Was Hitler Right?

Oh, this ought to be a fun thread. Stand by for massive censorship.

To the question, was Hitler right?

Simply put, yes.


Was Bolshevism and Communism a threat to Germany and Europe as a whole? Ofcourse.

Were the majority of Communists inside of Germany at the time jewish? Yes.

Is it more than possible that the camps designed to house enemies (which is perfectly natural in a time of war) could easily be turned into "death camps" in the history books of the victors? Hell yes.



I would like to pose the question to anyone with the stones to answer it.... How is it that the so called "fighters for freedom" ie: US and UK allied themselves with the Soviets, who even before the beginning of the war had murdered more people than the victors history books tell you the Germans did?

reply to post by Beausant91


Right for who? We already have people who excel in the sciences. Who else can elevate humanity on a global level? Unless you know a Wizard or Messianic figure.
We don't need to have the world step back to have some "Supermen" take the lead, we need corporations to release patents on technology that would change the world for the better and allow people all over the world to have a full belly and electricity for less money and less damage to our ecosystem.

Originally posted by Beausant91
reply to post by KSPigpen

 

Thankyou for the reply this all and well that we are all given opportunity but it can never be achieved man is too fickle the title is used to fire up that old hatred but if we stop and think for a while yes he was misguided yes he went the wrong way completley but it is the basic principle of that if a group of people are given more space they flourish quicker it is more to the viewpoint of Nietzsche that i hope humanity can swerve to have the free spirits on top the men with the stomach to move humanity forward and we may lose freedom in the process but if it provided answers, to achieve the goal of all philosophers to achieve truth to find the answers and deliver them to the world, it is once again another utopia that we can dream of.

Beausant, thank you so much for pointing out that the original idea and ideal of the Superman which Hitler hijacked came from Nietzsche.

By the way, Hitler was only about 5' 9" and not very physical fit or intimidating. I could take him easily and I'm more of a Spiderman than a Superman.

Originally posted by really
By the way, Hitler was only about 5' 9" and not very physical fit or intimidating. I could take him easily and I'm more of a Spiderman than a Superman.

When was the last time you not just survived major...major battles, but recieved your nation's highest awards for bravery and service?

And, you are falling for govt. brainwashing. Hitler never claimed HE was a Superman....He wanted to CREATE a superior race.


Really....pick up a non-govt issued book or something.

reply to post by 21cdb


First off, with the physical problems he had, who the hell is he to judge who's a superman? The dude was an artist.
Secondly, I'm sorry to upset a member of the Hitler fan base by saying that I'm pretty sure I could take Hitler in a brawl. I just feel awful.

reply to post by Beausant91


Who on earth are these ‘supermen’ who would thrive? These psychopaths? How about this respected scientist who obviously believes he is one of the superior people; Eric Pianta. A man so sick that he wishes 90 per cent of the world to die the most agonising death with the ebola virus, which causes one to bleed from every orifice and all one’s organs to liquefy or explode. A man who when he suggested this to other ‘respected’ scientists got rounds of applause for the idea of spreading an airborne ebola virus on the population. Best hope that is not their plan in the next few months.
How about the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers who are so keen on bioterrorism and eugenics and would like to wipe all of us out and are no doubt actively seeking to just that. How about all the insane people Obama surrounds himself with who seek to kill off the old, the very young, to abort babies from the wrong stock, to take the babies of teenage pregnancies by force and have them adopted, to not treat the severely disabled or mentally challenged but to help them to die, and who think a Collie dog is superior to a retarded child.
Yeah sure, Hitler was a really good example of superiority wasn’t he…sigh. An inadequate, sickly man who sought to control, and projected his own inadequacy onto the world. Yes, there is a superiority, but only by locking up the psycopathic elite will anyone be able to thrive and develop.
These people are not superior, they are the scum of the earth; insane people who are so sick that they do not deserve to live in civilised society. Nobody thrives in a repressive system except those doing the repressing. Nobody would thrive in a controlled, dictated, robotic society where everyone was the same and nobody did anything wrong and were super fit. What would be the point? Who would learn anything about life? Men who seek to control would do better seeking to control themselves…that would solve most problems.

notsylvia.wordpress.com...

