Invading other forums. Is there ever a good reason?

[sprunkner]

Imo we have an example of a viewpoint that seems reasonably valid on a very very small scall in very particular circumstances but cannot practically be translated up to anything like what the majority of people would call real life, and a very good sighting of a dog that just won't let go of his percieved bone.

Well said, my friend.

I consider myself to be part of a strong cultural heritage, more recent than most people. My dad grew up in Utah from a line that dated back to the Mormon pioneers who settled the area. I am proud of my lineage and descent, proud to say that my ancestors sacrificed so much for their faith. They created a untique culture as well-- a bunch of polygamous farmers living on the frontier. Certainly interesting stuff.

But that culture, interesting as it was, could only have been preserved by bloodshed or destroyed by bloodshed. When Mormons ceased practicing polygamy (well, most of us anyway), the church leaders were in prison or in hiding and the US government was ready to take military action unless it stopped. The Mormons were, in general, ready to fight and a lot of them got very angry that the church president told them to stand down. Bloodshed was going to happen unless the culture changed.

In fact, many of them had already killed to preserve their culture-- either Indians or other settlers. That is part of my heritage I am definitely not proud of. Don't you see that this argument cannot be logically applied without leading to atrocity?

People's lives are not as important as preserving a race, or culture, or a set of beliefs. And if we try to preserve them, we will always, always lead into facism. This is why your posts are so disturbing. I know that you are arguing a theory, but the theory is dangerous when put into practice.

[Ultimate Weapon]

10 million is the figure

You will have to provide me with proof of your claim.

Its not about two wrong making a right, thats avery simplistic view of a world war situation.

No that is just the case, and why it should never have been allowed less implemented to the extreme.

the bottom line is the fundemntal differences between why X number of Jews were executed and X number of Germens were allowed to starve.
its the concept of the system of belife that makes a difference.
what you are arguing is symantics of no point.

Jews were starved and executed, Germans were starved and executed. Both were forced into labor camps and worked to the death. How can you justify such action?

Bottom line is Hitler would have had anyone who didnt fit into his new world executed, he was playing god.

Hitler knew he would lose. It's only his ideals that remained strong, not his reality. That is why he almost begged Japan to invade Russia. He knew that without a decisive victory within a year, Germany would be bogged down and suffer. Hell he even wanted a treaty with Britain.

WHere as the allies are guilty of bad treatment.

dont compare X's and think thats the answer.

They are practically the same thing! Again this is not why I posted the links. It was not to divert attention away from any atrocity, but to draw into question the intent of our leaders. And the Morgethau plan is clearly a racially motivated hate plan against the German people! Not the government!

Well I think cultures just change due to time. I dont belive anyone blanket statement can be applied to billons of indvidual people, with independent thoughts. trying to 2nd guess thier nature with a blanket idea is impossible.

I agree that there is no unifying theory for all of humanity. But rather many branches that make up the tree.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Hmm well thats not what I was trying to convey.. so

Hitler was playing god, and thus wanted to restructure the world by executing races and cultres of people to create his new world.

The allies were not.

ANother perfect example of this type of thinking was polpot in cambodia.


and I go back to the analogy I presented you with before.

Its part of my culture to main and torture anyone called Ultimate Weapon and thier family, Its my right to preserve this culture.

Im thinking this isnt fair - no?

[Ultimate Weapon]

Hitler was playing god, and thus wanted to restructure the world by executing races and cultres of people to create his new world.

I think you give the Fuhrer to much credit. Adolf was all to aware of the consequences of his actions, but always thought that right up until the end Germany would be saved. Now don't take this the wrong way but a similiar comparison is that of the Native Americans who relied on the great spirit for final justice that never came. Likewise Germany is rooted in the same such ideals about legend and heritage. It is this mood that had existed up until 1945, before the Nazi's. Of a spiritual destiny in the minds of Germans and that of never being accepted into western civilization as prominently.

