Was Hitler a evil person?
Was Hitler a evil person?
0
FreeNadia wrote...
Except his crimes against jewish people. YES he was good person.you can't be serious, OMG WTF!
0
I think waht your trying to say was Hitler a good leader? Yes he was a great leader but Evil all the same.
0
GinIchimaru_09 wrote...
I think waht your trying to say was Hitler a good leader? Yes he was a great leader but Evil all the same.he wasn't good leader. for war he had just very good generals and marshals and for "inner affairs" he used terror, violence and force (mainly GESTAPO). Hitlerjugend was just epic win in complete brainwashing of childern and young people. his deeds threw his nation in serious problems, not only after WW2, but even during it (f.e. Dresden bombardment). yes, his skills in convincing people were incredible, but he just used "his" nation (although he was from Austria originally).
as I wrote before, the only good thing he did was that he gave his people work during early 30's crisis. but it was only to prepare for Germany_destructing war, so it wasn't that great.
yes, he wouldn't be able to do anything he did without people supporting him, but part of them was just controlled, lived in fear or were used (workers, their families and generally common people) and part of them were a mix of jerks which were trying to get some profit, power, money, titles etc...
0
FreeNadia wrote...
Except his crimes against jewish people. YES he was good person.A couple people have said something like that. "He was a great guy, except for that little genocide thing. But who cares about a few million Jews?"
That's like saying, "My neighbor runs a daycare and he's a great guy, except for this little quirk; he rapes and beats any children he sees. But really, just a pillar of society."
0
Yes, I believe he was incredibly evil to commit all those heinous acts on the Jewish people. He forgot they were also German. Perhaps he just hate the Jewish, there is a lot of conspiracy theories around that might support his actions.
0
im not even gonna bother reading all this. first point id like to bring up is that "good" and "evil" are both fully human concepts and vary from person to person. another point id like to make is just how few people hitler actualy killed by comparison to other wars and other rulers. stalin is a good example. and if i recall correctly several wars the US has waged resulted in more civilian deaths than hitlers executions did. personally though i think hitler had the right idea. just went about it all wrong. he was looking for world dominion with him at the top. not what was best for the world. his choice in groups was rather poor as well. he went killing jews for personal reasons and scape goated them to. so really he had to kill them so he didnt prove himself a hipocrit. today the biggest group that stands out to me that could use a little genocide in the entire musilim religion. its the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around, if they even wipe out isreal then theyll turn there attention to us next. not saying all musilims are bad. just that the religion itself spawns alot of extremists and general hatred and kills alot of freedoms. how does one go about eliminating an entire religion though? religion is in people and as such you need to rid yourself of the people who harber it. so in this manor hitler had the right idea. if he was better at his choosing among other things he could have done the world alot of good. but as such he kinda went a little off his rocky on all the power among other things. cant call him evil though as im sure he thought what he was doing was right.
0
[size=10]Wow, I've been away for quite a long time. However, this thread still seems to be relatively active (after all the time that's passed). That's pretty surprising. Anywho, my opinion remains the same as it did when I posted several weeks ago?
Hitler obviously wasn't a great person. You can't really justify exploiting, killing, or taking advantage of so many people, no matter what the reason. I suppose walking over others can be justified, but not if you're taking things as far as Hitler and his buddies did.[/h]
Hitler obviously wasn't a great person. You can't really justify exploiting, killing, or taking advantage of so many people, no matter what the reason. I suppose walking over others can be justified, but not if you're taking things as far as Hitler and his buddies did.[/h]
0
sanjuro wrote...
im not even gonna bother reading all this. first point id like to bring up is that "good" and "evil" are both fully human concepts and vary from person to person. another point id like to make is just how few people hitler actualy killed by comparison to other wars and other rulers. stalin is a good example. and if i recall correctly several wars the US has waged resulted in more civilian deaths than hitlers executions did. personally though i think hitler had the right idea. just went about it all wrong. he was looking for world dominion with him at the top. not what was best for the world. his choice in groups was rather poor as well. he went killing jews for personal reasons and scape goated them to. so really he had to kill them so he didnt prove himself a hipocrit. today the biggest group that stands out to me that could use a little genocide in the entire musilim religion. its the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around, if they even wipe out isreal then theyll turn there attention to us next. not saying all musilims are bad. just that the religion itself spawns alot of extremists and general hatred and kills alot of freedoms. how does one go about eliminating an entire religion though? religion is in people and as such you need to rid yourself of the people who harber it. so in this manor hitler had the right idea. if he was better at his choosing among other things he could have done the world alot of good. but as such he kinda went a little off his rocky on all the power among other things. cant call him evil though as im sure he thought what he was doing was right.The only legitimate part of all of that is the point that good and evil are subjective. Which is true enough, but there are general conceptions of good and evil.
