[quote=Scrat;588559]But was the actions he carried out justifiable?
Absolutely not. The build up of Germany's military forces, in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles should have been stopped. They were as ineffectual as todays United Nations. Hitler aways had expansionist views
Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
Germany, with it's raids on London, Warsaw was the first to bomb civilian populations. Deliberate Allied raids on civilians certainly makes us no better, but it did have the necessary psychological effect on German Invicibility.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
I don't know about anyone else, but anyone who condones the killing of millions of people simply because of that of their origin cannot be justified in anything they do...
Quite simply he was a lunatic who had one too many dreams of being the next mightiest ruler in a land historically known for it's brutality and bloodshed...
Or quite simply put by Soberano...
Hitler was a total madman and murdering bastard.
Quite simply he was a lunatic who had one too many dreams of being the next mightiest ruler in a land historically known for it's brutality and bloodshed...
Or quite simply put by Soberano...
Hitler was a total madman and murdering bastard.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
i blame Hitler or 6 million men women and children being put into ovens ,i blame Hitler for ww2 and i'm sure its his fault there is global warming ,but scrat your piece does make interesting reading i'm not sure how truthful it is but there are two sides to every thing its interesting to see how the other side could of viewed things ,nice pice by the way interesting 
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Scrat;588559 wrote: But was the actions he carried out justifiable? Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
Thankyou for your opinion but it is only that.
But was the actions he carried out justifiable? Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
What makes you think that is something new? The Romans took whole populations in to slavery and in occasion wiped them out completely as a recognisable entity.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/guernica.htm
Warfare is all about killing people anyone who believes you can have a "good" war is an idiot. Do you really think civilians didn't get killed in the past? We have industrialised wars and kill people wholesale.
We may not be any better but should we not know better by now? One thing you tend not to find in western europe is blind patriotism, my country right or wrong and don't speak out cos it's unpatriotic.
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
No. Hitler and Germany are responsible for the actions they took no one else. Just as the allies were responsible for flattening German cities and the Americans for flattening Japanese ones using techniques learned from the British in creating fire-storms in cities build of wood. We would have joined in on that one if the atomic bomb hadn't been dropped first removing the need for it.
What is fascinating about Hitler's Germany is how they hijacked a democratic country for their own ends and eventually got most of the population backing them.
They weren't voted in to office but created an opportunity and took over, first of all suspending all the laws preventing people being imprisoned without trial all to protect the people from their enemies.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/weimar.htm
Judging history from a 21st century perspective doesn't really work and apportioning blame is exactly what Hitler did. The Austrians started WW1 by getting an archduke killed by a serb Hitler was Austrian why not blame them? Best take a look and decide what you might have done had you been there. But your attitude and level of knowledge is likely to be greater than that of your forebears. Learn from the past. Nowadays it;'s hard to imagine anyone fighting to create or defend an empire.
Nazis didn't go away they have just changed tactics and are a bit more PC than they used to be.
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
Thankyou for your opinion but it is only that.
But was the actions he carried out justifiable? Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
What makes you think that is something new? The Romans took whole populations in to slavery and in occasion wiped them out completely as a recognisable entity.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/guernica.htm
Warfare is all about killing people anyone who believes you can have a "good" war is an idiot. Do you really think civilians didn't get killed in the past? We have industrialised wars and kill people wholesale.
We may not be any better but should we not know better by now? One thing you tend not to find in western europe is blind patriotism, my country right or wrong and don't speak out cos it's unpatriotic.
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
No. Hitler and Germany are responsible for the actions they took no one else. Just as the allies were responsible for flattening German cities and the Americans for flattening Japanese ones using techniques learned from the British in creating fire-storms in cities build of wood. We would have joined in on that one if the atomic bomb hadn't been dropped first removing the need for it.
What is fascinating about Hitler's Germany is how they hijacked a democratic country for their own ends and eventually got most of the population backing them.
They weren't voted in to office but created an opportunity and took over, first of all suspending all the laws preventing people being imprisoned without trial all to protect the people from their enemies.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~semp/weimar.htm
Judging history from a 21st century perspective doesn't really work and apportioning blame is exactly what Hitler did. The Austrians started WW1 by getting an archduke killed by a serb Hitler was Austrian why not blame them? Best take a look and decide what you might have done had you been there. But your attitude and level of knowledge is likely to be greater than that of your forebears. Learn from the past. Nowadays it;'s hard to imagine anyone fighting to create or defend an empire.
Nazis didn't go away they have just changed tactics and are a bit more PC than they used to be.
-
Tater Tazz
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:25 am
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
K.Snyder;588593 wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but anyone who condones the killing of millions of people simply because of that of their origin cannot be justified in anything they do...
Quite simply he was a lunatic who had one too many dreams of being the next mightiest ruler in a land historically known for it's brutality and bloodshed...
Or quite simply put by Soberano...
I think I agree with K on this one.
Quite simply he was a lunatic who had one too many dreams of being the next mightiest ruler in a land historically known for it's brutality and bloodshed...
Or quite simply put by Soberano...
I think I agree with K on this one.
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
"Hitler... there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!
Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."
Franz Liebkind
Not many people know it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer."
Franz Liebkind
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
This thread title cracks me up every time I see it. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Thanks, Scrat! :-6
Thanks, Scrat! :-6
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Scrat;589035 wrote: I think that the treaty that ended WWI brought about the rise of Hitler, German industry was looted, it's people impoverished. No one there had hope for the future under the heel of the rest of the European powers.
WWI was not the fault of Germany as a whole, it was the fault of the political and military systems in place at the time. Germany was punished for not only her mistakes but the mistakes of others.
The arrogance of the victors played a large part in this.
Does anyone see any similarities in todays world?
Why don't you outline what you think the similarities are and take it from there? You clearly think there are so if you want a good barney be more specific.
The way Germany-and Japan come to that, was dealt with post ww2 was very different from post ww1, lessons were learned.
One was the imposition of a form of proportional representation rather than first past the post in order to prevent a party with a minority of the overall vote getting control-as happened under Hitler when he seized control rather than got elected to it, and frequently does happen in countries with a first past the post system (like the UK which is why the Tories and labour don't like the idea as it leaves room for other parties to have a say and neither of them EVER get an overall majority of the vote)
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/introbwg.htm
No one is obliged to vote. Those who do must be able to vote for the candidate or party list of their choice without any coercion or pressure. The elections are direct, there is no involvement of delegates or electoral colleges. Voting must be conducted in secret. This freedom and secrecy of elections is protected by the law and any violation is subject to prosecution. Each person has the same number of votes as everyone else and all votes carry the same weight - that, too, is constitutionally guaranteed. Article 28, Paragraph (1), second sentence, of the Basic Law contains corresponding guarantees with regard to elections in the Länder, counties and municipalities.
I don't know how local elections are run in the states-I assume it varies from state to state. In truth it is only of passing interest since I am not American. First past the post tends to disenfranchise the majority of voters who happen not to support the party that gets the most votes who end up being in charge usually without the majority supporting them, and result in elected govts that do not reflect the make up and diverse attitudes of the population.
So in answer to your question. There are some similarities but in the treatment of the losers by the victors there are significant differences.
On the other hand there are similarities in the manner that hitler got power and took germany on a course that the majority of the german people would have found appalling had they realised what was happening and what would be the result and the course taken today by leaders who do not have the support of their populations but use the political system and apathy of most of the population to get away with it. Tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it is the truth.
Except we are all a free people, educated and with access to the media and have real knowledge of other countries rather than just what we are told about them are wenot.
WWI was not the fault of Germany as a whole, it was the fault of the political and military systems in place at the time. Germany was punished for not only her mistakes but the mistakes of others.
The arrogance of the victors played a large part in this.
Does anyone see any similarities in todays world?
