In defense of Hitler

[john!]

That's the great thing about trolling... you can act like you already know everything about the topic and that everyone else's opinions aren't worth your time... when you really are clueless and have nothing to contribute.

 

[Kadano]

Which is in fact the sad thing about trolling.

 

[TheManaLord]

No John, the great thing about trolling is that it's funny as ****.

And side effects of wasting other peoples time and effort. And it's just supposed to rile things up! It's the crux of the internet.

 

[Sucumbio]

I come for the trolls, but I stay for the pie.

Succumbio if you reverse the roles, I bet you'd see it as unfair.

I do see your point. The one thing that makes it difficult to reconcile is as rvkevin points out, they struck first. Also it's not as if we didn't try conventional warfare first. We lost a LOT of soldiers in the Pacific theater. The bombs were an act of resolution to bring them to their knees, to force a surrender on -our- terms, which is always the preferred scenario, and in a timely manner, which was becoming desperately important.

I will say this... I have no illusions. We brought it, and brought it hard. Those two cities suffered badly, and what's more, the US is the only nation in the history of nations to ever actually drop one of those things on someone else (and ironically the US has only signed, not ratified the CTBT). It was in one vein a horrible choice to make, but it was either that, or continue to fight conventionally for who-knows-how long, and possibly run out of steam, ergo, lose. We had to win. We had the bombs, we were going to use them. The only reason there's even any thoughts post-war about its validity as a weapon, is because of its sheer destructive power, as if it's TOO powerful to use. Then again, the same could be said of the machine gun, technically, which is why the causalities of WWI were so high. What's different is that you still have to man your gun. A bomb, you can drop it (or later, launch as ICBM). Giant destruction at the touch of a button. This may seem highly unfair, but this is also why the US is hesitant to agree to not use them. Even Obama has recently agreed to ban the use of nuclear devices in war, except for certain countries, Iran being one of them.

Looking at warfare throughout history, we see that casualties are oftentimes directly proportional to the strategy involved. Take the American Civil War, for instance. Hundreds of thousands, dead. Why? Mainly because the tactics involved lining up in a row and marching forward in columns into walls of bullets, while shooting bullets of your own. You'd win if you could muster enough men to literally over-run the enemy, but a "victory" typically came at a high price. The nuke basically eliminates this "convention" in war... the idea that a battle is only fair if both sides share an equal chance in losing the same number of people. A nuke makes it so one side can win without losing anyone of their own, especially if its a launched nuke. Granted the other side may have a nuclear launch-retaliation prepared with nukes which leads to mutually assured destruction, but this would be why nukes are so frowned upon. Ultimately the US made the right decision, but at the same time it was a terrible decision to have to make. Of course I'd rather it'd never happened, it'd have been better if Japan had not attacked us at Pearl Harbor, also, it'd have been better if Japan had not tried to conquer the Pacific in the first place, but that was their call, and so we made ours. Putting the shoe on the other foot may lead to a valuable exercise in thought, but it's just not applicable in the real, there's too many differences between what we did, vs what it'd have been like if they'd done that to us.

I'd be interested to know just what a Japaneses citizen thinks about the bombings, if they hate us for it, or if they sympathize with our decision.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

The fact that Japan struck first is pretty important too, but at the same time, we punished the citizens for the decision of Japan's war council. What you have posted is a very compelling and reasonable argument, and I actually would have been in favor of dropping a bomb if it was used purely to destroy military targets (the firebombings are even more disgusting), but I don't think I could ever be in the same place Truman was and consider it the only option available. There had to be another way out.

From what I've gathered from various anecdotes in this thread, apparently the Japanese opinions vary just as much as ours.



Also, does anyone here have any useful links on Japan's intense propaganda machine during WW2? Those guys were geniuses. You'd never see a platoon of American soldiers detonate themselves with grenades (to die with honor for their country, apparently?).

 

[rvkevin]

I'd be interested to know just what a Japaneses citizen thinks about the bombings, if they hate us for it, or if they sympathize with our decision.

