How do you think the world would be like if Adolf Hitler succeded?
- Thread starter syphonmax
- Start date
Incognitus
Member
holloway":g22v7dxr said:
World without Hitler questionable better. Hitler very bad man, but world after Hitler possibly becomes a better place.
There. Go back to pot. :tongue:
@Incognitus:
You seem to be trying to create a line of logic that goes something like: there were many people before Hitler in history and succeeding him in history that have committed genocide and perpetrated racism, nationalism, and imperialism, ergo Hitler is a decent guy. You are missing the point; you shouldn't be asking, "Why do we look down on Hitler so much," you should be asking, "Why aren't we going after these other assholes with the same zeal we went after the Nazis?"
The simple answer is the scope of the threat. Hitler made the mistake of being a racist imperialistic dictator in the dead center of a lot of countries who didn't want to go along with his agenda and had the means to fight back; Hitler and Hirohito combined posed a threat which would inevitably pour over into the rest of the world.
Beyond that the world of the late 1930s and early 1940s was much different than the world of the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s when racism and imperialism were considered proper ideas. The Axis in WWII more than anything represented the implementation of one set of ideals, and served as a catalyst for debate and action, and example of the kinds of things to expect when those ideals are implemented.
Your statement that if Hitler had made his agenda against another racial group than the Jews people wouldn't have cared as much is, to me, naive. You seem completely oblivious to the various civil rights movements that were taking root in other places across the world; it didn't take Hitler attacking Jews to make many Americans decide that persecution and segregation of blacks in America was wrong - we had long since abolished slavery and there was a lot of conflict going on between groups like the KKK and human rights activists at least as far back as the 20s.
To say that the world would have gone along with or at least tolerated Hitler if he'd gone after a race that more of the developed world didn't like is ignorant in more than one way anyway. You seem to assume that racism against Jewish people was the invention of Hitler; racial conflict between Jews and white Europeans was rampant at the time, especially in rural areas - not so much different from the plight of blacks in the U.S. at the same time. There weren't enough black people in Europe at the time to make a good target for hatred and ignorance, really; Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were what most continental Europeans were busy worrying about at the time. Hitler couldn't have picked a different racial group to attack if he had wanted to.
You seem to be trying to create a line of logic that goes something like: there were many people before Hitler in history and succeeding him in history that have committed genocide and perpetrated racism, nationalism, and imperialism, ergo Hitler is a decent guy. You are missing the point; you shouldn't be asking, "Why do we look down on Hitler so much," you should be asking, "Why aren't we going after these other assholes with the same zeal we went after the Nazis?"
The simple answer is the scope of the threat. Hitler made the mistake of being a racist imperialistic dictator in the dead center of a lot of countries who didn't want to go along with his agenda and had the means to fight back; Hitler and Hirohito combined posed a threat which would inevitably pour over into the rest of the world.
Beyond that the world of the late 1930s and early 1940s was much different than the world of the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s when racism and imperialism were considered proper ideas. The Axis in WWII more than anything represented the implementation of one set of ideals, and served as a catalyst for debate and action, and example of the kinds of things to expect when those ideals are implemented.
Your statement that if Hitler had made his agenda against another racial group than the Jews people wouldn't have cared as much is, to me, naive. You seem completely oblivious to the various civil rights movements that were taking root in other places across the world; it didn't take Hitler attacking Jews to make many Americans decide that persecution and segregation of blacks in America was wrong - we had long since abolished slavery and there was a lot of conflict going on between groups like the KKK and human rights activists at least as far back as the 20s.
To say that the world would have gone along with or at least tolerated Hitler if he'd gone after a race that more of the developed world didn't like is ignorant in more than one way anyway. You seem to assume that racism against Jewish people was the invention of Hitler; racial conflict between Jews and white Europeans was rampant at the time, especially in rural areas - not so much different from the plight of blacks in the U.S. at the same time. There weren't enough black people in Europe at the time to make a good target for hatred and ignorance, really; Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were what most continental Europeans were busy worrying about at the time. Hitler couldn't have picked a different racial group to attack if he had wanted to.
Incognitus
Member
I’ve written and re-written this so many times across such a long period now, I’m not longer sure if it reads coherently or says what I’m trying to articulate. @_@;;
No. That's twisted what I've said. I’m not creating that line of logic at all. And yet you’re coming out with exactly the same conclusions.
No it isn't. Invariably, by trying to find the simple answer, the crux of the issue is lost. The "simple" answer is that Hitler made the mistake of being a racist imperialistic dictator in the middle of Europe and, more importantly, against Europe. The Nazis had six years before hand in...well... it goes without saying. Nothing was done. In fact, most of the world looked on approvingly. The Final Solution only began to unfold late into the War. As we are working in a hypothetical "non-Hitler world", I think it's also pertinent to ask if the Final Solution would have taken place if, say, Britain had decided to make peace with Germany.