The rest of that post is just...stupid.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
sanjuro wrote...
im not even gonna bother reading all this. first point id like to bring up is that "good" and "evil" are both fully human concepts and vary from person to person. another point id like to make is just how few people hitler actualy killed by comparison to other wars and other rulers. stalin is a good example. and if i recall correctly several wars the US has waged resulted in more civilian deaths than hitlers executions did. personally though i think hitler had the right idea. just went about it all wrong. he was looking for world dominion with him at the top. not what was best for the world. his choice in groups was rather poor as well. he went killing jews for personal reasons and scape goated them to. so really he had to kill them so he didnt prove himself a hipocrit. today the biggest group that stands out to me that could use a little genocide in the entire musilim religion. its the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around, if they even wipe out isreal then theyll turn there attention to us next. not saying all musilims are bad. just that the religion itself spawns alot of extremists and general hatred and kills alot of freedoms. how does one go about eliminating an entire religion though? religion is in people and as such you need to rid yourself of the people who harber it. so in this manor hitler had the right idea. if he was better at his choosing among other things he could have done the world alot of good. but as such he kinda went a little off his rocky on all the power among other things. cant call him evil though as im sure he thought what he was doing was right.The only legitimate part of all of that is the point that good and evil are subjective. Which is true enough, but there are general conceptions of good and evil.
The rest of that post is just...stupid.
no need to be insulting. i was trying to make a point, you could at least be constructive with your criticism. with that said i was trying to make a point there. im just bad at comunicating my ideas. so how about a littl more than "stupid" perhads what you didnt like and why.
seriously though how would a leader improve the world? how about just a rewgion. africa and the middle east are probably the most fucked up places right now. most of the time the problem is religion, people go out killing because there ideology tells them to. so how does one solve this problem? terrorists and any other extremeist is indistinguishable from a normal person. so really the only choice is to sit back and watch. in which case your watching the problem get worse and worse untill it consumes you, agreed it would take some time for that to happen. i think though the only real answer to a case like this that solves the problem is the careful application of genocide. sounds cruel i know but what other answer is there? my point before is that hitler was doing what he thought was right. after that he was a moron as he targeted the jewish population for reasons. if he was more careful in his selection among other things he could have done the world alot of good. as he was he didnt do much but give germany a nasty history.
honestly though, could someone please argue my point? as things stand i probably look rather cold and unfeeling and cruel. i really dont want to be right in this case.
0
sanjuro wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
sanjuro wrote...
im not even gonna bother reading all this. first point id like to bring up is that "good" and "evil" are both fully human concepts and vary from person to person. another point id like to make is just how few people hitler actualy killed by comparison to other wars and other rulers. stalin is a good example. and if i recall correctly several wars the US has waged resulted in more civilian deaths than hitlers executions did. personally though i think hitler had the right idea. just went about it all wrong. he was looking for world dominion with him at the top. not what was best for the world. his choice in groups was rather poor as well. he went killing jews for personal reasons and scape goated them to. so really he had to kill them so he didnt prove himself a hipocrit. today the biggest group that stands out to me that could use a little genocide in the entire musilim religion. its the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around, if they even wipe out isreal then theyll turn there attention to us next. not saying all musilims are bad. just that the religion itself spawns alot of extremists and general hatred and kills alot of freedoms. how does one go about eliminating an entire religion though? religion is in people and as such you need to rid yourself of the people who harber it. so in this manor hitler had the right idea. if he was better at his choosing among other things he could have done the world alot of good. but as such he kinda went a little off his rocky on all the power among other things. cant call him evil though as im sure he thought what he was doing was right.The only legitimate part of all of that is the point that good and evil are subjective. Which is true enough, but there are general conceptions of good and evil.
