• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

In defense of Hitler

Status
Not open for further replies.

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
Link to original post: [drupal=3210]In defense of Hitler[/drupal]



I am 20 years old. This means I have spent about 2 years trying to to unlearn the immense amount of bull**** I spent the first 18 years being indoctrinated into.

There's this one particular worldview we are brought up into, one that I detest - this idea that there is a real thing called evil.

When I say 'evil,' I'm not talking about that douchebag that breaks your car window so he can grab the 88 cents in your changebox. I'm talking about the mass organization of people doing unspeakably horrible things to each other, things we tell ourselves are so awful, only a real live supervillain could possibly have pulled them off. Someone who was busting their balls specifically to make the world an awful place.



Time for a little thought experiment.


Most of us will agree that the genocide of 6 million Jews was a bad thing. In my neverending quest to discover why us fleshbags think the way we do, we'll have to jump into the mind of Hitler the supervillain.

What started all this, Adolf? What were your motivations?

This is an actual quote from Mein Kampf: "For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others."

Yes, Hitler was disgusted with anti-semitism when he began. He refused to criticize the Jews, unlike the rest of Europe, which tends to see Jew-hatred as a national past-time.

So something pretty go****ded drastic happened here. That would be like me, a supporter of gay marriage, eventually turning into a guy who sent 7 million homos off to death camps.

Why did you grow to hate those Jews so much, H-dog?


Let's try and gain some perspective here.

You have just spent 4 years on the front lines of World War 1. You've passionately believed in victory, so much that you became a message carrier, one of the most likely to die. And then the war ends, and your country throws in the towel and is forced to bend over and take it up the *** from the Soviets, the Americans, the French, etc. Russia decides to saddle you with a 38 billion dollar debt to repay, which is about the same as asking a McDonald's cashier to pay for the McLaren you want. The country is forced into an economic apocalypse. People carry wheelbarrows of cash to the supermarket due to hyperinflation. Your employers agree to pay you in the morning instead of the end of a shift, because prices will have raised again by nighttime. Widespread starvation and economic collapse have ravaged your country.

But one group isn't doing so bad.

The bankers. In fact, they're ****ing rich. And almost all of them are Jews. In fact, they're doing even better after the war, which has brought a good deal of business and prosperity to them.

As you watch people starve in the streets around you, it would be hard not to look up at those bankers and think, "That's pretty ****ing selfish of you guys."

How hard is it to provoke outrage against the rich? Not very. Oh, and don't forget to check at the list of those AIG Bankers and see how many of their last names sound like Weinstein or Rosenburg. (Jews even take the coolest names, *******s)

Wrong? Of course. Of course it's wrong now, after we've been bombarded with images of Jews being roasted on barbwire spits and tossed into trains like sheep to be herded off and slaughtered.

But if we hadn't seen any of the torture, and we hadn't seen the massacres, and all we were given was Hitler's struggle against the mighty banking industry, all for the good of his people...
...it's hard not to see that as heroic.


But maybe that example is a little too far out.

Let's think of something a little closer to home.


3,000 Americans were killed about 9 years ago. Remember how shocked and horrified the nation was? Remember the tears, the rage, the resolute anger to catch and destroy whoever did this? (coincidentally, he's still out there wandering around)

We threw a pretty massive *****fit after this attack. And why shouldn't we? They attacked thousands of innocent civilians who had done nothing wrong.

But instead of just a couple of planes, let's up the numbers a little bit.

Let's say there were ten 9/11's, all over America in one day. 30,000 people, dead. Imagine how devastating that would be.

Now imagine a hundred 9/11's.

300,000 people dead. Thankfully, this imaginary scenario has never taken place.

Oh wait, it did. Because of us.

Imagine how catastrophic it would be if 300,000 Americans were vaporized instantly, and then the rest were slowly poisoned to death. Oh, and since Japan has less than half of our population, to really even it out, we'd have to double our casualties up to 600,000 vaporized Americans, leaving thousands more to bleed out over time. Oh, and since it happened TWICE, we'll have to up it again to at least 1,000,000 vaporized, in order to experience what Japan went through.

So yeah, imagine two hundred 9/11's at once, and you'll get an idea of what Japan went through back then. Back when we were the supervillains (fighting patriotically for the good guys to prevail, of course).

