Login

Username:

Password:

Join the community

Don't have a forum account yet? We need you to join the discussion! It only takes a couple of minutes to sign up.

Recently, part of the EF community has migrated to the Soccer Shouts forums.

Adolf Hitler Discussion.

   
The only people who say "white British people hate muslims" are generally the people who hate muslims themselves. What I would say is that Britain is a tolerant society and saying that the general public hates minorities is offence to me.

Also Brown, citing the cause of the war from actions after 1937 is quite ill informed.
Image

People who say something cannot be done are often surprised by others doing it.

   
political and moral dilema? So far the moral dilemma has been that lives were lost in Vietnam and Germany but for completely different reasons. You are comparing war to genocide. It would be more logical to compare nixon waging a war against vietnam to Hitler doing the same against many european countries. It doesnt matter which method was more humane or not, casualties were everywhere.


As for the political dilemma? Hitler wanted the genocide to occur. It was one of the issues he raised in his public speeches before gaining notoriety in the political media. I am sure you have seen the way this fellow does his public speeches. Anyone can tell, he is very passionate about his ideologies.

It was this passion and aggressive attitude in expressing the desire to solving Germany's issues that really attracted major attention and support. People liked him and he was very manipulative, especially considering how he rose to power.

You make it sound like Hitler was just a good man in a twisted predicament. He wasnt forced to make the decision of this genocide. He wanted it and was backed by everyone because they knew he was going to lead the way.
Image



   
Quote:
Im a strong catholic and most definitely not a racist, im disgusted you'd suggest otherwise.


S11 simply said that one of your reasons for not being racist "because I'm Catholic" isn't a good reason. (I'm not trying to attack you, just clarifying).
____________________________________

I understand how they were thought of as scape goats now. The United States had camps, similar edit[not anywhere near the severity of Germany's) to concentration camps that held Japanese prisoners

Could you also answer the second question I posted in my last post (Why you consider the Jews to have been "oppressive" to other Germans)
My Architecture Blog(updated 02-12-13)



   
The USA didn't kill anybody, or torture anybody.. They just relocated the Japs in to these camps.. Which is a pain in the butt for the Japaneese people, but not nearly as bad as what happened in Europe with the Concentration Camps
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

   
Why so angry?
You said you're not a racist, you're catholic; implying that there are no racist catholics.

Also, I have yet to attack anyone. You say all you're doing is posting facts and your views, and that's what we're doing, presenting our views but since our views differ you get angry.
No one is arguing that Vietnam was bad. You keep bringing it up for some reason., ok we agree with you Vietnam was awful. I am curious to know why you keep bringing that up though. A lot of armies used to practice total war so that wasn't a new concept.
I consider myself fairly mature, I don't know where you're getting that from. It's not like I'm making Holocaust jokes or something. I'm being civil about everything.



I also have no shame :lol:
Image

   
To be honest, I think that, like in anything in life, we have the facts, many of them in this occasion, and then the rest is just interprtation...

I gotta friend, he can say Hi to a women (we kiss hi here), and normally salute her, a few minutes later you hear him say "Dude, did you see how I almost made out with her, shes hot for me, I know it "..

Even though the facts are clear, and repetitive, and constant, and exagerrated.. some people chose to believe to ignore them..

its quite simple to me..

You kill once = your bad
You kill twice = your very bad
You kill 20 million times = your evil.

sure, that he believed that he was right and he was doing it for good, maybe, but the fact remains HE KILLED 20 MILLION people
to know Him is to want to know Him more"


"i don't know where the limit is, but I know where it is not"

Tocar y moverse y tratarla siempre muy muy bien..'

   
Klc.
1. Yes
2. No oviously not, either do you or anyone else in the world because no one has ever been killed by cyanide and then decribed what it was like. Your ignoring all the other ways they were killed. Throwing babies to use as targets, making "workers" fight for food, putting people in pressure chambers to see at what point they die, making people stand in a small room until they die, boiling people to see when they die, etc aren't humane and all happened.
3. No, I've never been shot in the head. See 2
4. It's assumed very little, but who really knows, See 2
5. I missed that, just like you've missed Nat_H's question over and over agian.

