NationStates Jolt Archive

Was he really such a bad person? The answer to that is probably 'yes' for most of you, but hear my point first...

The true meaning of the swastika (the Nazi flag). An ancient symbol dating back to ancient times, with 4 L's side by side. So why is it that Nazi Germany decided to use it as their symbol? It is not a symbol of hatred, or genocide. It is a symbol of our essential freedoms and the fellowship we endure with each other. I wish to point out that the Nazis were perhaps not as bad as we think. They actually believed what they were doing was right. Not only Hitler, but a whole nation was behind him. Germany was oppressed after World War 1, suffered extreme poverty and was in debt. Thousands starved to death. Hitler fought back, and with this fight brought radical changes to the world.

I'm not saying that genocide was the answer, what I'm saying is that history is painted in the eyes of the victor. If Germany had won WW2, Hitler would likely be hailed as the greatest hero in history. So I am tired of hearing how evil he was. Murdering millions of people was not a great accomplishment, or something to look back on with pride. But it was a great example of someone doing what they thought was right. Someone standing up for what they believe in.

Do you still think he was such a bad person? Although in many people's views he was an evil man, was he really so bad? I'm not pro-Hitler, I don't like him, or what he did, but I'm trying to point out that people shouldn't judge him without giving it complete thought.

Well, evil *is* relative... but he sure wasn't nice.

So because he thought he was doing the right thing it makes it better? I don't know how you can even begin to defend hitlers actions.

Was he really such a bad person? The answer to that is probably 'yes' for most of you, but hear my point first...

The true meaning of the swastika (the Nazi flag). An ancient symbol dating back to ancient times, with 4 L's side by side. So why is it that Nazi Germany decided to use it as their symbol? It is not a symbol of hatred, or genocide. It is a symbol of our essential freedoms and the fellowship we endure with each other. I wish to point out that the Nazis were perhaps not as bad as we think. They actually believed what they were doing was right. Not only Hitler, but a whole nation was behind him. Germany was oppressed after World War 1, suffered extreme poverty and was in debt. Thousands starved to death. Hitler fought back, and with this fight brought radical changes to the world.

I'm not saying that genocide was the answer, what I'm saying is that history is painted in the eyes of the victor. If Germany had won WW2, Hitler would likely be hailed as the greatest hero in history. So I am tired of hearing how evil he was. Murdering millions of people was not a great accomplishment, or something to look back on with pride. But it was a great example of someone doing what they thought was right. Someone standing up for what they believe in.

Do you still think he was such a bad person? Although in many people's views he was an evil man, was he really so bad? I'm not pro-Hitler, I don't like him, or what he did, but I'm trying to point out that people shouldn't judge him without giving it complete thought.

Undoubtedly evil. How you could possibly think there was even the shadow of a doubt is totally beyond me.

Sincerity is not virtue when you are sincere about a warped and twisted view of your fellow man.

This is about Adolf Hitler? Ooops, I got confused, I was thinking about Bill Clinton.

Are you people telling me Hitler woke up one morning and said "Hahaha, I will kill the Jews, it'll be cool!"?
No, he did it for a reason, misguided though it might have been.

This is about Adolf Hitler? Ooops, I got confused, I was thinking about Bill Clinton.

Did you get hit in the head recently?

This is about Adolf Hitler? Ooops, I got confused, I was thinking about Bill Clinton.

You are certainly extemely confused.

well, he killed millions that makes him bad, true, he thought it was the right choice, that the race of people who are blond with blue eyes should rule the world while everyone else was their slaves, he was crazy!! He did all of this for a reason which he thought was good, but that is pure racism, which is a bad thing = he is a bad man but he thought he was a good man.
did any of you read "mein kumpf" by Hitler, he wrote this book while he was in preison in 1921 or 1923 after a failed coup d'etat, the dude's a lunatic!

Are you people telling me Hitler woke up one morning and said "Hahaha, I will kill the Jews, it'll be cool!"?
No, he did it for a reason, misguided though it might have been.

Every crime ever is done for a reason.

So what?

A crime is a crime, irrespective of motive.

Ask someone that went to triblinka or aschwich (exuse the spelling) in the mid 40s. Theyll still say he was a bad person. And just because he used a good symbol dosn't make him right, the crussades uses the cross but they weren't right.

So because he thought he was doing the right thing it makes it better? I don't know how you can even begin to defend hitlers actions.

But of course the actions taken by the Allied governments after WWI were just. Should we defend that we left an entire nation impoverished for two decades before anyone took action against us?

Zaire - From 1965 to 1991, Zaire received massive US economic and military assistance. In return US multinational corporations were given unfettered access to Zaire's fabulous mineral wealth. Zaire also served as a bastion of anti-Communism in the Cold War, upholding American interests. Although Mobutu was a brutal right-wing dictator, as he served US interests, he was never condemned by the United States. It was only later, once Mobutu began stealing Western owned assets in Zaire that the US turned against him.
Paul Kagame, a Rwandian exile serving as a colonel in the Ugandian army, was trained by the United States at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. Later Kagame took command of a rebel army that invaded Rwanda. The militarily supported Kagame's army in Rwanda and US Army Special Forces trained hundreds of Kagame's troops.
In August 1996, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, visited Washington to discuss the threat that the Rwandain Hutu refugees in eastern Zaire posed to his regime in Rwanda. Immediately afterward, Kagame and Kabila invaded Zaire (in October) and eastern Zaire was quickly taken. The Hutu refugees were attacked were either driven away or killed. In defense of Kagame, the US ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Gribbin, at first denied that Rwandan troops were involved in Kabila's invasion. But Dan Simpson, US envoy to Mobutu's Zaire spoiled this lie when he announced that Rwandan troops were involved in the invasion.
US involvement is unquestionable. The US embassy in Burundi was actively involved in supplying Kabila's rebel forces with arms from South Africa. Later, the State Department sent Dennis Hankins to Goma, the capital of Kabila's rebel forces, to serve US representation to the rebel alliance. This was followed up by a US House resolution calling on Mobutu to step down in Zaire.

Cuba - US financed and supported Cuban terrorist emigres based in Miami, Florida initiated a bombing campaign of Havanna hotels.

Iraq - The US launched "Operation Phoenix Scorpion I" in November. This operation involved a large deployment of US air forces to Iraq as a means of intimidation, although no strikes were actually made.

Congo - After the successful US backed invasion of Zaire (see 1996), relations between the victorious Kabila and Rwandans / Americans began collapse. [Zaire was renamed Congo with the removal of Mobutu] Much of Kabila's new administration, especially among the military and security forces were former Rwandan officials and played an active role in the massacres of Hutu refugees (James Kabarebe, Jackson Nzinza, Bizima Karaha, &c.). As Kabila's regime took shape and the massacres of Hutus continued unabated, the United States gradually turned against the new Congolese regime.
This situation worsened with the arrival of Kabila's foreign minister, Bizima Karaha, in Washington in 1997. Karaha made a very poor impression on the Clinton administration and openly challenged the Clinton administration's on constructing a puppet government suitable to the United States. As US pressure against Kabila mounted, especially making capital out of the massacres of Hutus in Kabila's invasion, Kabila turned the tables, accusing the United States of complicity as well, pointing out US aid to the Rwandan army, that was chiefly responsible. Scott Campbell's Washington Post investigation in 1997 confirmed these charges, detailing US training and financing of the Rwandan military and their role in the systematic massacres in the Hutu refugee camps in Congo.

This is about Adolf Hitler? Ooops, I got confused, I was thinking about Bill Clinton.

