The fascination with Adolf Hitler.

TheTipperaryMan

Active member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
180
The utter barbarism of the Nazis on the Eastern Front with no pity whatsoever for POW's or civilians alike and the massive atrocities committed against the Chinese and other Asian peoples by the Japanese Army and the huge sacrifices made to defeat the Axis powers, makes the fever pitch of hatred and the subsequent horrific retribution against both German and Japanese civilian populations totally understandable.

The rape the entire female population of Berlin by the Soviet Red Army was almost inevitable after the enormity of the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht in Russia.

As "Bomber" Harris said "they have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind"

Few Americans, British or Russians at the highest level or ordinary soldiers or civilians during WW2 had any qualms about obliterating either German or Japanese cities.
 


TheTipperaryMan

Active member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
180
Pretty typical Anglo-centric view of history.. and completely predictable from you I have to admit. Are black African lives not as important as White Europeans ?
Nobody is excusing the massacre of black Africans or anyone else.

However the evil of British atrocities in Kenya pale in comparison to the crimes of the Third Reich.

The moral justification for the defeat of the Nazis is not in any way blemished by the less numerous crimes and atrocities that were committed by Allies during or falling the end of the war.

We are being sidetracked from the discussion of thread.

Hitler and his influence is only part of the story of the Second War even though he was a principle actor.

The real story of Nazism is how millions of ordinary Germans willingly reverted to barbarism.
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
The utter barbarism of the Nazis on the Eastern Front with no pity whatsoever for POW's or civilians alike and the massive atrocities committed against the Chinese and other Asian peoples by the Japanese Army and the huge sacrifices made to defeat the Axis powers, makes the fever pitch of hatred and the subsequent horrific retribution against both German and Japanese civilian populations totally understandable.

The rape the entire female population of Berlin by the Soviet Red Army was almost inevitable after the enormity of the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht in Russia.

As "Bomber" Harris said "they have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind"

Few Americans, British or Russians at the highest level or ordinary soldiers or civilians during WW2 had any qualms about obliterating either German or Japanese cities.
And that makes it right, or defensible?

And, if you bothered to take a more broader view of history, you might understand for example, that the bombing of Dresden, long argued as being unecessary as a strategic attack against an already beaten Germany (which it was), was in fact an exercise in showing the Russians the extent of British firepower to the Russians, who had substantial numbers of troops in Germany, ahead of subsequent negotiations over how Europe was to be carved up post WW2

Your problem, as is the case of many who take a passing interest in history, is viewing history through the prism of subsequent politics, and then creating justifications which suit your own subsequent world view
 

greenporcupine

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
114
Sean O'Brien,
I was to a considerable extent being provacative ,to raise the idea that evil or good is not so black and white.Those who recognise their potential to be evil ,even in small ways,are the good and concious.Those who deny that they are [and he certainly did] are the evil ones .Good people doubt themselves from time to time ,examine their motives ,try to avoid falling into false narcissistic egoism.
The refusal to change even when the consequences of your actions are dire ,is true evil,and there is plenty of it in last few years. All I was really saying is that a concentration, a kind of undiluted version was what he brought to the time,as though he had absorbed all the evil of decades in one person.
It is not possible to change history retrospectively,for so many past factors make it happen.
Have we learned have we changed, that is the question? Many who condemn him are like him.They do not want to self examine,better to have an external enemy than the internal one.
People with sidereal scorpio/8th house issues etc are most dangerous and have issues.
Western tropical has nothing to do with astronomy,and is false in my opinion.
Hitler had 4 planets in mars [aries ]in the 7th house [how he related to others]
and Pluto Neptune in the 8th of death ,corruption,sex,so he needed to control people, the idealism of Neptune is destroyed in the 8th and has been in it's Fallen sign for 17yrs causing lies ,and more lies
of the most cynical kind.This year jupiter in it's fallen sign shows usfor the last time what happens when we do not take the higher path.It is a Warning ,but there is time to change for those who wish to be higher .
There is more ,but will leave it at that.
Too much attachment to dogs ,unless they are working dogs is not a 'good' sign.
It is not a sign of loyalty in many cases ,but attachment to the lower chakras,an inablity to love at a higher level. I prefer animals in the wild ,free, and also birds.
One last word for the religious 'righteous .Ignorance is an evil,when you force your limited ideas on others without self examination. Who would want to live in heaven with such ignorance.
Knowledge is a requirement for entry,and a good heart.
 

