In defense of Hitler

[GetInTheSoup!]

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for making mention of religion in the following post; this is in no way to troll. Religion has proper sociohistoric context in my reasoning and has deeply affected much of society, especially with regards to violence, pain, good and bad (morality).

To assume that we have always been a certain way, with regards to violence is fallacious. There was a huge crisis with this in the Medieval time period, Beowulf is historic evidence of this. Through the spreading of the idea of "Christ", peoples traditionally pagan had to rethink, and re-evaluate, their culture. Traditionally pagan people, used to a "pride" culture, had to begin the extreme transition to the "shame" culture, simultaneously as they had to relinquish their usage of magic and symbolic items, for belief in Christ (Christianity, at its re-conception by pagan cultures, was Very magical -See Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and pay close attention to its symbols for proof. The vestiges of this continue today in many ways, but I would prefer not to start a pointless argument). The first two books of Beowulf, present the culture of the time, pre-Christ, wherein the King is wonderful for being mighty, for defeating his unprovoked enemies soundly, and spreading his wealth, rewarding his people all the while. They present how a king (of the time) should treat his loyal people and how he should treat his guests, and they show how a violent, cocky adolescent such as Beowulf was well-prized by their society. The culture valued strength and "honor" (a term used loosely as it connotations are different now then they were then): the only reason the king stopped expanding his territories was for fear that it was getting too large for him to control, and he prized mighty warriors such as Beowulf greatly, allowing Beowulf to counsel him and his future heirs on many important matters. It was with the coming of Grendel's mother that the culture began to change, as a foil for Grendel's mother there was another human woman in the tale that lost her son and wanted revenge for him, ergo sympathy for "monsters" was conceptualized. Finally, with the coming of the Dragon, and the death of Beowulf, thusly the death of the "pride" culture, the "shame" culture, that overall exists today, was created. Bewoulf went with his 12 men (analogous of apostles) to defeat the dragon, and they would abandon him as Christ was abandoned, except for Wigalf, who literally says "Death is better for a man than a life of shame", thus finishing the transition to a "shame" culture, especially when he rules. There is also no more magic, or value in earthly riches by Wiglaf's rule, value is more focused in morality.

There are many other examples of this societal transition in "western" ideals , especially the texts of Arthurian legend. For a direct contrast, read what is allegedly the first book ever written, "Gilgamesh", and see what is prized, and just directly compare it to today's society.

Another thing that was said, I believe it was by Skler, was that wartime is different than peace time; I believe that to be a serious assumption. What demarcates "wartime"? Wasn't peace, right before war? Isn't what causes war an eruption of feelings that manifests in violent form because of reaction to a (chain of) provoking events? To create an analogy- we play smash. We decide when to play smash. There is no designated smash time (unless you've scheduled it, in which case kudos for your dedication, you're probably better than me and I'm mad bitter ;P), it comes based off of a desire, a feeling, to play smash. It is probably all the more desirable to play smash when someone else wants to, just as war is more desirable when someone else wants to be involved in it (I'm speaking of allies here, though you would obviously need an enemy). Smash ends when we say it ends, just as war ends when we all agree it does. "War time" and "Peacetime" as constructs that are good for marketing, but not "real" beyond human consensus. (Btw Skler, I mained Link for a LONG time, still play him constantly, I love how you give people the business).

Also, I know this was spoken of WAY BACK IN THE DAY, nine pages or so ago, but just because we have communication doesn't mean it would result in us coming to a consensus about morality/having absolute morality. In fact, if we came to an easy consensus about morality then we wouldn't need communication (read: spoken language) to explain it to us, we would just "know" it, or learn it as close to intrinsically as possible since so many people around us are exemplifying commonly accepted and appreciated behavior (obviously this is unspoken communication). So the cosmos don't care about us... even if under certain logical standards that means we should care about ourselves all the more, it doesn't mean we must have an absolute system. That stunts evolution, or at least changes its path in a very conformist way. Thus far evolution tries to find a topsy turvy balance between individuality and community, any absolute has a way of negating balance (granted this may be based upon shallow evidence, and thus may be heavily biased opinion. If so, my bad, please lemme know what's really good.)

Skler, in my opinion (and the opinon of a great many scientifically esoteric communities) the concept of good and bad is theoretically a construct, especially with regards to relativism (another construct, lol). In fact it is a hierarchical construct that places value upon things. Good and bad is learned, especially with respects to social interaction; if no one else existed would it matter what you did? Would you act the way you do now in relation to good and bad?
To know how to value money, and thusly why others value money is societally important. But what if money was worthless, would you return it? Would it matter? Assigned values and the desire to be seen as good (even just in your own eyes, which is selfish), make you, a "good" person, return the money. Especially because you would like the same done to you, regardless of whether or not you expect it. Another smash analogy- my scrubby friends like it when I don't play "hardcore" smash: keeping in mind my spacing, my edgeguarding, my l-canceling, etc., should I pander to them? There are positive and negative consequences for either action, but which makes me good/more good? In society, the "hardcore" players win, are they good or bad?

