Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[hallaig]

Interesting arguments. While some of his foreign policy objectives mirrored those of the Kaiser and of the 19th century expansionists, Hitler was something else. I don't use the word evil, but he was the embodiment of the mean, envious, spiteful, iconoclastic, inherently racist, post-war European lower middle class who ached for power and blamed everyone else for their problems. Fascists in other words.

Here's what the Kaiser thought of Hitler:

"For a few months I was inclined to believe in National Socialism...But of our great Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians, of artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars and fanatics..."

[kiki1982]

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.

Can you read? This historian was talking of his ideas and the acts that came out of them. Seriously!

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.

Has everything to do with your post. I pointed out that Putin was also capable of the kind of ruthless things Stalin did on a large scale. Those prisons are still there, you know. You think that Stalin was an exception of the Russian psyche?

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.

There are a few things that have contributed to the advance of Nazism and the ensuring war, yes, or did you think that Hitler got out the very same railway carriage and put it in the very same wood as in 1918 to sign the surrender of France just to be funny?

There are a whole lot of circumstances that contributed to this situation. A big contributor was the damages Germany had to pay and the territories it lost. Due to all those damages their economy could not recover and employment rose to 30% in some areas. And Germany had no wellfare system, mind. Damages were stopped in 1931, but they were set to continue for 70 years and until recently Germany had been paying them. It is an acknowledged fact that this was one of the things that enabled Nazism to flourish. And it was Pétain and the French military's idea, not the British. They were against it in fact, knowing what it could pôssibly entail, but the French wanted Alsace, which they had coveted through the whole of history. The League of Nations is another thing that did not work and could be blamed.

The annihilation of Germany at the end was a logical consequence of the unconditional surrender desired by the Allies. And why? Because the Allies thought that an unconditional surrender was desirable above negotiations because they wished to rip out the stab-in-the back myth which had been so prominent amongst the German population and which had been a major contributor, again, to Nazism. Such a state will never surrender unconditionally, so what else but annihilation would follow? At least both parties can be blamed for this and Hitler nor his companions really had any problems with it in the aftermath. It was the German population which would have to pay for it, as populations always do.

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.

I am quite sure that had he been somewhere else, his ideas may have caught on, but would not have grown to the size they grew in Germany.

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.

I never said he was not responsible. However, in the face of all of what happened before I cannot call him evil. His acts were, yes, but I personally cannot call him evil, because it is not good enough. Why is that a problem?

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."

Yes, well, dismiss one of the historians which changed German historiography and make your own. Why not. It does not make you more believable at all.
In fact those who have argued that Hitler was just a 'Betriebsunfall' (accident in German history) like Ritter have long been discredited. Some criticism that has been pointed in Fischer's direction says that he does not consider that Social Darwinist ideas (relative to race struggles) were present in most nations at the time, but this man has examined the history of Imperial Germany in the most minute detail and believe it or not, Germany was already going to ethnically cleanse East Poland and Russia in WWI, or after the war. hmmm He has in fact argued that Hitlers views were the views of Germany's elite and not his alone. Hence all the support Hitler got from the start, I guess. He does not excuse Hitler's actions at all, in fact, but acknowledges that Germany's ambitions to Lebensraum its Social Darwinist ideas and the ensuing racism were there even long before Hitler was born. Again, that does not reduce Hitler's responsibility, it emphasises the unfortunate situation Germany's population found themselves in when they could vote for him.

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.

And still it is true. Calling someone evil is not the way forward, comitting revenge is not either. A Jewish novellist knows that too. If you do not acknowledge that every person obtains closure through acceptance then you are deluded.

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."

No, not trying to sweep it under the carpet, nor trying to ignore the 16 million dead (persecuted + soldiers in the war) I am only trying to say that this was not Hitler alone. My God, how easy can you get if you just blame one person for this! Not even German historians agree with it (anymore).

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 know that people with a different opinion think different about its definition. A mere definition in the dictionary does not suffice. You will understand that Hitler and his regime were worse than your average evil person according to your definition.

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.

I will leave that without comment. I thought your mind was bigger than the ignorance it is blurting out.

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.

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.

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

He 'liberated' and then stayed. It is virtually the same thing, but for public perception it got burried in the chaos. You can't deny that Hitler had no reason for invading anyone apart from wanting Lebensraum (something that was already the German's plan in WWI). Stalin liberated and then conveniently made satellite states with the help of local communists. Or are you arguing that the Russians just annexed?
As for the partition of Poland: Poland is a special case and had been fought over for centuries.

He was offered an excuse and he took it, that is different from Hitler who just did it. To public perception at least.

And, no, I am not denying that he was tyrant, only that perception is different.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Meh. Hitler was evil, end of story.

[Alexander III]

Meh. Hitler was evil, end of story.

Meh Shakespere is a dead white man who wrote in a language clearly different from our own. Shakespere sucks.


I thought discussion was meant to help us take our Adolecent views and transform them into mature wiser and less intelectualy and culturaly limited views.

But I guese for you, the height of wisdom is reached at 14.

[Darcy88]

Set in stone somewhere? Handed down by a god?

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.

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.

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.

Only an idiot socialist would argue that all forms of capitalism are evil. Only an idiot capitalist would argue that all forms of socialism are evil. Only idiots from both camps would believe that their own ideologies have stainless historical records.

We have evolved to have empathy and guilt. I guess where you live people routinely rape and murder, not just the small criminal class that many could argue is evil, but the everyday person. I'm sure you yourself have committed murder many times. I'm sure if there were no police-men you would own slaves. No? Why not then? Do you think such things are wrong? Do you think such things are evil? Do you think our laws are arbitrary or that they crudely reflect some conception of good and evil that extends beyond our culture and for the most part includes all of humanity? Circumstances can affect man's core morality, his conscience, but that core is still there, the conscience a small island that the pounding surf can beat and can smother but cannot ever erase.

Meh Shakespere is a dead white man who wrote in a language clearly different from our own. Shakespere sucks.


I thought discussion was meant to help us take our Adolecent views and transform them into mature wiser and less intelectualy and culturaly limited views.

But I guese for you, the height of wisdom is reached at 14.

I guess for you maturity means looking upon arguably the greatest tyrant and mass murderer in all of human history as "a victim." And a statement about Shakespeare parallel to Mutatis' statement about Hitler would be "Shakespeare was unbelievably talented." Denying that is as difficult as denying that Hitler was evil.

But you're right. Morality is but a foolish phase of adolescence. May I mature as you have and blossom into a nice moral relativist and let my heart bleed for poor little Hitler.

[Aylinn]

He 'liberated' and then stayed. It is virtually the same thing, but for public perception it got burried in the chaos. You can't deny that Hitler had no reason for invading anyone apart from wanting Lebensraum (something that was already the German's plan in WWI). Stalin liberated and then conveniently made satellite states with the help of local communists. Or are you arguing that the Russians just annexed?

Yes, Stalin wanted to appear to the people as Daddy the Liberator, but the truth is that he simple annexed these countries. Stalin had no right to force his undesirable presence on others.

The help of local communist was not as important and effective as the 'help' of NKVD.

[kiki1982]

We have evolved to have empathy and guilt. I guess where you live people routinely rape and murder, not just the small criminal class that many could argue is evil, but the everyday person. I'm sure you yourself have committed murder many times. I'm sure if there were no police-men you would own slaves. No? Why not then? Do you think such things are wrong? Do you think such things are evil? Do you think our laws are arbitrary or that they crudely reflect some conception of good and evil that extends beyond our culture and for the most part includes all of humanity? Circumstances can affect man's core morality, his conscience, but that core is still there, the conscience a small island that the pounding surf can beat and can smother but cannot ever erase.

And your empathy is where exactly? Empathy is not compassion, but being able to put yourself into someone else's shoes and to recognise and partly feel the same emotions. So where is it, your empathy if you are so proud of it? oooh, Hitler is not worth any empathy, of course, because he does not deserve any as he killed 6 million. Hitler had none for those Jews because they were his inferior enemy... hmmmmm

So, if there was no police, would you keep slaves?

(it would depend on the context, but right now: ) No

Why not? Because you think it is wrong?

Yes

Do you think such things are evil?

No, not evil, wrong. Wrong does not equal evil.

Do you think such things are evil? Do you think our laws are arbitrary or that they crudely reflect some conception of good and evil that extends beyond our culture and for the most part includes all of humanity?

No. We are only human and thus not perfect. It was not so long ago that you could be convicted of 'buggery' (i.e. homosexuality) and Wilde was such a victim. We are still waiting for gay people to marry, despite human rights. It was not so long ago women could not vote. And it is still legal in the US to have a gun. Because of the umpteenth Amendment . What about the rights of everyone else? There are countries with laws that exclude people from voting or ruling the country.
So no, it is not universal, that so-called morality and I would doubt that it is ever put in laws. If it was in the French Revolution with ever such good intentions, it took some time to work.

