Opinion Do people really like Adolf Hitler?

[Thurisaz]

You don't think it had anything to do with the Ruskis being on his doorstep? Or his own sense of self righteous narcicism? By that point, they were having troops, many of whom were boys and old men, fight on despite loss already being a foregone conclusion. Not exactly indicative of a man who thought he betrayed these people. I would say it's more accurate to say that he acted like a selfish twat to the end.

I have no problem with your spin on it, it's perfectly plausible. I just thought from German perspective overall.

 

[senri]

I felt that you would say this on this day and at this hour, Mr S, that this cosmic penetration of word and space would be NEXt for US. Tick, tock; tick tock, I know not which sky to peer into - that above, or that below...or maybe not for a mortal to know?

Glorious.

 

[Kingz]

I've asked the same in regards to Lenin and Stalin.

In media, there is channels practically dedicated to Hitler. Nobody ever wants to stigmatize Bolshevism and it's leaders and it's apparently socially acceptable to wave the sickle and hammer flag. As you see our champions of progress waving during their protests.

Peterson pointed out something I noticed as well in regards to college students. They don't seem to know anything about communist Russia.

To answer the thread. I don't like Hitler and most don't. I do think we are seeing a broader understanding of some of his fears from pro nationalist people though. Not necessarily his actions. Before it was he massacred X amount of Jews and that's all you need to know. However a lot of what is going on through institution and propaganda and attacks on majority populations and national sovereignty(which in the end, Hitler would immediately lose most real nationalists since he was an attacker of sovereignty) takes a blind man or a peddler to try to deny the current cultural marxism push and it's a no brainer that some opposition to it, with research, would find that they share something in common with Hitler.

Even more research a tad further east would uncover a currently pushed ideology far more sinister.

It's lazy and disingenuous to immediately equate it to being pro third Reich or supportive of the more simple aspects of what we were all taught growing up. Saying people LIKE Hitler is just a way of pretending he began and ended on one thing and stifling anybody one perceives to be "too nationalist" as a pro fascist and pro genocide goon.

The more our so called centrist leaders push a globalist agenda and harbor forced cultural booms reminiscent of Bolshevism...the more, unfortunately, you're going to hear people think Hitler was on to something. An extreme push on one end causes the extreme push back from the other. It all ends the same. Fascism, totalitarianism, oppression and genocide,

The hope being that it evens out. Nazism and Bolshevism should rightly be cautionary tales but the caution has only been pushed on one end..and people are waking up to that fact.

 

[bigbangspiritbomb]

People admire his ambition and rise to power. Its unfortunate that he was a Jew-hating monster.

there is more to do the story. The Jew-hating monster needed a scapegoat and giving what was going on with the banks and interest rates, people were pissed.. A Jewish monopoly controlled Reich Banking system and other private banking banking system as well as personal self interest made for scapegoat.

A lot of unjust shit was going on with the banking system though, genocide is absolutely unacceptable course of action. You will note even today, Israel has basically free reign to do whatever the fuck they like. Nobody says shit especially in America.

Trump says, build a wall. Cries of racism are matched. Israel has a fucking wall around. Nobody says shit.

 

[11_others]

I think Hitler was a strategic fuck up. Instead of enjoying taking control of neighboring countries without much of a fight, he got greedy and caused a lot of unnecessary death and suffering.

I don't know if he was a coward and escaped to Argentina like the other SS soldiers. It's possible.

 

[Fawlty]

I read David Irving at the recommendation of Christopher Hitchens in this lecture of free speech. Called him the "foremost expert on Nazi Germany" and argues the importance of being able to question these types of things.

Am I denying the holocaust? No. Am I saying there is more to it than "Hitler wanted to gas the Jews for no reason at all", yes.

Hitchens summarizes a lot of good arguments against prior restraint there.

You may be interested in Hitchens ripping Irving to fucking shreds, and concluding that he's a creepy fascist liar: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144. He does acknowledge that the Goebbels Diary was very informative.

I think that you don't believe gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews in a plot by Hitler to commit genocide. It's easy enough for you refute my opinion if you like.

 

[KONE]

Voted yes because he really loved his dogs and that's one of the best qualities a man can have

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Dude was a nobody in 21. In 33 he was a dictator of an european powerhouse through legal means. No other men ever did something like that in the modern age. Lenin took over a crumbling feudal empire. Stalin received it from Lenin. Roosevelt and Churchill were rich career politicians.
And he did a pretty decent administration from 33 to 39, of course, it was not just him, he had a good cabinet like Hjalmar Schacht and Hans Frank.
Hans Frank created the so called Legality strategy, on how to take power without staging a coup like Hitler hilariously tried at the beer hall putsch(Hitler armed with a pistol and a bunch of drunk nazis tried to take over the government LOL).
Hjalmar Schacht developed germany, he took the good ideas from National Socialism, ditched the socialist stuff that doesn't work(let's take over all the factories, although we don't know how to run shit) but kept the socialist stuff that works to keep people happy and employed.

He was no more evil than Stalin or Roosevelt. It's just that the way he killed his opponents was especially terrifying and he messed with the wrong group. I mean, the turks genocided the armenians, but they did it by driving them into the desert in a huge mess, it's deniable, they can claim they didn't want the armenians to starve. Stalin genocided the ukrainians by starving them, it also has a deniable trait to it(it was the weather!).
Roosevelt/Truman had no qualms about firebombing cities or nuking(!) civilians(it was war, it's ok then).
Maybe Hitler should have allied with the zionists and deported the jews to palestine as some wanted to, his name wouldn't be that tarnished then.

But the holocaust had that industrial killing feeling to it, very german, very disgusting. Giving serial numbers to people, gassing people and recording it in punched cards. That's very disturbing.

And as I said he did it to a very rich and influential group, if he stuck to the gypsys, commies and handicapped it would be just a footnote.

Having said that, fuck Hitler, he attacked my country ffs. Who the fuck attacks Brazil because we were selling rubber?

 

[Jim Cozad Jr.]

I've been watching a series on Hitler that's quite fascinating...he was a brilliant politician...and the Nazis very well could have won the war if not for Hitler thinking he was a general instead of a politician, and making blunders like invading the Soviet Union and fighting on two fronts...they had super weapons in development and were much more advanced in their space program, if he had been more patient and they had a few more years to develop that stuff, things could have turned out differently...would have been interesting to see if their real life death star would have actually worked (they planned to put a giant mirror into space and destroy cities by focusing sun rays on them)...all of this could have been avoided if they just would have accepted him into that damn art school haha...pretty incredible that he went from homeless to one of the most powerful men on earth in 20 years...he was evil though, and mentally unstable...

 

[Blackened]

Hitchens summarizes a lot of good arguments against prior restraint there.

You may be interested in Hitchens ripping Irving to fucking shreds, and concluding that he's a creepy fascist liar: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144. He does acknowledge that the Goebbels Diary was very informative.

I think that you don't believe gas chambers were used to exterminate Jews in a plot by Hitler to commit genocide. It's easy enough for you refute my opinion if you like.

I've already read it.

 

[Fawlty]

I've already read it.

Can you source your quote that Hitchens called Irving the foremost Nazi historian? I've seen him say that Irving may be the greatest Fascist Historian, which is a deliberate and quite neat play on words, and doesn't mean the same thing as being the foremost Nazi historian.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

That img has a lot of truth in it. Black/muslim migration to Europe has really changed people. The problem is that in crisis only the crazies succeed.
You don't have people blowing themselves up to secure a democratic but nationalist europe.
You either have religious fanatics, or right or left wing extremists fighting.
So as the situation is getting bad you have neo-nazis, islamists and antifa imbeciles duking it out.
I mean, look at Greece, that place was flooded with migrants lying on the streets, loitering, and sometimes outright assaulting/intimidating people. The police did nothing, the EU did nothing, the socialist government did nothing, so you get Golden Dawn, a real neo-nazi party(Trump, Le pen, Farage are not neo-nazi as much as some people want them to be), beating the crap out of migrants.
In Hungary, the "far right" leader did the right thing by building a fence, asylum seekers cannot move freely in the EU, they need to stay in the first country they reach. If Merkel wants to take them, she pays for transportation but you cannot let them roam around your country looting everything in their place.

That action actually diminished the growth of Jobbik a much more extreme party.

 

[Blackened]

Can you source your quote that Hitchens called Irving the foremost Nazi historian? I've seen him say that Irving may be the greatest Fascist Historian, which is a deliberate and quite neat play on words, and doesn't mean the same thing as being the foremost Nazi historian.