The most modern supervillain we have is Osama Bin Laden.

Why did Osama bomb those towers? Because he ****ing hates America, god dammit! He wants to kill Americans, he hates our way of life, he hates freedom! It's us, the noble defenders, against him, the supervillain.

Was that his motivation?

Or was it because America consistently supports the state of Israel?

Israel, by the way, continues to march into Palestine and set up shop wherever it **** well pleases. Much like America did to the Native Americans back in the day. (another one of those things we try not to think about too much).

Naturally, Osama thinks he is fighting for the oppressed masses. From the article: The al-Qaeda leader said the Western media had spent decades brainwashing people by “portraying the Jewish invaders, the occupiers of our land, as the victims while it portrayed us as the terrorists”.


Now we're jumping into the mind of Osama.

You already live in one of the poorest countries on Earth. A rich, sexy nation of Jews choose to start building their homes in your borders. By the way, these Jews recently kicked your ***, and all of your neighbor's *****, in a war that didn't even last a week. After they've found a good spot, they carve out a chunk of your land and choose to settle in.

Would you be cool with that?

Would you be cool with the person giving billions and billions of dollars to the ******* that did this to you?

The only way 'evil' can actually happen is if people believe it is genuinely the right thing to do, a better way to help everyone. Which hardly makes them see evil at all.

Of course, these ****ers deserve a third eye for all the things they did, but it's important that we don't turn them into 2-bit caricatures of what they were. Because that's how they got started -by transforming their enemies into mindless villains, they became the villains themselves.
 

Purple

Hi guys!
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
10,383
Location
Duluth, Georgia
Very interesting read. It's interesting to think of it from that PoV.

However, all in all, two wrongs don't make a right. No matter how relatively big or small the events might've been in succession. So we're all wrong in the world in some shape or form.

10/10
 

ndayday

stuck on a whole different plaaaanet
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
19,614
Location
MI
Good read.

I usually try to understand where both parties are coming from, and this helped.
I want to read Mein Kampf someday. Eh.
 

Handorin

Smash Hero
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
6,013
Interesting read, but basically you are redefining evil and looking at it from a different view, and unfortunately the masses often decide what it actually means. Do we always do the right thing? No. Some decisions are very hard to make, and often there might not even be a correct answer.
 

john!

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
8,063
Location
The Garden of Earthly Delights
Deep insights Swastika(heh)Pyle. One of the keys to maintaining a motivated army is to dehumanize the opponent. They are rarely referred to by name, rather as simply "the enemy". People are so desperate to be right that they convince themselves that others with a different view are fundamentally different people, not once considering that they may hold the exact opposite views if they were in a given situation.

So do you condone ethical relativism?
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
No. Some decisions are very hard to make, and often there might not even be a correct answer.
I agree with this. I'm still not sure if Truman did the right thing, just that he had to do something. He thought of doing a near-miss thing first (to show the **** who had the power here) but the bomb could have been a dud, or if they might herd American POWs into the cities so we don't bomb them, etc.

Still, if you think of any other nation doing that today, the rest of the world would simultaneously unite against them for the atrocity they committed.


Also, no, I don't support ethical relativism.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
From a broad, Darwinist perspective, the winners are right, because they bring the most success to their kind.
From a Darwinist perspective, it is illogical to eliminate a race within ones species.
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,333
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
The only thing that's really really out of place is the Hiroshima part.

9/11 was an(almost) completely unwarranted attack. It was, in fact, an act of terror. There was no greater idea behind it other than "murder as many amercians as possible because we ****ing hate them." It would be more correct to compare PEARL HARBOR to 9/11.

Hiroshima was a trump card. We were ALREADY in a war at the time of the Hiroshima bombing. It wasn't unwarranted, it was random and it wasn't "Murder as many Japanese as possible because we ****ing hate them" it was "Go to the extreme to end the war." And it was extreme, unimaginably extreme. But it's estimated that the casualties that would have resulted from an on land assault in an attempt to end the war would have been EVEN GREATER than the number that died from the 2 atomic bombs dropped.

Also, as another counter point, we're now on pretty **** good terms with Japan. We were at war for a few years(years are longer than 6 days) dropped, at the time, the most destructive weapon known to man on TWO of their cities, killing hundreds of thousands. Note that they aren't currently beheading american civilians for our viewing pleasure. They might not like us(Hell, im 99% sure they really dont like us) but they also didn't become an extremist state of murderers just because we > them in a war.

