The intervention of humbert is really interesting, and I firmly believe that the audience is aware of that. That’s why I’m going to answer him, because even if the purposes of Isis and Hitler have similarities (the construction of a totalitarian empire), I guess their means are not comparable. While the army of Hitler was a real threat for Europe, Russia, and maybe some other parts of the world, the Islamic State group has only been a local threat, so far at least.
The huge difference between the 3rd Reich and the Islamic State is the fact that the whole of Germany was following the orders of the Reich Fuhrer. At this time The Germans had been humiliated by the treaty of Versailles at the end of ww1, and they considered that the Alsace Lorraine region was German, as well as several German-Speaking countries like Austrich (when Austrich was invaded they called it “Anschluss” or annexation). Also, don’t forget that every European man was involved in this war. My own grandfather killed 2 nazis during ww2. He told me “I did not hesitate. It was me, or them”. If you are wondering if he has gone to Syria to wage Jihad the answer is no, he succumbed to leukemia 15 years ago. Had it been the case in Syria and Iraq, the death toll would have been significantly higher (maybe several million casualties). What’s more, the Islamic State has no legitimacy, no real strategy, and is considered as a rogue group.
At the beginning of World war 2, hitler had an army of 8 million men and conquered half of Europe in a few days (this event was called Blitzkrieg, or lightning war). I guess that Baghdadi could not have the same claims with his 30 000 Jihadists, some of whom had only gone there to shoot some videos and were totally unable to fight.
In the case of Hitler, I think that his army was way more powerful than the armies in the other countries of Europe, but he was a bad strategist. Opening two fronts, on the West and on the East, was a suicidal idea that cost the Germans their victory. Indeed, the most dramatic and most significant reversal of German fortunes came on the eastern front. The sheer scale of the conflict between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army dwarfed anything seen anywhere else during the second world war. From 22 June 1941, the day of the German invasion, there was never a point at which less than two-thirds of the German armed forces were engaged on the eastern front. Deaths on the eastern front numbered more than in all the other theatres of war put together, including the Pacific. Hitler had expected the Soviet Union, which he regarded as an unstable state, ruled by a clique of "Jewish Bolsheviks" (a bizarre idea, given the fact that Stalin himself was an antisemite), exploiting a vast mass of racially inferior and disorganised peasants, to crumble as soon as it was attacked.
But it did not. On the contrary, Stalin's patriotic appeals to his people helped rally them to fight in the "great patriotic war", spurred on by horror at the murderous brutality of the German occupation. More than three million Soviet prisoners of war were deliberately left to die of starvation and disease in makeshift camps. Civilians were drafted into forced labour, villages were burned to the ground, towns reduced to rubble. More than one million people died in the siege of Leningrad; but it did not fall. Soviet reserves of manpower and resources were seemingly inexhaustible. In a vast effort, major arms and munitions factories had been dismantled and transported to safety east of the Urals. Here they began to pour out increasing quantities of military hardware, including the terrifying "Stalin organ", the Katyusha rocket-launcher. In the longer run, the Germans were unable to match any of this; even if some of their hardware, notably the Tiger and Panther tanks, was better than anything the Russians could produce, they simply could not get them off the production lines in sufficient quantities to make a decisive difference.
As for the Islamic State, with a (much) bigger army, we can assume they could have built a strategy in accordance with their claims. Even if Isis has been accused of Genocide, its army is way too weak against the Kurdish soldiers, the Shia rebels, or the international coalition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMuaJNJMtAw
To kill the “bad Muslims” (the Shiites!), and build a sunni caliphate, I guess that concentration camps around raqqa and Mosul would have been necessary, but it requires an enormous organization. It seems totally unthinkable. As for the liberation of Palestine, we can imagine that a mass propaganda, and a forced recruitment of Palestinians soldiers would have been necessary. But once again, there was nothing behind the words of the self proclaimed caliph. From this slant, I guess that the administrator of the forum would have been forcefully enlisted as a “Kapo” to exterminate the "enemies of god", as Baghdadi calls them, in some camps (the Shiites, the Christians, the Jews...) Well, that's not a wish, just a few elements to show the difference between the facts and the speech of Isis.
Some photos of the 3rd reich army:
Some nazi soldiers in Nuremberg
Hitler in Paris
I have a few old coins, amongst them, those ones, the one on the left is dating back from the 3rd reich, the one on the right is dating back from the Vichy regime.
For the little users of the forum who like playing video games, well guess what, it's possible to kill Hitler in Zombie army trilogy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjwljLxHIo
As far as BigDaddy is concerned, I'm afraid we won't have anything anytime soon.