I'm sorry I are been ignorant. What I'm saying is that Nazi's didn't kill every person the way you are saying. They did a lot of really messed up stuff, and some extremely sick types of human testing. Ignorance is simple not knowing. Since you are such an expert on death I'm assuming you know that burning (though a graphic) way to go isn't near as agonizing as many things Nazi's did. When your burning you go into shock very quickly. My friends dad was in a huge fire where something like 60% of his body had 3rd degree burns and he'll tell you he barely felt anything while on fire after a couple seconds because he was instantly in shock (one person experience). Starving on the other hand often took months and often involved injuries, loss of teeth, and extreme sickness due to physical state.

I stand by what I said. Saying someone has ignorance isn't an insult (in the true meaning of the word), it simply means they lack knowledge. Everyone is ignorant, fact. So, I'll say it again, IMO that was the most ignorant post I've seen. Don't try to act like a victim when you aren't, you aren't being attacked, deal with it.

Scotty I'm confused. Are you using the Japanesse invation of China as the start of the war? It's a valid point since Japan and China where part of the world war but (at least in the schools/classes I've taken) they usually teach that the start of WW2 is 1939, when German invaded Poland, which caused Britian, France, etc to declare war. I'm just a little confused on what you are saying. Are you claiming Japan and Germany are about 50-50 responsible for the war or different parties? I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying since it's one of those debatible things, but I just what to know what you're thinking.
   
No by 50-50 I mean 50% Germany and 50% Britain, France and the USA.

There are a lot of factors leading up to 1939 that must be considered. It must have been 3 or4 years since I studied it at school but could try to fill you in if you like.
Image

People who say something cannot be done are often surprised by others doing it.

   
Scotty, when you say 50% fault of the allies, do you mean how they screwed germany over and gave them fuel for revenge with the treaty of versailles?

Or that Germany was minding its own business trying to take over the lands it lost (poland, etc) and the allies intervened?
Image

   
Yes a lot of Germany's bitterness stemmed from the unfair terms of the treaty of Versailles. For example the allies (mainly the French) demanded that Germany financially paid for the damage of the war, which in todays money would have been trillions, the repayment programme would have continued until the mid 1980s, that almost 70 years since the war was over. Germany would be economically crippled for decades, which is unreasonable as it had never been done before.

Secondly, the "allies" had plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler. When he came to power Germany had little in the way of an army which was due to the terms in the treaty. Im not sure but i believe its army could only be 300,000 strong, Hitler ignored this, the allies did nothing.

Germany was not allowed to have an airforce, Hitler built many warplanes, the allies just watched.

Germany was not allowed to have a military presence in the Rhineland. Hitler sent troops. The French were outraged, but did nothing.

Against the treaty, Germany built a navy, instead of challenging this Britain entered an arms race with germany.

Germany and Austria were not allowed to join forces (grossdeutchland or somthing) Hitler set about a chain of events that led to germany taking control of the austrian government.

The British and French told Hitler if he invaded Czechoslovakia they would declare war. Hitler did it anyway, the allies did nothing.

By now Hitlers Germany had grown from dust to a the most powerful nation in the world. When he came to invade Poland and the allies threatened war why should he have thought any differently, britain and france would just roll over.

Although this storyline makes it look as if Hitler was soley responsible, his actions proved the Treaty of Versailles was a worthless piece of paper that just made the situation worse, and remember all of these actions were justified in the eyes of Hitler and the German people who felt hard done by by Versailles.

Cartoons were popular in newspapers this is a famous one that summed up the treaty of Versailles, days after the treaty was signed, and a pretty accurate one at that.

