actually what hitler accomplished was by brutality
everything that he accomplished was by brutality
I respect what Hitler accomplished
- Thread starter oiram
- Start date
actually what hitler accomplished was by brutality
everything that he accomplished was by brutality
Yes. However we have to remember that these things are opinion, and thus not start forcing them on everyone else and shoving your beliefs down everyone's throat
i.e, what you say is true and it's what we do in different cultures. But cultures can change so let's not restrict ourselves with morals if we don't have to.
It was, however, necessary to create an Aryan paradise. What is necessary is different from what is desired, and the extermination of the Jews was simply a step closer to what he desired.
But the American nation does not have the same desires
Also yes I am a nihilist but nonetheless I still have my own moral codes and my own thoughts, I simply recognize that it is subjective and thus, unlike Tiassa for instance, I don't speak of nonsense without attempting to back it up.
Tiassa, you play your skill at stupid to the limit possible.
The Germans could have beaten the Soviet Union as well, had a few crucial events turned out differently. You seem to imagine people are robots, numbers without personality. This is a mistake of the naive.terrybrookman
Registered Member
Hitler was little more than a pawn used by the banking system to rid themselves of the royals and their strangle hold on power. The industrial revolution created wealth but not power. WW1 was the beginning and ww2 was supposed to be the end. We are now living in the corporate power matrix and for the most part no better off than we were before. Beware of the rise of the fourth Reich, you will be totally enslaved.
I don't see anyone trying to force things down people's throats.
Because there is no ultimate "backing it up" to a nihilist. But it's a non-starter. You might as well just write one post in the ethics form called "I'm a nihilist" then everyone will know and we can all just move on to debating the advantages and disadvantages of various ethical systems and their interpretations. There's really zero point in repeating over and god damn over again. All it does is make you look lazy and useless.
Thats an interesting new perspective. Did banking change hands with Hitler? Who was the old guard and who is the new one?
It's not new. Usually its the "Jewish bankers", though.sam said:
When corporate interests - including but not exclusively bankers, in Weimar Germany - find a champion, there's always the question of who is using whom. In the case of someone like W it's maybe a little clearer, but with a man of genuine vision, unusual abilities, and personal charisma like Hitler the question is open - regardless of what the bankers themselves thought.
There was no "stranglehold" on power by the "royals" of Germany, in the disaster of Weimar. As for others: the "royals" were already gone in Russia, most other places. Bankers have to live somewhere. Creating a war machine like Hitler's in order to attack your own country would be a hell of a gamble.
So if we regard Hitler as a banker's pawn, we have to interpret the events as a sort of Frankenstein tale - a remarkably destructive means of land reform, maybe, if the Krupp family was feeling constrained by the remnants of the Hapsburgs. . The Nazis did seize the land and remaining wealth of the Hapsburgs, but that can hardly have been the major goal of installing someone like Hitler.
The thing is, no one is puppet master of something like WWII. Just to note one minor detail among thousands: could the bankers have predicted that Hitler would push so many good scientists out of Germany, thereby giving the US rather than Germany the atomic bomb?
Last edited:
You're overlooking a rather mundane aspect of ethical decision making that most people do without even thinking and that Hitler lacked completely; humility. Most people acknowledge on some basic level that they may be wrong. We do this in all of our daily calculations: we take extra money with us around town just in case; we set aside extra time to complete a task instead of rushing every single thing, etc. Most people are capable of extending this humility to their moral decisions. Hitler was incapable of extending this to morality as well as many other aspects of his life (militarily he didn't seem concerned with being ridiculously over-stretched and he poorly judged his own capacity). He may have believed that a strong Aryan Germany was the highest good, but most of us - even the crazy ones who agree with him - would be able to acknowledge that they may be wrong, and so it probably wouldn't be worth killing millions just to find out. Either he was incapable of acknowledging he may be wrong, and thus completely lacked humility; or he acknowledged it and still decided his experiment was worth the cost of millions upon millions of human lives, in which case he also completely lacked humility. Hitler was more than evil, he was fundamentally incapable of rational ethical deliberation. Though he certainly wasn't the only one in history.
