I respect what Hitler accomplished

tuberculatious said:
2. He killed his stupid dog.
Click to expand...

Goldie wasn't stupid. No-one, not even Hitler, should kill their dog just because they have lost a world war.
He could have let the dog go free. There were plenty of German corpses on the streets it could have fed on.
But no, he thought "I, Hitler, must die, so my dog, my girlfriend, and anything else I can get my hands on in this bunker must die."
He was the original control freak.

But "1. He killed himself", I will accept.
Four more to go.
 
Last edited:
Captain Kremmen said:
Goldie wasn't stupid. No-one, not even Hitler, should kill their dog just because they have lost a world war.
He could have let the dog go free. There were plenty of German corpses on the streets it could have fed on.
But no, he thought "I, Hitler, must die, so my dog, my girlfriend, and anything else I can get my hands on in this bunker must die."
He was the original control freak.

But "1. He killed himself", I will accept.
Four more to go.
Click to expand...

Actually he probably did it because he didn't fancy the idea of being cut into small pieces by the Russians while still alive.
 
Tiassa said:
What neither you nor our friend Norsefire has bothered to do is explain just how the Nazis could occupy and hold the United States.
Click to expand...
What is the relevancy of that? We're talking about Hitler's philosophy.

Tyler said:
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"!
Click to expand...
A very touchy subject, yes.

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***"
Click to expand...
Yes. In Hitler's eyes, what he was doing was right. That is what I mean, obviously.


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.
Click to expand...
As I said perhaps Hitler believed his "ethical calculus" didn't have mistakes. Regardless, actions must be taken; if we never act out of fear that we might be wrong, then we never act.

That is if I am understanding what you are saying correctly.

Yes, in fact, he was. He fucked up horribly and destroyed all of his own plans.
Click to expand...
Very true, he wasn't a brilliant strategist. I don't respect him for what he attempted to do...or for the fact that he failed. I respect him merely because he tried, even though what he proposed was so radical as to be deep in the realm of insanity, he still tried. And that's why I respect him: as a political figure, he was efficient, calculating, and got the job done.

Until his utter failure, of course.

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.
Click to expand...
I disagree. My "nihilism" exists because my position is: there is no objective purpose, meaning, value, morality, or justice in life. In terms of the reality, nothing exists objectively except cold hard reality itself. All human creations are just that, human creations and delusions......as helpful as they might be for civilized life, they are ultimately nonexistent.

Now if that isn't nihilism, then I am not a nihilist; but nonetheless, I do not hold any sort of belief in objective "good". Good is what we make it; and we're free to have opinions on matters and believe in morals...but they are opinions, then, and not any sort of recognition of what actually exists because nothing actually exists.

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.
Click to expand...
Hitler had a code of ethics, but it was his own unique code. He did believe, then, in an "ultimate good"....an Aryan society free of Jews. My point in saying "ethics are what we make them" is to show that Hitler had a different set of codes than you or I, and he isn't any more wrong than you or I.

Hitler is no more wrong than you or I, and that is the simple truth. It's all opinion.


*** 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.
Click to expand...
I never said Hitler was a nihilist. He was, however, likely a moral relativist (as we all are, in reality)

There's extreme relevance in saying "it was right to Hitler"....obviously, seeing as Tiassa cannot even see this simple and obvious truth. By saying "it was right to Hitler", you reveal that morals are subjective and this is a very relevant point in discussions like this........because nobody is right. What we're discussing is our opinion and that needs to be recognized. Because not everybody understand all of this is opinion.

And we all have our opinions; I don't like Hitler or what he did. But he acted, he took action, and I respect him for that. Even if he failed, he died trying.

Perhaps the reason I respect him is because, unlike all the other political figures of the time, he pursued his own radical ideas instead of conforming to the Church or to some meaningless social institution.
 
The obvious, maybe?

Norsefire said:

What is the relevancy of that? We're talking about Hitler's philosophy.
Click to expand...

It would lend at least the slightest appearance of credence to your silly argument about Roosevelt in defeat and chains.
 
