Should Hitler be a person?
-
Ah yes, the glorious Lowveld. Heaven in 1/3 of a province. BTW - Kruger National Park is in the Lowveld :cool: Paul Watson wrote: The rest is far more civilised and sanitised Read "industrial and smoggy" :rolleyes:
Look at the world about you and trust to your own convictions. - Ansel Adams
Meg's World - Blog Photography -
I think it is a good idea to treat Hitler frankly. It will help Germans to reconcile with their history. I have always wondered - what is the difference between Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm? Wilhelm is nowhere near as villified as Hitler. Both started brutal wars in which millions died. Some say WWI was started by a web of complicated alliances, but that is only part of the story. Wilhelm engaged in an arms race with Britain for control of the seas, and attempted to create a oligarchy in Germany. Now he just portayed as a bumbling leader who got in over his head. But I can't believe that he was all that blameless.
Jeff Bogan wrote: what is the difference between Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm? there are many differences! Here are some: * The Kaiser didn't plan an annexionist strategy as Hitler did * There was a kind of democracy during the 2nd Reich, not at all during the 3rd. * There were no concentration camp during WW1. * There was no genocide of Jews and Gypsies[^] (IMHO the forgotten holocaust) during WW1 * There was no Gestapo, no SD, no Einsatzgruppe [^] in the second Reich. * There was no "Operation T4"[^] during the second Reich * The Kaiser was dominated by his generals, Hitler dominated his generals I don't say the Kaiser was blameless, but IMO he can't hardly be compared to Hitler.
Fold With Us! War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men - Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929)
-
pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Good question, I'm not going to answer it though. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Colin Davis: Good question, I'm not going to answer it though. Why don't you go for 'YES' :rolleyes: ************************** S r e e j i t h N a i r **************************
-
pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Colin Davis: Good question, I'm not going to answer it though. Why don't you go for 'YES' :rolleyes: ************************** S r e e j i t h N a i r **************************
sreejith ss nair wrote: Why don't you go for 'YES' i think it's the correct answer, but it upset my stomach. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
I'll put this in here as there could be strong opinions. Basically there's a new film about the last days of the third reich which shows a personal side to Adolf Hitler. See here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3663044.stm[^] So should Hitler be seen as a person? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Yes. I think it's important to remember that people can be monsters, yet still be "a person". Frankly, it's this stark dichotomy that best defines "human" for me. Animals behave pretty much in only one way, as animals. But humans, ascending out of animalistic behavior, appear to be capable of descending even to lower depths as well. In any case, seeing Hitler as a person makes him more terrifying IMO, because it shows that there might just be a little Hitler in each of us. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
Paul Watson wrote: At what age do I become responsible? I'd say you become responsible at the point you understand your action is harmful, because it makes sense to me that way. Granted there are societal conditions that can be overwhleming and cause people to continue their actions beyond that point of recognition. As a child, I imagine you hardly had control over your own life, so can hardly be expected to make decisions let alone act on them regarding apartheid. It's an interesting train of thought, and is making me think about my responsibility in my community a bit harder. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Christian Graus wrote: Clinging to an idea of baddies in black hats who are always nasty is both unrealistic, and does not prepare us to recognise evil in our midst. Exactly right. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
I have to agree as well.
"If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell Not getting the response you want from a question asked in an online forum: How to Ask Questions the Smart Way!
-
Yes, for two reasons. 1. Freedom of speech. Even if the view it presents of Hitler is skewed, people should be free to work that out. 2. It's true. He WAS a human being, and no matter how evil his actions, that doesn't mean he never loved anyone, or never showed compassion, etc. It's dangerous to assume that being someone is sick, or evil, that they make that apparent to all who see or know them. I saw a doco which interviewed Stalin's daughter, and they asked what he was like. She said 'he was a father, he played with us, read to us, loved us.'. Clinging to an idea of baddies in black hats who are always nasty is both unrealistic, and does not prepare us to recognise evil in our midst. But there are enough threads about the US elections already, so I won't go any further. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: He WAS a human being, and no matter how evil his actions, that doesn't mean he never loved anyone, or never showed compassion, etc. It's dangerous to assume that being someone is sick, or evil, that they make that apparent to all who see or know them. ... Clinging to an idea of baddies in black hats who are always nasty is both unrealistic, and does not prepare us to recognise evil in our midst. Oh but its so easy to just call them evil and be done with it. Take a look back and you see Hitlers and Stalins throughout history. Whole people groups were slaughtered or enslaved after being conquered. If Xerxes, Alexander, or Caesar had tanks and gas chambers, just think of the destruction they would have wrought. We must recognize evil for what it is, a part of human nature, so we can do our best to snuff it out when it rears its ugly head. It should be something we expect to see from time to time, and not be caught off guard and unwilling to face it.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I'll put this in here as there could be strong opinions. Basically there's a new film about the last days of the third reich which shows a personal side to Adolf Hitler. See here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3663044.stm[^] So should Hitler be seen as a person? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
pseudonym67 wrote: Should Hitler be a person? Nope, he tried it once and screwed it up - no second chances for maniacs. ;P pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Ohhhh! In that case, yes - as long as he is not romanticized or pitied. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: what is the difference between Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm? there are many differences! Here are some: * The Kaiser didn't plan an annexionist strategy as Hitler did * There was a kind of democracy during the 2nd Reich, not at all during the 3rd. * There were no concentration camp during WW1. * There was no genocide of Jews and Gypsies[^] (IMHO the forgotten holocaust) during WW1 * There was no Gestapo, no SD, no Einsatzgruppe [^] in the second Reich. * There was no "Operation T4"[^] during the second Reich * The Kaiser was dominated by his generals, Hitler dominated his generals I don't say the Kaiser was blameless, but IMO he can't hardly be compared to Hitler.
Fold With Us! War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men - Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929)
Yeah, Hitler was aggressively expansionistic and power hungry and would ignore treaties and lie through his teeth to expand his influence. In some ways he was pretty stupid too. Why not sit on your hands for a while after taking western europe, rather than turning on the Soviets and opening a second front. And why on earth declare war on America so early? I'm sure Wilhelm was the same in some ways, but Hitler was blatant and shameless about it.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
pseudonym67 wrote: So should Hitler be seen as a person? Yes. I think it's important to remember that people can be monsters, yet still be "a person". Frankly, it's this stark dichotomy that best defines "human" for me. Animals behave pretty much in only one way, as animals. But humans, ascending out of animalistic behavior, appear to be capable of descending even to lower depths as well. In any case, seeing Hitler as a person makes him more terrifying IMO, because it shows that there might just be a little Hitler in each of us. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Marc Clifton wrote: In any case, seeing Hitler as a person makes him more terrifying IMO, because it shows that there might just be a little Hitler in each of us. <shiver/>
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Yeah, Hitler was aggressively expansionistic and power hungry and would ignore treaties and lie through his teeth to expand his influence. In some ways he was pretty stupid too. Why not sit on your hands for a while after taking western europe, rather than turning on the Soviets and opening a second front. And why on earth declare war on America so early? I'm sure Wilhelm was the same in some ways, but Hitler was blatant and shameless about it.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: rather than turning on the Soviets and opening a second front. Many reasons, IMHO: * he needed a large continental base, with plenty of resources, to be able to face the sea powers. * He knew that if he didn't strike first, Stalin would, and the more he was waiting, the stronger would be Stalin? * He tought USSR was still a weak adversary, especially after the poor soviet demonstration during the war against Finland * Even his generals, who were very anxious before attacking France, were enthousiastic before invading USSR * Eastern Europe has always been his primary target. Remember "Mein Kampf" and the "Drang Nach Osten", defeating the West was just a way to have the free hands. * He probably believed he would be helped by his Japanese allies. The declaration of war against the US is more surprising, especially because the US didn't seem ready to declare war to the Third Reich. Maybe was he pushed to do so by Dönitz, who could then fight very aggressively in the Atlantic Ocean, and give severe blows to the allied merchand marines. The 6 first months of 1942 were very, very critical on this point for the Allies, and were "Happy Times[^] for the U-boats.
Fold With Us! War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men - Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929)
-
Jason Henderson wrote: rather than turning on the Soviets and opening a second front. Many reasons, IMHO: * he needed a large continental base, with plenty of resources, to be able to face the sea powers. * He knew that if he didn't strike first, Stalin would, and the more he was waiting, the stronger would be Stalin? * He tought USSR was still a weak adversary, especially after the poor soviet demonstration during the war against Finland * Even his generals, who were very anxious before attacking France, were enthousiastic before invading USSR * Eastern Europe has always been his primary target. Remember "Mein Kampf" and the "Drang Nach Osten", defeating the West was just a way to have the free hands. * He probably believed he would be helped by his Japanese allies. The declaration of war against the US is more surprising, especially because the US didn't seem ready to declare war to the Third Reich. Maybe was he pushed to do so by Dönitz, who could then fight very aggressively in the Atlantic Ocean, and give severe blows to the allied merchand marines. The 6 first months of 1942 were very, very critical on this point for the Allies, and were "Happy Times[^] for the U-boats.
Fold With Us! War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men - Georges Clémenceau (1841-1929)
Good points. However, after gaining France and bombing the Brits, why not plea for peace? Say, "I've got what I wanted, let's quit fighting." Then he could have focused on the East with his blitzkrieg and "Germanize" the West. Of course, who's to say the Brits would have taken the bait? But they were in pretty sorry shape in '41 and '42.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog