In defense of Hitler

[Jim Morrison]

Somewhat. It had such little impact on the German side, but the retributions towards the Dutch side had much greater losses. They could've expected the Germans to go for some retributal action. It was a pretty dumb move. Noble, but pretty dumb.
However, what they did in general is what I support. They didn't attack civilians, it were German troops who were occupying our country.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

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.

I don't think anyone in this topic is saying 'Hitler only hated Jews, and no one else.'

And people are laughing at you for the Japan remark because it's...absurd to say, "Come on man, we rebuilt it, no need to be sour..." It doesn't really just make everything cool afterwards, you know? It's not okay to drop atomic bombs because you'll make it all better later.

I read kids born for generations afterward were deformed, without limbs and eyes on occasions. Like the stuff in this link, which shows the effects of Depleted Uranium poisoning quite well.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id155.html <----VERY NLS. DO NOT CLICK IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE CLOSE ENOUGH TO JUDGE YOU FOR THE NASTY THINGS THAT WILL BE ON YOUR SCREEN.


Black and grey morality.

 

[thesage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids

That would have happened in every single city in Japan.

You also have to realize that if we decided to invade japan by land, then Russia would have helped us as well. What happened to germany after world war II probably would have happened to Japan as well.

Considering we are not at war with a country right now (Taliban doesn't count as a country) nobody really has a right to drop an atomic bomb on America right now.

Hitler was partially Jewish himelf. Does that not prove that he was ****ing crazy to kill his own people? Will I have to say this again?

 

[Purple]

I agree with Pink Reader. Japan asked for it by attacking us and then not giving up.
9/11 was uncalled for.

they asked..for it?

Do you really think we would've lost a million casualties on our side of the fence from WW2?

 

[rvkevin]

they asked..for it?

Do you really think we would've lost a million casualties on our side of the fence from WW2?

I would assign the country who was in the "right" (defending itself, humanitarian reasons, etc.) a greater value. Meaning, if the bombing would cause 200,000 casualties, and continuing the war would cause 75,000 casualties to both sides, I think the bombing is still justified.

 

[Purple]

assuming they lost 600k from the bombing. Overall, japan lost 2,120,000. a total of around 1,480,000, if the war continued for another four years. It would easily have justified the bomb, but we'll never know how long the war would've been otherwise, so we can't come to a definite solution if it was justified.

 

[SnackAttack]

I wish I were intelligent enough to post these kinds of blogs AND talk about them.

*Sadface*

 

[Teran]

Actually I heard 9/11 was for America's continued meddling in the Middle East.

It's been going on forever, mainly because of oil.

 

[mountain_tiger]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Long story short, nothing regarding morality is black and white. Rather, its millions of varying shades of grey, with widely differing numbers of people that like them.

That's life for you. [/COLOR]

 

[Raziek]

Excellent read. Like Toby, I came in here expecting something morally horrifying. Thank you for proving my expectations wrong.

 

[rvkevin]

[COLOR="#FFCBA"]Long story short, nothing regarding morality is black and white.[/COLOR]

This is only because of unknown information. Ontologically, morality is black and white.

Long story short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww&feature=player_embedded#

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I will just reply to this with quotes from much more educated, much more profound people than I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids

That would have happened in every single city in Japan.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380



Although the **** stated 'publicly' that they were fighting to the bitter end, in actuality they were already engaged in secret peace talks with the Soviet Union. They have to keep up their propaganda, you know, the same way Americans do.



"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Douglas MacArthur, a.k.a. the man who fought the war against Japan for us.

Considering we are not at war with a country right now (Taliban doesn't count as a country) nobody really has a right to drop an atomic bomb on America right now.

Did we ever have the right in the first place? I would say no.

But don't take my word for it.

Ask the guys who made the **** thing!

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[45] - Leo Szilard


Michael Walzer even had the balls to call it 'war terrorism'

"... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."

Hitler was partially Jewish himelf. Does that not prove that he was ****ing crazy to kill his own people? Will I have to say this again?

I have no doubt Hitler was crazy, anyone taking the Protocols of Zion nonsense seriously is certainly not right in the head. This thread is not an attempt to justify Hitler's actions, despite what several seem to think.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm confused...

The genocide of over six million Jews is okay... because their bankers were Jewish?

 

[§witch]

I agree with Pink Reader. Japan asked for it by attacking us and then not giving up.
9/11 was uncalled for.

You never ****ing listen. You have a such a narrow-minded viewpoint.

The U.N. kicked the Palestinians out of their country, so they could give the Jews a country, and then stuffed them all into the Gaza strip. Then, the Americans constantly fund the Israeli military and give them tanks and bombs that the Israelis used to bomb the **** out of Gaza. The Palestinians went to cut off the Israeli supplies at its source.

