Was Hitler Right?

Originally posted by Beausant91
Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews, he merely ordered it.

all is forgiven.

manson didn't actually kill all those people either. I guess we should let that misguided youth out as well.

that quote above gives all you need to know about the point of this thread. it has nothing to do with the broad stroke concept of a master race. There is a master race, the human race. Unfortunately, we're all different and, from time to time, the dna lines up improperly and we get people like hitler who have only one means of making themselves appear better, eliminating the competition. Even sadder, we have people who idolize a man who ordered the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children, all because they were not like him.

The fact that someone can use the argument that he didn't actually kill them, he just ordered it, is downright ludicrous. He's the leader of his nation, controling his armies, doling out orders. Orders. He told them to do it, they did it. He wasn't even man enough to do the deed which he felt would make that short, pathetic man seem bigger in his own, twisted mind.

reply to post by Beausant91


Ignoring morality, Hitler's goals and methods were wrong. The problem with creating a perfect race is that nature has a way of finding imperfections. Until we destroy ourselves or the planet, we our the most perfectly adaptable animal species on this planet.

reply to post by Crakeur


I understand your sentiment, but why do you feel the need to express such simplistic and blatantly false misconceptions such as "an unfortunate quirk of DNA" in order to fortify your moral position? Why do you trade opportunities for insight and understanding away in exchange for (what appears to be) shallow moralistic chest thumping?

Right about what? Killing millions of innocent people? For heaven's sake no.

No Hitler was not correct friend.

The suggestion that if given space to flourish, a certain group of peoples will prosper will only lead to destruction. To do that is to feed these so-called "super(wo)men" to their own egos.

The fact is, we cannot single out one "race" for this task, unless it is the HUMAN race.

I leave you with this : what do people with power and knowledge want and to what lengths will they go to achieve it?

A2D


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Wow, there are quite a few misconceptions and downright romantic exaggerations both pro and anti-Hitler in this thread. I've studied WWII history and for a period of time in high school I was actually fascinated so much by the topic that I read anything and everything I could find about Hitler and Germany. (To the degree that I had people asking me if I was some sort of neo-Nazi... I wasn't, but the buzz cut and jump boots probably didn't help my case much... I digress)

Somewhat tangent to the OP, first let me say that Hitler's "Downfall" had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. Was it a grievous event which justifies the claims that the Nazis were monsters? Absolutely! But it actually played a minor role in Germany's defeat at best. Hitler's failure was that he was arrogant and stopped listening to the millitary advisors who had served him so well in the early years of Germany's expansion. The Nazi army excelled at 2 things, vulgar displays of power and lightning fast "Blitzkrieg" attacks. When they reached Moscow they were equipped not for a siege and certainly not for a winter war of urban guerrilla fighting. Hitler's commanders warned him that either the Germany forces needed to perform a full scale massive attack on Moscow immediately, or else pull back, wait out the winter, and strike in the spring. Hitler's decision to siege the city and then attack after the onset of winter began the chain reaction that was Germany's ultimate defeat.

The modern romanticized idea that the Holocaust and Hitler's brutallity against ethnic and national minority groups was his ultimate downfall simply is not true. Russian soldier journals display a definite level of disgust and surprise at what they saw at the concentration camps as they passed them heading into the heart of Germany, but they were more shocked at the sight of the living, not at the sight of the dead. Why is this? Simple, Russia was just as prolific in executing anyone the Soviet governemnt viewed as undesirable, so they had no moral high ground on that front. US troops were legitimately shocked, but there is much evidence that the millitary leaders of every nation fighting against Germany knew about the Holocaust long before anything was done and it is mostly revisionist history to try and say those acts played much of a role in any nation's decision to allign against Hitler.

