PDA

View Full Version : Was Hitler a good or bad person?


Nyx
02-02-2007, 09:43 PM
To avoid any confusion as to the meanings of the words 'good' and 'bad' as used in this poll, vote 'good' if you like, or approve of, or favour Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour him and/or his influence on society at large; vote 'bad' if you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour Hitler and/or his influence on society ar large, more than you like, approve of, or favour him and/or his influence on society at large.

Der Sozialist
02-02-2007, 09:46 PM
Hitler had a devastating effect on the scientific community within Germany. Germany no longer is the leader that it once was due to Hitler’s racial laws that prevented intelligent Jews from holding academia positions.

Dr. Gutberlet
02-02-2007, 09:53 PM
Hitler was good if you lived in Germany immediately after the Treaty of Versailles. Needing a wheelbarrowful of like a million marks to buy bread for one's family must have sucked.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-02-2007, 10:00 PM
This poll is great, because I don't have to take anyone who votes yes seriously, I'll just use this poll as a means of an ad homonym attack.

tempus fugit
02-02-2007, 10:20 PM
I'll just use this poll as a means of an ad homonym attack.

LOL.....sew, yew board?

Starr
02-02-2007, 10:22 PM
It is difficult to label anyone as good or bad. I do believe he acted out of a belief of what was best for his people, and whatever accusations that are thrown at him, that is a truth that cannot be so easily disgarded. And that, in itself, is a definite positive. I am, however, not one who believes he is like some saint or god figure who was without flaws and whose actions were always jusfiable. And it is some of the unjustifable that has become a great weapon that is used against all of us today.

Nyx
02-02-2007, 10:27 PM
It is difficult to label anyone as good or bad."To avoid any confusion as to the meanings of the words 'good' and 'bad' as used in this poll, vote 'good' if you like, or approve of, or favour Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour him and/or his influence on society at large; vote 'bad' if you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour Hitler and/or his influence on society ar large, more than you like, approve of, or favour him and/or his influence on society at large."

Keystone
02-02-2007, 10:52 PM
"To avoid any confusion as to the meanings of the words 'good' and 'bad' as used in this poll, vote 'good' if you like, or approve of, or favour Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour him and/or his influence on society at large; vote 'bad' if you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour Hitler and/or his influence on society ar large, more than you like, approve of, or favour him and/or his influence on society at large."
What sort of influence?

Alfacritical
02-02-2007, 11:11 PM
What sort of influence?
As a result of Hitler's influence, Israel today exists. If you approve of the existence of Israel, then vote "good." If you don't approve of the existence of Israel, then how should you vote?

Keystone
02-02-2007, 11:15 PM
As a result of Hitler's influence, Israel today exists. If you approve of the existence of Israel, then vote "good." If you don't approve of the existence of Israel, then how should you vote?
That's just one criteria. You may think Hitler was a mass-murdering fuckhead, but still admire him for sticking up for his people in his own way.

The lists are endless. That's the problem with Hitler Threads.

Nyx
02-02-2007, 11:16 PM
Any sort of influence that is considered by the voter sufficient reason to approve of, or favour, or attach a positive evaluation to, or to designate as 'good', Hitlerian society in general or the effect it had on the world at large. (If semantic difficulties prevent you from determining whether you approve or disapprove of Hitler, you are probably a Nazi sympathiser but cannot yet bring yourself to admit it and should therefore vote 'good'.)

Keystone
02-02-2007, 11:19 PM
Any sort of influence that is considered sufficient reason to approve of, or favour, or attach a positive evaluation to, or to designate as 'good', Hitlerian society in general. (If semantic difficulties prevent you from determining whether you approve or disapprove of Hitler, you are probably a Nazi sympathiser but cannot yet bring yourself to admit it, and should therefore vote 'good'.)
This poll is too complicated now.

Nyx
02-02-2007, 11:24 PM
This poll is too complicated now.It's remarkably simple, actually. I have only added so much precision to the meanings of the options because the people who would normally vote 'good' (such as Starr and yourself) seem to have a talent for bogging themselves down in semantics. But for the rest of us, the meaning is clear enough: you either like Hitler, or you don't like Hitler, and should vote accordingly. It's not a complicated question. Needless complications are introduced only by quibbling over semantics, such as the meaning of the word 'influence'.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-02-2007, 11:24 PM
What is it with all these hedgers who go through this, like Keystone I see lurking, but don't vote...are you afraid to take a position, lol?

Nyx
02-02-2007, 11:27 PM
What is it with all these hedgers who go through this, like Keystone I see lurking, but don't vote...are you afraid to take a position, lol?See my last two posts above. I think that's the reason.

Alfacritical
02-02-2007, 11:31 PM
Any sort of influence that is considered by the voter sufficient reason to approve of, or favour, or attach a positive evaluation to, or to designate as 'good', Hitlerian society in general [...]
The poll question is about Hitler, not about Hitlerian society.

Nyx
02-02-2007, 11:35 PM
The poll question is about Hitler, not about Hitlerian society.Did you read that totally without context? I obviously meant: Any sort of influence (exercised by Hitler) that is considered by the voter sufficient reason to approve of, or favour, or attach a positive evaluation to, or to designate as 'good', Hitlerian (Hitler-influenced) society in general or the effect it (such influence) had on the world at large.

Keystone
02-02-2007, 11:36 PM
Any sort of influence exercised by Hitler that is considered by the voter sufficient reason to approve of, or favour, or attach a positive evaluation to, or to designate as 'good', Hitlerian (Hitler-influenced) society in general or the effect it had on the world at large.
Christ, this is torture.

I vote bad, with qualifications.

Arthur Daley
02-02-2007, 11:39 PM
I believe he was a good man who fundamentally underestimated and misunderstood the forces ranged against him and who's state in which he steered eventually destabilised. In short he erred. But good men do err. That's called being human..

I think his love for his people was genuine and heartfelt. Thus in his personal attitudes he held his people in genuine high esteem and was a good German nationalist though a dreadful world philantropist...

Keystone
02-02-2007, 11:42 PM
I believe he was a good man who fundamentally underestimated and misunderstood the forces ranged against him and who's state in which he steered eventually destabilised. In short he erred. But good men do err. That's called being human..
I agree, but he didn't just err, he fucked up, royally. Brought his country to ruin. Not many points for that.
I think his love for his people was genuine and heartfelt. Thus in his personal attitudes he held his people in genuine high esteem.
I agree.

Alfacritical
02-02-2007, 11:47 PM
I think his love for his people was genuine and heartfelt.
His love for his people wasn't very evident when he decided to blame them for his own strategic errors. Does ordering the destruction of basic infrastructure suggest a love for one's people? Should Hitler get credit for the fact that some of his orders weren't carried out?

Björn
02-02-2007, 11:47 PM
HITLER WAS A BIG FAT DOODOO HEAD!!!1 :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Nyx
02-02-2007, 11:49 PM
I think his love for his people was genuine and heartfelt.That he had any great regard for his people is contradicted by the evidence. Read his private discourses.

Arthur Daley
02-02-2007, 11:55 PM
His love for his people wasn't very evident when he decided to blame them for his own strategic errors. Does ordering the destruction of basic infrastructure suggest a love for one's people? Should Hitler get credit for the fact that some of his orders weren't carried out?In intimate conversation Hitler speaks fondly of the German people and their respective quirks. Hitler as the war progressed into the late stages was also subjected to highly stressfull situations of which you nor I have no complexion. Hitler mostly laid the blame at his General Staff anyway it was only in the Berlin bunker that he expressed exasperation with the German people as well as a portion of self recrimination. Again human..

Zander
02-02-2007, 11:55 PM
If he had won the fucking WWII, we wouldn't have to worry about jews, muds, poverty, unemployement, immigration etc anymore... So how can we say if he was "good" or "bad" ? He is bad for having lost, if he had won, then he'd have been "good'' ?

As Louis Ferdinand Céline said : "The White man died in Stalingrad".

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-03-2007, 12:16 AM
Here's the thing. The white world was basically pro-white when it came to blacks and asians before Hitler. But after Hitler, people started to change.

Trojan
02-03-2007, 12:20 AM
Here's the thing. The white world was basically pro-white when it came to blacks and asians before Hitler. But after Hitler, people started to change.

That change would have taken place if Hitler had never existed.

Keystone
02-03-2007, 12:26 AM
That change would have taken place if Hitler had never existed.
Exactly so. Hitler didn't affect race relations in the US, at any rate. That's a dumb argument.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
02-03-2007, 12:27 AM
WWII did. It broke up the ku klux klan. People left it to fight the war.

I bet you didn't realize that one, lol.

You can argue, that maybe Japan would have still attacked us without Germany, but I doubt it.

Nyx
02-03-2007, 12:37 AM
That change would have taken place if Hitler had never existed.Anyone who actually believes this, read the following (quoted by Daedalus):

"In time, these socio-political developments might have caused the liberal tradition of the 1920s and 1930s to decompose or to be gradually transmuted into another liberalism more expressive of the aspirations of those who constituted its social base. But a series of events, beginning with the rise of Nazism, continuing with World War II, and concluding with the Cold War, ensured that the transformation of liberalism would be swift and deeply unsettling. That transformation entailed yet another reconfiguration of the liberal tradition.

