In defense of Hitler

[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?

Yeah bumping my post. I don't like it when people ignore a post i spent some time on and keep posting the same idioties i contradict.

By the way the OP occasionaly uses jew-hate sentences to better show what's going on in hitler's head.

And seriously let's stop the "this guy is EVIL and that's the THRUTH".

 

[Pink Reaper]

Here's a question, why does the man who helped start the largest war to ever exist on this planet as well as the persecution and murder of 6 Million innocents(6 MILLION! That's an unheard of level of murder. That rivals the total deaths in the ENTIRE war and these were ALL innocents who did NOTHING wrong) deserve a devils advocate? What exactly is the point of the OP? To prove that maybe he wasnt actually that evil? And that we as americans actually are evil by doing stuff that cant even begin to rival that level of bat**** crazy? Maybe a little rationale from the OP would help.

The entire OP never once says anything that would imply what Hitler did was wrong, with the exception of:

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.

Which isn't even a criticism. There's never a moment where SwastikaPyle even HINTS that what Hitler did was evil, yet spins things that America did as unimaginable by comparison.

Yes, America did ****ed up ****, we dropped the most powerful weapon currently in existence on 2 CIVILIAN cities. That right there is a shock and awe program and most definitely a war crime, but we got away with it. But in comparison, we were still the lesser of two evils(Note that the lesser of two evils is still evil)

Also, I refuse to be sympathetic towards Japan because THEY STARTED A ****ING WAR! War is the worst thing you can do to a country by leaps and bounds. And I dont even mean that from a moral standpoint, I mean it from a straight by the numbers standpoint. It eats away at ridiculous amounts of money, resources and human lives and takes decades to fully recover from if even possible.

 

[Super_Sonic8677]

Does the end justify the means? What is truely evil?

These are the main points of this thread.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

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.

"Right" is still subjective.

I also don't understand your reasoning for why the bombing is justified. If the bombing causes 200,000 casualties, then that's 50,000 more than your projected casualties for both sides combined. And the Hiroshima bombing killed civilians, and poisoned millions more with radiation which affected families for generations. It doesn't add up in my opinion.

 

[sandwhale]

There's never a moment where SwastikaPyle even HINTS that what Hitler did was evil.

That's his point. Evil is subjectif and from Hitler's point of view what he was doing was good.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Here's a question, why does the man who helped start the largest war to ever exist on this planet as well as the persecution and murder of 6 Million innocents(6 MILLION! That's an unheard of level of murder. That rivals the total deaths in the ENTIRE war and these were ALL innocents who did NOTHING wrong) deserve a devils advocate?

Why not? Since when is there a point where someone doesn't "deserve" a devil's advocate? Your mind state is EXACTLY what SwastikaPyle is addressing in the OP; in your mind you have put Hitler in a place where he will never get retribution. Pyle is trying to combat this narrow-minded way of thinking and help you see Hitler's crimes through his point of view.

 

[_Keno_]

But in comparison, we were still the lesser of two evils(Note that the lesser of two evils is still evil)

Also, I refuse to be sympathetic towards Japan because THEY STARTED A ****ING WAR! .

I disagree, I think we were the greater of two evils in that war. There were plenty of other ways to get Japan to surrender (for one, japan has very few natural resources. A blockade would have worked decently even if it took a while).

And yes, Japan's government started the war, but the civilians that got bombed didn't.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Why not? Since when is there a point where someone doesn't "deserve" a devil's advocate? Your mind state is EXACTLY what SwastikaPyle is addressing in the OP; in your mind you have put Hitler in a place where he will never get retribution. Pyle is trying to combat this narrow-minded way of thinking and help you see Hitler's crimes through his point of view.

It's not narrow-minded to consider the murder of 6 million innocents as insane. There's no justification behind that. I understand that Hitler thought what he was doing was right. I get that. But just Charles Manson thought what he was doing was right DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS ****ING INSANE!

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

It's not narrow-minded to consider the murder of 6 million innocents as insane. There's no justification behind that. I understand that Hitler thought what he was doing was right. I get that. But just Charles Manson thought what he was doing was right DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS ****ING INSANE!