TheTipperaryMan

Active member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
180
And, if you bothered to take a more broader view of history, you might understand for example, that the bombing of Dresden, long argued as being unecessary as a strategic attack against an already beaten Germany (which it was), was in fact an exercise in showing the Russians the extent of British firepower to the Russians, who had substantial numbers of troops in Germany, ahead of subsequent negotiations over how Europe was to be carved up post WW2
Well if that was the reason for the bombing of Dresden I humbly stand corrected then.

You are clearly implying that the Russians might not have stopped ar Berlin and instead conquered more of Europe if they thought the Western Allies did not have the means to stop them?

If the rest of Europe was spared the same fate as a Eastern Europe suffered from 1945-1989 because the British and Americans demonstrated the extent of their firepower by bombing Dresden thereby scaring the Russians then maybe it was worth it the horrifying lost of life.
 

the agent

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
171
Getting back on topic, we should look at a few things regarding Herr Hitler,
For any man to go from complete unknown to become democatic leader of his Country and not even be from that Country in 12 years is quite amazing. No can disagree that is oratory skills were very powerful and if you had a politican speaking with the same such passion and conviction in this Country right now you could see him become very popular very quickly.

Hitler surrounded himself with loyal hard working individuals, Hess, Himmler, Gobbells and so on. They did most of the hard donkey work on the ground and built up a party of 7 members to millions, again quite impressive, no email or texts or podcasts in those days, or indeed a politics.ie.

What Hitler did was wrong. murdering women and children is evil, however western society is not without blood on its hands either. The Nazis lost the war (if they had not invaded Russia, we could be living in a totally different Europe) but deep down hitler was convinced the brits and themselves were really made to be good mates, and churchill turned down his advances to team up and take on stalin in 1941.

We all know that the Nazi's became popular because their country was savaged after WW1. it was broke and on its knees, The Jews were seen as profiteers and many of them were bankers and hitler spoke on behalf of the common man who wanted revenge. Sound familar??
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
Well if that was the reason for the bombing of Dresden I humbly stand corrected then.

You are clearly implying that the Russians might not have stopped ar Berlin and instead conquered more of Europe if they thought the Western Allies did not have the means to stop them?

If the rest of Europe was spared the same fate as a Eastern Europe suffered from 1945-1989 because the British and Americans demonstrated the extent of their firepower by bombing Dresden thereby scaring the Russians then maybe it was worth it the horrifying lost of life.
By God, it's hard to get my head around your moral relativism. While you make a big play on the idea of the Allies "saving us" from the Nazi yoke, you don't seem to realise, that if we should give credit to anyone for stopping the spread of Nazism across Europe, it would most properly be giving to Stalin and the Red army, as they more than anyone defeated Germany in the war. Had Germany not made the foolish attempt to invade Russia and stick to the Molotov/Ribbentropp Pact, it seems very likely that Britain would have been invaded, and an eventual agreement have been made between Germany and the US to end the war. The eventual map of Europe might have looked very like that which was written about (fictionally) in Robert Harris' book Fatherland.

And, funnily enough, given your record for posting here, and your continual prediliction for supporting the winners or the forces of law and order, I have no doubt that you would have made a "fine little Nazi" in any subsequent regime.

Now, I bet I've ended this little tete a tete with that comment eh?

Go learn your history boy..
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
Getting back on topic, we should look at a few things regarding Herr Hitler,
For any man to go from complete unknown to become democatic leader of his Country and not even be from that Country in 12 years is quite amazing. No can disagree that is oratory skills were very powerful and if you had a politican speaking with the same such passion and conviction in this Country right now you could see him become very popular very quickly.