You said it, conscience can be obscured and I say that all of those Nazis' consciences were obscured and those of all those who supported them into the bargain.
And besides, if you argue that conscience is always there, you are essentially refuting your own argument: Hitler can't be evil in that case because he had a conscience which left him to his own devices for a while.

I guess for you maturity means looking upon arguably the greatest tyrant and mass murderer in all of human history as "a victim." And a statement about Shakespeare parallel to Mutatis' statement about Hitler would be "Shakespeare was unbelievably talented." Denying that is as difficult as denying that Hitler was evil.

No-one has ever argued Hitler was a victim.

Yes, Stalin wanted to appear to the people as Daddy the Liberator, but the truth is that he simple annexed these countries. Stalin had no right to force his undesirable presence on others.

The help of local communist was not as important and effective as the 'help' of NKVD.

Oh, there is no doubt he would have let any other government in power apart from commis, that is true. But to public perception that got lost in the unintersting aftermath of WWII, though. Sad, but true. And, I would guess, that they passed the murders of 'dangerous' people off to the outside as collaborators or did not say anything at all.

Of course he did not have any right, though, but he took the excuse of liberating Eastern Europe and Churchill could not tell him to get lost because he needed the Eastern Front.

[mona amon]

"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."

Can you read? This historian was talking of his ideas and the acts that came out of them. Seriously! - Kiki

Can't you understand what you read? Seriously! There's a world of difference between ideas on the one hand and the deeds that result when these ideas are put into practice. Your historian knows the difference. He's only talking about the "principles which enabled his acts and behaviour" not about his acts themselves. And I agree with him that Hitler was not original, and that he got his ideas from elsewhere. To call this ideology spouting maniac an original thinker is to give him a compliment he doesn't deserve.

You think that Stalin was an exception of the Russian psyche?

I never said Stalin was an exception of the Russian psyche, whatever that means. You're probably mixing me up with someone else.

[kiki1982]

"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."

Can't you understand what you read? Seriously! There's a world of difference between ideas on the one hand and the [I]deeds that result when these ideas are put into practice. Your historian knows the difference. He's only talking about the "principles which enabled his acts and behaviour" not about his acts themselves. And I agree with him that Hitler was not original, and that he got his ideas from elsewhere. To call this ideology spouting maniac an original thinker is to give him a compliment he doesn't deserve.

He talks of those principles which enabled his acts. If you don't have the ideas you cannot act accordingly.I never called him an orginal thinker. I said he repeated what had already been said and that because everyone thought the same, he had so much success. It is only a matter of time before someone acts on ideas, or not?

I never said Stalin was an exception of the Russian psyche, whatever that means. You're probably mixing me up with someone else.

You said that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, i.a. proove that such people can spring up i any society and I said that Stalin is is not at all an exception of the Russian psyche, so nor is Hitler an exception to the German psyche of his time. So, no mixing up at this point.

[Darcy88]

And your empathy is where exactly? Empathy is not compassion, but being able to put yourself into someone else's shoes and to recognise and partly feel the same emotions. So where is it, your empathy if you are so proud of it? oooh, Hitler is not worth any empathy, of course, because he does not deserve any as he killed 6 million. Hitler had none for those Jews because they were his inferior enemy... hmmmmm

Yes! What deranged alternate reality do you inhabit in which people feel it in any way worth one's time or one's thought to feel empathy for men who orchestrated the cold-blooded killing of six million innocent men, women and children? I do not see what there is to be gained intellectually or morally from granting Hitler any kind consideration whatsoever. Its down-right head-splittingly absurd to even for a split second bestow upon the ghost of that man a shred of compassion when the cries and the screams and the prayers of his innumerable host of victims can still almost be heard echoing today. Splash some cold water on your face.

No, not evil, wrong. Wrong does not equal evil.

That's right, in your contorted world there is no evil. Just victims, victims of fate and those victimized by those victims of fate. Whatever.

No. We are only human and thus not perfect. It was not so long ago that you could be convicted of 'buggery' (i.e. homosexuality) and Wilde was such a victim. We are still waiting for gay people to marry, despite human rights. It was not so long ago women could not vote. And it is still legal in the US to have a gun. Because of the umpteenth Amendment . What about the rights of everyone else? There are countries with laws that exclude people from voting or ruling the country.
So no, it is not universal, that so-called morality and I would doubt that it is ever put in laws. If it was in the French Revolution with ever such good intentions, it took some time to work.