Btw original poster, "Yo' topic is Da Bes!" That's a personal quote from yours truly, Soup. Its excellent to attempt to understand everything, and its a provocative and evocative discussion, GGs homeslice. I love seeing such amazing intelligent minds work! But anyway, Hitler's decisions came from the recesses of a human mind, regardless of how we would like to portray them, and as such deserve to be reasoned; maybe it will help us avoid similar scenarios. The question of the atomic bomb is being argued in this forum as it was back then, the quoted General versus the calculated statistics. We'll never know which is right, and opinions biased through second to third-hand knowledge, especially on dated topics, can be nothing but opinions regardless of backing. This is also why I value direct quotes, and texts like Mein Kaumpf- at least they are direct time pieces, which, while not making an opinion more valid, helps us understand the time more immediately/directly. Regardless, a decision was made and thankfully we are moving beyond THAT act. As to 9/11 being incomparable to the bombing, that's at the very least a biased judgment. See above argument for wartime, vs peacetime. And though I agree that civilians shouldn't be involved in war (I actually detest war, especially upon learning that it hurts the economy, so even that weak justification is gone), consent is key and all that, they always are, if not in direct deaths, through starvation and loss of other resources, etc.. Furthermore, there were civilian deaths in places that got the A-bomb, there was just a concentration of military force not everything was military. And besides, once we take off our costumes of choice we're all human; Nobody wants to die (unless they do) and no one plans on it, regardless of trainning.

PS. Whoever has the "Simba" thing in their Sig is about as sexy as the dude that has ancient Wombo Combo. I shared Simba with everyone I met that day, and we laughed all day!

 

[rvkevin]

Another thing that was said, I believe it was by Skler, was that wartime is different than peace time; I believe that to be a serious assumption. What demarcates "wartime"?

A declaration of war would be a start. All is being said by saying it is wartime is that the conditions are not the same as during peacetime. Specifically that there is an opposing force trying to harm you and thus have a right to defend yourself. I don't see this as an assumption at all...

 

[GetInTheSoup!]

I agree that a declaration of war is one way to start a war, another way is to hurt something nationally important without any words. There are tons of ways, the declaration is however, generally accepted and alerts the country to the state that they are in. And also, regardless of whether or not you declare war, if you can defend yourself, such actions are generally acceptable.

My beef, however, is that wartime is actually literally different than peacetime. It isn't; time just passes, we decide what "time" it is. It doesn't have to be generally agreed upon, just by enough people to cause an action to create war or peace.

Here is an example: (I intend you no violence, I promise!!!!) If I had it brewing in my head to stab you for whatever reason, and you didn't know it, it is safe for you to assume you are at peace with the world (sans any other violence towards you). If I stab/attempt to stab you, regardless of whether I told you first, violence would begin. Here our battle begins without notice.

Now I'm uncertain as to whether this microcosm transfers unto the large scale of war, but I think it does.

 

[Skler]

Wartime is when war has been declared and/or both sides are well aware of the other side's intent to harm them. The sides also need to have some capability to fight each other. You can't declare war on unarmed civilians as they are incapable of defending themselves. A country has unarmed civilians but it also has a military, so declaring war on a country is acceptable, but targeting non-combatants is against the Geneva Convention. It is almost always a crime to kill people (sans obvious reasons such as self defense, them being a wanted criminal, etc.) unless you are in a war with them.

Things that were not done in Wartime and are thus illegal:
Pearl Harbor
Holocaust (Early on, before killing started)
9/11
Darfur
Rwanda
Armania (I can't spell)


These are all acts done while the other side had no idea what was happening until it was too late. Some are acts of war done against a defenseless group of non-combatants.

Vietnam was a war even though it was not declared. Both sides were well aware of what was going on and were capable of defending themselves.




The construct argument is silly because everything we do is based off of them. Constructs are very real to us as humans. Good and Bad are as real to mankind as the Sun is to our solar system. Unless you live in a completely isolated place with nothing but materials that were placed there to indoctrinate you to believe that good is bad and bad is good then you will have a very similar view of morality when compared to most other people.

Extremist states are great examples of places that manage to brainwash people into such lives. Hitler did not live in an extremist state and is thus exempt from this. He was brought up to be a pretty normal guy, he was just willing to do anything to attain power.


One thing I've always been curious about, if good/evil are entirely taught then how do you explain the people who revolt against extremist societies? I mean the younger ones. The people who are brought up to hate, hate, hate, taught nothing but hate and violence yet still manage to see that what is happening is wrong.

 

[GetInTheSoup!]

