Opinion Do people really like Adolf Hitler?

[ShadowRun]

The whole spear of destiny thing is of a little of interest

 

[TheGreatA]

"The left ought to be apologizing for Hitler like they did for Stalin"
-the War Room

I have no doubt that many left-wing and right-wing people here would be hailing Hitler if they had lived in Germany at that time. Probably not Stalin but after a couple of purges or two, they'd be getting along with him as well.



People have to look a lot deeper into their behaviour patterns before they can honestly say that they're not the next potential Nazi or Commie.

The lack of intellectual courage to contemplate views other than those commonly agreed upon, does not make one less likely to be a Nazi or a Communist, but quite the opposite. Thoes seeking to rationalize even the most questionable features within their government today, would also have been seeking to rationalize their Nazi or Communist surroundings then, to maintain "peaceful, undisrupted stability" in their personal lives.

 

[Blackened]

I've enjoyed the discussions in this thread and have found them interesting and thought provoking. Sitting on the sidelines and essentially calling people soft Nazi's is a cheap move, in my opinion though.

I think the thread title has influenced this in a bit of a negative way with the use of "like". I've thought Blackened (a reference to the Metallica song I hope?) has put forth a solid, reasonable and fair discussion for his outlook, and to dismiss him isn't right given how he's conducted his discourse here. That said, I can't find myself agreeing with him in his preference of Hitler to Merkel, while not recanting that it was a tad on the hyperbolic side. I don't agree with Merkel's refugee related policies, but while she may hurt her nation with such actions it will not solely be at her feet as much as Germany's ruin under Hitler was.

It's a Metallica reference.

And I don't mean the Merkel thing as hyperbolic.

Under Hitler, they were able to declare defeat and eventually pull themselves out of the ruins and make a great society. If the Islam thing goes too far, that will not be possible.

 

[Blackened]

I have no doubt that many left-wing and right-wing people here would be hailing Hitler if they had lived in Germany at that time. Probably not Stalin but after a couple of purges or two, they'd be getting along with him as well.



People have to look a lot deeper into their behaviour patterns before they can honestly say that they're not the next potential Nazi or Commie.

The lack of intellectual courage to contemplate views other than those commonly agreed upon, does not make one less likely to be a Nazi or a Communist, but quite the opposite. Thoes seeking to rationalize even the most questionable features within their government today, would also have been seeking to rationalize their Nazi or Communist surroundings then, to maintain "peaceful, undisrupted stability" in their personal lives.

What's interesting is where he says, "Our programs are so much more than charity. We ask not for the rich to give to the poor, but for the Germans to give to themselves" sounds like capitalism, but it really wasn't. If you look into the economics they had it was incredibly strange, but apparently it worked. Just check out the change in unemployment. There is a book on it, but I can't remember the name

 

[TheGreatA]

What's interesting is where he says, "Our programs are so much more than charity. We ask not for the rich to give to the poor, but for the Germans to give to themselves" sounds like capitalism, but it really wasn't. If you look into the economics they had it was incredibly strange, but apparently it worked. Just check out the change in unemployment. There is a book on it, but I can't remember the name

He was not arguing for people to contribute because of material gain, like the average socialist or capitalist, but because of a moral duty. It serves to uplift not only the rich or the middle class, but also the poor, because their contributions are seen as equal in spirit (if not in capital) to those with more material to offer, which has always been at the heart of the Lutheran faith and Germanic tradition. Nobody is looked down upon as long as they are working and contributing.

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

 

[Blackened]

He was not arguing for people to contribute because of material gain, like the average socialist or capitalist, but because of a moral duty. It serves to uplift not only the rich or the middle class, but also the poor, because their contributions are seen as equal in spirit (if not in capital) to those with more material to offer, which has always been at the heart of the Lutheran faith and Germanic tradition. Nobody is looked down upon as long as they are working and contributing.

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

Hard to say that's a "bad thing".

But there was some interesting stuff one of my Cuban friends was telling me, he recommended a book, but I can't remember the name. Had to do with a "production based economy" rather than gold standard or fiat currency. I didn't really understand it, but it sounded interesting.

 

[TheGreatA]

Hard to say that's a "bad thing".

But there was some interesting stuff one of my Cuban friends was telling me, he recommended a book, but I can't remember the name. Had to do with a "production based economy" rather than gold standard or fiat currency. I didn't really understand it, but it sounded interesting.

I would say that such work ethic is crucial to an effective society.

The problem with egalitarianism is that it teaches people that they are equal, which we all in our hearts know to be untrue, therefore an egalitarian society will always be a society which lives a lie, much like a theocracy. People are inequal and they will produce inequal results, unless we sabotage the man of greater talent, and this cannot be changed except perhaps through thousands of years of evolution.