I am pretty sure that they would object to its use because of the long term effects. However, at that time, it was expected that the radiation would dissipate and anyone who would have died from the radiation would have died from the immediate blast first. To show how little after-effects the leaders thought the bombs would have, some generals proposed to use atomic bombs to clear beaches so that US troops could land unhindered (as to avoid another D-day). However, knowing the long-term effects would make it objectionable to its use today.

The fact that Japan struck first is pretty important too, but at the same time, we punished the citizens for the decision of Japan's war council.

Conventional warfare at the time resulted in the same thing. In WWII, there were more civilian deaths than military deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties). So to say that the civilians where harmed from the result of the military council is fairly trivial.

Also, does anyone here have any useful links on Japan's intense propaganda machine during WW2? Those guys were geniuses. You'd never see a platoon of American soldiers detonate themselves with grenades (to die with honor for their country, apparently?).

They thought their leader was divine:

"The Emperor was not put on trial, but he was forced[51] to explicitly reject (in the Ningen-sengen (人間宣言?)) the State Shinto claim that the Emperor of Japan was an arahitogami, i.e., an incarnate divinity. This was motivated by the fact that, according to the Japanese constitution of 1889, the Emperor had a divine power over his country, which was derived from the shinto belief that the Japanese Imperial Family was the offspring of the sun goddess Amaterasu. Hirohito was however persistent in the idea that the emperor of Japan should be considered a descendant of the gods."-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

 

[SuperBowser]

I went to the exact spot the bomb was dropped in Hiroshima last year.

http://www.escortsdynastyqueens.com/festival-event/dome-of-genbaku-peace-memorial-in-hiroshima.html

It was a powerful moment. For me, that is all I needed to see to know I don't want anyone to use atomic bombs.

 

[Crimson King]

Any more trolling in this thread will be dealt with even more harshly than it has.

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.

While reading it, I still disagree entirely with his point. Hitler was not just the product of his environment, nor his rampant addiction to meth (that wasn't until 1942 did he start shooting it up). Hitler ordered the death of 13 million people. At that point in one's insanity, you are not a victim of circumstances, you are a murderer. Seeing as the Holocaust began in 1933, and Hitler was absolute ruler by this point, he is just as much to blame for what happened in the camps as everyone who pulled the triggers, turned on the gas, etc.

While it's fun and shocking to call a new light on someone infamous, by the end of the day, Hitler was still a mass murderer and taking someone's life for your own reasons (no matter the reason) is evil and wrong.

 

[Suspect]

This was a very interesting read, but I do want to point out that Osama Bin Laden is not "real".

Yea you can call me one of "those people" if you want.

 

[rvkevin]

Hitler ordered the death of 13 million people. At that point in one's insanity, you are not a victim of circumstances, you are a murderer. Seeing as the Holocaust began in 1933, and Hitler was absolute ruler by this point, he is just as much to blame for what happened in the camps as everyone who pulled the triggers, turned on the gas, etc.

While it's fun and shocking to call a new light on someone infamous, by the end of the day, Hitler was still a mass murderer and taking someone's life for your own reasons (no matter the reason) is evil and wrong.

"It is idle to argue which race or races were the original representative of human culture and hence the real founders of all that we sum up under the word 'humanity.' It is simpler to raise this question with regard tithe present, and here an easy, clear answer results. All the human culture,all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today,are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan."-Mein Kampf

I think you missed the point. The OT said his intention was to probe why he did such actions and try to understand how one could come to such a view. So if the answer is, he didn't consider them human (as shown above), and thought that it was not immoral for humans to kill non-humans; if this is the case, then it is logical that he did not think that he was doing anything immoral, which was the OT's point of how someone can do harm while thinking they are doing good because they have false beliefs (which is all too common in religious circles and has all too real modern day implications).

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."-Mein Kampf

Not to mention that he may have had some religious motivations. This does not sound all that foreign to the Koran distinguishing between believers and unbelievers and then calling for the deaths for the latter, which has all too real modern day implications. Which leads to question of why do some people subscribe to divine command theory?

 

[Deleted member]

I agree, except I wouldn't call it a defense of Hitler. People are responsible for their actions, period. More like "A journey inside the motives of hitler". Evil shouldn't be used to describe someone, people aren't evil but sometimes they do bad things, and I would say that killing 11 million Jews/Gypsies (in case you didnt know they were victims too and they didn't do anything wrong at all , and most of them were wiped out by Hitler).