Now, directly to the OP, I would argue that so-called "superior humans" wouldn't really find themselves all that hindered by having to walk amongst mere mortals. I mean how super can you consider yourself if having to see a Jewish deli on the corner of your town is what you think is holding you back? I also find it ironic that you used this wording:

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

when the "herd mentallity" is EXACTLY what Hitler utilized to go about pushing his agenda. He took the "All Germanic Lad" and placed him up on a pedistal because he knew that it was something the masses could and would relate to. It was no case of him believing that there was any true superiority lodged in the "aryan" gene pool. It was a simple numbers game... Hitler examined the populace in 1933 Germany and saw that he was dealing with an angry, beaten society which was highly moldable. All he needed was to assign a common enemy (anyone who couldn't be considered a German with a generational birthright) and a common ideal (Those who could prove a German generational birthright would most likely have *someone* in their family who fit the "Aryan" description.) and with those two ingredients, cooked over the flame of the Cult of Personality he brought to the table, the recipe was complete.

Divide and conquer. He divided the masses in his own country along lines he defined that assured he'd always have more people on his side than against him and then he slowly removed (via death camps) the people against him in order to continue assuring that, as Germany claimed more land and conquered more nations, the ballance would always be on his side. The entire "master race" concept was nothing more than a created "tool" he was able to utilize to reach his end goal. It depended solely on the German people's acceptance and it played upon their arrogance and their sense of self to ensure that they would view him as an unfalible and unquestioned ruler who always had their best in mind.

One last thing about these so-called super-men and the philosphical concept behind them. Hitler was no friend of thinkers. Thinkers posed the greatest threat of all against Hitler, not because he feared them taking up arms, but because he feared them sharing the gift of independent thought with the common citizens of Germany. The entirety of Hitler's rule depended upon the German people idolizing him and never questioning him or his motives. I'd argue that in order to presume, as you did, that Hitler's "super-men" could have represented some sort of advancement in human evolution and development, you'd have to assume that it all began with free higher level thought. There is absolutely zero evidence that his super soldats, if you will, exhibited anything outside of blind loyalty and opperated in what could almost be considered a vacuum of independent, free thought. I would also argue strongly that our morals are the cornerstone of any advancement in human development and are the primary indication that we have embraced a higher level of thought in the first place. Your idea that we remove our morals from the equation when answering the OP's question basically proves that you have answered your own question before even posing it, and the response you got was "No, Hitler was not right."

reply to post by burdman30ott6


If it's not much of a bother, would you extract any criticism pertaining to my posts specifically? The OP and I both discussed issues of moralistic relativism and the Übermensch, but we came to rather different conclusions. However, in order to address specific criticisms of the claims, I had to first explain (to the best of my ability) what the philosophy states and their implications as I saw it.

I did not intend for it to be a justification or endorsement of them.

One statement I'm fairly sure you were directing in response to me was the following:

I would also argue strongly that our morals are the cornerstone of any advancement in human development and are the primary indication that we have embraced a higher level of thought in the first place. Your idea that we remove our morals from the equation when answering the OP's question basically proves that you have answered your own question before even posing it, and the response you got was "No, Hitler was not right."

I didn't mean to suggest that we should disassociate from our morality entirely, or remove it from our decision making process. Our morality helps to define us as individuals and shapes our views and opinions. Including our views and opinions of others who have different moralities than ours. What I'm suggesting is that it's more productive to allow yourself to step beyond your personal morality and try to see things from the perspectives of others, or as an independent concept on it's own merit. Simply gain a greater understanding of where other's are coming from without the bias of your own morality inviting bias to your perception. Consider what their concerns are, what their points are. Then step back into your own morality with that greater context and understanding. This helps establish objectivity and focused, directive oriented progress.

So no, I think we should undoubtedly answer the OP's questions according to our own morality. Just that it should also be properly seasoned by a greater context and consideration of other views and concerns.

If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The battle between for and against is the mind's worst disease. — Sent-ts'an

So when I answered the question of whether or not Hitler was Right (in regards to Nietzsche philosophies and their subsequent application), I attempted to criticize it not just from my own moral position, but from the position of Nietzsche's moral arguments as well. I then further (of my own accord) pointed out some of the flaws in Nietzsche's philosophy in light of a more modern understanding of evolution, psychology, genetics, etc, which he had no concept of at the time, and thus expose errors he could not have recognized or accounted for.