The rest of that post is just...stupid.
no need to be insulting. i was trying to make a point, you could at least be constructive with your criticism. with that said i was trying to make a point there. im just bad at comunicating my ideas. so how about a littl more than "stupid" perhads what you didnt like and why.
seriously though how would a leader improve the world? how about just a rewgion. africa and the middle east are probably the most fucked up places right now. most of the time the problem is religion, people go out killing because there ideology tells them to. so how does one solve this problem? terrorists and any other extremeist is indistinguishable from a normal person. so really the only choice is to sit back and watch. in which case your watching the problem get worse and worse untill it consumes you, agreed it would take some time for that to happen. i think though the only real answer to a case like this that solves the problem is the careful application of genocide. sounds cruel i know but what other answer is there? my point before is that hitler was doing what he thought was right. after that he was a moron as he targeted the jewish population for reasons. if he was more careful in his selection among other things he could have done the world alot of good. as he was he didnt do much but give germany a nasty history.
honestly though, could someone please argue my point? as things stand i probably look rather cold and unfeeling and cruel. i really dont want to be right in this case.
I didn't say it was stupid to be insulting. I said it was stupid because it's stupid. It being "cruel" or "cold" is subjective and irrelevant. I don't particularly care if the whole world goes down in flames, personally. But at least that would be indiscriminate. Selective genocide is not a good or realistic plan to any ends. It would be significantly easier AND more effective to destroy all human life that to destroy a large amount of it based on your own views of who is wrong. The only reason Hitler got as far as he did was because of the fragile state of Germany and it's people after the first World War. So to begin with, in almost any situation, it is impossible to get enough people to go along with you to make genocide even viable. There is also the matter that genocide is too general. Even if you could kill that many people based on whatever criteria you come up with, the repercussions of killing so many people, of ANY race, religion, or other definition, would not likely be worth whatever you imagine could be gained by their deaths.
And someone's life is only worth taking if the cost of them living outweighs the cost of their death.
Not to mention the fact that you can't just say people are bad because of something the believe or were born into. People are too complicated for that.
So your idea is stupid.
0
sanjuro wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
sanjuro wrote...
im not even gonna bother reading all this. first point id like to bring up is that "good" and "evil" are both fully human concepts and vary from person to person. another point id like to make is just how few people hitler actualy killed by comparison to other wars and other rulers. stalin is a good example. and if i recall correctly several wars the US has waged resulted in more civilian deaths than hitlers executions did. personally though i think hitler had the right idea. just went about it all wrong. he was looking for world dominion with him at the top. not what was best for the world. his choice in groups was rather poor as well. he went killing jews for personal reasons and scape goated them to. so really he had to kill them so he didnt prove himself a hipocrit. today the biggest group that stands out to me that could use a little genocide in the entire musilim religion. its the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around, if they even wipe out isreal then theyll turn there attention to us next. not saying all musilims are bad. just that the religion itself spawns alot of extremists and general hatred and kills alot of freedoms. how does one go about eliminating an entire religion though? religion is in people and as such you need to rid yourself of the people who harber it. so in this manor hitler had the right idea. if he was better at his choosing among other things he could have done the world alot of good. but as such he kinda went a little off his rocky on all the power among other things. cant call him evil though as im sure he thought what he was doing was right.The only legitimate part of all of that is the point that good and evil are subjective. Which is true enough, but there are general conceptions of good and evil.
The rest of that post is just...stupid.
no need to be insulting. i was trying to make a point, you could at least be constructive with your criticism. with that said i was trying to make a point there. im just bad at comunicating my ideas. so how about a littl more than "stupid" perhads what you didnt like and why.
seriously though how would a leader improve the world? how about just a rewgion. africa and the middle east are probably the most fucked up places right now. most of the time the problem is religion, people go out killing because there ideology tells them to. so how does one solve this problem? terrorists and any other extremeist is indistinguishable from a normal person. so really the only choice is to sit back and watch. in which case your watching the problem get worse and worse untill it consumes you, agreed it would take some time for that to happen. i think though the only real answer to a case like this that solves the problem is the careful application of genocide. sounds cruel i know but what other answer is there? my point before is that hitler was doing what he thought was right. after that he was a moron as he targeted the jewish population for reasons. if he was more careful in his selection among other things he could have done the world alot of good. as he was he didnt do much but give germany a nasty history.
honestly though, could someone please argue my point? as things stand i probably look rather cold and unfeeling and cruel. i really dont want to be right in this case.
