NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it fair to say that all Nazis of Nazi Germany were evil? Is it fair to label them as people who deserved to die just because they gave the Nazi salute?

I see a lot of people who think that everyone in Nazi Germany was evil at the time period, simply because they were Nazi members, or that they supported the Nazis. That's not true.

I don't want to bother making my argument though if people agree with me, so I want to see if people actually agree. Or care for a topic such as this for that matter. I was just sick of seeing religon here, there, Bush inaugration, deficits, gah. So depressing. Makes me wish I could just go out and by a 6-pack of alcohol and make my problems go away.

Of course there were people in Germany who weren't Nazis, and they didn't agree with the policies of Hitler. And some of them tried to get rid of him. But the vast bulk was apathetic. They didn't really care.

Sometimes the greater evil is when good people don't do anything in the face of evil.

Of course there were people in Germany who weren't Nazis, and they didn't agree with the policies of Hitler. And some of them tried to get rid of him. But the vast bulk was apathetic. They didn't really care.

Sometimes the greater evil is when good people don't do anything in the face of evil.
Actually, a lot of people who were labelled as Nazi supporters (not members, supporters) are considered just as evil. Which is even worse.

No. No. And no.
And you don't have that standard in your fridge? Shame on you.

No. No. And no.
And you don't have that standard in your fridge? Shame on you.
I'm 14, kinda hard to just walk over to Albertsons and drink for the first time in your life.

I heard it's great though.

I'm 14, kinda hard to just walk over to Albertsons and drink for the first time in your life.

I heard it's great though.
It's very refreshing. And you can't start early enough.

Is it fair to say that all Nazis of Nazi Germany were evil? Is it fair to label them as people who deserved to die just because they gave the Nazi salute?

If they participated in or planned the genocide of "impure" races, they should be charged with war crimes.

It's very refreshing. And you can't start early enough.
I'm willing to wait.


What? No, seriously. I'll save it for my 21st birthday. :)

To paraphrase someone far smarter than I, in times of great evil, remaining neutral is an act of evil... or something to that effect. Basically, Germans living in Nazi Germany were not necessarily evil, however apathy in the face of the evil of Nazism would be... bad. I suppose it's not necessarily evil, just a serious moral issue.

If they participated in or planned the genocide of "impure" races, they should be charged with war crimes.
Agreed, that was a smaller portion of the Nazis that actually carried out such actions. But I'm talking about how we look at Nazi Germany as a whole.

I'm willing to wait.


What? No, seriously. I'll save it for my 21st birthday. :)
Aren't we the good little boyscout.

Aren't we the good little boyscout.
Yes. Yes we are.

Most of my comrade were fine upstanding men and women dedicated to serving their country and making all of europe and the world a better place.

They're all evil. Why would they be considered otherwise?

Most of my comrade were fine upstanding men and women dedicated to serving their country and making all of europe and the world a better place.
Yes, thank you for pointing out the brainwashing segment of my argument.

To paraphrase someone far smarter than I, in times of great evil, remaining neutral is an act of evil... or something to that effect.
So the US, Switzerland, Sweden etc...are all evil?
As far as the apathy, as masters of PR (Public Relations or propaganda. Take your pick) it's not like the big cheeses were telling the public what they were doing.

Aren't we the good little boyscout.

boyscout, fine paramilitary training, we had many such organization for german youth back in the day, where the youth could learn to shot and many other important martial skill they would need later in life.

They didn't need that. Nazis started wars to make them need them. It's like getting kids addicted to nicotine and saying what a good job the tobao industry's doing at reliveing the stress of the youth.

boyscout, fine paramilitary training, we had many such organization for german youth back in the day, where the youth could learn to shot and many other important martial skill they would need later in life.
Yeah. The HJ was a fun organisation. They always had good weather. I never once saw them in pouring rain. They must have done something right.

What does the weather have to do with anything?

