Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

And the old generals in WWI sent out the 17-18 year old kids (Including Hitler) to fight with inadequate arms, over the top in suicide missions for a 1% chance of capturing the russian or french trenches, when it was knows that the war was lost for Germany.

I don't see your point...

The more we are cultured in History the less exeptional Hitler appears.

---

I think Hitler will always be exceptional, even if men as wicked as him also appear writ upon the pages of history. If you closely look at that picture and see him grinning next to children who barely stand tall as his chest, sent out with antiquated weapons to fight state of the art red army tanks at a time when all hope was lost, his evil is most apparent.

And despite your prior charge of my lacking historical perspective I converse on an equal footing with my friend who is a history professor regarding all of western history up until the fall of Rome.

And yet Fritz Fischer (labelled the most important German historian) said about him:

"Doch mit der Judenfeindschaft und dem Krieg um ‚Lebensraum‘ erweist sich Hitler nicht als originell und als Kind einer breiten Strömung in der deutschen wie der österreichischen Gesellschaft vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg […]. Er gehört, gemessen an den Voraussetzungen, die sein Wirken und sein Auftreten ermöglichten, wie an seiner Gedankenwelt, tief in die Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts hinein.“

"However, with his enmity against the Jews and his war for Lebensraum Hitler shows himself not very original and as a child of a broad movement in German and Austrian society before the first world war [...]. He belongs, in terms of the principles which enabled his acts and behaviour, as well as his thoughts, very deep in 19th and 20ieth century history."

It seems that a German historian no less would agree that he was not so exceptional after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

And yet Fritz Fischer (labelled the most important German historian) said about him:

"Doch mit der Judenfeindschaft und dem Krieg um ‚Lebensraum‘ erweist sich Hitler nicht als originell und als Kind einer breiten Strömung in der deutschen wie der österreichischen Gesellschaft vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg […]. Er gehört, gemessen an den Voraussetzungen, die sein Wirken und sein Auftreten ermöglichten, wie an seiner Gedankenwelt, tief in die Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts hinein.“

"However, with his enmity against the Jews and his war for Lebensraum Hitler shows himself not very original and as a child of a broad movement in German and Austrian society before the first world war [...]. He belongs, in terms of the principles which enabled his acts and behaviour, as well as his thoughts, very deep in 19th and 20ieth century history."

It seems that a German historian no less would agree that he was not so exceptional after all.

---

Oh no Kiki, I suppose you are right. Like dominoes tyrants of Hitler's significance have their turn, plunging civilization into war and chaos, orchestrating the mechanized extermination of six million innocent persons, imprinting themselves as the very personification of evil in the minds of many generations to come. Common as rabbits, not very extra-ordinary at all. Nor were Napoleon or Caesar or Alexander or Cyrus very exceptional. Omar Al-Bashir is my neighbour, Kim Jong-il's property at the end of my street just sold to a nice young newlywed couple. War criminals abound! They often gather at my local Starbucks and reminisce over their atrocities while sipping espresso.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And you think its a "quality post" in which someone asks us to view Hitler as a "victim?" I'm already on my soap box, been up on it since this thread began, so I'll just continue in the same vein...


Quote;
Originally posted by kiki1982
On that soap box you are no better than the people you are labelling evil.


Evil relativity-scary. It's even scarier that people really believe this bs. Go Darcy. Oh, btw, you are better than the people you are labeling evil- but you already know that.

http://www.heritems.info/avatar4.jpgYes ,I had!:blush:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KCurtis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And you think its a "quality post" in which someone asks us to view Hitler as a "victim?" I'm already on my soap box, been up on it since this thread began, so I'll just continue in the same vein...


Quote;
Originally posted by kiki1982
On that soap box you are no better than the people you are labelling evil.


Evil relativity-scary. It's even scarier that people really believe this bs. Go Darcy. Oh, btw, you are better than the people you are labeling evil- but you already know that.

---

Thanks, its good to receive confirmation that my moralizing doesn't put me on the same level as hateful mass murderers. I was a little worried for a second there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

And the old generals in WWI sent out the 17-18 year old kids (Including Hitler) to fight with inadequate arms, over the top in suicide missions for a 1% chance of capturing the russian or french trenches, when it was knows that the war was lost for Germany.

I don't see your point...

The more we are cultured in History the less exeptional Hitler appears.

---

Quote:

---

"However, with his enmity against the Jews and his war for Lebensraum Hitler shows himself not very original and as a child of a broad movement in German and Austrian society before the first world war [...]. He belongs, in terms of the principles which enabled his acts and behaviour, as well as his thoughts, very deep in 19th and 20ieth century history."

It seems that a German historian no less would agree that he was not so exceptional after all. - Kiki

---

Hitler is not at all exceptional in what happened to him. It happened to countless others besides him.

He is exceptional in the way his mind worked, and the deeds that he did.

Quote:

---

Stalin is much more Russian than you would dare to imagine. Putin himself let the survivors in the Kursk submarine die depsite knowing they were still alive down there and paid their families money because he wanted to suppres a diplomatic scandal that the USA had accidentally torpedoed their submarine when it was doing a demonstration for China (I believe). The Russians do not know really what democracy is and condone the strong man in Putin. There seems to be coming some hesitating improvement in this psyche, but it is going to take a long time. Notwithstanding their great culture, they have not hesitated to kill in order to preserve their status. My husband spent 6 months on the streets in Moscow and met numerous people there. He calls them 'ruthless with a passion'. - Kiki

---

This has no connection with my post that you have replied to, and I can't understand what you are saying. Something must have got missed in the quoting process. Anyway, never mind.

Quote:

---

You think German society was independent from the rest of Western Europe? It is the very French who bear a big brunt for the shatters Germany was in and so for the ensuing war. Had they not been so despicably 19th century about everyting, Germany would not have ended up frustrated and angry and nothing much would have happened. Had the rest not appeased and appeased and appeased, nothing much would have happened. Had the academic world not have been obsessed with genetics and race, nothing would have happened. Had the Weimar Republik been a little bit more than decoration, nothing much would have happened.

---

So now it's the fault of France, and the rest, and the academic world - everyone except Hitler himself, poor misunderstood lamb, who would have been a good genius if all this hadn't happened.

People who are blaming Hitler out here, whether we come from Europe or not, are aware of the historical background. I never supposed that Hitler just sprang up, fully formed, or that his ideolgy all came from his own head. I just don't agree that this exonerates him in any way.

Quote:

---

Yet, in order to give this a place and learn from it or at least do something constructive with it, we should resign ourselves and accept that they were human and a deadly cocktail, brought together by circumstances with lethal effects.
It will make us understand how things like this happen and it will help us prevent other things like this for which we have been blind up till now. - Kiki

---

I agree with this, but it's something that will only happen gradually, over time, and not because of any oh so helpful pleas for compassion and understanding that we might make. But it is important for the healing process to at least acknowledge the evil-ness of the people like Hitler and his cohorts, who were directly responsible for the genocide.

"However, with his enmity against the Jews and his war for Lebensraum Hitler shows himself not very original and as a child of a broad movement in German and Austrian society before the first world war [...]. He belongs, in terms of the principles which enabled his acts and behaviour, as well as his thoughts, very deep in 19th and 20th century history."

Again, this is nothing more than an attempt to deflect responsibility and lay the blame upon the whole of society if not the whole of humanity. "Well... anyone of us might have acted in the same way under the circumstances, so let's not be too harsh on the man. He made some poor choices, but haven't we all. Who here is without sin. Perhaps a fine is in order... nothing too large... and perhaps something by way of a public apology ("Oops, my bad.") and then we can all move on with our lives.":sosp:

A victim does not get closure by killing his enemy or his dead relative's killer, a victim gets closure by accepting the issue. That is what Europe has since long understood. I do not suppose that any person who has faced his relative or friend's killer in the assisen court and has seen him put in prison for 25 years or lifelong sentence has not obtained closure. Revenge is a savage thing. Dumas already knew that.

Oh... yeah... you're right. 6 million dead. Just deal with it. Che sarà sarà. As for Dumas, who gives a f*** what a hack novelist who lived well before Hitler has to say. Why not see what the survivors of Auschwitz have to say.

I am not ignoring the point that they killed millions (it would be very hard indeed)...

No, you're not ignoring this slightly inconvenient fact of history; you are simply trying to sweep it under the rug in a more than cavalier manner: "Oh well, s*** happens. Forget about it and let's move on."

...yet I do not wish to call the people who thought about it evil, but only their actions. That is the point you ignore.

No, you'll notice I haven't ignored this point at all... indeed I directly addressed it and called you on it for what it is, weak-minded, PC BS. Again, An evil person is a person who does evil things, plain and simple.

You think German society was independent from the rest of Western Europe? It is the very French who bear a big brunt for the shatters Germany was in and so for the ensuing war. Had they not been so despicably 19th century about everyting, Germany would not have ended up frustrated and angry and nothing much would have happened. Had the rest not appeased and appeased and appeased, nothing much would have happened. Had the academic world not have been obsessed with genetics and race, nothing would have happened. Had the Weimar Republik been a little bit more than decoration, nothing much would have happened

And let's not forget those damn Jews who controlled the art markets and art schools. If Hitler had only been allowed to realize his dream of becoming a great painter none of this would have happened, but as you can see the Jews certainly deserved everything they got.



:cuss:

The debate about evil Nazis reminds me of a Mitchell and Webb sketch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3JKcExmQlA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Meh, probably that is because Stalin never 'invaded' anything per se. Before anyone starts about Hungary and Czechslovakia, yes their tanks rolled into Budapest and Prague, but frankly that was no surprise. All those Warsaw Pact countries were satellite governments anyway. And Afghanistan, well, no-one really cared about that. The difference with Hitler is that he did not keep himself to himself.

---

What about the Soviet invasion of Poland at the same time as the Nazis? They split the country between them as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Then two months later the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

Meh, probably that is because Stalin never 'invaded' anything per se. Before anyone starts about Hungary and Czechslovakia, yes their tanks rolled into Budapest and Prague, but frankly that was no surprise. All those Warsaw Pact countries were satellite governments anyway. And Afghanistan, well, no-one really cared about that. The difference with Hitler is that he did not keep himself to himself.

---

Yeah, Stalin didn't invaded anyone, all the invaded countries were longing for ruthless soviets and their NKVD. Who wouldn't want to be send to one of the Gulag camps.

Also, the Warsaw Pact was made and signed in 1955, two years after Stalin's death.

Quote:

---

I wonder why Stalin isn't talk about as much. He was just as evil, killed possibly more people, and the scary thing is that he is still respected today by many in Russia.

---

I assume that's because Stalin's rule of terror was limited to the Eastern Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Evil is objective.

---

Set in stone somewhere? Handed down by a god?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Any mentally well individual is going to have the same conception of evil as every other mentally well individual.

---

Big statement. I know some socialist friends who genuinely believe capitalism is evil, and I know some capitalist leaning friends who genuinely believe socialism is evil. Neither one of the is 'mentally unwell'. I won't even go into the subjectivity of 'mentally well' either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

You go back to ancient Rome and yeah, the morals were different. But they were not entirely different. Cruelty was still cruelty, compassion was still compassion, and these things were as chided or as commended as they are today.

---

Definitions of 'cruelty' are subjective and changed over time. Looks like some more 'moral grayness' right there. I mean, the only way that statement works is if we view the word 'cruelty' as a huge umbrella, encompassing many different interpretations...which, I think, goes against the objectivity of the definition itself, let alone actual 'cruelty' itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

The definition of evil from wikipedia which I posted is not that bad. Deliberately causing others suffering or harm in a severe and significant manner works pretty well. You just exclude the petty manifestations of cruelty that many of us experience and perform.

---

It might work as some discussion point, or as has been said, some form of 'functioning' definition.
But functioning =/= objective

We're getting awfully close to going around in circles here.

Yes why this questions...?

It will be a horrible to us when you ask something like this......