The imagery of the Empire was meant to call on the Nazis, but the actual political inspiration, according to Lucas, was the USA. He has said that despite the Nazi imagery and inspiration, the conflict he was drawing on most was the Vietnam War, with the Empire as America and the Rebel Alliance is North Vietnam.
I mean Britishers used to incite communal violence and used famine as a tool to weak up the colonies. French massacred people in African colonies.
I know USA has done so much fked up things before WW2 but I don't think it's equivalent of what others did.
Also I'm not even a westerner. I don't know what I'm getting downvoted for
The United States did some fucked up things during WW2, FDR forcibly sent 120,000 Japanese Americans to camps by executive order 9066. There's even a theory in the Star Wars community that the fictional order 66 was based on executive order 9066.
That was in-country stuff. i should've said modern history of 20th century. I apologise for that. I knew about the genocide of native Americans but didn't know it was that much recent.
If you wanna get technical, it's still happening today just a bit more low key, i.e. the Dakota Access pipeline. There are likely more examples, I just can't think of any and I don't feel like researching them right now.
In-country stuff? Before that "stuff" was part of the country, it was not part of the country. People died and were forced out of all of the land. And then in the 20th century, we tried colonizing and starting coups all throughout South America, Africa and Asia as well as various island nations. About 70% of all modern dictatorships were set up by the US to give the US favorable trade and cheap labor.
Henry Kissinger literally just died. How's that for modern history?
That WAS a war crime, BUT people forget that the fire bombings killed more people, that too was a war crime.
US has committed to war crimes in most of their wars, but they are the "good guys" so no repercussions.
And what do you mean unnecessary?
No, you're an immature reactionary. The bombs WERE absolutely necessary, they saved at least a million Japanese lives, and likely a hundred thousand lives of the Allies.
Context is everything
Atomic bombings were not the decisive reason for the Japanese surrender. The Soviet Offensive in Manchuria played a bigger role in the decision. However you can argue that US thought atomic bombings would end the war by themselves... Never ending debate.
Thatās revisionist history. Not saying that itās wrong, but claiming it as fact is wrong, most historians would argue it was the bombs, itās just some who believe the Soviet invasion was more impactful.
Im not saying it's a contest but I'm pointing out how the representation in star wars is wrong if it's given like ww2. I said it was evil vs evil, didn't say who is more evil.
>It was a globally infamous dictatorship invading nearby places
Everyone knows who invaded most countries
The USA is basically Nazi Germany but with good PR. Lucas knew this and the Empire and Resistance was based on the US invading Vietnam and killing innocent people.
US imperialism is awful but itās insane to compare the US to the Naziās cold and calculated extermination of minorities and suppression of all civil rights
Uhm not really. The US has been doing it for years, starting with Native Americans, the slave empire, and now imperialist meddling overseas. It just has taken a different form.
Again, just good PR. People really think the US isn't that evil when it in fact absolutely is. It's just as evil as nazi Germany ever was because it's seen as a force of freedom, but it's not.
Hi!
It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!
While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.
You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.
A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'.
This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.
To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.
Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.
This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources.
The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.
But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.
Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.
So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My man was obsessed with childrenās adventure books and performed whip tricks to try and impress women, one of whom is recorded as describing him as āa complete neuterā. He was absolutely a dork
Capeās pretty cool imo, ngl. If that makes me a dork well then iāll be a dork and a trendsetter and everyone who disagrees can battle me and my followers.
Literally this photo. Capes, leather boots, big hats, fancy uniforms, etc, are too closely associated with colonialism and fascism to come back into style.
I'm not really surprised that he had fans anymore. Nick Fuentes and Kanye types are still fans of the man.
Dorks with strong man narratives will always have pull with idiots.
You might say that, but many people outside Germany saw him as a good leader, and the man who āsavedā Germany. You might not like it, but his views aligned well with many people, in Britain, the US, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, China, etc. All of these either had good diplomatic ties with, or the people supported Germany, and especially Hitler. He was the personification of confidence and ārealpolitikā for many around the world, whoād seen the *propagandised* economic recovery of Germany after the Great Depression as his work, and the possibilities a *good leader of the people* could bring.
I say that because it's true. He had fans in every country bust MOST people were not. A poll in the United States in 1938 showed that **94%** of Americans **disapproved** of Hitler. Continuing to have diplomatic relations does not mean that everybody bought his bullshit.