What are you talking about ‘space’ for. There’s plenty of space. What there isn’t is a fair allocation of the world’s resources. So yes, if you want the world to improve you would need to get rid of the very rich, the abusers of the world who use their greed and money to control the world. You would have to abolish a system that keeps people poor their entire lives. And then if you want a super race, it would involve encouraging and developing empathy so that the very idea of even one person dying, starving, being tortured, abused, raped or being killed would be deemed so sick that peace would reign on earth. People need to come out of their heads and come from their hearts. Won’t happen, but one can dream.
And to think that killing people could ever be a good idea ‘to create space’ tells me that you need to take a look at your thoughts. And if that decision was based on the ability to punctuate a sentence, then you would be a goner.

Originally posted by really


First off, with the physical problems he had, who the hell is he to judge who's a superman? The dude was an artist.
Secondly, I'm sorry to upset a member of the Hitler fan base by saying that I'm pretty sure I could take Hitler in a brawl. I just feel awful.

I am hardly what one would call a "fan" of Hitler, he had many flaws.

As for being an artist, he wasn't a very good one and that came later in his life. If you actually knew anything about the man, you wouldn't pass him off as some kind of wimp.

Unless you (again) have been decorated for bravery in battle, fought countless street battles and such...

reply to post by oneclickaway


I wholeheartedly agree.
Second line.

As mentioned, the idea of bringing forth a more perfected human race was not Hitler's. Hitler lifted the idea from the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche. The basic argument being that Christianity, as the prior dominant moral guidance in western society, was now nothing more than a cultural hold over and cheap moral justification for the actions of men grown decadent and soft in modern society. God is dead, he argued, in the hearts of men - atheist, agnostic, and believer alike - though they did not know the deed was done. Without Christianity as a moral anchor for the masses, he proposed that humanity would sink into moral nihilism and chaos. Christianity had upheld the weak and feeble "slave morality" in which actions were described as "Good and Evil" - a morality that only served to stymie humanities potential and lead to the corrupt decadence in modern society.

When he argued that "God is Dead", he raised the problem of what new morality shall mankind seek? To answer this, Nietzsche endorsed a more natural morality for mankind in which the "Master Morality" guided us. Unlike the reactionary slave morality, the Master morality took action in the world and assigned actions as "Good and Bad" (desirable/undesirable). In a way, you could view it in light of the "Alpha Male" leader many animals have. This individual who strove for and took his place as leader of other men who would achieve great things.

It is from this shift in morality that eventually would bear out the Übermensch, the OverMan, who would represent the next step beyond humanity and give our lives purpose and meaning.

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape...The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth...Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end..."

Hitler believed and adopted this philosophy, but he didn't quote adhere to Nietzsche's true vision. As Nietzsche believed that a more natural morality is better suited for advancement of humanity, he would have likely disapproved of Hitler's use of eugenics as a means to bring about a subjective and artificial end, rather than a proper natural inheritor. Nietzsche didn't endorse the selective breeding, or extermination, of others - suggesting rather that any race of man may struggle for the right to make change in the world, and will succeed or fail on their own. Indeed, while he was no great lover of the Jewish people, I believe he referenced the Jews a few times as an example of a people who had shown through strength of will their ability to overcome opposition and take their success into their own hands.

So while Neitztsche's philosophies regarding the emergence of the OverMan and the naturalistic "Master Morality" were by no means gentle or without pain - Hitler poisoned this goal with eugenic programs that would only bring about the breed of man the Nazi party desired - not the true and rightful OverMan. IIRC, Nietzsche never really described what form physically such a person would take. The Blond Hair/Blue Eyes model was an appeal to Germanic pride, and the goal of bringing about the OverMan - in many ways - was a form of propaganda and justification for the Nazi's actions - both expansionist and genocidal. To them, they were working towards a greater goal for humanity, and it would be Germany who would blaze the path.


So no... Hitler was NOT right. Not from a human perspective, nor from Nietzsche philosophical perspective.


The final flaw, then, I would suggest - being the flaw in concept. While Nietzsche didn't specify what exact talents or physical appearance such an OverMan would possess - he clearly saw that humanities progeny would be better or beyond us... as we are beyond the apes. This, in itself, is a subjective vision which, while being more vague, clearly supposes human advancement according to his own (or commonly held at the time) criteria in regards to what constituted as "advancement". But then, Nietzsche lived in a time before the theory of Evolution by Mutation and Natural Selection was rather incomplete. There's quite a bit more to it now. Further, he couldn't have known about the advances in cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and other fields regarding the study of human morality and cognitive function which seem to imply that there are far more layers of interaction which go into shaping who we are as individuals. Culture and Environment are only two levels which they are expressed on. Further, I believe he underestimated the value which altruism (which also came from nature, and we inherited from our ancestors) as a beneficial and potent force for change. Providing perhaps an alternative, or secondary anchor for morality in the natural world.