Yes, thank you for pointing out the brainwashing segment of my argument.

certainly, also most communists under stalin and mao were fine honest citizens struggling to create a bright future for themselves and their children under the red banner of proletarian revolution.

everyone is the hero of the drama that is their own life, the villians are always someone else, often someone you don't know all that well...

well them and the jews of course.

what have the jews ever done to you? What makes u think they're evil?

What does the weather have to do with anything?
That the HJ (Hitler Jugend) was a good organisation. They always had sunshine. And never had to march in rain. They did something right.

You not smart enough to answer or something?

what have the jews ever done to you? What makes u think they're evil?
my ideology silly

Halide, your username makes me think of that song "Haligh, Haligh, A Lie, Haligh" by Bright Eyes.
:p

You not smart enough to answer or something?
Me or Ernst?

Well we have a nice crowd today. That Nazi supporter stands out :D

Anyway, not all Nazis were evil. They were just grouped in the wrong group, at the wrong time.

Nazi Germany can be divided into 4 different groups:

1. Pure Nazis - All the real Nazis go here. Those that actually killed Jews on the streets, carried out orders with no questions asked, and lead the nation to war.

2. Regular Nazis - Much like today's modern Republican Party members. Evil, but they're just people who signed up and do what they were told to do. Not because they nessecarily thought that was what HAD to be done, but because they knew that their lives depended on it.

3. Nazi Supporters - People who attend the rallies, give the salute, shout the slogans...but not really carry out anything evil of any sort. Nor are they real Nazis. They don't even have to like the Nazi party. They might be people living under the fear that if they do not seem like they support the Fuhrer, that they will be taken away for good.

4. Everyone else - Because they just need their own group.



Now, that being said. It's safe to say that the Pure Nazis were DEFINATLY evil. There's no argument in that. They needlessly killed people, they commited war crimes, they led Nazi Germany into war.

The Regular Nazis also share some of the blame, but not the bulk of it. They receive the bulk because they happened to also be Nazis. However, these people may be Nazis because their lives depended on it.

Remember a Nazi idealogy - Your race is above all others and you must be the predator, or be killed as an inferior.

Give me a moment to gather my thoughts here.

my ideology silly

Why does ur ideology think they're evil?

You not smart enough to answer or something?
That insult was uncalled for, I believe.
It had only been two minutes, and people do other things than constantly refresh one thread.
Please refrain from insulting other's intelligence.

That the HJ (Hitler Jugend) was a good organisation. They always had sunshine. And never had to march in rain. They did something right.
rain can cause the ledenhosen to chafe, resulting in red and irritated inner thighs

It had only been two minutes, and people do other things than constantly refresh one thread.
Realy? I didn't know that. :p

rain can cause the ledenhosen to chafe, resulting in red and irritated inner thighs
But I thought you liked tight lederhosen?

Some Nazis were actually kind hearted people. John Rabe, the leading Nazi official in the German embassy in China, was appalled by Japanese war crimes during the Massacre of Nanking and singlehandedly saved thousands of innocent Chinese civilians from butchery by the Japanese army.

Colodia, in the end all the 4 nazi types end up supporting group 1. So by extension they're all evil then.

And I would enjoy an answer to my question, why does the Nazi ideology hate jewish people?

Okay, well. I think I may have made a mistake in creating such a thread with such a powerful theme. This never goes good, especially when I created the thread.

Well who cares.

The Nazi supporters, those who stood by, waving flags, shouting slogans, whatever. These people DO NOT deserve to be called evil. These people are no different from those of us who support our country. These people are no different from those of us who hide our illegal activities so the police don't question us. These people are like you and me, they just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Pure Nazis had their propaganda machine at full workload. They filled as many minds as possible with what they needed them to know. And ONLY what they wanted them to know. Only then could they get more Nazi supporters, members, and perhaps...true Nazis.

Hell, read up Mein Kampf sometime. Hitler himself says that there is a difference between supporters and members.

Colodia, in the end all the 4 nazi types end up supporting group 1. So by extension they're all evil then.