Because of this, towards the end of my first post I had hoped to express a subtle nudge to the OP and others who read his works that, like Freud, we can appreciate the quality of their arguments - but cannot accept them at face value without taking into account the discoveries we have made in the years since they penned their works which may (and in those examples DO) invalidate their premise.


So it was not a contradiction to find my own moral assertions within my post.

well if there werent any other races except white people,we werent going to have all these religios and racist fights and wars,with only the white race left we have moslty christians. even if we are white,black and asian like japan,we would be still alot better without terrorists and jews fighting all the time,and jews claiming the money positions. sorry for this,im not usualy racist,i dont care about color,i may be wrong,its just a point of view.
but without all these fights we would be advancing alot faster

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stillalive]

It's well known that Hitler did not do most of the things that he is being attacked for, he was just the puppet. I'm actually doing an essay in class on this, Hitler knew stuff, he sent his men out to find stuff about the occult and other supernatural things. I'm not saying he's right, but he might have known more then we think he did.

Hitler was a great orator who captured a certain zeitgeist within Germany at the time.

Initially he also had the ability to recognise other people's abilities and utilise them to the full; Albert Speer, Josef Goebells were uniquely suited to the roles he gave them and Goerring was idolised by The Luftwaffe.

However, he falsely believed he was a military genius and began to believe his own propaganda, a fatal mistake.

In addition he was an evil, amoral psychopath.

His willingness to let Germany be totally destroyed just to further his own fantasies shows a disregard for anyone else barely equalled in history.

So, was Hitler right?
A most definate and emphatic NO!

Hitler was trying to regain the honor of Grosser Deutchland after the allies (french) "dogpiled" the kaiser.

It took all of them to take out ONE country....tells you something right there.

Have any of you read Mein Kampf? How many just rely on " well this expert said this about the book".

going on history, I think that hitler was kept stoned (look at footage) and the real evil was himler and goebels.

You have to admit that the threat of Bolshevism was (and is) a huge threat. he wanted to take his people to the top level, period. Do i agree with "lebenborn" project? I love babies and they shouldnt be kept from parents (much less under govt. control).

He had some good stuff, too much was twisted.

Originally posted by felonius
Hitler was trying to regain the honor of Grosser Deutchland after the allies (french) "dogpiled" the kaiser.

There had never really been a united Grosse Deutscheland.
It is a popular misconception.

It took all of them to take out ONE country....tells you something right there.
[

It wasn't one nation, there were several; Austria-Hungary Empire, The Ottoman Empire and Germany.
United they had quite considerable assets.

Have any of you read Mein Kampf? How many just rely on " well this expert said this about the book".

Yes I have, several times.
It is a very poorly written diatribe which clearly set's out what he was going to do.

It is interesting that Hitler dictated this montonous read to a Jesuit Priest called Father Staempfle and that his primary reason for writing it was to repay the debts he had incurred since the failed Munich Putsch and subsequent trial.

But of course you know all this because you too have researched Hitler and his life.

going on history, I think that hitler was kept stoned (look at footage) and the real evil was himler and goebels.

Yes Hitler was severely reliant on his Doctor, Theodor Morrell, but this was mainly during the latter years of the war when Hitler had become deluded with his own propoganda and was suffering from various illnesses and diseases.
Prior to this Hitler was very particular about what he put in his body; he was a vegetarian and was almost tea-total, the complete antithesis of the stereotyped German's who are regarded as big meat eaters and beer drinkers.

Himmler was a chicken farmer who was totally enthralled by Hitler.
It was only in the last year of the war that he tried to impose his own authority and tried to usurp Hitler.
He failed and Hitler never forgave him.

When Goebells first joined The Nazi Party he was very much on the Socialist side of the party.
Hitler had 'a word' with him and he switched allegiances to The Nationalist side and thus survived Hitler's first cull of The Nazi Party.
He was eventually rewarded with being awarded the title of Reichminister Of Propaganda, an art he proved to be a master of.
Goebells stayed loyal to Hitler to the end and he never plotted against him; indeed Goebells attempted suicide after falling out of favour due to his affair with a Czech actress.
He soon returned to favour, for good.

