Question

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname There is nothing inherently "wrong" about Nazism that isn't wrong with just about any form of government. The problem with dictatorial regimes is that they typically come under the control of a person who was the most willing to sacrifice principle, or kill whoever he needed to kill, to get into his position. Rarely is an enlightened, moral, and sane person put into the position of dictator. It isn't necessarily that power corrupts, but that people who were corrupt to begin with came into power.

Wow, you finally said something valid. The "wrongess" is within all governments.

Originally posted by loseyourname Hitler, like any other man with his intelligence and ferocity, had plenty of great ideas, most notably, as the mouse has already pointed out, the purification of the German gene pool. I think he went about it the wrong way when he began to focus on religious and racial purification rather than intellectual, but he did have the idea somewhat close to right in the beginning. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the murder of millions of people who are essentially innocent is always wrong, whether they be mentally impaired, physically handicapped, or of an ethnicity other than the party in power at the time.

I think there need to be some ideas that should be cleared out. Hitler never wanted "racial purification". Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported notions of breeding a homogenous blond "hyper Aryan" race. Just because modern documentaries cherry pick only footage of a little blond boy shaking Hitler's hand, doesn't mean anything. Accepting the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub racial groups, he stressed the German people's national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.

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.

Originally posted by loseyourname There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. 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.

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?

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.

[Dan]

hmm, i haven't seen the movie,, but.. what is 'wrong' with White supremacy, mouse? and how was it portrayed in that movie?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by SALTnPEPA92 that reminds me, have you seen the movie American History X, that's what one of the characters in the movie wrote about. right? ~Tatev Avoyan

That movie is just Hollywood Judeocized bunk. Such "white supremacist" or "neo Nazi" images having nothing to do with what Hitler or National Socialism were.

To gain a fair understanding one must read the actual mans work.

[SALTnPEPA92]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER Hitler---Mien Kempf

that reminds me, have you seen the movie American History X, that's what one of the characters in the movie wrote about. right? ~Tatev Avoyan

[Dan]

There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. 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.

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.)

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan Hey mouse, thanks for sharing. sad, eh?

hey spiral, don't misunderstand me, dude. just that when you said the "positive outcomes" of Nazism, it just gave me the impression that you considered Nazism to be hideous and wrong. and besides, i was making a general observation. so no need to get all angry, etc.

There is nothing inherently "wrong" about Nazism that isn't wrong with just about any form of government. The problem with dictatorial regimes is that they typically come under the control of a person who was the most willing to sacrifice principle, or kill whoever he needed to kill, to get into his position. Rarely is an enlightened, moral, and sane person put into the position of dictator. It isn't necessarily that power corrupts, but that people who were corrupt to begin with came into power.

Hitler, like any other man with his intelligence and ferocity, had plenty of great ideas, most notably, as the mouse has already pointed out, the purification of the German gene pool. I think he went about it the wrong way when he began to focus on religious and racial purification rather than intellectual, but he did have the idea somewhat close to right in the beginning. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the murder of millions of people who are essentially innocent is always wrong, whether they be mentally impaired, physically handicapped, or of an ethnicity other than the party in power at the time.

There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. 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.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Thank you

Go get that book. That's about all I can offer.

[spiral]

Thank you

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral where exactly did I mention that Nazism was good or bad?

I asked for the books, because I have a paper to write, and I need some books, which take a more objective/positive outlook on the issue.

I couldn't find any. I searched the net, I didn't find any info. So I though I'd ask the forum.

I'd recommend Mein Kampf.

As for seconardy books, I'd deeply recommend "Into The Darkness", by Lothrop Stoddard

Here is a link to Amazon.com for it:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939482592/qid=1074559249/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9963674-5425566?v=glance&s=books

And here is a review from the link which I thought was superb for the book as the person summarized it better than I can:

Twentieth-century America's most perceptive, influential, and prophetic writer on race -- Lothrop Stoddard -- spent four months in late 1939-early 1940 covering National Socialist Germany, as its leaders and its people girded for total war. Stoddard criss-crossed the Third Reich to observe nearly every aspect of its political, social, economic, and military life, and he talked with men and women from all walks of life, from Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels to taxi drivers and chambermaids. The result -- Into the Darkness -- is not only a classic of World War II reportage, but a unique evaluation of Germany's National Socialist experiment. For Stoddard was no ordinary journalist. A Harvard Ph.D in history, the author of The Rising Tide of Color and other works that played a key role in the enactment of America's 1924 immigration act, fluent in German and deeply versed in European politics and culture, Stoddard brought to Into the Darkness a sophistication and a sympathy impossible for William Shirer and a myriad of other journalistic hacks. To be sure, the New England Yankee Stoddard was no supporter of the Hitler dictatorship, but he was deeply interested in National Socialist policies, above all in the social and the racial sphere. Reading Into the Darkness brings you to hearings before a German eugenics court, to an ancestral farm in Westphalia, to the headquarters of the National Labor Service, to German markets, factories, medical clinics, and welfare offices, as keenly observed and analyzed by Stoddard. You'll read, too, of Stoddard's conversations with German policy makers in all fields: Hans F. K. Guenther and Fritz Lenz on race and eugenics; Walther Darré on agriculture; Robert Ley on labor; Gertrud Scholz-Klink on women in the Third Reich; General Alexander Löhr on the Luftwaffe's Polish campaign, as well as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and many other leaders. And you'll travel with Stoddard to Slovakia, where he interviews Monsignor Tiso, the national leader later put to death by the Communists, and to Hungary, where the Magyars, still at peace, gaze apprehensively at Soviet Russia. Into the Darkness (so named from the mandatory air-defense blackout that Stoddard found so vexing) shines a torch of sanity and truth against the vituperation of all things National Socialist that has been practically obligatory for the past sixty years. Knowledgeable, urbane, skeptical, and above all fair, Stoddard's book is a unique, an indispensable historical document, a time capsule for truth, and a stimulating page-turner for everyone interested in the Third Reich and the German people.

[spiral]

I'm not angry