This same lack of humility is what leads to Islamic terrorism and Christian fundamentalist militarism. I suppose if you're generally pro-nut case there's a reason to admire Hitler. Otherwise he was a poor thinker, poor militarist, destroyed his nation and failed in his goals. I'm not so sure where the admirable aspect is.
Aside from this you guys seem to put forward two other arguments of completely insanity. One is that "Hitler did a lot of good for Germany beside all the hell he brought them." Well, yes. But you wouldn't extend that form of argument to any other situation in life. If I were a businessman and every day walked into the office, made $100 on my first deal and then lost $50,000 on my second, would you call me a good businessman? Or would you call me an utter failure? If I were your defense lawyer and I got one piece of evidence excluded from court but lost the case and you got life in prison, would you recommend me to your friends? Or would you say I fucked up pretty bad? Frankly, the fact that some of you guys are willing to give Hitler a pass on what would normally be an iron-clad rule in your analysis (1 unit of good + 1 million units of bad = pretty fuckin' bad) betrays either an instinctive attraction towards 'strong men', an underlying racism or anti-semitism, or a war fetish that's gone a bit too far. The only saving grace is that I'm pretty sure if most of you had watched the death camps and seen the front lines you'd have emerged with some fairly different opinions.
The second argument from insanity used here is the continual use of "if....had happened, then Hitler would have been the greatest!" Those may be true, but they didn't happen. If monkeys shot out of my butt I'd be in the circus, but they don't and I'm not. Talking about what Hitler would be if things were different is not relevant to what Hitler was. We don't judge people based on alternate histories that never occurred. Yes, if Hitler had won the war, created world peace based on ethnic purity and advanced civilization and science, he may well have been a hero to many. But he didn't. So he's a mass murderer that destroyed nations, lives, homes, people, cultures and carried his nation to ruin. Frankly, it's not very surprising that this is how it all ended for him.
Really? I disagree. But at any rate, as I said, Tiassa (for instance) ought not to automatically assume his definition of "justice" is correct just for some grand reason and I'm automatically wrong. It's quite annoying. He doesn't even acknowledge that it's an opinion! And that is the annoying bit, because then debate is pointless if the people arguing both think their opinions are fact.
Hitler didn't think he was wrong; and he wasn't. Truly, in his eyes a Jew-free pure Aryan society would have been "good" and thus he pursued it.
Why not? (From his point of view). And again he was utterly convinced, and there is no "wrong" answer so he's free to have his opinion and pursue it.
Because he wasn't.
Or, he acknowledged the fact that he MIGHT be wrong but still believed he wasn't and thus continued on his hard work.
Hitler realized that ultimately, ethics are what we make them and thus he did indeed "ethically deliberate" and through this deliberation came to the conclusion that it was morally permissable to get rid of a problem (the Jews) in order to build a more perfect society.
Oh like what?
He accomplished that Germany became the dominating nation of Europe, and the UK went into a slump. Although not in the way he expected to do it.
The poofter.
Hitler ruined Germany. Germany was poised to become a rival to the United States, an industrial superpower with strong trade connections throughout Europe and Asia and the world's most sophisticated educational institutions, labor force, and manufacturing technology.
He pissed it all away - he even drove the Jews out, the fool. Then he bankrupted his country buying a huge military, which he used to bring a coalition of most of the world's other military down on his country, by attacking them. He ended up a suicide amid rubble and defeat of his own making, and his country ended up with one advantage - no military to pay for,while they rebuilt.
He pissed it all away - he even drove the Jews out, the fool. Then he bankrupted his country buying a huge military, which he used to bring a coalition of most of the world's other military down on his country, by attacking them. He ended up a suicide amid rubble and defeat of his own making, and his country ended up with one advantage - no military to pay for,while they rebuilt.
yeah, but the afterwar position of Germany was perfect. All debts wavered, while the UK still had to pay for its war efforts.
and kaboom!
the germans became numero Uno in europe,.
and kaboom!
the germans became numero Uno in europe,.