And I would enjoy an answer to my question, why does the Nazi ideology hate jewish people?
What?
The fourth group of "other people" too?
So all people are Nazi supporters? When did this happen?

Colodia, in the end all the 4 nazi types end up supporting group 1. So by extension they're all evil then.

And I would enjoy an answer to my question, why does the Nazi ideology hate jewish people?
Because it was not all that uncommon to hate the Jews following WW1. Plenty of Germans thought the Jews were at fault for losing the war. This wouldn't be so bad, given that Hitler didn't also think this way.

Actually, it was never uncommon to hate the Jews.

That's the only reason? Does that seem logical to you?

Why does ur ideology think they're evil?

probably based mainly on ninteenth century antisemetic literature and the inate tendency for ultranationalists to dislike people precieved as other within their own society. perhaps with a bit of association between jews and communism, and the general resentment felt in societies toward minorities who are seen as economically or politically successful(this often manifests in south asia as antichinese sentiment, and may have played a role in the tutsi genocide in rwanda).

That's the only reason? Does that seem logical to you?
They also believed that the Jews were evil money-sucking parasites, yadda yadda yadda

Nazi Germany isnt a black and white issue.

Why does ur ideology think they're evil?I'm guessing sarcasm, but who knows. maybe he has some reason to hate them. why does your (note the accurate spelling) ideology cause you to think (ideologies don't, on their own, think) that he is wrong?

Some Nazis were actually kind hearted people. John Rabe, the leading Nazi official in the German embassy in China, was appalled by Japanese war crimes during the Massacre of Nanking and singlehandedly saved thousands of innocent Chinese civilians from butchery by the Japanese army.
Some 250,000. And to think all have heard of Oskar Schindler but never of this man. Not even I had heard of him untill now.

That seems like a stupid reason to hate them, no?

pperhaps with a bit of association between jews and communism
which also played a tactical role in Hitler's strategy to invade the Soviet Union. He believed that since the Western front had Jews there, it would be easy to plow through.

That seems like a stupid reason to hate them, no?
Yeah, but what do I know? I don't hate Jews so I can't stuff words into someone's mouth.

Colodia, in the end all the 4 nazi types end up supporting group 1. So by extension they're all evil then.I'm a john kerry supporter. does that make me an old boring catholic politician who would've won if not for the human mind's natural refusal to change leaders in the chaotic periods of war? I'd've liked to know that earlier...

But I thought you liked tight lederhosen?
not when it gets all chafy and nasty cuz you've been marching in the rain, heck we postponed Kristallnacht twice on account of weather. that's why the russian thing got all squirrelly too, proper weather is very important to the national socialist warrior.

not when it gets all chafy and nasty cuz you've been marching in the rain, heck we postponed Kristallnacht twice on account of weather. that's why the russian thing got all squirrelly too, proper weather is very important to the national socialist warrior.
Those inconsidered Commie bastards!!! They couldn't have offered a seize fire untill the weather cleared up? :mad:

Some 250,000. And to think all have heard of Oskar Schindler but never of this man. Not even I had heard of him untill now.history is written by the winners. nazi germany was not the winner. they were not allowed to put themselves in good light, so we focused on the bad ones.

history is written by the winners. nazi germany was not the winner. they were not allowed to put themselves in good light, so we focused on the bad ones.
Oskar Schindler wasn't particularly bad.

Oskar Schindler wasn't particularly bad.ah, well then he wasn't who I thought he was, which argues against your point that everyone's heard of him.

