Was Hitler good for the World in any way?

Tjhat's nonsense.

Bismarck's 'blood and iron' speech was in 1962, as Prussian prime minister.
He later folowed these ideas .... which had nothing to do 'new nation' and/or German states but with economy, budgets and the role of parliament.

Besides that only until 1803/1806 the various German states were one country , more or less, at least, - later, we had the "German Confederation", the "North German Confederation", Austria-Hungary, the "South German Confederation" ...

May I remind you that the Brits supplied opium to the Chinese and then attacked China to forcefully open trade with the British? Talking of historical culpability. Hitler's brutality is public knowledge and to again to point it out to the sophisticated posters here is really redundant and unnecesary. We all know he planned to open up Ukraine and kill off the Slavs for his Nazis.

The philosopher Nietzche (?) is the problem for suggesting a super race. This concept allows politicians to consider their people to be superior thus putting other people in a sub-human level that lead to genicide.

In relative term it is a new nation under one leadership. Federations don't count as they don't make foreign policy or invasion plans. It is not my fight really. I don't care if people keep on bashing Hitler. I thought I might add my 2 cents as it doesn't make sense to me how just one person could create such a mess. The conditions and various factors should be considered that lead to such a great disaster. The philosophical one is the most important as it allowed people to think in that way.

Gandhi was treated as a sub class person when he was thrown off the train in South Africa as the Brits didn't want a colored person on board. Talk of treating people as a sub class.

You are still avoiding the issue. The thread is specifically about Hitler, not the zeitgeist which might have produced him or in which he was allowed to operate. In that respect we can only discuss his decisions/actions and their outcomes.

I think I'm gonna open my wallet and offer you a new keyboard, Walter.

Vite, vite, Francis! La Poste and Deutsche Post will have to deliver it within two days ...

(My next rendez-vous with the ophtalmologiste is planned for February, btw.)

The key issue to you seems to be his racism towards Jews and the Brits are experts in racism as well.

I find Hitler relevant today as GWB used Nazi tactics in America that almost brought the US to ruin. An uncontrollable 'head of state' is bad news no matter where. It is worthwhile learning .ALL the factors regarding the events for we can then see the signs and prevent future occurance of it.

No. The key issue was that he was a pathological dictator - a description equally applicable to Stalin. But we are not discussing Stalin are we ? Nor are we discussing Francis Galton's eugenics, Churchill's pre-war advocation of gas warfare against the Kurds, or the use of two nuclear weapons against Japan.

As for "learning from history" ...pull the other one !

The issue is racism and the British are as racist.

'was good for the World' phrase refers to world issues and Britain's role in the world is just as atrocius e.g. Irish potato famine; King Edward's burning of northern France and killing and pillage; pirate ships raiding Spanish ships,\; feeding opium to the Chinese; indenture of millins of Indians as slave labour to British colonies; operating the biggest black slave trade in the world and so on.

Whatever Hitler's other problems he never caused potato blight in Ireland, sold opium to the Chinese, attacked Spanish vessels, or anything else on that list of irrelevancies you just posted. Please read the titles of threads before you write any posts! Thank you.

I am replying that way as Fresco seems to be following me and attacking me so I am attacking his pompous attitude as arbiter of morals and rectitude.

As Jesus said which I paraphrase 'look to the logs in your eyes before you point out the faults of others'. He should concentrate on his own British atrocities before he judges other nations' faults.

Irish potato famine - was not caused by the british
King Edward's burning of northern France and killing and pillage - the French burnt northern france to prevent it from feeding the english. Killing and pillaging was done by both sides, and for the French it was their people they were doing it to.
pirate ships raiding Spanish ships - to steal goods that the Spanish had stolen or obtained by forced labour of natives as far away as the Philippines.
feeding opium to the Chinese - most european nations were guilty of this.
indenture of millins of Indians as slave labour to British colonies - correct, but not quite millions.
operating the biggest black slave trade in the world - these were slaves bought from black nations and delivered in the main to Spanish and Portugese colonies.

Hitler also could not act alone. He had the help of many nations.

The fungus did it but the callous British attitude to their plight was what sent the Irish to the Americas.
King Edward III started the raid in his quest for the French which in my books was okay but the French had their own Frankish law about male heirs.
The English were a pirate nation honouring Francis Drake for his piracy. No doubt the Spanish were just as bad.
No the British were the ones to feed opium to the Chinese and took Hong Kong. Don't try to obfuscate history.