I don't agree with your statement about Israel either, im pretty sure if we signed a peace treaty with mexico and they shelled bombs into california for months every day, we would probably invade them too.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I would have titled it something else, but than no one would click.

 

[Kadano]

I agree, except I wouldn't call it a defense of Hitler. People are responsible for their actions, period. More like "A journey inside the motives of hitler". Evil shouldn't be used to describe someone, people aren't evil but sometimes they do bad things, and I would say that killing 11 million Jews/Gypsies (in case you didnt know they were victims too and they didn't do anything wrong at all , and most of them were wiped out by Hitler).

Exactly. That's what I told SwastikaPyle as well, but he ignores every criticism about his thoughts, in this case his title, which is misleading and abuses the severity of the Hitler topic for nothing but populism - he only used it to get many replies, in which he succeeded of course.

While reading it, I still disagree entirely with his point. Hitler was not just the product of his environment, nor his rampant addiction to meth (that wasn't until 1942 did he start shooting it up). Hitler ordered the death of 13 million people. At that point in one's insanity, you are not a victim of circumstances, you are a murderer. Seeing as the Holocaust began in 1933, and Hitler was absolute ruler by this point, he is just as much to blame for what happened in the camps as everyone who pulled the triggers, turned on the gas, etc.

While it's fun and shocking to call a new light on someone infamous, by the end of the day, Hitler was still a mass murderer and taking someone's life for your own reasons (no matter the reason) is evil and wrong.

Your point (Hitler's actions were hateful and destructive (and yes, thus plain evil) towards humanity, thus had to be stopped and all crimes had to be punished severely) is, of course, true. The OP wanted to look at it from the viewpoint of determinism:
If every human being's actions and mind are solely caused by his genetically determined basic mindset (which alone would, imho, never have caused Hitler to commit such extreme crimes) and the influence from outside, there must be some crucial things that happened to him that made him become what he had become.

If I was an admin, I'd force the OP to change the title.

However, Crimson King, I do think there are reasons to kill somebody justified. For example killing Hitler. After all, doing it "for humanity" is still one's OWN reason as it is him who cares about this.

 

[Kadano]

I would have titled it something else, but than no one would click.

Now the end justifies the means, huh? Also it's "then", not "than" in this case.
The title wasn't just phrased attractively; in fact you were lying as you actually don't "defend" Hitler. You just wonder what caused him to do what he did. But if you want to know this, you'd better read scientific books about this topic, which sure exist. Chances that there are experts about this topic in this forum are low; until now the majority of posts was, because of the misleading title, about something else.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I don't see why you guys are making a giant fuss over the title, gosh. It's not that bad, really. And you all read the topic to find what it was about, so there's no problem really. Titles are supposed to catch your attention, whether internet thread titles or book titles or newspaper article titles.

 

[Kadano]

I don't see why you guys are making a giant fuss over the title, gosh. It's not that bad, really. And you all read the topic to find what it was about, so there's no problem really. Titles are supposed to catch your attention, whether internet thread titles or book titles or newspaper article titles.

Because the title makes one think that the OP supports nazi thoughts. Although this isn't the case, it's still the only possible way to interpret it. But sure, I'm more sensitive as this whole topic is treated entirely different in Austria.

 

[rvkevin]

You just wonder what caused him to do what he did. But if you want to know this, you'd better read scientific books about this topic, which sure exist. Chances that there are experts about this topic in this forum are low; until now the majority of posts was, because of the misleading title, about something else.

Brain mapping isn't there yet. But they have mapped where we judge other people's moral actions. Also, we are able to significantly change the way we judge other people's moral actions by implementing a magnetic stimuli to that region of the brain. Also, our ethical reasoning changes based on how specialized that region of the brain is. This has nothing to do about how we decide how to make moral decisions, just how we judge other people's decisions.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

That's what I told SwastikaPyle as well, but he ignores every criticism about his thoughts, in this case his title, which is misleading and abuses the severity of the Hitler topic for nothing but populism - he only used it to get many replies, in which he succeeded of course. Now the end justifies the means, huh? Also it's "then", not "than" in this case. Exactly.