What?
The fourth group of "other people" too?
So all people are Nazi supporters? When did this happen?
Halide, did you see this earlier?
Do you still think all 4 groups are evil?

ah, well then he wasn't who I thought he was, which argues against your point that everyone's heard of him.
Okay. So most have. Through Spielberg's: Schindlers list. If nothing else.
But for Johan Rabe. I can't even find a German site about him. But for Schindler I find sites in 3 three languages on the first page alone.

history is written by the winners. nazi germany was not the winner. they were not allowed to put themselves in good light, so we focused on the bad ones.
That is a shame, because for all the evils that Germany committed there were good people and some very sound national policies (such as emphasis on youth fitness, etc). And the US won the war but we also engaged in extremely evil acts such as firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. As for John Rabe he is still a celebrity in China and many of the more superstitious CHinese peasants believe he is some sort of buddha of compassion.

hmm... Halide didn't answer a question directed at him/her? is this the same Halide who waited two minutes then insulted someone's intelligence for not replying? hmm...

ah, well then he wasn't who I thought he was, which argues against your point that everyone's heard of him.
shindler's list did win the oscar(strange verbal coincidence) for best picture, which made him pretty widely known.

Another thing. The whole idea about kill before killed is flawed. It is essentialy the Iron Rule of human interaction.

In hundreds of simulations, it is shown to be the most inferior model for general gain (among the others: The Golden Rule and Resiprosity). The greatest benificial strategy is resiprosity, ie cooperation. Not predation.

You can find a site explaining the simulation here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html

That is a shame, because for all the evils that Germany committed there were good people and some very sound national policies (such as emphasis on youth fitness, etc). And the US won the war but we also engaged in extremely evil acts such as firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. I didn't say it was cool, just true.

sorry, was making a response to something earlier, and didn't have time to recheck boards. ><

Okay. So most have. Through Spielberg's: Schindlers list. If nothing else.
But for Johan Rabe. I can't even find a German site about him. But for Schindler I find sites in 3 three languages on the first page alone.
he is still widely revered in nanking(or whatever the modern spelling is), or so i heard in some history channel documentary. the difference is shindler was clearly a rogue nazi, but rabe was a misguided true believer, he even wrote to hitler hoping he would intervene of the behalf of the chinese civilians with the japanese government.

Okay. So most have. Through Spielberg's: Schindlers list. If nothing else.
But for Johan Rabe. I can't even find a German site about him. But for Schindler I find sites in 3 three languages on the first page alone.
Yeah, one reason John Rabe is less known is because many of his private letters and diaries were not discovered until recently. He is a folk hero in China but the documents surrounding his life was forgotten by history for many decades. Many of his personal papers and the German govt's documentation on Rabe were recently located and I read a book called "Rape of Nanking" which uses this newfound information.

why does your (note the accurate spelling) ideology cause you to think (ideologies don't, on their own, think) that he is wrong?

That who is wrong? Hitler?

My ideology thinks that Hitler is wrong, because in my ideology things have to be proven before they are held to be true. Hitler didn't prove that the Jews were in any way evil, so why should I hold it as true?

Another thing. The whole idea about kill before killed is flawed. It is essentialy the Iron Rule of human interaction.

In hundreds of simulations, it is shown to be the most inferior model for general gain (among the others: The Golden Rule and Resiprosity). The greatest benificial strategy is resiprosity, ie cooperation. Not predation.

You can find a site explaining the simulation here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.htmlsimulations of human activity are never, and can never, be accurate. we aren't machines: too many complex stimuli that cannot be predicted for. for example, crankiness. if we destroy all violence, if someone is cranky and they get mad and hit someone, no one will no what to do. that person could, instead of, in our culture making a few snide remarks and pissing people off, kill hundreds because no one will fight back. or hunger. love. desire. hatred. too many to come near predicting.

Yeah, one reason John Rabe is less known is because many of his private letters and diaries were not discovered until recently. He is a folk hero in China but the documents surrounding his life was forgotten by history for many decades. Many of his personal papers and the German govt's documentation on Rabe were recently located and I read a book called "Rape of Nanking" which uses this newfound information.
I doubt many people will hear of him for a long time.

if we destroy all violence, if someone is cranky and they get mad and hit someone, no one will no what to do

If violence is abolished, then no one would be hitting one another, cranky or not.