Why don't you outline what you think the similarities are and take it from there? You clearly think there are so if you want a good barney be more specific.
The way Germany-and Japan come to that, was dealt with post ww2 was very different from post ww1, lessons were learned.
One was the imposition of a form of proportional representation rather than first past the post in order to prevent a party with a minority of the overall vote getting control-as happened under Hitler when he seized control rather than got elected to it, and frequently does happen in countries with a first past the post system (like the UK which is why the Tories and labour don't like the idea as it leaves room for other parties to have a say and neither of them EVER get an overall majority of the vote)
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/introbwg.htm
No one is obliged to vote. Those who do must be able to vote for the candidate or party list of their choice without any coercion or pressure. The elections are direct, there is no involvement of delegates or electoral colleges. Voting must be conducted in secret. This freedom and secrecy of elections is protected by the law and any violation is subject to prosecution. Each person has the same number of votes as everyone else and all votes carry the same weight - that, too, is constitutionally guaranteed. Article 28, Paragraph (1), second sentence, of the Basic Law contains corresponding guarantees with regard to elections in the Länder, counties and municipalities.
I don't know how local elections are run in the states-I assume it varies from state to state. In truth it is only of passing interest since I am not American. First past the post tends to disenfranchise the majority of voters who happen not to support the party that gets the most votes who end up being in charge usually without the majority supporting them, and result in elected govts that do not reflect the make up and diverse attitudes of the population.
So in answer to your question. There are some similarities but in the treatment of the losers by the victors there are significant differences.
On the other hand there are similarities in the manner that hitler got power and took germany on a course that the majority of the german people would have found appalling had they realised what was happening and what would be the result and the course taken today by leaders who do not have the support of their populations but use the political system and apathy of most of the population to get away with it. Tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it is the truth.
Except we are all a free people, educated and with access to the media and have real knowledge of other countries rather than just what we are told about them are wenot.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
read his book it is the writing of a mad man but was on the red cross approved reading list for a while
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country but when he got the power he abused it
he lies about his up bringing he lied about his family and he lied education
he lied about being a great artist he was a raving lunatic like so many dictators
history is written by the victor but Hitler wrote his own
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country but when he got the power he abused it
he lies about his up bringing he lied about his family and he lied education
he lied about being a great artist he was a raving lunatic like so many dictators
history is written by the victor but Hitler wrote his own
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
posted by bornbad
read his book it is the writing of a mad man but was on the red cross approved reading list for a while
Good for you. Always read stuff for yourself rather than just what others have to say about it. personally I never actually finished it but it has it's own demented logic if you are uninformed with other points of view or even a basic historical perspective. It's to the credit of the victors that if you want to you can read what he wrote (I miss Morecambe and Wise)
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country but when he got the power he abused it
They also appealed to many around the world and he had many admirers to begin with not just amongst the white supremacists and jew haters. Don't forget communism was the other great political philosophy of the time. Locking up those on the left in politics that wanted social change seemed a great idea to many. What was happening in Russia sent shock waves around the world.
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country
Actually they didn't. At least not to begin with. Germany was one of the most tolerant countries in europe of Jews-that's one of the reasons there were so many of them. anti Semitism was rife, very few countries in europe would accept jewish refugees in any number which is also why many could not escape. The US were not exactly encouraging to jews wanting to escape Hitler either.
It's the way he made it acceptable to hate and unpatriotic to speak out against the government in any way is the real warning from history. It didn't happen overnight but gradually. When political debate is stifled or curtailed in any way and real grievances can be channelled rather than resolved there is always a danger it will happen again.
read his book it is the writing of a mad man but was on the red cross approved reading list for a while
Good for you. Always read stuff for yourself rather than just what others have to say about it. personally I never actually finished it but it has it's own demented logic if you are uninformed with other points of view or even a basic historical perspective. It's to the credit of the victors that if you want to you can read what he wrote (I miss Morecambe and Wise)
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country but when he got the power he abused it
They also appealed to many around the world and he had many admirers to begin with not just amongst the white supremacists and jew haters. Don't forget communism was the other great political philosophy of the time. Locking up those on the left in politics that wanted social change seemed a great idea to many. What was happening in Russia sent shock waves around the world.
his policies appealed to a a large part of his country
Actually they didn't. At least not to begin with. Germany was one of the most tolerant countries in europe of Jews-that's one of the reasons there were so many of them. anti Semitism was rife, very few countries in europe would accept jewish refugees in any number which is also why many could not escape. The US were not exactly encouraging to jews wanting to escape Hitler either.
It's the way he made it acceptable to hate and unpatriotic to speak out against the government in any way is the real warning from history. It didn't happen overnight but gradually. When political debate is stifled or curtailed in any way and real grievances can be channelled rather than resolved there is always a danger it will happen again.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
posted by scrat
If you read the speech he says that Germany was essentially penned up by other powers. I think that the struggles in the mideast are partly to do with the Muslims feeling the same way.
More I think that there is a lack of political freedom in their own countries. Discontent get channelled to extremist parties where there is no outlet to effect change. The saudis encouraged wahabism as a distraction for malcontent's rather than allowing the development of political parties. Religion as the opiate for the people except it's backfiring on them good style. It is no coincidence that the 911 terrorists were Saudis.
Wealthy industrialists encouraged Hitler as they saw him as a useful foil against the left wing parties in Germany wanting social change and the re-distribution of wealth. It's the same reason he had many admirers in other countries. take a look at who financed him. It is an eye opener. I don't think you can "get" Hitler unless you "get" what was happening in Russia and elsewhere at the same time. (horrible word but I can't be bothered thinking of a more suitable.
If you read the speech he says that Germany was essentially penned up by other powers. I think that the struggles in the mideast are partly to do with the Muslims feeling the same way.
More I think that there is a lack of political freedom in their own countries. Discontent get channelled to extremist parties where there is no outlet to effect change. The saudis encouraged wahabism as a distraction for malcontent's rather than allowing the development of political parties. Religion as the opiate for the people except it's backfiring on them good style. It is no coincidence that the 911 terrorists were Saudis.
Wealthy industrialists encouraged Hitler as they saw him as a useful foil against the left wing parties in Germany wanting social change and the re-distribution of wealth. It's the same reason he had many admirers in other countries. take a look at who financed him. It is an eye opener. I don't think you can "get" Hitler unless you "get" what was happening in Russia and elsewhere at the same time. (horrible word but I can't be bothered thinking of a more suitable.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Carl44;588611 wrote: i blame Hitler or 6 million men women and children being put into ovens ,i blame Hitler for ww2 and i'm sure its his fault there is global warming ,but scrat your piece does make interesting reading i'm not sure how truthful it is but there are two sides to every thing its interesting to see how the other side could of viewed things ,nice pice by the way interesting
The So-called Jews Are Doing The Same To The Palestinians So What The Diffrence
Israeli warplanes and helicopters have attacked the Gaza Strip for a third day in a row. More than 310 Palestinians have been killed since Saturday, and 1,400 have been wounded. Saturday was the deadliest day in Gaza since Israel’s occupation of the territory in 1967. Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak said today that Israel was in an "all-out war against Hamas.†Israel has bombed every major town in Gaza, including Gaza City, Khan Younis and Rafah, and is now threatening to launch a ground invasion as Israeli troops and tanks move to the border. On Sunday, the Israeli cabinet called up 6,500 reserve forces. Overnight, Israeli warplanes bombed Gaza’s Interior Ministry and the Islamic University in Gaza City. A separate Israeli bombing killed four young Palestinian girls from the same family. Palestinian officials say at least twenty-two children have been killed and more than 235 children have been wounded since Saturday.
