Here is why Hitler wasn't evil(No holocaust denial)

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,887
Ok.

Prove it then?

When I accuse someone of being wrong I usually, courteously follow that up with a factual explanation so said person actually know's what I'm saying is true, you just saying "Your wrong" doesn't cut it as proof.
How do you prove a negative. Your claims your burden of proof.


You made positive claims where's your proof the the Rothschild'ss had the central banks of USA, France, Britain, Germany,?
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,118
It is mildly annoying to have any debate on Nazism turning into a Semite ping pong match

homosexuals , gypsies , communists , union members , Slaves , mentally handicapped , Jehovah witnesses even long term German themselves
were targeted by this doctrine , please give a bit of space for all the other victims
Members of the clergy, pastors, even nuns. Degenerates, ie those who listened to jazz and swing music, etc etc.
 
How do you prove a negative. Your claims your burden of proof.


You made positive claims where's your proof the the Rothschild'ss had the central banks of USA, France, Britain, Germany,?
Quite easily,

Prove who does run it then? prove the Rothchild's have never had any attachment to the bankers who enforced the signing over of America's monetary to the Federal Reserve who were a European conglomerate of bankers?
Prove the Rothchild's have nothing to do with the elite level of finance in Britain or Germany or Europe in the 19th Century.

That's how.

Sitting at your PC being an armchair historian is not contributing.

Those claims are simply ludicrous to anyone who knows any economic history, and knows how central banks work, I already gave some links debunking the idea which you simply ignored, as you ignored it when I pointed out that you had passed on a bogus quotation. If you want to be taken seriously here, do not post on things that you have found out five minutes ago on the internet without checking them out first; and secondly, when you do post false information and someone points it out, be gracious enough to retract it. This is how you go about it:
a statement
Don't play ignorant.

If you do indeed know anything about business then you would know that a lot of what people on that sort of level do is down to joint venture and hidden accounts etc are standard practice.

For e.g the Rothchild's instructing figures like the Rockefeller's or JP Morgan, how do you prove that?

How about I put it this way then, we know Rothchild's are in banking and are at the upper end of the industry, we know they have had family members on all the highest boards of British Finance for around 200 years.

I will look into it further and come back as many tangible links as possible, which is a lot more than your doing as your offering this forum and in particular this debate nothing but lip service.

You claim to know how the financial industry works yet you've not bothered to explain hence why I don't take you seriously, many people spout knowledge on sites yet few come forth with actual proof.

I would like to know from you ................

1) Your understanding of the financial world in the 19th century worked which dispels these Rothchild "myths" and if they aren't the main players who is?

2) I also want you to give some explanation on where the Rothchild's amassed such wealth that they have a modern day recorded £400 Billion, assets that even the best IRS can't even trace on top of that wealth and can afford Manors which are basically palaces.

If you want to be seen with a shred of credibility then you will offer something of substance and not try to leave it all to me.
 
Aug 2010
16,063
Welsh Marches
Oh dear, it's all conspiracy theories, you claim (in accordance with any number of trashy internet sites) that the financial world, and doubtless international politcs too, is run by a cabal of Rothschilds, and ask people to refute the idea!!! They have been important figures in high finance in major countries, but there have been many other figures, Jewish and non-Jewish, who have been important too, and the the Rothschilds do not control the world and never have. I would recommend that you read Neil Ferguson's two volumes on the Rotshchilds, you can get it from any public library; but I imagine that you would prefer to continue to regale us withthe latest half-baked nonsense that you have discovered on the internet; and it is lamentably true that any amount of such nonsense can be found there, this happens to be one of those subjects in which it is essential to turn to books by reputable historians.

A suggestion: such read something about the history of the Bank of England, and try to work out how the Rothschilds could possibly have controlled it, ever.

By the way, Waddesdon Manor, of which you published a picture, is now owned by the National Trust, ever since James de Rothschild bequeathed it to the nation along with all its contents, and finace for a charitable foundation that is run from there.
 
Likes: benzev

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,887
Prove who does run it then? prove the Rothchild's have never had any attachment to the bankers who enforced the signing over of America's monetary to the Federal Reserve who were a European conglomerate of bankers?
Prove the Rothchild's have nothing to do with the elite level of finance in Britain or Germany or Europe in the 19th Century.

That's how.

Sitting at your PC being an armchair historian is not contributing.



Don't play ignorant.

If you do indeed know anything about business then you would know that a lot of what people on that sort of level do is down to joint venture and hidden accounts etc are standard practice.

For e.g the Rothchild's instructing figures like the Rockefeller's or JP Morgan, how do you prove that?

How about I put it this way then, we know Rothchild's are in banking and are at the upper end of the industry, we know they have had family members on all the highest boards of British Finance for around 200 years.

I will look into it further and come back as many tangible links as possible, which is a lot more than your doing as your offering this forum and in particular this debate nothing but lip service.

You claim to know how the financial industry works yet you've not bothered to explain hence why I don't take you seriously, many people spout knowledge on sites yet few come forth with actual proof.

I would like to know from you ................

1) Your understanding of the financial world in the 19th century worked which dispels these Rothchild "myths" and if they aren't the main players who is?

2) I also want you to give some explanation on where the Rothchild's amassed such wealth that they have a modern day recorded £400 Billion, assets that even the best IRS can't even trace on top of that wealth and can afford Manors which are basically palaces.