You are certainly extemely confused.


Still think I am confused?

Zaire - From 1965 to 1991, Zaire received massive US economic and military assistance. In return US multinational corporations were given unfettered access to Zaire's fabulous mineral wealth. Zaire also served as a bastion of anti-Communism in the Cold War, upholding American interests. Although Mobutu was a brutal right-wing dictator, as he served US interests, he was never condemned by the United States. It was only later, once Mobutu began stealing Western owned assets in Zaire that the US turned against him.
Paul Kagame, a Rwandian exile serving as a colonel in the Ugandian army, was trained by the United States at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. Later Kagame took command of a rebel army that invaded Rwanda. The militarily supported Kagame's army in Rwanda and US Army Special Forces trained hundreds of Kagame's troops.
In August 1996, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, visited Washington to discuss the threat that the Rwandain Hutu refugees in eastern Zaire posed to his regime in Rwanda. Immediately afterward, Kagame and Kabila invaded Zaire (in October) and eastern Zaire was quickly taken. The Hutu refugees were attacked were either driven away or killed. In defense of Kagame, the US ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Gribbin, at first denied that Rwandan troops were involved in Kabila's invasion. But Dan Simpson, US envoy to Mobutu's Zaire spoiled this lie when he announced that Rwandan troops were involved in the invasion.
US involvement is unquestionable. The US embassy in Burundi was actively involved in supplying Kabila's rebel forces with arms from South Africa. Later, the State Department sent Dennis Hankins to Goma, the capital of Kabila's rebel forces, to serve US representation to the rebel alliance. This was followed up by a US House resolution calling on Mobutu to step down in Zaire.

Ummm....Hitler was never in Zaire.
If you want to discuss another topic, as seems to be quite evident, please start your own thread on it.

So because he thought he was doing the right thing it makes it better? I don't know how you can even begin to defend hitlers actions.

But of course the actions taken by the Allied governments after WWI were just. Should we defend that we left an entire nation impoverished for two decades before anyone took action against us?

I didn't say that. I don't think that the end of WW1 was handled well it all. It still doesn't QUITE excuse killing 6 million people with the excuse that they are 'inferior'. Interestingly enough, there's a programme I'm watching right now showing images of piles of naked bodies that were discovered after the war.

Zaire - From 1965 to 1991, Zaire received massive US economic and military assistance. In return US multinational corporations were given unfettered access to Zaire's fabulous mineral wealth. Zaire also served as a bastion of anti-Communism in the Cold War, upholding American interests. Although Mobutu was a brutal right-wing dictator, as he served US interests, he was never condemned by the United States. It was only later, once Mobutu began stealing Western owned assets in Zaire that the US turned against him.
Paul Kagame, a Rwandian exile serving as a colonel in the Ugandian army, was trained by the United States at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. Later Kagame took command of a rebel army that invaded Rwanda. The militarily supported Kagame's army in Rwanda and US Army Special Forces trained hundreds of Kagame's troops.
In August 1996, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, visited Washington to discuss the threat that the Rwandain Hutu refugees in eastern Zaire posed to his regime in Rwanda. Immediately afterward, Kagame and Kabila invaded Zaire (in October) and eastern Zaire was quickly taken. The Hutu refugees were attacked were either driven away or killed. In defense of Kagame, the US ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Gribbin, at first denied that Rwandan troops were involved in Kabila's invasion. But Dan Simpson, US envoy to Mobutu's Zaire spoiled this lie when he announced that Rwandan troops were involved in the invasion.
US involvement is unquestionable. The US embassy in Burundi was actively involved in supplying Kabila's rebel forces with arms from South Africa. Later, the State Department sent Dennis Hankins to Goma, the capital of Kabila's rebel forces, to serve US representation to the rebel alliance. This was followed up by a US House resolution calling on Mobutu to step down in Zaire.

The relevance to Adolf Hitler being....

I suspect he opted for adobting the swastika as part of the NSDAP's party flag not so much because of its original symbolic meaning, but because he needed a cool looking flag to wave around.

As for him not being evil... Its hard to defend a guy who ordered the systematic genocide on the jews, gypsies, gays, coloured, as being "not evil, just misguided", if not impossible.

Also, your statement that the whole nation was behind him is patently false. What do you think he had the SA, and later the SS, for? First he had the SA to disturb rallies of supporters of political opponents, read "beat them up", and later he used the SS to supress any resistance coming from the germans themselves. After his coup he quickly had those germans who had expressed their discontent with him locked up in concentration camps and murdered. And after that most germans got the idea: "better walk in line or get killed." This is, of course, not to say that he didn't have many supporters, he clearly did, but that is not to say that he had the whole nation behind him as you claim.

And if he really did care about the well-being of the germans then he would most certainly not have ordered them to fight to the dead. If he had cared he would have made peace in as early as 1942, instead he ened up sending schoolboys in uniform to the front to get themselves killed.

I see Gibraltar's point, however. No one can really think that they are evil, right? No matter how heinous a crime is, the person committing it has to think that it's the right course of action. It's hard to imagine someone being so evil and sadistic that they would do something like Hitler did knowing how evil and sadistic it was. In his demented mind, he was doing what he thought was right, and he didn't think it was evil. Or maybe I just don't want to think that there are people out there who are capable of such behavior....

Swastika means "well-being" in Sanskrit . . . . but this well-being could have stood for anything, like the well-being of Hitler's evil Third Reich

The point of the Nazi philosophy was to dispose of good and evil as defunct - there was only power and lack of power, or degeneracy. (There are still plenty of people who subscribe to this, but they don't call themselves Nazis any more).

The essential point - that good and evil have no objective existence - was correct. The interpretation of that point - that therefore good and evil should be disposed of entirely, and that power should be the replacement - was a grave error.

I cannot believe anyone would try and justify the actions of the world's most evil man of all time. He took the easily manipulatable German people in post WWI Europe, and turned them into monsters. He enforced his way, or death.
The Hitler Youth became compulsory in 1938 I think, and as more and more children began to realise what the hell was being done to them, they would refuse to go, and form gangs. The most prolific collection of these gangs were the Edelweiss Pirates, a crap name, but give them a break, they're only Germans. They beat up Hitler Youth patrols, listened to Swing music, drank, smoked, they did all the things we do, and think no more of it. Some of the Pirates got involved in directly anti-Nazi practices, the best example being the killing of the Gestapo head in Cologne by a group of them.
Huzzah, you might think, good for them.
The twelve leaders of the Edelweiss Pirates were captured and publicly hung, a form of execution that became increasingly used, as between 1933 and 1943, the nazis increased the number of crimes punishable by death from 4 to around 44. You can imagine most of these things were anti-Nazism, but they included things like telling jokes about Hitler.

AND DO ANY OF YOU DEFENDING HIM KNOW OF THE HOLOCAUST?
That mass execution of a race? Have not you seen the video footage from the time, rows of jews lined up in trenches, and SHOT. Just shot, their lives snuffed out. 6 million of them. 6 million people, subjected to unthinkable horrors, then lined up and marched into gas chambers, where they were killed, in the dark. And you say "Well, he thought what he was doing was right, so maybe it wasn't so bad."

You make me want to retch, this man was undoubtedly the most deranged, evil, evil person the world has ever had to bare. And about the flag, there is no significance to the fact that the swastika is a symbol of peace, there are records of Hitler's reaction to his own flag when he'd designed it, and it's all to do with how hard hitting it is, how the red represents the blood of the Germans.