Israel: International Community Should Condemn Hamas
Israel says the attacks are necessary in order to stop Hamas from firing rockets into southern Israel. Earlier today, one Israeli died after a Palestinian missile hit the town of Ashkelon. Fourteen Israelis were wounded in the missile strike. The Israeli fatality is the second since the air strikes began Saturday. On Sunday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Hamas should be condemned by the international community for firing rockets into Israel.
Tzipi Livni: “Excuse me, I cannot accept something like we call both sides to halt the violence or to stop the military actions. There is no ‘both sides’ in this. There is one designated terrorist organization which controls Gaza Strip, which spreads its agenda of hatred, that cannot accept our right to live.â€
Hamas Accuses Israel of Causing a Holocaust
Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum accused the Israeli government of carrying out a holocaust of the Palestinian people.
Fawzi Barhoum: "Today is a holocaust and a massacre day that Livni had internationally and regionally campaigned for so she can commit to this holocaust and this massacre. This is a public massacre for our Palestinian people in Gaza. All the casualties and dead are policemen, women, children, elderly and civilians.â€
On Saturday, the exiled political leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, called for a Third Intifada, or uprising, against Israeli forces. Hospital officials in Gaza say they are overwhelmed with the number of casualties. Hospitals have been unable to get needed medical supplies into Gaza for more than a year because of the Israeli blockade.
UN Calls for “Immediate Halt to All Violence"
Protests against the Israeli attacks have been held throughout the Arab world, Europe and the United States. The United Nations Security Council Sunday issued a non-binding statement calling for “an immediate halt to all violence†in the Gaza Strip and for Israel to open the border crossings for aid supplies.
Neven Jurica, UN Security Council president: “The members of the Council called for all parties to address the serious humanitarian and economic needs in Gaza and to take necessary measures, including opening all border crossings to ensure the continuous provision of humanitarian supplies, including supplies for food, fuel and provision of medical treatment.â€
The death toll in Gaza has reached at least 375 as Israel’s attack on Gaza has entered its fourth day. More than 1,600 Palestinians have been wounded and hospitals are running out of medicines and other products needed to treat them.
Israel Vows to Wage “War to the Bitter Endâ€
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel is in a “war to the bitter end against Hamas and its kind.†Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire, and Israeli troops and tanks continue to mass on the border of Gaza preparing for a possible ground invasion. Israel has declared the area around the Gaza border a closed military zone, ordering out journalists.
UN: 64 Palestinian Civilians Killed
Earlier today, Israeli warplanes dropped at least sixteen bombs on five government buildings in Gaza, destroying them and starting several fires. An Israeli air strike in northern Gaza killed two Palestinian sisters, aged four and eleven. The girls were killed when they left their house to dump the family’s garbage. On Monday, an Israeli air strike destroyed a home in the Jabalya refugee camp, killing five sisters. The five girls were between four and seventeen years old. In another incident, eight Palestinian students, ages eighteen to twenty, were killed while waiting for a UN bus to take them home. The United Nations said at least sixty-four Palestinian civilians have died since Saturday.
Four Israelis Killed in Palestinian Rocket Attacks
The Israeli attacks have not prevented Palestinian militants from firing rockets into southern Israel. On Monday, Palestinians fired at least seventy rockets, killing two Israeli civilians and a soldier. The dead included an Israeli woman in the town of Ashdod who was killed from shrapnel wounds while taking cover from incoming rockets at a bus stop. The Israeli death toll since Saturday now stands at four.
Israeli President Shimon Peres: “The situation is simple. Some of the Gazan people are saying ‘why doesn’t Israel respect the ceasefire?’ One may think that Israel started the fire. It didn’t start the fire. It’s not a symmetric fire. If the people in Gaza want to live in peace, if the people in Gaza want to enjoy free passages, there is a simple thing they have and can do: stop shooting.â€
Ban Ki-Moon Accuses Israel of Using Excessive Force
At the United Nations, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon harshly criticized both Israel and Hamas. He condemned what he called Israel’s “excessive†use of force in Gaza.
Ban Ki-moon: “All this must stop. Both Israel and Hamas must halt their acts of violence and take all necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties. A ceasefire must be declared immediately. They must also curb their inflammatory rhetoric. Only then can dialog start.â€
Israel Rams Activist Boat Carrying Aid to Gaza
Meanwhile, the Free Gaza Movement said one of its boats, the Dignity, was rammed by Israeli gunboats in international waters. Activists with the Free Gaza Movement are attempting to sail to Gaza with over three tons of medical supplies requested by Palestinian doctors. Passengers include former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
Cynthia McKinney: “There is a need for the medical supplies that are on this boat. There is a need for international attention. And perhaps most importantly, there is need for the people in the United States to understand that every piece of rubble that is there in that strip of land is caused by US weapons and the insistence on administration after administration of transferring weapons of mass destruction to parts of the world, and those weapons are then used to hurt and kill people.â€
Kucinich Calls on UN to Investigate Israeli Attack
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has called on the United Nations to establish an independent inquiry of Israel’s war against Gaza. In a letter to Ban Ki-moon, Kucinich wrote, “The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice, but Israel cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible.†Protests against the Israeli attack have been held across the globe. In Lebanon, tens of thousand of Hezbollah supporters rallied in Beirut to condemn Israel. In Egypt, thousands of demonstrators denounced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for not helping the Palestinians in Gaza. In Amman, Jordan, protesters burned the American and Israeli flags. Here in this country,three women with the Atlantic Life Community were arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington on Monday. The women were arrested after they approached the gate of the embassy holding signs reading “Peace. Stop the killing†and “Stop the war on the children.â€
Molotov Cocktail Thrown at Synagogue in Chicago
Chicago police are investigating an attack on one of the city’s oldest synagogues. A Molotov cocktail was thrown against the wall of Temple Sholom on Monday. The incident caused minimal damage, and no one was injured.
All This Because They Want The Palestinians Land .
For More Infor Go To Democracy Now .org
The So-called Jews Are Doing The Same To The Palestinians So What The Diffrence
Israeli warplanes and helicopters have attacked the Gaza Strip for a third day in a row. More than 310 Palestinians have been killed since Saturday, and 1,400 have been wounded. Saturday was the deadliest day in Gaza since Israel’s occupation of the territory in 1967. Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak said today that Israel was in an "all-out war against Hamas.†Israel has bombed every major town in Gaza, including Gaza City, Khan Younis and Rafah, and is now threatening to launch a ground invasion as Israeli troops and tanks move to the border. On Sunday, the Israeli cabinet called up 6,500 reserve forces. Overnight, Israeli warplanes bombed Gaza’s Interior Ministry and the Islamic University in Gaza City. A separate Israeli bombing killed four young Palestinian girls from the same family. Palestinian officials say at least twenty-two children have been killed and more than 235 children have been wounded since Saturday.
Israel: International Community Should Condemn Hamas
Israel says the attacks are necessary in order to stop Hamas from firing rockets into southern Israel. Earlier today, one Israeli died after a Palestinian missile hit the town of Ashkelon. Fourteen Israelis were wounded in the missile strike. The Israeli fatality is the second since the air strikes began Saturday. On Sunday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Hamas should be condemned by the international community for firing rockets into Israel.
Tzipi Livni: “Excuse me, I cannot accept something like we call both sides to halt the violence or to stop the military actions. There is no ‘both sides’ in this. There is one designated terrorist organization which controls Gaza Strip, which spreads its agenda of hatred, that cannot accept our right to live.â€
Hamas Accuses Israel of Causing a Holocaust
Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum accused the Israeli government of carrying out a holocaust of the Palestinian people.
