Was Hitler good for the World in any way?

That's really a bad joke, Walter . . . thanks, i'll remember that one . . .

I don't recall the original, but here is a translation of a phrase I heard once: "May Belgium stick to fries with mayo, Beouf Carbonnade, and beer, and stay out of politics." Sorry, but my phlegmish is rusty.

I thought, you lived in Eindhoven? :wink:

OK, I'll join:

A Dutch, French and Belgian worker during lunchbreak. 'Damn it' says the Dutchman 'my wife has made another peanut butter sandwich. I hate that!' The Frenchman says 'I have a ham sandwich. My wife knows I hate ham!' And the Belgian 'I have a cheese sandwich. While I don't like cheese at all.' The three men make a deal: if their wives make them the same sandwich again, they will commit suicide.
Next day, during lunch. The Dutchman: 'Not again peanut butter! That's it!' and he kills himself. Same goes for the Frenchman, when he discovers his ham sandwich. And, of course, the Belgian also commits suicide, after noticing he has a cheese sandwich.
At their funerals, all the wives mourn. The Dutch wife: 'If I had only known my dear husband didn't like peanut butter, I would have made him a jam sandwich'. The French wife: 'Me too. If I had only known.' Both start to cry. Except the Belgian wife. The other two wives turn to her. 'What about you?' The Belgian shrugs her shoulders. 'I don't know what I would have done. I do know my husband made his own lunch'.

OK that was a long one. Next time I will give you a short one.

Very funny...

Hey Rick, I heard that one a while ago. Still funny. It's one of those "insert stereotype here" kinda jokes. Last time I heard it, it involved a Newfie, but as they say, when in Belgium....

I just LOVE stereotypes. Except when Dutchies are involved of course :wink:

I'm not annoyed, just tired. Has nothing to do with all of you
I'm sorry if I came across ignorant (meaning racist or nazi), I'd just like to keep reminding people, that as long as we're bringing up the past and the present, we should always see all sides and keep it in context. It is simply my opinion, that even on such matters, one must have an 'opposite' side to point out a few things to avoid falling into statements which would lead us to believe that nobody helped hitler or nobody thought like him. He just had the potential to do what everybody back then was thinking. But this has been elaborated and clarified previously. It's merely because certain end views are taking into consideration that I find myself reluctant to side with them. No, I do not think history should repeat itself, I hope mankind has learned. But statement are patterns of thought which dictate the following doctrinated train of thought(not to you, but to many others): "Hitlers was 100% evil. Most people are 99% good, some vary a little. But let's not get into details."
I feel every 'detail', or 'version' should be explored and mentioned when a certain train of thought is followed. Historici might agree that after The Third Empire was established, things would have stabilized and we would have prospered. nationalism would still be pretty active, but it would now be an empire, as history has had an many occasions. And socialism is still not considered a bad thing is it? And by my previous, at times abrupt, brief and vague statements I simply referred amongst others, that there would have been a führer anyway, you all know that, and that the only immediate difference between him and hitler is that hitler killed a LOT of jews. He needed the jew hating propaganda to get power and I'm unsure as to what else differentiates him from eg Stalin. Except that we learned from his terror. The only thing Stalin left us to learn is his quotation on: The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.

I'd like to point out that if I made a joke : 'Did you hear about the jew' I would have lost the last shred of respect the unattentive reader of my posts would have had for me. I am not taking the jokes seriously, don't worry
I love stereotypes as much as the next guy and can laugh even when they're about me or my countryman. But I was still 'attacked' (no offence taken, even if it was intended) by my manner of expressing myself. Creating an 'contemptuous feeling' and have made sure my attitudes are haughty and elitist expressions are considered to be of an immature nature.

Finally, a reasoned post from ReX. I agree, Hitler and Stalin (and Mussolini) pretty much had the same agendas, which put them all in each other's pockets. As for modern fuhrers, time will tell. While we are talking about looking into every detail and nuance of a situation, it might be potent to think about the fact that while there have been many empires in history, both right wing and left wing, none have survived the yoke of time. This says to me that there is another solution.

ReX, I think most people already understand the fact that Hitler did not create WW II, create the Holocaust, on his own. That his ideas were shared by some greater masses (although I do think the really extreme ideas couldn't be found among the general population of Europe - not only Germany - back then). That anti-Semitism was not something Hitler invented. But what IS important is the following: without a leading man of Hitler, would this all have happened? Would there have been someone else who would have done the same? That makes Hitler 'unique' in a very creepy way: it was he who lit the match which would start the fire that ravaged the world, the fire that would change the world forever.

cavfancier: Sorry it took so long But as you all know, the juvenile strategy of emulating the point of view which you subjectively, personally, morally might oppose but at times too many valid arguments are made against, is a popular one. commonly used by the youngsters, but also by weary old men who've at times gotten a bit too lazy to use the continuous string of modality to make sure they're 100% politically correct. On a more personal note, an age old friend of mine has this particular view(well he perpetuates it anyway) and counters arguments with nonsense or the arguements of the tone which I have previously given. I find myself to be lost for words at times or even agreeing. Which lead me to making the unpopular mistake of imitating his way of discussing the matter.