You should have a good understanding by now about why Hitler and Nazi genocide is a touchy subject for some people. I think it may actually be dictionary definition of "touchy subject"!
You're abandoning your nihilism and betraying your pro-Nazism. To say "he wasn't" can only be interpreted in two possible ways. (1) That Hitler's proposition was "in Hitler's eyes a jew-free Germany is the greatest good***" - or - (2) That Hitler's goal of a jew-free Germany was actually the greatest good. You'd have to be a certain shade of stupid if you think Hitler's proposition was (1) - he wasn't a relativist at all - and (2) is just flat out Nazism.
You've misunderstood again. All of us make mistakes in our ethical calculus. We all take certain axioms (or axiom-like propositions) as rules and derive from those a fair amount of the time, though usually in reality these axioms are somewhat emotionally based rather than thought-out. Humility is the act of acknowledging that our ethical calculus may have mistakes, not that our axioms might be wrong. Though Hitler lacked both.
Yes, in fact, he was. He fucked up horribly and destroyed all of his own plans.
If you believed I was going to kill someone tomorrow, but you didn't really have a very solid proof - maybe only 60% sure - and no way to be certain, would you kill me? Probably not. Because you probably have a functional, human ethical calculus. Hitler did not have this and it led to mass genocide in his case. Whether you're a Nazi or not is irrelevant to the issue; Hitler lacked a basic human function. You may think that lacking such a function made him superior to most people instead of inferior, but again, to do so would be to abandon your stated nihilism.
You're reading into his actions something you yourself like. Hitler never presented a coherent philosophy of any sort and seemed to jump around from one theory to another as it suited him. Again, this is rather predictable. Dictators have traditionally just dropped and picked up whatever theory fit them in a given situation at a given time. Besides, were Hitler to have believed that "ethics are what we make them" then he would have believed there was neither right nor wrong, and therefore no such thing as a perfect society. He - like you - would have been basing an ethical decision on the inability to make ethical decisions.
Also, as a nihilist you ought to have neither respect nor disgust for Hitler. As a nihilist you should view what he did as neither good nor bad. That you disguise respect for him behind nihilism is naked to everyone. A nihilist would say he had no feelings what so ever towards Hitler 100% of the time. You spend time praising him and no time condemning him, yet try to justify this by nihilism. It's a poor act.
*** That is, rather than Hitler believing the proposition "an all-Aryan Germany is superior", Hitler held the proposition "Hitler believes that an all-Aryan Germany is superior". The first one is a full rejection of nihilism - the stated existence of some superior situation - and thereby warrants only complete rejection from a nihilist. The second is untenable; for Hitler to have held the second proposition he would also have needed to hold the first. As such, it's very clear that he could not come close to being a nihilist. Therefore, you cannot possibly say "Hitler was right" unless you also agree that an all Aryan Germany is superior. You keep seeming to tippy-toe like a little ballerina around this notion with comments to the extent of "it was right to Hitler!" but (a) that's boring and intellectually lazy, and as I said you might as well just post it one time, I'll agree with you, and then we grow up and start talking like we've at least reached a high school education (b) it wasn't right because he failed and therefore it wasn't superior and Germans have very clearly chosen another path since then (c) it betrays your utter lack of actual nihilism: A true nihilist would not congratulate Hitler or anyone else for succeeding (especially considering he didn't succeed at anything except losing) because a nihilist would not view Hitler as either above or below a drunken bum who sat on the street corner with bottles of brandy for the entire course of WWII. A nihilist would neither condemn nor praise. You praise. You're not a nihilist. You're just a Hitler fan with a poor understanding of philosophy.