No one is doubting that.

It is narrow-minded to not even consider looking into the other side of things. How can you truly formulate an opinion on something based on seeing only one side of things? That's like getting all of your information from Fox News (which unfortunately happens quite often) and not even considering another side of things.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I now understand.

Evil is subjective, therefore it's okay for me to go out and brutally **** and murder some people. Don't worry, I'll have reasons. Just stop to consider my point of view, and you'll realize that it's a little more acceptable.

Hey, you could even write about it and maybe get a 10/10 for being interesting!


But in all seriousness, yes, Hitler had reasons. He even had good intentions. He wanted what he felt was best for his country, and for the world. We all already understand that he had his own point of view. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to try to use his point of view to justify or lessen the horrible things he did.

If all you're trying to do is tell us that Hitler had his reasons, you are wasting your time, we already know this.

 

[KingK.Rool]

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.

I never said the Jews weren't innocent. I never even came close to saying that. And I'm not condoning murder, obviously, which is, in almost all cases, a very bad thing. I'm just saying that the "generally accepted code" changes and is therefore not definitive at all. Devil's advocate, that's all.

There's never a moment where SwastikaPyle even HINTS that what Hitler did was evil, yet spins things that America did as unimaginable by comparison.

Uh, what about...

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.

? That last bit pretty much sums up his ENTIRE point. Not sure how you missed it.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

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.

Thank you, this was my original intent.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Thank you, this was my original intent.

But was anyone unaware of that?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Apparently so.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Apparently so.

I mean, was anyone unaware that Hitler had his point of view and whatnot?

 

[.Marik]

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.

I agree with this. Since morales are subjective, we need a general and mainstream consensus which allows us to advocate what skewed perspective we've established.

Hitler caused the mass murder of innocent people, and was direly misinformed to the true causes of his country's starving economy. Hitler was emotionally and mentally unstable, and didn't grasp that the Treaty of Versailles was the actual reason for Germany's debt, due to the repercussion of paying back countries allied under the Triple Entente.

Hitler didn't think what he was doing was wrong. He was removing unworthy and genetically inferior humans from the gene pool.

That's his point. Evil is subjectif and from Hitler's point of view what he was doing was good.

Evil is subjective. So is every other morale and ethnical claim we've come up with.

He had no conscience, but he murdered 6 million Jews plus millions of other minorities, but shouldn't we still consider that evil?

It was full-blown and systematic genocide. Unfortunately, Hitler was mentally unstable and couldn't process logical and thought-out responses to Germany's state.

Due to how much these ethnics are subjective to opinion, this isn't going anywhere, but as agreed by general population, Hitler commited horrific crimes.

 

[Lawlb0t]

You are becoming aware, but that Bin Laden **** made no sense. Israel controls North America.

- Official numbers for the holocaust are inaccurate. (I don't agree with killing at all, but just throwing it out there)
- We had concentration camps here, except we were able to feed them because our supply lines weren't bombed
*Note* I realize that Hitler, Himmler, their administration, followers, and supporters had intent and did kill jews, slavs, mentally challenged, etc*
- True innnocent Jews suffered while Zionists sipped wine.
- After WWII, Israel was formed illegally and Palestinians have been murdered since
- Israel funds Hamas
- War is not for the citizens of the state, nor the welfare of the state.
- You need to trick the citizens of the state to go to war. And the Nazi party and all of its corporate supporters (lol america/world wide) had a really good one.
- Who gives suppressed states weapons to throw out the current oppressors (3rd world countries)?
- I would say Evil is an entity who infringes on the free will of others.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I now understand.

Evil is subjective, therefore it's okay for me to go out and brutally **** and murder some people. Don't worry, I'll have reasons. Just stop to consider my point of view, and you'll realize that it's a little more acceptable.

It depends what your reasons are. Maybe if those people killed your family or something of that nature. It still wouldn't be okay (in my eyes at least), but at least you would have a reason.

