ReX wrote:Active thread
First, I'd like to thank you all for taking replying correct and elaborate as ever. It's very stimulating.
Agreed. It's a rebellion either way, just not a very successful one. And I suppose by 'the big boys' you mean yourself and a few others. Well, I await your arguments with caution(although my youthfull mindset might prevent me from replying with equally great caution
)
Not just politics. But politics is indeed a VERY illustrative example.
I will refer him to this thread, altough I doubt he has the patience to read it all.
He did what any führer* would have done in my hardly fully documented opinion, except he killed more jews.
He rebuilt the infrasturcture of Germany, and improved the economy, which could only be done by breaking the treaties imposed on germany and which inevitably lead to war. The factories, the roads, the infrastructure really, all was preperation for war. It served no other goal and was financed by what would upset the 'victors who didn't win'.
Motivating the people is also an important part of being a succesfull politician, you can't do that without creating an enemy, the people have to unite. He built germany from the ruble of humiliation through frustration to a superiour race(state of mind, not agreeing with him, just explaining how nationalism works)
As for the statement "If you want to kill, but can't, you're one of the good guys" that makes no sense.
That's why the statement was:
moral system which is
absurd(if you want to kill, but can't: you're one of the good guys)
Seems like my friend isn't the only one who should learn how to read...
(I promise, in time, I'll learn how to write
)
Thanks there ReX. I'll add a few thoughts. I quoted you here, deleting the paragraph that you said to ignore. It reads quite differently without it. I don't take anything personally when it comes to discussion.
Your argument needs to be more focused. I know what you are implying, but you are all over the place with it.
"He did what any führer* would have done in my hardly fully documented opinion, except he killed more jews."
Irrelevant to Hitler's political position, or economic policies. If you are making a comparison between Bush and Hitler in terms of a desire to commit racial genocide, you are seriously misguided, and would be hard pressed to argue that point, given the Bush administration's alliances with the Saudis, and the Bin Laden family.
If you are not making that comparison, please explicate.
All in fun as well, just so you know.
I'm not trying to imply ANYTHING cavfancier. I'm not denying Hitler hated Jews. The only thing I wanted to 'add' is that there must have been a turning point in Hitler's life in his opinion concerning Jews. That's what I read. Having the book 'Perpetrators Victims Bystanders: the Jewish Catastrophe, 1933 - 1945' by Raul Hilberg in front of me, I quote that 'Hitler did not recognize the Jews of Linz; it was not until in Vienna he got a fervent hate against Jews, seeing them as Marxists and a seperate part of the German nation'. I apologize for my inaccurate timeline by claiming Hitler had Jewish friends during his time as an artist; I was wrong there. My apologies. But please, do not try to make premature conclusions on my thinking.