In no culture anywhere at anytime has it been the status quo for the average person to go about raping, killing and enslaving indiscriminately and not receive condemnation. One people will do it to another but within a culture it has never been routinely done. The iniquitous Nero was condemned in his own time, in ANCIENT ROME, in a pre-christian aristocratic warrior-culture. I told before of Thucydides horror at the internecine bloodbath which transpired in Corcyra during the Pelopponesian War.

I mean what really is your point? Are rapists and molesters and murderers and war criminals really in your scheme of things not evil? What is your issue with this word? An atrocious act is an evil act. What is so complicated about that?

You said it, conscience can be obscured and I say that all of those Nazis' consciences were obscured and those of all those who supported them into the bargain.

And I say that that is the definition of evil. If you do not believe there is an objective humanly-innate sense of right and wrong, developed over millions of years by evolution, then you must have difficulty locating the sky, or distinguishing a chihuahua from a stallion.

And besides, if you argue that conscience is always there, you are essentially refuting your own argument: Hitler can't be evil in that case because he had a conscience which left him to his own devices for a while.

HIS ACTIONS WERE EVIL, THEREFORE HE WAS EVIL. In teaching you that Hitler was evil I feel as though I ought also to cover the abc's and the numbers up to 10.

No-one has ever argued Hitler was a victim.

Alexander said it would be helpful to look at Hitler as a victim.

[Darcy88]

Set in stone somewhere? Handed down by a god?

Evolutionary psychology.

[Darcy88]

Kiki I take it you also don't think the rape of Nanking was evil. I heard on the radio tearful confessions of the soldiers who took part in the chaos, but I suppose they were just suckers who fell for the fraud of objective morality. They instead should have said "it was not evil, it was wrong, but our commanding officers allowed it, Japanese culture historically encouraged the ruthless treatment of prisoners, so no, it wasn't evil at all."

[mona amon]

You said that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, i.a. proove that such people can spring up i any society - Kiki

No. I did not say any such thing. EDIT: this is the post I think you are refering to. http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=219

He talks of those principles which enabled his acts. If you don't have the ideas you cannot act accordingly.I never called him an orginal thinker. I said he repeated what had already been said and that because everyone thought the same, he had so much success. It is only a matter of time before someone acts on ideas, or not?

That's what I'm saying. It was not Hitler alone who had these ideas. I don't know about 'everyone', but there were lots of others who were exposed to the same ideas. It was Hitler who put these ideas into practice, instead of keeping them as ideas, and therefore he is evil. If anyone else put the ideas into practice, then they are evil too.

[kiki1982]

"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."

Can't you understand what you read? Seriously! There's a world of difference between ideas on the one hand and the [I]deeds that result when these ideas are put into practice. Your historian knows the difference. He's only talking about the "principles which enabled his acts and behaviour" not about his acts themselves. And I agree with him that Hitler was not original, and that he got his ideas from elsewhere. To call this ideology spouting maniac an original thinker is to give him a compliment he doesn't deserve.

He talks of those principles which enabled his acts. If you don't have the ideas you cannot act accordingly.I never called him an orginal thinker. I said he repeated what had already been said and that because everyone thought the same, he had so much success. It is only a matter of time before someone acts on ideas, or not? Fischer's ideas were controversial and renewing as well as defining for Geran historigraphy because they discredited idea that Hitler was an unfortunate accident (Betriebsunfall) which he would be if you just consider him evil. Is he evil, then he is an anomaly. Is he not evil, then he is a man of his time. Which is worse in this case?

I never said Stalin was an exception of the Russian psyche, whatever that means. You're probably mixing me up with someone else.

You said that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, i.a. proove that such people can spring up i any society and I said that Stalin is is not at all an exception of the Russian psyche, so nor is Hitler an exception to the German psyche of his time. So, no mixing up at this point.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Meh Shakespere is a dead white man who wrote in a language clearly different from our own. Shakespere sucks.


I thought discussion was meant to help us take our Adolecent views and transform them into mature wiser and less intelectualy and culturaly limited views.

But I guese for you, the height of wisdom is reached at 14.

I'm on thin ice right now, so I'll refrain from pointing why it's so hypocritical for to accuse me of juvenile behavior, Alex, so I'll just leave it at this: lighten up a bit, okay?