Most wars that attempt at being successful wars work well under the condition that a motivation is established, a rallying cause.
In WWI the Archduke was murdered, that is the popular notion as to what started the war. No war was declared before his death, and no war had to be declared after his death, but it was.
If you can't declare war on unarmed civilians, then why does war happen? Are soldiers/politicians just that much more bloodthirsty/ willing to forward their goals through violence, and if so why do we elect them?
Why do we fight? Many suggest it is to continue a culture's dominance, or work towards the goals of an aggressor country, and even if you were to suggest that a country fight for a country's, there are flaws with that idea. If no one needed protection due to "peacetime", then what do we protect exactly? For all intents and purposes, if we're all waiting to be aggressors, and no one country is ever desiring to be an aggressor, there should be no fighting, just a lot of tension, right?
Genocide, is a little different than terror, if only for the fact that the oppressors in genocide are in positions of power, and terrorists, are desirous of power. Controllers of genocide can sustain their efforts against a people, due to wealth and strategic awareness. Terrorists commit to symbolic actions which aren't truly effective beyond riling the masses left alive up, and allowing a leader of the terrorized nation a soapbox to further a particular agenda regardless of justice (it may be "just"). Regardless, both work as valid ways to start a war as has been proven.
Could you give me an example of a publicized war that was started without some primary action, especially one occurring to non-civilians? Even one that wasn't committed as "an act of terror" unto the country that see themselves as defenders? In war, surprising your enemy is one of the primary steps to victory, if not for this then those in power would remain in power forever. Isn't one of the purposes of war, to change the status quo?
Also, when does one transition from defending themselves to becoming aggressors?
I don't know enough about Vietnam to say anything, but I suspect it isn't as simple as that; both countries didn't spontaneously combust into war.

Constructs are important to human society, but they are relative. They change with time and space, so of course values of bad and good do as well. They are dependent on communication, and work under modus operandi, which may change as long as we communally agree to the change for whatever reason. The sun however, is not relative in that it exists all the time in this universe, until it explodes and it, and we, no longer exist.
In our solar system our sun is the "realest" sun, while I'm sure in other solar systems their sun is the "realest" sun. Our suns are equally important and providers of life, but they are only truly valued by those who are affected by them. Until they move into our solar system their sun is the primary "sun" and is thusly the most important sun. Just as my good, my society's good, is the most important good to me, versus somebody else's. This is especially applicable if I find the quality of life and my surrounding community enjoyable to my existence. With discontent comes the desire to learn different things. It is the movement and evolution of knowledge that creates learning. See Plato's cave metaphor for better clarification.
Europe post WWI was not a great place to be brought up, if it were WWII wouldn't have had the impact that it did. Thusly, Hitler may not have grown up in what we consider a normal environment today. Normal is as subjective as good and bad. While he may have grown up in Austria and not Germany, that does not denote whether or not he hung out with Austrians that were unaffected by the war. Europe was (and sometimes still is) a reluctant melting pot, and that speaks easily of cultural diffusion and the spreading of ideas. Hitler could easily have been influenced by others of non-Austrian descent (HUGE assumption).
The reason people change their mind is typically because of the spread of knowledge. But that spread of knowledge does not necessarily just occur because others move in and spread ideas. There could be life experiences that prove the standard societal value is not as "good/valuable" as another value. Curiosity is a great reason to learn a new set of values; you realize you don't "like" the way your community does something and instead you try something else. I think its one of those evolutionary advantages. One of the reasons this sort of thing happens more constantly today than ever before is because the global community is becoming more solidified, variation in culture examples is becoming more apparent, and people realize a value system they may like better than those they have been originally indoctrinated too.

 

[Skler]

Wars are usually started by significant events, but rarely is a war truly a war until it has been declared or both sides understand what is going on. Vietnam was technically never declared, but both sides knew it was a war. Surprise is a huge factor in wars but launching an attack on an unprepared country is very illegal according to international law (Geneva). Pearl Harbor was a crime, as Japan had never informed the United States of its intent. Pearl Harbor was a very intelligent military move, but it was entirely against the law.

As far as Vietnam goes, the United States had been backing the South Vietnamese for a long time to try and stop the spread of communism. The war between SV and NV had been going on for a while because the NV wanted to "unite Vietnam" under communism. The USA then begins sending in troops to defend the SV. War is never declared, but the US attacks NVA (NV army) bases/cities and the NVA attack US installations throughout SV. The whole thing goes on without war being declared by either side. I don't think the original war (SV vs NV) was declared either, but I'm a bit foggy on that.


Good and Bad have not changed very much throughout all of civilized history. Killing the innocent has always been wrong (though what constitutes as innocent has changed a lot), stealing has always been wrong, adultery has always been wrong. The core of morality is fairly stable and not likely to change any time soon. Even in extremist areas it is considered wrong to kill the innocent (they just say all people of X race or X religion are not innocent) or steal.

Regardless of all that, this is about Hitler. None of this happened to Hitler, he was a man brought up in rather normal conditions (Austria, not the ****hole that was Germany after WWI) who had a solid grasp on what is right and wrong. He was a power hungry man and one can not defend him. He was well aware of how wrong his actions were but he choose to do them anyways.

If Hitler were so convinced what he was doing was correct, why did he not flee Berlin or at least stand trial? Surely he could not be found guilty because he was only doing what was right!

 

[rvkevin]

If no one needed protection due to "peacetime", then what do we protect exactly? For all intensive purposes, if we're all waiting to be aggressors, and no one country is ever desiring to be an aggressor, there should be no fighting, just a lot of tension, right?

Compare the military to the police force. They are not waiting to be aggressors; they are being trained to respond to certain situations. To say that no person ever desires to be a criminal and there should be no crimes, and we therefore have no need for the police is delusional wishful thinking.

Could you give me an example of a publicized war that was started without some primary action, especially one occurring to non-civilians? Even one that wasn't committed as "an act of terror" unto the country that see themselves as defenders?

I think the Greco-Persian Wars and the Civil War would qualify on both accounts. Not to mention that 12-7 was against non-civilians.