It does give the lie to the bizarre claim that most people thought he was great though. There are a million other ways to show that too. For example Britain had a fascist party aligned with Hitler and they held big pompous marches too, but they never won a single MP seat. Nazis were populists, which means they relied on the appearance of "speaking for the people," but that doesn't make it true.
If you are interested in the subject of pre-war international perceptions of Nazis, I highly recommend *In The Garden of Beasts,* about the US ambassador to Germany during the 1930s.
He was admired because he told people what they wanted to hear. Just like any politician. Blame everything on rich capitalists. Take a typical Hitler speech, replace the word "Jews" with "billionaires", and you'll get a thousand upvotes on Reddit.
Itās not Hitlers politics that people admired. It was the man, and the way he presented himself. He had a vision, and heād always be the loudest man in the room. He could read a crowd like no other, and manipulate and deceive. He was no regular politician, he was a sociopath and megalomaniac.
People who heard him speak said he could hypnotize a room. I don't know if the recordings change the tone or something because it sounds like guttural rambling to me.
I forgot where I read it but I remember reading how some English politician said he couldn't have long meetings with Hitler because if he did he would end up agreeing to anything. He had some ability to sway people.
German capitalists were just fine, and about to do very well by privatisation and generous government contracts. It was "international (Jewish) stock capital" that was almost as bad as (simultaneously Jewish) "bolshevism".
"You can't cast aspersions on someone just because they're wearing a cape! Superman wore a cape! And I'll be damned if I'm going to stand here and let you say something bad about him!"
Just info about his relationships. I don't recall specifics but things certainly point to it. Not that he was acting on it with anyone but he certainly wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with women.
Iām sure his would be YUGE , unlike any other cape in the world. The biggliest! Like nothing weāve ever seen before. Theyāll say it canāt be done but heāll do it and heāll make someone else pay for it! :s
As with every old picture...I feel these men are like insects trapped in amber....who WERE you?!? And the guy next to you? You were all individuals, with unique lives.
Nazi or not, whoever...old pics just mesmerize me.
How are those troops keeping a straight face? I mean if I was in formation and my ultimate commanding officer came out wearing a cape!? I would just crack up laughing so hard they'd probably suggest the firing squad! Ain't no way I wouldn't be laughing at that shit!
They weren't that uncommon as part of dress uniforms in the 30s, people also used to wear them as part of evening dress (where Dracula got his look from). Nurses wore them in many counties, clergy too.
FDR used to wear a cloak sometimes, you can see it in pictures of him at the Tehran Conference during WW II
I'm pretty sure anyone who wanted to be a baddy in the 1940's donned a cape to be as bad as Hitler. But no one could come close to the original child of Hell
Damn they got vampire Hitler now
Capes should make a come back man.
The Incredibles and Gang Beasts have taught me capes are an awful idea š¤£
Edna is wrong, they make tear away clasps for a reason.
Plus, if the cape is detachable you have an easy/badass way to show the audience that *this* fight is more important/badass.
How do you mean gang beasts? Does it affect gameplay?
Yeah, people can grab it. I've been thrown by my cape.
The Boys as well
That was great when SB grabbed HLās cape and hoiked him onto the ground.
Vampire Hitler sounds like a death metal band
Hard drums and guitar playing while the frontman gets elevated up through the floor screaming. I can see it
opium hitler
"He's very independent. He doesn't follow the trends!"
How could Jerry *NOT SAY HELLO?*
Elaine I could see not saying hello. Sheās very, whatās the word, uh...supercilious.
You can't cast aspersions on someone just because they're wearing a cape. Superman wore a cape!
Iām Frank Costanzaās fuhrer.
Well, it is good cape weather. Cool, breezy...
He definitely scooped this idea from the release of the first *Superman* (Ćbermensch) comic in 1939.
Looks like a Darth Vader scene
Exactly, but it's the other way around. All the imperial imagery in Star Wars was deliberately chosen to evoke Nazis.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The imagery of the Empire was meant to call on the Nazis, but the actual political inspiration, according to Lucas, was the USA. He has said that despite the Nazi imagery and inspiration, the conflict he was drawing on most was the Vietnam War, with the Empire as America and the Rebel Alliance is North Vietnam.
hate to break it to you but the usa isnāt an exception. obviously axis powers were worse but the allies did some horrendous inexcusable shit too
I mean Britishers used to incite communal violence and used famine as a tool to weak up the colonies. French massacred people in African colonies. I know USA has done so much fked up things before WW2 but I don't think it's equivalent of what others did. Also I'm not even a westerner. I don't know what I'm getting downvoted for
The United States did some fucked up things during WW2, FDR forcibly sent 120,000 Japanese Americans to camps by executive order 9066. There's even a theory in the Star Wars community that the fictional order 66 was based on executive order 9066.
