The fascination with Adolf Hitler.

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
27,354
They most certainly did not "invade Iraq" in any accepted sense of that term. What they did do was harass the retreating Iraqi army as it began to make its way home.
They invaded their airspace, and clusterbombed both fleeing soldiers and civilians (who ironically were supposedly oppressed Shias).
Harrassment indeed!!
 


Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
14,876
They invaded their airspace, and clusterbombed both fleeing soldiers and civilians (who ironically were supposedly oppressed Shias).
Harrassment indeed!!

Thank you for confirming that there was no "invasion of Iraq" in any accepted sense of that word.
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
Thank you for confirming that there was no "invasion of Iraq" in any accepted sense of that word.
But you see, therein lies the crux... "in any accepted sense of the word"

Whose accepted sense of the word? Yours? The US's? The Western world's?

Might you get a different answer if this message board was an Iraqi political message board? Or another Islamic message board?

I was only using the US attacks into Iraq during the early 1990's as an example, and not directly linking the attack on the Twin Towers to those attacks, but there does seem to be some sense of moral relatvism employed by people in the argument to justify war crimes such as the bombing of Dresden and the dropping of two nuclear bombs on a beaten Japan, while at the same time, glossing over events such as the destruction of the Kikuyu people (Mau Mau) in Kenya in the 1950's.

History is littered with this kind of thing, when people look back on it from afar, and then view the history through the prism of the political settlement which came after.

Remember, Joseph Stalin is regarded as being a monster, because of the Cold War, but if anything the Western world owes him a debt of gratitude for defeating Nazism, because it would not have been defeated but for the Red Army. That is an accepted historical fact.

It must also be remembered, that while we now look back on Hitler as some sort of crazed lunatic, who was bad to his very core, that the Western world were quite happy to appease Hitler during the 30's, because he was seen as a bulwark against Communism. Remember, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the late 1920's, calling for the destruction of the Jewish people, but in 1938 was considered by Time magazine as their "Person of the Year"

Once again I say, we would be better of having historical discussions if people could seperate history from politics and propaganda, and accept what actually happened whether we like it or not, and then, of we are prepared to accept it, to not show any moral relativism for the condemnation of the actions of some, while at the same time justifying similar actions by others.

People should understand, that if history had been slightly different, for example, had Germany won World War 2, or come to some agreement with America in 1945, then much of what we condemn Germany for would either be accepted or at least forgotten about
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
The thing which I find most interesting is how everybody conveniently forgets that the best part of 80,000,000 people in Germany who shared his views. He is credited with being SO charasmatic that the people of Germany are never thought of as playing any part. It is as though the entire nation was hypnotised by this one man and wandered around committing atrocities for six years whilst fast asleep.

This is a valuable insight into our blindness towards the "banal" everyday evil which inhabits us all. We imagine Hitler to be a "genius" beyond compare simply to avoid the facing up to the fact that there is a staggering amount of cruelty, bitterness, and rage bubbling just beneath the surface of your average Joe on the street.

Hitler is the perfect scapegoat for a society which can't bear to look at itself. A little bit ironic when you think about it. But what isn't?
You just have to look at some forums and see all the Trolls and far worse, spewing their vile thoughts out, to know this. Many, most forums are are infinitely worse than P.ie.

Fortunately these people are a more fragmented and divided demographic today and pose less of a threat to everyone else than during the mid 20th century.
I believe it is because of the media and free expression of countless separate ideas that they are so divided. They argue amongst each other and are prevented from collocation into large groups and causing trouble.

Islam is the only exception to this. It has become more violent and dangerous because of free speech. Drawing bitter cruel sadistic enraged psychopaths to it and molding them into something slightly akin to Hitlers Nazis.
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
You just have to look at some forums and see all the Trolls and far worse, spewing their vile thoughts out, to know this. Many, most forums are are infinitely worse than P.ie.

Fortunately these people are a more fragmented and divided demographic today and pose less of a threat to everyone else than during the mid 20th century.
I believe it is because of the media and free expression of countless separate ideas that they are so divided. They argue amongst each other and are prevented from collocation into large groups and causing trouble.

Islam is the only exception to this. It has become more violent and dangerous because of free speech. Drawing bitter cruel sadistic enraged psychopaths to it and molding them into something slightly akin to Hitlers Nazis.
That is wrong to say that Islam has become more violent because of free speech. Islam has become more violent because of the propensity for use of weapons created by "peaceful" Western nations
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
That is wrong to say that Islam has become more violent because of free speech. Islam has become more violent because of the propensity for use of weapons created by "peaceful" Western nations
Islam dominated by the Ottoman empire was quite quiet. Few bitter cruel sadistic enraged psychopaths emerged out of the place. I believe they had weapons there as well. They did not have free speech though!

