Adolf Hitler - The Greatest Statesman who ever lived

As a Jew I find that insulting, the fact that you think I wouldn't consider my own people as people is a ridiculous statement even by my standards. Disgraceful accusations

I apologize, but you're as full of crap as a Christmas Goose. Like I said, maybe from the KKK. You shouldn't be reading such publications and I would advise against supporting them unless you've a mind to join their ranks. But over here they've been almost laughed out of existence.

I apologize, but you're as full of crap as a Christmas Goose. Like I said, maybe from the KKK. You shouldn't be reading such publications and I would advise against supporting them unless you've a mind to join their ranks. But over here they've been almost laughed out of existence.

On what planet was I supporting any such publication? All I said is that there is still some Christian hate for Jews. Maybe you need to stop be so defensive and insulting people for posts they haven't even made.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Now this here is one of the most dangerous ideas in existence. It is this frame of mind that allows dictatorships to happen in the first place.

In order to believe that people are too stupid to know what's best for them, you have to believe that you are a superior human being. Do you see where I'm going? This is the basis of practically every single dictatorship, the idea that a group or race are superior and therefore have the right to decide what other people want.

People have to know what is best for them. Nobody can be allowed to precide over your free will.

Do you have no value for human life? If people don't know what's best for them, then what are you saying about humanity? That people are basically sheep who live to serve some rare omniscient god-human?

Fascism is indeed difficult to define, but I haven't yet stumbled upon a definition of fascism that doesn't either perfectly or at least very well fits German national socialism.

If you go back to the very roots, here is an excerpt of Mussolini's own definition of fascism:

Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932

It's a bit long to summarise it here, so just read it for yourself and you will see, that all of it perfectly fits Nazi Germany. Opposition to Marxism and democracy, supremacy of the state, expansion etc.

Here is the definition of Robert Paxton from Columbia University (NY):

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Spot on!

Humiliation/victimhood: for Weimar Germany the shame of Versailles and disarmament

Cult of unity, energy and purity: no-brainer. Arier etc.

Mass-based party: NSDAP, compulsory membership of the Jungvolk, Hitlerjugend and BDM

Uneasy but effective collaboration with existing elites: the military and the catholic church were by no means unequivocal supporters of national socialism (see 'Bär von Münster' and the 20th July plot), but they worked together - somehow.

Internal cleansing: don't need to elaborate on that, do I?

External expansion: Lebensraum im Osten.

Sorry, but Hitler was very, very close to a textbook fascist. He expanded on the ideology, but he met all core requirements.

Presumably if you had studied your GCSE history you would know that Britain, France and the United States declared war on Germany.

Mark Weber? Maybe ask the question again when you have someone with a little more authority on the subject, rather than some conspiracy nutjob.



Only a minor point, but it irks me somewhat. If you had studied GCSE history, you would know that the United States did not declare war on Nazi Germany. The Axis powers declared war on the United States, not the other way around.

This is a perfect example of a phenomenon I've noticed amongst young people studying history. I've noticed that a lot of people in my classes proudly say things like "Hitler was a brilliant leader", because they think they have some kind of a 'superior knowledge' over the common preconceptions that he was objectively the most evil thing that has ever lived. This really irritates me because, whilst one could argue that he did things which benefited some people, the fact remains that he was a complete maniac who directly or indirectly resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people across the world. The attraction of claiming things like "Hitler was a good leader" is similar to the attraction of believing conspiracy theories. People like the idea that they know some kind of a secret truth that the public doesn't know. Unfortunately, whilst the issue isn't black and white, there really isn't a secret truth in this case.

There is absolutely no way you can justify the statement that Hitler was "The greatest statesman who ever lived" nor any other kind of statement implying that Hitler was a good leader. Good leaders lead in the interest of humanity, and Hitler did the polar opposite of that.

Being a brilliant leader does not mean you cannot at the same time be the evilest thing ever lived.

A brilliant leader =/= brilliant person.

I don't agree with that. Ultimately, the role of a leader is to help the people towards a collective sense of greater satisfaction and development. An evil, tyrannical leader is not going to achieve that.

He did help his people towards a collective sense of greater satisfaction and development. It's just that he failed in the end.

No he didn't, barely anyone liked the Nazis. They never had a majority in an election and a significant proportion of the votes they got were because of negative cohesion, not support. He didn't fail in the end, he never succeeded. The only thing the Nazis were good at were playing on people's fears and manipulating things.

I didn't say he won a majority or anything. I'm referring to how he did unite the nation, and lead them into thinking that they are the greatest country/race in the world. Obviously not all Germans would agree, but it wouldn't be far-fetch to say that at one point they were the strongest military power in the world.

... but it wouldn't be far-fetch to say that at one point they were the strongest military power in the world.

Firstly, they were not the strongest military power in the world. Europe, probably. But not the world.

Adolf Hitler was one of the major butchers and abusers of human rights of the 20th century. He was very good at what he did, but what he did was evil beyond words. His ideas of course are what deserve the most repudiation, because his ideas have the power to live on, if humanity lets them.

More useful than thinking about how bad Hitler was though, is dealing with the current evil in the world. Fascism had its heydey in the 1930s, Communism in the latter half of the 20th century. Today the world needs to confront Islamism, which continues to oppress and murder people to a similar extent to the previous two.

I did say "Islamism". By that I mean the political application of Islam to society, which is oppressive in its repudiation of human freedom; hilariously and hypocritically censorious with its arrogant claim that everybody should be subjected - whether they like it or not - to the rule of God, which is a synonym of man, God being an invention of man. No, we should be subject to the rule of law, and democracy, within the framework of a free society where people can believe whatever they want and practice whatever culture they wish, as long as it does not affect others adversely.

As for Islam itself, well you can believe in it if you want obviously, but there is nothing factual about it; it is plain wrong on a number of key issues, as you would expect from what is essentially a collection of ancient books. The Western enlightenment far exceeds Islam as a genuinely good way of achieving knowledge and, well, enlightenment.

Germany was 'at one point' the strongest military power in the world, that was during early WWI.

For WWII, it depends. In the early stages of the war, Germany was the foremost military power on the planet. It could've taken on any country one-on-one and won. It took all of the world's major powers (minus Japan) to take on Japan and Germany. Germany fought the UK, France and Russia plus a couple of other smaller states pretty much alone (let's be honest, the Italians were pretty useless) and it took all of them and vast US military assistance to push them back.