But in all seriousness, yes, Hitler had reasons. He even had good intentions. He wanted what he felt was best for his country, and for the world. We all already understand that he had his own point of view. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to try to use his point of view to justify or lessen the horrible things he did.

No one here is saying that what Hitler did is acceptable.

If all you're trying to do is tell us that Hitler had his reasons, you are wasting your time, we already know this.

It's more to expose people to another point of view. Hitler was chosen because the majority of the world hates him. Lots of people do not even give him a chance, and a lot of people really don't understand that he in fact did have reasons.

 

[rvkevin]

"Right" is still subjective.

I also don't understand your reasoning for why the bombing is justified. If the bombing causes 200,000 casualties, then that's 50,000 more than your projected casualties for both sides combined. And the Hiroshima bombing killed civilians, and poisoned millions more with radiation which affected families for generations. It doesn't add up in my opinion.

I give the person/country more leeway for defending themselves. To do otherwise, I think would set a bad precedent. For example, if someone tries to rob a clerk with a knife and the store owner has a gun, I wouldn't admonish the clerk for using the gun. Even though both situations would have the same outcome of one casualty, I place a higher value of life on the clerk. Because both parties are not equally responsible for the situation, they share a disproportionate burden.

In my hypothetical, I was assuming the casualties would be all military, and the bombing was done in self-defense. I would object to its use because of the long term effects. Using the atom bomb instead of the traditional carpet bombing would still have resulted in civilian deaths, it was a limit in the technology at the time so, so I'm hesitant to object to its use on those grounds. And since the US was defending itself due to 12-7, I would be hesitant to object to it based on the numbers.

Is "right" subjective? I tend to disagree.

 

[Iliad]

I'm stunned to realize that so many people don't understand the core message the OP is trying to put out.

Our opinions of others and their morality, could be in complete opposite when comparing us to them.

To an American, Al-qaeda are terrorists. To some of the middle-east they are freedom-fighters. And vice versa.

And I would like to thank the OP for what he posted. Brilliant title for one, as it immediately evokes attention at reading it, lol. Secondly for not approving of any of the actions, but rather explaining the thought process behind it. It's very ****ing easy to label something as good or as evil.

Your name belies your enlightenment OP.

Now to stick a fork into this entire discussion as I've grown very fond of it. Japan did not surrender due to the atomic bombs. I hope you misguided fools realize this. When the single bombing of their capital city killed anywhere from 100,000 - 1.5 MILLION in one sitting on March 10th 1945, losing two minor industrial cities means nothing.

What's interesting to note is that following both atomic detonations there were still no signs of surrender, until the Soviets declared war upon Japan officially and invaded Manchuria and wiped out the Kwantung army in a matter of days. The Soviets were more brutal than even the Japanese in their treatment of prisoners and those under their subjugation. And after it became apparent that the USSR had it's eye on japanese territory (evidenced by the occupation of Sakalin island and the Kurile islands) the Japanese quickly set about to an unconditional surrender to stave off any attempt by the soviets at taking a chunk of their land and indoctrinating it, as had begun to happen with Germany.

By all rights, the bombs were unneccessary. The use of the Soviet's massive armada of superior armor, battle tested and now veteran infantry, their massive airforce in comparison to the Japanese's now utterly crippled air force. I think that alone was the reason for Japanese surrender, thus rendering the bombs not only useless but negligent.

And yes people, Japanese soldiers and civilians did possess fear, contrary to the foolishness you hear in documentaries. And that was the fear of capture and enslavement. Which is exactly what the Soviets would have had in store for them.

Think logically here. A nation consisting of soldiers that ran recklessly into marine bullets, wave after wave, surely would not fear death in the form of a physical removal from this world (The A bombs), but certainly would fear a psychological death as they were systematically broken in as the Soviet's new satellite, bowing to their whims.

Last point btw. The reason for Japan's attack upon the united states was for one reason and one reason only. They'd been cut off and strangled by the US (essentially sanctions) and were on the road to having zero oil. Which meant they would be unable to defend themselves against anyone properly. They thought to hit the US hard and fast to make them break said sanctions, not necessarily to conquer the United States in any way.