Last edited:
lol. This thread is the perfect example of why the world is fucked up and will continue to be. This is an ethics subforum and all you see is replies from the majority of adulation because he was a 'man of action' and other egoistic reasons, basically self-projected ethics. Not only that but the majority are either too dense to realize the op is a white nationalist or most of the respondents are. No one really admires hitler unless they are a white nationalist or a straight-up asshole. If your value system is so inhumane, unethical and so shallow to admire power or simply because someone is a 'man of action' then it means you are a weak inside wishing you could be like the one you admire besides being a disgusting human being. There are lots of people of action who commit horrible acts. Are they admirable because they are egoistic bastards who don't give a damn? lol
The glorification on this man/it are laughable. He had a talent though he himself obviously was a lowlife who misused it. This is very common. That is what is not understood about real greatness. It's comprehensive and includes character, intelligence and talent. Very few have actually been great. Though they may have gained power. Drug cartels are powerful, they aren't admirable. Those who run prostitution rings are powerful, they aren't admirable. Rapists are more powerful than victims, they aren't admirable. People confuse or equate a gift or ability to the actual person. It is not really the person but a tool the person possesses. How and why it's used is a truer indication of what that 'man', 'woman' actually is. That's the aspect that is almost never known except to those close to them. Hitler may have been a weak, corrupt and self-obsessed loser who was so motivated to prove his manhood in the fashion of his character. You can judge a man by his fruits, (real) motivation and his methods.
It's time to get a splash of cold water on your face and wake up to reality and honest perspective.
On jews in world war 2
youtube.com/watch?v=AlHUYhhAq48
The glorification on this man/it are laughable. He had a talent though he himself obviously was a lowlife who misused it. This is very common. That is what is not understood about real greatness. It's comprehensive and includes character, intelligence and talent. Very few have actually been great. Though they may have gained power. Drug cartels are powerful, they aren't admirable. Those who run prostitution rings are powerful, they aren't admirable. Rapists are more powerful than victims, they aren't admirable. People confuse or equate a gift or ability to the actual person. It is not really the person but a tool the person possesses. How and why it's used is a truer indication of what that 'man', 'woman' actually is. That's the aspect that is almost never known except to those close to them. Hitler may have been a weak, corrupt and self-obsessed loser who was so motivated to prove his manhood in the fashion of his character. You can judge a man by his fruits, (real) motivation and his methods.
It's time to get a splash of cold water on your face and wake up to reality and honest perspective.
On jews in world war 2
youtube.com/watch?v=AlHUYhhAq48
Last edited:
Leaving aside Hitler's racism and treatment of the Jews, and the carnage of WWII, just exactly what did he accomplish?
Five anti-accomplishments.
The second world war left the whole of Europe nearly bankrupt.
It shifted the centre of world influence from Europe to America, leaving world control to a country that is crap at hegemony.
Breakup of British, German French colonial influence, causing instability in former colonies.
Thousands of beautiful old buildings destroyed forever.
Militarization of Russia and Russian occupation of vast swathes of Europe.
Please. Tell us.
What were Hitler's accomplishments, that you respect so much?
List Five of them.
Five anti-accomplishments.
The second world war left the whole of Europe nearly bankrupt.
It shifted the centre of world influence from Europe to America, leaving world control to a country that is crap at hegemony.
Breakup of British, German French colonial influence, causing instability in former colonies.
Thousands of beautiful old buildings destroyed forever.
Militarization of Russia and Russian occupation of vast swathes of Europe.
Please. Tell us.
What were Hitler's accomplishments, that you respect so much?
List Five of them.
Last edited:
1. He killed himself
2. He killed his stupid dog.
3. He was the inspiration for Eva Braun's suicide.
4.
well...3 out of 5.
Not fighting every one else in the world, having at least 3x the troops, planing on the winter and having sufficient fuel, food and cold weather gear and a fesible plan of attack, not psychotically murdering the civilians so they would help and surrender the cities...
Oh, not having and insane megomaniac psyho in command would have helped too.
Actually the US did that by rebuilding Germany, essentially for free, after he distroyed it.