If you really want one so you don't feel ignored, here's your reply.

It's a topic title man. If people can get their feelings seriously hurt by my choice of topic title, I think they've got bigger problems than 'being misled.' I mean, if you don't like what I've written, literally the only thing you have to do to remedy that is move your cursor up to the top left and click 'back.' And I'm not gonna get my feelings hurt over something so silly either. None of us here judges books by their covers, right? Like half the posters in this topic openly admit that they clicked to see if it was some hate-filled white supremacist rant. People love to be outraged! I didn't make the rules. Unethical? I guess, about as unethical as you can get on a video game forum.

If you look back through the topic (which went on for 21 pages before you got here), I think you'll see I don't 'ignore' what everyone says and actually spend a lot of time defending my points. In a 350 post topic, you don't really have the time or inclination to reply to every little misinterpretation and angry outburst about what I wrote. When you write something, you know that you can't please everyone and some people are probably going to both misinterpret and/or get outraged by it. It's not something you should lose sleep over it's just something you need to accept.

This was a very interesting read, but I do want to point out that Osama Bin Laden is not "real".

Yea you can call me one of "those people" if you want.

I don't even know what this means. Like he's actually honestly not real? Those videos of him are extremely, extremely well done photoshop?

 

[Sucumbio]

I am pretty sure that they would object to its use because of the long term effects. However, at that time, it was expected that the radiation would dissipate and anyone who would have died from the radiation would have died from the immediate blast first. To show how little after-effects the leaders thought the bombs would have, some generals proposed to use atomic bombs to clear beaches so that US troops could land unhindered (as to avoid another D-day). However, knowing the long-term effects would make it objectionable to its use today.

Yeah that's what I figured... what's creepy is the ABCC was created to"observe" the survivors without offering any real medical attention which is what would have been the humane thing to do. But all in all I think it's hard to guess how a current day citizen of Japan would feel, other than what's already speculated, I suppose. This is a point I -could- put the shoe on the other foot, honestly. Well, just by comparing to 9/11... the "hole" in America is still there, the skyline of NYC forever changed... yeah I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth. It'd be unlikely a Japanese citizen would look on the nuclear bombings of their homeland and NOT feel some resentment.

Brain mapping isn't there yet. But they have mapped where we judge other people's moral actions. Also, we are able to significantly change the way we judge other people's moral actions by implementing a magnetic stimuli to that region of the brain. Also, our ethical reasoning changes based on how specialized that region of the brain is. This has nothing to do about how we decide how to make moral decisions, just how we judge other people's decisions.

>.> seriously? That's F'ing scary! "With this magnet I can make you feel ambivalent towards the slaughter of your family as it occurs in front of you." Well ok maybe not that severe but still.. This speaks volumes on how the brain works.

Now the end justifies the means, huh? Also it's "then", not "than" in this case.
The title wasn't just phrased attractively; in fact you were lying as you actually don't "defend" Hitler. You just wonder what caused him to do what he did. But if you want to know this, you'd better read scientific books about this topic, which sure exist. Chances that there are experts about this topic in this forum are low; until now the majority of posts was, because of the misleading title, about something else.

... something's been missed, methinks. It's not just a look at Hitler's motivations. It's a scolding to those who deify him because his acts were so heinous. By painting him as some comic-book-like super-villain it elevates him to a plateau beyond the reaches of proper analyzation, which works only to our detriment as historians, or in the least as people who would learn from history to help prevent it from happening again. His title is accurate, but simultaneously for the opposite of purposes, making it fairly clever, actually. In Hitler's defense, he was a regular Joe. I know the word "defense" connotes agreeing with his actions, but that's only if you take the title at face value, and ignore the rest.

I don't even know what this means. Like he's actually honestly not real? Those videos of him are extremely, extremely well done photoshop?

Some people think Osama bin Laden is an actor or mole put in place by the US to propagate an agenda.

 

[rvkevin]

>.> seriously? That's F'ing scary! "With this magnet I can make you feel ambivalent towards the slaughter of your family as it occurs in front of you." Well ok maybe not that severe but still.. This speaks volumes on how the brain works.

