So, I've seen the whole Clinton / Trump debate this morning (it was late night/early morning ETZ I guess) and I had confirmations about what I was already thinking. I'm italian and I know I shouldn't really have any say on this topic since very similar movements and ideological "values" are very present in Italy and all over Europe, but, and please be brutally honest, what makes Trump so attractive? It's not a provocative question, I seriously want to know why Trump supporters are supporting him.

Between 1933 - 1936 Germany unified their country, beat the depression, eliminated unemployment/poverty, developed world class infrastructure including the still famous Autobahns, passed animal rights laws, nearly eliminated tobacco from their country and went from starvation and ruin to the best economy in Europe. Contrary to what we're taught in school/History channel, this was before significant military buildup took place.

The real reason for the war, was the bankers who own America/Britain didn't want their people to realize they could live like that. Germany had to be destroyed in order to keep this sham of Western democracy going.

That's why they maneuvered Germany into war with Poland over Danzig, and then ignored the USSR when they also invaded Poland shortly after.

Hitlers peace offers to England and France after the Poland ordeal? Completely neglected by historians.

The anti-german propaganda has been going strong ever since, so that no one would dare question how we got here today.

History is a sham.

A. H. rose to power by blaming everything to the Juwes and the "inferior races", absolutely true.

When I first saw Bernie Sanders I thought he was going to win by a long shot against Clinton and then eventually win the presidential elections. But I guess this is not what "people" wanted.

While this is accurate...

Same goes for Italy. You might not notice it if you ever visit Italy, but most of the infrastructures, the modern justice and the highest growth rate was exactly during the fascist period. It would also be interesting that the fascist Italy was all pro-immigrants from everywhere in the world. Black-italians, asian-italians back then didn't exist. They were just italians since they accepted to "be" italian. This is, of course, due to a strong leader (read dictator) being in charge of pretty much anything, but still the ethical point with Germany here is very different. A.D. pushed policies against a certain "race" first and then pretty much against "all other races", and that's "probably" what is very wrong among with pangermanistic views.



...this is not.

If you read the Mein Kampf he clearly stated that the German people "needed the vital space"

See, Germany's example is not the best, anyway. German people are absolutely capable to stand up on their feets and recover astonishingly after every defeat: think about WWII. They lost, Germany was basically a giant ruin, but still recovered that much that right now it is the leading country in Europe.

Anyway, I can't tell about the American education system, but here at least we have a clear vision of what and why. Germany surely didn't want to take over the world back then and the "good guys" didn't won, but they didn't loose either. It's not totally black nor totally white.

As I remarked in a earlier post, it's totally right to search for the truth, but shaping the truth to achieve a goal or to justify behaviors is a different story. You may have noticed it, the happenings you are reporting really happened, and we both agree on that. On the other side, I may very well ask you, as you did, why did he invade Austria then? Why did "his future best friend" Mussolini deployed the Stresa front against Germany if Germany wasn't really going to attack Italy after Austria?

The rest is, as always, political and strategic interests. There's a certain "something" in the middle east and looks like the whole world wants it! Spain had a fascist leader and an Ally. Why would he invade Spain if he already indirectly controlled it and, moreover, if he directly contributed to Franco's rise to power? Same goes with Japan, it's strategical thinking. You'd prefer to fight USSR and China on two fronts with an ally. And still this doesn't mean that he didn't consider them "inferiors". Again, I know A.H. considered the whole mediterranean population "inferior" since it was already a mixture of nordic/southern races, especially in Italy, Spain and Greece.

One might say that historic revisions are just for truth's sake and that's fair enough. Everyone loves (or at least should love) truth. Still this doesn't mean that you should justify what A.H. did to whoever didn't have the same opinion nor justifying the plain racism he enforced later. And I just don't want to talk about Na.zis Lagers. If you're going to doubt their existence I can tell you, as an italian, that at least there was one in Stolberg since my Granfather have been imprisoned there just for being member of the Italian Army after the armistice. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure concentration camps really existed.

This is the only point up for debate for me, since the other one I'm pretty confident anyone would agree. The peace offer was a really shady peace offer.

I might repeat myself, interpretation is key here. I say it was just because he wanted to keep Britain "calm" because he cannot fight a three fronts war alone (since Italy already warned him that in case of any war italians wouldn't have been able to assist until at least 1945).

You know, I always wondered why does the USA have only two major parties.

What if you disagree with both?

But isn't it too restrictive? Only one man/woman can be president and, considering the importance, the choice shouldn't be the lesser evil, especially in a presidential republic. But, yeah.. "who am I to judge" I guess.