Free speech, particularly exemplified by the recent internet, has brought the worst of them together. Using the cover of Islam to enshrine all their mad delusional fantasies.
 

greenporcupine

Active member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
114
Then if it is not at all the fault of the Jewish people ,it was not the fault at all of the people who have ever been murdered or tortured or are poor ,or die of Starvation ,or are invaded etc .No it is never anyones fault so maybe there is really a devil,and all human beings are perfect.
This thread was I think trying to get a bit beyond the idea that things are simple.
I beleive ,and can prove it to a considerable extent ,that nothing is chance .
That a long time ago we set in motion a whole set of negative circumstances,and that until we take our responsiblity for negative conditions,and learn to forgive [if not entirely forget,then the cycle goes on,forever].
If you want to understand this need to forgive,then 'What is so Amazing about Grace',by Phillip Yancey,a work of art.
 

L'Chaim

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
18,736
"It must also be remembered, that while we now look back on Hitler as some sort of crazed lunatic, who was bad to his very core, that the Western world were quite happy to appease Hitler during the 30's, because he was seen as a bulwark against Communism. Remember, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the late 1920's, calling for the destruction of the Jewish people, but in 1938 was considered by Time magazine as their "Person of the Year"

Exactly! Had the world not just seen Hitler's antisemitism as a Jewish only problem and instead seen it as an accurate barometer of how evil Hitler and the Nazis were, then maybe good nations would have opposed Hitler and the Nazis earlier and saved not only six million Jews, but tens of millions of others too. The world still hasn't really learned that Jew haters begin with Jews but never end with them. You look at the treatment of Jews by any nation, political party or group and you will see exactly what they have in store for others.
 

Spacewagon

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
41
"It must also be remembered, that while we now look back on Hitler as some sort of crazed lunatic, who was bad to his very core, that the Western world were quite happy to appease Hitler during the 30's, because he was seen as a bulwark against Communism. Remember, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the late 1920's, calling for the destruction of the Jewish people, but in 1938 was considered by Time magazine as their "Person of the Year"

Exactly! Had the world not just seen Hitler's antisemitism as a Jewish only problem and instead seen it as an accurate barometer of how evil Hitler and the Nazis were, then maybe good nations would have opposed Hitler and the Nazis earlier and saved not only six million Jews, but tens of millions of others too. The world still hasn't really learned that Jew haters begin with Jews but never end with them. You look at the treatment of Jews by any nation, political party or group and you will see exactly what they have in store for others.
I think L'Chaim that any person who has an irrational hatred for any other person is someone who should be watched very carefully, and especially so if that person ascends to a position of power.

However, I have to add, the Jewish nation of Isreal does itself no favours in its dealings with its Arab and Islamic neighbours, and does bring some trouble down upon itself by certain actions.

That is said by the way, by someone who fully believes that the Jewish people have a right to live in peace in the Middle East
 

Trampas

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
14,876
But you see, therein lies the crux... "in any accepted sense of the word"

Whose accepted sense of the word? Yours? The US's? The Western world's?

It should be possible to introduce some objectivity here. You used the word "invasion" (two days - was it ?)
so you tell us about the towns captured and the airfields seized, or indeed any other actions consistent with an "invasion".


Might you get a different answer if this message board was an Iraqi political message board? Or another Islamic message board?

Indeed you might. But not, for some reason, on a Kuwaiti Muslim message board. I think you get the picture.
 

