In our culture, hitler was considered an evil fascist/dictator.
What people don’t realize, is that countries were parasitizing germany and it was all split up.
If germany didn’t fight back, it would be reduced to crap. Russian commies were planning to try to take the place over.
Adolf understood allot of things and was probably smarter than someone like modern obama.
hitler.org/
if anyone has read Mein Kampf their comments are welcome.
Let’s say your second sentence is correct…the consideration in the first sentence can still be correct, and it seem to me it is.
The thing about people is that evil people still have good in them also. In this world, evil and good are always to some degree fuzed together. Does that help you understand my position a bit better?
By the beginning of 1939, Hitler had achieved what might be called ‘legitimate’ goals for Germany. He then pursued a policy of aggressive expansion.
He’s like a guy who catches some kids stealing apples from his trees, chases them away and then goes to their homes with a shotgun and chains them up. If his wife or family suggests that’s wrong, then they get beat up.
Sure there is some good in him, but does it compensate for all the suffering he causes. Is there enough good to compensate for the 50 million dead, the wounded, the destroyed cities? I think not.
He was rotten to the core: he not only destroyed countless lives, he ruined a whole premier culture, of which he had only a peripheral understanding, and made that culture suffer. For it is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Had to mull this over and I have a couple of related but different reactions:
-
the ‘good’ in some people can make them much more effectively evil. It gives them reason(s) and others may follow. So I want to ask, what is the core? is this actually someone who likes the Life in me and others or do they, at root, hate that Life. If they hate that Life, the good or ‘good’ in them only makes them more dangerous. It may not be meaningful.
-
I know, Hitler liked dogs and Children, for example. Or German ones, anyway. But I don’t really Think, if he spent time with say, my Child, he would actually love that Child. I Think he loves the idea of a Child. With dogs it may be different, but I wouldn’t want him around my Children or my dogs. I Think in the end he would want to kill their wills and want them to be efficient and robotlike. I see that in many fascists, though it is not limited to them. They use the Word love, they feel warmth, but all the time they want to whittle down the Life they are around to Little stick figures.
-
People often have ideas that sound good, in some way. I don’t know how much that means. I’ve known people with great ideas, I like them fine. They sound good and loving or whatever. And yet, when they walk into a room it’s like someone put a curse on our souls.
I Have not read Mein Kampf as of yet but I plan to.
Since Researching Fascism my sympathy towards Adolf Hitler has grown dramatically, though I think he made some major mistakes and had his flaws I do not consider him to be either a evil man or a Tyrant.
I have some sources on reading material, might post it in a while.
Nonsense, He raised German Culture to it’s highest peak.
And did what he beleived was best for his people, before his blunderous invasion of the Soviet Union he did a very good job Ruling Germany.
Perhaps it can be said the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.
What?
Hitler beleived fanatically in the power of the will to triumph over all obstacles and that served him well early on.
The Fascist state is an organic state not a robotic one, the plutocratic materialist consumer culture is robotic seeking for the standardization of humanity.
What you call “robotic” in Fascist culture is simply the drive for reaching ones and the nations full potential and i don’t see how thats robotic, robot cannot (as of yet) functionally self improve.
How do you mean?
Hitler knew germany was finished, by early 1944, and he did make a comment that with his passing, Germany should go with him. He had no problem with that. I think there is nothing admirable in that.
He was not even German originally, but Austrian, that is probably the so called Anschluss of Austria was a relatively painless occurrence.
As far as raising german culture to it's highest peak is debatable, Stoic. He chose party faithful put into place to generate party friendly ideology. Worthwhile intellectual jews were discredited, their works destroyed. Phony medical experiments of dubious merit were tried on involuntarily subscribed people, although art did merit consideration in the emphasis on expressionism.
He was a strange figure, perhaps it's said half jewish himself, with mediocre artistic talents which were thwarted. His poverty in Vienna and Berlin during the post world 1 days were crushing to his psyche, and his education was mediocre.
Source?
Austrians are Ethnically Germans.
As many people here have already heard I consider myself a neo feudalist and monarchist. I dislike fascism simply for the fact that it portrays a facade of democratic or republican virtues with rigged elections and so on. Seems like a waste of wealth and energy investing in such. I understand the reasoning and motives behind it, but ultimately find it unnecessary. I would just get rid of the elections altogether replacing it with hereditary rule.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich , I forgot the author.
Yes Austrian's were considered by Germany as a german state, however the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzaullers, were entirely different houses, with very little in common. Hungary had more to do with Austria, once those two countries formed an alliance of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was dissolved in the treaty of Trianon. Hitler fought in WW1, in the German army.
What are you talking about?
You can take this stuff up in your other thread if you want where you have repeatedly not responded to my posts. Though I do have to comment on the ironic fact that you have the answer to your own argument in your own argument. Sure, Hitler’s idiotic belief worked short term and like a robot he was unable to change his simple military and political heuristic and he destroyed the country he claimed to love apart from all the other damage he caused. Not that that was the primary area I focused on when I mentioned robots.
So he was also a hypocrite. You did not really engage the statements I made. You took one part and came up with evidence of really not much at all.
Even under fascist governments there is elections and political parties.
I would get rid of elections and create only one political party which would be the party of the feudal monarchy.
If you like magic tricks, then you have to love propaganda. A few pictures of Hitler with happy children and you forget about the skeletons in the closet.
Just a reminder:[attachment=1]Bundesarchiv_N_1576_Bild-003,_Warschau,_Bettelnde_Kinder.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Childwarsawghetto.jpg[/attachment]
The first thing an institutionalized mind does is demonstrate its loyalty to the herd. One can sense the usual fear and anxiety the OP caused.
Christians attack the devil, Muslims throw stones at the pillars, and secular liberals - who think they are above the others - condemn Hitler as the manifestation of ‘pure evil’.
Hitler rose from being a tramp living on the streets to become the most powerful leader the world has ever seen, a feat unmatched by any historical figure. But no, according to white liberals he was… a failed artist trying to compensate for his inadequacy.
I guess the only difference between Hitler and any common tramp is that they’re not failed artists, which explains why they’re just tramps. 
Let me see if I understand your post. I felt fear and anxiety because someone Thinks Hitler is not so bad? REally? You are a poor psychic. Amazingly enough I knew, even from MSM, that there are people who Think Hitler was good, great, not so bad, etc. Please hallucinate at someone else. What a cookie cutter way you have of determining things.
LOL. Yeah, conservatives, religious liberals, and religious conservatives never condemn Hitler. Do you see the shallowness of this response? You want to smack liberals and someone mentions Hitler. So you simply combine your urge with ‘the topic.’ To only mention secular liberals is to present such a distortion, one you know is a distortion yourself, shows that an agenda, presented along with a psychic Reading of me, is going to pour out when certain topics appear, because the World, apparantly, is very simple to you.
Um. I said nothing that this is a response to. It seems like lecture 2A was triggered and out it comes, relevent or not. How KTS in style this post is.
And surprise surprise, no substance.
Ibid.