Image

Draw your own conclusions, but thats where I stand.
   
klc You have a very unique opinion, ill informed in places, but perhaps bearing the logic some people may have used in Nazi Germany to accept Hitlers Idealogies

But you must understand at the bear bones of it

Hitler was a fantastic politican, oral speaker and had a great level of self beleif in revolutionary ideas (ignoring the ideas themselves just the fact they brought around drastic change)... Conclusively we can say in terms of politics Hitler was not only great, but as a model the near perfect politican/leader

Now in my life and mabye in yours and mabye in everyone elses, we have failed a many potential dreams, beleifs and quests

Now in my life and mabye in yours and mabye in everyone elses, we will fail further and learn from these failures

I have failed lots in life, but I will never fail as a human being

Hitler had the potential and success to do anything, but we can conclusively say in terms of responsibilty as a human, Hitler failed horrifically

I can only contemplate your argument so far, before it begins to have very disapointing flaws in it, I'm not trying to have a go, but trying to explain as calmly as I can... You really need to realign your perspective, Hitler was a great leader, Its difficult for me to find the language power to describe how below human dignity Hitler fell

He literally was wonderfully fucked up in the head, to be able to justify the shit he did

Quote:
How ironic that you called my post ignorant when really you are been ignorant. A human feels no pain when been gassed by cyanide or by CO2


Death cannot be justified by the pain levels experienced

Quote:
I never called the holocaust humane, i called it more humane than burning small children alive


The holocaust I can quite confidently say involved burning small children alive

Quote:
You say it wasn't much of a reply but i don't recal you posting anything with your picture? Irony and idiocy


Image

Pile of jewish, polish and disabled peoples glasses in Auschwiz
Pictures say a 1000 words

Ok seriously my last opinion on this...

Your claiming Nixon is worse than Hitler?
Fair enough, your opinion...

But you can't use that to justify Hitlers holocaust as better or less evil than Nixons Vietnam... alot of people died in both, in different circumstances
Image

   
I see your point Scotty, I mentioned in a early post that we should have stopped him early which is a valid point.

I guess it's just difference in perspective. It's like Hitler was the guy at the bar drinking to much and getting roudy, and a huge fight broke out. You'd say fault falls on everyone because people allowed him to get outta hand. I'd say it's his fault for being a douche. Different perspectives, no really saying who is right or wrong.

Even though trying to make Germany pay for the war was wrong, in my eyes it was never a valid punishment as it wasn't very plausible IMO. Doesn't make it any better though
   
Let me ask you something, klc: Would you do the same today if you were in a similar position to Hitler? Surely you being a Catholic would be unwilling to take even one life.
Image

All roads lead to Rome.

Triskaidekaphobia: The unnatural fear of the number 13.
Most of Ballack's opposition have this phobia.

I'm Scott. Don't let the title fool you; I.AM.CANADIAN!

   
Thank you for restraining yourself NBP.

Yes but i don't have a reason to take a human life or believe that it is the right thing to do.

The holocaust is in my opinion the worst crime ever committed. I grant that. It was pure evil. Theres no doubting it, its just plain black and white it was pure evil.

A less evil crime commited, was the dropping of the bomb on hiroshima. It was evil because it was really uncalled for just been days after the first and was really just america displaying its strength and power. Many died and many suffered. It was not as much of a crime as the holocaust, but it was still an evil hideous crime, most acts of war are.

However, my point was that Hitler was not a completely evil man, he was as evil as you or I, even if he did commit the most corrupting and evil crime in history.

My logic behind this is deep and very reflective, and i understand many people in the world and on these forums will not be able to understand it, nor appriciate it.

I do not believe people are evil because of the actions they do or the things they take part in. Yes then can be sinners and commit crimes, but not all sinners and people who commit crimes are evil in the heart or mind.

You may ask what makes a person evil in the mind then? is it how bad the crime he committed was? Some say yes, i don't think so though...

My belief is that if you do a crime, it is always going to be an evil crime, but the person who commits it is not nesseccarily evil.

I believe that if you think what you are doing is the right and the best thing to do, and that it needs to be done and i don't mean just saying this because words mean nothing, but i mean actually in your heart and soul believe it is the right thing to do, then no matter how bad the crime is, the person is not evil, just their sense of what is right and what is wrong are completely messed up.

Likewise someone who knows something is wrong and that they do not need to do it in their heart, yet they still do it, i think that is real evil in the heart and mind, because that means you know better but you have still choosen not to do so.

