The effect of the holocaust is still apparent on many Jews even today. I doubt that most of those who make jokes about Hitler's persecutions are actually in support of what happened, but merely lack understanding of the effects of the holocaust or don't posses any empathy towards those who lost antecedents or family members in concentration camps.
I do not accept the view on ethics the person who started this thread put forward. The cycnical style of relativism is not a valid approach to the study of ethics. Yes everything is subjective and opinions change over time, but one can judge Hitler and his actions by certain moral systems (a utilitarian approach, a Kantian approach etc etc). These systems would have worked the same many years ago as they would have today, thus an action deemed morally wrong by their standars now is still wrong. One can of course question the validity of the systems themselves, but where does the approach 'its just your/my opinion get us'. One must be critical and endeavour to to understand the systems by which a twentifirst century westerner considers things to be right or wrong. Our moral principles derive from a strong belief in 'rights' as an ethical conception amongst other things.
If we accept moral relativism in its purest form it does not matter how one acts at all. Certain ideas of how we should behave are preserved from ancient times, endeavour to discover these. Some things are simply on balance 'more right' than others, do not devalue the human power of reasoning. Of course things change over time but through logical analysis we can see that certain things stay the same.
But this is not always a question of morality as such either. Hitler may well have known that killing a whole race of people was 'wrong' (say by Christian ethics)but his dsire for power made him export a particular world view and behave in such a disgusting way. There are so many contradictions in Nazism as put forward in Mein Kampf that it puts the whole idea that the NAzi's had any coherent moral base for their action not credebility. Anywya who is to say that 50 years ago the popular consensus was that ethnic clensing was OK in Germany. As for slavery that too may be a question of self-interest and latenet justification.
Clarify these issues when thinking
It seems that everyone nowadays is a totalitarianist scumbag.
in christian religeoun he will undergo pregatory, then go to heaven, after realising his hell. Personally i would prefer it if everyone just died n that was it
"in christian religeoun he will undergo pregatory, then go to heaven, after realising his hell. Personally i would prefer it if everyone just died n that was it"
Whoever wrote this has a basic lack of understanding of the process on reaching heaven. To put it simply you must have faith and it is only that that matters in your salvation. However, the argument that Hitler accepted god on his death bed and is now in heaven is ubsurd. Although actions do not influence your salvation a person with faith in God will not perform such evil such as the murder of 6million people. Good actions are the result of faith in God and therefore those who perform bad actions do not have real faith in God. That is why Hitler could never go to heaven.
I would like to hear ur opinions on this.
no he was not
the holocaust was made up to create sympathy for a jewish state
its true it was to create sympathy for a jewish state, i mean there doing the same things hitler did to the palestinians so i dont see how it makes them any better.
Public opinion did not support Hitler's systematic extermination of the Jews. Besides an elite few, not many knew of the systematic extermination. It is even questionable as to whether Hitler knew. Wouldn't people notice? yes, they noticed the 'evacuation' to the East. It was originally thought that maybe the Jews would be moved beyond the Urals once Russia was defeated. With the failure to defeat the Russians, an alternative was sought. Yet the people back in Germany did not know this. So, no, he did not have support (only for the marginalisation and persecution of the Jews in what was a warped Germany - resentful for the failure of WW1, and of the Weimar Govt. - something many blamed on the Jews as the German leaders of the time were predominantly Jewish. Again this was something Hitler and the Nazi's played on), and therefore was not morally right. And that remains so today.
I think he had the right idea.
But he did it to the wrong people and in an extreme way.
I think limiting people's freedom in this fashion to make society better is all good.
Now, I don't agree with what the Third Reich did and I certainly don't agree with the mass murder of Jews etc. However, from an objective viewpoint perhaps the world would have been much worse off economically today if it wasn't for what Hitler did. You may have heard the term 'filthy rich kike' before, well this term was used to describe the way Jews were before WW2. They had alot of wealth and power before WW2, and if it wasn't for Hitler then perhaps they would be ruling the whole world by now. We would probably be under Jewish rule today and living in poverty because they have all the wealth. So perhaps, from an objective point of view, Hitler wasn't morally wrong.
Makes you think...
I'm Jewish. I strongly dislike your racist propoganda. I can't believe that you believe those anti-semitic lies.
If there is one thing that is always constant, its anti-semitism, anti-black, anti any minority because of fear that "they" might overtake and overrule the majority.
Yes, it does make me think. It makes me think that the thousands of years of suffering that that Jews have suffered is suddenly justified by some
"objective point of view"
I simply cannot believe your ignorance, you shock me. Are you a Neo-Nazi? Have you been influenced by the BNP?
The last thing i am is Anti-Anyone, but the question asked from a more deep perspective than just the obvious. Yes, by our perception, and the significant majority of the worlds perception now, he was most definitely wrong, but morals are unique to the individual, so you can argue that hitler believed he was morally right, and whatever your point of view, by denying him this, you are being as closed-minded as the person you are talking about.
Sorry Jac, I am NO WAY Neo-Nazi, BNP or involed/support any of them facist movements. And don't get me wrong I thought what Hitler did etc was pure evil beyond the imagination. Nobody could fully comprehend the horrors of the holocaust etc, unless they were actually there. I think Hitler and the Third Reich were dispicable and no words can describe the pure evilness of the crimes they commited against humanity.
However, putting subjectivity aside for one moment and looking from an alternative perspective objectively (not that I personally agree), if we deal with sheer statistics and the social structure of the pre-WW2 era, then it has been argued that the world would be very different today if it wasn't for the rise of Nazism. I saw an article about 'The New World Order' (that is where I heard about this) that said that the world is being controlled by Jews.
Now, it also said that if it wasn't for the rise of Nazism then the world would have been ruled by Jews decades ago and the Jewish people would yield even more power over each and every country in the world. And this power would have been forced directly in a totalitarian way by the Jewish people, so ironically (according to this article) we would have had an even more powerful totalitarian regime in this modern day than during the WW2 period. And it would not be possible to overthrow or repel the Jewish rule because it would rise from within societies, not like Nazism which rose in Germany and then they tried to conquer Europe, but from within!
'The New World Order' suggests that today, the Jewish people who are controlling the world, are controlling it in a more economic sense. They are pulling the strings if you like (sort of like in a Marxist way, except the ruling class are Jews) but they are not exercising totalitarian power, which according to 'The New World Order' is still worrying but not as bad as it could have been if it wasn't for the rise of Nazism.
Now, to look at this in an objective way makes for an alternative perspective on the WW2 era, even though I don't agree with it. But whatever it is, it makes you think nonetheless...