Discussion in 'History' started by desi, Mar 5, 2011.
Who was "up to no good"? The German Jews or this guy?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Hitler asked a good question there. "Was the Jew a German?"
The answer was, of course, Yes.
What are you getting at?
Stop talking in riddles.
Exactly. Hitler himself, now, was born in Austria-Hungary. So what makes a German? Hitler was just a garden variety xenophobe. There are no deep political rationalisations for why he was torturing and killing strange "phenomenons" who "were so much like other human beings "
I was merely pointing out what garden variety xenophobia looks like.
hitler had some serious problems. he read too much, believed too much of what he read and often misinterpreted what he read.
drug use. hard to say when this became a factor but it is possible that it played a role early on and certainly by the time ww2 came around it was daily use. this gets very technical so wont get into it now. one thing is sure, this was a major factor.
maybe his service in WW1 affected him but i havent looked into that aspect and probably hard to say since we cant talk to him about that.
i think that is an accurate summation.
@Sam. Thanks. I agree.
@John. Good Points. How do you think his WWI experience affected him?
You were complaining about people not replying to your posts, and just insulting you. I did reply directly to one of your posts, with no insults, and you just ignored it.
I'll repeat it.
Originally Posted by desi
After reading Hitler's book I thought he was either dilusional or there were real things he was concerned about. Well, which was it? Did he have it all wrong?
My answer was, in case you'd like to reply now:
Hitler thought that war was a good thing.
Survival of the fittest.
He thought that a leader emerged from the people, and that there was no need for Democracy.
He believed that Jews were involved in some vast organised clandestine plot.
Not just that they were against him. (added. And his racist ideology)
He believed that some peoples were inferior or superior to others.
Inferior peoples should be killed so that the superior peoples can live on their land. Lebensraum.
He believed in killing people with mental and physical illnesses which meant they had to be cared for. He called it Hygiene.
He wanted to replace religions with a Nazi version of Christianity.
He thought that the main role of women was to produce healthy sons for the Fatherland.
Did he have it all wrong?
I can't think of anything he was right about.
So rather than read my links (or know who these people are/ were) you decide to skip over the actual question and resort to idiocy:
Beside the point. I made no comment about nukes/ Soviets. And the US was pointing nukes at them... Tit for tat etc.
They didn't control the majority of Germany at any point in history, never mind the rest of the world- if they had even a 33% stake of Germany's economy, military, government etc. back in the 1920's, Hitler would have been fed his one functioning testicle the second he started chirping. But you know who did have massive, disproportionate control over Germany not so long ago? Kaiser Wilhelm and his inbred cronies, that's who. I sure wish I were royalty so I could plunder a whole country, start a pan-European war because Britain got all the good colonies, f*ck up and lose said war, blame some ethnic minority for what I myself did to cripple my own country, and then be treated to a luxury retirement on prime Dutch real estate as a reward for my rampage.
Your expectations have been more than fulfilled. For my part, I expect more from forum participants than half-witted attempts to express stupid opinions as if they were open questions.
You blame Kaiser Wilhelm?
That is sort of how I feel about many of the responses here.
The people you mentioned were ordinary guys who didn't engage in mass murder and world war like Hitler did. The only close comparison I saw was that maybe some of them said bad things about communists. I still don't see anything like what happened in Germany when they bought into Hitlers accusations and acted on them in such a drastic way.
What could I add to that? He did believe those things and many others. Germans supported Hitler when he said he believed those things. I think the consensus here is that Hitler was wrong because, well, he just had to be. When we come up with a scientific theory we don't publish it because it sounds right. At least I hope we don't. Usually we look into it and test it to see if it holds true. Is there evidence showing Hitler was wrong about his accusations?
Are you somehow conflating Hitler's view with a scientific theory? Contending that, since it did get published it must therefore have had some validity?
Take a look at what does get published (the current Alex Jones/ David Icke thread being a "good" example). There is no requirement for there to be evidence if a book is not published as science. And in some cases even if it is. Publishers will publish whatever they think will bring in money from sales: book publishers do not use the peer review system.
Hard to prove one way or the other, but you could look at their behaviour.
The Jews were manipulated and moved around very easily.
They were compliant. They trusted liars.
Their natural response was to obey authority.
To use a biblical turn of phrase, they were like "Lambs to the slaughter"
That changed in the camps.
They made it their purpose to establish a Jewish homeland.
People may disagree about whether Palestine/Israel was the place to do that, but not to their right to have their own land.
This is another area that Hitler was already involved in before WWII happened. Hitler was already deporting Jews to the middle east. Germany did kill a lot of Jews in the camps but I've heard that happened because other countries would not take them. Hitler needed solders and supplies for them. The idea that he wanted to spend resources guarding prisoners is in error. Maybe that is why they started killing them off.
As for Jews being led to slaughter because they followed rules. I suspect there was a bit of German civilians doing that too. Marching off the cliff with Hitler.
I think Hitler's views were based on his perceptions at the time. The facts about the things he was perceiving can either prove or disprove his perceptions to a large degree.
One of the things that really gets me wondering is why they banned Hitler's book after WWII. If it was all a bunch of nonsense wouldn't it be obvious that it was worth its weight in toilet paper?
Here's the book.
Have a look at the chapter Nation and Race.
Based on a complete misunderstanding of Heredity and Genetics.
See if you can find any ideas that are not nonsense.
Yes, he started the war which crippled Germany in the first place. What say did Germany's Jews have in making ridiculous demands on France (including territorial) and then declaring the inevitable rejection of those demands to be an act of war? If it was ok to detain the Jews in ghettos because of some alleged threat or takeover attempt, why was blanket approval given to a monarch who actually did have Germany in his grip, used force on a regular basis to enforce his authority, and ultimately brought Germany to ruin?
i have read hitler's mein kamf. he had written it remorsefully, he was against certain group of 'jews' who have manipulated Germany for long time.
keep in mind history is written by victorious.
these 'jews' never represented the common jews.
Separate names with a comma.