I was gonna stop, but lets do more counter-points shall we?

Germany didn't get better economically under Hitler.

Think about that for a second. Germany continued stayed in decline even after Hitler took power. Do you know why? Because saying "I fight for my friends the poor masses, against the tyranny of the rich" doesnt change the fact that he was still bat**** ****ing insane. Even if it was because they were rich, he was still scapegoating the jews as a way to gain power. He wasn't actually trying to HELP Germany, he needed a platform and at the time that was the best one.

I don't even fully understand what the point of your Hitler argument is. Obviously if you're brainwashed into thinking something ISN'T evil then you wont see it as evil but that doesn't make it any less so. A fact doesn't become less true simply because no one believes it. If everyone in the world completely believed that there was oxygen out in the vacuum of space it wouldnt change the fact that we'd still die the second we got there. Hitler got into power by saying he was going to fight for the weak, the starving, the backbone of Germany. Note that once he got into power he murdered anyone not part of his "Master Race" started a war that set Germany back even further than the first one and caused general mayhem and destruction on a continental level.

It's already a bit tl;dr but maybe you could explain some things better?
 

saviorslegacy

My avater is not a Sheik avatar.
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
3,727
Location
Tacoma, WA
I agree with Pink Reader. Japan asked for it by attacking us and then not giving up.
9/11 was uncalled for.
 

Falconv1.0

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
3,511
Location
Talking **** in Cali
I like this thread. I myself don't really like the term 'evil' either. What Hitler and pals have done definitely weren't the 'right' thing but it's not like they were born with a ***** made of fire and eyes that turn a deep red in the night as they eat the head of a kitten. That being said, I don't think a 'defense' is needed, these guys were undeniably complete and total *******s.
 

thesage

Smash Hero
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
6,774
Location
Arlington, Va
3DS FC
4957-3743-1481
Trufax:

1/4 marriages in pre-Nazi Germany were Jew/German intermarriages. Hitler was like 1/8 jewish himself. He lead up a country to invade his homeland (yes, he wasn't from Germany). He also persecuted gypsies (who definitely were in charge of all those powerful poverty laden caravans), mentally ******** people (Because they were the cause of the great depression), and gay people (cuz they don't reproduce properly).

The a-bombs were dropped because american and japanese casualties in the war would have skyrocketed otherwise. Sure they killed 1 million people, but look at the casualties from the Tokyo fire bombings and then multiply that by the number of cities in Japan. The Japanese were training pre-adolescent girls to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks... They were militarizing their entire population through any way possible.

The japanese also weren't doing very nice things in china...

The jews aren't giving palestinians smallpox laden blankets.

Hitler and Osama share that they take advantage of people and make them do crazy things. Seriously, who blows themselves up on purpose?

And we didn't even cover that awesome guy called Pol Pot yet. I'm sure he had a perfectly legitimate reason to wipe out the culture and intellectuals of his country (he killed people with glasses because it showed that they could read).

Don't forget about Lenin, Stalin, or Ceausescu. They were pretty nice guys, ordering the deaths of their OWN people and running countries based off of fear.

We haven't even covered South America and Africa yet.

Evil definitely does exist lol.
 

cookieM0Nster

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
2,512
Location
oakland
An interesting point of view on a couple major controversial issues.

However, my dad is Jewish (I'm not), so I automatically strongly dislike him.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
Still, if you think of any other nation doing that today, the rest of the world would simultaneously unite against them for the atrocity they committed.
In evolutionary terms, it is beneficial to be irrational in certain aspects. Imagine someone who would kill you, your family, and your accomplices if they ever found out you stole from them. That would be considered a completely out of proportion response, but I ask you, how likely are you to steal from them? As opposed to the guy who would just ask for his money back? Its a defense mechanism. Sink our ship, we make a crater in your country, destroy a building, we occupy your country, etc. But that is not to say that it is moral to respond in such a way.

Take the Iraq war for example. 9-11 resulted in 3,000 civilian casualties. Conservative estimates figure 50,000-100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, with some estimates above 600,000 for the war. (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm) Is this response out of proportion (especially considering their lack of direct involvement in 9-11)? Would you consider this an atrocity? Would you consider it "bad"?