 

[PassWurD]

Wouldn't dropping an atomic bomb in the ocean 'cause like some crazy ecosystem changes? Just wondering as I don't realllyyyy knowww, and now I feel curious.

 

[rvkevin]

"... And, finally, there is war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Hiroshima seems to me the classic case."

"Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage." If this were true, then dropping the bomb would not have been much different than carpet bombing the entire area, not including the long term effects (which is cause for an objection). The reason why this would be considered morally wrong today is because of the advancement of modern weaponry. With precision missiles, we are able to discern between military and civilian targets to a greater degree, which would make the immense civilian casualties from the atom bomb unacceptable.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Wouldn't dropping an atomic bomb in the ocean 'cause like some crazy ecosystem changes? Just wondering as I don't realllyyyy knowww, and now I feel curious.

About as much of a change as when dropping it on land, except the changes take place in the sea.

 

[PassWurD]

Ah, thank you. NOW I KNOW!

 

[sandwhale]

Sooooo...Morality, good and evil are subjective judgements which criterias are decided by are education (also meaning life experiences). They are appealing because they make life more simple, coherent and serve as an excuse to satisfy our hidden desires or to mask our fears. Of course politics and religions largely abuse this.

Getting back to Hitler, calling him evil simply implies that he must be eradicated for good to come back, and those that will do so will then logically be the good guys, all is perfect. While trying to understand him would mean finding what he thinks is evil, why, and realise that he is a result of "the good guys" actions wich would imply severe questioning of their old and deeply incrusted beliefs. And nobody wants that.

Anyone care to contradict me?

 

[Jim Morrison]

My point was, it would be just as bad as dropping it on land, except for the few 100k casualties.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm confused...

The genocide of over six million Jews is okay... because their bankers were Jewish?

I have to say that I re-read the OP multiple times, and this is the impression I keep coming away with.

 

[MajorMoses]

This thread is not an attempt to justify Hitler's actions, despite what several seem to think.

BS. You're saying that Hitler had a particular reason for killing Jews. Jews were rich and Hitler didn't like that so he started a genocide. That's a justification and a poor one at that.

Hitler was evil. No matter what reasons he had for what he did, that is the truth.

 

[Jim Morrison]

It's not a justification, dip****, it's looking for a reason behind WHY he did the drastic things he did.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It's not a justification, dip****, it's looking for a reason behind WHY he did the drastic things he did.

But what does that get us? Understanding why Post-WWI Germany was susceptible to a genocidal dictator is good history. Understanding why Hitler himself was the way he was leads to posts like the OP, which have a decidedly "blame-the-victim" tone.

 

[MajorMoses]

It's not a justification, dip****, it's looking for a reason behind WHY he did the drastic things he did.

Exactly, a justification. No need for the language.

 

[§witch]

But what does that get us? Understanding why Post-WWI Germany was susceptible to a genocidal dictator is good history. Understanding why Hitler himself was the way he was leads to posts like the OP, which have a decidedly "blame-the-victim" tone.

He said that the Jewish bankers were prospering while the German populace was falling apart right before their eyes.

Hitler, and probably many other Germans, saw the Jews as the reason for their plight and saw the Jews as their enemies.

 

[rvkevin]

But what does that get us? Understanding why Post-WWI Germany was susceptible to a genocidal dictator is good history. Understanding why Hitler himself was the way he was leads to posts like the OP, which have a decidedly "blame-the-victim" tone.

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.

Understanding the reasoning behind such actions can be used to decrease such actions.

 

[Melomaniacal]

It's not a justification, dip****, it's looking for a reason behind WHY he did the drastic things he did.

The OP is phrased in a way that is trying to convince us that the Jews were the bad guys. It comes off like a justification. Basically it comes off like this:

"The Jews were rich and selfish, and deserved bad things. We only think that's wrong because we get the images of tortured Jews."

It straight-up calls Hitler heroic, claiming it was the right thing for his people.



The genocide of over six million Jews. Heroic. Whether of not this is what he meant, that's what it sounds like to me, and apparently to Jam Stunna as well (to an extent at least).

 

[Jam Stunna]

How can murder be anything but evil?

 

[KingK.Rool]

BS. You're saying that Hitler had a particular reason for killing Jews. Jews were rich and Hitler didn't like that so he started a genocide. That's a justification and a poor one at that.

Hitler was evil. No matter what reasons he had for what he did, that is the truth.

Good and evil are pretty feeble concepts. I'm sure the Aztecs didn't think of human sacrifice as evil, just as the Romans didn't think of gladiatorial combat as evil. Are human beings smarter now than they were then? Do we think more rationally? Is poverty not as extreme an evil as bodily harm? Maybe future generations will regard not giving handouts to the beggar on the street as an extreme evil. I know it's a philosophical question that's still debated on, but I wouldn't agree that there is an absolute, ingrained definition of good and evil in the world.