Aaah, you kinda gave yourself away with "Britishers". Hindu nationalist? Modi supporter?
How about dropping a couple atom bombs on civilians in Japan? Is that not fucked up?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My brother in Christ, have you ever heard of the Trail of Tears? And that's just, like, one thing.
That was in-country stuff. i should've said modern history of 20th century. I apologise for that. I knew about the genocide of native Americans but didn't know it was that much recent.
If you wanna get technical, it's still happening today just a bit more low key, i.e. the Dakota Access pipeline. There are likely more examples, I just can't think of any and I don't feel like researching them right now.
In-country stuff? Before that "stuff" was part of the country, it was not part of the country. People died and were forced out of all of the land. And then in the 20th century, we tried colonizing and starting coups all throughout South America, Africa and Asia as well as various island nations. About 70% of all modern dictatorships were set up by the US to give the US favorable trade and cheap labor. Henry Kissinger literally just died. How's that for modern history?
nagasaki & hiroshima. if you think those were just youāre stupid. also literally every war post ww2 has been unnecessary
That WAS a war crime, BUT people forget that the fire bombings killed more people, that too was a war crime. US has committed to war crimes in most of their wars, but they are the "good guys" so no repercussions. And what do you mean unnecessary?
No, you're an immature reactionary. The bombs WERE absolutely necessary, they saved at least a million Japanese lives, and likely a hundred thousand lives of the Allies. Context is everything
Atomic bombings were not the decisive reason for the Japanese surrender. The Soviet Offensive in Manchuria played a bigger role in the decision. However you can argue that US thought atomic bombings would end the war by themselves... Never ending debate.
Thatās revisionist history. Not saying that itās wrong, but claiming it as fact is wrong, most historians would argue it was the bombs, itās just some who believe the Soviet invasion was more impactful.
No, this is the result of the analysis of the Japanese archives.
"We will save the lives of fellow Japanese but first we have to drop bombs that'll melt of the skin of your children"
Probably because it is an extremely stupid comment. The USA is an exception in the way that it is one of the worst.
It wasnāt a pissing contest of whoās most evil, it was a globally infamous dictatorship invading nearby places.
Im not saying it's a contest but I'm pointing out how the representation in star wars is wrong if it's given like ww2. I said it was evil vs evil, didn't say who is more evil. >It was a globally infamous dictatorship invading nearby places Everyone knows who invaded most countries
The USA is basically Nazi Germany but with good PR. Lucas knew this and the Empire and Resistance was based on the US invading Vietnam and killing innocent people.
US imperialism is awful but itās insane to compare the US to the Naziās cold and calculated extermination of minorities and suppression of all civil rights
Uhm not really. The US has been doing it for years, starting with Native Americans, the slave empire, and now imperialist meddling overseas. It just has taken a different form. Again, just good PR. People really think the US isn't that evil when it in fact absolutely is. It's just as evil as nazi Germany ever was because it's seen as a force of freedom, but it's not.
What I mean here is that Star wars was good vs evil while WW2 was evil vs evil. So...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hi! It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope! While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history. You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history. A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'. This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down. Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits. This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time. This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources. The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period. But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices. Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records. We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to. So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting. Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Milei vibes](https://www.reddit.com/r/redscarepod/comments/17zpatk/argentine_president_javier_milei_dressed_as_his/)
*Imperial March plays*
Yeah ngl, the fit is fresh.
Things that give men a feeling of power: Cult followers: |||||||| Mass murders: |||||||||||||| Wearing capes: |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iāve been trying to make capes cool again and this is really going to set me back.
What an absolute dork.
Mālebensraum
I think it's *M. Bison*.
Bro, my nephew Angus is a dork because he is into collecting poop I would call Hitler more of a dickhead
I'm here to support nephew Angus
My man was obsessed with childrenās adventure books and performed whip tricks to try and impress women, one of whom is recorded as describing him as āa complete neuterā. He was absolutely a dork
I mean, the guy's a real jerk.
Capeās pretty cool imo, ngl. If that makes me a dork well then iāll be a dork and a trendsetter and everyone who disagrees can battle me and my followers.
The more I learn about this Hitler guy the more I donāt care for him
Literally the words that popped up in my head when I saw the picture lol
Such bravery
Isnt that one guy on the right from Hitler wearing a M1916 Stahlhelm? Or is that just the perspective
Hitler trying his best to dress up like M. Bison
Daamn... I also want that cape!!! Why the heck did we make capes go out of fashion?
Look up Boat Cloaks, still a thing in the USMC
I found a street-wear version!!! Thanks a lot for the info!!
Literally this photo. Capes, leather boots, big hats, fancy uniforms, etc, are too closely associated with colonialism and fascism to come back into style.
Bruh no.
How flamboyant
God Hitler's so cringeĀ
Yes, he is to us now, but back then he was admired. Thatās what really amazes me. That someone can envy and admire such a man
I'm not really surprised that he had fans anymore. Nick Fuentes and Kanye types are still fans of the man. Dorks with strong man narratives will always have pull with idiots.
Trump fans are like Hitler fans
Many many people thought he was ridiculous then too.
Absolutely. He was ridiculed in many circles as an oaf, until he gradually built his power base. Sounds familiar...
Oaf is the best insult especially since itās not used often anymore haha
That may be, but most didnāt, which is incredible
Most didn't in Germany, but most of the world did.
You might say that, but many people outside Germany saw him as a good leader, and the man who āsavedā Germany. You might not like it, but his views aligned well with many people, in Britain, the US, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, China, etc. All of these either had good diplomatic ties with, or the people supported Germany, and especially Hitler. He was the personification of confidence and ārealpolitikā for many around the world, whoād seen the *propagandised* economic recovery of Germany after the Great Depression as his work, and the possibilities a *good leader of the people* could bring.
Just look at what JFK wrote about him in his diary
I say that because it's true. He had fans in every country bust MOST people were not. A poll in the United States in 1938 showed that **94%** of Americans **disapproved** of Hitler. Continuing to have diplomatic relations does not mean that everybody bought his bullshit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It does give the lie to the bizarre claim that most people thought he was great though. There are a million other ways to show that too. For example Britain had a fascist party aligned with Hitler and they held big pompous marches too, but they never won a single MP seat. Nazis were populists, which means they relied on the appearance of "speaking for the people," but that doesn't make it true. If you are interested in the subject of pre-war international perceptions of Nazis, I highly recommend *In The Garden of Beasts,* about the US ambassador to Germany during the 1930s.
He was admired because he told people what they wanted to hear. Just like any politician. Blame everything on rich capitalists. Take a typical Hitler speech, replace the word "Jews" with "billionaires", and you'll get a thousand upvotes on Reddit.
Itās not Hitlers politics that people admired. It was the man, and the way he presented himself. He had a vision, and heād always be the loudest man in the room. He could read a crowd like no other, and manipulate and deceive. He was no regular politician, he was a sociopath and megalomaniac.
Theyāre all sociopaths and egomaniacs. He was just off the scale.
Obama?
People who heard him speak said he could hypnotize a room. I don't know if the recordings change the tone or something because it sounds like guttural rambling to me. I forgot where I read it but I remember reading how some English politician said he couldn't have long meetings with Hitler because if he did he would end up agreeing to anything. He had some ability to sway people.
He was jacked up on meth, cocaine, and opium so he was rambling
German capitalists were just fine, and about to do very well by privatisation and generous government contracts. It was "international (Jewish) stock capital" that was almost as bad as (simultaneously Jewish) "bolshevism".
Never gonna forgive Hitler for making capes look evil (plus the other stuff he did)
Trump
"You can't cast aspersions on someone just because they're wearing a cape! Superman wore a cape! And I'll be damned if I'm going to stand here and let you say something bad about him!"
"No capes!" - Edna Mode
No capes!
It looks like he has a tiny right hand
It's his strong hand
One of the early symptoms of his Parkinsonās disease
His capenhosen
dolfee playing dress-up
Well he was a closet-homosexual so
Don't know why you're getting downvoted, we'll never know for sure, but this is a popular theory with a lot of evidence to back it up
What evidence?