Nor could he have foreseen the advancements we're making in integrating computer augmentation into our biology, in addition to being able to understand and augment the very quaternary code that is the basis of all life.



In many ways, reading Nietzsche's work today is like reading Sigmund Freud's works. Well worth the time to enjoy their insightful and well reasoned arguments, but only if you keep in mind that we've made a lot of progress since their days, and their arguments may no longer be valid under the light of new evidence not available to them.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lasheic]

Too many comments are on a tangent.

This is about EUGENICS. Look up the word if you don't know what it is.

I believe that there are many who support eugenics today. I know of many personally. Many countries other than Nazi-Germany have supported the idea of eugenics, including America, Australia, and other developed nations.

I might call someone a "Nazi" occasionally, not because they are anti-Semitic, but because they support the idea of eugenics.

Personally, i think nature knows best. That is the argument: Do humans know better than nature when it comes to the evolution of our own species?

So, to the author, you are a supporter of EUGENICS. I'm not saying it's wrong, although my beliefs differ; I'm stating the fact that many people today don't realize that they have a similar mentality to the Nazis.

It sure is interesting that there are those who still look up to someone like Adolf Hitler as if his grand dream for mans future was squashed for what we now have today. The big question is what would our lives have been like today if he had won.........without a fight?

The saying; You're right but you're wrong, depends on the plan. I think Adolf Hitler was used as part of someone elses plan. Wars are likely out of greed and profit. Hitlers war was supposed to be against it. " The devils advocate "

Originally posted by bettermakings
Too many comments are on a tangent.

This is about EUGENICS. Look up the word if you don't know what it is.

I believe that there are many who support eugenics today. I know of many personally. Many countries other than Nazi-Germany have supported the idea of eugenics, including America, Australia, and other developed nations.

I might call someone a "Nazi" occasionally, not because they are anti-Semitic, but because they support the idea of eugenics.

Personally, i think nature knows best. That is the argument: Do humans know better than nature when it comes to the evolution of our own species?

So, to the author, you are a supporter of EUGENICS. I'm not saying it's wrong, although my beliefs differ; I'm stating the fact that many people today don't realize that they have a similar mentality to the Nazis.

While you could easily bring eugenics into the discussion, I was under the assumption that the OP was referring to certain people already alive who are "supermen" and whether the rest of mediocre humanity should get out of their way so that these supermen can shine and, thus, lead all of humanity into a better tomorrow.:

i'm asking the question that if we get rid of our herd mentality and our morals is giving the few "Supermen" the space to thrive such a bad thing getting humanity out of mediocraty so the species can evolve faster and with better results just want to hear your views!!

reply to post by oneclickaway


You see to understand the men that would become the New Philosophers you would have to be one the main aim is truth not death no blood need be shed, these new philosophers are men who can lead humanity to learn its truths and teach all of us to learn our personal truths maybe if i place it in plain for you these are scholars with the might of mind and heart they are not elitists hiding behind their money they are the free spirits of this world the people who challenge its authority democracy among with religion are the two worst things to have happenedd in the world
1. Equality of the vote most of the general populations vote for what is popular not what is best for the state Socrates once said "Philosophers will be kings when kings are Philosophers" meaning that the men who lead are the popular puppets who do naught but hold us back with proper intellects at the helm of the counrty we would move humanity forward.
2. religion teaches us a slave morality concerned not with this life but the next, only the saint should be respected for his will to power the determination the grit the stomach all placed in the wrong area, religion is the bringer of morls and its decadence has held humanity at a mediocre level repel the shackles of religion and know only one thing do not have concern for the next life have concern for this find your truth find why you are here that is your task and the task of the new philosopher if you are not a new philosopher then you shall take their work and do it for them so they are able to concentrate on their studies.
The men who will become these new philosophers are like great men of the past Oscar Wilde, genghis Khan etc. the men willing to put all on the line to do what they must this is what Hitler took from Nietzsche this is why he was right in a sense he did what he thought was right but you think is evil one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist it is glorious also to see democracy quench the fire of a utopic vision - communism maybe thats because we wern't ready or it didnt fit the agenda of America, no longer shall they control what happens in the world
Americas time is up it is now time for the next great religion Islam but there if we had the new philosopher we would not need war with them we would use their religion as a basis of control as is why they were created in the first place if you want to know of "Supermen" Read Friedrich Nietzsche "Beyond Good & Evil" there your eyes shall open and you will see it is simple and effective and the way forward.