Hitler's rise to power in one of the world's most technologically and culturally advanced societies directly challenged two convictions that had sustained American liberalism since the early 1920s: first, that the taming of capitalism was the preeminent problem confronting industrial societies and, second, that issues of racial and ethnic discrimination were best left alone or addressed indirectly, through programs of economic reform. The terrifying popularity of Nazi racist doctrines forced American liberals to reconsider their "hands-off" approach to problems of religious bigotry and racial hatred. These problems were not "secondary"; they were themselves primary. Racism and prejudice had to become subjects of political commentary and targets of social action.

This confrontation with Nazism induced a shift in liberal sensibilities that was, in the 1930s, subtle but would, in the 1940s, achieve seismic proportions. This magnitude of this shift can be discerned in the outpouring of books on racial problems and religious prejudice during the 1940s. Causes that had languished on the liberal agenda -- civil rights, Zionism, immigration reform -- were now embraced. Reinhold Niebuhr, the Protestant theologian who would have a large influence on post-World War II liberalism, excoriated his fellow liberals in 1942 for thinking that the distribution of property was a more fundamental cause of social division and conflict than were racial and ethnic differences. Gunnar Myrdal's book An American Dilemma, a massive sociological study of black America published in 1944, received the kind of acclaim that liberals had bestowed on Lynd's Middletown fifteen years earlier. And, in 1948, the Democratic Party, for the first time in its history (prodded by a new organization of liberals, a young Hubert Humphery and a young Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) formally committed itself to civil rights. Although concerns with class division and the ill effects of capitalist civilization did not disappear from the liberal agenda, they lost their primacy. The intensification of the Cold War pushed these issues further to the periphery; in some portions of the liberal community, they were banished altogether. Here, in the 1940s, are the roots of 1960s liberalism, a liberalism very different in language, tone, and content from the one espoused by a pre-World War I Herbert Croly or an interwar John Dewey."

Gary Gerstle, "The Protean Character of American Liberalism," American Historical Review 99, no.4, p.1070

"The outlets for mass communication promulgated the ideology of democracy. In 1938 and 1939, the American media had begun to show greater sensitivity to racial minorities. Life magazine, created by Henry Luce and the Time interests, began publication in 1936 with references to African Americans as "darkies" or even "bad niggers" who manifested "barbaric" behavior. But in 1938 such bigotry largely disappeared, and emphasis instead was placed on black achievements, especially artistic ones. The Saturday Evening Post, long the home of racist short fiction, began about 1937 to tone down the illustrations that accompanied "darky" literature, and then in the early 1940s it abandoned racist fiction in favor of nonfiction pieces that empathized with the experience of American minority groups. Reader's Digest, the most widely read magazine in the United States, had regularly run "darky" stories in dialect, but after April 1943 such entries suddenly stopped.

Just as important, magazines that previously had little to say about race relations began running articles encouraging racial and ethnic tolerance. In 1942, Ladies' Home Journal for the first time gave an intimate profile of a black family. Look, Collier's, Life, Time, and Fortune featured stories that emphasized the democratic responsibility for fairness to blacks, Jews, and other minority groups. Glamour, Mademoiselle, Harper's Bazaar, and Seventeen all ran articles promoting racial tolerance. Margaret Mead told Mademoiselle's young readers that in the past people had upheld their status by discriminating against those of different color, religion, or nationality. "To believe that a man's character was somehow related to the color of his skin or the way his hair was laid on his head was not an evil belief as long as there was no knowledge to refute it," Mead wrote. "But these beliefs were tested and found false -- to still cherish them is to close one's eyes to the truth." In 1945, Look admonished its readers: "Nail the lies. Refute the moth-eaten labels, libels and wornout club-car jokes about members of minority groups . . . The Negro's achievement in the arts and science, in industry and on the fighting front, blast that myth that he 'can't do skilled work." . . .

By the end of the war, American public opinion about race had already shifted significantly. A 1946 poll found that on the question of intelligence, 53 percent of whites now said that blacks were as smart as whites, up from 42 percent in 1942. For the first time in American history, most whites professed to believe in blacks' equal potential. Clearly, many white Americans were thinking in new ways."

Robert J. Norrell, The House I Live In: Race in the American Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.134-136

Keystone
02-03-2007, 12:38 AM
WWII did. It broke up the ku klux klan. People left it to fight the war.

I bet you didn't realize that one, lol.
Well, lol, I remember as a kid seeing blacks being hosed down on the evening news for just marching. That was in the 60's. 20 years after WWII and Der Fuehrer.

Draugen
02-03-2007, 12:39 AM
I voted 'yes' without reading the first post, guided by the conviction that anyone who likes to paint dogs is a good person.

I'm actually ambivalent about him. I believe he was actually one of the saner people on the NSDAP high command, but I ultimately blame him for losing the war, which could, indeed, have ended differently if not for his lack of judgement. Europe would be such a better place now if Germany didn't lose.

Berianidze
02-03-2007, 12:53 AM
Bad - I disapprove of the imprisonment and execution of the members of the KPD, but far more importantly the invasion of the Soviet Union/Operation Barbarossa.

If not for the invasion of the USSR, I would be indifferent. Nazism would have died on its own within German borders eventually anyways.

Alfacritical
02-03-2007, 01:51 AM
I voted 'yes' without reading the first post, guided by the conviction that anyone who likes to paint dogs is a good person.

What's wrong with the natural color of dogs? What happens when the paint has not yet dried and dogs rub against things? Was the paint at least non-toxic and water soluble?

Burrhus
02-03-2007, 01:52 AM
Good and bad are absolute terms. Hitler was a better man than Franklin Roosevelt.

Much better.

Janus
02-03-2007, 02:01 AM
Good.[...]
[...]

Ahknaton
02-03-2007, 02:08 AM
Judged on his own terms, Hitler was a bad person. He lost the war. Underman!

Keystone
02-03-2007, 02:09 AM
Judged on his own terms, Hitler was a bad person. He lost the war. Underman!
It was on his watch. Leaders take responsibility.

Der Sozialist
02-03-2007, 03:09 AM
WWII did. It broke up the ku klux klan.
The Klan withered because of the depression—it resurged because of the Civil rights movement.

Hermetic
02-03-2007, 04:47 AM
The 3rd Reich was the proto-type Aquarian civilization, so later on there will be a "fourth Reich" but not in the way most think.

Starr
02-03-2007, 05:05 AM
Exactly so. Hitler didn't affect race relations in the US, at any rate. That's a dumb argument.


The legacy, if you will, of Hitler did have an impact on race relations in the U.S. Besides slavery and lychings what is the other thing that always gets brought up(with the intention of this is what "racism" leads to) when whites express any views that might be considered "racist?"

Arrow Cross
02-03-2007, 09:17 AM
Bad - I disapprove of the imprisonment and execution of the members of the KPD, but far more importantly the invasion of the Soviet Union/Operation Barbarossa.

If not for the invasion of the USSR, I would be indifferent. Nazism would have died on its own within German borders eventually anyways.
Barbarossa is a reasonable arguement, but why do you think Germany under Hitler wouldn't have survived in peace?
It was economically / technologically succesful - even more than the Soviet Union - and it certainly had no political / social tensions, or dissent. Not even unemployment. It was truly a golden age for Germany, as even Mr. Lukashenko admitted it.

Oh, and a reminder: Soviet Union did die on its own.

Kodos
02-03-2007, 09:21 AM
If he had won the fucking WWII, we wouldn't have to worry about jews, muds, poverty, unemployement, immigration etc anymore... So how can we say if he was "good" or "bad" ? He is bad for having lost, if he had won, then he'd have been "good'' ?

As Louis Ferdinand Céline said : "The White man died in Stalingrad".

They died when the Empires were broken up or at least fatally weakened after WWI and communism wasn't strangled in the cradle.

Der Sozialist
02-03-2007, 04:29 PM
It was economically / technologically succesful - even more than the Soviet Union -
This remains debatable. Most of Hitler’s economic initiatives were massive increases in public spending. EC 101 dictates that this will increase the economy in the short run, but in the long run, due to increases in inflation (that would result) and reduction of output (since massive government spending does not alter normal output, in the medium run, output must decrease back to this level), it would cause a reduction in business investment due to an increase in inflation and thus a decrease in normal output growth.

Not to mention, Hitler inherited an industrial, first-world nation. Stalin did not.


and it certainly had no political / social tensions, or dissent.
Are you joking?

Not even unemployment.

This was largely statistical in nature. For example, racial minorities were no longer in the work force and others were employed by the government. He did not, however, reduce the natural level of unemployment and thus, this level was only maintainable in the short run.



Oh, and a reminder: Soviet Union did die on its own.

As Nazi Germany probably would have if it won the war.

