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

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,296
Nice attempt at back peddling.

If you were paying attention rather than jumping on a bandwagon that was the initial point, to explain part of what led to Germans turning against the Jews which is directly relevant to this thread question, to top it off I've already explained this so again ......... I want a quote from you where I've incited mass murder.

Its also not propaganda to state there are wealthy and highly influential bankers who are Jewish, its a fact, although its obviously not reason for Nazi genocide, those are two separate points and not one we we're discussing for at least the last 5 pages.

Jewish bankers were not at the forefront of Nazi reasoning, it was Jewish peoples position of wealth and influence in a bankrupt German nation due to WWI, not the type of influence of a Rothchild but the sort of influence a lot closer to home, Government, seniors in the military etc, also racial was far more in the reasoning of Hitler than bankers in America or the rest of Europe, that was small detail in comparison to what he saw was a dilution of the Aryan race.

The discussion I am having isn't on Nazi views on bankers, its moved on (pages ago) to whether the Rothchild's actually do control international banking or not.

.......... but you already knew this, so please provide the quote or risk getting reported for false accusation.
Go ahead report away. Pay attention. I never said INCITE mass mureder, merely justifying it.

your the one back pedaling and making unfounded accusations.

There was no "Jewish peoples' position of wealth and influences.

you are defending Nazi attitudes and propaganda. without any evdience to back up your claims.
 
Go ahead report away. Pay attention. I never said INCITE mass mureder, merely justifying it.

your the one back pedaling and making unfounded accusations.

There was no "Jewish peoples' position of wealth and influences.

you are defending Nazi attitudes and propaganda. without any evdience to back up your claims.
Post a quote where I'm defending Nazi attitudes and also ...... you think there's something "merely" about justifying the holocaust??

There's nothing "merely" about it, don't try to back peddle or play it down, quote me where I justified it?

I'll wait...........

As for the "propaganda" there was a debate of whether there was fact or fiction to the level of wealth and power of the Rothchild's, that isn't Nazi propaganda, its a modern question about the wealth and power of one particular family, that conversation was separate and has been had and done.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,296
Post a quote where I'm defending Nazi attitudes and also ...... you think there's something "merely" about justifying the holocaust??

There's nothing "merely" about it, don't try to back peddle or play it down, quote me where I justified it?

I'll wait...........

As for the "propaganda" there was a debate of whether there was fact or fiction to the level of wealth and power of the Rothchild's, that isn't Nazi propaganda, its a modern question about the wealth and power of one particular family, that conversation was separate and has been had and done.
You don't need any evidence for your contentions why should I need any for mine?
 
Apr 2017
647
Lemuria
Most things, I agree, are shades of grey, and generally that is desirable in producing more tolerance.
One can try and understand why Hitler (and other Nazis) thought and acted as they did, when you do that I find that, whatever the causes in social situation or personal psychology, the mode of thought is based on premises that are not only repugnant but also nonsense, and prescribes actions that are simply wrong, it has no merits and deserves no tolerance - it is, at least, the darkest possible shade of grey.
Obviously a Nazi would have thought well of him, while they remained a Nazi, but if you mean a really believing Nazi rather than one who went along with it rather than be a victim themselves, I don't think their opinion counts for much.
Can one be born a Nazi? I don't think a specific ideology is genetic.
I meant born in Germany, as a NAZI, you would... and not born in Germany as a NAZI. Because of context and expediency I thought it would be automatically understood without the proper punctuation.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
8,837
India
Hitler rose from the ruins of a German society brought to its knees because of the harsh Versailles treaty conditions. As Churchill says in the novel ' The Winds of War ', such a devil arises from the black forest of Germany because of the feelings of revenge in the minds of Germans. In real life, too, Churchill was against the revengeful terms of the Versailles treaty. If one thinks of Hitler as evil, one has to consider the Versailles treaty as the origin of that evil.
it is remarkable that no such Hitler arose in Germany after its defeat in WW II, most possibly because of the generous treatment given by the allies to the defeated Germany. Remember what was Churchill's reply to Stalin who proposed in Yalta that 50000 german officers should be shot. He walked out of the dinner party in disgust and was brought back by Stalin telling him that it was a joke.
 
Sep 2012
8,837
India
Whatever, it's pretty pointless to discuss whether was Hitler evil, that doesn't help us understand history in-depth.
I agree that every war is evil, no matter what reasons in justification, it still causes destruction and carnage.
I also agree that Hitler was the "product of his times", just like many Germans. Hitler was special largely attributed to his genius in charismatic oratory, extraordinary determination and vicious scheming, that's why he appeared in limelight among the crowd and was fated to "lead" the German to the path of the resurrection of glory.