I doubt many people will hear of him for a long time.
True, too much emphasis is put on the evil of the Axis for propaganda purposes, so the moral complexity of historical situations are not fully acknowledged.

That who is wrong? Hitler?

My ideology thinks that Hitler is wrong, because in my ideology things have to be proven before they are held to be true. Hitler didn't prove that the Jews were in any way evil, so why should I hold it as true?actually, I was asking in regard to Ernst Rohm, the person to whom your original question was directed. besides, can you prove god? or that love is truly not just a form of indigestion? and that's another thing. are you undecided until proof is offered? because a declaration that something is not true is a declaration that something else is true. therefore, you are, or should be, unsure if I'm a walrus slapping a keyboard and by pure chance am churning out coherent sentences.

actually, I was asking in regard to Ernst Rohm, the person to whom your original question was directed. besides, can you prove god? or that love is truly not just a form of indigestion? and that's another thing. are you undecided until proof is offered? because a declaration that something is not true is a declaration that something else is true. therefore, you are, or should be, unsure if I'm a walrus slapping a keyboard and by pure chance am churning out coherent sentences.
actually i kinda hope you are a tech savvy walrus, that would actually be really cool.

If violence is abolished, then no one would be hitting one another, cranky or not.well, since we cannot actually remove human emotion all we can do is remove all knowledge of how to fight, which is actually simply a refined form of primal urges, and if someone was pissy, those primal urges could bubble up. what your taught isn't the end of your behavior. just look at the nazis. not all of them supported killing jews. were they taught that jews were evil? yes. so yes, people would hit each other occassionally, but people wouldn't know how to respond.

That's the only reason? Does that seem logical to you?
The question you are asking is a complex one and many books have been written on the subject. It is tied up in both eastern and western european hatered of the jews, something that was also common elsewhere, incidently.

You are not going to get a simple answer here so don't look for one. :rolleyes: If you are serious, and not just looking to troll, you are better advised to read some of the books on the subject, and not just one or two, but a whole variety of them. Inculde Mein Kamf in the mix even though it is almost impossible to read.

Breifly however, hitler was able to tap into this reseviour of hate and give it voice. Many germans, not just party members followed hitler to the end and to their deaths considered him a great man!

actually i kinda hope you are a tech savvy walrus, that would actually be really cool.again, it hasn't been proven untrue. ;) But this stays in this thread. anyone starts spreading this around, I will come to your house and sing 'I am the walrus' over and over until you commit suicide.

Am I the only one wondering whether Godwin's Law applies here?

cuz if it does we lost five pages ago.

If someone was pissy, than it certainly would be necessary to suppress their violence. That's tit for tat. That's reciprocity. The non-violent method is the golden rule, which is not the superior mutual method. But it's still better than the iron rule (nazi/kill-or-be-killed), which uses violence in every situation.

True, too much emphasis is put on the evil of the Axis for propaganda purposes, so the moral complexity of historical situations are not fully acknowledged.
You know. I doubt even my old history teacher even heard of him. He was going on and on about Schindler for beeing such a big hero. But he never mentioned this guy.

If someone was pissy, than it certainly would be necessary to suppress their violence. That's tit for tat. That's reciprocity. The non-violent method is the golden rule, which is not the superior mutual method. But it's still better than the iron rule (nazi/kill-or-be-killed), which uses violence in every situation.so what you're saying is that the best possible solution is 'an eye for an eye'? umm... do the names Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. mean anything to you?

The question you are asking is a complex one and many books have been written on the subject. It is tied up in both eastern and western european hatered of the jews, something that was also common elsewhere, incidently.

You are not going to get a simple answer here so don't look for one. If you are serious, and not just looking to troll, you are better advised to read some of the books on the subject, and not just one or two, but a whole variety of them. Inculde Mein Kamf in the mix even though it is almost impossible to read.

Breifly however, hitler was able to tap into this reseviour of hate and give it voice. Many germans, not just party members followed hitler to the end and to their deaths considered him a great man!