But again I believe you are referencing the propaganda of the time rather than the real history. And the fact that the Nazi's did look up to other races and cultures, especially the Buddhists, and the people of Tibet. Whom they believed were the descendants of the master race, that had become extinct or hidden themselves. They sent dignataries to try to find this lost race and were greeted as the chosen ones by the Tibetans.

Its part of my culture to main and torture anyone called Ultimate Weapon and thier family, Its my right to preserve this culture.

Im thinking this isnt fair - no?

Since your culture is an obvious threat to my culture I claim the right to bear arms and create war on your culture. Or I can teach you the ways of agriculture thus diffusing your culture and enculturing mine into it.

[Kaylee]

Alright, I am officially now leaving this discussion. This strayed into territory i really do not want to have to make tolerance with*, having interviewed a holocaust survivor and hearing first hand of the scale and nature of the extermination going on.

*Part of the reason I consider myself a bad buddhist.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

First of all you were comparing the genocide that the nazis are carying out
then
you are talking history.

That doesnt work out.

you are changing the discussion. what the Nazis belifes were, and where they took thier ideas from isnt relevant.

Do you belive that Hitlers ideals and what he carried out, were just as bad as what the allies were doing?

they simply wernt, hence my analogy.

back to my analogy.

So by saying that you want to create a war on my culture, and thus I guess destroy my culture. you do not like what is my 'right' as you put it to preserve my culture.

My culture does not wish to become part of your culture and will die before this happens, my culture only wishs to cause you harm.

[Ultimate Weapon]

First of all you were comparing the genocide that the nazis are carying out
then
you are talking history.

That doesnt work out.

you are changing the discussion. what the Nazis belifes were, and where they took thier ideas from isnt relevant.

Fair enough.

Do you belive that Hitlers ideals and what he carried out, were just as bad as what the allies were doing?



they simply wernt, hence my analogy.

Yes I believe it is just as terrible. Again this does not take away the suffering of the Jews. But why should the Germans suffer for their governments policy's? Remember it was Germans who plotted the assasination of Hitler, Stauffenberg to be correct. Why should Germany be condemned?

back to my analogy.

So by saying that you want to create a war on my culture, and thus I guess destroy my culture. you do not like what is my 'right' as you put it to preserve my culture.

My culture does not wish to become part of your culture and will die before this happens, my culture only wishs to cause you harm.

Then you will feel the wrath of my army, and vice versa. War is nothing new.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

the Germen soilders, under thier nazi leadership were fighting for thier country after years of essentially having the piss taken out of thier proud culture.

on that level both sides commited war crimes.

but what the Nazis (not the germens as a whole) were trying to commit and did commit, was the genoicde of the jewish ppl and others.

its the nazi ideolagy of what they wanted to achive with the finnal soloution that makes them difference from essentially the angre felt by the basic soliders on both sides.
we were not waging war to wipe the germen ppl from the face of the earth, we were trying to stop them from taking over the world.

Hitlers regime wanted to not just take over the world but change the races of the world (insert reason X here) to create a new world fashioned in what he deemed was perfection. (tho clearly he was just a racist facist tit)

-as for my analogy, you would use violence to stop my right to my culture.
I could for instance say: I want to kill all the muslims in the UK because they go against my cricket playing tea drinking heritge?

Im tired now and must retire to bed, ill try and pick up tommrow where its left off at.

[Professor Smooth]

the mythical number given.

That is exceedingly worrying.

I agree. Perhaps Ultimate Weapon would care to expound upon this statement.

[Darth Aux]

As the World grows older more and more tribes will meet and as a result, incorporate each others culture into one and move forward. Until one day we become on big tribe and we either acheive erternal peace or god stops our game of Jenga.

Now that is easier to acheive than trying to keep everyone seperated. It's not going to happen. Even if it was a good idea, the world is closer to a one big tribe scenario now than it has been to seperate tribes since the war.