Pretty sure it's in here, but it's been over a year since I watched it.

 

[Rhood]

I need to start screenprinting ironic Hitler shirts for hipsters (Hitsters?) to buy.

These swagger shirts would sell like hotcakes.

 

[TheGreatA]

But the holocaust had that industrial killing feeling to it, very german, very disgusting. Giving serial numbers to people, gassing people and recording it in punched cards. That's very disturbing.

I would say that the template came from the Soviets, who had already mastered this type of "industrial killing" long before the Nazis began utilizing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin

Blokhin remains the most well-documented mass murderer in history.

"Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night; and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber—which had been painted red and was known as the "Leninist room"—for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against. Blokhin would stand waiting behind the door in his executioner garb: a leather butcher's apron, leather hat, and shoulder-length leather gloves. Then, without a hearing, the reading of a sentence or any other formalities, each prisoner was brought in and restrained by guards while Blokhin shot him once in the base of the skull with a German Walther Model 2 .25 ACP pistol.[13][14][15] He had brought a briefcase full of his own Walther pistols, since he did not trust the reliability of the standard-issue Soviet TT-30 for the frequent, heavy use he intended. The use of a German pocket pistol, which was commonly carried by German police and intelligence agents, also provided plausible deniability of the executions if the bodies were discovered later.[16]

An estimated 30 local NKVD agents, guards and drivers were pressed into service to escort prisoners to the basement, confirm identification, then remove the bodies and hose down the blood after each execution. Although some of the executions were carried out by Senior Lieutenant of State Security Andrei Rubanov, Blokhin was the primary executioner and, true to his reputation, liked to work continuously and rapidly without interruption.[14] In keeping with NKVD policy and the overall "wet" nature of the operation, the executions were conducted at night, starting at dark and continuing until just prior to dawn. The bodies were continuously loaded onto covered flat-bed trucks through a back door in the execution chamber and trucked, twice a night, to Mednoye, where Blokhin had arranged for a bulldozer and two NKVD drivers to dispose of bodies at an unfenced site. Each night, 24–25 trenches, measuring eight to 10 meters (24.3 to 32.8 feet) total, were dug to hold that night's corpses, and each trench was covered up before dawn.[17]

Blokhin and his team worked without pause for 10 hours each night, with Blokhin executing an average of one prisoner every three minutes.[3] At the end of the night, Blokhin provided vodka to all his men.[18] On 27 April 1940, Blokhin secretly received the Order of the Red Banner and a modest monthly pay premium as a reward from Joseph Stalin for his "skill and organization in the effective carrying out of special tasks".[19][20] His count of 7,000 shot in 28 days remains the most organized and protracted mass murder by a single individual on record,[3] and saw him being named the Guinness World Record holder for 'Most Prolific Executioner' in 2010.[4]"

 

[panamaican]

Ah, I'm not saying I like the overall persona based on a few random statements. I'm saying that the situation that lead to the final solution was complicated. That is the essence of my argument.

Complicated but the reasoning that led to his solution should always be indefensible...in my opinion. No problem is so complicated that Hitler's solution was the one that should have been chosen.

EDIT: And I think that because his reasoning led him to make that choice, we have to discount everything else he said.

 

[Fawlty]

Pretty sure it's in here, but it's been over a year since I watched it.

"One of the three or four necessary historians of the 3rd Reich"

He makes the distinction that Irving is valuable for his command of the language (though he lied through his teeth about the etymology of "ausrotten" and Michael Shermer lit him up for it), and his familiarity with the documents. He also explicitly says at every turn that Irving's opinions suck. That certainly limits the scope of your appeal to Hitchens.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who is supporting him? I mean, I'd be a cuck by Hitler's standards.

Again, I'm just saying there is more to it than "he wanted to kill Jews for no reason at all".

You also said he was better than Merkel.

 

[Blackened]

You also said he was better than Merkel.

I stand by that.

 

[Blackened]

Complicated but the reasoning that led to his solution should always be indefensible...in my opinion. No problem is so complicated that Hitler's solution was the one that should have been chosen.

EDIT: And I think that because his reasoning led him to make that choice, we have to discount everything else he said.

How is that?

Discount his comments on the environment, for example? On completely unrelated things?