Not exactly. The stimuli makes you emphasize the outcome of an event and under emphasize the intent of the person. The example given was a person making coffee and adds sugar from a jar that is labeled poison. If they think it is poison and its actually sugar, then people were less critical of their actions. However, if the jar were labeled sugar, and it was actually poison, then they were more critical of their actions despite a lack of intent. It doesn't make you ambivalent, just more or less critical, more on the level of a developing child.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I think I know what you mean kevin. I remember reading this study awhile ago about why terrorism barely ever works, and it's apparently because people literally do not have the ability to understand the intent of the terrorists, they just see 'innocent people being killed' and think 'the terrorist's intent was to kill innocent people.' The message is totally lost, whatever it may have been.

Also, that ABCC link is pretty ****ed up. That's another thought process I can't even imagine. How could you just watch all these people suffering and dying right in front of you and say to yourself, "Well, just doing my job, no need to help them."

 

[rvkevin]

I think I know what you mean kevin. I remember reading this study awhile ago about why terrorism barely ever works, and it's apparently because people literally do not have the ability to understand the intent of the terrorists, they just see 'innocent people being killed' and think 'the terrorist's intent was to kill innocent people.' The message is totally lost.

Its not exactly the same thing. The terrorists intent is to actually kill people; they are intentionally flying a plane into a building. It would be like a pilot who had a heart attack and then hit a building and people blaming the pilot for the people killed in the crash on a similar scale as the terrorist. Also, looking at the individual terrorists, it would make you judge each one differently as the one who hit the towers did substantially more harm than the one who landed in a deserted field.

While this might be responsible for people not having the ability to discern the intent of terrorists, I just hope it is not the case that the majority of the adult populations' RTPJ is as developed as an eight year old. I think that other logical reasoning would be involved, such as everyone thinks similarly to me, I would never fly a plane into a building for any reason, therefore, no other person would fly a plane into a building for any reason. Now, defending premise one would be hard, but its kind of under the radar of saying "I can't believe anyone would fly a plane into a building."

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Its not exactly the same thing. The terrorists intent is to actually kill people; they are intentionally flying a plane into a building. It would be like a pilot who had a heart attack and then hit a building and people blaming the pilot for the people killed in the crash on a similar scale as the terrorist. Also, looking at the individual terrorists, it would make you judge each one differently as the one who hit the towers did substantially more harm than the one who landed in a deserted field.

I should have explained better. Of course the terrorists did mean to kill innocent people, but they do it in order to send some kind of message to the surrounding populace, e.g. Osama flies the plane into the towers, to send a message to America to stop supporting Israel. What we heard was, "This guy wanted to kill innocent people," as though killing innocent people was his only objective.

 

[rvkevin]

What we heard was, "This guy wanted to kill innocent people," as though killing innocent people was his only objective.

Do people actually believe this? That they had no ulterior motives, without knowing exactly what those motives are? Regardless of if they were economic, political, or religious, I don't think people believe that they had no other motives.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Do people actually believe this? That they had no ulterior motives, without knowing exactly what those motives are? Regardless of if they were economic, political, or religious, I don't think people believe that they had no other motives.

Man, when I was growing up in Idaho, it was like being in a constant echo chamber. That part in the OP where I sarcastically say, "Because he ****ing hates America!" was actually a verbatim quote I often heard from pretty much everyone around me.

If you've ever seen that documentary "Right america feeling wronged," that's the kind of person I'm talking about. The ones who think supervillains are real.

 

[rvkevin]

Man, when I was growing up in Idaho, it was like being in a constant echo chamber. That part in the OP where I sarcastically say, "Because he ****ing hates America!" was actually a verbatim quote I often heard from pretty much everyone around me.[/i].

What we heard was, "This guy wanted to kill innocent people," as though killing innocent people was his only objective.