However, this problem can be solved if we introduce a moral platform, and if we cultivate a society where one's morality actually matters. The man of lesser talent can still possess greater moral courage, and can be seen as a man of equal worth, or even greater worth, in spirit, to that of a man who is richer, more talented, but also a coward and an immoral man.

 

[Blackened]

I would say that such work ethic is crucial to an effective society.

The problem with egalitarianism is that it teaches people that they are equal, which we all in our hearts know to be untrue, therefore an egalitarian society will always be a society which lives a lie, much like a theocracy. People are inequal and they will produce inequal results, unless we sabotage the man of greater talent, this cannot be changed except perhaps through thousands of years of evolution.

However, this problem can be solved if we introduce a moral platform, and if we cultivate a society where one's morality actually matters. The man of lesser talent can still possess greater moral courage, and can be seen as a man of equal worth, or even greater worth, to that of a man who is richer, more talented, but also a coward and an immoral man.

Yeah literally maximizing everyone's potential.

That's all I'm saying, there are things to be learned here aside from "Hitler is bad".

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah literally maximizing everyone's potential.

That's all I'm saying, there are things to be learned here aside from "Hitler is bad".

We have seen numerous capitalist or socialist societies degenerate to war and tyranny. I do not see why we should instantly condemn all of the national socialist ideals, merely because of the regime's ultimate failure and criminal behaviour at the end. It is flawed logic.

I would say that it is generally a good idea to learn from the failures of the past, incorporating the good while scrapping the ideas which turned out badly. Right now, we are not allowing ourselves a proper evaluation of national socialism, which means that only the most radical, hostile and immature elements will be developing the idea further, bald-headed young men in flight jackets and military boots, along with various internet trolls seeking attention.

Most of the leading Nazi ideologues were learned men of high intellect, surely there must have been some useful ideas that were being tossed around. To forbid ourselves from contemplating what led to their rapid rise (and of course, fall), is to potentially pass up on an idea that may well have been useful, and even crucial to our continued development.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

It's a Metallica reference.

And I don't mean the Merkel thing as hyperbolic.

Under Hitler, they were able to declare defeat and eventually pull themselves out of the ruins and make a great society. If the Islam thing goes too far, that will not be possible.

Excellent. Blackened is a great song; AJFA a great album. Had a friend who used to have a reference to Blackened in his email address, back in the good ol' MSN messenger days.

I won't dispute whether you mean it as hyperbole, but I would just disagree. I'm not going to call you a Nazi for it, though. I think the thorough destruction of Germany (physically, emotionally, everything) after WW2 won't compare to the Muslim refugee issue. I suspect the German people will send her packing if things get truly bad. But this discussion is better for another thread, I'd say.

Thanks for bringing up that Blokhin fellow, I don't think I'd heard of him before. His story certainly reads like something one would generally connect with the Nazi regime. The Soviets were some bad dudes, them and the Japanese don't get enough "credit" for their atrocities during WW2.

 

[Blackened]

Excellent. Blackened is a great song; AJFA a great album. Had a friend who used to have a reference to Blackened in his email address, back in the good ol' MSN messenger days.

I won't dispute whether you mean it as hyperbole, but I would just disagree. I'm not going to call you a Nazi for it, though. I think the thorough destruction of Germany (physically, emotionally, everything) after WW2 won't compare to the Muslim refugee issue. I suspect the German people will send her packing if things get truly bad. But this discussion is better for another thread, I'd say.

Thanks for bringing up that Blokhin fellow, I don't think I'd heard of him before. His story certainly reads like something one would generally connect with the Nazi regime. The Soviets were some bad dudes, them and the Japanese don't get enough "credit" for their atrocities during WW2.

No problem. I understand your position on Merkel being more palatable than Hitler and it's possible that may be true. In my opinion it's going to be something that takes a couple generations to tell and it depends if Islam conquers Germany or not.

Yeah I'm definitely not a Nazi. The Nationalist element is something I really admire about the Nazi's though, in the anti-globalism sense.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Definitely. I have pondered what the end-game here is with regards to the influx of refugees into Europe. It's hard to see where all of this is headed in the next 5, 10, 50 years. Let alone the next hundred. It's also why I'm glad to live in North America, the ocean is a great method of defence (not to mention the cold weather, haha).

I'm fully with you on the idea that any thought/idea, regardless of origin, should be allowed to be discussed and examined in public discussion. That's why I took issue with Limbo Pete, even if it was misguided in that case. It's too easy to sit on the sidelines and say, "pfft, Nazi sympathizer" and dismiss any and everything. The Nazi regime was brutal, Hitler was clearly a deeply flawed man, particularly as time passed. I'm just not convinced he was any worse than some other brutal figures of the past. An interesting comparison could be Vlad the Impaler, a man who did truly horrible things on behalf of his tiny nation.

In the modern era, I'm surprised I've never really heard any suggestion that Hitler went mad from PTSD related to WW1. I'm sure it's out there, somewhere, but I've not come across it.

 

[Blackened]

Definitely. I have pondered what the end-game here is with regards to the influx of refugees into Europe. It's hard to see where all of this is headed in the next 5, 10, 50 years. Let alone the next hundred.


In the modern era, I'm surprised I've never really heard any suggestion that Hitler went mad from PTSD related to WW1. I'm sure it's out there, somewhere, but I've not come across it.

That's interesting.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

With the emphasis we place now on mental health, surely a man who suffered the horrors of war could have been influenced?

He was an infantryman in the 1st Company during the First Battle of Ypres (October 1914), which is remembered in Germany as the Kindermord bei Ypern (Massacre of the Innocents) because approximately 40,000 men (between a third and a half) of nine newly enlisted infantry divisions were killed in 20 days. Hitler's regiment entered the battle with 3,600 men and at its end mustered 611.[5] The regimental commander was killed and thereafter they were known as the Regiment List in his honor. By December, Hitler's own company of 250 was reduced to 42. Biographer John Keegan claims that this experience drove Hitler to become aloof and withdrawn for the remaining years of war.[6]

The Battle of Ypres certainly couldn't have been a positive influence, let alone what followed. Many of these poor gentleman were likely deeply racked mentally by the senselessness of it all (and of course, the losing side will be worse off).

I've noticed within the past year or so that people are starting to change their tune about Hitler. All I keep hearing is how misunderstood he was, he just wanted to kill corrupt jew bankers, how much he loved his nation, etc. Where is all this coming from? Nearly every youtube video about Hitler has tons of likes and comments praising him and there's posters here who like him.

I actually wanted to address the OP here, since I haven't properly. I haven't noticed any rise of this personally within the last year or so, perhaps it's received more attention to you @Zazen because of the increased rate at which anti-Trump people refer to him as a Nazi or white supremacist. It also sounds to me like you're watching YouTube videos about Hitler, where people are (outside of Stormfront?) likely to spew garbage. I would say it's natural that those videos are going to receive likes, because they are only targeted to that demographic. Make a music video for a metal song, and the majority of viewers are going to be metal heads. Make a video about the virtues of Hitler, and you're going to get modern supporters coming to see it. I don't think it's on the rise.

 

[panamaican]

At the same time why cant people discuss his other aspects freely? Hitler is just another historical figure, all the bad things he did are also just historical events. One is not more important than the other.

I never said they couldn't. I said that people can't separate Hitler into pieces that they admire and pieces that they don't. They have to take the man as a whole. I'm seeing this trend where people suggest that a generally reprehensible figure is somewhat acceptable because said figure said 1 or 2 things that they don't find objectionable.

I think this trend indicates a failing in society. A person doesn't reach his opinion on Subject X in a separate vacuum from his opinion on Subject Y. The sense of values and principles that led them to X are the same values and principles that led them to Y. We either agree with those values and those principles or we don't. We can't separate out various conclusions from what led the individual to drawing those conclusions.

The example I used previously is sports teams. I might rank a baseball team as best because I highly value pitching. But someone else might rank the team as best because they highly value organizational hierarchy. We both put this team as the best but we reach that similar seeming conclusion based on extremely different value systems. People seem to believe that just because we both agree on which team is best that we're similar in how we value the team.

This is the problem with trying to separate Hitler (or any other figure) into individual positions as opposed to their overall persona. Hitler demonstrated that his value system is something that I find unacceptable and, as such, I can safely dismiss all of his conclusions because they arise from a value system I don't respect. Similarly, if someone disagrees with Malcolm X's value system (or Margaret Thatcher's or George Washington's) they should dismiss the entirety of his positions.

Saying that you support a single position necessitates that you support the values and reasoning that led to that position. And that's the crux of the issue to me - either you support their values and reasoning or you don't. Anything else is simply robbing the person of what made them unique individuals with unique perspectives.

 

[Lead]

The poll is actually a study of what percentage of the war room are cyclical assholes. Surprisingly low 13%

 

[Guestx]

Uhhh what? How would you paint Hitler? This isnt some B.C. shit bro, you cant just make shit up to make someone look bad, historically. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts to Hitlers atrocities. So no, that can't be considered.

Not surprising that you're making a comment like this ITT.

 

[Guestx]

Hitler got shit done

he got rid of a group of people that were no longer wanted. if you think about how that relates to the present day situation, I think it's pretty obvious.

basically people who like Hitler are advocating tougher measures

Only when all other measures have failed. . .

 

[Prutfis]

Part of the alt-reich are trying furiously to rewrite the political spectrum to place the Nazis on the far left. Strange since so many of their views align.
Hell I have seen posters on here advocating camps and yellow armbands for muslims. Even Trump has mentioned measures in that direction.

 

[Prutfis]

Blackened is an Endlõsung, Lebensraum kind of guy.