Question

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Wow, you finally said something valid. The "wrongess" is within all governments.

I agree with you a lot of the time, you dumbass. You just don't seem to notice.

As far as the murder of millions...what has Hitler done that hadn't been done by those before him, and even those during and after him, perhaps on scales far more horrendous. One can show that the overall effects of Communism in Russia and China and Eastern Europe, killed far more people than Hitler or the Nazis ever did, yet people can still praise about Marx, and I'm even taking a Marxist history class on Historical Materialism. You don't see anyone do that about Hitler or Nazism. The point is ideas have consequences, and ultimately Marxism has caused for worse on the scale of tragedy, than Nazism, but the average plebians don't know this.

The average person knows plenty about holocausts other than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany. The fact that he wasn't the only one doesn't make what he did right. Although I agree that communism is far more despicable than national socialism, purely on principle, regardless of the consequences of either.

Another gross misconception. Hitler never wanted to "conquer the civilized world" nor did he want war at the time, for anyone who studied National Socialism knows that Germany never achieved war footing on its economy until I believe 1943 or 44. First of all you must ask yourself how Hitler came to power, who funded him? Who funded the Bolsheviks? In both instances you'll see that powerful banking interests assured the rise of both powers which were based in Wall Street. The ultimate question for the rational person would be why?

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.

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.

As it follows since Hitler and the Nazis lost it is expected that he will be vilified and forever ostracized since well, history is written by the victors. The amount of propaganda that was spewed about Nazi Germany, before, during and after the war right up until now is- well- simply beyond belief. All that was needed was a show trial no different than Stalin's, called Nuremberg for one accusation after another to be mounted.

The Allies had enslaved 3/4 of the world in resources and in manpower ( meaning France, Britain, the Soviet Union, and America ) and all Hitler wanted to do was against was some white Poles and Jews.

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.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral I think we should pull a 'Hitler' on all the new newbies.

As opposed to the old newbies?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan hmmm, actually... i disagree.. think about it this way: if Nazi Germany had won the war, wouldn't the Allies have been the 'evil' people who bombed the hell out of Dresden and massacred the 'poor Germans'? Whereas now, not a lot of people know about the fire-bombing of Dresden and even a smaller number of people talk about it. My point, I guess, would have to rely on the famous quote "history is written by the victors" (or something along those lines)... if Hitler had not made a few strategic mistakes and opened a Russian front, he would've won and maybe today, we would've been praising Hitler and treating the Allies (including good ol' USA) in the same way Nazism is treated historically (by popular culture), and in the same way groups that work to preserve European/White heritage are treated (i.e. White Pride = Nazism, racism, etc.)

You just repeated what I said. Hitler pissed people off, and so he was vilified when they defeated him. Exactly what do you disagree with?

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname As opposed to the old newbies?

Yes, you are considered an old newbie. I thought we could spare you and some others, so I mentioned -New* Newbies.

But if you'd like...

[Dan]

Exactly what do you disagree with?

This:

I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.

[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.

[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.

[Anonymouse]

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

[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?

[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.