I cannot agree with this person. Adolf (why do we always call him by his last name?) was a very very bad person and is evil by contempoary standards. The flag of the Nazi party was choosen before Adolf was there was there. (I'm not too sure on this. I got this from unreliant sources)

Adolf gaining power was a mistake. He was put into a position of power with the assumption that he could be controlled. He was nothing more than a figure head for speaches and such. This plan didn't work out, as we all know, and he wasn't able to be controlled. He took over power and we know what came from that.

The Nazi party wasn't evil. Their leaders, Adolf Hitler and his "henchmen," convinced them that what they were doing was best for Germany. Some truely belived this and some were brainwashed. But the fact is, they weren't evil, but yet very very misguided.

Adolf's sanity come into play in every argument about him, so I will bring it up. The guy was a werdio, even without the whole Holocaust and WWII thing, you wouldn't want to live next to him. The guy had only one nut, was a porn freak, and had some mental disorder which I can't recall.

Adolf in my eyes is an evil man who cost this world dearly. But the lessions we learned from him have been valuable and, I hope, will continue to be valuable.

Hitler did think he was doing the right thing. So did many other Nazis. Unfortunately, they happened to be complete and utter loonies who should of been locked up for their own safety, let alone that of others.

The swastika used by the Nazis was an inverted version of the original, which also tended to feature prettier colours than red and black.

The point of the Nazi philosophy was to dispose of good and evil as defunct - there was only power and lack of power, or degeneracy. (There are still plenty of people who subscribe to this, but they don't call themselves Nazis any more).

The essential point - that good and evil have no objective existence - was correct. The interpretation of that point - that therefore good and evil should be disposed of entirely, and that power should be the replacement - was a grave error.

This is true, but it's a horrible misrepresentation. The Nazis took the ideals of the philosopher Freiderich Nietzsche, who basically said that superhumans were the ultimate beings as they could put themselves outside of good and evil and make decisions based on what was right, not what surrounded them. Now Nietzsche was wrong in many ways, but he was definately one of the greatest philosophers of the modern age.
Anywho, the nazis took his ideas, and warped them to fit their ideology, since both used the word "superhumans."
Nazism made Nietzschism, an otherwise strong arguement about the purpose and origin of morality, evil. There philosophy was a crazy one which they had based on an extremely good one, so whilst it may be said that people still subscribe to these "Nazi" ideals, they do not follow nazism, rather, the philosophy upon which nazism was based, which is a lot more complex than what Hitler, Goebbels and co had to say about the aryans and the jews.

He was a charismatic lunatic with little in the way of ethics, integrity or humanity - not unlike the current President of the United States. No, that's unfair. GW Bush isn't charismatic.

He was a charismatic lunatic with little in the way of ethics, integrity or humanity - not unlike the current President of the United States. No, that's unfair. GW Bush isn't charismatic.

Neither an orator to speak off :lol:

Hitler appropriated the swastika from the Budhist and Hindu beliefs, this is an ancient symbol of good, the nazis inverted the swastika. The spokes of the symbol went in the oppossite direction. This is equivilent to turning the crucifix upside down. Would that still be seen as a "good" symbol?

Ther nazis developed eugenics, anihilated Jews, scocialist, gypsys, mentally infirm, downs syndrome, homosexuals and others. This was a deliberate course and can only be recognised as "evil".

Not all germans supported Hitler and the nazis. When they came into power, their popular support was just a majority of the electorate, the communists were almost as popular in their support. Many germans hated the nazis and what they were doing to Germany.

The mans evil is inexcusable. His memory will always be reviled. If there is anything we need to remember about that time, it's that it must never happen again.

DP :oops:

This is about Adolf Hitler? Ooops, I got confused, I was thinking about Bill Clinton.

*hits with a sledgehammer*

The flag of the Nazi party was choosen before Adolf was there was there. (I'm not too sure on this. I got this from unreliant sources)

errr....No, no it wasn't. Hitler designed the swastika flag himself after being released from prison.

What about all the good things Hitler did?

He...He had 6 million people killed.

He was a charismatic lunatic with little in the way of ethics, integrity or humanity - not unlike the current President of the United States. No, that's unfair. GW Bush isn't charismatic.

Come on now, thats pushing credibility.

He...He had 6 million people killed.

He didn't smoke, he was a vegetarian, and he never cheated on his wife.

The real reason Hitler used the Swastika is because he saw it in his church when growing up as a boy. And on another note sure things he did were not exactly stuff people like, how ever you do have to give him that he was able to get Germany back on its feet and fight another war and actully have a good change in it.

The story holds that Adolf Hitler was the most evil man to ever live because he executed "six million" innocent Jewish civilians, mainly by poison gas. If anyone expresses a viewpoint that can be interpreted as favorable to the survival of the White race, even if he never mentions World War II or Germany or Hitler, it won't be very long before organized Jewish groups or their liberal allies will pipe up and say, "That's racist; that's what Hitler believed; that idea leads straight to the gas chambers of Auschwitz; you're a nazi; we must oppose all ideas that Hitler espoused, especially the idea of a White nation."

Exposure of some of the lies told by Jews about the "Holocaust" will diminish this bludgeon used on White peoples' heads and may remove some of the chains from the minds of so many of our people.

Here is one example. Nearly everyone has heard the story of the Jewish girl Anne Frank. According to her best-selling book she was hidden in an attic by a Dutch family until the later years of the World War II. Then she was interned at various camps in Eastern Europe and Germany. One thing is clear: Anne Frank was not gassed. She died of typhus while at the Bergen-Belsen camp just before the end of the war. The obvious question is: Why would the Germans waste valuable resources and time to transport a sickly 14-year-old Jewish girl all over Europe if their intention was simply to gas her? With transport and fuel in extremely short supply, especially near the chaotic end of the war, it just doesn't make sense. It should also be noted that Frank's father, also a concentration camp internee, was found at the end of the war recovering from an illness in a German hospital. It should seem ridiculous to anyone that the Germans would be attempting to restore Mr. Frank's health just so they could then put him into a gas chamber, especially when medical facilities were desperately needed for the care of wounded German soldiers.

What do you think would happen if the true figures for Jewish losses became generally known? All of a sudden, "the most evil man in history" becomes a mere piker when compared to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, who undoubtedly murdered many dozens of millions under regimes that lasted for decades. And what happens when it is discovered that Hitler never gave any orders for Jews or anyone else to be gassed, but had only planned a relocation, interrupted and complicated by the war, of Jews to the east, after unsuccessful negotiations -- including negotiations with Zionist Jews -- to find a home for them in the Middle East or Madagascar?

The "Holocaust" story is also a prop for the idea that the Jews are eternally persecuted -- but totally innocent -- people who have never harmed anyone else or engaged in any kind of persecution themselves.

This idea is shown to be nonsense by a reading of the Jew's own history as recorded by them in their Torah. There we have numerous cases of the Jews invading, enslaving, or exterminating other tribes, including the women and children, whose only crime was to be in possession of things that the Jews wanted. There are instances in which their God admonished and even punished them for not doing a thorough enough job of exterminating their victims. The Jews' early history is in fact chock full of theft, enslavement, murder, mayhem, and extermination visited upon other peoples.

What is even more hypocritical is that the Jews celebrate their acts of genocide. An example of this is their Purim holiday during which they celebrate their murder of 70,000 Persian men, women, and children.

For nearly fifty years the governments of the West, with few exceptions, have consistently looked the other way with regard to Zionist terrorism against the British, the Palestinian, and American population in Israel.

whos the real evil?