You can't say that "good" and "evil" are purely subjective terms and then say that certain areas of the world suck and the people there need to be killed.
For example, you said, "[the muslim religion is] the least tolerant religion on earth and unless it changes it will continue to be an issue for as long as its around." But what truth exists in that statement? There are a couple of half-truths there, but no hard facts. Furthermore, you're being subjective when you say that because the religion is bad and causes problems, the practitioners should be wiped out. That's just, like, your opinion, dude. Even if Islam was wiped completely from the earth, would the world turn into a happy place, with happy people, and no murders? Hell no! Because people suck. But at the same time, people kick ass. You can't lump an entire group together and say that they're a problem.
0
Zorbius wrote...
*AN* evil person.Not *A* evil person.
GRAMMAR!!!
Dont necro threads. Especially for stupidass reasons like a grammar correction. Add something to the thread at least...
As soon as I get the chance, Im taking your only rep away.
OT: Hitler was an evil person. And I cant see any good argument as to why he wasnt. Anyone who honestly believes he wasnt has an obviously skewed view on the matter.
0
Hitler ain't evil. If it not for him, there'll be no painful lessons from history will be taught to the future generations
0
wow this topic sounds like a history paper that i had to write about "was the holocaust intended and planed from the beginning, or did it happen due to the changing sinario of the war". So just to throw my 2 cents in.
Was Hitler an Evil man. Yes.
Was a good leader. Yes.
Should his good deeds out waig his evil ones. No.
So im going to rant on, so for all those intrested read ( if you want ). Hitler was an anti-semite, meaning that he hated the Jewish people. Why? well anti-semitism had existed in Europe since the middle ages, and many texts had been writen about the subject over the course of the centuries. Apparantly ( coming from my old history teacher ) Hitler had picked up a anti-semite book, unaware of what it stood for, read it, and as a resulte became indoctrinated by the anti-semite belives. He was unaware tht the book had been writen without any solid fact, and that all of the books content had been the thoughts and ideas of centuries of hate. So thus how Hitler started to hate the Jewish people ( don't quote me on this origen though, there have been many speculations as to why Hitler became and Anti-Semite, this is just the one that sounds more belivable to me ).
So then Germany got involved in the first world war ( 1914-1918 ) and Hitler inlisted and fought for the German empire. The war resulted in an alied victory, with the compleat and total destruction of the ottoman empire, the formation of the Soviet union, and the treaty of Versaille which placed the whole blame of the first world war on Germany, even though they were not really to blame for the war ( they were used as scapegoats ). The treaty decreased the amount of teritories that belonged to germany, separating Austria and the sudeten land from german controle, prohibiting any german military from entering the rhineland which bodered france and gemrnay, allowed or a Polish boarder separate an area from the german mainland, isolating it ( as to allow poland to have a more powerfull naval advantage ) and also prohibited the german army from increasing to a sertain number, and prohibiting the construction of millitary aircrasft. In short Germany got the short endof the stick, and it kept on getting shorter with the greate depressing affecting the entire world, demands from britain and france for germany to pay them for war damange, and the inflation of the german Mark. The country had been beetern and brusied, and the democratic parties of the time let it happen. So Germany was in no fit state to after the war, and for the next 14 years she'd suffer. During those 14 years the Hitler turned from the army to politics, fealing like all other germans that their goverment had surendered to soon during the war, and that the could have keep on fighting and won. Hitler had joined a anti-semite political party, which he'd then taken over and caled the National socialists. ( nazi ) he then proceded to start legal campaigns such as public speeches and propoganda posters. In these posters Hitler ( and the parties ) anti-semit views came out, blaming Jews and communists for the loss of the war, and stating that it was the fault of the jews and the communists that they were now suffering from and economic crisis. He was giving the people a scape goat for the problems that germany was now suffering. But not only that, he was also promising that when he would finaly come to power he'd destroy all of the prohibitions of the versille treaty, and bring Germany out of the economic depression, and create jobes for more. The Nazi parties popularity grew throughout the 20's, esspecialy during Hiters trial for his attemt to take controle of the nation through brutal revolution ( he was very charismatic, and could chage peoples opeinions with his worlds alone ) and his publication of "mein Kampf" ( my struggle ) where he wrote about his anti-semetic belifes of how Germany had been choked by jewish and communist opression. Then in 1933 Hiteler became the German chancelor, and between 1933 and 1934 a number of events would occure which would result in him becoming the fuhrer ( dictator ) of the country, all through legal ways. Then during his time as Fuhrer he kept his promises to the people, bringing Germany out of depression, creating works for people, and destroying Versaille ( which would result with germanys invasion of Poland in 1939, which was the catalyst for the declaration of war ). He kept his word to his people, and the people loved him, they even created the Fuhrer cult in which people almost worshiped him. He was Germany saviour, bringing the ruind nation out of dispair and back into power once more. But that only concludes that he was a good leader.