I was more motivated by asking nazis here why they hate jewish people (if, indeed, they do), and what their reasons were.

so what you're saying is that the best possible solution is 'an eye for an eye'? umm... do the names Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. mean anything to you?

They do. And Eye4Eye is a specific type of reciprocity, which simply means cooperation. There are other kinds (separated by degree of equalized cooperation, as well as rates of forgiveness for transgressions).

Both Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr believed in cooperation.

They do. And Eye4Eye is a specific type of reciprocity, which simply means cooperation. There are other kinds (separated by degree of equalized cooperation, as well as rates of forgiveness for transgressions).

Both Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr believed in cooperation.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Well, they certainly didn't agree with eye-for-eye strategies.

I never said they did. But they did agree with cooperation, which is in the same group as Eye4Eye, Reciprocity.

I was more motivated by asking nazis here why they hate jewish people (if, indeed, they do), and what their reasons were.
Ask people why they hate, you don't need specific for jews, people hate, jews were simply the target!

Ok, then why did they pick the Jews to hate?

Am I the only one wondering whether Godwin's Law applies here?

cuz if it does we lost five pages ago.
i don't think it can be applied to a thread about nazis, and i'm not entirely sure it can really work if there are actual(or at less virtual) nazis present.

what is godwin's law?

edit: I looked it up.

On a completly irrelevant side-note, comparissons to Hitler are kind of banal, because Hitler did almost everything, from painting to authorship to invading Russia. I could say I like Picasso because I like art, and you could respond "Hitler liked painting, too."

Ok, then why did they pick the Jews to hate?
Nothing unites a people then, having to face a common enemy even if the threat is largely or totally imaginary. Its like how there was a pretty big Anti-Freemason party in the USA back in the day. Also a lot of the leftist parties, the Nazi's biggest enemies, tended to have a lot of Jews. The Bolshevik party had a ton.

what is godwin's law?

edit: I looked it up.

On a completly irrelevant side-note, comparissons to Hitler are kind of banal, because Hitler did almost everything, from painting to authorship to invading Russia. I could say I like Picasso because I like art, and you could respond "Hitler liked painting, too."
Don't forget architecture.

Adolf Hitler was an evil bastard, no doubt, but he wasn't the worst dictator to ever grace Earth. Stalin is, was, and forever will be the worst dictator and human being to have ever grace this planet. He killed millions more people than Hitler did and millions of his victims included jews as well, but I haven't seen the Jewish community dogging on Russia for the crap that they pulled before and during World War II while Stalin was in power.

Just like a fellow NS member said, history is written by the winners and since Stalin was on the winning side he slipped on by the radar. I am tired of Hitler and Nazis being the only ones portrayed as horrible human beings when no one looks to Russia and its communist history...and also the fact that a former KGB member is now their leader, Putin. Not only that, but Russia plans on erecting the first statue of Stalin since the 60's (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&u=/nm/20050119/wl_nm/russia_stalin_dc_2&printer=1) I have no doubt in my mind that if Germany tried to pull that shit by making a statue of Hitler there would be an international outcry but there isn't any for Stalin. It's nice to know that hypocrisy is still a common trait among human beings.

Erecting a statue. Sounds tough. :D

Erecting a statue. Sounds tough. :D
Hmm...
Well, I'd have to say it would certainly be rock-hard.
:p

He killed millions more people than Hitler did

no he didn't.

no he didn't.
Yes he did.