Hitler was an evil man. It would be one thing if he was just a german leader going for world domination but the man created death camps devised ways to kill people in the most horible ways. I mean he was half jewish himself wasnt he? He forced children as young as 10 to join his military and had any one who grew to popular to be killed if thats not evil then i dont know what is. :?

well, he killed millions that makes him bad, true, he thought it was the right choice, that the race of people who are blond with blue eyes should rule the world while everyone else was their slaves, he was crazy!! He did all of this for a reason which he thought was good, but that is pure racism, which is a bad thing = he is a bad man but he thought he was a good man.
did any of you read "mein kumpf" by Hitler, he wrote this book while he was in preison in 1921 or 1923 after a failed coup d'etat, the dude's a lunatic!

He wrote the book in 1924 during his time at Landsberg prison (5 year sentence, 9 months good behaviour/parole).

However kindly note the following good things Hitler's regime did:

1. The expansion and technological advancement of the Autobahn.
2. Kraft Duetsch Freude - Strength Through Joy (pardon spelling)
3. 1937 unemployment figures in Germany - 1,200 people out of work.
4. Advances in jet technology, early planning for modern ICBM's, naval advancement in size and power of capital ships (German guns beat their rival's)
5. In the space of 6 years, Hitler's Third Reich went from 40% unemployment to full employment and was outproducing all nations in the world (even the USA - though Germany was in wartime economy).

You have to admit, things were good...as long as you fitted Hitler's stereotype.

...Then there is the matter of 6 million Jews...

He was essentially evil. However, the NSDAP had the support of the German people. With 237 seats, the NSDAP were the largest party in the Reichstag at the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

Hitler had been ranting about Jews for over a decade...and the German's supported him.

I don't blame Hitler...I blame the Germans who voted for his Party! (However, in the Great Depression you will follow anyone who promises you a job).

Was he really such a bad person? The answer to that is probably 'yes' for most of you, but hear my point first...

The true meaning of the swastika (the Nazi flag). An ancient symbol dating back to ancient times, with 4 L's side by side. So why is it that Nazi Germany decided to use it as their symbol? It is not a symbol of hatred, or genocide. It is a symbol of our essential freedoms and the fellowship we endure with each other. I wish to point out that the Nazis were perhaps not as bad as we think. They actually believed what they were doing was right. Not only Hitler, but a whole nation was behind him. Germany was oppressed after World War 1, suffered extreme poverty and was in debt. Thousands starved to death. Hitler fought back, and with this fight brought radical changes to the world.

I'm not saying that genocide was the answer, what I'm saying is that history is painted in the eyes of the victor. If Germany had won WW2, Hitler would likely be hailed as the greatest hero in history. So I am tired of hearing how evil he was. Murdering millions of people was not a great accomplishment, or something to look back on with pride. But it was a great example of someone doing what they thought was right. Someone standing up for what they believe in.

Do you still think he was such a bad person? Although in many people's views he was an evil man, was he really so bad? I'm not pro-Hitler, I don't like him, or what he did, but I'm trying to point out that people shouldn't judge him without giving it complete thought.

Tell us something We dont know. But the real lesson to be learned from the Nazi's is political. How they managed to control the country is fascinating.

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy,
and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
— Hermann Goering

However kindly note the following good things Hitler's regime did:

1. The expansion and technological advancement of the Autobahn.
2. Kraft Duetsch Freude - Strength Through Joy (pardon spelling)
3. 1937 unemployment figures in Germany - 1,200 people out of work.
4. Advances in jet technology, early planning for modern ICBM's, naval advancement in size and power of capital ships (German guns beat their rival's)
5. In the space of 6 years, Hitler's Third Reich went from 40% unemployment to full employment and was outproducing all nations in the world (even the USA - though Germany was in wartime economy).



You have no idea do you?
In answer to your points 3 and 5;
The way Hitler was able to reduce unemployment was by firing all jews and women, and giving their jobs to men. All a-socials and women were put out of jobs, and then not recorded as unemployed.

The Kraft durcshe Freude was only available to workers who followed the nazis with all their hearts and souls, and they had to give up enormous amounts of workers rights when the Nazis came in. They couldn't have unions, and wages were lower than ever before.

The autobahns were built by workers in the Deutsche Arbeits something beginning with P, the DAP. These people were basically slaves. They worked for no money, they were provided with food and logings.

The nazis may have managed to increase production, but Hitler's economic plans failed spectacularly, he managed to reduce imports slightly, but exports stayed at the same level.

So there's to your hero Phoenix. The almighty, economically super-intelligent, Germany saving saint that was Adolf Hitler.

P.S That last line was sarcasm, if misunderstood please read the rest of the post.

A Holocaust apologist, hrm? Oh dear oh dear.

Here is one example. Nearly everyone has heard the story of the Jewish girl Anne Frank. According to her best-selling book she was hidden in an attic by a Dutch family until the later years of the World War II. Then she was interned at various camps in Eastern Europe and Germany. One thing is clear: Anne Frank was not gassed. She died of typhus while at the Bergen-Belsen camp just before the end of the war. The obvious question is: Why would the Germans waste valuable resources and time to transport a sickly 14-year-old Jewish girl all over Europe if their intention was simply to gas her? With transport and fuel in extremely short supply, especially near the chaotic end of the war, it just doesn't make sense.
Towards the end, the German machine was indeed chaotic and broken. While parts of it were falling to pieces, others resolutely continued with their missions. Right until the end, camp guards continued to move the prisoners away from the Russian front, even though defeat was clearly inevitable by this stage. No, it doesn't make sense. The camps were an insane world.

Yes, many Jews were not gassed: the concentration camps were designed as places where you were dehumanised until you died. There were periodic gassings, yes, but as many or more people died of exposure, disease, malnutrition, suicide or the random brutality of the guards. The entire system was built up piecemeal, through conflicting aims (they wanted to exterminate their enemies, but also to get some value out of them first) and crude opportunism.

It should also be noted that Frank's father, also a concentration camp internee, was found at the end of the war recovering from an illness in a German hospital. It should seem ridiculous to anyone that the Germans would be attempting to restore Mr. Frank's health just so they could then put him into a gas chamber, especially when medical facilities were desperately needed for the care of wounded German soldiers.
Concentration-camp hospitals were places of death; ironically, many hospital internees (among them author Primo Levi) survived because they were left behind when the camps began forced marches away from the Russian front. They represented little real attempt to cure internees; almost entirely run by prisoners, they were little more than another way to die.

There is no legitimate way to explain away the Holocaust. Yes, there have been tragedies on a similar scale since. So what?

Was he really such a bad person? The answer to that is probably 'yes' for most of you, but hear my point first...

The true meaning of the swastika (the Nazi flag). An ancient symbol dating back to ancient times, with 4 L's side by side. So why is it that Nazi Germany decided to use it as their symbol? It is not a symbol of hatred, or genocide. It is a symbol of our essential freedoms and the fellowship we endure with each other. I wish to point out that the Nazis were perhaps not as bad as we think. They actually believed what they were doing was right. Not only Hitler, but a whole nation was behind him. Germany was oppressed after World War 1, suffered extreme poverty and was in debt. Thousands starved to death. Hitler fought back, and with this fight brought radical changes to the world.

I'm not saying that genocide was the answer, what I'm saying is that history is painted in the eyes of the victor. If Germany had won WW2, Hitler would likely be hailed as the greatest hero in history. So I am tired of hearing how evil he was. Murdering millions of people was not a great accomplishment, or something to look back on with pride. But it was a great example of someone doing what they thought was right. Someone standing up for what they believe in.