antiestablishmentarian

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
2,150
Over 60 years after his death, Hitler still exerts a macabre influence over the world. Recent films about Hitler era include "Inglourius Basterds", The boy in the striped pyjamas, and "Valkyrie". Without doubt he was a monster, but could he have been saved? What led to his hatred and fanaticsm. We know he was gassed in ww1, and that he was jailed by the German authorities after the Munich putcsh. Did these events make him the arch war criminal? How much was the final solution his personal doing. I would guess most of it. There is no doubt though that he wanted some kind of agreement with the British empire/America.He refused to invade Britain. Had he secret communist leanings- I would say he had, but kept quiet about them. I would also guess that had he been stopped in 1936, there would have been a civil war in Germany, with maybe the Communists winning out. Finally there is no doubt in my mind also he was borderline criminally insane- you would see his type in the maximum security wing of any prison, or on death row in the US. A manic depressive maybe.
Hitlers role in the Final Solution was crucial, even if he didn't play a role in the mechanics or organisation of it. His regime was chaotic and shapeless, marked by improvisation and 'working towards the fuhrer', so that he rarely implemented or instigated policies himself, rather preferring to give his backing to whichever of his paladins came up with policies he liked; therefore the Final Solution couldn't have been implemented without his backing or broad knowledge. He didnt refuse to invade England, it was impossible for the Wehrmacht to do so because of the size of the german fleet vis-a-vis the english fleet and the failure of the Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF. It would be as well not to overestimate his admiration for the British Empire. I think its ludicrous to say that he had any communist leanings, if he did he wouldn't have attacked them first after he was levered into power by big business. Finally, as regards being mad I agree he was mentally disturbed but I think any capitalist government of Germany would have implemented broadly similar policies of reamament and expansion and Hitler personally had little input on the policies undertaken by the government of the Reich.
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,156
The final solution, imho, was a reaction to in part to the carpet bombing of Germany by the Allies. Having done some research into this era I think that, part of the rational behind the Death camps was- no food/shelter for Germans, therefore how can we feed the inmates of the camps- not possible, so most murder them to help share scarce food etc.
I also think in hindsight if the Allies, had offered a 48hour bombing truce, in exchange for a truce on stopping Auswitz, it may have stopped the deaths.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
68
Here's a fantastic drama dealing with The Final Solution discussions at the Wannsee Conference. I highly recommend it. There is 11 parts to it so I'll just post the 1st, if you want to see the rest follow the link under the video, you'll get them all at that channel.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9rY62i2BmM"]YouTube- Conspiracy - Wannsee Conference - part 1 of 11[/ame]

YouTube - Makeyousuffer's Channel
 

Herodotus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
305
He is the 20th century Napoleon. Although Napoleon never ethnically cleansed anyone. People are fascinated with dictators that very nearly succeed.

Thats my take on the fascination with Hitler.
 

Chi019

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
745
He is the 20th century Napoleon. Although Napoleon never ethnically cleansed anyone. People are fascinated with dictators that very nearly succeed.

Thats my take on the fascination with Hitler.


I think Joel Stein's observation is also relevant - obviously they are going to have a particular interest in this period in history.

How Jewish is Hollywood? -- latimes.com
 

antiestablishmentarian

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
2,150
The final solution, imho, was a reaction to in part to the carpet bombing of Germany by the Allies. Having done some research into this era I think that, part of the rational behind the Death camps was- no food/shelter for Germans, therefore how can we feed the inmates of the camps- not possible, so most murder them to help share scarce food etc.
I also think in hindsight if the Allies, had offered a 48hour bombing truce, in exchange for a truce on stopping Auswitz, it may have stopped the deaths.
The Holocaust never had anthing to do with theAllied bombing, it was seen as a 'necessary' step to prevent the collapse of morale on the home-front and also as a way of solving the 'Jewish Question' that had bothered the Nazi's throughoutthe 30's. It also made economic sense too, it allowed the Nazis to exterminate what they called 'useless eaters' and concentrate their slave labour where there were vital economic installations,such as at Auschwitz, where the Monowitz camp was set up to produce synthetic fuel and capitalise on the concentration of slave workers.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
68
He is the 20th century Napoleon. Although Napoleon never ethnically cleansed anyone. People are fascinated with dictators that very nearly succeed.

Thats my take on the fascination with Hitler.
I'm no expert on Napoleon & I stand corrected if there are any Napoleon students here who can say otherwise, but is the comparison with Hitler not unjust? From what I've read of Napoleon he never fronted an utterly despicable regime, bent on wiping out certain races. His wars were usually started by other Imperial powers. After defeating every army he faced he always sued for Peace & those treaties where hardly, if ever broken by him. He also improved France in many ways. He also improved the lives of Jewish citizens in France in an age of rampant anti-semitism.
 

jcdf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
3,738
The final solution, imho, was a reaction to in part to the carpet bombing of Germany by the Allies. Having done some research into this era I think that, part of the rational behind the Death camps was- no food/shelter for Germans, therefore how can we feed the inmates of the camps- not possible, so most murder them to help share scarce food etc.
I also think in hindsight if the Allies, had offered a 48hour bombing truce, in exchange for a truce on stopping Auswitz, it may have stopped the deaths.
The allies did not know about the full scale of Auswitz and similar camps. Trying to make this fault of the Allies is wrong. There was no rational thought in the German high command by this stage of the war. So your point mute.
 

antiestablishmentarian

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
2,150
The Holocaust never had anthing to do with theAllied bombing, it was seen as a 'necessary' step to prevent the collapse of morale on the home-front and also as a way of solving the 'Jewish Question' that had bothered the Nazi's throughoutthe 30's. It also made economic sense too, it allowed the Nazis to exterminate what they called 'useless eaters' and concentrate their slave labour where there were vital economic installations,such as at Auschwitz, where the Monowitz camp was set up to produce synthetic fuel and capitalise on the concentration of slave workers.
Also the large scale raids really only began in 1943, after the Holocaust had begun
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top