No. You are simply annoyed that I have pointed out your lack of focus. To answer this question you need to describe any personal action or decision of Hitler which brought "good" to "the world".

So go on then....put up or shut up !

You are just pompous who can't get tenure and trying to show your stuff. As far as I am concerned this is just a Hitler bashing thread which I don't care much about except how it can be replicated as the current financial crisis if not handled well could bring about another megalomaniacal dictator on the world scene. Messy economic situations do bring out self-appointed messiahs who might not be good for the world.

They were callous times. No nation had the ability to feed the Irish, 12-14 million from memory whos population was halved by the effects of potato blight. But that does not excuse the Irish for Helping the Nazis during and after the war. Why didnt the Irish see that Hitler was evil ?
The opium wars finished when Hong Kong was handed back to China. They were fought by most european nations, including Portugal to protect its coolie trade out of Macau. The US, Italy, Germany, etc all fought in the Opium Wars. To blame the british only is showing bias. Britain was Hitler's worst enemy from several points of view. They were at war against him the longest. They were a stepping stone for US forces, both land and air. They have the highest percentage of blonde hair blue eyed people (aryan master race features) than any other country. Geographically they were in the opposite direction to what Hitler wanted to go. All told, Britains anti-Hitler effect was considerable.

So just as I thought, you can give no list of Hitler's "good deeds" !
Presumably your answer to the actual question asked is "no".

Hitler was good in many ways. The only reason so many followed him, eagerly, and willing to die, was because they believed as he did. There are always at least two sides to every story, and history is written by the victors. So since Hitler lost, of course, his enemies labeled him as a monster.

Yes, Hitler killed a lot of people. But he believed what he was doing was in the best interest of his people, and the prosperity of the human race at large. Hitler recognized that white people appeared to be the dominant race, because they were the most developed and evolved.

There are others through history, that killed as many (proportionately to populations of that day) - Gengis Kahn & Alexander the Great come to mind, yet no one brands them as monsters.

We breed every animal and plant to genetic superiority, except for people. Hitler realized that humans were just another animal, and felt that people should be treated no differently. You may not agree with who he decided should live or die in his efforts, and you can disagree with his methods. But you cannot claim or prove he was wrong in his assumptions.

If things continue as they are proceeding, in 5,000 years, we will all be brown skinned, look the same, speak the same language, and be virtually indistinguishable from each other. Gone will be the variety of humanity that existed prior to WWII, and so too, the strength of our genetic diversity, that had thus far given the human race the best chance for survival.

Hitler did not hate everyone, nor did he wish to kill everyone. Hitler hated Jews, because he felt they represented undesirable qualities that were a threat to most of humanity. He felt they were money-grubbers, opportunitists to the expense of all others but other Jews, and considered themselves better than all other people on the planet.

In the United States, Jews represent just 2% of the population, yet control or are in direct influence, of more than 50% of the largest corporations in the country. Percentage wise, Jews represent a larger amount of Bankers, Lawyers, Doctors, Scientists, Entertainers and Polititians, than any other ethnicity or creed.

In Hollywood, you cannot make a movie that shows Israel in a poor light. The jewish powers there will kill the project. Everyone in Hollywood knows that it is a town run by Jews. Yet, if you are in the entertainment industry, and you say as much, and particularly if you are not a jew yourself, you are blackballed from that industry - Just read up on Marlon Brando (the God Father), who said as much in the eighties, and was blackballed from work for years afterword.

70% of Americans feel Israel is the bully in the middle east, and that we should withdraw our support and funding of the nation. But Jews are so influencial in our country, that we are dragged into supporting and defending Israel on the world stage. The result, we are hated by most in the Islamic world, and attacked for supporting Israel. This is the entire basis for Al Qaeda, and our war on terror, and primarily why Iraq turned against us under Sadam.

We have spent trillions in support of Israel, and lost thousands of soldiers. We have been hated the world over for supporting Jews and Israel, and for what? So that Israel can continue to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land, and thumb their noses at the US when we ask them to stop???