But of course you know all this.

You have to admit that the threat of Bolshevism was (and is) a huge threat. he wanted to take his people to the top level, period. Do i agree with "lebenborn" project? I love babies and they shouldnt be kept from parents (much less under govt. control).

Exactly what threat did, and still does apparently, Bolshevism pose?
Is that just a personal and unsupported opinion or an historical fact?

He had some good stuff, too much was twisted.

Indeed he did.
But none of them have been highlighted by you.
He was an evil tyrant who allowed his personal prejudices and problems result in the deaths of millions of normal everyday people for no reason whatsoever other than his own agrandissement.

[edit on 22/9/09 by Freeborn]

reply to post by Beausant91


the ultimate superman is he who understands the very basic concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." if everyone followed that, we'd be advancing along quite nicely. it isn't that healthy, vibrant, strong, talented, intellectually brilliant people are hard to come by in every race, but rather that if their paradigm doesn't agree with the TPTB, they are met with various methods meant to remove those skills, abilities and natural strengths, from them, so that only one selected group has the associated careers, jobs, influence and power in those fields. i'm sorry to say it, but there will never be a human superman. people are simply too shortsighted, greedy and prejudice to allow it.

hitler was certainly evil. in fact ,so evil, that
it does appear to be reptilian inspired. nothing
pleases them more than to see people at war.
...and they are still here...

reply to post by Crakeur


crakeur,

the thing that puzzled me was, he was looking for the ultimate survivor in the survival of the fittest game that is life (or so he said) and yet despised the fact that jewish bankers and jewish scientists seemed to keep ending up on the top of the survival heap. so he kills them for it. he needed to make up his mind what he really wanted, cause i don't think he knew.

if it was really good survivors he was looking for, capable of intellectual brilliance and hardiness, surviving almost any crisis, he missed his chance in a big way. rather than helping the human race advance by maybe breeding some jews with the rest of us, his inability to recognize super when he saw it, went right over his head! that's cause he was prejudice and prejudice gets ya precisely no where but more of the same, that has always been here.

It's ironic that somebody who was quarter-Jewish, bi-sexual/homosexual (one or the other), short, with dark black hair, and a non-natural born citizen of Germany could harbour so much hate for so many others who shared similar characteristics to him. Maybe killing them was a defence mechanism against admitting his own identity and attributes.

Hitler was a very smart, natural born leader and talented public speaker. But his approach to express these qualities was wrong because it resulted in the death of millions of people.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


ah yes, which is what lead to my theory that it was actually two factions of jews, who have been at war with each other for thousands of years. and he bumped off the other faction because he was told to by someone even higher up the food chain than him. one set of jews sold out the other, kind of a social engineering by proxy.

The premise is that a few cultured or guided individuals can understand what is best for the masses. and therefore lead them. If the masses choose them : popular elections, allow monarchy, etc, then its the masses choice to be guided by them. If not;

The problem is in who will choose this group, what is the criteria for appointing ( creating?) your leaders? How do you remove them from Power when the process goes wrong?

HG wells wrote the Time Machine as indictment of class division, brilliant and visionary he postulated Time as a dimension before Dr. Einstein did.

Mary Shelley Wrote Frankenstein as indictment against altering natural methods of Nature, best left to evolve without radical intervention.


Hitler was not right, creating a race of super people will never result in a group that can lead. It does create a group of people that are probably going to enslave, we have several thousand years of recorded history that outlines what happens when a race believes themselves to be superior to another.

lololol man ur taking this conspiracy stuff too far,i dont think hitler was anyones puppet,he was a dictator,he thinked and did what he whanted,and he brough entire europe on his knees,sure there is always a chance but i dont think so

reply to post by Beausant91

...i'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...

...we know he went too far and went about it wrong, the destruction of anybody who wasn't ayrean...

...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...

since you've asked and answered your own question - more or less...

just want to hear your views!!

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that this isn't an honest request

it's not just about going about it "wrong" (get real)

it's about going about it - at all