Arrow Cross
02-03-2007, 05:29 PM
This remains debatable. Most of Hitler’s economic initiatives were massive increases in public spending. EC 101 dictates that this will increase the economy in the short run, but in the long run, due to increases in inflation (that would result) and reduction of output (since massive government spending does not alter normal output, in the medium run, output must decrease back to this level), it would cause a reduction in business investment due to an increase in inflation and thus a decrease in normal output growth.
Too many conjectures, we will never be able to tell how would the Third Reich's economy have fared decades later, but we do know, that until it wasn't destroyed, its progress was superior to most of the other nations' economies on Earth.

Not to mention, Hitler inherited an industrial, first-world nation. Stalin did not.
Stalin inherited a Socialist nation. Hitler did not. He instead inherited a nation, which was defeated in a World War, lost large territories in Versailles, paid huge amounts of reparations to the Entente, survived 15 years of rabid "Weimar-Capitalism" and was in the hole of the Great Depression.
And it arose like a comet!

Are you joking?
No. Undoubtably, Hitler and the NSDAP were the most popular leader and most popular party in German history.

This was largely statistical in nature. For example, racial minorities were no longer in the work force and others were employed by the government. He did not, however, reduce the natural level of unemployment and thus, this level was only maintainable in the short run.
Racial minorities weren't large in numbers. Some of them left immidiately, others left, or were deported in the coming years, while the rest mostly worked in KZs.
I think those who were 'employed by the government' certainly weren't 'unemployed', or am I wrong? :)

As Nazi Germany probably would have if it won the war.
Again, a nice big conjecture. And now what? Because Communism collapsed and National Socialism "would have collapsed", we all should embrace the ever-standing Capitalism instead?

Lorcan
02-03-2007, 07:46 PM
Hitler had a devastating effect on the scientific community within Germany. Germany no longer is the leader that it once was due to Hitler’s racial laws that prevented intelligent Jews from holding academia positions.

I think there are many legitimate positions to take against Nazi germany but in regard to the Nazis retarding science this simply does not fit with the facts, looking at the data itself it appears as more of a scientific golden age.

A superb article on this is as follows
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/proctor-cancer.html

So far we have (and this is just a subset of the total):
televison
jet propelled aircraft
guided missiles
electonic computers
electron microsopes
atomic fission
synthetic gasoline and rubber
discovery of Sarin (ok mabye not all that good:)) and methadone.

first prototype ICBMs.
ejector seats.
autobhans
magnetic tape.
the most advanced cancer research in the world also.


Not to menton laying the nucleus for the Soviet and American space program after the war.
All this over a very short historical period, not much more than a decade and an extremely turbulent one at that.

Hrolf Kraki
02-03-2007, 08:52 PM
He was a good person that made a few bad decisions.

Hrolf Kraki
02-03-2007, 09:26 PM
Apparently Neo-Galtonian sends neg. rep to those who don't vote how he likes.

Nyx
02-03-2007, 09:41 PM
Apparently Neo-Galtonian sends neg. rep to those who don't vote how he likes.I send negative reputatation points for recurring stupidity in the posting history of those to whom I send the reputation points. I never, for instance, sent a negative reputaiton to Nelson, who voted in favour of Hitler. He is an intelligent person.

Der Sozialist
02-03-2007, 10:01 PM
Too many conjectures,
Well, economics is a science of sorts. It is not a exact science by any means but I do think that if we look at the current economic models then we can predict what would have occurred after military spending declined, with astronomical inflation rates, etc (btw, inflation rates already were increasing before Hitler took Germany to war).

its progress was superior to most of the other nations' economies on Earth.


The German economy was already showing signs of improvement before Hitler took control. A lot of this has to due with American aide and investment in the German economy after WW1. Even so, I would not classify this recovery as superior to all the economies in the world. Remember, the German economy went into a depression—this is typical of a boom-bust cyclic economic model. Germany was bound to recover, and it already was before Hitler took power. It was only during the early thirties, when the USA underwent its own Great depression, that Germany’s economy again took a turn for the worse.

Stalin inherited a Socialist nation.

Stalin inherited a nation that was not industrialized and the majority of her citizens were illiterate peasants. There was virtually no human capital in the USSR to speak of while there was plenty in Germany. Look at how Germany economically recovered after WW2—for example.

He instead inherited a nation, which was defeated in a World War, lost large territories in Versailles

All this could be said for Russia.

paid huge amounts of reparations to the Entente,

In contrast, Russia faced a Revolutionary and Civil war that left millions more dead after it had already lost millions in WW1.

And it arose like a comet!


Real wages dropped 25% between 33 and 38. [source (http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html)]

No. Undoubtably, Hitler and the NSDAP were the most popular leader and most popular party in German history.


I am not debating this, but there was opposition just the same. There were communists, traditional rightists (who viewed the Nazis as too socialist), etc. This statement is equivalent to that there is no opposition to George Bush just because he and his party gathered the majority of the votes. Hitler only gathered a plurality, I believe, and not a majority initially.

Racial minorities weren't large in numbers.

There were many Slavs in the eastern portions of the Reich. Also, by racial minorities, I am referencing women, who were also denied excess by Nazi racial laws to certain jobs. If you remember Noether, her academic position was removed because she was a woman.

I think those who were 'employed by the government' certainly weren't 'unemployed', or am I wrong?

Yes, this was temporary in nature, however. It does not improve the economy because no new income is added to the service sector since their salaries are paid for by taxes from other wages.

but in regard to the Nazis retarding science this simply does not fit with the facts,

Yes it does, and I will explain below.

looking at the data itself it appears as more of a scientific golden age.


Germany was already in a scientific Golden age before the Nazis even existed. I would bore you silly if I began to list all the discoveries and famous scientists Germany produced in the late 1800s and early 1900s. After WW2, German scientific output dropped significantly. It was no longer a leader—overshadowed by the USA and Russia.

television

As far as I know (the article denies me entrance—I have to be a paying member), the television was not invented in Germany during the thirties. It was John Logie Baird in 1926 London that gave the world's first public demonstration of a working television system that transmitted live moving images. You might be referring to the fact that the first regular broadcasting was done in Germany during the thirties because of propaganda purposes.

jet propelled aircraft
guided missiles

I will grant that military technology benefited, but such was because of the forth-coming war. Military technology always advances during periods of war.

electonic computers


I will grant you this one.

electron microsopes


Good example of what I am talking about. Ernst Ruska and Maximillion Knoll’s invention was ignored by the Nazi apparatus because it was believed to be of no use.

atomic fission


Another good example---the Germans had some of the brightest physicists before WW2. The exile of Otto Robert Frisch and Lise Meitner (who worked with Otto Hahn on his discovery) allowed the USA to build the first Atomic bomb first. Not to mention, the barium was detected by the use of a salt constructed by Wilhelm Traube—who was a Jew, and eventually was murdered despite Hahn’s best efforts.

Hahn worked with Fermi as well—where did Fermi end up? In the USA because the German government put pressure on the Italian government to exile Fermi because his wife was Jewish.


synthetic gasoline and rubber



????

Was not butyl rubber developed by William J. Sparks and Robert M. Thomas?


first prototype ICBMs.
ejector seats.


Again, military technology.

autobhans


I do not see the scientific importance of this.

magnetic tape.


This was done by Fritz Pfleumer in 1926---way before the NAZIS took power.

the most advanced cancer research in the world also.


This program began far earlier than the NAZIS—as early as 26, Germany was the first country to recognize lung cancer as a compensable occupational disease. In reality, Germany was a wealthy industrialized nation with some of the highest cancer rates in the world—scientists began combating this much before Hitler’s rise to power.


In reality, In just a few short years they managed to destroy Germany’s long standing lead among the scientific community. Many prominent Jewish scientists fled for their lives like Niels Bohr and many of their German colleges went with them. It got so bad that Max Planck had to plead with many of his colleges—at one point, suggesting that since Jews had to flee, an additional exodus of German scientists would prevent these Jews from obtaining positions.

Oh, let’s not forget Schroedinger who fled. Stern fled. Fermi was exiled (by Italy but Italy pushed discriminatory laws against Jews because of German pressure). Pupin fled. So did Meitner—Hahn had to meet with her in Copenhagen (38) to continue their work. There are many others.

German Nationals like Heisenberg were consistently berated for practicing "Jewish Physics".

Emmy Noether was removed of her position for being a woman.

Goedel was drafted into the military (he fled, thank god—most of his colleges fled because they were Jews).

Hrolf Kraki
02-03-2007, 10:30 PM
I send negative reputatation points for recurring stupidity in the posting history of those to whom I send the reputation points. I never, for instance, sent a negative reputaiton to Nelson, who voted in favour of Hitler. He is an intelligent person.

Apparently I am a moron for stating that I believe Hitler was a good person who made some bad decisions. You're pathetic.

Sulla the Dictator
02-03-2007, 10:53 PM
Worthless small town trash. I recommend anyone who voted 'good' take some time to read his table talks, or discussions with the General Staff, or war speeches.

He talks about himself, endlessly. He's a crackpot, as well. I remember reading a transcript of his where he was 'informing' his generals that Japanese tank numbers were almost certainly 'way below' their actual figures, same with their army. His justification for this was that the Japanese had 'created a fleet' out of nowhere too, so its the same with their land capabilities.