Hitler surrounded himself with loyal hard working individuals, Hess, Himmler, Gobbells and so on. They did most of the hard donkey work on the ground and built up a party of 7 members to millions, again quite impressive, no email or texts or podcasts in those days, or indeed a politics.ie.

What Hitler did was wrong. murdering women and children is evil, however western society is not without blood on its hands either. The Nazis lost the war (if they had not invaded Russia, we could be living in a totally different Europe) but deep down hitler was convinced the brits and themselves were really made to be good mates, and churchill turned down his advances to team up and take on stalin in 1941.

We all know that the Nazi's became popular because their country was savaged after WW1. it was broke and on its knees, The Jews were seen as profiteers and many of them were bankers and hitler spoke on behalf of the common man who wanted revenge. Sound familar??
True. and if there arises a strong leader with far right "corporatist" leanings in Ireland in the next 5 years, he or she could also garner a significant level of support. The masses are easily lead. Note the rise of Pim Fortyn in Holland, and the current rise of the BNP in Britain
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
14,876
And, was there any greater single war crime in WW2, than the dropping of not one, but two atomic bombs on innocent civilians in Japan ?


Nonsense. The Japanese were preparing to defend their homeland to the last man and woman. Hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been killed, people who would also have been civilians but for the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason for the second bomb was that the first wasn't enough to concentrate Japanese minds.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,197
And that makes it right, or defensible?

And, if you bothered to take a more broader view of history, you might understand for example, that the bombing of Dresden, long argued as being unecessary as a strategic attack against an already beaten Germany (which it was), was in fact an exercise in showing the Russians the extent of British firepower to the Russians, who had substantial numbers of troops in Germany, ahead of subsequent negotiations over how Europe was to be carved up post WW2

Your problem, as is the case of many who take a passing interest in history, is viewing history through the prism of subsequent politics, and then creating justifications which suit your own subsequent world view
But if Germany was already beaten, why did she not surrender? Until surrender, if your opponent is still fighting you are entitled to take the view that you do as much as possible to minimise deaths on your own side on your way to victory. If that means increasing the deaths on the other side, then so be it - because as I said, if the enemy doesn't like it, they can always surrender. As to whether bombing Dresden and other cities was morally justified or not, the problem is that by deliberately targetting civilian areas in London, Coventry, etc, the Germans were effectively telling the British that they had no problem with civilians being bombed. The fact that the RAF subsequently gained sufficient air superiority to do far more of it doesn't change that simple fact.
And furthermore, you have to remember that by 1944/45 the Germans were still trying to bomb British civilians - its just that their efforts, via the V1 and V2 bombs, weren't particularly successful. But there's no provision in warfare for one side to say to the other "listen, I know we did that earlier on, but now that you're doing so much more of it, we really think its morally wrong, so we should all stop."
 

Theowolfe

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
38
Nonsense. The Japanese were preparing to defend their homeland to the last man and woman. Hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been killed, people who would also have been civilians but for the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason for the second bomb was that the first wasn't enough to concentrate Japanese minds.
That is absolute nonsense, Japan had already sued for peace several times as the Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan exposed at the time.

The Manhattan project needed a bang for its bucks and Truman wanted to demonstrate US power to USSR for the post war world order.

The continued lie about the animal like 'Japs' fighting to the last man is a racist stereotype.
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
Nonsense. The Japanese were preparing to defend their homeland to the last man and woman. Hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been killed, people who would also have been civilians but for the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason for the second bomb was that the first wasn't enough to concentrate Japanese minds.

What was wrong with the Japanese preparing to defend their homeland to the last man ?

Had Britian been invaded by Germany, I assume that Churchill would have expected every Briton to defend their homeland to the last man as well ?