Fawzi Barhoum: "Today is a holocaust and a massacre day that Livni had internationally and regionally campaigned for so she can commit to this holocaust and this massacre. This is a public massacre for our Palestinian people in Gaza. All the casualties and dead are policemen, women, children, elderly and civilians.â€
On Saturday, the exiled political leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, called for a Third Intifada, or uprising, against Israeli forces. Hospital officials in Gaza say they are overwhelmed with the number of casualties. Hospitals have been unable to get needed medical supplies into Gaza for more than a year because of the Israeli blockade.
UN Calls for “Immediate Halt to All Violence"
Protests against the Israeli attacks have been held throughout the Arab world, Europe and the United States. The United Nations Security Council Sunday issued a non-binding statement calling for “an immediate halt to all violence†in the Gaza Strip and for Israel to open the border crossings for aid supplies.
Neven Jurica, UN Security Council president: “The members of the Council called for all parties to address the serious humanitarian and economic needs in Gaza and to take necessary measures, including opening all border crossings to ensure the continuous provision of humanitarian supplies, including supplies for food, fuel and provision of medical treatment.â€
The death toll in Gaza has reached at least 375 as Israel’s attack on Gaza has entered its fourth day. More than 1,600 Palestinians have been wounded and hospitals are running out of medicines and other products needed to treat them.
Israel Vows to Wage “War to the Bitter Endâ€
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel is in a “war to the bitter end against Hamas and its kind.†Israel has rejected calls for a ceasefire, and Israeli troops and tanks continue to mass on the border of Gaza preparing for a possible ground invasion. Israel has declared the area around the Gaza border a closed military zone, ordering out journalists.
UN: 64 Palestinian Civilians Killed
Earlier today, Israeli warplanes dropped at least sixteen bombs on five government buildings in Gaza, destroying them and starting several fires. An Israeli air strike in northern Gaza killed two Palestinian sisters, aged four and eleven. The girls were killed when they left their house to dump the family’s garbage. On Monday, an Israeli air strike destroyed a home in the Jabalya refugee camp, killing five sisters. The five girls were between four and seventeen years old. In another incident, eight Palestinian students, ages eighteen to twenty, were killed while waiting for a UN bus to take them home. The United Nations said at least sixty-four Palestinian civilians have died since Saturday.
Four Israelis Killed in Palestinian Rocket Attacks
The Israeli attacks have not prevented Palestinian militants from firing rockets into southern Israel. On Monday, Palestinians fired at least seventy rockets, killing two Israeli civilians and a soldier. The dead included an Israeli woman in the town of Ashdod who was killed from shrapnel wounds while taking cover from incoming rockets at a bus stop. The Israeli death toll since Saturday now stands at four.
Israeli President Shimon Peres: “The situation is simple. Some of the Gazan people are saying ‘why doesn’t Israel respect the ceasefire?’ One may think that Israel started the fire. It didn’t start the fire. It’s not a symmetric fire. If the people in Gaza want to live in peace, if the people in Gaza want to enjoy free passages, there is a simple thing they have and can do: stop shooting.â€
Ban Ki-Moon Accuses Israel of Using Excessive Force
At the United Nations, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon harshly criticized both Israel and Hamas. He condemned what he called Israel’s “excessive†use of force in Gaza.
Ban Ki-moon: “All this must stop. Both Israel and Hamas must halt their acts of violence and take all necessary measures to avoid civilian casualties. A ceasefire must be declared immediately. They must also curb their inflammatory rhetoric. Only then can dialog start.â€
Israel Rams Activist Boat Carrying Aid to Gaza
Meanwhile, the Free Gaza Movement said one of its boats, the Dignity, was rammed by Israeli gunboats in international waters. Activists with the Free Gaza Movement are attempting to sail to Gaza with over three tons of medical supplies requested by Palestinian doctors. Passengers include former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
Cynthia McKinney: “There is a need for the medical supplies that are on this boat. There is a need for international attention. And perhaps most importantly, there is need for the people in the United States to understand that every piece of rubble that is there in that strip of land is caused by US weapons and the insistence on administration after administration of transferring weapons of mass destruction to parts of the world, and those weapons are then used to hurt and kill people.â€
Kucinich Calls on UN to Investigate Israeli Attack
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has called on the United Nations to establish an independent inquiry of Israel’s war against Gaza. In a letter to Ban Ki-moon, Kucinich wrote, “The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice, but Israel cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible.†Protests against the Israeli attack have been held across the globe. In Lebanon, tens of thousand of Hezbollah supporters rallied in Beirut to condemn Israel. In Egypt, thousands of demonstrators denounced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for not helping the Palestinians in Gaza. In Amman, Jordan, protesters burned the American and Israeli flags. Here in this country,three women with the Atlantic Life Community were arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington on Monday. The women were arrested after they approached the gate of the embassy holding signs reading “Peace. Stop the killing†and “Stop the war on the children.â€
Molotov Cocktail Thrown at Synagogue in Chicago
Chicago police are investigating an attack on one of the city’s oldest synagogues. A Molotov cocktail was thrown against the wall of Temple Sholom on Monday. The incident caused minimal damage, and no one was injured.
All This Because They Want The Palestinians Land .
For More Infor Go To Democracy Now .org
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
-
SteveForty
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:26 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Hitler hated Jews enough to kill 6 million of them. That kind of act requires provocation. I'll relate the Holocaust to recent events. The Arabs drove planes into Washington and NY City. Well, why not Moscow? Beijing? New Delhi? Rio de Janeiro? (Hitler hated Jews. Why not Hindus? Christians? Buddhists?) Nobody hates the other powers to such an extent. There are many articles regarding anti-Americanism, but virtually none that talk about Anti-[insert any other nation]ism. (Lots of talk about anti-semitism, but not of any other religion) Now, you can either take what the media spoonfeeds you and assume that everybody in the Middle East are crazed madmen or otherwise are jealous of the glorious American superpower. (Hitler was a lunatic that wasn't right in his head or jealous of the Jew's wealth after the economic recession) Or, alternatively, you can actually think for yourself. The U.S. is known to throughout the 20th century to boss people around, abuse countries not as powerful or large, force people to conform with the American way of doing things, ect. (anti-semitism rages throughout history, from Ancient Romans to Middle age Europe, Africa, Islamic to somewhat modern Nazi Germany) Even now, in modern times, reporting Israeli war crimes is being labelled anti-semitism. The modern Jewish community are overly sensitive and paranoid because of their religion's past. Yet, they still believe they are superior to everybody else and many other things that would invoke hatred within others. In conclusion, Adolf Hitler's actions were justified to some extent towards many Jews. Otherwise, why would he hate Jews to such a degree? There must have been a valid reason for such a brutal act. Next time, think and look beyond the surface before making instant judgments based on the information immediately available in front of your eyes.
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
SteveForty;1315336 wrote: In conclusion, Adolf Hitler's actions were justified to some extent towards many Jews. Otherwise, why would he hate Jews to such a degree? There must have been a valid reason for such a brutal act.
hitlers actions toward any "Jews" were completely unjustifiable, unless you're speaking on behalf of hitlers perspective then I'd say is completely irrelevant
Welcome to the forum
hitlers actions toward any "Jews" were completely unjustifiable, unless you're speaking on behalf of hitlers perspective then I'd say is completely irrelevant
Welcome to the forum
-
Royd Fissure
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:04 am
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
SteveForty;1315336 wrote: Hitler hated Jews enough to kill 6 million of them. That kind of act requires provocation. I'll relate the Holocaust to recent events. The Arabs drove planes into Washington and NY City. Well, why not Moscow? Beijing? New Delhi? Rio de Janeiro? (Hitler hated Jews. Why not Hindus? Christians? Buddhists?) Nobody hates the other powers to such an extent. There are many articles regarding anti-Americanism, but virtually none that talk about Anti-[insert any other nation]ism. (Lots of talk about anti-semitism, but not of any other religion) Now, you can either take what the media spoonfeeds you and assume that everybody in the Middle East are crazed madmen or otherwise are jealous of the glorious American superpower. (Hitler was a lunatic that wasn't right in his head or jealous of the Jew's wealth after the economic recession) Or, alternatively, you can actually think for yourself. The U.S. is known to throughout the 20th century to boss people around, abuse countries not as powerful or large, force people to conform with the American way of doing things, ect. (anti-semitism rages throughout history, from Ancient Romans to Middle age Europe, Africa, Islamic to somewhat modern Nazi Germany) Even now, in modern times, reporting Israeli war crimes is being labelled anti-semitism. The modern Jewish community are overly sensitive and paranoid because of their religion's past. Yet, they still believe they are superior to everybody else and many other things that would invoke hatred within others. In conclusion, Adolf Hitler's actions were justified to some extent towards many Jews. Otherwise, why would he hate Jews to such a degree? There must have been a valid reason for such a brutal act. Next time, think and look beyond the surface before making instant judgments based on the information immediately available in front of your eyes.