Oh, and listen to him blame Mussolini for his problems, and discussing how he should have been more attentive to the Islamic world.

Petr
02-03-2007, 11:05 PM
Worthless small town trash.
I'm not defending Hitler, but exactly what are you meaning with this cute expression?


Petr

///M power
02-05-2007, 07:23 PM
bad because I'm a Jew,obviously.
now if you want to analyze the guy and what he stood for,I can find some ideas that when not taken to that extreme ways of Hitler,can be useful for any country.
actually I was not here for a while,I had a big assignment on Nazi Germany and it kept me very busy for some weeks(its also the end of the semester and I have tests.)
well anyway to the point,there wasn't and isn't, a leader in the world with more charisma then Hitler,I think charisma is the most important thing a leader needs to have. it makes people follow you even when you are "wrong",the people will love you and will admire you if you have the qualities Hitler had. the problem was,that Hitler had too much of that charisma,he even fooled himself thinking he was not able to make mistakes,which led him later on to be a little bit out of touch from reality. he didn't even let his professional generals do their work and constantly interfered making absolutely far from reality "strategies".
now what about making the entire Slavic people slaves? pretty much ridicules when Russia had a military about the size of the German military.
as a fascist, I can find many of his ideas useful and I would like to implement some of them here, of course not taken to that extreme,he was really too extreme even for my taste,and I'm pretty much an extreme person.
I have respect for Hitler although i dont like what he did or agree with many of the things he did. I think everyone can agree that he was the most charismatic leader in the world up to this day.

Starr
02-06-2007, 12:36 AM
Very good and reasonable assessment. I agree with much of what you are saying. Welcome back, BTW.

Keystone
02-06-2007, 12:43 AM
Very good and reasonable assessment. I agree with much of what you are saying. Welcome back, BTW.
Israelis aren't supposed to be fascists for what we're paying them.

They are the only Democracy in the Middle East....:rofl:

Thomas777
02-06-2007, 03:23 AM
Worthless small town trash. I recommend anyone who voted 'good' take some time to read his table talks, or discussions with the General Staff, or war speeches.

He talks about himself, endlessly. He's a crackpot, as well. I remember reading a transcript of his where he was 'informing' his generals that Japanese tank numbers were almost certainly 'way below' their actual figures, same with their army. His justification for this was that the Japanese had 'created a fleet' out of nowhere too, so its the same with their land capabilities.

Oh, and listen to him blame Mussolini for his problems, and discussing how he should have been more attentive to the Islamic world.

Hitler was a lousy executive, but there were systemic flaws in the Third Reich that transcended the significance of Hitler.

Rakhmetov
02-06-2007, 09:38 AM
Hitler was history's biggest failure. He unleashed a war with unprecedented, catastrophic results for the international community.

The Nazis were nothing but violent, lying, cheating thugs that re-enforced capitalism at the expense of working people. They were mere pawns of the capitalists.

It was not so much the Nazis' persecution of the Jews that bothered me. Frankly the bourgeois element of Jewry deserved what it got.

I was most offended by the repression of the workers and trade unions, flat wages, rising living costs, destruction of KPD, murder of Comrade Thälmann, and the treachorous invasion of the USSR.

Micaelis
02-06-2007, 09:49 AM
Hitler was history's biggest failure.

He was a complete failure. His failure will ink the pages of history until ink becomes obsolete. Kind of like the USSR.

Rakhmetov
02-06-2007, 09:51 AM
Kind of like the USSR.

What country in the 20th century achieved a fraction of economic, military, and social progress of USSR?

Micaelis
02-06-2007, 09:59 AM
What country in the 20th century achieved a fraction of economic, military, and social progress of USSR?

USA is number one, my friend. Capitalism holds the spotlight, while the USSR buried itself in its own congestion.

USSR is kind of like a one-hit wonder in that respect. :)

Rakhmetov
02-06-2007, 10:02 AM
USA is number one, my friend. Capitalism holds the spotlight, while the USSR buried itself in its own congestion.

That is a flawed comparison. Economically America was far more advanced than Russia in 1918.

And the USSR did not really "collapse". It was illegally dissolved following Yeltsin's counter coup.Yeltsin and his cronies signed the CIS organization on 8 December 1991 without proper support from the people.

Micaelis
02-06-2007, 10:03 AM
That is a flawed comparison. Economically America was far more advanced than Russia in 1918.

USSR is kind of like a one-hit wonder in that respect. :)

I love the paste function.

Micaelis
02-06-2007, 10:09 AM
And the USSR did not really "collapse". It was illegally dissolved following Yeltsin's counter coup.Yeltsin and his cronies signed the CIS organization on 8 December 1991 without proper support from the people.

LOL.

Sorry, couldn't think of a more proper response to your edit. Good show, comrade.

///M power
02-06-2007, 12:01 PM
Very good and reasonable assessment. I agree with much of what you are saying. Welcome back, BTW.

well thanks..
I try to see things from a larger point of view not just from my personal view as a Jew,that would have been easy, I dont want to use personal feeling when I judge a political figure in history,thats not so professional.
he really is a fascinating character,and so is third Reich,I really enjoy studying about that in the university.
and thanks for the welcome starr,I always have about 2 days between tests that I just rest so I can post. soon tests are over and ill be able to post like before.

Draco
02-06-2007, 10:12 PM
Of course Hitler was a good person, don't be an idiot. You'd be hardpressed to find a leader today that isn't the product of nepotism and "old money" who truly gave a damn about his own people.

From the trenches of Ypres, to rummaging through the garbage cans of Vienna for food, to the appointment of Reichkanzler by Hindenburg and becoming der Führer the next year by popular support, the man was clearly determined to restore Germany to pride and prominence, and actually improve it, which he was in the process of doing until Britian and France declared war on him at the behest of international jewry in 1939.

Draco
02-06-2007, 10:15 PM
What country in the 20th century achieved a fraction of economic, military, and social progress of USSR?

Without capitalist America helping the USSR via billions in military equipment, the unrivaled two year long ass-rape of the Soviet Union by Germany would have continued unabated as it rightfully should have.

Nyx
02-06-2007, 11:10 PM
The results are very interesting. I don't think it is any coincidence that the brighter members mostly voted bad, and the duller members mostly voted good (with some exceptions in both cases).

Thomas777
02-06-2007, 11:46 PM
Hitler has been de-historicized...he was a head of State like any other head of State, really. The circumstances that let to the War were less than extraordinary, and the way that Hitler governed was less than extraordinary as well. AJP Taylor proffered an insightful analysis into Hitler's leadership in The Origins of the Second World War...and while I don't agree with Taylor's account of the Soviet Union and Western-Soviet enmity, I think his account of Hitler was on-point.

At the end of the day, Hitler has been transmorgified into an inhuman 'monster' by the Academy and has been touted as some sort of 'superman'/hero by the opposition. Niether one of these things is accurate.

Hitler was a man who was able to temporarily reconcile class divisions and defeat burgeoning general strike by cultivating the support of increasingly powerful military-industrial technocrats and the fledging ruling class. He gambled on an ill-conceived War and lost.

Was Hitler a "good person"? No...but what chief of State is a "good person"? Was he a good Executive? Not especially...but its incorrect to consider the Third Reich as beginning and ending with Hitler...Hitler was just the figurehead. If Hitler had not been the Fuhrer, somebody else would have been, and Germany probably would have been better off, but not a lot would have been different.

Rakhmetov
02-07-2007, 01:58 AM
Without capitalist America helping the USSR via billions in military equipment, the unrivaled two year long ass-rape of the Soviet Union by Germany would have continued unabated as it rightfully should have.

That is largely mythical. American aid did not start arriving until after Stalingrad by which time the situation was in Russia's favour.

Sulla the Dictator
02-07-2007, 03:45 AM
That is largely mythical. American aid did not start arriving until after Stalingrad by which time the situation was in Russia's favour.

Its not remotely mythical. American aid is what allowed the Red Army to advance from Kursk to Berlin in less than two years. Had it been otherwise, the Western Allies probably would have met the Russians in Poland or maybe even Belarussia.

Rakhmetov
02-10-2007, 08:42 AM
Its not remotely mythical. American aid is what allowed the Red Army to advance from Kursk to Berlin in less than two years. Had it been otherwise, the Western Allies probably would have met the Russians in Poland or maybe even Belarussia.

Home produced Russian firepower denied victory to Germany in 1941-42. Industrial goods supplied by Lend-Lease summed up no more than 4 percent of the value of output of Soviet public sector industry during the war as a whole.

Dragonair
02-10-2007, 08:49 AM
Hitler sucks. He wasn't pro-white, just German supermacist, who lept an almost unearasible stame on Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
While the victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jews, the Nazis also persecuted and slaughtered the members of other groups they considered inferior, undesirable or dangerous, including Poles and other Slavic peoples such as Russians, Belarusians and Serbs, Roma (also known as Gypsies), and some Africans, Asians and others who did not belong to the "Aryan race"; the mentally ill and the physically disabled; homosexuals; and political opponents and religious dissidents such as communists, trade unionists, Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses.[39]

Draco
02-10-2007, 02:40 PM
Home produced Russian firepower denied victory to Germany in 1941-42. Industrial goods supplied by Lend-Lease summed up no more than 4 percent of the value of output of Soviet public sector industry during the war as a whole.

Home-made Russian state of the art weaponry circa 1941:

http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/matchlock.jpg

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

Hi-larious.

Rakhmetov
02-11-2007, 02:12 AM
While the victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jews, the Nazis also persecuted and slaughtered the members of other groups they considered inferior, undesirable or dangerous, including Poles

Anti-Polonism is a virtue. The only good Poles have been those who fought on the side of Russia or Germany against Poland.

Hitler was justified in trying to rescue captive German territory in West Preussen, Silessia, and Posen. Just like how the Soviets rescued captive Malorussian and Belorussian territory stolen by Polish landlords in 1921. Hitler was also justified in battling the Anglo-French imperialist coalition. It was only when Hitler treachorously broke the non-aggression pact by unleashing aggression on the Soviets was when I started to oppose Hitler.

Vasily Zaitsev
02-28-2007, 06:32 AM
Home-made Russian state of the art weaponry circa 1941:

http://i15.tinypic.com/2wbrdlh.jpg
http://i16.tinypic.com/2i7pbgg.jpg
http://i9.tinypic.com/3yytr7r.jpg
http://i19.tinypic.com/2w49q10.jpg
http://i12.tinypic.com/33urj2g.jpg

Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,

Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.

O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,

To Communism's triumph lead us on!

http://i12.tinypic.com/4g5gs9g.jpg

Fixed

[...]

Francis
02-28-2007, 07:05 AM
To avoid any confusion as to the meanings of the words 'good' and 'bad' as used in this poll, vote 'good' if you like, or approve of, or favour Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour him and/or his influence on society at large; vote 'bad' if you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour Hitler and/or his influence on society ar large, more than you like, approve of, or favour him and/or his influence on society at large.

If the question is, as would be suggested, do I approve of or favor Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than I dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavor him and/or his influence on society at large, then it is absolutely impossible to answer, as we only know one side of the story, the side that history shows us.

Had Hitler not existed where would society be today?

The simple answer to that is not one of us can possibly know.

The impact he had, and through him Germany had, upon the world as we know it today is so vast, and touches so many aspects of our life, had he not existed it is almost certain that the world we live in today would be considerably different.

Better?

Worse?

We can play guessing games, but we can't tell, and therefore we can not tell whether the influence he had was for the benefit of the world, or for it's detriment.

Therefore I abstain.

Is no one here aware of the Butterfly effect, in relation to time?

How can this question be answered sensibly?

Francis
02-28-2007, 07:11 AM
The results are very interesting. I don't think it is any coincidence that the brighter members mostly voted bad, and the duller members mostly voted good (with some exceptions in both cases).

I didn't realize we'd all taken intelligence tests upon entry here.

Personally I think the most intelligent members are the ones that abstained.

Billy Score
02-28-2007, 07:20 AM
I'd say that regardless of his actions during and before world war II, hitler was a "good" man simply because his intentions were entirely sincere and he believed in what he was doing. I respect incorruptable men, and though idealists aren't always right and many times screw up, that spirit is something i have to say is admirable.

Stick to the Facts
02-28-2007, 07:26 AM
If I were a WN I'd bitchslap any other WN who went around saying Hitler was a "good guy", or that the holocaust didn't happen, etc.

When WN say this, it has exactly the same effect as some christian trying to convert people, and ranting about the rapture and other crap right up front. Both are repellent to most people. A few people might want to hear more about WN, or about Jesus - but faced with this crap the vast majority will want to flee.

I don't understand why WN/racists types can't hate minorities, AND acknowledge the holocaust, AND think hitler was a monster.

Can anyone help explain why these three things are so incompatible?

Stick to the Facts
02-28-2007, 07:28 AM
I'd say that regardless of his actions during and before world war II, hitler was a "good" man simply because his intentions were entirely sincere and he believed in what he was doing. I respect incorruptable men, and though idealists aren't always right and many times screw up, that spirit is something i have to say is admirable.

Hitler paid lip service to christianity because it was what people wanted to hear, although he didn't buy in to it himself.

What were you saying about being sincere?

Starr
02-28-2007, 07:38 AM
I fail to see how the sincerity of his intentions towards his people and their betterment is called into question by his seeing a need to stay away from publically condemning too strongly a religion practiced by many and for centuries. Tact and diplomacy of this sort is going to be seen as neccessary by any halfway intelligent political figure.

Stick to the Facts
02-28-2007, 07:40 AM
I fail to see how the sincerity of his intentions towards his people and their betterment is called into question by his seeing a need to stay away from publically condemning too strongly a religion practiced by many and for centuries. Tact and diplomacy of this sort is going to be seen as neccessary by any halfway intelligent political figure.

I was responding to a very specific statement by someone who said they thought hitler was "good" because he was sincere. Read what I responded to and it will make the context more clear.

Kriger
02-28-2007, 07:41 AM
Perhaps he was allowing for personal religious beliefs as a reality in this world.

Starr
02-28-2007, 07:50 AM
If I were a WN I'd bitchslap any other WN who went around saying Hitler was a "good guy", or that the holocaust didn't happen, etc.

When WN say this, it has exactly the same effect as some christian trying to convert people, and ranting about the rapture and other crap right up front. Both are repellent to most people. A few people might want to hear more about WN, or about Jesus - but faced with this crap the vast majority will want to flee.

I don't understand why WN/racists types can't hate minorities, AND acknowledge the holocaust, AND think hitler was a monster.

Can anyone help explain why these three things are so incompatible?

I actually agree with your second paragraph. I think some are too stuck in the past on this issue and that it is time to move on. Whether we like it or not, this is something that people will turn away from and we need to be able to put certain feelings aside and recognize this. I also don't think, however, this means that anyone also needs or should condemn Hitler. People deny certain aspects of the holocaust story, most of the time, because they have read enough and have been convinced by their reading that everything was not exactly as said and because they can see how it has been a most effective weapon in the promotion of white guilt that has led people to reject what every other race practices, without constant demonization, which is puting the interests of their own people first.

Stick to the Facts
02-28-2007, 07:56 AM
I actually agree with your second paragraph. I think some are too stuck in the past on this issue and that it is time to move on. I also don't think, however, this means that anyone also needs or should condemn Hitler. People deny certain aspects of the holocaust story, most of the time, because they have read enough and have been convinced by their reading that everything was not exactly as said and because they can see how it has been a most effective weapon in the promotion of white guilt that has led people to reject what every other race practices, without constant demonization, which is puting the interests of their own people first.

Looks like the "antis" get two for the price of one then - they get mileage out of the holocaust to promote white guilt, and they also get even more mileage out of the racists/WN/neonazis who insist on denying it happened.

If you are confronted with one thing that you believe works against you (ie the WN/neonazi belief that the holocaust hurts their cause), it doesn't seem smart to me to dig an even deeper hole for yourself by absurdly insisting it didn't happen.

MrAngry
02-28-2007, 01:11 PM
Hitler was actually good,

good at invading other nations, good at murdering millions of people, good at destrying his own country and finally good at taking a cyanide capsule because he was such a coward.

Hadding
02-28-2007, 03:28 PM
To avoid any confusion as to the meanings of the words 'good' and 'bad' as used in this poll, vote 'good' if you like, or approve of, or favour Hitler and/or his influence on society at large, more than you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour him and/or his influence on society at large; vote 'bad' if you dislike, or disapprove of, or disfavour Hitler and/or his influence on society ar large, more than you like, approve of, or favour him and/or his influence on society at large.
This is silly. First you have to know what Hitler was about and what he did and did not do. Then you can make a value judgement about him. Of course then there is also the problem of whether a great man can be a "good" man.

Neo-Galtonian will probably say that I should be exiled again to the Revisionist Forum for saying that. He wants every discussion about Hitler to be based on the false premises offered by mainstream "history," and the practice on The Phora of removing any criticism of those premises to the Revisionist Forum is very much in Neo-Galtonian's favor.

It's not a fair discussion when it is off-limits to criticize some of the assumptions that people bring to it.

Francis
02-28-2007, 04:11 PM
If I were a WN I'd bitchslap any other WN who went around saying Hitler was a "good guy", or that the holocaust didn't happen, etc.

When WN say this, it has exactly the same effect as some christian trying to convert people, and ranting about the rapture and other crap right up front.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a WN recruiting drive, I certainly live and learn.

So far from this thread I have learned we all get an intelligence test, when we sign up, and now I learn that the site is a recruitment drive for the White Nationalist movement.

Wonderful...

Or have I just stumbled into the fantasy and science fiction sub-forum?

Hadding
02-28-2007, 05:18 PM
If I were a WN I'd bitchslap any other WN who went around saying Hitler was a "good guy", or that the holocaust didn't happen, etc.
Obviously then, you would be a special kind of WN, one who doesn't care about truth. [Hadding braces to be whisked away to the Revisionist corner.]