 

[sandwhale]

@Sucumbio:
You basically just repeated that people have no killing instinct based once agained on some personal theory that comes out of nowhere while making the ingenious statement that people kill for a reason...

Besides I dunno about you, but I've yet to read about or meet a baby who was capable of taking down another human being.

Oh god you just lost all credibility now. That's just INCREDIBLY STUPID!
And you'd be surprised to know that babies don't just think about taking care of their body's needs, it's just a primordial need which shows more than their quest for hapiness. With that comes the search of power thus dominance thus eradicating obstacles. Plus murder gives a great boost of adrenaline and a feeling of being all mighty. And basically, saying that people can't conceive murder if not forced to or haven't witnessed is pure imaginary theoratical bull**** and goes against the basic concepts of human evolution.

 

[Crimson King]

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.

While well-written, you are plain wrong here. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for attempting a coup. While rallying for his coup, Hitler was usually spewing his anti-semetic rhetoric.

I refuse to let a clear lie which was the basis of your argument that Hitler was somehow given hardships to hate te Jews.

Will post more when I get to a computer.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

While well-written, you are plain wrong here. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for attempting a coup. While rallying for his coup, Hitler was usually spewing his anti-semetic rhetoric.

I refuse to let a clear lie which was the basis of your argument that Hitler was somehow given hardships to hate te Jews.

Will post more when I get to a computer.

The quote says 'hitler was disgusted when he began,' implying this was far off in the past and that he definitely changed pre-coup-attempt. I didn't mean that he was nice to the Jews up until he got out of prison and than suddenly he turned all uppity.

edit: If I got my research wrong though I am happy to be corrected. If you can't trust the facts, you can't trust your opinion.

Also, SKler

"If Hitler were so convinced what he was doing was correct, why did he not flee Berlin or at least stand trial? Surely he could not be found guilty because he was only doing what was right!"



How willing would you be to go stand trial in the courts of the enemy? What if Japan was going to prosecute Truman for 'war crimes' if they'd won the war? I mean, it's court, right? The innocent are innocent and the guilty are guilty, right? You yourself could beat your own argument easily, I'm convinced you're smarter than this.

 

[Skler]

If I was so convinced that I was correct I would go down fighting the massive injustice rather than kill myself. Perhaps Hitler was a cowardly politician and not a man who actually stuck to his convictions (or he wasn't actually all that against the Jews in the first place and they were just a scapegoat, as I've pointed out and nobody has bothered arguing against yet).

I'm also fairly certain Hitler had no idea there would be trials. Besides, killing yourself does not further your own goals. If he died by charging the enemy lines, rifle firing, then I might think Hitler believed in what he was doing. He loved power, and when he saw it was lost he offed himself like the coward he was. His actions were not those of a man who believed in what he did.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

(or he wasn't actually all that against the Jews in the first place and they were just a scapegoat, as I've pointed out and nobody has bothered arguing against yet).

I've been pretty civil in the topic up to to this point but now I'm going to call you out. How are we supposed to argue against something like that? You are telling us, "I know what was really going on in Hitler's brain, despite what he may have written and said to millions of people about his various life experiences."

What are we gonna say? No, I knew Hitler better than you? Come on. You're not putting forth any evidence, so we have nothing to rebuke. Maybe if you could cite some confidants of Hitler's revealing, "Yeah, he actually said he didn't care about the Jews, he just knew everyone would hate 'em so he picked them first,' or a written memo by Hitler saying he's glad to have the Jews around because there's no way he could have gotten the revolution started without them, than we would have something to discuss. But we don't. It's just you, saying you know what was really going on.

 

[LuigiKing]

Interesting, Brett.

This thread distracted me from economics for a little too long though O.o

 

[Sucumbio]

Perhaps Hitler was a cowardly politician and not a man who actually stuck to his convictions

killing yourself does not further your own goals. If he died by charging the enemy lines, rifle firing, then I might think Hitler believed in what he was doing.

You seem to have answered your own posit, here. I don't disagree with this, actually. Not only do I find Hitler's suicide to be a cowardly act, but I find his choice to murder 6 million + civilians in the name of racial purity equally cowardly. How gung-ho could he have been? His best course of action was to pass laws, lol then order soldiers at the threat of death, to round people up for slaughter. He was definitely no warrior.

(or he wasn't actually all that against the Jews in the first place and they were just a scapegoat, as I've pointed out and nobody has bothered arguing against yet).

There's no real way or point to arguing this. Whether Hitler secretly liked Jews and it just happened to pass that there were enough of them to make a viable scapegoat... or if they were scapegoated -because- he hated them, the end result was the same, a holocaust.

I'm also fairly certain Hitler had no idea there would be trials.

Uh, no he was certain he was going to be held accountable for his actions. War trials weren't a new thing before WWII. There's a lot leading up to his actual suicide, but one major factor was shortly before he killed himself he'd learned of the execution of his ally Benito Mussolini and vowed not to share a similar fate.

His actions were not those of a man who believed in what he did.

