Hitler...genius or idiot? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#201
Report 13 years ago
#201
(Original post by litigation)
You must be really naive if you believe the reason for all this is just to help kids out with dieing young etc. They don't really care about these individuals, in the way you think. Embryo research is there to eradicate all forms of illness, so we will be a stronger, healthier society. They are searching for perfection as did Hitler. The cost to countries because of imperfections are huge amounts of money and this is there concern, nothing more.
Where did i say that scientists were motivated by altruism? Their results are beneficial for the people with disabilities, however. Unlike Hitler, they do not murder people merely for the genetic defect of being a member of an allegedly inferior race.
0
litigation
Badges: 0
#202
Report 13 years ago
#202
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Where did i say that scientists were motivated by altruism? Their results are beneficial for the people with disabilities, however. Unlike Hitler, they do not murder people merely for the genetic defect of being a member of an allegedly inferior race.

That's dependant on whether you see a human being as only human after the time it was born or from the time of conception. A lot of people believe the latter, in which case, in their opinions, there is no difference.

I was not referring to Hitler’s murdering previously, I was referring to the final outcome of the breeding of individuals he was proposing.

I don't understand where the difference is in the outcome. Just different methods. may be, on your perceptions, getting you to the same place.
0
CW Esq
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#203
Report 13 years ago
#203
If they hadn't of been delayed by moving into the Balkans then they would have conqured Russia without a doubt. As Waddel mentions, their treatment of the people was another factor as to why they lost. Many people actually fail to realise just how close they were to victory. One night Moscow was deserted and had they made on last thrust it would have been all over.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#204
Report 13 years ago
#204
(Original post by litigation)
That's dependant on whether you see a human being as only human after the time it was born or from the time of conception. A lot of people believe the latter, in which case, in their opinions, there is no difference.
Not so: even the most ardent anti-abortionists differentiate between embryos, foetuses and the various stages amomg them.
I was not referring to Hitler’s murdering previously, I was referring to the final outcome of the breeding of individuals he was proposing.
the two were inextricable. Hitler believed the "aryans" were a superior race and that part of the process of making this superior race better was the extermination of allegedly inferior races.
I don't understand where the difference is in the outcome. Just different methods. may be, on your perceptions, getting you to the same place.
You don't think the fact that there are differences in the methods used, and the fact that hitler's theories were based on falsehoods, even if the outcomes were the same makes no difference? Means determine ends.
0
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#205
Report 13 years ago
#205
(Original post by CW Esq)
If they hadn't of been delayed by moving into the Balkans then they would have conqured Russia without a doubt. As Waddel mentions, their treatment of the people was another factor as to why they lost. Many people actually fail to realise just how close they were to victory. One night Moscow was deserted and had they made on last thrust it would have been all over.
As well as this, had Hitler focused forces against Britain rather than be impatient and attack the USSR hen the "western" backlash from the USA and UK which menat german forces were overrun and over strnecthed on 3 fronts he may have stood more success. Also teh fact Jpaan decided to attack the USA and European colonies in the far east was curcial - the USSR could not have survived an assult from the East at the same time as an assult from the West.
0
CW Esq
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#206
Report 13 years ago
#206
Maybe, but the reason he attacked the SU was to make Britain sue for peace. That is one explanation as to why he left the invasion anyway.
0
halloweenjack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#207
Report 13 years ago
#207
As well as this, had Hitler focused forces against Britain rather than be impatient
Operation Sealion was nothing more than pipe dream that was ill conceived and would have led to a humiliating defeat of the German forces if it had been attempted.

the USSR could not have survived an assult from the East at the same time as an assult from the West
Japan had already had her nose bloodied by the Soviet forces and had no desire to attack them again.
0
CW Esq
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#208
Report 13 years ago
#208
Interesting. Just an alternative viewpoint I chanced across.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#209
Report 13 years ago
#209
(Original post by CW Esq)
Maybe, but the reason he attacked the SU was to make Britain sue for peace. That is one explanation as to why he left the invasion anyway.
How would invading the Soviet Union and lessening the likelihood of Britain being invaded or starved by U-boats make Britain sue
for peace?
0
Ferrus
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#210
Report 13 years ago
#210
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Operation Sealion was nothing more than pipe dream that was ill conceived and would have led to a humiliating defeat of the German forces if it had been attempted.
Had teh attack been launched in Hitlers time frame, yes... had it been launched after German air sumpremacy in Biritan hjad been established then it may well have succeded: the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle for Britain were it not for the decison to swict to civilan targets awya form teh airfields
(Original post by halloweenjack)
Japan had already had her nose bloodied by the Soviet forces and had no desire to attack them again.
True but that battle was little more than a border skirmish. Had Jpaan atatcked with teh full wieght of its army at the same time Hitler attaced from the West it would have splet disaster for teh soviet union.
0
CW Esq
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#211
Report 13 years ago
#211
(Original post by Weejimmie)
How would invading the Soviet Union and lessening the likelihood of Britain being invaded or starved by U-boats make Britain sue
for peace?

If the Soviet Union was defeated as many expected, then Hitler would control everything. Britain would have nothing and would have sued for peace. US was not an ally until later. I forgot where I read it, but it is perfectly plausible.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#212
Report 13 years ago
#212
Hardly: the attitude in Britain up to 1939 was to let Hitler and Stalin fight it out, but it had changed by 1941.
0
big noiler
Badges: 0
#213
Report 13 years ago
#213
(Original post by Iago)
Hitler was not good for Germany's economy. He plunged the country into unmanagable debt. The only way to escape the consequences of this was to war the world. Warring the world reduced much of Germany to a pile of ashes.