These two are distinctly different. By saying he hates America does not state what their other objectives are, but it leaves them open to investigation. Do they hate America for economic reasons, political reasons, religious reasons, or other? Its hard to pin down the exact reason, just that their intent was to harm America, therefore the abundance of "he hates America" without pointing to other objectives, but that does not mean people thought that killing innocent people were their only objective.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Again my fault. I should have specified more. They said he killed Americans simply because he hates Americans, and for no other reason. If you press them on this, the best answer you can get is, "He hates our way of life." NOBODY, ever, not even once, mentioned the state of Israel. He was a caricature on a T-shirt to us.

When I say 'kill innocent civilians' I mean that people assume the terrorists wanted to kill the people simply because they hate the people, not that they actually delight in watching innocents die. Cripes I'm off today.

 

[Cloud9157]

I'm confused on your point of the bombings on Nagasaki+Hiroshima.

A very morally debatable issue, but quite frankly, I believe the US was in the right. Japan is a **** fortress. How exactly were we to take it over without losing thousands of troops?

If the US had dropped the bombs without warning, then I would have very little to agree with on their part. However, Japan's emperor was just as responsible as we were for all of those deaths. He called our bluff. Tell me who calls a bluff when it involves the lives of all of your people? You're willing to put their lives on the line because you're so sure that you're right?

Oh, and it didn't stop there. Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (not sure which one came first sorry) he hesitated to surrender.

Not sure what I can say on the Osama Bin Laden/Israel matter. Never heard that theory before, so I can't really give much of an input. I'll read up on it though.

 

[rvkevin]

They said he killed Americans simply because he hates Americans, and for no other reason. If you press them on this, the best answer you can get is, "He hates our way of life." NOBODY, ever, not even once, mentioned the state of Israel.

It wouldn't be the first thing Americans are ignorant of. And to say that they hate our way of life is similar to saying that they had religious motives (specifically that their religion is intolerant to our way of life), which is hard to deny (http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/04/anjem-choudary-freedom-and-democracy.html).

Oh, and it didn't stop there. Even after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (not sure which one came first sorry) he hesitated to surrender.

They were pretty certain America only had one. Who knows what would have happened if they knew the US only had two.

 

[Skler]

I think you missed the point. The OT said his intention was to probe why he did such actions and try to understand how one could come to such a view. So if the answer is, he didn't consider them human (as shown above), and thought that it was not immoral for humans to kill non-humans; if this is the case, then it is logical that he did not think that he was doing anything immoral, which was the OT's point of how someone can do harm while thinking they are doing good because they have false beliefs (which is all too common in religious circles and has all too real modern day implications).

He knew that at least one Jew was human. If he believed that Judaism was a race then he could not have believed this. It is impossible to say Hitler viewed Jews as a whole as inhuman because he felt very human compassion for one of them. One person does, in fact, ruin the idea that Hitler believed Jews were subhuman.

He knew he was exterminating humans.

 

[rvkevin]

It is impossible to say Hitler viewed Jews as a whole as inhuman because he felt very human compassion for one of them. One person does, in fact, ruin the idea that Hitler believed Jews were subhuman.

Some people are compassionate about animal suffering. That does not mean that they think animals are human, nor does that mean that they think that animals are on par to humans. How does him being compassionate about one thing logically follow that he thinks they are human? It doesn't.

 

[Suspect]

I don't even know what this means. Like he's actually honestly not real? Those videos of him are extremely, extremely well done photoshop?

I expected a answer like this. Do your homework, you know what I mean. America needs a Boogey Man so they use Osama Bin Laden as just that.

 

[Skler]

Some people are compassionate about animal suffering. That does not mean that they think animals are human, nor does that mean that they think that animals are on par to humans. How does him being compassionate about one thing logically follow that he thinks they are human? It doesn't.

You took that way too literally. I honestly don't know how to reply to this, it's just way out there.

You're suggesting the man who took care of Hitler's mother, the one who Hitler said "I am eternally grateful to you" to, was not considered a human by Hitler.

Think about it. I just used compassion as one way to describe it.

As a fun fact, most people who champion animal suffering DO think animals are equal to humans. Anyone who feels compassion for animals certainly wouldn't slaughter all of them either.

Your argument is also contradictory if you really believe what you just posted. If Hitler thinks killing animals (Jews are animals to him, right?) is ok, then why did he care about this one animal (The doctor)? He clearly had an issue with killing him, as he went out of his way to make sure the doctor was safe.

