They would only have murdered 3 million of their own citizens and taken half of France.
They might have stayed within their own borders and not killed all the Jews and homosexuals.
I seriously doubt that.
Why must we destroy them simply because we dislike their ideology, as long as they leave us alone?
But they don't leave us alone. That's the rub. They'll never leave us alone.
Notably, Muslims didn’t attack us for a couple of centuries prior to about 1970.
You need to bone up on your history.
The biggest problem with lumping all Muslims together as you do is that it forces those who aren’t our enemies to become enemies, since you intend to treat them as enemies anyway.
That's because they ARE enemies. Their ideology is wholly incompatible with Western civilization. It always has been and it always will be. How does one accomodate an ideology which is commanded by 'God' to spread itself by violence?
How does one co-exist with an ideology that demands as part of it's very core your status as a slave?
How does one negotiate with an ideology that states as a core belief that it's perfectly acceptable, in fact it's required to kill you if you don't convert?
islam is an insane death cult. All this talk of 'moderate' muslims is a Trojan Horse in the heart of the West.
Read their book. Then get back to me about 'moderation'.
L
We already have a reasonable idea of what “moderate Nazis” might have been like.
The Italians Fascists, while not people I’d care to hang out with, had a death toll prior to the war (in close on two decades of power) measured in three digits, not seven. They were not a realistic threat to any other modern nation. If you weren’t a third world country, you were good. (To be fair, this may largely have been a consequence of capabilities, not intentions. Certainly the theoretically drastically overmatched Greeks were doing a dandy job of kicking Fascist heinie before the Germans jumped in.)
Fascist “aggressions” in the ‘30s were not notably different from similar British, French and even American aggressions in earlier decades other than in their timing.
The Spanish Nationalists had a great deal in common with the Nazis, but after the war (and the subsequent obligatory bloodbath) they were by comparison quite civilized and certainly no threat to their neighbors.
Quite notably, neither the Italian Fascists nor the Spanish Nationalists were especially anti-semitic, certainly not in comparison to the Nazis.
Numerous other eastern European and Latin American dictators imitated the Nazis as best they could, but were not an existential threat to their neighbors.
You seem to be confused about terminology. A “moderate Nazism” would be definition not include those elements which made compromise with Nazism impossible.
As an example, in many ways democratic socialism as has held power for many years in of Europe (and coming soon to the USA!) is essentially moderate communism. Social Democrats and Commies have the same goals, in theory, but SDs are squeamish and “moderate” in the methods they are willing to use to achieve those goals.
While I’m utterly opposed to those goals, I’ll happily take squeamishness (moderation) in preference to unswerving radical devotion to the ideal.