 

[Lawlb0t]

You honestly believe that developing such a weapon they were not going to use it on humans? You are joking right? Weapons kill, and synthetic data is different than real world.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I mean, was anyone unaware that Hitler had his point of view and whatnot?

We know he had his motivations, but I doubt most of us think of Hitler as someone who was actually trying to eradicate evil, instead of becoming it.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

In my hypothetical, I was assuming the casualties would be all military, and the bombing was done in self-defense. I would object to its use because of the long term effects. Using the atom bomb instead of the traditional carpet bombing would still have resulted in civilian deaths, it was a limit in the technology at the time so, so I'm hesitant to object to its use on those grounds. And since the US was defending itself due to 12-7, I would be hesitant to object to it based on the numbers.

Defending itself? How is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people "defending" anything? I could see anti aircraft guns or something of that nature as "defending themselves," but dropping an atomic bomb on their country?

Is "right" subjective? I tend to disagree.

How is it not subjective? What's "right" is based on one's morals, and there is not a specific moral code, they vary from person to person. Thus, they are subjective.

 

[Melomaniacal]

No one here is saying that what Hitler did is acceptable.

I fully understand that no one here agrees with Hitler's actions or reasons, you really don't need to keep reminding me.

It's more to expose people to another point of view. Hitler was chosen because the majority of the world hates him. Lots of people do not even give him a chance, and a lot of people really don't understand that he in fact did have reasons.

Again, we all know that he had his own point of view. Almost anyone who learned American history in high school (all of us) has been taught about his beliefs.

What do you mean "give him a chance"? That sounds like you are suggesting that we should actually consider that his actions were acceptable.

We know he had his motivations, but I doubt most of us think of Hitler as someone who was actually trying to eradicate evil, instead of becoming it.

I don't really doubt that. Most people do/would understand that Hitler believed his actions were for the good of his country and the world.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Just replace 'give him a chance' with 'understand' and that's what he meant.

 

[Iliad]

For the umpteenth time. You can't even criticize the use of Atomic bombs. They did more killing in less time, with more long run effects with conventional payloads on japan than Fatman and Littleboy ever did.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I fully understand that no one here agrees with Hitler's actions or reasons, you really don't need to keep reminding me.

You said "However, that doesn't mean it's okay to try to use his point of view to justify or lessen the horrible things he did."

I was simply saying that no one was doing this.

Again, we all know that he had his own point of view. Almost anyone who learned American history in high school (all of us) has been taught about his beliefs.

I'm 14, I haven't had American History yet. I mean I know his motives because I researched them myself, but don't assume that everyone has

What do you mean "give him a chance"? That sounds like you are suggesting that we should actually consider that his actions were acceptable.

I guess that was kind of vague. What I meant by that was that people should look at both sides of things so that they can actually formulate an opinion. Give his point of view a chance. I don't agree with it, and no one has to agree with it, but you're making an ignorant decision if you formulate an opinion based off of "Hitler killed millions of people's he's bad."

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what Pyle said. That was a lot more concise.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Just replace 'give him a chance' with 'understand' and that's what he meant.

Okay... maybe I'm just from a weird area, but everyone I know has been taught of Hitler's beliefs and why he did what he did.

I guess that was kind of vague. What I meant by that was that people should look at both sides of things so that they can actually formulate an opinion. Give his point of view a chance. I don't agree with it, and no one has to agree with it, but you're making an ignorant decision if you formulate an opinion based off of "Hitler killed millions of people's he's bad."

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what Pyle said. That was a lot more concise.

Maybe I just think that it's okay to assume that someone who lead the genocide of millions of innocent people was bad. Is that weird?

...dropping the sarcasm, no, it's not weird. Genocide of innocents = bad, there should never be any question of that. I would not call that ignorance.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

For the umpteenth time. You can't even criticize the use of Atomic bombs.

That's your OPINION. My OPINION is that the long term effects of the bomb did not justify its use.