Now you can all say "hitler should have know killing the Jews was wrong", But realistically he didn't, nor did any of the Nazi party and many of the German citizens of the time, they all were brainwashed or tricked into believing it was the right thing to do, and so although they commited a hideous crime, they are not fundamentally evil in the heart.

I believe that Truman on the other hand must have known that the second bombing of Japan was not needed and that enough people had died and so that he could just leave it and peace would come. I think he knew the second atomic bomb was wrong and un-needed, but he still chose to go ahead with it. Many people argue that the manhattan project was preplanned that two bombs were to be dropped, and if they were dropped at the same time i would say fair enough, that was the plan and it was justified as it would bring the war to an end, however there were 6 days between the first and second bomb.

Everyone could see the crippled nation Japan was after the first bomb, they were practically begging for the end of the fighting at that point, and Truman had 6 days to say "hang on guys, the jobs done already, no need for the second." But he didn't, he must have known it was wrong and un needed to drop the bomb but he still went ahead with it and killed 166,000 more people needlessly.

So although the Holocaust was a much more evil and hideous crime, in my personal opinion, Truman was a more evil man than Hitler ever was, because atleast Hitler believed fundamentally he was doing the right thing and it was for the best.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

   
Quote:
I do not believe people are evil because of the actions they do or the things they take part in. Yes then can be sinners and commit crimes, but not all sinners and people who commit crimes are evil in the heart or mind.


Evil is not a constant, it varies quite significantly between era's, I can understand the concept your describing, but your must understand that its only a fractions of the attributes of most criminals/sinners 'reasoning'

You aren't considering hate as a force, for example you walk in on a dude raping your girlfriend... You will if you can try kill him in the most gruesome and horrible way

At a very heightened sense of hate/anger, you might conciously do the most evil thing that you can contemplate

The rape situation in my opinion is justifiable

Hitler hated the Jews, but in my opinion his sitiuation did not in any stretch of the mind justify his evil deeds, no matter how much he hated them

Quotes from Hitler himself about the Jews
Hate is more lasting than dislike

The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time

Quote:
I believe that if you think what you are doing is the right and the best thing to do, and that it needs to be done and i don't mean just saying this because words mean nothing, but i mean actually in your heart and soul believe it is the right thing to do, then no matter how bad the crime is, the person is not evil, just their sense of what is right and what is wrong are completely messed up


Thats correct, they are not nessecarily evil, just mentally malfunctioning
Excuseable in some very remote cases, but in the case of Hitler I can quite confidently say he understood the extent of the suffering he wanted to cause and the immorality behind it

On the flip side... he did stongly beleive for a better future you must eliminate the weak now, so he did have a few fucked up notions, but he still hated the jews and more developed an ideologie out of that hate not the other way around

But you have a very plausible and strong point here, that holds your argument together

Quotes from Hitler himself about morality
Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong

I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator

On the last quote he did use religion to justify the killing of the jews

Quote:
Now you can all say "hitler should have know killing the Jews was wrong", But realistically he didn't, nor did any of the Nazi party and many of the German citizens of the time, they all were brainwashed or tricked into believing it was the right thing to do and so although they commited a hideous crime, they are not fundamentally evil in the heart.


Hitler was the one doing the brainwashing my man, although I'd like to hear your opinion on that

Its quite clear he was making the Germans see his way

Quotes from Hitler himself about the Germans
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it

The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention

---

For the entire second part of your post... I partly agree, it was a harsh harsh way of ending the war... But look at it like this, If the Americans didn't bomb Horishima and Nagasakia

Invasion of Japan itself was the only other option, that would have extended to war by months... maybe years

Your not concerned about the enemies casulties, you just wanna win... They had a method to end the war within a week... It had never actually been explored... Think of how many American soliders that saved, how much it saved the economy

The U.S. just wanted a fast method of getting the Japs to accept the Potsdam Declaration

After the Hiroshima President Truman is quoted
If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth

Not evil, merely doing what he considered would save his countrymen... It was an extreme form of exchange but, had it not happened... The Russians and Yanks might not have been so cautious during the cold war... And then the shit would really hit the pan
Image