And you might as well replace evil with "bad" for the purpose of discussion. It is much easier to analyze whether Truman's decision was good or bad in terms of the harmful outcomes. As someone said, "but it's estimated that the casualties that would have resulted from an on land assault in an attempt to end the war would have been EVEN GREATER than the number that died from the 2 atomic bombs dropped." In this respect, using the atomic weapon would result in less casualties. And in hindsight, demonstrating the power of it would have been ineffective since it took two bombs to make the Japanese to surrender. So, looking the alternatives, it doesn't seem to be a "bad" choice. Not to mention that its not that good of a comparison between military action and genocide.
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
The only thing that's really really out of place is the Hiroshima part.

9/11 was an(almost) completely unwarranted attack. It was, in fact, an act of terror. There was no greater idea behind it other than "murder as many amercians as possible because we ****ing hate them." It would be more correct to compare PEARL HARBOR to 9/11.
Even though Osama specifically said it's because the US continues supporting Israel?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...e-continue-supporting-israel/question-839935/

Hiroshima was a trump card. We were ALREADY in a war at the time of the Hiroshima bombing. It wasn't unwarranted, it was random and it wasn't "Murder as many Japanese as possible because we ****ing hate them" it was "Go to the extreme to end the war." And it was extreme, unimaginably extreme. But it's estimated that the casualties that would have resulted from an on land assault in an attempt to end the war would have been EVEN GREATER than the number that died from the 2 atomic bombs dropped.
I've read the list of rationalizations that could stretch to the edge of the Earth, but the fact remains that if anyone tried to pull that same stunt today, we would consider it an egregious war crime, probably would have prosecuted them at the Nuremburg along with the rest of them. Would it have cost more lives not to use the bombs? I guess we'll never know now.

This whole subject has been gone over a million times though, to the point where it's just 'agree to disagree.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Preferable_to_invasion

Also, as another counter point, we're now on pretty **** good terms with Japan. We were at war for a few years(years are longer than 6 days) dropped, at the time, the most destructive weapon known to man on TWO of their cities, killing hundreds of thousands. Note that they aren't currently beheading american civilians for our viewing pleasure. They might not like us(Hell, im 99% sure they really dont like us) but they also didn't become an extremist state of murderers just because we > them in a war.
I'm...not really sure what this is a counter point to, sorry. I never said I think Japan should hate us today (just like I don't think we should hate Germany today).

I was gonna stop, but lets do more counter-points shall we?

Germany didn't get better economically under Hitler.
Never said it did.

Think about that for a second. Germany continued stayed in decline even after Hitler took power. Do you know why? Because saying "I fight for my friends the poor masses, against the tyranny of the rich" doesnt change the fact that he was still bat**** ****ing insane. Even if it was because they were rich, he was still scapegoating the jews as a way to gain power. He wasn't actually trying to HELP Germany, he needed a platform and at the time that was the best one.
I assure you, Hitler had genuine hatred for the Jews, it wasn't just a convenient target. He considered them to be war profiteers and responsible for Germany's loss in World War 1, as well as reading The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (and becoming extremely determined to stop the Jewish plans [which were a hoax]).
http://www.2worldwar2.com/adolf-hitler.htm


Scapegoating them helped, but he mostly rose to power because he loved the German people and they loved him back for it. Mein Kampf was like one long love letter explaining why the German people were just soooooooooo awesome.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/hitlove.htm


I don't even fully understand what the point of your Hitler argument is. Obviously if you're brainwashed into thinking something ISN'T evil then you wont see it as evil but that doesn't make it any less so. A fact doesn't become less true simply because no one believes it. If everyone in the world completely believed that there was oxygen out in the vacuum of space it wouldnt change the fact that we'd still die the second we got there. Hitler got into power by saying he was going to fight for the weak, the starving, the backbone of Germany. Note that once he got into power he murdered anyone not part of his "Master Race" started a war that set Germany back even further than the first one and caused general mayhem and destruction on a continental level.

It's already a bit tl;dr but maybe you could explain some things better?
Hitler wasn't quite as awful to to his own people as you make him out to be - he never raised taxes on the working class, he introduced a bunch of social benefits, and made sure there was never any starvation in Germany again. The Germans loved Hitler because Hitler loved the Germans.