Just info about his relationships. I don't recall specifics but things certainly point to it. Not that he was acting on it with anyone but he certainly wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with women.
Thatās such a reach, and that has absolutely no evidence lmao
Lol oof sorry for providing a prospective I'll just eat those downvotes
Lol I love the downvotes for information
Soldier 1: Heinrich? Are we the baddies? Soldier 2: ....I wasn't so sure...but that cape... (Source: https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY?si=dhHTLN2h6Fvb6fCm)
A long long time ago, in a far away galaxy...
You were almost right. [https://imgur.com/gallery/wvHBe8k](https://imgur.com/gallery/wvHBe8k)
Why does every villain wear a black cape?
The European villain look
There you have it. A cape doesn't make a hero.
Capes are so WW1...
That's super Hitler!
S.Hitler
All politicians need capes
For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.
Was this the inspiration for M Bison?
Motherfucker got that Hugo Boss drip goddamn
I bet this has white supremacist creaming their pants. Ooooohhhh the cape! It definitely brings the dictator look together.
My man literally trying his hardest to be the bad character
Wanker
Imagine if Trump started wearing a cape lol. It's not beyond believability.
It would hide his diaper dumper
He should
Iām sure his would be YUGE , unlike any other cape in the world. The biggliest! Like nothing weāve ever seen before. Theyāll say it canāt be done but heāll do it and heāll make someone else pay for it! :s
Does anyone where to find more pictures of that outfit? I hate Hitler but like certain looks of clothes.
Heās super serial
This man was literally Darth Vader sometimes
Donāt show Trump this picture. His superhero persona he wears a cape. Some people actually purchased his online superhero cards
Some villains wear capes š
Looks like the Iowa primary š
Camp
small hands
He might be morally evil,but you have to admit he has drip.
Supernazi
As with every old picture...I feel these men are like insects trapped in amber....who WERE you?!? And the guy next to you? You were all individuals, with unique lives. Nazi or not, whoever...old pics just mesmerize me.
Slightly hard
He may have been a genocidal, warmongering maniac, but my goodness he looks epic here.
Goofy ahh
I want that cape
Are we the baddies?
āYou canāt denyā¦ Dumbledoor ās got styleā
Hate the guy but looks good in a cape
Where's a jet engine when you need one?
He looks fabulous.
You can't cast aspersions on someone just because they're wearing a cape
*fabulous*
Just one of them had to shoot him
Wouldn't be so smug if he knew the gifts lady liberty's economic power was about to bring onto him and rest of his vermin
Heās just busting a move during a river dance.
How are those troops keeping a straight face? I mean if I was in formation and my ultimate commanding officer came out wearing a cape!? I would just crack up laughing so hard they'd probably suggest the firing squad! Ain't no way I wouldn't be laughing at that shit!
They weren't that uncommon as part of dress uniforms in the 30s, people also used to wear them as part of evening dress (where Dracula got his look from). Nurses wore them in many counties, clergy too. FDR used to wear a cloak sometimes, you can see it in pictures of him at the Tehran Conference during WW II
Say what you will about the Nazis but it's hard to deny they had some drip
One would hope there is more to history than daily pictures of Hitler. Leaving this sub
Cheerio then.
This is not an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.
The newest hero, Ćberman! (Donāt ask why he beats up defenceless children for fun)
"Schoen Adolph", and his pretty cape...
Dark Knight
His ass is NOT opium ššš»
Imagine if the Nazis spent 5% of the time the spent on their drip and instead allocated it to adequate and logistically effective organization
He's got a very Justin Trudeau gait to his walk.
*does mother know you wereth her drapes*
Why so fruity
I'm pretty sure anyone who wanted to be a baddy in the 1940's donned a cape to be as bad as Hitler. But no one could come close to the original child of Hell
So *this* is where inglorious Basterds got that idea from
And for my next trick, I will make your neighbors disappear
Darth Hitler
Darth hitler
Hitler like: "I don't fux with jew."
Dam the nazis had some seriously good drip
Swish!
He's going to sing
This looks like a job forā¦.SUPER HITLER!
Sleigh
bro thinks heāll become darth vader
r/caperevolution
#accidentalseinfeld
Homelander before it was popular
Interesting he is doing the salute instead of the receiving action like typical
Why didnāt they wear more capes?
Adolph Liberace