As technology and understanding of other peoples cultures grow, the boundries of each tribe will fade further. But the human race will move on and prosper.

I'm sorry but we have more chance of meeting mechanical beings able to transform their bodies into vehicles, machinery and weapons than that ever being accomplished.

[Ultimate Weapon]

the Germen soilders, under thier nazi leadership were fighting for thier country after years of essentially having the piss taken out of thier proud culture.

The German mind at the time was clouded with a romantic interpretation of the past and a feeling of being unjustly treated by history. And having suffered at the hands of inferior people. A conviction that Germany's great merits were not recognized by mankind and the expectation that the old myths would turn into realities and fulfill their destiny and find fulfillment. This pov made many Germans jubilantly welcome the Third Reich.

Germany did not succumb to Hitler, but the political and intellectual heritage it retained through imposing modern society on pre-modern society and intellectual foundations, which were held proudly.

Hitler's claim to represent the true interests of the German people could find credence as it appealed to sentiments deeply rooted in the educated class and people. In Germany this was not held in check by the liberal-humanitarian considerations Western Europe had inherited from the Enlightenment. Nietzsche alluded to the hostility of the Germans towards the Enlightenment. He had hoped the "obscurantist, enthusiastic and atavistic spirit", which caused the alienation from the West was passing. He was wrong, and the alienation grew deeper.

but what the Nazis (not the germens as a whole) were trying to commit and did commit, was the genoicde of the jewish ppl and others.

According to Mein Kampf yes.

its the nazi ideolagy of what they wanted to achive with the finnal soloution that makes them difference from essentially the angre felt by the basic soliders on both sides.
we were not waging war to wipe the germen ppl from the face of the earth, we were trying to stop them from taking over the world.

Not according to the Morgenthau plan which was signed into action in September of 1944, before the concentration camps were even known about. Also sanctions placed upon the Germans in 1918 stopped shipping of food and supplies. The world had turned against Germany.

Hitlers regime wanted to not just take over the world but change the races of the world (insert reason X here) to create a new world fashioned in what he deemed was perfection. (tho clearly he was just a racist facist tit)

Hitler had wild ambitions, but he respected races just as much as he hated thoughs who were anti-German. He held China & Japan in reverance as well as others.

The problem of governing Europe were to vast and complex for one man, and the Nazi Empire suffered for it.

-as for my analogy, you would use violence to stop my right to my culture.
I could for instance say: I want to kill all the muslims in the UK because they go against my cricket playing tea drinking heritge?

Im tired now and must retire to bed, ill try and pick up tommrow where its left off at.

Hmmm, well that is a problem! The British love tea above all else!

Goodnight Impactor

[Ultimate Weapon]

the mythical number given.

That is exceedingly worrying.

I agree. Perhaps Ultimate Weapon would care to expound upon this statement.

I have found out that the number may vary more closer to 5 million, even by jewish scholars. But that makes no difference whether it was 5 or 6. I'm not saying that it was right, just saying that history can become exaggerated even in the case of the holocaust.

The standard 6 million figure was taken from a "confession" by I believe it was Hess after many brutal torture sessions at the show trial at Nuremburg where we heard career witnesses tell tales of human blood geysers and mini nuclear bombs that were used to kill jews with.

[Bouncelot]

the Germen soilders, under thier nazi leadership were fighting for thier country after years of essentially having the piss taken out of thier proud culture.

The German mind at the time was clouded with a romantic interpretation of the past and a feeling of being unjustly treated by history. And having suffered at the hands of inferior people. A conviction that Germany's great merits were not recognized by mankind and the expectation that the old myths would turn into realities and fulfill their destiny and find fulfillment. This pov made many Germans jubilantly welcome the Third Reich.

Germany did not succumb to Hitler, but the political and intellectual heritage it retained through imposing modern society on pre-modern society and intellectual foundations, which were held proudly.

