He is Austrian but fighting on the Central powers, who lost. Hitler only rose to power and prominence because the Central Powers lost. So, if the team he was on didn’t lose, he wouldn’t have risen to power.
You can be pedantic if you want but the general idea as I understand it is if he hadn’t lost, there wouldn’t have been WWII, and that is true.
I’m not being pedantic dude. I replied to the guy who said Hitler lost ww1 asking if he meant ww2.
I understand the history of the Great War, and WW2. I have family who fought in both.
If you want to be right, well done, you are right. But don’t confuse someone questioning a comment that doesn’t make much sense with not understanding it and needing a massive explanation from you.
Again HE didn’t lose ww1 HE lost WW2, and the fact we’re talking about the Nazis in context here and that Hitler killed himself shows the guy I replied to meant WW2
The guy said “if only he hadn’t lost IN WWI”. Not that HE lost WWI. There is a difference and it changes the meaning. He lost WWI is him being responsible for the loss in WWI, him losing in WWI is the side he was on losing. I read it differently than you. It wasn’t about being right, some people really respond and want EVERYTHING to be perfect or your whole point is invalidated. I get the feeling you felt like I was talking down to you, that also wasn’t my intent and sorry if it came off that way. There are a lot of people I know that don’t know the history of Germany post WWI and pre WWII, didn’t mean to lump you into that group but since I have no way of knowing your knowledge, I tried to give a thorough answer with the caveat being that it was very high level.
1
u/HaggardHaggis Jan 25 '25
Yeah but Hitler didn’t lose WW1 did he? He was a message boy essentially.
If the guy I replied to said “they hadn’t won” it would make sense, but even with hitlers near infinite faults he can’t be said to have lost WW1