Rick:
Yes. Any differences that might have seem positive might not have given us the wake up call. (I won't go into details like butterfly effect, social chaos theory or anything like that, I believe most of you have already 'sensed' my point of view on that matter). But this has been answered before.

Would there have been someone else who would have done the same?
Yes. Again, maybe less jews, but I don't know how they would have gotten the power then.

Forever is a long time. Romans might have commited the same horrors, but they victored so they wrote history. Of course, they DID have less potential but if that's our excuse for not murdering a lot of people based on...I'm sorry, I forget what exactly Hitlers concrete arguements could possibly be to support all of this; then we're in a, humanistically speaking, new moral system which is absurd(if you want to kill, but can't: you're one of the good guys)

Setanta: 18, 81. Should make no difference.

To prevent gaining sympathy, I'd like to add:
Creepy, schmeepy. The Devil is unique in his own kind of way as well. Just because it's bad AND unique doesn't make it any more creepy than the idea of a morally just God. The people need clarity. The mass is dumb.
Like Hitler said: What good fortune for rulers that common people do not think.

The mass is dumb. The mass is forced to be dumb. 18, 81, right?


It depends on what your definition is of 'would have done the same'

Well, ReX, at least you are exploring the complexities of the issues here. Incidentally, I'm only 33, so I can still remember what it was like to be young. My brain isn't addled that much...yet. I can still break down your post.

Rebellion is the food of youth, and should be sought out. However, if you did not expect to come against the arguments of the big boys, it wouldn't be a rebellion, would it? Cheers.

Politics is by nature, partisan. There is no such thing as 100% right on either side, and there is no way to prove it.

Your friend is misguided and misinformed on this issue, but maybe one day he will learn to read.

"Would there have been someone else who would have done the same?
Yes. Again, maybe less jews, but I don't know how they would have gotten the power then."

Please explain your position here. There have been many despots and dictators throughout history who have persecuted Jews. It did not start with Hitler. Are you referring to the post-WWII decision by the UN to make Israel an official Jewish state? Please tie in the connections here.

I'm not sure about your statement regarding Romans writing history. Many books have been written about the Roman Empire, and it's virtues and flaws. The victors may write immediate history, but history evolves, as society evolves. In your words, forever is a long time.

As for Hitler, sorry, he had no concrete arguments to support what he did. Let's just say that he started off with a good idea, he rebuilt the infrasturcture of Germany, and improved the economy, but ultimately fell victim to his own deranged mind. Had he simply stuck to economics, WWII may never have happened. He was obsessive though, and blamed the Jews for his failure as an artist (read Mein Kampf, it's all there). He was also a firm believer in the occult, also well documented, and a sign of a person who is truly unhinged.

As for the statement "If you want to kill, but can't, you're one of the good guys" that makes no sense. All human beings carry the prehistoric urge to kill once in a while. It is not that we can't, it's that choose not to, because we believe that a higher moral ground (which has nothing to do with god) is the path to follow. That's what elevates us above the animals, and the Hitlers of the world.

'Is' 'Forced'. Where? Everywhere? Even now? I would state that ie. in the Netherlands or Belgium we are educated at a somewhat decent level. Those who fail to see how the world works do not have censorship to blame(for it can be easily bypassed and addressed, depending on what kind and where in the world it still exists).
Age brings experience, this may lead to certain new views on life. It doesn't make you more inherently smart, that's what I meant.
I don't see how you made the link between age and the comprehension level of the masses.

Be a dictator, what do you think that consists of? I made slightly more concrete examples. But I don't want to get carried away. Unless of course, it is your opinion that this would be very to-the-point. Discussing how Hitler was different from other dictators, but I won't be able to keep myself from quotation Chompsky and saying that according to the Nuremberg trails, all american presidents since '45 should be hung, that hitler was elected, bush hardly was. These statements are not valid, they are ripped out of context and can easily be fought, which I was I am relunctant (evasive even, I admit) as to start a discussion regarding this.

I like the last paragraph.

The last paragraph of cavfancier's post that is.

The point that bothers me is something I have brought out many times, in many threads (including this one) and why I don't particularily care for games in this regard - for simplicities sake, it is that I believe this sort of thing is happening in the USA today. The neocons are numbing the public so that they get the approval of this fascist actions. For me, this is scary.....

You do understand that is a big accusation BillW.