Thinking for myself it seems to me that there are a number of assertions here that need a bit more support from you. I'm tempted to cherrypick but that's not really fair so I'd simply ask you to pick a few points which you are really hot on and explain them a little more, if you don't mind of course.
Thinking for myself it seems to me that there are a number of assertions here that need a bit more support from you. I'm tempted to cherrypick but that's not really fair so I'd simply ask you to pick a few points which you are really hot on and explain them a little more, if you don't mind of course.
-
SteveForty
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:26 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
K.Snyder;1315350 wrote: hitlers actions toward any "Jews" were completely unjustifiable, unless you're speaking on behalf of hitlers perspective then I'd say is completely irrelevant
Welcome to the forum
I thank you for the welcome, but you're simply making a statement without any proof of any attempt to contradict any evidence I had given. I'd also like you to know that I an not "speaking of behalf of Hitlers perspective", but from a neutral, unbiased perspective that tries to take as many solid things into account as possible. If you'd like, you can watch the film, Vantage Point to get an even better idea of perspective and how it can change, influence, and limit one's understanding of something.
Welcome to the forum
I thank you for the welcome, but you're simply making a statement without any proof of any attempt to contradict any evidence I had given. I'd also like you to know that I an not "speaking of behalf of Hitlers perspective", but from a neutral, unbiased perspective that tries to take as many solid things into account as possible. If you'd like, you can watch the film, Vantage Point to get an even better idea of perspective and how it can change, influence, and limit one's understanding of something.
-
SteveForty
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:26 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Royd Fissure;1316484 wrote: Thinking for myself it seems to me that there are a number of assertions here that need a bit more support from you. I'm tempted to cherrypick but that's not really fair so I'd simply ask you to pick a few points which you are really hot on and explain them a little more, if you don't mind of course.
Alright, try to compare the Holocaust to your (or perhaps even Hitler's) personal life, simply something of a smaller scale. For you to hate somebody enough to take their life, or to want to exterminate a group of which they belong to, whether it be ethnic, religious, gender, ect, they must first have done something to you that would invoke that degree hatred within yourself. Now, we know that Hitler was mentally sane and locical, supported by the fact that he was an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect, (and would probably have won the war if not for his slip in diverting tank armies from capturing Moscow to securing resource fields elsewhere). As well, most of the time, when we think of "bad" things that have happened, or are happening, we don't consider the side that is not represented. 9/11 was all over the news at the time. (X number of people killed, fires at the pentagon, X dollars of damage caused by planes, ect). However, there was no civilian coverage of speculation or even confirmed reasons as to WHY the arabs would do such a thing, so the mediocre people of the general public in the US automatically and immovably see the the arabs as the bad guys (I'm not saying they were definitely the "good guys", just that they may have been, but overdid their vengeance). Now, getting back to our main point. In addition to personal injuries Hitler suffered at the hands of Jews, he must also have heard of, speculated, or otherwise seen the negativity of Jews in order to be convinced that getting rid of them would be good for the people of Germany, and possibly the world. Now, what I had previously said about the modern Jewish community, may or may not have held true before WWII, but one clear thing is how the Nazi party affected the mindset of modern Jews. Now, it seems they hate the world and tend to be bitter about many things. So, in the end, a question concerned with whether or not the actions of an individual was justified or not, there is no "for sure" answer, or "the truth". Everybody has their own belief of what the truth was (personal bias), and to convince others to buy their version, they must give some form of credibility and evidence. If there is anything specific you'd like me to address, please say so. Sorry for the lengthly amount of time I take (and probably will take) to respond, as I don't check my designated junk e-mail address much.
Alright, try to compare the Holocaust to your (or perhaps even Hitler's) personal life, simply something of a smaller scale. For you to hate somebody enough to take their life, or to want to exterminate a group of which they belong to, whether it be ethnic, religious, gender, ect, they must first have done something to you that would invoke that degree hatred within yourself. Now, we know that Hitler was mentally sane and locical, supported by the fact that he was an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect, (and would probably have won the war if not for his slip in diverting tank armies from capturing Moscow to securing resource fields elsewhere). As well, most of the time, when we think of "bad" things that have happened, or are happening, we don't consider the side that is not represented. 9/11 was all over the news at the time. (X number of people killed, fires at the pentagon, X dollars of damage caused by planes, ect). However, there was no civilian coverage of speculation or even confirmed reasons as to WHY the arabs would do such a thing, so the mediocre people of the general public in the US automatically and immovably see the the arabs as the bad guys (I'm not saying they were definitely the "good guys", just that they may have been, but overdid their vengeance). Now, getting back to our main point. In addition to personal injuries Hitler suffered at the hands of Jews, he must also have heard of, speculated, or otherwise seen the negativity of Jews in order to be convinced that getting rid of them would be good for the people of Germany, and possibly the world. Now, what I had previously said about the modern Jewish community, may or may not have held true before WWII, but one clear thing is how the Nazi party affected the mindset of modern Jews. Now, it seems they hate the world and tend to be bitter about many things. So, in the end, a question concerned with whether or not the actions of an individual was justified or not, there is no "for sure" answer, or "the truth". Everybody has their own belief of what the truth was (personal bias), and to convince others to buy their version, they must give some form of credibility and evidence. If there is anything specific you'd like me to address, please say so. Sorry for the lengthly amount of time I take (and probably will take) to respond, as I don't check my designated junk e-mail address much.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Hitler hated Jews enough to kill 6 million of them. That kind of act requires provocation.
No more provocation than existence. If you require more provocation than that, he claimed that a Bolshevic Jewish plot had caused Germany to lose WW1 and was running all the Allies in WW2 including America.
Now, we know that Hitler was mentally sane and locical, supported by the fact that he was an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect, (and would probably have won the war if not for his slip in diverting tank armies from capturing Moscow to securing resource fields elsewhere).
No we don't know this.
We know he was brutalised by the experience of WW1 where he was brave but despite surviving something like three years was never promoted past corporal.
We know he was a magnetic speaker.
We know it was his mistakes that allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk.
We know it was his mistake that sent only a few forces with Rommel to the Western Desert when perhaps a single extra division might have swung the whole course of the War.
We know it was his mistake that delayed the start of Barbarossa by those six crucial weeks that might have given the Germans time before winter to take Moscow since in the event they were only 20 miles short.
We know he was directly responsible for Stalingrad and the loss of the entire 6th Army.
We know he reinforced Tunis when it was clear Rommel had already lost the Desert War whch led to the capture of ANOTHER 250,000 men.
We know it was his mistake that led directly to the disaster of the Falaise Gap.