There is no right or wrong answer. First we have to assume everything we were taught about Hitler is infallibly true. Then we have to assume that the holocaust happened just as tptb say it happened. But the problem is that race isn't really a good indicator of superiority. There are obvious genetic differences based on environments that evolution took place in. Now with different races combining with other races from different parts of the world and different environments you have to wonder where evolution goes next. Does humanity stagnate as a race? Stagnation is usually the cue for de-evolution, so to say. Look at what happened when monarchies tried to keep bloodlines pure... genetic stagnation led to the royal families having lots of conditions genetically that had the opposite affect of creating the perfect bloodline.
I don't feel good at all so I'm not really sure if this is coherent.

The next great religion Islam? Wasn't that in the 13th century? lol

Our friends the Jews and the Chinese have calenders that have survived for 4-6 Thousand years receptively allot can be said of same for the Hindus too...

Everyone else doesn't even comes close.

When Communism or America or Islam or Christianity or any of the rest can throw the 4-6000 year date down on their survival time line culturally and philosophically I would say they are in the running for "next great"something or other.

Until that time they are one of thousands of cultures that have come and gone where the others have failed.

That would also include Nazis who remaining legacy exists in the form of awful drug gangs most of whos members rot in American prison cells at any given time.

reply to post by mopusvindictus


Neo-Nazis are nothing like the real nazis.... They're basically unrelated.

reply to post by bettermakings


The practice of eugenics was not restricted solely to the Nazi's. Most intellectuals and developed nations at the time leading up to and during WWII had their own eugenics programs. The United Stated engaged in active Eugenics programs in many states via forced sterilization.



Prominent British author H.G. Wells was an avid supporter of eugenics policies, leading to some criticism of his "Eloi and Morlock" races in "The Time Machine" as fictional literary extremes of the what he believed may be possible outcomes of different breeding schemes.



Ultimately, selective human breeding is a reality - just as it is a reality in regards to other animals. We're no different in any regard biologically that would prevent it. However, as David Hume pointed out - just because something IS true, does not mean that it OUGHT to be true. Charles Darwin eluded to this "Is/Ought" conflict between logical conclusion, and applying the human factor.

I'm sure most are familiar with the following quote, often presented out of context from his work "Descent of Man".

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

So Darwin himself suggests that selective breeding may help weed out some of the harmful traits and weaknesses which now propagate due to the shelter and protection of society. Yet it is immediately followed in the next paragraph.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Clearly, he does not view the cost by which this contingent benefit to mankind being worth the sacrifice of our morality and empathy towards one another. And I feel he was right. I don't feel as if anyone has the right to impose their subjective goals of creating a better human stock upon the individual. Regardless of how sound the logic or reasoning, we can empathize with those who would be the forced into such a procedure and know how wrong it would feel if done to us.

I agree with Beausant91 that we should step beyond the realm of personal morality and look at the subject objectively on it's own merits, because it did have quite a few. Where I disagree is that I don't think we should (or can, ultimately) divorce ourselves from our morals. Learning to step outside of them, to look beyond good & evil, is only a tool to gain insight. Humans are moral creatures. We are born with innate tendencies towards specific moralities, but only as rough drafts in anticipation of experience and social interaction in life which can revise them.

Since these moral foundations are a part of who we are as humans, we not only should not try to exorcise them from our psyches, nor we could we if we so chose. At least, not perhaps without ironically slipping into the very moralistic nihilism which Nietzsche wanted to avoid by attempting to sever the actual ties to morality we DO hold innately.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The next great religion Islam? Wasn't that in the 13th century? lol

You see the point i making is that christianity has been the religion for the masses next is Islam in my country anyway don't know or care in America.


That would also include Nazis who remaining legacy exists in the form of awful drug gangs most of whos members rot in American prison cells at any given time.

Are there your wrong most Nazi Scientists they actually worked for the American Government with records being changed and the legacy of Nazi Germany is your space programme your nuclear armorments and most of the scientific leaps also they hired high ranking members of the gestapo and SS into the C.I.A wow America really are the most selfishly led country in the world and this is the beauty of it for you understand the place many of the Ubermensch will ail from is America what cruel irony.

Originally posted by Beausant91i'm asking you the question was he right in his belief that there are superior human beings who deserve to have the space to thrive and prosper

You're really confused if you think that's what he believed.

Yes, there is a being who deserve to be worshipped like God, me. But Hitler doesn't believe in me, Hitler believes in himself, he believes that he's the superior one, which is wrong obviously.. remember, I'm the superior one.