 

[rvkevin]

Defending itself? How is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people "defending" anything? I could see anti aircraft guns or something of that nature as "defending themselves," but dropping an atomic bomb on their country?

"Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage." Carpet bombing the country would still have resulted in innocent people dying.

How is it not subjective? What's "right" is based on one's morals, and there is not a specific moral code, they vary from person to person. Thus, they are subjective.

Just because there is not a universal moral code does not mean morality is subjective.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

"Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage." Carpet bombing the country would still have resulted in innocent people dying.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I understand your point, but I have trouble seeing how bombing Hiroshima "defended" the United States. Sure, it may have prevented more troops from dying, but it killed thousands in the process. Are we considering Americans more important than other people?

Just because there is not a universal moral code does not mean morality is subjective.

sub·jec·tive   [suhb-jek-tiv]
–adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Morals fit both of these. They are most certainly subjective, as they differ depending on the individual in question.

 

[_Keno_]

Just because there is not a universal moral code does not mean morality is subjective.

well, its definitely not objective. Its more like... certain things are and certain things are not subjective.

 

[Iliad]

Vrael, go back to making bad mods for Civ IV, k?

 

[_Keno_]

Vrael, go back to making bad mods for Civ IV, k?

The way you tore down Vrael's argument was just flawless.

 

[Purple]

TL;DR

Hitler's along with all horrible dictators and evil people are still humans, just made bad decision based on previous memories.

They are not a villian bent on destruction as some base to believe, they aren't insane either.

 

[rvkevin]

Sure, it may have prevented more troops from dying, but it killed thousands in the process.

Isn't this the definition of self-defense?

Are we considering Americans more important than other people?

As I said before, I give a higher value to the person/country defending them self.

Morals fit both of these. They are most certainly subjective, as they differ depending on the individual in question.

I disagree. Just because people differ in their answer does not mean it is subjective.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Vrael, go back to making bad mods for Civ IV, k?

Troll harder pl0x. Or just leave, your posts aren't valued here.

 

[Melomaniacal]

No. Just because it may have prevented casualties in the future does not make it self defense. Maybe if Japan was planning on nuking America and the bomb was in Hiroshima or something, but the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima was clearly an offensive maneuver, not one to protect the safety of the country.

The best defense is a good offense.

Sure, it was offensive in the sense that we attacked them in their territory, but it was defensive in that we did it to protect our country from potential attacks. I'm not saying whether or not I personally agree with the bombings, but we would not have done it if we didn't feel it was necessary to end the war and thus ensure safety. Which it did. Was it the best choice? I don't know, but it worked.

 

[Praxis]

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

Japan asked for what?

We nuked civilians to punish them for attacking a military base (Pearl Harbor).

9/11 was retaliation for us arming the people who were invading (Israel). And, 3,000 deaths is relatively light compared to what we hit back with (or, heck, the hundreds of thousands killed in a single recent Tsunami).

I'm not saying 9/11 was deserved. But neither was Hiroshima, as you imply. There are deeper motivations to every action than a childlike view of what is deserved or not deserved.

Isn't this the definition of self-defense?

Defense against what?

There were no Japanese troops on American soil.

The only attack on American soil was an attack on a military base, with no civilian targets attacked barring civilians working on the base.

It was a decision made to kill hundreds of thousands of uninvolved civilians to protect thousands of soldiers by scaring Japan into submission.

Isn't that the definition of terrorism?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

The best defense is a good offense.

Sure, it was offensive in the sense that we attacked them in their territory, but it was defensive in that we did it to protect our country from potential attacks. I'm not saying whether or not I personally agree with the bombings, but we would not have done it if we didn't feel it was necessary to end the war and thus ensure safety. Which it did. Was it the best choice? I don't know, but it worked.

I get what you're saying, makes sense.

I'mma go eat dinner. This thread is getting way off topic, I feel that it's my fault sorta. So yeah, I might come back here later. Probably not. Who knows.

EDIT: How'd that quote get messed up? Huh. But yeah, I never said that last quote in Praxis's post, that was rkevin.