However, I cannot stand somebody really deny the evilness of Hitler.
If Hitler isn't evil, then who else is evil in this world !? Maybe we don't even need the word "evil" recorded in our dictionary afterward.
Humanity is not far from being similar to the Apes from whom it has evolved. Please do read the ' The Naked Ape ' by Desmond Morris.We all retain our traits of viciousness and wanton cruelty. Morals developed later. But they are skin deep. You kill Germans and they kill you back. You impose monstrous fines on them as in Versailles treaty and then a Hitler swears to take revenge. Victors in a war cannot claim that they are paragons of Virtue when they start dictating judgements on the losers.
 
Jun 2016
1,654
England, 200 yards from Wales
I meant born in Germany, as a NAZI, you would... and not born in Germany as a NAZI. Because of context and expediency I thought it would be automatically understood without the proper punctuation.
OK< though "born in Germany, as a NAZI, you would" does imply that everyone born in Germany would be a Nazi, which is clearly untrue, so I did not assume that's what you meant. You mean if you were born in Germany and later chose to become a Nazi I suppose. In that case indeed you probably would approve of him, if you didn't you probably would not become a Nazi anyway, so it doesn't mean much.
 
Sep 2012
8,837
India
In this context, would our friends from the USA say that the USA was evil when it let loose a bombing campaign over North Vietnam by dropping Napalm bombs or Agent Orange? Would our British friends say that Britain was evil when general Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on defenceless people gathered in an enclosure at Amritsar, Punjab with only one access and the same as exit which was being guarded by his soldiers manning machine guns and rifles? And killed hundreds at least? Would the British friends say that the British people who honoured this General for his action and presented a purse to him were evil? Would my Indian friends consider Udham Singh who killed Sir Michael O'Dwyer and wounded General Dyer in London in revenge years later as evil? War is war and morals are not involved.
 
Aug 2010
15,216
Welsh Marches
Actions of war are hard to judge, you are right to suggest that; but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to draw distinctions between those that are wrong and unacceptable and those that are permissable. Outside that context, General Dyer's actions were wrong and those who supported them afterwards were wrong, but I am not sure that evil is the right word here, he was not committing a gratuitous act with deliberately malicious intent, any more tham the milita men who carried out the Peterloo Massacre back in England.
Peterloo Massacre - Wikipedia
Many of the unequivocally evil actions of Hitler, notably the mass-murder of Jews and othe 'undesirables' were not actually acts of war. In the invasion of Russia, he was the ultimate fount for orders that led to the murder of great many civilians and the starving of prisoners of war; such things do not fall among acts of war that are at all hard to judge! The Germans drew an explicit and unequivocal contrast between the way in which war was to be conducted in the east and in N. Africa and Western Europe, where the normal conventions of war were to be followed. If the Germans had been successful in drawing their line from Archangel to Astrakhan, plans were drawn up that were deliberately intended to cause mass starvation among the native populations within that line, especially in the cities, which would have resulted in the death of as many as 30 million people. If all of these things are not evil, and if Hitler was not evil as their instigator, we might as well stop using the word alltogether.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
939
Scotland
Actions of war are hard to judge, you are right to suggest that; but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to draw distinctions between those that are wrong and unacceptable and those that are permissable. Outside that context, General Dyer's actions were wrong and those who supported them afterwards were wrong, but I am not sure that evil is the right word here, he was not committing a gratuitous act with deliberately malicious intent, any more tham the milita men who carried out the Peterloo Massacre back in England.
Peterloo Massacre - Wikipedia
Many of the unequivocally evil actions of Hitler, notably the mass-murder of Jews and othe 'undesirables' were not actually acts of war. In the invasion of Russia, he was the ultimate fount for orders that led to the murder of great many civilians and the starving of prisoners of war; such things do not fall among acts of war that are at all hard to judge! The Germans drew an explicit and unequivocal contrast between the way in which war was to be conducted in the east and in N. Africa and Western Europe, where the normal conventions of war were to be followed. If the Germans had been successful in drawing their line from Archangel to Astrakhan, plans were drawn up that were deliberately intended to cause mass starvation among the native populations within that line, especially in the cities, which would have resulted in the death of as many as 30 million people. If all of these things are not evil, and if Hitler was not evil as their instigator, we might as well stop using the word alltogether.
Hear, Hear!