Do you still think he was such a bad person? Although in many people's views he was an evil man, was he really so bad? I'm not pro-Hitler, I don't like him, or what he did, but I'm trying to point out that people shouldn't judge him without giving it complete thought.

So by your logic: "Son of Sam" is innocent because he thought he was doing the right thing?

Come on now...

The flag of the Nazi party was choosen before Adolf was there was there. (I'm not too sure on this. I got this from unreliant sources)

errr....No, no it wasn't. Hitler designed the swastika flag himself after being released from prison.
TRUE, Biglace, he did.

However kindly note the following good things Hitler's regime did:

1. The expansion and technological advancement of the Autobahn.
2. Kraft Duetsch Freude - Strength Through Joy (pardon spelling)
3. 1937 unemployment figures in Germany - 1,200 people out of work.
4. Advances in jet technology, early planning for modern ICBM's, naval advancement in size and power of capital ships (German guns beat their rival's)
5. In the space of 6 years, Hitler's Third Reich went from 40% unemployment to full employment and was outproducing all nations in the world (even the USA - though Germany was in wartime economy).



You have no idea do you?
In answer to your points 3 and 5;
The way Hitler was able to reduce unemployment was by firing all jews and women, and giving their jobs to men. All a-socials and women were put out of jobs, and then not recorded as unemployed.

The Kraft durcshe Freude was only available to workers who followed the nazis with all their hearts and souls, and they had to give up enormous amounts of workers rights when the Nazis came in. They couldn't have unions, and wages were lower than ever before.

The autobahns were built by workers in the Deutsche Arbeits something beginning with P, the DAP. These people were basically slaves. They worked for no money, they were provided with food and logings.

The nazis may have managed to increase production, but Hitler's economic plans failed spectacularly, he managed to reduce imports slightly, but exports stayed at the same level.

So there's to your hero Phoenix. The almighty, economically super-intelligent, Germany saving saint that was Adolf Hitler.

P.S That last line was sarcasm, if misunderstood please read the rest of the post.

I love it when people deliberately cut parts from entire quotes...read below. My hero? hardly. You see what you want to see.

well, he killed millions that makes him bad, true, he thought it was the right choice, that the race of people who are blond with blue eyes should rule the world while everyone else was their slaves, he was crazy!! He did all of this for a reason which he thought was good, but that is pure racism, which is a bad thing = he is a bad man but he thought he was a good man.
did any of you read "mein kumpf" by Hitler, he wrote this book while he was in preison in 1921 or 1923 after a failed coup d'etat, the dude's a lunatic!

He wrote the book in 1924 during his time at Landsberg prison (5 year sentence, 9 months good behaviour/parole).

However kindly note the following good things Hitler's regime did:

1. The expansion and technological advancement of the Autobahn.
2. Kraft Duetsch Freude - Strength Through Joy (pardon spelling)
3. 1937 unemployment figures in Germany - 1,200 people out of work.
4. Advances in jet technology, early planning for modern ICBM's, naval advancement in size and power of capital ships (German guns beat their rival's)
5. In the space of 6 years, Hitler's Third Reich went from 40% unemployment to full employment and was outproducing all nations in the world (even the USA - though Germany was in wartime economy).

You have to admit, things were good...as long as you fitted Hitler's stereotype.

...Then there is the matter of 6 million Jews...

He was essentially evil. However, the NSDAP had the support of the German people. With 237 seats, the NSDAP were the largest party in the Reichstag at the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

Hitler had been ranting about Jews for over a decade...and the German's supported him.

I don't blame Hitler...I blame the Germans who voted for his Party! (However, in the Great Depression you will follow anyone who promises you a job).

*shaking my head*
yes hilter was evil
but no one can do that much evil by themselves, he surrounded himself with people willing to do horrible things in their pursuit of power.
the worst thing is that he corrupted the german people, a people who are in normal circumstances no more good or evil than any other nation, into "accepting" his program of genocide.
people didnt ask what happened to their neighbors who were taken away, they either thought it was a good thing or they didnt dare question it for fear of their own lives
people didnt dare wonder the source of the horrible black smoke coming for the cremetoria
anyone who stood up to the nazi atrocities were killed themselves. soon no one dared stand up.
average young men were turned into monsters who saw nothing wrong in killing jewish babies by throwing them into the mass grave alive so as to not waste bullets on them.
these atrocities were considered GOOD, not something to be punished but to be praised
To take good people and reduce them to such a level of inhumanity is the essence of evil

go to the library and take out a video called SHOAH if you can get through the whole thing you will never wonder again if hitler was evil.

The Humanitarian With The Guillotine
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - September 1955
by Isabel Paterson
Printable Format

Reprinted from The God as the Machine by Isabel Paterson, published in 1946 (now out of print).

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends. This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members were habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. Destruction is so easy that even a minority of persistently evil intent could shortly exterminate the unsuspecting majority of well-disposed persons. Murder, theft, rapine, and destruction are easily within the power of every individual at any time. If it is presumed that they are restrained only by fear or force, what is it they fear, or who would turn the force against them if all men were of like mind? Certainly if the harm done by willful criminals were to be computed, the number of murders, the extent of damage and loss, would be found negligible in the sum total of death and devastation wrought upon human beings by their kind. Therefore it is obvious that in periods when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object. When they are not the immediate executants, they are on record as giving approval, elaborating justifications, or else cloaking facts with silence, and discountenancing discussion.
The whole passage is here....

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=571

I see Gibraltar's point, however. No one can really think that they are evil, right? No matter how heinous a crime is, the person committing it has to think that it's the right course of action. It's hard to imagine someone being so evil and sadistic that they would do something like Hitler did knowing how evil and sadistic it was. In his demented mind, he was doing what he thought was right, and he didn't think it was evil. Or maybe I just don't want to think that there are people out there who are capable of such behavior....

Dear Lord, people if any of you needed a reason why "moral absolutes" are essential, this thread should suffice. It is true, without moral absolutes, what Hitler did was simply a matter of survival, of "struggle" as the Nazis put it. Germany undoubtedly needed more land to feed its people and provide "Lebensraum" for an overcrowded people...well, the Slavs have plenty of it, let's just take it. Why not? The Germans were stronger. Why not...because IT'S WRONG. Until the peoples of this world come to grips with the existence of absolute evil and absolute good, there will be no end to the depravity of each of us (and yes, don't think for a second, that you're not capable of the same...you are)

You have no idea do you?
In answer to your points 3 and 5;
The way Hitler was able to reduce unemployment was by firing all jews and women, and giving their jobs to men. All a-socials and women were put out of jobs, and then not recorded as unemployed.

The Kraft durcshe Freude was only available to workers who followed the nazis with all their hearts and souls, and they had to give up enormous amounts of workers rights when the Nazis came in. They couldn't have unions, and wages were lower than ever before.

The autobahns were built by workers in the Deutsche Arbeits something beginning with P, the DAP. These people were basically slaves. They worked for no money, they were provided with food and logings.

The nazis may have managed to increase production, but Hitler's economic plans failed spectacularly, he managed to reduce imports slightly, but exports stayed at the same level.