You, like TM above, show a rather poor knowledge of history if you believe that Pearl Harbour was a sneak attack. The American administration were well aware that Pearl Harbour was going to be attacked, right down to the very date it was going to be attacked, so much so that they moved much of their fleet away from Pearl Harbour, only leaving enough to be sacrificed to allow Roosevelt to convince Congress to enter WW2, which they had been resisting up to that point

And, given your comment, you think it is acceptable to murder 100,000 civilians, to "concentrate minds" ?

Oh wait, I bet you wouldn't even call it murder, would you ?
 

greenporcupine

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
114
People I know I tend to look at the psychological /spiritual hidden ' history' of people, but now I would like to thank the poster for this thread. The level of knowledge is considerable and well , totally
neccessary, for much of what is available to the public is 'holywood' cinematic ,black and white stuff.
It is important that there is discussion at this level in order to understand where we might be going now ,and in the near future.
Thankyou all for this discussion,it is excelllent.
Those who forget the lessons of history etc.........
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,480
Website
en.wikipedia.org
The utter barbarism of the Nazis on the Eastern Front with no pity whatsoever for POW's or civilians alike and the massive atrocities committed against the Chinese and other Asian peoples by the Japanese Army and the huge sacrifices made to defeat the Axis powers, makes the fever pitch of hatred and the subsequent horrific retribution against both German and Japanese civilian populations totally understandable.

The rape the entire female population of Berlin by the Soviet Red Army was almost inevitable after the enormity of the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht in Russia.

As "Bomber" Harris said "they have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind"

Few Americans, British or Russians at the highest level or ordinary soldiers or civilians during WW2 had any qualms about obliterating either German or Japanese cities.
Nonsense, a complete breakdown in discipline from an army that machine gunned its own men when they disobeyed orders?

Harris sitting back in england drinking tea, while ordering a night mission to obliterate one of the most valuable cultural centres in europe which had no strategic importance - what a great fellow to quote, at least the cities Truman nuked brought the war to an end quickly. Shame he didnt nuke Moscow too.

The complete ethnic cleansing and obiteration of the nation of Prussia is another one..

Also the scumbag Mao was fighting the Nationalists while his own country was been invaded by the army of the emperor of Japan, whose son has the current US prez bowing before him in awe.
 

Dr Qasim Afridi

Active member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
185
Nonsense. The Japanese were preparing to defend their homeland to the last man and woman. Hundreds of thousands of US troops would have been killed, people who would also have been civilians but for the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason for the second bomb was that the first wasn't enough to concentrate Japanese minds.
Trampas: Thats a very bad thing to say... To concentrate Japanese minds? Its well known that Japan was finished and did not have any ability to harm America in anyway by the end of the war... Infact the American planes had next to nil Japanese counterparts by that time... and they used to go flying around Japanese cities firebombing them and showering trams of civilians with bullets... So hundreds of thousands of American troops were certainly not going to die as you put it...

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. President Truman August 7 1945

Thank God America is nt the only country to possess Atomic weapons today...
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,197
That is absolute nonsense, Japan had already sued for peace several times as the Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan exposed at the time.
Have a look at the terms they offered.

The continued lie about the animal like 'Japs' fighting to the last man is a racist stereotype.
No it isn't. Its based on cold hard evidence from the island war in the Pacific.
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
14,876
What was wrong with the Japanese preparing to defend their homeland to the last man ?

Why nothing at all, as long as they are prepared to accept the consequences of that ill-advised action


Oh wait, I bet you wouldn't even call it murder, would you ?

No I wouldn't. You see war is hell and the Japanese started it. At least that is the view of most sensible people - other than a small minority of US hating conspiracy theorists.
 

Theowolfe

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
38
Have a look at the terms they offered.



No it isn't. Its based on cold hard evidence from the island war in the Pacific.
So Eisenhower was wrong when he said "the Japanese were ready to surrender and we didn’t have to hit them with that awful thing."

All racism claims to be based on "cold hard evidence" in one way or another.
 

spacely sprockets

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
133
Two things:

1. Hitler was a drug addict by the end of his life.

2. As far as i'm aware the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more than either of the atomic bombs.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top