Question

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan Hitler could've been a control freak for all I care, but the guy SAW what Europe would be like if the jews were not exiled.

And what did he do about it? 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.

[Dan]

Originally posted by loseyourname Communism got out of hand, too, Dan. Hitler didn't require a revolution. He had Germany firmly in his control, and had he not tried to extend that control to nations he had no business in, he would likely still be in power today.

I mean he had a system in place that was designed solely to exterminate people who he did not deem desireable as part of the gene pool.

he was not trying to 'take over' and make all of Europe German. He simply wanted to get the 'pests' out of Europe, the pests being jews and gypsies. He obviously saw the state of Europe well ahead of any of his contemporaries, and he was damn right about it -- and that is why he wanted to do something about it... now the Russians are another issue. The Russians wouldn't have been faced with that had they not been all too 'proud' of their Slavic background and refusing a unity with the rest of Europe. Hitler could've been a control freak for all I care, but the guy SAW what Europe would be like if the jews were not exiled. Like Benjamin Franklin said, if the jews are not removed from USA, they will become the bane of the country.... and he was right.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan i disagree again. the jews were on the Germans' ***es... they were boycotting German products and had taken the economy to a desparate state.. not to mention the number of German babies that starved to death as a result.. who blames the jews now?

Again, Dan, what are you disagreeing with here? I never said Hitler should not have done something about the problem Germany had with the Jewish people. 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. There was no imminent threat to the point where he needed to forcibly enslave and murder every single Jewish person in his nation. That is going too far. Murder begets murder and solves nothing.

[Dan]

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.

i disagree again. the jews were on the Germans' ***es... they were boycotting German products and had taken the economy to a desparate state.. not to mention the number of German babies that starved to death as a result.. who blames the jews now?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan No, I don't... which revolution hasn't killed thousands if not millions of people? Communism had millions of victims, yet I'm a communist, or at least when it comes to certain aspects of it... It's the nature of human beings, and the survival of the fittest. And what do you mean by 'systematic' in this context?

Communism got out of hand, too, Dan. Hitler didn't require a revolution. He had Germany firmly in his control, and had he not tried to extend that control to nations he had no business in, he would likely still be in power today.

I mean he had a system in place that was designed solely to exterminate people who he did not deem desireable as part of the gene pool.

[loseyourname]

That is no where near the "whole civilized world" unless you consider only Europe to be "civilized".

I was, actually. It was a half-joke, to be honest.

Let's just say that those that were behind both the rise of Bolshevism and Hitler, were powerful men with loads of money aligned with powerful business and internationalist interests. The Allies were actually more responsible for war, than Hitler was, but this is an unpopular position to argue these days, since academia - well - basically there is always bias and anti intellectualism in academia, in whatever society you come to, but for critical thinkers it is important to see throught he veneer presented.

Unfortunately, Mousy, most people really don't have the time and don't care to do the amount of research that you do. They rely on education. You aren't going to get anywhere by encouraging people to learn this material for themselves. You would do better to simply teach it to them and hope they listen.

The Hague Conventions that were in effect during that time, stated explicitly, and you can find this online if you search for the Hague Conventions, that a declaration of war, or an ultimatum that would lead to a state of war, were considered the same thing, and still are today for that matter. So by the rules of the time, Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany, therefore Britain started the war. And if you want to develop this even further, why was only Germany singled out by the "Allies" regarding Poland? Why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east?

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.

What was Hitler wrong in doing that the Allies hadn't already done? That is my only question.

As far as Christianity and Islam, I would be more hard pressed to say that Governments operating on political systems have caused more damage in the 20th century alone ( 200 million people ), than Islam and Christianity will have ever done combined.

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.

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.

[Dan]

Originally posted by loseyourname [B]You don't think the invasion of just about every European nation and the systematic murder of millions of innocent people was out of hand?

No, I don't... which revolution hasn't killed thousands if not millions of people? Communism had millions of victims, yet I'm a communist, or at least when it comes to certain aspects of it... It's the nature of human beings, and the survival of the fittest. And what do you mean by 'systematic' in this context?

[Anonymouse]

Oh by the way, just for the record, it was Britain that introduced bombing civilian targets in WWI.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname He very nearly conquered all of Europe, Mousy. That's grandiose, and it got him into trouble. If he had just stuck with the original bit of Czechoslovakia containing Germans, he might very well still be in power.

That is no where near the "whole civilized world" unless you consider only Europe to be "civilized". Aside from that, you must understand this in the context of the times of why war errupted. When there was war, he had no other choice and was only forced to conquer, or be conquered, that is the way it goes. Those, mostly Jewish, banking interests that funded Hitler into existence from Wall Street, never intended to go beyond its stated aim, namely as an alternative source of power to contain the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union was taken hold of its original founders by another dictator, Mr. Stalin.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't know as much about history as you do, and I have no idea who was behind Hitler coming to power. I realize he wasn't solely responsible for the war, but I do think he tried to do a bit much. His fixation on Stalingrad was particularly stupid of him.

Let's just say that those that were behind both the rise of Bolshevism and Hitler, were powerful men with loads of money aligned with powerful business and internationalist interests. The Allies were actually more responsible for war, than Hitler was, but this is an unpopular position to argue these days, since academia - well - basically there is always bias and anti intellectualism in academia, in whatever society you come to, but for critical thinkers it is important to see throught he veneer presented.

The Hague Conventions that were in effect during that time, stated explicitly, and you can find this online if you search for the Hague Conventions, that a declaration of war, or an ultimatum that would lead to a state of war, were considered the same thing, and still are today for that matter. So by the rules of the time, Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany, therefore Britain started the war. And if you want to develop this even further, why was only Germany singled out by the "Allies" regarding Poland? Why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Clearly this shows that the Allies already intended to go to war against Germany. One can even point to the United States one-sided "neutrality" with regard to Germany and Japan, which prompted both to eventually declare war on the U.S.

Originally posted by loseyourname Again, I'm not saying the allies or most other governments are a whole lot better. Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity and Islam are probably responsible for more deaths than any other belief systems that have ever existed, although I will admit that their proliferation alone has made this all but inevitable. Hitler was still wrong to do what he did.

What was Hitler wrong in doing that the Allies hadn't already done? That is my only question.

As far as Christianity and Islam, I would be more hard pressed to say that Governments operating on political systems have caused more damage in the 20th century alone ( 200 million people ), than Islam and Christianity will have ever done combined.

[loseyourname]

You don't think the invasion of just about every European nation and the systematic murder of millions of innocent people was out of hand?

His ideas do not necessarily merit vilification. His person does.