Actually, you're wrong. Hitler was named Person of the Year by Time magazine for nothing. His economic policies did indeed work because he was building a WAR MACHINE. It's the same reason why America's entrance in the world war marked out exit from the Great Depression. The fact remains, big government spending did help nations at that time pull themselves out of depression. Finally, merely firing Jews and replacing them with "Aryans" would not have been enough to complete this revolution, for the simple reason that unemployment was higher than the percentage of Jews at the time. Finally, it's interesting to note that German unemployment had gone to virtually zero BEFORE the Jews were completely removed from the economy. As for the Autobahns...also false. Not until slave labor was exacted from a massive prison population circa 1940 did the Germans benefit from underpaid workers. Again, the German government boosted its power and the economy by massive government spending.

The point of the Nazi philosophy was to dispose of good and evil as defunct - there was only power and lack of power, or degeneracy. (There are still plenty of people who subscribe to this, but they don't call themselves Nazis any more).

The essential point - that good and evil have no objective existence - was correct. The interpretation of that point - that therefore good and evil should be disposed of entirely, and that power should be the replacement - was a grave error.

That sounds lovely, except it begs the question WHY. WHY was the interpretation of that point so incorrect? Nietzsche--from whom the Nazis got this load of garbage--inneed advocated the idea of the "will to power" and it was on this basis that he denounced Christianity as the religion of the weak. Notice, he had nothing to say about the Christian relgion begin "good" or "evil"...he judged it by its STRENGTH. That is, POWER had indeed become the replacement for moral judgment. So, if the father of amoral "heroic" living himself interpreted "the essential point" as the Nazis did, on what basis are you claiming wholesale "misinterpretation?"

He...He had 6 million people killed.

He didn't smoke, he was a vegetarian, and he never cheated on his wife.

what an inane post. I'd recommend you be barred from ever speaking again, but then I'd commit the same sin as the Nazis. So, patience is called for.
"He didn't smoke" No, the smokestacks at Auschwitz were enough for his wretched lifespan many times over.
"He was a vegetarian" Right, b/c killing animals, after all, is MUCH WORSE than killing humans. He should have killed a few more, that way there'd be few meat-eaters right? I'm repulsed
"He never cheat on his wife" this is just plain ignorance. He actually had multiple girlfriends, all of whom attempted suicide after sleeping with him b/c of the unspeakable things he made them do (he was a coprophile=lover of fecal matter).

Damnit. Everyone knows that hitler picked up the swastika from a Bhuddist Symbol for good luck during his occult Studies. These studies may also partly explain why Hitler Allied with the Japanese. His Familiarity and apparent Respect for Asian culture.

Noting Nazi's obession With Regimentation (From Which their Modern Pop-cultural reference is derived) Its no wonder He might have felt an Affinity for Asian Culture. Which As many probably know, Is traditionally fairly Rigid.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/swastika_bear021230.jpg

See? Nazi Panda's.
Fear it! LOVE IT!

Sorry, but to keep myself in order, I'd like to separate my thoughts about different topics. Thank you.

About the Swatzika:

It is also a Catholic symbol for good luck. Since Hitler was initially Catholic it is thought that he acquired it from this source, not from any Asian source. In fact, he had little or no contact with or knowledge of asian cultures. (got this from a CBC documentary I saw once)

About Hitler's wife:

He never had one. He had a 'lover', his neice, which it is supposed that he eventually killed because she refused him (see Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). I haven't heard about any of his 'girlfriends' nor have I read about them.

About Occult Studies and Japan:

Hitler never studied the occults, he tried to get into painting school after barely getting out of high school. He was rejected, twice, before he went into politics. He had no (or very little) familiarity with Japanese culture.

He allied with Japan more out of opportunism then anything. Hitler saw 'might as right' and allied with whomever was more powerful. He believed that Japan would defeat the US so he allied with them. (if you want an example of his opportunism elsewhere, look at his alliance with Italy or Russia)

Also, please do not confuse Japanese culture and other asian cultures. All cultures are different and you cannot group all asian cultures together. Its like refering to european culture, it doesn't exist, you have Slavic culture, English culture, French culture etc...

Hitler...

...was the man!


He helped the ailing German economy and did speak his mind against the injustices done to his country, so no he wasn't that bad economically speaking.

But let's not forget the whole genocidal world domination factor....

bump

Just to respond to the mounting posts accusing me of wrong...ness, the way Hitler seemed to reduce unemployment was by putting all Jews and women out of jobs, replacing them with Aryans, and not including Jews or women in unemployment figures. Conscription was brought in, getting more people into jobs, and two groups were set up, one was the DAP, the other had a name like that but it escapes me at present. In these, people worked long hard hours, with little or no pay, for a place to stay and food to eat. They were made to work on the new Autobahns, and employed a great many more people, reducing unemployment figures of those who were considered as being able to be recorded as such, ie Aryans.

In these ways were Aryans employed more and more. Frankly crap jobs were created for them, they were put into jobs previously occupied by jews or women, and the army's ranks swelled exponentially.

About Hitler's wife:
He never had one. He had a 'lover', his neice, which it is supposed that he eventually killed because she refused him (see Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). I haven't heard about any of his 'girlfriends' nor have I read about them.

Actually he had four mistresses, all of whom attempted suicide after they had started their sexual relationship with Hitler, two of whom were succesful. He is also suspected to have been no stranger when it came to gay sex :lol: That Hitler! Full of surprises! :lol:

Actually Hitler got married days before he killed himself to Eva Brown or whatever her name was. The woman who'd been his mistress since about 1933. Strange,...that's the year they came to power (groupie). They got married in the bunker in Berlin where Hitler killed himself, in a crappy ceremony that lasted about 10 minutes. It was mainly Hitler saying thankyou to Eva for standing by him.

He was not gay.

He was not gay.

I never said he was, only that he is suspected to have been involved in gay sex.

Here's an interesting link you might want to check out :
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

From that same article:

"In 1945 a Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra published Germany's National Vice, which called homosexuality the "poisoned stream" that ran through the heart of Nazism. (In the 1920s and 30s, homosexuality was known as "the German vice" across Europe because of the debaucheries of the Weimar period.) Igra, who escaped Germany in 1939, claims that Hitler "had been a male prostitute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914" (Igra:67). Desmond Seward, in Napoleon and Hitler, says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records (Seward:299). Lending credence to this is the fact, noted by Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler "chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be inhabited by many homosexuals" (Langer:192). Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called "der Schoen Adolf" (the handsome Adolf) and that later his looks "were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Ro[e]hm's circle of wealthy gay friends" (Rector:52)."

BTW You sound very certain of yourself. How well did you know him to cancel out the possibility that he might have been gay which such certitude? 8)

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

Uncle Adolf, as we used to call him, was a genius. He made Germany's economy boost miraculously.

but, what he did was no different from what Joan of Arc did. She even became a saint for killing thousands of English people. Back then thousands where millions. She did it because she had a vision from a "god." We remember her because she won, not because she did something morally right, but because she won the war.

As someone has already stated, Hitler would have been praised if he had won the war. He may even have became a saint.

He is not the first one in history to do something "evil."

To say Hitler boosted the economy is misleading. If it got better at all it was only because you never saw the long run effects of his Keynesian nonsense. The boom would have been followed by a crippling bust. Nor did entry into WWII boost the American economy, and certainly not in any desireable way! The economic costs of war were most clearly illustrated by the crippling inflation during the Vietnam years and also explain why Switzerland is so well off. Britain would probably be the richest country in the world were it not for two world wars.

Disturbingly, the practical policy differences between Hitler and most of todays world leaders are limited only to the role of racism, which was then compulsory and now forbidden.

Gibratlar shares my opinion very much so.

After all, if the Nazi leader had been victorious the history books would tell a very different story. Almost every history book I've seen is all about how the Americans saved us from the fate of Hitler, but, what about everyone else? History is skewed way...

Hitler commited some of the worst war crimes in history, but does that make him any more evil than others? No... What about Stalin? He killed millions more than Hitler ever did and he's not ever considered to be half as evil! In one year he killed about 7 million Ukranians with his state imposed faminine (1932-1933; look this up if you don't believe me) because they refused to cooperate. 20th Century Genocides (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html). There is the link there for Stalin's Forces Famine (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm). Now, not all these deaths were from the famine, but, about 3 million or so were. The rest were because Stalin rounded up people on false charges and had them shot because they were supposedly part of an armed revolt.

I dare you to tell me that Hitler was any worse than Joseph Stalin! The man murdered more people in one year than Hitler did with the holocaust (not that I'm justifying the actions of any bloody Nazi -- just adding some historical facts to this discussion).

NAzi Holocaust (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm)... go here for the historical facts about the Holocaust. The numbers are sufficiantly less... one million less. Also, consider that time span in which the deaths were caused. Hitler's reign was frm 1933-1945, and the genocide began in 1938 and ended in 1945...

Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953) got into power much earlier. After succeeding Vladimer Lenin in 1924, he got into power and this is when he put pressure on Ukraine again. Ukraine, like much of Eastern Europe had been part of Urssian during the Czarist years. Lenin had been lax with trying to get Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe back when Stalin came into power...

Now, Hiltler didn't necessary boost the economy so much as he created ideal conditions for its revival. He violated the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed for the Germans to have money again and to combat the hyper inflation that devalued the mark. True, his Kenynisians politics may have assisted at the beginning, but a lot of State money helped.

dp :oops:

About Occult Studies and Japan:

Hitler never studied the occults, he tried to get into painting school after barely getting out of high school. He was rejected, twice, before he went into politics. He had no (or very little) familiarity with Japanese culture.

He allied with Japan more out of opportunism then anything. Hitler saw 'might as right' and allied with whomever was more powerful. He believed that Japan would defeat the US so he allied with them. (if you want an example of his opportunism elsewhere, look at his alliance with Italy or Russia)

Also, please do not confuse Japanese culture and other asian cultures. All cultures are different and you cannot group all asian cultures together. Its like refering to european culture, it doesn't exist, you have Slavic culture, English culture, French culture etc...

Heres a link you may find interesting. Its really long but a good read.

Hitlers Forgotten Library (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/ryback.htm) This link was ironicaly posted on this site Exactly one year ago today. Coincidence, or not? You decide ;)

The canon of Hitler historiography declares that Hitler flirted with occultism in the early 1920s, and that he recruited some of his closest ideological lieutenants—Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Alfred Rosenberg, and Heinrich Himmler—from the Thule Society and similar Nordic cults. "When I first knew Adolf Hitler in Munich, in 1921 and 1922, he was in touch with a circle that believed firmly in the portents of the stars," Karl Wiegand, a former Hitler associate, recalled in an article for Cosmopolitan in 1939.

"There was much whispering about the coming of 'another Charlemagne and a new Reich.' How far Hitler believed in these astrological forecasts and prophesies in those days I never could get out of the Führer. He neither denied nor affirmed belief. He was not averse, however, to making use of the forecasts to advance popular faith in himself and his then young and struggling movement."

Most scholars dismiss the notion that Hitler seriously entertained the ideas of these cults, but the marginalia in several of his books confirm at least an intellectual engagement in the substance of Weimar-era occultism. The Brown collection contains books by such figures as Adamant Rohm, a "magnetopathic doctor" from Wiesbaden; Carl Ludwig Schleich, a Berlin physician who pioneered the use of local anesthesia; and Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, who wrote numerous books on reincarnation and otherworldly phenomena under the pseudonym Bô Yin Râ.


The word Ayran Is Part of Nordic Mythology. It refers to a race of Blue eyed, Blond Marauding Giants. And some Of Hitlers earliest backers were from the Thule society, another Nordic reference.

And I dont Think All Of Asia is alike. But unlike Europe they werent forever Warring with each other. So Cultural memes were more able to spread. Dont forget that Ultimately All Of Asian, and all Human societies are decended from the same source. I didnt say it WAS the reason that Hitler allied with the Japanese, But part of the reason.
But Ultimately your probably right. Come to think of it. I think I read about Hitler and Asian links in a fictional work, Not a history text :)
But I'm still fairly convinced theres some truth to it.

Hitler is a pretty enigmatic character. So It would be difficult to be obsessing over him even Today if he was'nt. Everyone has a take on him. So Its not surprising that you saw a documentary asserting he had nothing to do with the occult. There are documentaries flatly contradicting this. But lets not forget, It was a American Documentary you saw. ;) They arent the most Famous for Insight. More for Sensationalism. Yet magic is pretty sensationalistic, So I'll just stop talking now...

The word Ayran Is Part of Nordic Mythology. It refers to a race of Blue eyed, Blond Marauding Giants. And some Of Hitlers earliest backers were from the Thule society, another Nordic reference.

And I dont Think All Of Asia is alike. But unlike Europe they werent forever Warring with each other. So Cultural memes were more able to spread. Dont forget that Ultimately All Of Asian, and all Human societies are decended from the same source. I didnt say it WAS the reason that Hitler allied with the Japanese, But part of the reason.
But Ultimately your probably right. Come to think of it. I think I read about Hitler and Asian links in a fictional work, Not a history text :)
But I'm still fairly convinced theres some truth to it.

Hitler is a pretty enigmatic character. So It would be difficult to be obsessing over him even Today if he was'nt. Everyone has a take on him. So Its not surprising that you saw a documentary asserting he had nothing to do with the occult. There are documentaries flatly contradicting this. But lets not forget, It was a American Documentary you saw. ;) They arent the most Famous for Insight. More for Sensationalism. Yet magic is pretty sensationalistic, So I'll just stop talking now...

Being an Icelander and a follower of the old custom, and having read all the Edda's and saga's: I can tell you that I've never heard of anything in our mythology as "Aryan" . It's not in nordic mythology. Maybe germanic, but it does not originate here.
And Thule is not a nordic myth or word, it is a nordic reference though. Thule is what the people of england called iceland in the middle ages.

It should be said that I use the term Nordic Pretty loosely here.

Gibratlar shares my opinion very much so.

After all, if the Nazi leader had been victorious the history books would tell a very different story. Almost every history book I've seen is all about how the Americans saved us from the fate of Hitler, but, what about everyone else? History is skewed way...

Hitler commited some of the worst war crimes in history, but does that make him any more evil than others? No... What about Stalin? He killed millions more than Hitler ever did and he's not ever considered to be half as evil! In one year he killed about 7 million Ukranians with his state imposed faminine (1932-1933; look this up if you don't believe me) because they refused to cooperate. 20th Century Genocides (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html). There is the link there for Stalin's Forces Famine (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm). Now, not all these deaths were from the famine, but, about 3 million or so were. The rest were because Stalin rounded up people on false charges and had them shot because they were supposedly part of an armed revolt.

I dare you to tell me that Hitler was any worse than Joseph Stalin! The man murdered more people in one year than Hitler did with the holocaust (not that I'm justifying the actions of any bloody Nazi -- just adding some historical facts to this discussion).

NAzi Holocaust (http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm)... go here for the historical facts about the Holocaust. The numbers are sufficiantly less... one million less. Also, consider that time span in which the deaths were caused. Hitler's reign was frm 1933-1945, and the genocide began in 1938 and ended in 1945...

Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953) got into power much earlier. After succeeding Vladimer Lenin in 1924, he got into power and this is when he put pressure on Ukraine again. Ukraine, like much of Eastern Europe had been part of Russia during the Czarist years. Lenin had been lax with trying to get Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe back when Stalin came into power...

Now, Hiltler didn't necessary boost the economy so much as he created ideal conditions for its revival. He violated the Treaty of Versailles, which allowed for the Germans to have money again and to combat the hyper inflation that devalued the mark. True, his Kenynisians politics may have assisted at the beginning, but a lot of State money helped.

I think Japan comitted the worst. Even Nazi obervers sent To China were horrified by what they saw. It wasnt systematic Like in Germany, It was all horribly random.

It should be said that I use the term Nordic Pretty loosely here.

North of the south pole :P

New Astrolia...

I did get it from an American/US source written just after the war so it might be a little off. I agree that Hitler did get some of his stuff from the occult but that was the influence of other members of the group.

Asian nations have been forever waring with each other. Japan invades Korea, China invades back, kicks the Japanese out. Japan comes back again. Mongols conquer pretty much everything before imploding. Japan invades Korea again, Russia gets involved, China gets invaded, Vietnam and China went at it... almost as bad as Europe.

About Hitler and homosexuality... Hitler massacred most of his homosexual supporters when he went to consolidate his power.

Hitler's purges were awful, so were the ones commited by Stalin and Hirohito (but hirohito really didn't have any power). Genocide is never right.

About Hitler and homosexuality... Hitler massacred most of his homosexual supporters when he went to consolidate his power.

Yes, at Goebell's and Goering's suggestion. Up until 1934 Hitler had tolerated gays in the NSDAP - his best friend Ernst Rohm was openly gay and was a member of several homosexual societies in Germany. His death in my opinion was the result of political elements of the NSDAP fearing Rohm and his 3 million strong SA would manage to remove them from power (not Hitler, but his close followers).

However, I do not believe the persecution of gays in the Third Reich was Hitler's doing. Goebells and his Church followers were the ones who were behind it. Hitler was more concerned about the Jewsa and Slavs. The rest were victims of his Party favourites.

The word Ayran Is Part of Nordic Mythology. It refers to a race of Blue eyed, Blond Marauding Giants. And some Of Hitlers earliest backers were from the Thule society, another Nordic reference.

And I dont Think All Of Asia is alike. But unlike Europe they werent forever Warring with each other. So Cultural memes were more able to spread. Dont forget that Ultimately All Of Asian, and all Human societies are decended from the same source. I didnt say it WAS the reason that Hitler allied with the Japanese, But part of the reason.
But Ultimately your probably right. Come to think of it. I think I read about Hitler and Asian links in a fictional work, Not a history text :)
But I'm still fairly convinced theres some truth to it.

Hitler is a pretty enigmatic character. So It would be difficult to be obsessing over him even Today if he was'nt. Everyone has a take on him. So Its not surprising that you saw a documentary asserting he had nothing to do with the occult. There are documentaries flatly contradicting this. But lets not forget, It was a American Documentary you saw. ;) They arent the most Famous for Insight. More for Sensationalism. Yet magic is pretty sensationalistic, So I'll just stop talking now...

Being an Icelander and a follower of the old custom, and having read all the Edda's and saga's: I can tell you that I've never heard of anything in our mythology as "Aryan" . It's not in nordic mythology. Maybe germanic, but it does not originate here.
And Thule is not a nordic myth or word, it is a nordic reference though. Thule is what the people of england called iceland in the middle ages.

When Hitler or the NSDAP bigwigs talked about "Nordics" they were using the term in its racial sense, not in a geographic way. That is, they were talking about the blond haired, blue eyed, dolichocephalic, fair-skinned and mesomorphic racial type that was probably responsible for the spread of the Indo-European culture and language.

The word Ayran Is Part of Nordic Mythology. It refers to a race of Blue eyed, Blond Marauding Giants. And some Of Hitlers earliest backers were from the Thule society, another Nordic reference.

And I dont Think All Of Asia is alike. But unlike Europe they werent forever Warring with each other. So Cultural memes were more able to spread. Dont forget that Ultimately All Of Asian, and all Human societies are decended from the same source. I didnt say it WAS the reason that Hitler allied with the Japanese, But part of the reason.
But Ultimately your probably right. Come to think of it. I think I read about Hitler and Asian links in a fictional work, Not a history text :)
But I'm still fairly convinced theres some truth to it.

Hitler is a pretty enigmatic character. So It would be difficult to be obsessing over him even Today if he was'nt. Everyone has a take on him. So Its not surprising that you saw a documentary asserting he had nothing to do with the occult. There are documentaries flatly contradicting this. But lets not forget, It was a American Documentary you saw. ;) They arent the most Famous for Insight. More for Sensationalism. Yet magic is pretty sensationalistic, So I'll just stop talking now...

Being an Icelander and a follower of the old custom, and having read all the Edda's and saga's: I can tell you that I've never heard of anything in our mythology as "Aryan" . It's not in nordic mythology. Maybe germanic, but it does not originate here.
And Thule is not a nordic myth or word, it is a nordic reference though. Thule is what the people of england called iceland in the middle ages.

When Hitler or the NSDAP bigwigs talked about "Nordics" they were using the term in its racial sense, not in a geographic way. That is, they were talking about the blond haired, blue eyed, dolichocephalic, fair-skinned and mesomorphic racial type that was probably responsible for the spread of the Indo-European culture and language.

The word Ayran Is Part of Nordic Mythology. It refers to a race of Blue eyed, Blond Marauding Giants. And some Of Hitlers earliest backers were from the Thule society, another Nordic reference.

And I dont Think All Of Asia is alike. But unlike Europe they werent forever Warring with each other. So Cultural memes were more able to spread. Dont forget that Ultimately All Of Asian, and all Human societies are decended from the same source. I didnt say it WAS the reason that Hitler allied with the Japanese, But part of the reason.
But Ultimately your probably right. Come to think of it. I think I read about Hitler and Asian links in a fictional work, Not a history text :)
But I'm still fairly convinced theres some truth to it.

Hitler is a pretty enigmatic character. So It would be difficult to be obsessing over him even Today if he was'nt. Everyone has a take on him. So Its not surprising that you saw a documentary asserting he had nothing to do with the occult. There are documentaries flatly contradicting this. But lets not forget, It was a American Documentary you saw. ;) They arent the most Famous for Insight. More for Sensationalism. Yet magic is pretty sensationalistic, So I'll just stop talking now...

Being an Icelander and a follower of the old custom, and having read all the Edda's and saga's: I can tell you that I've never heard of anything in our mythology as "Aryan" . It's not in nordic mythology. Maybe germanic, but it does not originate here.
And Thule is not a nordic myth or word, it is a nordic reference though. Thule is what the people of england called iceland in the middle ages.

When Hitler or the NSDAP bigwigs talked about "Nordics" they were using the term in its racial sense, not in a geographic way. That is, they were talking about the blond haired, blue eyed, dolichocephalic, fair-skinned and mesomorphic racial type that was probably responsible for the spread of the Indo-European culture and language.

Uhm... then using those words in that way to explain why they are used in that way is confusing and misleading.

But I guess it's cleared up now... Alot of neo-nazis and ultra-nationalists use icelandic culture, symbols and such though...And I hate them for it.
In many places (outside of Iceland), Ásatrú has become a tool for racists and xenophobes.