The point of this essay was to explore the idea that even though people might do evil things, it doesn't necessarily follow that there intent was to produce evil.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
The point of this essay was to explore the idea that even though people might do evil things, it doesn't necessarily follow that there intent was to produce evil.
I agree, but I don't think being willfully ignorant or credulous is an excuse.

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. "-Voltaire
 

jivegamer

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
28
"An enemy is someone who's story I have not yet heard" - Common Post-Modern catchphrase and complete BS IMO. I'm sorry, but some things are just inexcusable no matter how bad a person's trials and tribulations were.

EDIT: I do appreciate the courage it took to write this and the thought you put into this though, it really is a great post and I had to think a lot before I posted a response. I still stick with what I typed above though ;)
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
Oh yeah, I didn't mean to imply that these guys deserve your sympathy (although it definitely comes across like that). There's no excuse for the things they've done. I just believe that the key to preventing these kinds of things from ever happening again is to understand their mindset, and figure out what went wrong.
 

Toby.

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
3,156
Location
South of the border, west of the sun.
I don't think Pink Reaper understood the point of the original post :/

It makes me sad when people take posts that are meant to provoke thought about something inherently unbiased / unspecific (like the nature of morality) and ruin it with nationalistic conjecture.

bleehhhh
 

#HBC | Acrostic

♖♘♗♔♕♗♘♖
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,452
I don't think Pink Reaper understood the point of the original post :/

It makes me sad when people take posts that are meant to provoke thought about something inherently unbiased / unspecific (like the nature of morality) and ruin it with nationalistic conjecture.

bleehhhh
Swastika chose to conceptualize and criticize historical events to the point of embellishing his own personal opinion. If we're using the same deck, it's fair to call b.s. on the cards he chooses to use from the pile. If he's not using them objectively.
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
Swastika chose to conceptualize and criticize historical events to the point of embellishing his own personal opinion. If we're using the same deck, it's fair to call b.s. on the cards he chooses to use from the pile. If he's not using them objectively.
Real talk. Since the essay itself is about morality, it's pretty tough to stay objective. I tried to throw enough viewpoints in that it wouldn't seem like I was taking any particular 'side.'

I think the Hiroshima thing illustrates the point in this essay pretty well.

Do we think we bombing those cities was for the greater good? Absolutely.

From the perspective of the torched, irradiated civilians who had to slowly wither and die over the next few weeks? It was an absolute evil.



But we thought we were doing the right thing - so how could it be evil?
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
Doing the right thing doesn't always mean doing whats good.
Could you give an example?


Do we think we bombing those cities was for the greater good? Absolutely.

From the perspective of the torched, irradiated civilians who had to slowly wither and die over the next few weeks? It was an absolute evil.

But we thought we were doing the right thing - so how could it be evil?
Its all about the Felicific calculus. To the Japanese, they consider the costs to be excessive since they see the damage in real life, whereas Americans see the costs in number form. Considering this, the Japanese would appeal to emotion to argue that the decision was bad. To determine whether the action was bad, its all about determining whether it resulted in the best outcome. So they would have to argue that it didn't, that continuing the war would've results in less harm, that displaying the power of the weapon would have been just as effective as the actual bombing, etc. would have resulted in less harm.

Do you think Jon Stewart's idea might have worked?

STEWART: Here's what I think of the atom bombs. I think if you dropped an atom bomb fifteen miles offshore and you said, "The next one's coming and hitting you," then I would think it's okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah. I think that's criminal.
It would have the same effect as demonstrating it on an island. In hindsight, one was not enough to end the war, so I fail to see how dropping one offshore would have changed their attitude. However, at the time, this option should have been heavily considered. Another thing to keep in mind is that we only had two chances, so if you test one, and one bombing is not enough, you have failed to end the war, which is what this option's goal is.
 

SwastikaPyle

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
811
Do you think Jon Stewart's idea might have worked?

STEWART: Here's what I think of the atom bombs. I think if you dropped an atom bomb fifteen miles offshore and you said, "The next one's coming and hitting you," then I would think it's okay. To drop it on a city, and kill a hundred thousand people. Yeah. I think that's criminal.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/30/stewart-trumans-war-criminal-bombing-hiroshima

Btw he apologized next week for calling Truman a war criminal, before anyone posts about that.
 