Oftentimes self-martyrdom is seen as a permanent fixture on the hearts and minds of the world. He cheated justice, by killing himself. He avoided being paraded around at trial as a loony, or a severely misguided man. In his own warped way, killing himself would have been a fitting end, rather than surrender. Our hindsight lets us see him for what he was, but at the time, his suicide may have served its own purpose. Even today there are groups who call upon this man and his legacy, despite his cowardice.

 

[rvkevin]

Oftentimes self-martyrdom is seen as a permanent fixture on the hearts and minds of the world. He cheated justice, by killing himself. He avoided being paraded around at trial as a loony, or a severely misguided man. In his own warped way, killing himself would have been a fitting end, rather than surrender. Our hindsight lets us see him for what he was, but at the time, his suicide may have served its own purpose. Even today there are groups who call upon this man and his legacy, despite his cowardice.

I agree, suicide preserves his image. One thing not mentioned is that it also covers up any medical abnormalities. Some people have proposed that he had Parkinson's disease. Not saying that he did, but if he did have a disease that affects cognitive functioning, then not letting that be known preserves his image as a rational leader rather than a psychopath. Just another thing to consider, but I think to conclude that all he liked was power and that once he had none, he concluded that life was not worth living is a little shortsighted.

 

[Skler]

Hitler was extremely angry at, as I said before, Britain, France and Russia for giving Germany a thorough stomping in WWI and then emasculating the country. His main enemy was not the Jews, they were a stepping stone to him. He did not like the Jews, but he was not nearly as angry at the Jews as he was at the countries that ruined his precious fatherland. Mein Kampf is a book of propaganda.

There's plenty of proof that Hitler did not originally plan on killing all the Jews. Yes, had he made camps who's original intent was to hold them (so other Germans could live on their property) and he didn't plan on being kind to them, but he did not expect to slaughter them. Most of the "kill all the Jews" stuff came from Himmler.

Reasons Hitler did not hate Jews up until he became a politician (and the reason he did so is because it was a popular political stance):
Hitler told the Jewish Doctor of his mother, just when the doctor explained that his mother would not survive, that "I will be grateful to you forever."
The officer who recommended Hitler for the Iron Cross was Jewish.
In Vienna, the majority of Hitler's paintings were purchased by Jews.
Hitler fought along side many Jews during World War I, the German armed forced were full of them (and many of them were kept up until very late in WWII).


Also, Mein Kampf, having been written by Hitler during his bid for power, is MASSIVELY historically inaccurate. He lies about many different things. His hatred of all Jews is one of them, as he ended up giving the doctor who treated his mother passage to America when no Jews were allowed to travel out of the country.

The man was not anti-Semitic until politics forced him to be. There is absolutely no documented proof that Hitler hated Jews up until he joined politics. There is, however, proof that he did have Jewish contacts and liked at least some Jews prior to (and his mercy for the doctor shows he had some during) his political career.


If you really want citations for that stuff just do a quick google search of "Hitler" and that quote of his, or Hitler and Iron Cross, Jews in German Military WWII, etc. Now feel free to find some diary entries of Hitler showing he hated Jews before Mein Kampf and things that aren't just historical speculation.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I wish I'd known about this guy, I would have loved to add him to the op:

Fred Phelps,

Otherwise known as the head of the most hated family in America, the Westborough Baptist Church,

was a lawyer honored by the NAACP. He brought down all the Jim Crow laws in his town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#Civil_rights_attorney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThUC1Q7rX4k <------this same guy, barely twenty years prior, was a civil rights activist. Amazing. I wish I could have followed him around to watch the metamorphosis.

SKler, can you post some links to substantiate these claims? For all we know, Hitler pulled a Karl Rove and it might have been a combination of both (he despised the Jews, and used them as scapegoats for the problems of the world). It's not really fair to say, "Okay, now I said all this stuff, go verify it for yourselves." When you make the claim, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders, not ours.

For instance, the part where you talk about the Jewish doctor healing his mother:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/hitler.htm
His mother developed terminal breast cancer and was treated by Dr. Edward Bloch, a Jewish doctor who served the poor. After an operation and excruciatingly painful and expensive treatments with a dangerous drug, she died on December 21, 1907.

All of that happened before Hitler ever even entered World War 1. But because the doctor happened to be Jewish, this is proof that Hitler had no problem with Jews? I agree with you that, yes, before his military service, Hitler had little, if any, animosity for Jews. The article even states a couple of his friends were Jewish.

According to John Toland's biography, Adolf Hitler, two of his closest friends at this time were Jewish, and he admired Jewish art dealers and Jewish operatic performers and producers. However, Vienna was a centre of anti-Semitism, and the media's portrayal of Jews as scapegoats with stereotyped attributes did not escape Hitler's fascination.

It wasn't until the war years later that he really became the person we see him as now.

Communist-inspired insurrections shook Germany while Hitler was recovering from his injuries. Some Jews were leaders of these abortive revolutions, and this inspired hatred of Jews as well as Communists.

He considered Jews to be a hugely contributing factor for the reason Germany lost WW1.

And thank you for this: "There's plenty of proof that Hitler did not originally plan on killing all the Jews."

YES. That is the whole point of my essay. That he didn't plan on doing any of this at first. He just became so misguided and twisted over time that all the evils he manufactured and perpetrated were 'the right thing to do,' in his mind.

 

[Skler]

Smashboards just ate my post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bloch

Everything you need to know about Hitler's treatment of the Jewish doctor. He was given protection by the German government. Hitler did not hate all Jews.

 

[kataklysm336]

Hitler was extremely angry at, as I said before, Britain, France and Russia for giving Germany a thorough stomping in WWI and then emasculating the country. His main enemy was not the Jews, they were a stepping stone to him. He did not like the Jews, but he was not nearly as angry at the Jews as he was at the countries that ruined his precious fatherland. Mein Kampf is a book of propaganda.

Hitler was angry because of the fall of Germany in general. He felt cheated out of everything, he felt the country had been cheated as well. Inflation rose, people were poor, the economy was TERRIBLE, worse than anything experienced here in America, and somehow, admist all the poor Germans, were the rich Jews. Now if everyone in your country is poor except one group of people, things start to look funny? Oh maybe the Jews were in on it all, and helped Germany fall? Maybe that's why they are doing so well?

He hated the Jews because they were successful at a time when the German nation was poor.

Reasons Hitler did not hate Jews up until he became a politician (and the reason he did so is because it was a popular political stance):
Hitler told the Jewish Doctor of his mother, just when the doctor explained that his mother would not survive, that "I will be grateful to you forever."
The officer who recommended Hitler for the Iron Cross was Jewish.
In Vienna, the majority of Hitler's paintings were purchased by Jews.
Hitler fought along side many Jews during World War I, the German armed forced were full of them (and many of them were kept up until very late in WWII).

This is a very poor argument. The doctor who saved his mother, the man who awarded him a medal, and the fact that he fought beside Jews in WWI is supposed to be evidence that he likes Jews? If someone just saved your mother's life are you gonna care if he's black/white/arab/jewish/ect?

As I have already mentioned Hitler's hatred of Jews arose AFTER WWI, and were directly related to the effects of WWI. Everything you named were events that transpired BEFORE WWI even happened.

Also, Mein Kampf, having been written by Hitler during his bid for power, is MASSIVELY historically inaccurate. He lies about many different things. His hatred of all Jews is one of them, as he ended up giving the doctor who treated his mother passage to America when no Jews were allowed to travel out of the country.

Mein Kampf written in his bid for power? The book was written almost a decade before Hitler even came to office, while he was imprisoned for trying to incite revolution. He was not vying for power, he hadn't even begun his bid for power yet. How do you know he's lying? Cause he let 1 jewish man leave? I guess we should disregard the other 6 million he imprisoned and murdered.



Hitler was misled, and probably clinically insane, but did he have valid reasons for doing what he did? Definitely. Does that make it morally sound? Definitely not.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Hate when your post gets lost to the void.

Because of the poor economic situation of the Hitler family at that time, Bloch had been working for reduced prices, sometimes taking no money at all. The then 18 year old Hitler granted him his "everlasting gratitude" for this ("Ich werde Ihnen ewig dankbar sein"). This showed in 1908 when Hitler wrote Bloch a postcard assuring him of his gratitude. Young Hitler expressed his gratitude and reverence to Bloch with handmade gifts, for example, a large wall painting which according to Bloch's daughter Trude Kren was lost in the course of time. Even in 1937 Hitler inquired about Bloch's well-being and called him an "Edeljude" (noble Jew).

This can mean several things at once though. It could mean he treated a 'rebel Jew' the same way we might have treated a 'rebel Japanese' who defected to our side. Hitler saw a Jew who didn't care about money and genuinely wanted to help everyone around him, keeping his mother alive for years without asking for any compensation. Maybe Hitler was touched by that, he often championed social justice in his causes (I believe, even up until the end of the war, he made sure no German citizens ever went hungry again, right?)

Maybe even Hitler couldn't quite muster up the doucheness to kill the guy who kept his mother alive for years.

 

[Skler]

The point I've been trying to make is Hitler did not blanket-hate all Jews.

For the record, Bloch did let his mother die (after making her go through extremely painful procedures). A lot of sources say Bloch letting his mother die is what made Hitler hate Jews.

The German military even after WWI was full of high ranking Jewish officers. Hitler did not have them all killed at once. If he thought Jews were backstabbers who sold his country out in WWI why did he not have all these Jews exterminated? His actions go contrary to his supposed "beliefs" in Mein Kampf.

Yes, Mein Kampf was part of his bid for power. It was a book of propaganda to make people believe what he wanted them to believe.

Not enough time for a longer post, smash brothers is calling.

 

[Kadano]

I only read the original post. My thoughts to it, being a young Austrian who thus also knows a bit about Hitler:
The title is too populistic. Defense as you understand it should come to every single being in the world and would thus be trivial. To my mind, one can only defend somebody whose thoughts he supports in some way, which you do not.

You use many words to express two basic things:
1) Ideology is bad as it replaces critical thinking with dogmatic pseudo-facts.
2) A simplified view of Hitler or anyone else is illegitimate.

You'd wonder how my country - Hitler's origin - treats with its past. The majority keeps silent about it; most of those who actually have an opinion about Hitler are condemned. Yet there's a huge public interest in it, which makes magazines with cathlines like "HITLER'S SON DISCOVERED" or "HITLER'S SEXUAL LIFE" sell extremely well.
In my opinion, this creates a dangerous mindset and ultimatively disrespects the victims of that time.
If anything is to be done with the knowledge of those years, it is to analyse it to find how something like this can happen.
Now it definitely hasn't got nothing to do with a special property of the German/Austrian population (these thoughts, frequently uttered by today's people outsaid these nations, in fact are nationalist theirselves). It's just the fact that people were starving and wanted to believe in something. Hitler's ideas were easy to follow: they evoked no need for self-criticism as they put the blame on someone else, and they promised a definite solution.
There is no reason to believe this couldn't happen again, in any part of the world. Why? Because if you feel near death, moral is mortal. As you consider your life more important than your moral, you abandon your moral. But you won't reassume it as you would have to admit you were behaving wrong.

Now the only consequence of this time that HAS to be made is to make up an individual basic moral that has to be anchored so deep within one's mind and actings that one will choose it over his own life. Anything else would not only implicate that the tragical deaths are made worthless, but only to sell one's very own humanity. Now that last point may seem ridiculous to you, but if we prefer drives over morals, we become hypocrites and rather less than animals than more.

EDIT: @Skler: of course Hitler was nowhere near consequent with his thoughts. They were mere express of his own hatred; if he'd thought about whether his actions went well with his former or present thoughts, he would have had to think over them as well, which he avoided naturally.

 

[TheManaLord]

@OP

I started to read and was skeptical and wrote you off as a fool. But then I saw how you didn't like Jews and how they're greedy and I just stopped reading and APPROVED. d(^_^)b good post


cool topic, I like how this is on smashboards

 

[Kadano]

@OP

I started to read and was skeptical and wrote you off as a fool. But then I saw how you didn't like Jews and how they're greedy and I just stopped reading and APPROVED. d(^_^)b good post


cool topic, I like how this is on smashboards

Either you are using zynism - which would be clearly out of place - or you are just plain ignorant.
The OP only used "the jews" in explanations, never did he call them greedy by nature (which is a rassistic, ideologic and downright dumb claim).

@Pink Reaper at the first site:

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.

They were definitely not thinking "we have to stop the war; the atom bomb seems to do this best". Like EVERYONE ELSE, whether it's Hitler, Bush, Napoleon or someone else, doesn't care for morals unless it would improve their position. It was more like "We've been wanting to test the nuclear bomb for ages on a real city; now we are in a war we didn't start so it will be fairly easy to justify the bombing in front of the public - let's do it. It's cheap and fast."
Now what you say is true as well of course, but it seems you put it as if the USA only cared for people's good.

 

[TheManaLord]

Huh? Jews have the genetic makeup of humans and rats. They're greedy hoarders who are attracted to shiny things. They have no spine and crumble to anything but by the greed of their nature they survive by toiling from others.

 

[rvkevin]

The point I've been trying to make is Hitler did not blanket-hate all Jews.

I don't think your point changes anything said about him being an anti-Semite. Its like the racist who says "but I have a black friend." Finding one exception does not break the general rule.

 

[Sucumbio]

They were definitely thinking "we have to stop the war; the atom bomb seems to do this best".

Fixed.

The bombs were dropped for 2 important reasons:

1.) To end the war quickly and efficiently. Think of it as the original "shock and awe." These boys were daunted at the prospect of more Island fighting. Millions already dead, and had they resorted to continue in this fashion, the bloodshed -on both sides- would have been even more ridiculously high. The atom bomb offered an excellent solution. It was powerful enough to equal the same onslaught that would have required thousands of men and equipment, all in one little bomb, and with little to no casualties to ourselves.

2.) To display power. The US was already noticing Stalin's move. Remember it was Gen. Patton who languished at the decision to not keep right on rolling through Berlin and straight on to Moscow. Had he been allowed to do this, we may have averted the Cold War altogether. But that's another topic.

"We've been wanting to test the nuclear bomb for ages on a real city; now we are in a war we didn't start so it will be fairly easy to justify the bombing in front of the public - let's do it. It's cheap and fast."

Well while it's true the US's nuclear research began in the 30's as a response to fears of Germany's research into nuclear weapons, there's little evidence to support our decision to drop the bombs was simply because it was a convenient time. The Manhattan Project wasn't cheap, either. In adjusted dollars it played to the tune of 22 billion.

 

[Kadano]

Of course all of the mentioned factors played an important role. What I wanted to express is that it didn't cost them (hardly) any money to drop the bomb, which had then already been made.
Also the sentence you removed the "not" from in your quote is missing an "only" after the not; sorry for that.

@TheManaLord: I highly disrespect your trolling. Your abuse of the internet's anonymity displays your poor mind. I cannot say that I will ignore you from now on, as I think ignoring is always the wrong option; but it doesn't matter whether I or someone else is falling for you or not. Your behavior is pathological, if you don't want to confront this, it's your problem.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I use Jewish blood instead of syrup.

 

[Kadano]

@SwastikaPyle and TheManaLord: if you two are following some joke only known within the USA or certain parts of it, please clear me up a little. I can't convince you of course, as it doesn't matter to you whether I'm dropping out of here, and the fewest trolls let one argue with them. However, I still apply to your reason.

 

[i1337]

really good read, lol.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I understand your point and I agree with you Kadano. This could most definitely happen again, that's why I think we should examine it as closely as possible.



Succumbio if you reverse the roles, I bet you'd see it as unfair. (also that article you posted totally ignores the fact that the Japanese were trying to figure out a way to end the war on their terms despite the nationalistic propaganda)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.

Instead of us invading Japan, let's say Japan had won the war. They fought long and hard across the ocean for awhile, but eventually they've penetrated the United States border and taken California and most of the East Coast for themselves. The well-armed American populace is ready to fight back with everything they have against the imperial invaders. Germany is about to enter the war anyways, so Japan is pretty muchly going to win the war.

Japan's emperor meets with his most trusted advisors. They debate back and forth for a long time, and eventually the emperor chooses to drop an atomic bomb on the military populace to end the war early.

"Emperor, you can choose to bomb a drop on Chicago and kill a million Americans (while poisoning countless more) or even more than that will die from a prolonged invasion."

"Well, what's a million American lives? Our troops come first."

The military generals are horrified with the emperor's decision, by the way.

Would you say Japan did the right thing?

60 years later, they don't think it was that bad, because it kept Japanese citizens out of harm's way. And their 'tribe' matters more.

 

[-LzR-]

Very good read, there is a very good point. Made me rethink many things. Thanks for the good read.

 

[TheManaLord]

@SwastikaPyle and TheManaLord: if you two are following some joke only known within the USA or certain parts of it, please clear me up a little. I can't convince you of course, as it doesn't matter to you whether I'm dropping out of here, and the fewest trolls let one argue with them. However, I still apply to your reason.

I was taken aback when I saw this topic as the most recent under User Blogs. I was like "wtf, 'In defense of Hitler'?". I was a little confused but I was mostly lol'ing because how ******** this topic is. I read a little into it and I was like "uhhh whoever is in this topic deserves to be trolled". So I just sent out something anti-semetic and you were the first to bite. Nothing specific, just that Jews are intrinsically miserly because of their culture and I thought everyone knew that.

jk still trolling

this topic is stupid as hell

You seem vaguely intelligent, get out of here!



Also. You're a ******. Poor mind? I would say this **** ten times faster in real life and hell of a lot more funny too! life is for laughter!!! go enjoy yourself in whatever way you can. Smoke some pot or some ****

 

[rvkevin]

While publicly stating their intent to fight on to the bitter end, Japan's leaders at the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") were privately making entreaties to the Soviet Union to mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.

If the US had no idea this was the case, I think it would be irrelevant in analyzing their actions.

Instead of us invading Japan, let's say Japan had won the war...Japan's emperor meets with his most trusted advisors. They debate back and forth for a long time, and eventually the emperor chooses to drop an atomic bomb on the military populace to end the war early.
Would you say Japan did the right thing?

If the US initially attacked Japan, I would not have a problem with it, keeping all other things constant at the time (i.e. level of technology & knowledge).

 

[Geddan]

hitler was born in april, i think that possibly compensates for some things.

 

[TheManaLord]

Hitler was born on 4/20 <3

It's since become a holiday for stoners. Coincidence?

 

[Kadano]

I was taken aback when I saw this topic as the most recent under User Blogs. I was like "wtf, 'In defense of Hitler'?". I was a little confused but I was mostly lol'ing because how ******** this topic is. I read a little into it and I was like "uhhh whoever is in this topic deserves to be trolled". So I just sent out something anti-semetic and you were the first to bite. Nothing specific, just that Jews are intrinsically miserly because of their culture and I thought everyone knew that.

jk still trolling

this topic is stupid as hell

You seem vaguely intelligent, get out of here!

I had, more or less, the same feelings as you when I discovered this thread.
You actually missed something. The original poster used a very bad title, that's true. But it seems to me, from reading the very first post, he's neither racist nor antisemitist. He just wanted to say that Hitler was a human (even though a totally failed one) and not, like (according to him, that is) the incarnation of evil. This is, of course, something trivial to know which is why I wrote him my reply. But his first message since then consisted of pure nonsense, which made me think the only reasonable person in this thread one can argue with was Sucumbio.
But actually SwastikaPyle just wrote a response. I still don't get his troll message, however.

Also sorry to everyone for my poor English skills; my first language is German.

Also. You're a ******. Poor mind? I would say this **** ten times faster in real life and hell of a lot more funny too! life is for laughter!!! go enjoy yourself in whatever way you can. Smoke some pot or some ****

I don't approve of the use of trolling. Never ever. And I still support what I said concerning that. "Poor mind" meant trolls that don't care or don't pretend to care about the problems they are trolling to.

 

[TheManaLord]

It's all good. Your english is great for being a non-native speaker. I understand your situation more clearly now. People in the US just like being outrageous and do whatever to get attention. I'm out of here now, have fun with Hitler kids!

 

[Kadano]

It's all good. Your english is great for being a non-native speaker. I understand your situation more clearly now. People in the US just like being outrageous and do whatever to get attention. I'm out of here now, have fun with Hitler kids!

I'm glad to hear this, but I still beg you to stop trolling in favor of giving a clear opinion. You only cause confusion with it. I don't think anyone would reconsider his mind because of a troll, which is why I replied that harshly.