Nov 8 2007, 1:55 pm
In response to Gogeta126
|
|
Worldweaver
 |
Gogeta, don't try to legitimize Hitler. It makes you seem stupid and perverse.
|
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
Yeah, you can disobey an order, but that is equivalent to what, desertion? That's all great, y'know, if you want to be killed for betrayal and treason. quite honestly, if I had a choice between getting killed or killing somebody myself I would much sooner get killed. also this thread is incredibly shocking. clearly history teachers are not doing their job or something, because there are far too many attempts to paint Hitler as anything but a despicable, disgusting human being for me to be comfortable reading it. yes, he was incredibly persuasive, charismatic, and had a very good grasp of what people think and feel. this doesn't make him a good person by any means. if anything, it shows that he had the kind of attributes to be a good leader. however, any shred of respect or admiration he would have earned is instantly negated by the fact that he had all of this intelligence and influence -- and knew it -- and used it to enforce and encourage an unfortunately already existing public dislike of Jewish people rather than do something good with his life. seriously. stop being idiots, folks. | |
Gogeta126 wrote:
hitler was also not a bad person(in a way). he was same as everyone. everyone has some ideology(that what u call it?) he wanted germany to get back all they lost in world war 1, and wanted germany to be in power over others, and well......didnt like jewish and others :/ yeah I guess.. but uh don't forget that it's not really right to think those things either. and furthermore, I really really don't think most people think stupid stuff like that. not the intelligent ones, at least. | |
it's escaped from the internet and is now spreading to History
and so the world spirals into an awful state :\ ... much like Hitler's Germany ... agh NO! | |
Shlaklava wrote:
Awww ****!!!!!!! Exactly the message I was about to post! Note that "psychopath" translates as "a person suffering from mental aberrations and disorders, especially one who perceives reality clearly except for his or her own social or moral obligations and seeks instant gratification in criminal or otherwise abnormal behavior." Was Hitler suffering from a mental disorder? Or was his mentality simply screwed up to the point of seeing no other way but to kill all those people? -- Data | |
Vortezz wrote:
you heard it here first, folks. I'm not saying Geroge Washington is Hitler(Which is a name and not an adjective...) I'm saying what makes one person who killed many different from another, Alexander the Great killed persians and Indians, but most consider him a good person. | |
History teachers aren't supposed to implant their opinion into the students. That is for the student to decide. Of course, you could argue that any decent human being, knowing about Hitler's actions and how he behaved, would think nothing more of a him than he would a rat. As for me, I respect his skills and intellect and nothing more. He was a genius regardless of how despicable a man he was.
| |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
History teachers aren't supposed to implant their opinion into the students. That is for the student to decide. History teachers seem to teach us more about World War II and the Cold War more than they teach us about what acts Napoleon did back in his time. They write a lot of stuff down about Hitler, how he came to power, how he picked the jews for mass-extermination, but nobody gives the same information about Saddam or any other dictator we know of. -- Data | |
Poal wrote:
(Which is a name and not an adjective...) yeah uh I don't know where you got the idea that anybody thought otherwise. I'm saying what makes one person who killed many different from another, Alexander the Great killed persians and Indians, but most consider him a good person. well mostly because the Holocaust wasn't about conquering lands or expanding a country. it was about an attempt to exterminate one specific group of people entirely (and yes, I'm aware it was more than just the Jews but they were the main deal). it doesn't take a genius to figure out that genocide is a lot different than war. Hitler encouraged his Nazi party to round up families and communities and cram them into horrifically cramped barracks, with one bed for three or more people. however, these people didn't have much problem fitting in this small bed, because they were incredibly malnourished, starved, and diseased, resulting in frail skeletal bodies. he even stripped these people of their names and identities, tattooing them with a number and referring to them as this alone. when somebody was deemed unable to work for some reason, they were herded into a shower where they were led to believe they were going to be cleaned, but instead they were forced to die a slow and painful death. how did they dispose of all the bodies, you may ask? why, a simple method: just get their former friends and family to drag their swollen skeletal corpses into another building, and force them to burn them! not to mention the horrific experiments which Hitler surely knew about. roughly six million people were killed in this way. George Washington's American Revolution killed roughly 20,000. so uh. if you want to try to justify that or even to compare the Holocaust to a simple war for independence from an oppressor, then by all means. but I'll think a whole helluva lot less of you. | |
20,000 or 6 million, it's still lives and its still deaths, number count but still it is death no matter how many. People are dieng as we speak all over the world, hundreds die each day, you're just focusing on 6 million that died in a period of about 6 or 7 years that have a simmilar belief. And if you say WWII from the German side wasn't about land, I would think otherwise, the Germans basicly took over France and Poland, if it was about killing people, they would have just killed the people and left, but they stayed in the lands, why do you think England and America invaded France and fough for it, they could have left. Also an untold story about the Germans.