We know it was his failure to appreciate war at sea that led to the U-boats being under-resourced until it was too late. (Churchill called the U-boat campaign the only thing that really scared him in the whole war)
We know the British dropped an assassination plan around this time because Hitler's insane decisions were regarded as more likely to end the war quickly than those of a more rational successor.
This is not the record of an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect,.
You claim to be a neutral looking at the facts. If that is so, I can only say that so far you appear to have seen one side only. You might try Why the Allies Won by Dr Richard Overy for a more complete picture.
No more provocation than existence. If you require more provocation than that, he claimed that a Bolshevic Jewish plot had caused Germany to lose WW1 and was running all the Allies in WW2 including America.
Now, we know that Hitler was mentally sane and locical, supported by the fact that he was an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect, (and would probably have won the war if not for his slip in diverting tank armies from capturing Moscow to securing resource fields elsewhere).
No we don't know this.
We know he was brutalised by the experience of WW1 where he was brave but despite surviving something like three years was never promoted past corporal.
We know he was a magnetic speaker.
We know it was his mistakes that allowed the British to escape at Dunkirk.
We know it was his mistake that sent only a few forces with Rommel to the Western Desert when perhaps a single extra division might have swung the whole course of the War.
We know it was his mistake that delayed the start of Barbarossa by those six crucial weeks that might have given the Germans time before winter to take Moscow since in the event they were only 20 miles short.
We know he was directly responsible for Stalingrad and the loss of the entire 6th Army.
We know he reinforced Tunis when it was clear Rommel had already lost the Desert War whch led to the capture of ANOTHER 250,000 men.
We know it was his mistake that led directly to the disaster of the Falaise Gap.
We know it was his failure to appreciate war at sea that led to the U-boats being under-resourced until it was too late. (Churchill called the U-boat campaign the only thing that really scared him in the whole war)
We know the British dropped an assassination plan around this time because Hitler's insane decisions were regarded as more likely to end the war quickly than those of a more rational successor.
This is not the record of an excellent tactician, ingenious thinker, ect,.
You claim to be a neutral looking at the facts. If that is so, I can only say that so far you appear to have seen one side only. You might try Why the Allies Won by Dr Richard Overy for a more complete picture.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
SteveForty
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:26 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: No more provocation than existence. If you require more provocation than that, he claimed that a Bolshevic Jewish plot had caused Germany to lose WW1 and was running all the Allies in WW2 including America.
Nobody would hate a particular group of people for existence. Perhaps, by existing,
that group of people did something perceived as negative, but nobody ever hates for
existence alone. (I am not saying Jews actually did anything to deserve what they got, just that Hitler and many others may think so).
You are correct, in that Hitler made some very wild claims about Jews, turning them into his scapegoat. However, again going back one of my original points: Why Jews? From a political, and probably general perspective as well, communists, dissenters and others of the like were clearing causing more harm to the German society than Jews, and he somehow convinced the entire population of an all-around advanced country that Jews were the problem.
For that to work, there must already have been a feeling of antisemitism among the people in the first place for whatever reason. (again, Jews have been persecuted mercilessly throughout history, more so than any other religious group, so we should not rule out the possibility that Jews aren't perfect).
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know he was a magnetic speaker.
Please explain exactly what this means. I'm unfamiliar with the magnetic speaker itself, so I'm unsure of what it would mean as a metaphor.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know it was his failure to appreciate war at sea that led to the U-boats being under-resourced until it was too late. (Churchill called the U-boat campaign the only thing that really scared him in the whole war)
I don't have anything to contest this, so I will just take your word for it. Please note that I haven't been able to find anything supporting this particular claim either.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know the British dropped an assassination plan around this time because Hitler's insane decisions were regarded as more likely to end the war quickly than those of a more rational successor.
The British dropped it because Hitler's schedule was very irregular and unpredictable, as Hitler was paying more attention than before to his personal life at the time.
I have looked at summaries of other events you listed. Most of what you say is true, but I question their effectiveness of proving your point.
You argue that Hitler was troubled in his head or otherwise mentally lacking, supported by a list of military blunders. That is inadequate evidence for saying somebody is illogical. There have been many undeniably brilliant people and powers throughout history who have made stupid military decisions. Examples include Napoleon's invasion of Russia during winter, The Imperial Navy's losses at Midway, the U.S. 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, The Canadian Dieppe Raid, and even Hanniba's ambush at Lake Trasimene.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: You claim to be a neutral looking at the facts. If that is so, I can only say that so far you appear to have seen one side only. You might try Why the Allies Won by Dr Richard Overy for a more complete picture.
Sorry, I probably should have not used "neutral" to describe my argument, since it is an argument after all. More like unbiased, since my native country is not as paranoid of Hitler as the west, primarily because the Swastika is not associated with Nazi Germany, but with things and qualities that are nearly the polar opposite of what it stands for in the west. As well, I have no reason to be pro-Hitler. You could say I'm one sided (or "seeing one side only") as I'm not going to argue against myself and condemn Hitler relentlessly like everybody here is subconsciously inclined to do (I usually enjoy taking the path less traveled). I have taken a look at the book you suggested. I don't think it's completely relevant to what we are discussing, but I would like you to know that I find it interesting.
Nobody would hate a particular group of people for existence. Perhaps, by existing,
that group of people did something perceived as negative, but nobody ever hates for
existence alone. (I am not saying Jews actually did anything to deserve what they got, just that Hitler and many others may think so).
You are correct, in that Hitler made some very wild claims about Jews, turning them into his scapegoat. However, again going back one of my original points: Why Jews? From a political, and probably general perspective as well, communists, dissenters and others of the like were clearing causing more harm to the German society than Jews, and he somehow convinced the entire population of an all-around advanced country that Jews were the problem.
For that to work, there must already have been a feeling of antisemitism among the people in the first place for whatever reason. (again, Jews have been persecuted mercilessly throughout history, more so than any other religious group, so we should not rule out the possibility that Jews aren't perfect).
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know he was a magnetic speaker.
Please explain exactly what this means. I'm unfamiliar with the magnetic speaker itself, so I'm unsure of what it would mean as a metaphor.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know it was his failure to appreciate war at sea that led to the U-boats being under-resourced until it was too late. (Churchill called the U-boat campaign the only thing that really scared him in the whole war)
I don't have anything to contest this, so I will just take your word for it. Please note that I haven't been able to find anything supporting this particular claim either.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: We know the British dropped an assassination plan around this time because Hitler's insane decisions were regarded as more likely to end the war quickly than those of a more rational successor.
The British dropped it because Hitler's schedule was very irregular and unpredictable, as Hitler was paying more attention than before to his personal life at the time.
I have looked at summaries of other events you listed. Most of what you say is true, but I question their effectiveness of proving your point.
You argue that Hitler was troubled in his head or otherwise mentally lacking, supported by a list of military blunders. That is inadequate evidence for saying somebody is illogical. There have been many undeniably brilliant people and powers throughout history who have made stupid military decisions. Examples include Napoleon's invasion of Russia during winter, The Imperial Navy's losses at Midway, the U.S. 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, The Canadian Dieppe Raid, and even Hanniba's ambush at Lake Trasimene.
Clodhopper;1317313 wrote: You claim to be a neutral looking at the facts. If that is so, I can only say that so far you appear to have seen one side only. You might try Why the Allies Won by Dr Richard Overy for a more complete picture.
Sorry, I probably should have not used "neutral" to describe my argument, since it is an argument after all. More like unbiased, since my native country is not as paranoid of Hitler as the west, primarily because the Swastika is not associated with Nazi Germany, but with things and qualities that are nearly the polar opposite of what it stands for in the west. As well, I have no reason to be pro-Hitler. You could say I'm one sided (or "seeing one side only") as I'm not going to argue against myself and condemn Hitler relentlessly like everybody here is subconsciously inclined to do (I usually enjoy taking the path less traveled). I have taken a look at the book you suggested. I don't think it's completely relevant to what we are discussing, but I would like you to know that I find it interesting.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
SteveForty;1319079 wrote: Nobody would hate a particular group of people for existence.
