Most European countries, at the time when Nazi Germany was rising to power, were still somewhat sympathetic to the so-called jewish problem that Hitler sought to address partly because even other European countries did not want jews. Contrary to popular belief, the Kristallnacht incident was not even directed by Hitler himself but was largely driven by Joseph Goebbels, who led the violence after the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jewish teenager. As much as I hate jews, Goebbels' impulsive severely damaged the reputation of Hitler and the national socialist movement. It was this event that started to lead the downfall of people's openness Germany again and the start of a another world war. People always like to blame Hitler for being a mad man who simply wanted to kill all of the jews but that isn't even the case. Even he was against a genocide and he simply wanted them out of Europe. Any chance that Europe had to remove jews from Europe was basically destroyed because of goebbels. He would 100% be the definition of a larper if he lived in the modern day.
That is nonsense. The jews decided 1933-1934 that they had to bring war to Germany if Hitler wanted or not. Do you think one incident would have changed their minds? They couldn't allow Germany to prosper and be a shining beacon of showing what miracles happen when the jew gets put into the box.
> People always like to blame Hitler for being a mad man who simply wanted to kill all of the jews
Which is total nonsense. They depicted Hitler in the most negative way possible to ensure that no other attempt by Whites will happen that seek to get rid of the jewish influences. Because if they do, they are Nazis, and we *know* how evil, smart and stupid Nazis are, right? Remember how "punch a Nazi" is a notion shared by everyone? Conservatives disagree only because it is used against them, but they are the first to prove how **they** are the **real** Nazi punchers.
> Any chance that Europe had to remove jews from Europe was basically destroyed because of goebbels.
No. That's simply false causality. Even with almost a century of hindsight it's not reasonable.
> He would 100% be the definition of a larper if he lived in the modern day.
?????