Hitler's claim to represent the true interests of the German people could find credence as it appealed to sentiments deeply rooted in the educated class and people. In Germany this was not held in check by the liberal-humanitarian considerations Western Europe had inherited from the Enlightenment. Nietzsche alluded to the hostility of the Germans towards the Enlightenment. He had hoped the "obscurantist, enthusiastic and atavistic spirit", which caused the alienation from the West was passing. He was wrong, and the alienation grew deeper.

So you're saying that the Nazis played on aspects of German culture to gain power, and ignoring the rather more important role played by the Depression in their rise to power. Political extremism on both the left and the right was very popular across Europe in the 30s, largely because conventional politics seemed unable to deal with the crisis. And all this has nothing to do with why the Nazis were evil.

but what the Nazis (not the germens as a whole) were trying to commit and did commit, was the genoicde of the jewish ppl and others.

According to Mein Kampf yes.

The biggest act of genocide in history. Horrendous, isn't it?

its the nazi ideolagy of what they wanted to achive with the finnal soloution that makes them difference from essentially the angre felt by the basic soliders on both sides. we were not waging war to wipe the germen ppl from the face of the earth, we were trying to stop them from taking over the world.

Not according to the Morgenthau plan which was signed into action in September of 1944, before the concentration camps were even known about. Also sanctions placed upon the Germans in 1918 stopped shipping of food and supplies. The world had turned against Germany.

The Morganthau plan (which was quickly abandoned) wasn't the reason anybody went to war with the Nazis. The British and the French joined the war because of the utterly unprovoked Nazi invasion of Poland. Eastern European countries (including the USSR) went to war with them because, quite simply, the Nazis invaded their country. The USA went to war with them because they were attacked by the Nazis' allies, and they had an ideological justification in preserving democracy. As for 1918, actually food and supplies started coming into Germany in 1918 after 4 years of a naval blockade that previously prevented this. Yes,t he terms of the peace treaty were overly harsh, but paying impossibly large war reparations doesn't equate to sanctions against trading food and supplies.

Hitlers regime wanted to not just take over the world but change the races of the world (insert reason X here) to create a new world fashioned in what he deemed was perfection. (tho clearly he was just a racist facist tit)

Hitler had wild ambitions, but he respected races just as much as he hated thoughs who were anti-German. He held China & Japan in reverance as well as others.

I didn't think he had any particular reverence for the Chinese, and any respect towards the Japanese was the result of his alliance with them - he needed an ally in that part of the world, Japan fitted the bill, and once you've got an ally, you don't start talking about them as an inferior race.

The problem of governing Europe were to vast and complex for one man, and the Nazi Empire suffered for it.

Relevant how? Sure, they had some problems controlling what they'd conquered, but given the sheer size and speed of their conquests that's hardly surprising. In terms of keeping order in their new provinces, it's arguable that they did quite a good job. Mind you, that might be partly because they killed off large chunks of the population....

[Best First]

the mythical number given.

That is exceedingly worrying.

I agree. Perhaps Ultimate Weapon would care to expound upon this statement.

Yes, i would be curious to see that too.

We have now had:

• A link to an anti-semitic website
• Accusations of a semtic plot to eradicate the German people
• Innuendo suggesting Hitler cannot be tied to the Holocaust
• The suggesting that atrocities committed during the war is no different to atrocities committed as the result of an ideology founded on racial supermacy
• and now the classic 'its not 6 million'.

Yep, this all looks above board to me.

[Metal Vendetta]

I don't get it, why are you guys all so down on Ultimate Weapon? Don't you know there's a Jewish plot to make him sound like a misguided bigot?

[Bouncelot]

[*]Innuendo suggesting Hitler cannot be tied to the Holocaust

To be fair on him, he can correctly claim that there isn't any direct proof that Hitler knew what was going on in the camps. It's possible, though extremely unlikely, that the holocaust was Himmler's idea and that he never told Hitler what the SS was doing. But, even if that were the case, it was still Hitler's regime carrying out Hitler's ideology, and it's certainly true that earlier, less extreme, persecution of the the Jews was carried out on Hitler's orders.

I agree with you about the rest of what he said, though.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timelin ... ution.html

Im not sure I think he knew quite a bit about the 'finnal soloution' ...

[Best First]

[*]Innuendo suggesting Hitler cannot be tied to the Holocaust

To be fair on him, he can correctly claim that there isn't any direct proof that Hitler knew what was going on in the camps.

I know - hence my comment about innuendo. However based on what we do know about Hitler (and i would reccomed Kershaw's 2 part biog to al and sundry) it seems extremely unlikley that he did not. My point is the context in which these remarks are dropped into posts seems intended to try and distance Hitler from the Holocuast, not what i consider a worthy endevour.

[metalhead24]

I'd be able to post a auseful reply if these stupid government computers didn't have filters...

[sprunkner]

[quote="Best FirstWe have now had:

• A link to an anti-semitic website
• Accusations of a semtic plot to eradicate the German people
• Innuendo suggesting Hitler cannot be tied to the Holocaust
• The suggesting that atrocities committed during the war is no different to atrocities committed as the result of an ideology founded on racial supermacy
• and now the classic 'its not 6 million'.

Yep, this all looks above board to me.[/quote]

This is what I mean. There is no way to discuss this kind of thing "in theory" without looking at the consequences in real life. Hell, season 6 of Buffy looked good in theory, too.

[Ultimate Weapon]

So you're saying that the Nazis played on aspects of German culture to gain power, and ignoring the rather more important role played by the Depression in their rise to power. Political extremism on both the left and the right was very popular across Europe in the 30s, largely because conventional politics seemed unable to deal with the crisis. And all this has nothing to do with why the Nazis were evil.

I was stating historical facts about why the Nazi's were allowed to exist, in the first place. And whythe public welcomed them with open arms. All politicians do the same thing.

The biggest act of genocide in history. Horrendous, isn't it?

No I don't believe that. Genocide would suggest an extermination of a people as a group. And most were not 100% Jewish. I would call it mass murder which is still ****** up!

The Morganthau plan (which was quickly abandoned) wasn't the reason anybody went to war with the Nazis. The British and the French joined the war because of the utterly unprovoked Nazi invasion of Poland. Eastern European countries (including the USSR) went to war with them because, quite simply, the Nazis invaded their country. The USA went to war with them because they were attacked by the Nazis' allies, and they had an ideological justification in preserving democracy.

No Germany declared war on America on 12/11/41.

I didn't think he had any particular reverence for the Chinese, and any respect towards the Japanese was the result of his alliance with them - he needed an ally in that part of the world, Japan fitted the bill, and once you've got an ally, you don't start talking about them as an inferior race.

"I promise you I am quite free from all racial hatred. It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race -- and that does not imply contempt for other races -- is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them. "

Hitler-Bormann Documents (Feb. 13, 1945).

Relevant how? Sure, they had some problems controlling what they'd conquered, but given the sheer size and speed of their conquests that's hardly surprising. In terms of keeping order in their new provinces, it's arguable that they did quite a good job. Mind you, that might be partly because they killed off large chunks of the population....

Yes and even some fought with the Germans against the Soviets.

[Best First]

Pride in one's own race -- and that does not imply contempt for other races

except, inevitably, that is exactly where it tends to lead when it becomes the driving aspect of an ideology, because other races become a 'threat'.

[Bouncelot]

So you're saying that the Nazis played on aspects of German culture to gain power, and ignoring the rather more important role played by the Depression in their rise to power. Political extremism on both the left and the right was very popular across Europe in the 30s, largely because conventional politics seemed unable to deal with the crisis. And all this has nothing to do with why the Nazis were evil.