Yer not frum da Saiuth, are yoooo? :guitarist
Yer not frum da Saiuth, are yoooo? :guitarist
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
SteveForty:
Perhaps I should explain that I have spent a lot of time arguing with supporters of the British extreme right. Their interest in Hitler is not one of scholarly detachment but as the focus of an unhealthy cult. I was worried you were another of that sort. Your measured response suggests you are not. My apologies if I was a bit snarly.
Only society I'm aware of that uses the swastika is Hindu... there may be others, but being unaware of them my current guess would be that your roots are in the Indian subcontinent. At which point I'm fascinated as to how and why you came up with such a Western-sounding pseudonym! (Oh, and regarding the swastika, my understanding was that the Hindu swastika has arms that always point in one direction but the Nazi swastika's arms pointed in the opposite direction, and that this changed the meaning of the symbol in a bad way. It is possible that my understanding is a hangover from wartime propaganda. Perhaps you can tell me?)
Nobody would hate a particular group of people for existence. Perhaps, by existing,
that group of people did something perceived as negative, but nobody ever hates for
existence alone. (I am not saying Jews actually did anything to deserve what they got, just that Hitler and many others may think so).
If, by existing, a group of people is perceived by another group as being worthy of hatred, then are the first group not being hated by the second group because they exist?
Why Jews?
There is a long history of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. It has its roots in religious bigotry but they have long provided a target when a scapegoat is required or funds are needed quick - they were thrown out of England in 1290 shortly after Edward I had borrowed a lot of money from them. This meant there was a group ready-made for Hitler to focus on so he didn't have to spend time working up a hatred from nothing. He DID extend this to cover Bolshevism as is shown by his and Goebbel's constant references to the Jewish-Bolshevic threat from Russia.
Please explain exactly what this means. I'm unfamiliar with the magnetic speaker itself, so I'm unsure of what it would mean as a metaphor.
He was a speaker who grabbed your attention and held it as a magnet grabs and holds an iron filing. Churchill had it, Obama has it, Hitler had it more then either, or both combined. Look at the films of the Nuremburg rallies and the hysterical reaction of the audience. He could sway people - REALLY change them - by the power of his voice alone. At least for a while.
I don't have anything to contest this, so I will just take your word for it. Please note that I haven't been able to find anything supporting this particular claim either.
Excert quoted from The Second World War vol II by WS Churchill. pub Cassell, 1949. p529:
He sums up the genaral naval situation in 1940 and goes on: "A far graver danger was added to these problems. The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril. Invasion, I thought, even before the air battle, would fail. After the air victory it was a good battle for us. We could drown and kill this horrible foe in circumstances favourable to us, and, as he evidently realised, bad for him. It was the kind of battle which, in the cruel conditions of war, one ought to be content to fight. But now our life-line, even across the broad oceans, and especially in the entrances to the Island, was endangered. I was even more anxious about this battle than I had been about the glorious air fight called the Battle of Britain."
Hitler completely failed to appreciate this. Until much too late.
The British dropped it* because Hitler's schedule was very irregular and unpredictable, as Hitler was paying more attention than before to his personal life at the time.
*the assassination
Hitler's schedule was always deliberately erratic. It ws before the British began the plot, and that wasn't enough to deter them from taking the plan a very long way. If it wasn't enough to prevent the British geting started, I suspect it wasn't enough to stop the. After all, they were only gambling the lives of two volunteers against a shortening of the war.
I have looked at summaries of other events you listed. Most of what you say is true, but I question their effectiveness of proving your point.
You argue that Hitler was troubled in his head or otherwise mentally lacking, supported by a list of military blunders. That is inadequate evidence for saying somebody is illogical. There have been many undeniably brilliant people and powers throughout history who have made stupid military decisions. Examples include Napoleon's invasion of Russia during winter, The Imperial Navy's losses at Midway, the U.S. 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, The Canadian Dieppe Raid, and even Hanniba's ambush at Lake Trasimene.
Well, to be fair, I was responding to your excellent tactician, ingenious thinker line and suggesting that a long list of blunders such as the one I gave was NOT the record of an excellent tactician. My reasons for considering him mentally unbalanced are:
Traumatic effects of WW1 and defeat.
Megalomania - the unbalancing effects of absolute power on an already damaged psyche
The warped morality
The cocktail of drugs his doctor gave him:
Amphetamines
Belladonna
Atropine
Caffeine
Chamomile
Cocaine (via eye drops)
E. coli
Enzymes
Glyconorm
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Nux Vomica (a form of strychnine)
Oxedrine Tartrate
Potassium bromide
Prophenazone
Proteins and lipids derived from animal tissues and fats
Sodium barbitone
Sulphonamide
Testosterone
Vitamins taken from Wiki Dr Theodor Morell
The stress of trying to run the whole war on his own...etc etc.
I have taken a look at the book you suggested. I don't think it's completely relevant to what we are discussing, but I would like you to know that I find it interesting.
Glad you are finding it interesting. Chuckle. At the time I recommended it I strongly suspected you were a far-right supporter and thought 1) You wouldn't read it, and 2) If you did it would give you some good practical reasons NOT to want a nazi regime. It's not completely relevant to the matter of whether Hitler was justified in his actions but it seems to me that reading it shows what many of those actions were, and how misjudged so many of them were, alowing us to make our own judgement about their justification.
Perhaps I should explain that I have spent a lot of time arguing with supporters of the British extreme right. Their interest in Hitler is not one of scholarly detachment but as the focus of an unhealthy cult. I was worried you were another of that sort. Your measured response suggests you are not. My apologies if I was a bit snarly.
Only society I'm aware of that uses the swastika is Hindu... there may be others, but being unaware of them my current guess would be that your roots are in the Indian subcontinent. At which point I'm fascinated as to how and why you came up with such a Western-sounding pseudonym! (Oh, and regarding the swastika, my understanding was that the Hindu swastika has arms that always point in one direction but the Nazi swastika's arms pointed in the opposite direction, and that this changed the meaning of the symbol in a bad way. It is possible that my understanding is a hangover from wartime propaganda. Perhaps you can tell me?)
Nobody would hate a particular group of people for existence. Perhaps, by existing,
that group of people did something perceived as negative, but nobody ever hates for
existence alone. (I am not saying Jews actually did anything to deserve what they got, just that Hitler and many others may think so).
If, by existing, a group of people is perceived by another group as being worthy of hatred, then are the first group not being hated by the second group because they exist?
Why Jews?
There is a long history of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. It has its roots in religious bigotry but they have long provided a target when a scapegoat is required or funds are needed quick - they were thrown out of England in 1290 shortly after Edward I had borrowed a lot of money from them. This meant there was a group ready-made for Hitler to focus on so he didn't have to spend time working up a hatred from nothing. He DID extend this to cover Bolshevism as is shown by his and Goebbel's constant references to the Jewish-Bolshevic threat from Russia.
Please explain exactly what this means. I'm unfamiliar with the magnetic speaker itself, so I'm unsure of what it would mean as a metaphor.
He was a speaker who grabbed your attention and held it as a magnet grabs and holds an iron filing. Churchill had it, Obama has it, Hitler had it more then either, or both combined. Look at the films of the Nuremburg rallies and the hysterical reaction of the audience. He could sway people - REALLY change them - by the power of his voice alone. At least for a while.
I don't have anything to contest this, so I will just take your word for it. Please note that I haven't been able to find anything supporting this particular claim either.