If you want to be seen with a shred of credibility then you will offer something of substance and not try to leave it all to me.

You have yet to advance anything of substance. Shred of responsibility.

You are bringing known crackpot consiracy theories.You known the earth is flat.

bring something.
 
Likes: benzev
Apr 2017
682
Lemuria
By the Germans who would have regarded him as a god I suppose you mean some of the surviving Germans, presumably he wouldn't have been so regarded by the sorts of Germans he didn't like - Jewish Germans, gay Germans, communist Germans etc, so many of whom he turned into dead Germans.
Or by decent and intelligent Germans.

One might say that someone who steals a small object, or makes themselves ill by drinking too much, is misguided. For starting a world war and instigating the murder of millions a somewhat stronger term is needed - evil maybe gets close.
Whoever you meant by 'they' - they did a good job.
My point is people need to stop viewing the world in black and white and accept that it is mostly a spectrum of gray/grey. You need to be able to see the world from the pov of the antagonists. This road leads to tolerance and cooperation with your fellow men. Of course the wicked has to be punished whenever they attempt to impose their extremism and intolerance. This doesn't prevent you from analysing why they thought what they did was reasonable or see the merits in their approach. I can see the merits in Hitler's approach. Had you been born in Germany as a NAZI you too would have thought highly of him. Well, until the bombs started to fall on Berlin. :think:
 
Jul 2018
497
Hong Kong
It is absolutely ridiculous to say that Hitler wasn’t evil. The author of this thread made a grave mistake for defending him on the field of morality. Certainly, Hitler wasn’t bornt evil, just like everybody. I sympathize with his experience for being ruthlessly dragged into abyss first with the World War One that inflicted him temporarily body injure with post-traumatic stress order and then got unemployed after WW1 leaving him jobless. He was heartbroken seeing how Germany fell into misery with broken economy and great anarchy, while the pride of German nationalism was being trampled and humiliated by other great powers.

However, it doesn't matter how tragedic his experience or life was ; good is good, evil or evil, there is no middle ground in the standard of morality, no matter how noble the intention is. The US nuke-bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshimo was also “evil”, even though it was justified by claiming that it stopped the war immediately afterward and it was the utmost necessity for forcing the Japanese military dictatorship to give up at once. You may measure the level of evilness by using terms of “lesser evil” or “greater evil”, but evil is still evil, it won’t dilute just because of the noble motivation or propelled by resentment towards anything.

Nobody praise a person cold-bloodedly murder another person (even for the sake of saving other people), while everybody surely praise a fireman rescue someone bravely regardless of his life in peril from the fire accident. This is how people generally recognize good or evil.

No matter how historiography changes, Hitler’s tainted mark of evilness will remain forever. Even after 500 years, 1,000 years, he would be still regarded as an arch-villain in the world history, because his imposition of extremely violent, aggressive, totalitarian, anti-Semitic ideology over the Third Reich, as well as his implementation of the persecution of the Jews leading to the “genocide” and the imperial dream that triggered the war that caused millions of death, could not be cleansed by any excuse and were absolutely unforgivable.

Of course, it was not just the Nazi Party and Hitler for the cause of WW2 and the Holocaust, the entire German nation and even Britain, USA and France were responsible for that (eg. providing little help during the Jewish exodus, the failure of appeasement policy...etc). But it was another topic.

Not even the great revisionist A.J.P Taylor claimed that Hitler and the Nazi Party were NOT evil, he merely concluded that they shouldn't be entirely responsible for the cause of WW2 and treated unfairly as the "culprit" of the firestorm, for which in fact it was set up by the post-WW1 circumstance that hindered Germany to develop the "normal" society, economy and politics under the tremendous strain particularly the Treaty of Versailles.
 
Last edited:
Likes: benzev
Sep 2012
8,959
India
I submit we should stop dragging in the moral angle. By moral standards, no person or even no nation or a body of nations at war can ever claim to be moral. War is evil. Not the people on any side of the war. They are puppets of fate. Hitler was a product of his times. By absolute standards, if Hitler is evil, I suggest that the Versailles Treat signatories from the allies are even more evil.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,887
I submit we should stop dragging in the moral angle. By moral standards, no person or even no nation or a body of nations at war can ever claim to be moral. War is evil. Not the people on any side of the war. They are puppets of fate. Hitler was a product of his times. By absolute standards, if Hitler is evil, I suggest that the Versailles Treat signatories from the allies are even more evil.
Well you would be just wrong then.

The Versailles treaty was not murdering millions of people.
 
Likes: benzev
May 2011
13,856
Navan, Ireland
.................................., I suggest that the Versailles Treat signatories from the allies are even more evil.
Why?

Evil because they drew up an imperfect treaty?

With hindsight what treaty was going to be perfect --The German Empire had collapsed, The Austro-Hungarian Empire had collapsed, the Russian Empire had collapsed and revolution threatened across Europe?

What treaty born up in such a relatively short time is going to solve all those questions/problems?

Even the 'winners' had suffered a huge trauma of the most murderous war in history up to that point and often teetered on the brink of collapse.
In the view of the Entente powers the Germans and their allies had started the war why should they not be 'punished/ made to pay the cost'?

If anyone is the blame for the 'failure' its the 'world' in the 1920/30's who totally failed to make it work eg no effective League of Nations -- but I don't think they can be called 'evil'.
 
Likes: benzev