Asguard said:
i wonder what we would all be saying if he had won. I dont like the man but all of you seem to be basing your assesments on the fact he lost, if he hadnt been so stupid as to atack russia he might well have beaten the allies
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure what we'd be saying. But we'd be saying it in German instead of English.
 
oiram said:
Oh and since Hitler did fail, let’s see what we have had since his demise. Today there are thousands of people dying each day in Africa and daily hundreds of children are orphaned by aids
Click to expand...
You're right. Those people wouldn't be dying in Africa under Hitler. They'd all have been killed long ago in death camps to make room for a Greater Germany. African's are pretty far from Aryan, you know.
, there homeless people all around the world, extreme poverty and starvation, food shortages, and disease
Click to expand...
Yep. Death camps and work camps would solve all of those problems.
let us not forget how many people have died in the Korean war, the first gulf war, the horrors in Bosnia the invasion of Iraq and all the other misery and death that has occurred as the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Once Hitler had taken over the entire world and killed all non-Aryans, homosexuals, mental defectives, gypsies, etc; there would be no more need for war. Once all your enemies are dead, who's left to fight? All hail Hitler, the great peacemaker!
 
madanthonywayne said:
You're right. Those people wouldn't be dying in Africa under Hitler. They'd all have been killed long ago in death camps to make room for a Greater Germany. African's are pretty far from Aryan, you know. ... Yep. Death camps and work camps would solve all of those problems. ... Yeah. Once Hitler had taken over the entire world and killed all non-Aryans, homosexuals, mental defectives, gypsies, etc; there would be no more need for war. Once all your enemies are dead, who's left to fight? All hail Hitler, the great peacemaker!
Click to expand...

It seems the typical Hollywood caricature of a "Nazi" - the blue-eyed, blond-haired android - is ingrained far too deep in your mind to allow for intelligible discussion. Immediately noticeable in your post are two errant propositions: first, the notion that Hitler would have killed every African for being non-Aryan, and second, that taking over the entire world was originally an ambition Hitler harboured.

A decisive German victory would mean, in all likelihood, the following things: an embarrassing American retreat, a German power sphere in Europe, and the collapse of communism in Russia (in its place rising a constitutional monarchy, a representative republic, or a nationalist military junta of some sort). For sure, no Englishmen nor American would be "speaking German right now". National Socialist Germany could never occupy the United States.
 
Slysoon said:
It seems the typical Hollywood caricature of a "Nazi" - the blue-eyed, blond-haired android - is ingrained far too deep in your mind to allow for intelligible discussion. Immediately noticeable in your post are two errant propositions: first, the notion that Hitler would have killed every African for being non-Aryan, and second, that taking over the entire world was originally an ambition Hitler harboured.

A decisive German victory would mean, in all likelihood, the following things: an embarrassing American retreat, a German power sphere in Europe, and the collapse of communism in Russia (in its place rising a constitutional monarchy, a representative republic, or a nationalist military junta of some sort). For sure, no Englishmen nor American would be "speaking German right now". National Socialist Germany could never occupy the United States.
Click to expand...

keep dreaming. they took the easiest and primal route, annhilation. they would have kept on persecuting and killing anyone that didn't fit their mold. no one has a right to life more than another. and technically, the only ones who have less of a right to life are those who don't have respect for the life of others. hence, you have nature's offense and defense. you commit offense, you will get defense or offense back.
 
swarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

The fact that they didn't manage to fulfil those premises for a successful "taking over the world" just proves that they were not capable of doing so.

You can't change the course of history, you can't sugar-coat history with "what ifs" because all of those what ifs won't change the fact that they didn't. Germany failed, and what ifs won't change that fact. Bend over reality as much as you want they still f*cked up, and better so, because if it weren't for their nonaccomplishment then I would probably not be here to talk with you about such things.
 
Oy vey.

OK, FTW: yes, some of what Hitler did was good. The Norse used to have a saying: No man is so good as to be perfect, or so evil as to be worth nothing. He employed people and built snazzy cars that no one eventually owned. People got back to work. Whatever. But, it's overshadowed by his being monstrously evil, or else crazified by syphilis. Whichever. Is there anything more that need be said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top