I don't understand why WN/racists types can't hate minorities, AND acknowledge the holocaust, AND think hitler was a monster.
It seems that the older model Kluxer (1970s and earlier) is your ideal.

Draugen
02-28-2007, 05:19 PM
Hitler was actually good,

good at invading other nations, good at murdering millions of people, good at destrying his own country and finally good at taking a cyanide capsule because he was such a coward.

Would you take a cyanide capsule to avoid surrender?

Trojan
03-01-2007, 02:59 AM
Of course then there is also the problem of whether a great man can be a "good" man.


I find it hard to imagine a "great" man not being a "good" man.

Must be those damn values that keep getting in my way :deadhorse:

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:02 AM
Would you take a cyanide capsule to avoid surrender?

Good point...its completely fatuous when people call Hitler (or anybody else) a 'coward' for committing suicide.

Most people go through life absolutely terrified of death, yet those same people will claim that somebody who exhibits no fear of oblivion is a 'coward'. Totally ludicrous.

Hadding
03-01-2007, 03:25 AM
I find it hard to imagine a "great" man not being a "good" man.

Must be those damn values that keep getting in my way :deadhorse:
"Great and good are seldom the same man.” -from Thomas Fuller's Gnomologia (1732)

Your imagination needs expansion.

Leonard Smalls
03-01-2007, 03:27 AM
Good point...its completely fatuous when people call Hitler (or anybody else) a 'coward' for committing suicide.

Most people go through life absolutely terrified of death, yet those same people will claim that somebody who exhibits no fear of oblivion is a 'coward'. Totally ludicrous.

Oh bullshit. If hitler really had balls he would have gone down fighting the commie invaders. Instead, he took the easy way out. May all nazis follow his example.

Hadding
03-01-2007, 03:28 AM
Oh bullshit. If hitler really had balls he would have gone down fighting the commie invaders. Instead, he took the easy way out. May all nazis follow his example.
He didn't want to risk being captured.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:30 AM
Oh bullshit. If hitler really had balls he would have gone down fighting the commie invaders. Instead, he took the easy way out. May all nazis follow his example.

Its not bullshit.

You can say that Hitler was 'evil', that he was 'mad', that he was a poor executive, and a poor commander...however, you cannot in good faith allege that Hitler had 'no balls' or that he was 'cowardly'. The guy served four years on the Western Front in his youth, and during his career as a head of state, he conquered Europe and made war on the USSR, the USA, and the UK simultaneously, and committed suicide rather than endure capture and defeat. There are a lot of things you can say about all of these things...but claiming that 'Hitler was a pussy' is ludicrous.

Its like when W claimed that the 9-11 hijackers were 'cowards'...its a ludicrous thing to say. A guy who hijacks a plane full of people and purposefully crashes it into a skyscraper is a lot of things...but a 'coward' is not one of them.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:31 AM
By definition, somebody who commits suicide is the opposite of a coward.

Leonard Smalls
03-01-2007, 03:34 AM
What is it with all these hedgers who go through this, like Keystone I see lurking, but don't vote...are you afraid to take a position, lol?

Tell me about it. I had the same problem with my Are Jews White poll.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:39 AM
Tell me about it. I had the same problem with my Are Jews White poll.

Its not a serious poll. Sure Hitler was a bad person...a lot of heads of State are 'bad' people...but history is not good guys vs. bad guys...that is GI Joe and old John Wayne movies.

Leonard Smalls
03-01-2007, 03:41 AM
Thomas,

He had the choice to either commit suicide and die rather painlessly or to fight and probably take a few Russians with him but risk a more painful death. He chose the easy way out. That's cowardice.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:47 AM
Thomas,

He had the choice to either commit suicide and die rather painlessly or to fight and probably take a few Russians with him but risk a more painful death. He chose the easy way out. That's cowardice.

Its ludicrous to suggest that taking your own life is 'easy'.

One of the few things I respect about Hitler was that he killed himself as the final curtain fell...if he hadn't, he would have been exposed as merely a power hungry cynic or an opportunistic gangster like a lot of the bloodthirsty fools in his inner circle.

A man who dies for his beliefs willingly has incredible fortitude.

You don't have the fortitude to kill yourself because the prospect of oblivion terrifies you...I don't have the fortitude yet either, but I acknowledge the incredible strength required to embrace death willingly.

Leonard Smalls
03-01-2007, 03:47 AM
He didn't want to risk being captured.

That's cowardice. He could have taken out a few Russians and died like a man no matter what they would have done to him following his capture.

Der Sozialist
03-01-2007, 03:48 AM
Its not a serious poll. Sure Hitler was a bad person...a lot of heads of State are 'bad' people...but history is not good guys vs. bad guys...that is GI Joe and old John Wayne movies.

By "bad person", Ixabert would have us vote for if we believe Hitler's influence was good or not by our criterion. I am guessing, that since Hitler lost, we would vote on the basis if we would have preferred Hitler to have won or lost (since what he intended was never accomplished because he lost).

In that spirit, I voted. If I were the arbiter of who won or lost, I would have preferred Hitler to lose. This is really due to his treatment of scientists and science in general (as mentioned earlier).

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:49 AM
That's cowardice. He could have taken out a few Russians and died like a man no matter what they would have done to him following his capture.

Dying 'like a man' is dying with honor. A man who would allow himself to be paraded around and exploited by his enemies rather than face death is a coward.

Hitler was also an acting head of state...whatever you or I might think of him. A head of state does not run into the rubble firing a Luger pistol like Rambo or John Wayne when enemy armies are closing in on the capitol.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 03:51 AM
By "bad person", Ixabert would have us vote for if we believe Hitler's influence was good or not by our criterion. I am guessing, that since Hitler lost, we would vote on the basis if we would have preferred Hitler to have won or lost (since what he intended was never accomplished because he lost).

In that spirit, I voted. If I were the arbiter of who won or lost, I would have preferred Hitler to lose. This is really due to his treatment of scientists and science in general (as mentioned earlier).

The Third Reich was a dysfunctional government and Hitler was a lousy executive IMO. He also had contempt for human life and was malicious.

Other than Albert Speer and Karl Donitz, I cannot think of any high officials in the Reich that were 'good' men.

Hermetic
03-01-2007, 03:59 AM
Hitler's killing of himself was in the ancient tradition such as when defeated Consuls or Samurai would fall on their swords in a noble act rather then be shamed. But I don't honestly expect the last man types to understand.

Leonard Smalls
03-01-2007, 04:00 AM
Its ludicrous to suggest that taking your own life is 'easy'.

It's easier than being killed in battle.

One of the few things I respect about Hitler was that he killed himself as the final curtain fell...if he hadn't, he would have been exposed as merely a power hungry cynic or an opportunistic gangster like a lot of the bloodthirsty fools in his inner circle.

Jesus, that's more spin than an entire FOXNews broadcast.

A man who dies for his beliefs willingly has incredible fortitude.

How is commiting suicide dying for his beliefs? Suicide is probably the most selfish act someone can commit.

You don't have the fortitude to kill yourself because the prospect of oblivion terrifies you...I don't have the fortitude yet either, but I acknowledge the incredible strength required to embrace death willingly.

More spin. Most people commit suicide because they think oblivion or the afterlife or whatever is preferable to continuing to live.

Mike
03-01-2007, 04:01 AM
If I were a WN I'd bitchslap any other WN who went around saying Hitler was a "good guy", or that the holocaust didn't happen, etc.

When WN say this, it has exactly the same effect as some christian trying to convert people, and ranting about the rapture and other crap right up front. Both are repellent to most people. A few people might want to hear more about WN, or about Jesus - but faced with this crap the vast majority will want to flee.Your post seems sincere so I feel compelled to respond to your posts. When I voted, I was registering my private opinion on Hitler as a human being, not on what constitutes a viable political message in the USA 2007. It goes without saying that calling Hitler a good guy is a loser politically, and I would not talk about Hitler or Germany or any similar subject if I were in charge of crafting a real life political platform. But speaking privately, I do believe that Hitler lived the life of a fallen hero both for the Germany he loved and for the White West that he tried to save from Anglo-Jewish plutocracy and Bolshevism. We can, of course, debate the merits of that characterization. Suffice to say, if I were forced to choose to between Hitlerism and the multiculturalism that people like you advocate, then, yes, I would choose Hitlerism every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.

I don't understand why WN/racists types can't hate minorities, AND acknowledge the holocaust, AND think hitler was a monster.

Can anyone help explain why these three things are so incompatible?I take issue with "hate minorities". They are not incompatible, as various Phorans prove.

Thomas777
03-01-2007, 04:06 AM
It's easier than being killed in battle.
No it isn't. A man has no control over whether or not he is killed in battle...suicide involves pure volition.


How is commiting suicide dying for his beliefs? Suicide is probably the most selfish act someone can commit.
Hitler ordered men to kill and die for National Socialism. When National Socialism failed, Hitler determined that life was no longer worth living...and that it would be an unforgivable shame levied on the German war effort, and National Socialism itself, if he were to take measures to escape oblivion or allow himself to be paraded around and humiliated by the enemy.




More spin. Most people commit suicide because they think oblivion or the afterlife or whatever is preferable to continuing to live.