When the Germans went to Russian villages, they killed the jews and cristians, but for everyone else, they brought food(Because Stalin back then took it all away), made the kids go to school and basicly the soldiers served as police. Hitler did encourage Nazis to kill, torture, and experiment on people yes, but he was not a psycopath that went on a killing spree on the whole world, if that was his plan all he would have done is bomb all the major cities in major countries with people like India or China. | |
just saying the truth from the other point of view. all of us were told how hitler was bad, but most of us dont really understand
| |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Poal wrote: you cant really blame them for following him and he did promise them stuff which he then gave them such as cars and jobs during the german depression which was a result of our past idiots (americans of course) not understanding that buying what you cant pay for is NOT a good idea but after some reading (wikipedia so maybe not completely factual take it as far as you can throw it etc) ww1 had left usa as the bank so it could be that WW1 was to blame for it because it left the world at the us's economy just because the damage that had allready been done | |
Their is no quesiton that Hitler had some mental issues. If you are in charge of the massacure of millions somethings not ticking right. Just as some of us hate people, we may say "I want to kill[whoever](joking as well)," Hitler actually carried through with his hatred and actually did slaughter millions.
| |
Poal wrote:
And if you say WWII from the German side wasn't about land, I would think otherwise WWII != Holocaust and the rest of your post is mostly just not worth replying to. [edit: well I thought that wasn't a good enough point to stand on its own so I'll elaborate. you seem to be mixing up the Holocaust and WW2, which are two seperate things altogether. while the territory Germany gained in WW2 helped to further the reach of the Holocaust's icy grip, they are mostly unrelated. well not really but still. in World War II, Germany killed ~21.3 million Russians (easily assumed to be all by German hands), 500 000 Americans (some of these were by Italian hands), 6.8 million Poles, as well as less significant numbers of other various nations [source]. these massive numbers, of course, aren't being showed to make Germany out to be some horrendous beast. of course they did instigate the war, but these high numbers are so high simply because of the nature of World War II -- weaponry had significantly advanced, Russia threw millions upon millions of troops at them, and many of the battles Germany took part in were basically battles of attrition. of course I'm not trying to justify war or say that it was right for Germany to keep taking and taking. I'm just saying that these deaths (war-related) were completely seperate from the six million plus Jew/homosexual/gypsy deaths which were executed solely to make these groups cease to exist. the war was about spreading the Third Reich. the Holocaust was about "purifying" the Third Reich. the Holocaust was about trying to wipe an entire race off of the face of the planet. so yeah, I guess you could compare Hitler's war ideology to George Washington's, but if you even begin to compare the Holocaust to the Revolutionary War then you're a blimey idiot, without any doubt. even in the war side of things, they're pretty completely different. yeah, George Washington and Hitler both wanted to take back what was taken from them and kind of solidify their countries. but George Washington didn't keep going and take Canada and take Mexico and try to take South America. he also didn't torture and starve six million people to death, either. | |
Atomic1fire wrote:
you cant really blame them for following him What does Americans buying things they can't pay for have to do with the German depression? They got pwnt in WW1, that's why they were in debt. They had to pay "reparations." You might be referring to the American depression. | |
In addition to what Vortezz said...
Poal wrote: And if you say WWII from the German side wasn't about land, I would think otherwise, the Germans basicly took over France and Poland, if it was about killing people, they would have just killed the people and left, but they stayed in the lands, why do you think England and America invaded France and fough for it, they could have left. Germany was interested in gaining land and even more interested in getting money. With all the natural resources available, how could he resist? On the counter side of what you said about killing and leaving, it's not like two entire friggin' armies are just going to let the Germans cheerfully walk out of a country after they've pillaged and murdered their allie's people. The Germans had to battle their way through the whole time. The armies stayed because it was a front of battle. Better to keep the Germans there than to have them advance upon another nation. When the Germans went to Russian villages, they killed the jews and cristians, but for everyone else, they brought food(Because Stalin back then took it all away), made the kids go to school and basicly the soldiers served as police. I don't get why you posted that... Hitler did encourage Nazis to kill, torture, and experiment on people yes, but he was not a psycopath that went on a killing spree on the whole world, if that was his plan all he would have done is bomb all the major cities in major countries with people like India or China. The torture was Himmler's idea, actually. Hitler was a psychopath. Maybe it was his intelligence and superiority-feeling that overwhelmed him, but I'm betting it was the drugs that turned him into a crazy old man. When the drugs really started to get to him, he started losing the war, so I wonder what would have happened if he just dealt with the pain he was having. | |