Nothing unites a people then, having to face a common enemy even if the threat is largely or totally imaginary. Its like how there was a pretty big Anti-Freemason party in the USA back in the day. Also a lot of the leftist parties, the Nazi's biggest enemies, tended to have a lot of Jews. The Bolshevik party had a ton.

i think it also relate to the resentment a population often feels towards a group of successful outsiders in their midst. there is a certain racism toward an economically disempower minority group, and another towards a relatively successful one. you can see this dynamic not only towards jews but also toward ethnic chinese minorities in south east asia. people hold a poor minority in contempt believing themselves superior to them, but they feel a deep resentment toward a successful minority, believing that they must somehow be cheating to get ahead. this is probably what lead to the nazi belief in a jewish international conspiracy and they blaming of "disloyal" jews for germaniy's defeat in WW1.
also the ultranationalism of the nazi focused on the creation of supreme loyalty to the state. the jews were percieved as a threat to that state, because it was believed that their loyalty were divided between the state and the transnational jewish people. this was further heighten by the international orientation of marxism, the nazis believed(and perhaps somewhat correctly) that this internationalism sprang from the heavy jewish influence on the movement. they saw this as also a threat to their nationalist aspirations. this may also explain the nazi unease with catholicism(also internationalist in orientation) and their interest in neopaganism(the true german religion).

okay. this is a most interesting thread. I first start off asking the question- "what is evil?" it can be defined in many ways. to a virtuous sort of person, evil could be having sex before marriage, drinking, or looking at pornography. To some, it may present itself in the form of a murderer, or a rapist. To those with a more philisophical view, evil may be defined as doing nothing to right percieved wrongs. There are a million takes on this. Myself, I find barely anything evil, having figured out that people do what they do, due to the human condition. So, were the Nazi's evil? it is a matter of opinion. Now, let us boil down the jew issue. There have been hundreds of leaders who haved killed millions of people. to name a few- Stalin, Mussolini, King Leopold II of Belgium,Ion Antonescu,Mohamed Suharto ,Slobodan Miloševic. those are guys just from this last century. They all attacked different groups for some reason, and carried out what they thought was a just punishment. Hitler was no different, there are many reasons for his hatred of jews, you can even include the fact that he saw them a powerhouse that would take over if their ranks were not decimated. Beyond Mein Kampf, which is just the tip of the iceberg, I suggest those with questions read the works of Francis Parker Yockney, Dr. William Pierce, Savitri Devi, and David Myatt. Also to address, if only in a quick manner, a lot of the Nazi Party members had the lynch mob mentality, where a person does not consider their actions on an individual basis, but rather as that of a group, effectively doing away with personal responsibilty. Others were ferocious beleivers in what they were doing, and enjoyed it immensely. Even in the deathcamps, the psycology of the Kapos, who were Jewish prisoners who acted as gas chamber operators and regularly picked inmates to die, is a topic that could be examined in great detail. what I am trying to say is that the holocaust, Nazi germans, and the entire philosophy is different for different people. Everyone has a unique experience. The human mind is the freest place that i know of.

Yes he did.
No, silly, that was me, not Stalin.
;)

Yes he did.
Aww come on Von Witzleben, Stalin may have had a million or so shot, a few million of course starved durring the collectivization of the early 30s or so, but this is like 10 million tops. Hitler on the other hand killed in the teens of millions (not a misspelling) in the holocaust alone, if you count the slavs, gypsies, non jewish poles and others. Then you have to count all those who died because of the World War he was responsible for and it adds up to many millions more than stalin.

people must first understand the history of germany not just during that time but before it as well. hittle gain power in 1932 but if you look at the fact he revolted in 1922 to overthorw the locat government then but he was ill equipment and was not ready then. but, in 1932 under new leadership the nation feel better. Note it was 1939 when the war had started. that is seven years. Then to 1945. 12 years and more. what would you say if we changed the last 12 years of our history as well.
Its hard for another to understand and some just what to forget.
was Hittle evil? was Stalin evil as well or was them just a mark of humanity of that time. Then what of Roosevilt? Or Churchill?

was Andrew Jaskson evil as well when he order people to be removed out of there home's in the cold of winter to go over 2,000 miles and start all over, for "the trail of tears "as well? Note one out of four died on the trail and them when they get there they had civil war with in them self and then the civil war again. That is in the grand American history of the United States.



So what do you call is Evil and wrong?