Heartstring

Smash Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,129
Location
England
well, after reasing through this, swastikapyle makes a very valid point, although to say hitler wasnt slightly wrong it the head would be taknig it to the extreme.
and to the pink reaper, i disagree with your original post, the british and the russians had already ploughed through germany, who were the main cause for the war itself and hitler had commited suicide on the 30th of april 1945, the war ha just about ended, dropping the bomb on japan had very little reasoning behind it, same as 9/11 japan were floundering and were jsut about finished, what would the reaction have been if russia had dropped their nuke on germany? both germany and japan had lost the war quite simply, and as i stated earlier, dropping the a-bomb had little reasoning behind it, it was about 300 9/11's at once as swastikapyle had said in his original post, i seriously doubt on a scale you can say hiroshima was ok, but 9/11 was not.
first off i admit that i am a very anti american person (yes, this means im not american, too many people ask me this...) but to compare 9/11 to another incident that happened to america rather than one caused by america is, well, very american of you, to think of what happened to your country and not what you caused sorta back up my feelings of your country. even today, giant areas of japan are uninhabitable because of the nuclear effects and there will be no chance of living there untill at least the next century. 9/11 on the other hand? you haev a memorial site which you insist on telling the entire world about so they can 'never forget' the horrible tragedy that happened to you.
of course we had 7/7 aswell, really dosent affect us, but of course i can tell you the reason it hapened instantly, in america's 'great patriotic war or terror *sparkle heroism*' we decided to follow in too because it was a war, and the uk is always on the winning side these days. of course, they werent best pleased that we had gone into their territory where we had no right to, so they bombed us. simply enough, yet do we see the station it blew up with a big memorial placard sayng nevar forget? i believe not.
and sorry swastika pyle, because i ended up oing off on a tangent

also, if anyones wants a good read to go with his essay, go read 'vultures' its a poem and chacnes are you can find it on google. it exaplains a fair bit
 

INSANE CARZY GUY

Banned via Warnings
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,915
Location
Indianapolis
didn't we help rebuild japan afterwards? Just like we helped rebuild europe.

all I have to say is if hitler was trying to spread the money around and keep the jews down why did he invade people and kill many non jews like blacks, gays, handicapped, and etc. I'm sorry but it wasn't just the jew he didn't care for.
 

Jim Morrison

Smash Authority
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,287
Location
The Netherlands
didn't we help rebuild japan afterwards? Just like we helped rebuild europe.
This is probably a pretty bull**** argument. Does this make it any better that your country killed hundreds of thousands? It's not really something to be proud of to help rebuild, it was the only right thing you could have done after bombing Japan.
 

INSANE CARZY GUY

Banned via Warnings
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,915
Location
Indianapolis
well fine F*** japan we won't rebuilt it then. I didn't say it made everything 100% right. In truth war is mostly for controling the numberr of people so we don't have to many people.

Not once in my post did I say oh we rebuilt japan so it's all cool we killed a bunch of people. Really your arguement with things you think I said somehow.
 

5ive

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
2,008
Location
USA USA USA
Enjoyed this. I always run this stuff over in my head. I'm glad I'm not the only one interested in this kind of discussion.
 

Jim Morrison

Smash Authority
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,287
Location
The Netherlands
well fine F*** japan we won't rebuilt it then. I didn't say it made everything 100% right. In truth war is mostly for controling the numberr of people so we don't have to many people.

Not once in my post did I say oh we rebuilt japan so it's all cool we killed a bunch of people. Really your arguement with things you think I said somehow.
You made what you said sound as if it then somewhat justified the bombing. Then what did you mean?

Also, do you REALLY believe war is for controlling the number of people? No offense, but a few million people dead over a course of a few years really won't outweigh the people being born after the war. After a country has been defeated in war, they are most often pretty poor. Poor countries generally produce more babies, so it really doesn't balance it out.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
This is probably a pretty bull**** argument. Does this make it any better that your country killed hundreds of thousands? It's not really something to be proud of to help rebuild, it was the only right thing you could have done after bombing Japan.
So do you also oppose the actions of the Dutch Resistance during World War II?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom