Question

[Anonymouse]

Can we stick to the intended topic of the thread, namely Hitler?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Because Germany was still stigmatized, and this was without any doubt unfairly, from the first world war. Any sign of military aggression on their part was not going to be taken kindly to. They simply weren't trusted. Nobody yet knew what to make of the Soviet Union.

That is unimportant in the context of events, for it was originally the Allies once again, who can be blamed for Hitler coming to power, since it was the Allies who instituted the conditions necessary for such a man to rise. Now if you are versed on the Hegelian Dialect and see history as a chain of causation, controlled and manipulated by powerful forces, then you would see that World War I Germany lost, it's peace treaty was organized the allied governments, in reality, the people behind the curtains of government. It was necessary to create conditions for the eventually rise a person such as Hitler, and rise he did. While all the negotiations on Versailles were going on, prior to it, it was also some of the same elites in the Allied countries that supported the rise of Bolshevism.

Hitler merely did what was only logical to any nation that we agree has self determination, arm itself, and build up its economy. To assume this means war is stupid. So when Hitler tried to avoid war, he had it brought to its door, by a careful maneuvering of the Allies manipulating the Danzig-Corridor event with Lord Halifax ). Unless he committs the crime of starting war, it is not valid to try to police over him in the event that he might start war.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't see how you can group together all governments operating on political systems. If you're going to stretch that far, I can say the caucasian race has caused more damage than anything else.

You can certainly argue that. But by and large governments are nothing more than institutionalized violence.

Originally posted by loseyourname The only thing Hitler was guilty of that the allies were not, and this is what I trying to say to begin with, was being too open and too brazen about what he was doing. Had he taken things a little slower and not been so fanatical, his ideas might have taken hold. As I have said before, I think the United States' own displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of this continent is a far more eggregious sin than anything Hitler ever did. Not to mention the numerous interventions in third world countries perpetrated in the name of "democracy" that have in fact been nothing more than ploys to install friendly regimes, mostly totalitarian regimes, since the second world war.

What was Hitler "open" and "brazen" about? I'm sorry I'm missing what you're saying.

[loseyourname]

I'm not saying it did happen. I'm saying it's an accepted historical fact. I'm also saying it's beside the point. My point is that what Hitler did did not work. You cannot dispute that point, so you deflect and talk about the holocaust instead. Your lemming rhetoric is not being backed up by anything, Dan. Hitler, like any other initially successful military conqueror, overstepped his bounds and paid the price. Even after taking over most of Europe, he still likely would have succeeded if not for Stalingrad. It was hubris that ruined him, just as it did Napoleon and Robert Lee.

[Dan]

You are avoiding my questions.

Like I said, his plans did not work because of interference on the part of the 'lemmings.' You are using a fallacy by saying that if it's not proven that it didn't happen, it did happen..... so if I can't prove that God doesn't exist, that means that he exists? Your premises are incorrect to begin with. As for the 'proof' that 'millions' of jews were 'slaughtered', statistics say (and I am yet to get a hold of the source I read it from) that if jews had been massacred by such numbers, the survivors would've had to breed 1 baby/minute for 24/7/365 in order to be at the population number post-'holocau$t'...

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan yeah, and is that why we don't see any inconsistent memories on the part of the Armenians who survived the genocide?

Show me enough documentation of inconsistent memories on the parts of Jewish survivors, then show me convincing evidence that the physical artifacts are all mistaken, and I will begin to listen. But if you insist, please start another thread, because this is all beside the point. The point of this thread is not to discuss the historicity of the holocaust.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan excuse me? holocaust? oh you mean the holohoax, huh? he died because the American lemmings wanted to be more powerful than Hitler. consider the state of the USA had Nazism succeeded..... USA was just getting on its feet at the time. lemmings who bought the jewish propaganda. how did the jews have time for such propaganda if they (and their families) were being 'slaughtered'?

Am I wrong, Dan? Did his techniques work, or is Europe in exactly the state he wanted to avoid it being in? As I said already, if you're going to dispute accepted historical fact, please provide evidence that the documented murder of millions is a hoax. He didn't just kill Jews and Gypsies, Dan. He murdered Germans as well. But please, let's get off of this, because it is beside the point. My point is that what he did did not work, and the reason it did not work is because he was severely lacking in subtlety at a time when any aggressive action on the part of Germany was not likely to be taken well. He got the concessions he wanted initially, and then he got greedy, and he paid the price.

[Dan]

accepted historical fact

thank you for proving my point.

an illustration of inconsistent memories on the part of people who had been through extreme psychological trauma and would be expected to be a little shaken up.

yeah, and is that why we don't see any inconsistent memories on the part of the Armenians who survived the genocide?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan like what?

Hell if I know. I'm no state problem solver. All I know is that what he did didn't work.

who says he murdered jews? the conflicting 'memoirs' of 'survivors'? "wait, they burned us in ovens', 'no wait, i forgot about it, wait, no, they didn't burn us in the ovens, they sent us to the gas chambers." i suppose they were fantasizing, huh? sick, but let me tell you one thing -- jews would toy with anything if it means money. and well, guess what they got? money! [/B]

If you're going to dispute accepted historical fact, you'll need to provide more backup than an illustration of inconsistent memories on the part of people who had been through extreme psychological trauma and would be expected to be a little shaken up.

[Dan]

He died, his holocaust led to the formation of a Jewish state, and Europe is in exactly the state he was trying to avoid. Seems like he failed pretty miserably, which proves my point when I say he went about solving his problem the wrong way.

excuse me? holocaust? oh you mean the holohoax, huh? he died because the American lemmings wanted to be more powerful than Hitler. consider the state of the USA had Nazism succeeded..... USA was just getting on its feet at the time. lemmings who bought the jewish propaganda. how did the jews have time for such propaganda if they (and their families) were being 'slaughtered'?

[Dan]

There are steps he could have taken that would not have led to his eternal vilification and the extinction of his ideas before they ever went through a proper gestation period.

like what?

There was no imminent threat to the point where he needed to forcibly enslave and murder every single Jewish person in his nation.

who says he murdered jews? the conflicting 'memoirs' of 'survivors'? "wait, they burned us in ovens', 'no wait, i forgot about it, wait, no, they didn't burn us in the ovens, they sent us to the gas chambers." i suppose they were fantasizing, huh? sick, but let me tell you one thing -- jews would toy with anything if it means money. and well, guess what they got? money!