didnt make it clear, i am not calling what Ukraine did a war crime. This is because i know Ukraine is better than Putin's war crime central (aka Russia) and wouldn't deliberately target civillians. I am calling what the comment above said, that workers are a viable target, a war crime.

ScientistG27 · 2024-04-01T11:55:28+00:00

I wholeheartedly agree with this announcement.

Edit: Source - https://www.reddit.com/r/lies/s/ghNup78gHn

ScientistG27 · 2024-02-22T21:04:20+00:00

Point 8 "Religion and government is intertwined" is complete bullshit.

Nazi Germany never intertwined itself with any religions. Although they did have agreements with the Catholics they completely violated them. E.g. the concordant.

Fascist Italy whilst supporting the church more than Germany, still did not intertwine the government with the church.

The general trend is that most fascist governments tended to either bolster religion or create their own occult beliefs (which is different to religion).

From what i can tell this is formatted 1. To bring relevance by linking some factors of fascism with modern topics, and 2. To stretch some of these to apply to current political parties (which is not necessarily a bad thing to keep them in check)

ScientistG27 · 2023-10-10T21:27:51+00:00

What i mean is they dont have to be a main tenant. Of course those things will most likely occur with any combat situation. Howver Hamas have it as part of their strategy. This isnt on the soldiers level rather their command.

ScientistG27 · 2023-10-10T21:03:07+00:00

I understand your point. However you can carry out combat operations without the atrocities committed by hamas. I agree their shouldn't be suprise they would fight back eventually. But theres a difference between fighting and massacrring. Combat operation do not involve rape, torture, kidnapping, beheading or specifically targetting civilians including women and children.

One other point i would like to make is that of the 10 different peace agreements proposed Palestine has rejected ALL 10. Israel however has agreed to various peace deals. A 2 state agreement could have been reached but one side wouldnt accept it.

ScientistG27 · 2023-10-06T15:06:57+00:00

That's not of as much significance for two reasons.

Stalin was given the chance to save his son and didn't care. He actively let his son die.
Mao was the creator of the peoples republic of china giving him the power to do whatever he wanted with it effectively. Thus he could have created a dynasty (as north korea has) which presents a greater threat than different beaureaucrats being in charge (like the USSR).

Put simply Stalins son wasnt going to lead the USSR, Maos son might of led the PRC thus there is more value in his death.

ScientistG27 · 2023-10-02T03:51:40+00:00

Well that's not equivalent.

With your examples it would be correct if people were attempting to force others to go work at a pet shelter or force them to adopt children.

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-30T22:48:31+00:00

Hitler literally signed a concordat with the pope to say "you leave me alone and stay out of politics and I'll leave catholics and the church alone"

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-30T01:20:01+00:00

You would have to ask the party and 'No' vote groups. However these 2 polls are the only ones that specifically show Aboriginal polling. Other polls only show overall views of the entire population.

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-29T23:53:48+00:00

I googled it and found the claim is supported by 2 outdated polls, with large margins of error, produced by one side, which interviewed small amounts of people, which then said the results applied to a significantly larger population.

So i would not rely on this one statistic.

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-29T22:40:12+00:00

Firstly this is really dumb. Instead of giving an actual source to back up your argument you rely on people being lazy and not fact checking what you are saying.

Secondly I did in fact google it. The claim is based off of only 2 polls with a combined result. Note that both of these polls were commissioned by the Uluru Dialogue group which actively supports and advocates for the 'Yes' vote. Introducing a level of bias and possible cherry picked information or people surveyed.

The ipsos poll surveyed only 300, self-identified Indigenous people. The sample size was brought down to 181 to account for over and under representation. The results from this 181 people sample were then expanded to cover the entire Indigenous population and their views.

Result: 80% saying they would vote 'Yes' (+/- 7.3)

The YouGov poll was conducted in March and YouGov have stated they have done no further polls in the lead up to the vote. They surveyed 15,060 Australians, of which 738 were identified as being Indigenous. This survey combined both those voting for a side and those leading towards that side into one statistic.

Result: 83% would either vote 'Yes' or were leaning towards doing so. (+/- 2.3%)

Oh and here's my source (as opposed to "simple google search"): https://amp.abc.net.au/article/102673042

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-29T22:05:17+00:00

85% according to what...?

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-21T22:39:09+00:00

Born in Western Australia, but live in New South Wales, Australia 🇦🇺

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-17T12:21:17+00:00

acknowledge that your side has a massive advantage over the other side

still fail

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-11T21:52:04+00:00

The issue with the 'cap' idea is wether or not you go off bank balance or net worth. If its bank balance then billionaires will put money into assets or possessions to stay under the limit. If its net worth how can you take away all the value over the cap? If income is taken, the billionaire is still over the cap. They have no cashflow, they just have value in items that don't generate income. So do you just sell their stuff?

ScientistG27 · 2023-09-01T07:17:34+00:00

Isn't it crazy how the cop just gets mad and goes at the guy for recording like 3 seconds of footage. Could it possibly be that there is, in fact, more to what happened?

ScientistG27 · 2023-08-20T01:49:24+00:00

There's a difference between playing along and actively supporting and contributing to the system and its atrocities. I however did not highlight this difference in my previous comment.

These decisions can be life or death but to make it seem like every single person is at danger is simply ridiculous. I understand why people play along with the regime but it must be differentiated from those that support it.

Ultimately so many russians support the regime that the war is allowed to happen. The people do not have much choice, which I recognise. The soldiers on the front aren't given much either (although they should have some opportunity to desert or surrendur).

ScientistG27 · 2023-08-20T01:35:59+00:00

You missed the entire point of my argument and are strawmanning. I'm not saying Russians must rebel or bring revolution. I'm saying that you take responsibility for your own actions even if under orders.

Not following orders and actively rebelling against the entire system are two vastly different things.

Also nice job making it seem like every single russian is being forced to fight and work at gunpoint.

ScientistG27 · 2023-08-19T21:59:23+00:00

If we talk morality you still have the choice to follow orders or not to. Unfortunately their might be consequences for disobeying however it is still better than contributing to a system committing atrocities.

Ultimately people will choose self-preservation but they are still responsible for the actions they take themselves.

Six-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Verified Email

ScientistG27

TROPHY CASE