was he evil. yes. So as we all know The holocaust was the mass execution of Jews in german teritories. We know it happened, and we know that hiterl was an anti-semite, so he hated the jews anyway. But why did it happen? I had to write an essay about this ( twas a very intresting question ). So anyways there are 2 types of historians who write about this subject. Structulists, who belive that the holocause was a result of the war situation, the terrible political structior of the third reich govarment, and the peoples love of hitler ( wanting to make him happy ). And Intentionalists who belive that Hitler had planed all of the holocaust from the begining of 1919, and had planed every detail of it himself. Now when i wrote this essay i came to the conclusion that i was a structualist. The evidence for the intentionalists only shoed hitlers personal hate for the Jews, but when put in context with the imigration solutions of the third reich it made no sence. So what were the imigration solutions, well they were the nazis solution to the german "jewish problem" by forcing all of the Jews to emigrate to other countries and leaving Germany "pure". The probalm with this though was that mose of the jews emigrated to france and poland, and by 1940 both those nations would be uner nazi controlle as a result of the war. Their first war time solution had been the "madagascar plan" where, after the surrender of france Germany would take controle of Madagascar which was a french territory at the time, and use their navy to transport all of the jews in german territory to the island to create a jewish nation far from the pure German nation, and also as a means of preventing America from entering the war. The problem, and failier, of this plan was that it required the german navy to sail greate distance safly, and as the area of sea which they were going to sail in was being watched over by ships of the British royal navy grmany needed to defeat britain to make the plan a success. As we all know the battle of britain was a lose to the germans, and so the madagascar plan was scraped. But a new opertunity arose for emigration in the east as the germans attack on the soviet union had been a success, so they decided that once the russioans had been defeated they'd make all of the jews emigrate to the Ural mountains, far from german territory. But then the infomus winters of 1941 happened and the nazi invasion was forced to stop, giving the russian army a perfect opertunity to attack. So their military faliers in the west and east forced the nazi party to re0think its polisy on how to deal with the jews. Their solution came in 1942 ( after america had entered the war ) when Heyfrich held a meeting at the Wansee mansion for the final plan for the jews ( after much panic had occured with the failier of the original plan, and Goering asking Heydrich to think of a new one ). So the meeting resulted int eh decision to exterminat ( or as the doctored record of the meeting says "evacuate" ) all of the jews in german territories. This plan was later confirmed by Hitler.
So what was the point of all of that, well it's just to say that Hitler was indeed evil, knowing what his mewn were going to do, but not as evil as some depict. i mean, yes he did allow millions of Jews to be exterminated in the ectermination camps, and thats a crime that can never be forgiven by history. But we also have to realize that Hitler didnt plan all of this on his own. He had followers such as Heydrich who constructed the plan to begin with, and other members of the reich who agreed to it ( the las member of that meeting was executed in Jerusalem in 1962 ). So Hitler was evil, but only as evil as his followers could make him. Without them, he'd probably would have crumbled and fallen. History has an intresting way of depiction how things turned out, and none of us can be 100% sure of what trully happened.
Was Hitler an Evil man. Yes.
Was a good leader. Yes.
Should his good deeds out waig his evil ones. No.
So im going to rant on, so for all those intrested read ( if you want ). Hitler was an anti-semite, meaning that he hated the Jewish people. Why? well anti-semitism had existed in Europe since the middle ages, and many texts had been writen about the subject over the course of the centuries. Apparantly ( coming from my old history teacher ) Hitler had picked up a anti-semite book, unaware of what it stood for, read it, and as a resulte became indoctrinated by the anti-semite belives. He was unaware tht the book had been writen without any solid fact, and that all of the books content had been the thoughts and ideas of centuries of hate. So thus how Hitler started to hate the Jewish people ( don't quote me on this origen though, there have been many speculations as to why Hitler became and Anti-Semite, this is just the one that sounds more belivable to me ).
So then Germany got involved in the first world war ( 1914-1918 ) and Hitler inlisted and fought for the German empire. The war resulted in an alied victory, with the compleat and total destruction of the ottoman empire, the formation of the Soviet union, and the treaty of Versaille which placed the whole blame of the first world war on Germany, even though they were not really to blame for the war ( they were used as scapegoats ). The treaty decreased the amount of teritories that belonged to germany, separating Austria and the sudeten land from german controle, prohibiting any german military from entering the rhineland which bodered france and gemrnay, allowed or a Polish boarder separate an area from the german mainland, isolating it ( as to allow poland to have a more powerfull naval advantage ) and also prohibited the german army from increasing to a sertain number, and prohibiting the construction of millitary aircrasft. In short Germany got the short endof the stick, and it kept on getting shorter with the greate depressing affecting the entire world, demands from britain and france for germany to pay them for war damange, and the inflation of the german Mark. The country had been beetern and brusied, and the democratic parties of the time let it happen. So Germany was in no fit state to after the war, and for the next 14 years she'd suffer. During those 14 years the Hitler turned from the army to politics, fealing like all other germans that their goverment had surendered to soon during the war, and that the could have keep on fighting and won. Hitler had joined a anti-semite political party, which he'd then taken over and caled the National socialists. ( nazi ) he then proceded to start legal campaigns such as public speeches and propoganda posters. In these posters Hitler ( and the parties ) anti-semit views came out, blaming Jews and communists for the loss of the war, and stating that it was the fault of the jews and the communists that they were now suffering from and economic crisis. He was giving the people a scape goat for the problems that germany was now suffering. But not only that, he was also promising that when he would finaly come to power he'd destroy all of the prohibitions of the versille treaty, and bring Germany out of the economic depression, and create jobes for more. The Nazi parties popularity grew throughout the 20's, esspecialy during Hiters trial for his attemt to take controle of the nation through brutal revolution ( he was very charismatic, and could chage peoples opeinions with his worlds alone ) and his publication of "mein Kampf" ( my struggle ) where he wrote about his anti-semetic belifes of how Germany had been choked by jewish and communist opression. Then in 1933 Hiteler became the German chancelor, and between 1933 and 1934 a number of events would occure which would result in him becoming the fuhrer ( dictator ) of the country, all through legal ways. Then during his time as Fuhrer he kept his promises to the people, bringing Germany out of depression, creating works for people, and destroying Versaille ( which would result with germanys invasion of Poland in 1939, which was the catalyst for the declaration of war ). He kept his word to his people, and the people loved him, they even created the Fuhrer cult in which people almost worshiped him. He was Germany saviour, bringing the ruind nation out of dispair and back into power once more. But that only concludes that he was a good leader.
was he evil. yes. So as we all know The holocaust was the mass execution of Jews in german teritories. We know it happened, and we know that hiterl was an anti-semite, so he hated the jews anyway. But why did it happen? I had to write an essay about this ( twas a very intresting question ). So anyways there are 2 types of historians who write about this subject. Structulists, who belive that the holocause was a result of the war situation, the terrible political structior of the third reich govarment, and the peoples love of hitler ( wanting to make him happy ). And Intentionalists who belive that Hitler had planed all of the holocaust from the begining of 1919, and had planed every detail of it himself. Now when i wrote this essay i came to the conclusion that i was a structualist. The evidence for the intentionalists only shoed hitlers personal hate for the Jews, but when put in context with the imigration solutions of the third reich it made no sence. So what were the imigration solutions, well they were the nazis solution to the german "jewish problem" by forcing all of the Jews to emigrate to other countries and leaving Germany "pure". The probalm with this though was that mose of the jews emigrated to france and poland, and by 1940 both those nations would be uner nazi controlle as a result of the war. Their first war time solution had been the "madagascar plan" where, after the surrender of france Germany would take controle of Madagascar which was a french territory at the time, and use their navy to transport all of the jews in german territory to the island to create a jewish nation far from the pure German nation, and also as a means of preventing America from entering the war. The problem, and failier, of this plan was that it required the german navy to sail greate distance safly, and as the area of sea which they were going to sail in was being watched over by ships of the British royal navy grmany needed to defeat britain to make the plan a success. As we all know the battle of britain was a lose to the germans, and so the madagascar plan was scraped. But a new opertunity arose for emigration in the east as the germans attack on the soviet union had been a success, so they decided that once the russioans had been defeated they'd make all of the jews emigrate to the Ural mountains, far from german territory. But then the infomus winters of 1941 happened and the nazi invasion was forced to stop, giving the russian army a perfect opertunity to attack. So their military faliers in the west and east forced the nazi party to re0think its polisy on how to deal with the jews. Their solution came in 1942 ( after america had entered the war ) when Heyfrich held a meeting at the Wansee mansion for the final plan for the jews ( after much panic had occured with the failier of the original plan, and Goering asking Heydrich to think of a new one ). So the meeting resulted int eh decision to exterminat ( or as the doctored record of the meeting says "evacuate" ) all of the jews in german territories. This plan was later confirmed by Hitler.
So what was the point of all of that, well it's just to say that Hitler was indeed evil, knowing what his mewn were going to do, but not as evil as some depict. i mean, yes he did allow millions of Jews to be exterminated in the ectermination camps, and thats a crime that can never be forgiven by history. But we also have to realize that Hitler didnt plan all of this on his own. He had followers such as Heydrich who constructed the plan to begin with, and other members of the reich who agreed to it ( the las member of that meeting was executed in Jerusalem in 1962 ). So Hitler was evil, but only as evil as his followers could make him. Without them, he'd probably would have crumbled and fallen. History has an intresting way of depiction how things turned out, and none of us can be 100% sure of what trully happened.
0
Captain Badass! wrote...
Dont necro threads. Especially for stupidass reasons like a grammar correction. Add something to the thread at least...Brining an old thread back just to fix grammar is stupid, but what's wrong with necro threads in general?
kin2501 wrote...
Spoiler:
Mother of God... TL;DR if I ever saw one.
OT: Good and evil is decided by the majority of society. In society, it's wrong to be a mass murderer. So yes, Hitler was an evil person.
0
Germany got owned after WWI because they were empire building in an obvious way. So when Hitler came along to lift the German people back up what did he do? He started Empire building just like Germany tried to do in WWI but this time he had Germany be all sly like by claiming that they were just unifying old territories of Germany. But eventually when Germany started to claim countries that were never part of Germany people got wise to his sneaky, sneaky plot and BOOM! WWII in full effect.
The killing of the Jews was probably because they were so embedded into the infrastructure of Germany and Hitler didn't want them there and they weren't just going to straight up give up their power so...holocaust.
When it comes down to it Hitler was a douche, a sly intelligent douche sure but a douche all the same.
The killing of the Jews was probably because they were so embedded into the infrastructure of Germany and Hitler didn't want them there and they weren't just going to straight up give up their power so...holocaust.
When it comes down to it Hitler was a douche, a sly intelligent douche sure but a douche all the same.
0
By most standard definitions of evil, yeah. I personally think he was an opportunistic politician with good oratory skills and certainly isn't the first, nor will be the last. In fact, I've often had fun trying to predict the next one, no luck so far though. For good or ill (definitely the latter) he changed the direction of the 20th century.
0
PersonDude wrote...
Captain Badass! wrote...
Dont necro threads. Especially for stupidass reasons like a grammar correction. Add something to the thread at least...Brining an old thread back just to fix grammar is stupid, but what's wrong with necro threads in general?
kin2501 wrote...
Spoiler:
Mother of God... TL;DR if I ever saw one.
OT: Good and evil is decided by the majority of society. In society, it's wrong to be a mass murderer. So yes, Hitler was an evil person.