Excert quoted from The Second World War vol II by WS Churchill. pub Cassell, 1949. p529:
He sums up the genaral naval situation in 1940 and goes on: "A far graver danger was added to these problems. The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril. Invasion, I thought, even before the air battle, would fail. After the air victory it was a good battle for us. We could drown and kill this horrible foe in circumstances favourable to us, and, as he evidently realised, bad for him. It was the kind of battle which, in the cruel conditions of war, one ought to be content to fight. But now our life-line, even across the broad oceans, and especially in the entrances to the Island, was endangered. I was even more anxious about this battle than I had been about the glorious air fight called the Battle of Britain."
Hitler completely failed to appreciate this. Until much too late.
The British dropped it* because Hitler's schedule was very irregular and unpredictable, as Hitler was paying more attention than before to his personal life at the time.
*the assassination
Hitler's schedule was always deliberately erratic. It ws before the British began the plot, and that wasn't enough to deter them from taking the plan a very long way. If it wasn't enough to prevent the British geting started, I suspect it wasn't enough to stop the. After all, they were only gambling the lives of two volunteers against a shortening of the war.
I have looked at summaries of other events you listed. Most of what you say is true, but I question their effectiveness of proving your point.
You argue that Hitler was troubled in his head or otherwise mentally lacking, supported by a list of military blunders. That is inadequate evidence for saying somebody is illogical. There have been many undeniably brilliant people and powers throughout history who have made stupid military decisions. Examples include Napoleon's invasion of Russia during winter, The Imperial Navy's losses at Midway, the U.S. 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, The Canadian Dieppe Raid, and even Hanniba's ambush at Lake Trasimene.
Well, to be fair, I was responding to your excellent tactician, ingenious thinker line and suggesting that a long list of blunders such as the one I gave was NOT the record of an excellent tactician. My reasons for considering him mentally unbalanced are:
Traumatic effects of WW1 and defeat.
Megalomania - the unbalancing effects of absolute power on an already damaged psyche
The warped morality
The cocktail of drugs his doctor gave him:
Amphetamines
Belladonna
Atropine
Caffeine
Chamomile
Cocaine (via eye drops)
E. coli
Enzymes
Glyconorm
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Nux Vomica (a form of strychnine)
Oxedrine Tartrate
Potassium bromide
Prophenazone
Proteins and lipids derived from animal tissues and fats
Sodium barbitone
Sulphonamide
Testosterone
Vitamins taken from Wiki Dr Theodor Morell
The stress of trying to run the whole war on his own...etc etc.
I have taken a look at the book you suggested. I don't think it's completely relevant to what we are discussing, but I would like you to know that I find it interesting.
Glad you are finding it interesting. Chuckle. At the time I recommended it I strongly suspected you were a far-right supporter and thought 1) You wouldn't read it, and 2) If you did it would give you some good practical reasons NOT to want a nazi regime. It's not completely relevant to the matter of whether Hitler was justified in his actions but it seems to me that reading it shows what many of those actions were, and how misjudged so many of them were, alowing us to make our own judgement about their justification.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
posted by scrat
But was the actions he carried out justifiable? Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
Thankyou for your opinion but it is only that.
Italy and Japan were our allies in ww1. Leaving aside italy for the moment Japan at least was guilty of some of the worst atrocities seen in ww2, up to an including medical experiments on captured prisoners. You can hardly blame the conditions imposed after ww1 for that can you?
Stalin makes hitler look like an amateur in the mass killing game but that's not due to the Versailles treaty either. ww1 would have been even worse if the killing machines available had been as effective as those in ww2. Hitler gets a a lot of blame for ww2 but the frightening reality is that just blaming him is a simple answer. All sides would have used nuclear weapons if they had had them. It's just lucky we (the allies) got there first. What is frightening about Hitler is it is easy to understand the appeal of that kind of extreme nationalism and pride and an excuse to get at everybody that is different from you.
I think this is one of the best two minute explanations for the rise of Hitler ever written - (ironically by a jewish composer)
posted by steveforty
You are correct, in that Hitler made some very wild claims about Jews, turning them into his scapegoat. However, again going back one of my original points: Why Jews? From a political, and probably general perspective as well, communists, dissenters and others of the like were clearing causing more harm to the German society than Jews, and he somehow convinced the entire population of an all-around advanced country that Jews were the problem.
He managed to conflate fear of communism (marx was jewish remember) with fear of the jews and bring a kind of religious fervour to it. That the jews asked for it is one that was quite common at the time until the full horror became apparent. People also used to believe that black people were inferior that arabs couldn't be trusted and dagoes and wops weren't up to much either. Manifest destiny is a concept dreamed up by wasps so maybe we should blame martin luther and his damned reformation except the jews thought they were the chosen people first so maybe we should blame them, hang on I'm suffering from deja vu.
Hitler would have been justified in his actions - if he had won. He lost so he wasn't.
Context is everything isn't it?
But was the actions he carried out justifiable? Considering the allied bomber offensive and the deliberate targeting of civilians are we any better?
Hitler brought about the conditions for one of the most horrendous wars in history but was it justified? Did the allies bring about the conditions that made it possible.
Thankyou for your opinion but it is only that.
Italy and Japan were our allies in ww1. Leaving aside italy for the moment Japan at least was guilty of some of the worst atrocities seen in ww2, up to an including medical experiments on captured prisoners. You can hardly blame the conditions imposed after ww1 for that can you?
Stalin makes hitler look like an amateur in the mass killing game but that's not due to the Versailles treaty either. ww1 would have been even worse if the killing machines available had been as effective as those in ww2. Hitler gets a a lot of blame for ww2 but the frightening reality is that just blaming him is a simple answer. All sides would have used nuclear weapons if they had had them. It's just lucky we (the allies) got there first. What is frightening about Hitler is it is easy to understand the appeal of that kind of extreme nationalism and pride and an excuse to get at everybody that is different from you.
I think this is one of the best two minute explanations for the rise of Hitler ever written - (ironically by a jewish composer)
posted by steveforty
You are correct, in that Hitler made some very wild claims about Jews, turning them into his scapegoat. However, again going back one of my original points: Why Jews? From a political, and probably general perspective as well, communists, dissenters and others of the like were clearing causing more harm to the German society than Jews, and he somehow convinced the entire population of an all-around advanced country that Jews were the problem.
He managed to conflate fear of communism (marx was jewish remember) with fear of the jews and bring a kind of religious fervour to it. That the jews asked for it is one that was quite common at the time until the full horror became apparent. People also used to believe that black people were inferior that arabs couldn't be trusted and dagoes and wops weren't up to much either. Manifest destiny is a concept dreamed up by wasps so maybe we should blame martin luther and his damned reformation except the jews thought they were the chosen people first so maybe we should blame them, hang on I'm suffering from deja vu.
Hitler would have been justified in his actions - if he had won. He lost so he wasn't.
Context is everything isn't it?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
gmc: That's SteveForty, not me. But generally my response is: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; possibly; and, any fule kno the English are God's Chosen People. (I may be one "yes" short there, depending on whether we count the Dagoes and Wops as one or two categories in this context)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
Clodhopper;1319560 wrote: gmc: That's SteveForty, not me. But generally my response is: Yes; yes; yes; yes; yes; possibly; and, any fule kno the English are God's Chosen People. (I may be one "yes" short there, depending on whether we count the Dagoes and Wops as one or two categories in this context)
Sorry. That's twice I've done that. I blame the new colours. And only an englishman would be fool enough to believe that last one.
You could as well ask were the britush justified in having an empire.
Sorry. That's twice I've done that. I blame the new colours. And only an englishman would be fool enough to believe that last one.
You could as well ask were the britush justified in having an empire.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Was Hitler justified in his actions?
(indignantly) Well, it's done the Jews proud for 2,000 years. Why should it do any less for us? (ROTFL)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."