I was stating historical facts about why the Nazi's were allowed to exist, in the first place. And whythe public welcomed them with open arms. All politicians do the same thing.

So you don't think that the nature of Germany's defeat in World War 1 and the Great Depression had more to do with it than vague generalities about German culture? Don't forget that the Nazis were only one of a large number of very sucessful fascist movements across Europe at the time.

The biggest act of genocide in history. Horrendous, isn't it?

No I don't believe that. Genocide would suggest an extermination of a people as a group. And most were not 100% Jewish. I would call it mass murder which is still ****** up!

The intent was to kill off an entire ethnic group, the victims were all of Jewish descent, though not all of them were entirely of Jewish descent. That's genocide by anybody's definition apart from yours.

The Morganthau plan (which was quickly abandoned) wasn't the reason anybody went to war with the Nazis. The British and the French joined the war because of the utterly unprovoked Nazi invasion of Poland. Eastern European countries (including the USSR) went to war with them because, quite simply, the Nazis invaded their country. The USA went to war with them because they were attacked by the Nazis' allies, and they had an ideological justification in preserving democracy.

No Germany declared war on America on 12/11/41.

As a direct result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese hadn't attacked the US, then Hitler would never have declared war on them.

I didn't think he had any particular reverence for the Chinese, and any respect towards the Japanese was the result of his alliance with them - he needed an ally in that part of the world, Japan fitted the bill, and once you've got an ally, you don't start talking about them as an inferior race.

"I promise you I am quite free from all racial hatred. It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race -- and that does not imply contempt for other races -- is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them. "

Hitler-Bormann Documents (Feb. 13, 1945).

From the head of the regime that carried out the biggest genocide in history, and taught racism in its schools, a claim that "I'm not racist" can't be taken seriously. Can it?

Relevant how? Sure, they had some problems controlling what they'd conquered, but given the sheer size and speed of their conquests that's hardly surprising. In terms of keeping order in their new provinces, it's arguable that they did quite a good job. Mind you, that might be partly because they killed off large chunks of the population....

Yes and even some fought with the Germans against the Soviets.

Given a choice between one murderous regime and another murderous regime, I can understand why some thought the Nazis to be the lesser of two evils. Doesn't change the facts, though, does it?

[wideload]

The intent was to kill off an entire ethnic group, the victims were all of Jewish descent, though not all of them were entirely of Jewish descent. That's genocide by anybody's definition apart from yours.

not that i am defending any of his euphanisms, not all the victims were jewish. only 5-6 million of the 10 million who died in concentration camps were jewish. Other major groups targeted were homosexuals, handicapped, socialists, people of colour, and gypsies. Jews just happened to be the biggest minority in germany at the time. Just becuase you target more than one group doenst make it not genocide though.

[Bouncelot]

The intent was to kill off an entire ethnic group, the victims were all of Jewish descent, though not all of them were entirely of Jewish descent. That's genocide by anybody's definition apart from yours.

not that i am defending any of his euphanisms, not all the victims were jewish. only 5-6 million of the 10 million who died in concentration camps were jewish. Other major groups targeted were homosexuals, handicapped, socialists, people of colour, and gypsies. Jews just happened to be the biggest minority in germany at the time. Just becuase you target more than one group doenst make it not genocide though.

The Holocaust is usually a term used to refer to the genocide committed against the Jews. And I was under the impression that was what was being debated. But I take your point.

[Ultimate Weapon]

So you don't think that the nature of Germany's defeat in World War 1 and the Great Depression had more to do with it than vague generalities about German culture? Don't forget that the Nazis were only one of a large number of very sucessful fascist movements across Europe at the time.

We could argue that the treaty of Versailles started WW2. So yes there were alot of elements.

The intent was to kill off an entire ethnic group, the victims were all of Jewish descent, though not all of them were entirely of Jewish descent. That's genocide by anybody's definition apart from yours.