This Jewish mindset has pervaded Judaism for centuries, if not milenia. Judaism takes from others, and is unapologetic for it. For centuries, Jews have been guests in host countries; they have taken all that they can from those countries, yet consider themselves Jews before citizens in that country. So their allegiance always lies with something other than the country within which they reside. Add to that that many Jews tend to look at themselves as the chosen people of the earth, and at non Jews as "less than," and you can understand how most of the world has grown to resent Jews over the milennia. Hitler just cashed in on this long-standing resentment of Jews, and made plain what was known to all the world - that few people wanted Jews around them.

When Hitler first allowed Jews to leave Germany, many climbed aboard ships to leave Europe. But nearly every country turned them away, including the United States. Even when the US and the allies were was shown incontravertable evidence of the Nazi death camps, the United States and others did nothing. (http://www.rossel.net/Holocaust10.htm).

Most of the world shared a resentment for Jews. Was the whole world wrong to feel that way? I doubt it. There is only one way the entire world would feel so resentful, or at the least, so indifferent to an entire population of people, and that would be if that population (the Jews) did not regard others, as highly as they regarded themselves.

The Jewish faith clearly professes that they are the chosen people. By conscious declaration or subconscious inference, this presupposes that all other humans are inferior. This attitude permeates throughout Jewish people the world over, and is as strong today, as ever.

Hitler simply brought this issue forward, and the entire population of the world, either directly helped, condoned, or made possible through their innaction, Hitler's efforts to rid the world of a population resented the world over. Hitler did not relish this task, but saw it as a necessary evil. And apparently most if not all of the world did not disagree with him, or they would have done something to stop it.

Starring into the mirror and seeing the truth about onself is not always pleasant. Blond white women, are coveted by men the world over. Can the same be said of any other race? Attractive white men are worshipped and respected the world over, and granted all sorts of graces, opportunities, and foregivness.

The world aspires to be like white people, to speak English, and live an Anglo-Saxon lifestyle. Anyone in denial of this, is living in a fantasy world, not reality. Have things changed some in recent years, yes they have. But for the most part, these same human biases remain true the world over.

Was Hitler so terrible a person to simply embrace these prejudices in their entirety? Is prejudice actually a "bad" human character trait? I do not personally believe in good and evil. There are simply those things that favor an organism or species, and those that do not. If the human race has evolved to develop prejudice, then clearly prejudice is a tool we evolded to help us survive and thrive, just like any other.

The evolution of prejudice - just like eyesight, or cognitive thought - just may be rooted in the desire to create a more prosperous species, better able to adapt to change and challenges in an evolving environment.

There are those that would say I am being un-PC, antisemitic, and so on. But I am merely stating what millions have thought, felt or said through the millenia. I am not justifying Hitler's actions here. However, I do feel I understand his value system, and those of hundreds of millions that lived during WWII. Were those people all wrong to feel that way? I do not feel they were. They understood the world the lived in, just as we do ours, and they responded to it the best they could for the time.

So in answer to the questions, "Was Hitler good." Yes, I believe he was...

He brought to the forefront, what needed to be, and when it needed to be. Had WWII been fought fifty years later, when much of the world would no doubt have had nuclear weapons, there might not be anyone left to read this post.

Sometimes some branches of a plant must be killed (cut off) to prevent disease, or to promote healthier growth of the plant in the future. The same could be said of a species. Sometimes some must die, and at a certain time, to save the entire plant.

Ninety nine percent of all species that have ever lived on this planet, are extinct. Are we so naive and selfabsorbed, that we cannot envision our possible, and quite frankly, inevitable extinction?

Why we cannot accept that necessary evils must sometimes take place, for the embetterment of our species, is beyond me. Hitler taught us what we needed to know about ourselves, at a time before we had the technology to blow ourselves into extinction. Thank God Hilter existed and did what he did, when he did. Let's hope the legacy of Hitler will last forever, and maybe, just maybe, we might keep from destroying ourselves.

Was Hitler a monster? There are always two sides to everything. Think and learn from history, before you act, judge or condemn in the present. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, we are all prejudiced in one way or another. Being so is necessary for our survival as individuals, and as a species. To think otherwise, is the height of ignorance, denial, arrogance and egocentrism, and is not an adaptable posture for continued survival....

You agree with Hitler's view that Germany deserved to be destroyed at the end of the war because they had let him down ?