Piles of ashes are not good for the economy.

Germany's economy was recovering during the Stressman era, until the Wall Street Crash. It would have recovered from this universal setback, too, given time. Would have, if Fascism had not hijacked proceedings.
OMG are you serious?! If anything, Hitler was a genius. He led the German people as they had wished to be led, told what to do. His facism is what the people wanted; democracy hadn't worked with Wiemar, and they wanted facism without knowing it. Let's not forget Hitler's immense popularity among the German people, he was their Fuhrer, the one whom had saved them from the white terror of Wiemar... Hitler and his Nazi's may have seemed bad from an outside perspective, and yes, maybe his views were a tad off, with the Jews and all, yet we must remember that History is written by the winners. Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany, and the lower socioeconomic classes in particular. He did not create poverty, but sought to repair the damage that the Wiemar created. It was the Wiemar who were the Idiots, not Hitler.
0
harrison1984
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#214
Report 13 years ago
#214
(Original post by big noiler)
OMG are you serious?! If anything, Hitler was a genius. He led the German people as they had wished to be led, told what to do. His facism is what the people wanted; democracy hadn't worked with Wiemar, and they wanted facism without knowing it. Let's not forget Hitler's immense popularity among the German people, he was their Fuhrer, the one whom had saved them from the white terror of Wiemar... Hitler and his Nazi's may have seemed bad from an outside perspective, and yes, maybe his views were a tad off, with the Jews and all, yet we must remember that History is written by the winners. Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany, and the lower socioeconomic classes in particular. He did not create poverty, but sought to repair the damage that the Wiemar created. It was the Wiemar who were the Idiots, not Hitler.
His views were not just a 'tad off' with the Jews, his views towards Jews were disgusting, otherwise I agree with you, Hitler did do a lot of good things for Germany, and yes, the people did love him.
0
Israfel
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#215
Report 13 years ago
#215
I'd just like to agree with the above point, his views were indeed disgusting, but I'm not sure I can agree with the endorsement of Hitler being the one to come and magically save the country from the Weimar dragon, as it were. The allied reaction to WW1 at Versailles was just as important as the weaknesses of the Weimar system; the Weimar republic did not create all, or even most of the "damage" you talk about, it was the result of the first world war and its aftermath. And saying that he did a lot for the lower socioeconomic classes? I can only imagine you mean repairing the economy after the depression (as opposed to, say, the terror of the gestapo, or indoctrination of their children), and since this was due to rearming the country to plunge it into an even more ruinous war than the last one, sending off many of the lower socioeconomic classes to die, I can't really see how that did much for them.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#216
Report 13 years ago
#216
Hitler was a sociopathic genius, like many geniuses.
Lord Waddell
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#217
Report 13 years ago
#217
(Original post by ferrus)
Had teh attack been launched in Hitlers time frame, yes... had it been launched after German air sumpremacy in Biritan hjad been established then it may well have succeded: the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle for Britain were it not for the decison to swict to civilan targets awya form teh airfields
To be honest I've never been convinced that Hitler could have invaded Britain. For a start it wasn't even the whole RAF involved in the Battle of Britain, it was just RAF Southern Command. The plan had been to retreat if there were too many losses to the North and rebuild, eventually to come back South when the Luftwaffe was busy trying to protect the German transports. Britain out produced Germany in aircraft during 1940 as well, so it could easily make up its losses. Also if British planes were shot down their pilots could simply bail out and go back to base to fly another plane since they were fighting in British airspace. And if the German transports tried to cross the Channel, the Royal Navy would sink every last one of them, with the help of the whole RAF, against a battered Luftwaffe.
0
litigation
Badges: 0
#218
Report 13 years ago
#218
(Original post by Lord Waddell)
To be honest I've never been convinced that Hitler could have invaded Britain. For a start it wasn't even the whole RAF involved in the Battle of Britain, it was just RAF Southern Command. The plan had been to retreat if there were too many losses to the North and rebuild, eventually to come back South when the Luftwaffe was busy trying to protect the German transports. Britain out produced Germany in aircraft during 1940 as well, so it could easily make up its losses. Also if British planes were shot down their pilots could simply bail out and go back to base to fly another plane since they were fighting in British airspace. And if the German transports tried to cross the Channel, the Royal Navy would sink every last one of them, with the help of the whole RAF, against a battered Luftwaffe.

Did you know that Britain's Prime Minister had written a letter of surrender.
0
Lord Waddell
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#219
Report 13 years ago
#219
(Original post by litigation)
Did you know that Britain's Prime Minister had written a letter of surrender.
I don't think Churchill would have. Halifax, perhaps. But thats not the point. The point is whether Germany could have successfully invaded Britain and in my view he couldn't. Of course, had we lost the Battle of Britain, or the evacuation at Dunkirk been a failure, then the British government would probably have come to terms (once they had thrown out Churchill). And those terms would have been much less harsh than that for France, since Hitler liked the British and wished to rule Europe while we ruled the waves. Perhaps we would have had to give Malta to the Italians, and give Germany back some of her old African colonies. No harsher than that, because had Hitler demanded the surrender of the Fleet and the Empire then we would have fought on.
0
big noiler
Badges: 0
#220
Report 13 years ago
#220
yes, i suppose his views were more than a tad off.. but atleast he didn't like communism!
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (539)
80.21%
Leave (133)
19.79%

Watched Threads

View All