If we are only talking about the Jewish victims then yes. But all the other groups combined would be mass murder.

As a direct result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese hadn't attacked the US, then Hitler would never have declared war on them.

From the head of the regime that carried out the biggest genocide in history, and taught racism in its schools, a claim that "I'm not racist" can't be taken seriously. Can it?

I don't know. Obviously Hitler had a different way of viewing the world. And I think for the purpose of study it is important to separate the man from the myth. Which is very hard to do in this case.

Given a choice between one murderous regime and another murderous regime, I can understand why some thought the Nazis to be the lesser of two evils. Doesn't change the facts, though, does it?

The facts are that life may have been better for some under Hitler than Stalin. But definetly not for all, either way.

[Bouncelot]

So you don't think that the nature of Germany's defeat in World War 1 and the Great Depression had more to do with it than vague generalities about German culture? Don't forget that the Nazis were only one of a large number of very sucessful fascist movements across Europe at the time.

We could argue that the treaty of Versailles started WW2. So yes there were alot of elements.

Yep. Obviously there were some elements of German culture that the Nazis sucessfully turned to their own advantage, but there were plenty of factors that applied across Europe, and particular circumstances in Germany in addition to that which contributed to the rise of the Nazis.

The intent was to kill off an entire ethnic group, the victims were all of Jewish descent, though not all of them were entirely of Jewish descent. That's genocide by anybody's definition apart from yours.

If we are only talking about the Jewish victims then yes. But all the other groups combined would be mass murder.

So you agree that he was responsible for the biggest genocide in history.

As a direct result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. If the Japanese hadn't attacked the US, then Hitler would never have declared war on them.

Your lack of response suggests you've conceded I was right there.

From the head of the regime that carried out the biggest genocide in history, and taught racism in its schools, a claim that "I'm not racist" can't be taken seriously. Can it?

I don't know. Obviously Hitler had a different way of viewing the world. And I think for the purpose of study it is important to separate the man from the myth. Which is very hard to do in this case.

Are you saying that Hitler might not have been a racist? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the vile racist rhetoric that he spouted in Mein Kampf, in a very large proportion of his speeches, and which came out of every organ of Nazi propaganda?

Given a choice between one murderous regime and another murderous regime, I can understand why some thought the Nazis to be the lesser of two evils. Doesn't change the facts, though, does it?

The facts are that life may have been better for some under Hitler than Stalin. But definetly not for all, either way.

True. As I said, it's a choice between two murderous regimes.

[Ultimate Weapon]

So you agree that he was responsible for the biggest genocide in history.

I really don't know. You would have to narrow down the parameters to disclude combat & war deaths.

Your lack of response suggests you've conceded I was right there.

That was a typo. Hitler wanted America to remain isolated. That is why the U-Boat captains had specific orders not to engage American supply ships. When Japan attacked, Hitler gave the order to go ahead. As a result of this he probably thought conflict was inevitable anyway.

Are you saying that Hitler might not have been a racist? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the vile racist rhetoric that he spouted in Mein Kampf, in a very large proportion of his speeches, and which came out of every organ of Nazi propaganda?

Scientifically speaking, Hitler could be classified as an etnnoculturist, and an ethnocentrist.

[bobaprime85]

Are you saying that Hitler might not have been a racist? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the vile racist rhetoric that he spouted in Mein Kampf, in a very large proportion of his speeches, and which came out of every organ of Nazi propaganda?

Scientifically speaking, Hitler could be classified as an etnnoculturist, and an ethnocentrist.

A racist genocidal bastard, by any other name, is still a rascist genocidal bastard. The way you split hairs and try to deflect the use of certain terms and facts deeply worries me.

[Ultimate Weapon]

A racist genocidal bastard, by any other name, is still a rascist genocidal bastard. The way you split hairs and try to deflect the use of certain terms and facts deeply worries me.

Sorry if that scares you. But science is based on rationality not expletives!