And saying "that is the truth" sounds to me like an absolute. Best avoid dealing in absolutes.

I don't see the OP as a justification, but rather a reminder that there are no two-dimensional villains in real life - nobody who acts without cause (even if it's an unjust one), and without thinking that they're doing right. Hitler was responsible for terrible things, and he certainly deserves no sympathy. But he was also a human being, and there's a chain of events in his life that led him to behave in a way that we can rightly perceive as illogical.

When looking for villains, I'd say serial killers are far easier to point out - because their actions aren't driven by anything resembling logic. But then you have that statistic, that 99% of serial killers were abused as children. That doesn't even come close to excusing them, of course. We can't sympathize with them and it's hard to pity them. They make it pretty bloody difficult to understand them. But we can, at the end of the day, look back on their pathetic, miserable lives and wonder how differently they might have turned out had the circumstances around them been otherwise.

All I'm saying is that there are factors at play in every human life. Condemn if necessary, but don't judge - judging is too easy when you don't understand a person's motivations: empathy requires understanding. Am I making any sense here, or what?

 

[rvkevin]

How can murder be anything but evil?

You are begging the question. Murder is defined as being unlawful, therefore wrong.

But self-defense is an acceptable reason to kill.

 

[§witch]

OP





Your heads.

 

[Melomaniacal]

OP





Your heads.

Thank you, it suddenly all makes sense to me.

All I'm saying is the way it's phrased, it comes off a certain way. I certainly hope that's as far as it goes - just a phrasing problem.

 

[MajorMoses]

Good and evil are pretty feeble concepts. I'm sure the Aztecs didn't think of human sacrifice as evil, just as the Romans didn't think of gladiatorial combat as evil. Are human beings smarter now than they were then? Do we think more rationally? Is poverty not as extreme an evil as bodily harm? Maybe future generations will regard not giving handouts to the beggar on the street as an extreme evil. I know it's a philosophical question that's still debated on, but I wouldn't agree that there is an absolute, ingrained definition of good and evil in the world.

And saying "that is the truth" sounds to me like an absolute. Best avoid dealing in absolutes.

I don't see the OP as a justification, but rather a reminder that there are no two-dimensional villains in real life - nobody who acts without cause (even if it's an unjust one), and without thinking that they're doing right. Hitler was responsible for terrible things, and he certainly deserves no sympathy. But he was also a human being, and there's a chain of events in his life that led him to behave in a way that we can rightly perceive as illogical.

When looking for villains, I'd say serial killers are far easier to point out - because their actions aren't driven by anything resembling logic. But then you have that statistic, that 99% of serial killers were abused as children. That doesn't even come close to excusing them, of course. We can't sympathize with them and it's hard to pity them. They make it pretty bloody difficult to understand them. But we can, at the end of the day, look back on their pathetic, miserable lives and wonder how differently they might have turned out had the circumstances around them been otherwise.

All I'm saying is that there are factors at play in every human life. Condemn if necessary, but don't judge - judging is too easy when you don't understand a person's motivations: empathy requires understanding. Am I making any sense here, or what?

You make sense, sure. But the murder of innocent individuals should always be considered evil. And don't say that the Jews weren't innocent. No Jew stands for the entire religion just like no German stands for all of Germany.

Perhaps you have a different moral code but the generally accepted code is that murder is bad. And that's the way I'm going to look at things at this time.

 

[§witch]

Okay, the OP is playing Devil's Advocate here, that's all. He's not saying in any way that Hitler was actually the good guy, he's merely giving an idea of what Hitler's rational may have been.

 

[OverLade]

How can murder be anything but evil?

Don't be ignorant. Holy war anyone?

Anyway fascinating read. I always respect rational and realistic though. If a KKK member was willing to debate with me and explain his position on what he does and believes without violence, I would respect that, and this is a great take.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Okay, the OP is playing Devil's Advocate here, that's all. He's not saying in any way that Hitler was actually the good guy, he's merely giving an idea of what Hitler's rational may have been.

Well if that's true, he definitely could have made that more obvious. The opening statement leads me to believe he has developed a new opinion on the matter... which is what he wrote about.

 

[OverLade]

If the OPester is an avid Nazi I could care less. He presented his argument in a rational and thought provoking way without being offensive. Once again, good read.

 

[MajorMoses]

Okay, the OP is playing Devil's Advocate here, that's all. He's not saying in any way that Hitler was actually the good guy, he's merely giving an idea of what Hitler's rational may have been.

Link to original post: [drupal=3210]In defense of Hitler[/drupal]

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."

(Jews even take the coolest names, *******s)

Israel, by the way, continues to march into Palestine and set up shop wherever it **** well pleases.

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

I wonder what's behind all those asterisks.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Don't be ignorant. Holy war anyone?

What does this mean?

In any case, maybe the OP is just lost on me.