I don't think you appreciate the implications of suicide...and until you reach the point where you are able to take your own life, without fear, I can't take your critique seriously.

You can tell me suicide is a 'sin' or 'selfish' but don't say its 'cowardly'. People who fear death have no standing to do so.

Hadding
03-01-2007, 04:53 AM
That's cowardice. He could have taken out a few Russians and died like a man no matter what they would have done to him following his capture.I am so surprised that a fine Jewish boy like you was not persuaded.

Sulla the Dictator
03-01-2007, 05:07 AM
Hitler ordered men to kill and die for National Socialism. When National Socialism failed, Hitler determined that life was no longer worth living...and that it would be an unforgivable shame levied on the German war effort, and National Socialism itself, if he were to take measures to escape oblivion or allow himself to be paraded around and humiliated by the enemy.


And Hitler, in all his 'nobility', condemned Army Groups and the city of Berlin to endure an unprecedented artillery bombardment and savage urban fighting while he mulled over suicide.

How admirable.

Hadding
03-01-2007, 05:23 AM
And Hitler, in all his 'nobility', condemned Army Groups and the city of Berlin to endure an unprecedented artillery bombardment and savage urban fighting while he mulled over suicide.

How admirable.
The alternative proposed to Hitler was to flee to the southern mountainous region of Germany. In contrast to that, staying in Berlin strikes me as a bit like Socrates choosing to stay in Athens and drink the hemlock rather than flee, as had been suggested to him.

Because of things like Theodore N. Kaufman's Germany Must Perish!, which was a plan of genocide for the conquered Germans, written by an American Jew, some Germans felt that there really was no alternative to fighting to the bitter end.

Others, like some of the generals, had the idea of making peace with the Western Allies. If they hadn't done that, perhaps Germany could have resisted long enough to regain control of the skies with jets.

What was done to Germany immediately after the war was brutal. The Germans were treated as subhuman. Those who had wanted to fight to the bitter end were thus partially vindicated. This only changed in 1947 because of the Cold War, when the Germans were suddenly needed.

The topic of this thread is really way too broad.

Sulla the Dictator
03-01-2007, 07:09 AM
The alternative proposed to Hitler was to flee to the southern mountainous region of Germany. In contrast to that, staying in Berlin strikes me as a bit like Socrates choosing to stay in Athens and drink the hemlock rather than flee, as had been suggested to him.


LOL Ridiculous. Those were obviously not his two choices. He could have shot himself before the Russians reached Berlin. He also forbade surrender. He was a stupid little savage at the end.


Because of things like Theodore N. Kaufman's Germany Must Perish!, which was a plan of genocide for the conquered Germans, written by an American Jew, some Germans felt that there really was no alternative to fighting to the bitter end.


Yes. There are no Germans left on Earth, thanks to the successful genocide of Germany.

Lysius
03-01-2007, 01:42 PM
Judged on his own terms, Hitler was a bad person. He lost the war. Underman!Ironically, for the same reason, Hitler's view that might makes right came out a winner. The Allies won through authoritarian, collectivist, massively deadly force. They gained victory by making a mockery of every humanitarian belief they claimed to stand for. And celebrated with the farce of farces: the laughable show trials at Nuremberg! This is the Achilles' heel of liberal, humanitarian 'democracy': that order was able to win World War II, and achieve general hegemony over the world, only by systematically violating its own stated principles. And by the same way does its hegemony continue. Ultimately, however, this profound hypocrisy will be its undoing.

Billy Score
03-01-2007, 03:11 PM
Its not a serious poll. Sure Hitler was a bad person...a lot of heads of State are 'bad' people...but history is not good guys vs. bad guys...that is GI Joe and old John Wayne movies.
I'd have to say i agree with this more.

Hadding
03-01-2007, 09:13 PM
... Hitler's view that might makes right came out a winner.
Could you please substantiate the premise that it was Hitler's view that might makes right?

That was not what I got out of reading Mein Kampf at all.

Sulla the Dictator
03-01-2007, 11:25 PM
Could you please substantiate the premise that it was Hitler's view that might makes right?

That was not what I got out of reading Mein Kampf at all.


You should read it more closely and then read the texts of his speeches.

Hadding
03-02-2007, 03:08 AM
You should read it more closely and then read the texts of his speeches.

Hitler clearly believed that there was a principle of righteousness completely independent of whoever has the preponderance of "might" at the moment. So, I am afraid that you very obviously do not know what you are talking about.

Hadding
03-02-2007, 03:14 AM
You should read it more closely and then read the texts of his speeches.
I have read the first book of Mein Kampf, Eine Abrechnung, in German, as closely as anyone possibly can read it, making copious marginal notes. Hitler clearly believed that there was a principle of righteousness completely independent of whoever has the preponderance of "might" at the moment. The title Eine Abrechnung (payback) refers to the longterm consequence of ignoring this principle of righteousness.

I find your pose of telling me to read more carefully, while offering no information yourself, pretentious.

Sulla the Dictator
03-02-2007, 03:38 AM
I have read the first book of Mein Kampf, Eine Abrechnung, in German, as closely as anyone possibly can read it, making copious marginal notes.


I've no doubt. You seem like a rather zealous devotee to the Fuerher. I imagine candles and prayer beads in the mix as well.


Hitler clearly believed that there was a principle of righteousness completely independent of whoever has the preponderance of "might" at the moment. The title Eine Abrechnung (payback) refers to the longterm consequence of ignoring this principle of righteousness.


Allow me to quote from your Fuerher's long winded, mediocre work. Its from Chapter 8, volume 2, which is actually titled "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone" (Strange how you missed this, having read so carefully):

In general we understand by a working federation a group of associations which for the facilitation of their work enter into a certain mutual relationship, choose a common leadership of greater or lesser competence, and proceed to carry out common actions. From this alone it results that we must be dealing with clubs, associations, or parties whose aims and methods do not lie too far apart. It is claimed that this is always the case. For the usual average citizen it is equally pleasant and comforting to hear that such associations, by combining in such a 'working federation,' have discovered a 'common bond ' and 'set aside all dividing factors.' Here the general conviction prevails that such a unification brings an enormous increase in strength, and that the otherwise weak little groups have thereby suddenly become a power.

This, however, is usually false

Now, since I doubt you have a problem reading the material, I suspect your difficulty comes in divorcing yourself from your extremist political mindset in order to read the text objectively. So allow me to explain. Here Hitler derides cooperation, and compromise, and accomidation. He declares that the idea that these things grant strength or power is an illusion, for the most part.

He continues.

And then the Reich of strongest German unity arose from the very thing which millions of Germans with bleeding heart felt to be the ultimate and most terrible sign of our fratricidal quarrel: the German imperial throne was in truth won on the field of Koniggrätz and not in the battles outside Paris as people afterwards came to think.

And thus the founding of the German Reich as such was not the result of any common will along common paths, but the result of a conscious and sometimes unconscious struggle for hegemony, from which struggle Prussia ultimately issued victorious. And anyone who is not blinded by party politics into renouncing the truth, will have to confirm that so-called human wisdom would never have made the same wise decision which the wisdom of life, that is, the free play of forces, finally turned into reality. For who in German territories two hundred years ago would seriously have believed that the Prussia of the Hohenzollerns would some day become the germ cell, founder, and mentor of the new German Reich, and not the Habsburgs? And who, on the other hand, would deny today that Destiny acted more wisely in this respect; in fact, who today could even conceive of a German Reich based on the principles of a rotten and degenerate dynasty?

No, the natural development, though after a struggle enduring centuries, finally brought the best man to the place where he belonged.

This will always be so and will eternally remain so, as it always has been so.

Therefore, it must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor.

Defend it or condemn it, but don't deny that he said it.


I find your pose of telling me to read more carefully, while offering no information yourself, pretentious.

You're not the first sympathizer of Hitler's I've come across, and I'm sure you won't be the last.

Trojan
03-02-2007, 03:41 AM
He didn't want to risk being captured.

If Hitler had any integrity at the end, and could see beyond his own personal safety, he would have surrendered and saved Germany the ravages of the final phase of the war.

The final months of the war and the final ravages of war could have been avoided if he had the balls to admit defeat. The post war period would have been much easier on his people - such is the end game of the man you worship, if he was going down in defeat, the whole of the Germany people would go with him.

Thomas777
03-02-2007, 03:49 AM
If Hitler had any integrity at the end, and could see beyond his own personal safety, he would have surrendered and saved Germany the ravages of the final phase of the war.

The ideological culture of National Socialism eschews compromise and/or surrender as options. The entire mythos of the ideology is rooted in the value of struggle for its own sake and the acceptance of death over capitulation.

The final months of the war and the final ravages of war could have been avoided if he had the balls to admit defeat. The post war period would have been much easier on his people - such is the end game of the man you worship, if he was going down in defeat, the whole of the Germany people would go with him.
Once again, its fatuous to suggest that Hitler lacked 'balls'. You can say that refusing to capitulate was sociopathic, evil, and narcissistic, but it certainly wasn't 'weak' or 'cowardly'. In fact, Hitler was either completely out of his damn mind, had absolutely no fear of death or both in order to do what he did. It doesn't take any 'balls' to throw your hands up and surrender.

The 'Hitler was cowardly' schtick falls flat.

Trojan
03-02-2007, 03:59 AM
The ideological culture of National Socialism eschews compromise and/or surrender as options. The entire mythos of the ideology is rooted in the value of struggle for its own sake and the acceptance of death over capitulation.

How many Nazi's surrendered? How many leaders of the party and such surrendered at the end?


Once again, its fatuous to suggest that Hitler lacked 'balls'. You can say that refusing to capitulate was sociopathic, evil, and narcissistic, but it certainly wasn't 'weak' or 'cowardly'.

Sure it was - at the end, when the war was clearly lost - to continue the war only benefited one man - Hitler.

As the leader of the Germany people, he should have made the best terms of surrender available, even unconditional surrender was better than Germany's ultimate fate.


In fact, Hitler was either completely out of his damn mind, had absolutely no fear of death or both in order to do what he did. It doesn't take any 'balls' to throw your hands up and surrender.


It does if you know death awaits you - which he knew.


The 'Hitler was cowardly' schtick falls flat.

He clearly did not do what was in the best interest of his people.

Hadding
03-03-2007, 09:28 PM
I've no doubt. You seem like a rather zealous devotee to the Fuerher. I imagine candles and prayer beads in the mix as well.



Allow me to quote from your Fuerher's long winded, mediocre work. Its from Chapter 8, volume 2, which is actually titled "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone" (Strange how you missed this, having read so carefully):

In general we understand by a working federation a group of associations which for the facilitation of their work enter into a certain mutual relationship, choose a common leadership of greater or lesser competence, and proceed to carry out common actions. From this alone it results that we must be dealing with clubs, associations, or parties whose aims and methods do not lie too far apart. It is claimed that this is always the case. For the usual average citizen it is equally pleasant and comforting to hear that such associations, by combining in such a 'working federation,' have discovered a 'common bond ' and 'set aside all dividing factors.' Here the general conviction prevails that such a unification brings an enormous increase in strength, and that the otherwise weak little groups have thereby suddenly become a power.

This, however, is usually false

Now, since I doubt you have a problem reading the material, I suspect your difficulty comes in divorcing yourself from your extremist political mindset in order to read the text objectively. So allow me to explain. Here Hitler derides cooperation, and compromise, and accomidation. He declares that the idea that these things grant strength or power is an illusion, for the most part.

He continues.

And then the Reich of strongest German unity arose from the very thing which millions of Germans with bleeding heart felt to be the ultimate and most terrible sign of our fratricidal quarrel: the German imperial throne was in truth won on the field of Koniggrätz and not in the battles outside Paris as people afterwards came to think.

And thus the founding of the German Reich as such was not the result of any common will along common paths, but the result of a conscious and sometimes unconscious struggle for hegemony, from which struggle Prussia ultimately issued victorious. And anyone who is not blinded by party politics into renouncing the truth, will have to confirm that so-called human wisdom would never have made the same wise decision which the wisdom of life, that is, the free play of forces, finally turned into reality. For who in German territories two hundred years ago would seriously have believed that the Prussia of the Hohenzollerns would some day become the germ cell, founder, and mentor of the new German Reich, and not the Habsburgs? And who, on the other hand, would deny today that Destiny acted more wisely in this respect; in fact, who today could even conceive of a German Reich based on the principles of a rotten and degenerate dynasty?

No, the natural development, though after a struggle enduring centuries, finally brought the best man to the place where he belonged.

This will always be so and will eternally remain so, as it always has been so.

Therefore, it must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor.

Defend it or condemn it, but don't deny that he said it.



You're not the first sympathizer of Hitler's I've come across, and I'm sure you won't be the last.
The quotes don't support your point. What they show is that Hitler regarded might as a longterm consequence of righteousness (hence Hohenzollerns eventually prevail over Habsburgs), not that might defines right.

Hadding
03-03-2007, 09:49 PM
It does if you know death awaits you - which he knew.


Again, Hitler could have fled to the mountains as Goering did, or he could have chosen to surrender to the Allies instead of the Red Army. Nobody forced him to stay in Berlin. This was evidently a choice that he made for symbolic reasons.

Lysius
03-04-2007, 05:06 AM
Could you please substantiate the premise that it was Hitler's view that might makes right? He stated that this was his view, and I believe him. A classic example is from his speech in Munich on April 13, 1923:

... ALWAYS BEFORE GOD AND THE WORLD THE STRONGER HAS THE RIGHT TO CARRY THROUGH WHAT HE WILLS. ... History proves: He who has not the strength - him the 'right in itself' profits not a whit. A world court without a world police would be a joke. And from what nations of the present League of Nations would then this force be recruited? Perhaps from the ranks of the old German Army? THE WHOLE WORLD OF NATURE IS A MIGHTY STRUGGLE BETWEEN STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS - AN ETERNAL VICTORY OF THE STRONG OVER THE WEAK. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of Nature if this were not so. States which should offend against the elementary law would fall into decay. http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-13-23.html

Lily
03-04-2007, 05:34 PM
I voted yes, but I reject the premise of your question. Hitler loved his country above all else, and was willing to move heaven and earth for its benefit. His intentions were good.
This line of argument makes little sense to me, although I have heard it alot. Wasn't Hitler Austrian? Wasn't he born there?

EDIT: After looking back, he lived in Austria until he was a teen. :p

Hadding
03-04-2007, 05:42 PM
He stated that this was his view, and I believe him. A classic example is from his speech in Munich on April 13, 1923:

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-13-23.html
It's a bit ironic that Hitler would be singled out as a worshiper of might for characterizing the ethos of Britain, France, and Italy in international relations as precisely might makes right. Those nations do not respect any claim of justice, he is saying, and therefore the Germans should not fool themselves about the efficacity of appealing to an international court, and Germany should not neglect the need to have military might to defend her interests.

It is arguable that international relations even now are a sphere where might, in the short term, makes right. If the U.S.A. cannot get the votes that it needs in the United Nations for a particular action, it either buys the votes with aid or it suddenly decides that U.N. approval is not needed.

The fact is that we all believe that might makes right at some level. (Is God not always characterized as mighty?) The fact that Hitler pointed this out while others continued to hide behind the pretense of justice does not mean that he is more a worshiper of might than they.

Elsewhere Hitler indicates that there is a higher principle of righteousness from which might develops. He who is mighty now will not be mighty later if he neglects this higher principle. Might depends on this higher principle and is therefore subordinate to it.

Here is some of the omitted context, showing what prompted Hitler to emphasize the importance of might on that occasion:
I should like to see the nation which would allow itself to be brought before this League of Nations Court in the case of a disagreement without external force. In the life of nations, what in the last resort decides questions is a kind of Judgment Court of God. It may even happen that in case of a dispute between two peoples - both may be in the right. Thus Austria, a people of fifty millions, had most certainly the right to an outlet to the sea. But since in the strip of territory in question the Italian element of the population was in the majority, Italy claimed for herself the 'right of self-determination.' Who yields voluntarily? No one! So the strength which each people possesses decides the day. ALWAYS BEFORE GOD AND THE WORLD THE STRONGER HAS THE RIGHT TO CARRY THROUGH WHAT HE WILLS.

History proves: He who has not the strength - him the 'right in itself' profits not a whit. A world court without a world police would be a joke. And from what nations of the present League of Nations would then this force be recruited? Perhaps from the ranks of the old German Army? THE WHOLE WORLD OF NATURE IS A MIGHTY STRUGGLE BETWEEN STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS - AN ETERNAL VICTORY OF THE STRONG OVER THE WEAK. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of Nature if this were not so. States which should offend against the elementary law would fall into decay. You need not seek for long to find an example of such mortal decay: you can see it in the Reich of today....

bardamu
03-04-2007, 05:56 PM
There is no gain to be made from allowing oneself to be a golem of jewish programing and hating, with the spit flying, Uncle Wolf, as do the Jews and their goy doormats. A great many of the best type of German gave their lives in his name, that alone, and in honor of those patriots, is enough to forgive Hitler for losing the war and to generally honor his memory. At least no one can say Aryans fell without a fight, which would have been the case had Hitler never rose to power.

1-800
03-04-2007, 05:58 PM
Hitler rulez skool sux

Carved this into many a-desk as a youth.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
03-04-2007, 06:06 PM
Here's the list of bad posters I got from this thread.

<flame deleted>, 1-800, Arrow Cross, Arthur Daley, Aryan Imperium, bardamu, Billy Score, Burrhus, calvin, Commander, Count Eustace II, Delos, Dr. Gutberlet, Draco, Draugen, Furor Teutonicus, Galdr, Golobulus, ivory bill, Janus, kultron, Leifr Eiricsson, Mackie, Mike, Nelson, Osmium14, shanemac, Sturmwaffen, sugartits, the Ugly American, username deleted, WFHermans
lol

1-800
03-04-2007, 06:49 PM
Here's the list of bad posters I got from this thread.


You must mean the list of non-degenerates, surely.