 

[rvkevin]

You're suggesting the man who took care of Hitler's mother, the one who Hitler said "I am eternally grateful to you" to, was not considered a human by Hitler.

No. I was suggesting one way he could have rationalized his actions as not committing murder is to say the people he killed were not human. You're assuming that his definition of human was biological in nature. The quote from Mein Kampf denotes otherwise: "It is idle to argue which race or races were the original representative of human culture and hence the real founders of all that we sum up under the word 'humanity.' It is simpler to raise this question with regard tithe present, and here an easy, clear answer results. All the human culture,all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today,are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan."

As a fun fact, most people who champion animal suffering DO think animals are equal to humans.

I highly doubt this. Most people who are compassionate about animals are so considering their propensity to feel pain. Meaning that while they have some value, they are not equal. A fly is less than a dog, and a dog is less than a human. Also, there are a lot of people who are against animal cruelty, but are for killing them for consumption, showing that they are compassionate to their suffering, but think that human needs override animal suffering.

Your argument is also contradictory if you really believe what you just posted. If Hitler thinks killing animals (Jews are animals to him, right?) is ok, then why did he care about this one animal (The doctor)?

Never said I believed it, just that its a possibility. One possibility is that the doctor met his definition of human by contributing to the medical profession. Another is that he was really thankful for his services and reciprocated. Also, you're assuming that he was rational and wasn't committing the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is more credit than I give him.

 

[Skler]

The entire thread argues that Hitler was rational enough to develop an intense hatred for Jews (for no real reason, mind you). Saying Hitler was irrational disproves the OP. He argues that Hitler logically came to hate the Jews because of things he experienced. We know that's not correct, because if he hated all Jews he wouldn't have let the doctor go. Using Hitler's logic of "contributing to society = being human" Jews as a whole contributed to society just because of the doctor.

Hitler scapegoated the Jews and had no real intention of killing them up until 1941 (or was it 42?) when Himmler suggested just killing them all. He didn't care if they died but he wasn't chomping at the bit to get rid of them.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hitler scapegoated the Jews and had no real intention of killing them up until 1941 (or was it 42?) when Himmler suggested just killing them all. He didn't care if they died but he wasn't chomping at the bit to get rid of them.

Not to butt in... again... but this is way wrong. Kristallnacht was 1938. Also "The Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany on January 30, 1933, and the persecution and exodus of Germany's 525,000 Jews began almost immediately."

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Hitler referred to the doctor as the "Edeljude" , 'the noble Jew,' indicating that he made an exception for this one man because he believed he was different from the rest (he was a very talented doctor who didn't ask for any money when keeping Hitler's mother alive).

 

[rvkevin]

The entire thread argues that Hitler was rational enough to develop an intense hatred for Jews (for no real reason, mind you). Saying Hitler was irrational disproves the OP. He argues that Hitler logically came to hate the Jews because of things he experienced.

"I think you missed the point. The OT said his intention was to probe why he did such actions and try to understand how one could come to such a view. So if the answer is, he didn't consider them human, and thought that it was not immoral for humans to kill non-humans; if this is the case, then it is logical that he did not think that he was doing anything immoral, which was the OT's point of how someone can do harm while thinking they are doing good because they have false beliefs." Nobody said that he was rational, and developing such hate for no reason seems to be irrational to me.

Using Hitler's logic of "contributing to society = being human" Jews as a whole contributed to society just because of the doctor.

You make a category error. If someone contributes to society, then they are human. It only applies to the individuals, not to the group as a whole. If an individual did not contribute to society, then they would not be considered human. So he could have believed that the people sent to the camps (The general Jewish community, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.) did not contribute to society, but that the doctor did.

 

[dashdancedan]

Tag. Different PoVs are usually fairly enlightening.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

This title is ridiculous enough; Hitler doesn't need a defense, nor does he deserve one. My family lost many people because of this waste of sperm. I can't even believe you're trying to make some sort of defense for him, from a "Point of view". You don't defend mass murderers, regardless of if it's possible or not.

Not to mention almost all of your points are flawed.