Yes. There's been human rights groups - or at least what we might call "human rights groups" with retrospect all across history. I don't think comparison with black Americans is apt or fitting. People have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of campaigning for equal rights for people in their midst whilst denying them to those abroad, either physically or by their actions. There are plenty of people who have decided that racism against once group is more important that racism against another group. Citing Black people or Jews is a bad example mainly because those are probably the two "definitive" groups against which racism is recognised and addressed.
I think that’s a hugely ignorant statement in itself, and it isn’t even my original point. The world ignored what was going on in Nazi Germany, and a large part applauded it. Do you think that would have changed if Hitler hadn’t pursued an aggressive foreign policy? Absolutely not. If Hitler hadn’t invade Poland, but was killing German Jews… we wouldn’t have done anything. If Nazi puppets had come to power in Poland or France, rather than their occupation and had began carrying out the various jobs that happened in what I shall tentatively call the “standard history“, would we have intervened? No. Would the resulting effect be different? No. Would we view Hitler differently? God yes. And that’s in an hypothetical European scenario, which wasn’t what I wasn’t suggesting at all.
Sorry, but I just don't know or understand where you plucked this from, and I can’t see it’s relevance.
In this section, you seem to have missed the entire point - I was talking about a hypothetical example which was taking place out of Europe, whilst you are keeping firmly therein. If Hitler had taken *everything* he did in Europe and applied it to Africa - ignore the obvious conflicts that would have arose due to existing imperial entanglements - then our perceptions of the man would be far different.
It’s the aggressive war against “usâ€
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
No. That's twisted what I've said. I’m not creating that line of logic at all. And yet you’re coming out with exactly the same conclusions.
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
No it isn't. Invariably, by trying to find the simple answer, the crux of the issue is lost. The "simple" answer is that Hitler made the mistake of being a racist imperialistic dictator in the middle of Europe and, more importantly, against Europe. The Nazis had six years before hand in...well... it goes without saying. Nothing was done. In fact, most of the world looked on approvingly. The Final Solution only began to unfold late into the War. As we are working in a hypothetical "non-Hitler world", I think it's also pertinent to ask if the Final Solution would have taken place if, say, Britain had decided to make peace with Germany.
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
Yes. There's been human rights groups - or at least what we might call "human rights groups" with retrospect all across history. I don't think comparison with black Americans is apt or fitting. People have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of campaigning for equal rights for people in their midst whilst denying them to those abroad, either physically or by their actions. There are plenty of people who have decided that racism against once group is more important that racism against another group. Citing Black people or Jews is a bad example mainly because those are probably the two "definitive" groups against which racism is recognised and addressed.
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
I think that’s a hugely ignorant statement in itself, and it isn’t even my original point. The world ignored what was going on in Nazi Germany, and a large part applauded it. Do you think that would have changed if Hitler hadn’t pursued an aggressive foreign policy? Absolutely not. If Hitler hadn’t invade Poland, but was killing German Jews… we wouldn’t have done anything. If Nazi puppets had come to power in Poland or France, rather than their occupation and had began carrying out the various jobs that happened in what I shall tentatively call the “standard history“, would we have intervened? No. Would the resulting effect be different? No. Would we view Hitler differently? God yes. And that’s in an hypothetical European scenario, which wasn’t what I wasn’t suggesting at all.
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
Sorry, but I just don't know or understand where you plucked this from, and I can’t see it’s relevance.
Nphyx":3pxsn8kf said:
In this section, you seem to have missed the entire point - I was talking about a hypothetical example which was taking place out of Europe, whilst you are keeping firmly therein. If Hitler had taken *everything* he did in Europe and applied it to Africa - ignore the obvious conflicts that would have arose due to existing imperial entanglements - then our perceptions of the man would be far different.
It’s the aggressive war against “usâ€
Maybe I read you wrong in your original post, I got the impression that you were indicating that we would have reacted differently if Hitler had chosen racism against a more popular race.
Now the rest of what you say, I totally agree with, in terms of real motivations for going to war or fighting a dictator. The horrendous things a given enemy may do are usually used to get popular support; nobody gives a damn what atrocities dictator X is committing until a real motivation to fight him comes along, then the media goes crazy talking about the horrible things he has done as if it hadn't been common knowledge amongst people who were interested for decades.
So if that's the angle you were taking I have no real argument, I mistook your premise. I get really tired of Nazi apologists who try to put their regime in any kind of positive light, is all. It's really ridiculous to look at a failure as large as fascism and cherry pick positive points to make it look good.
You seemed to have been assuming that Hitler invented anti-semitism. The fact is it was rampant in many parts of Europe long before he came along in the same way that racism against other groups in other parts of the world were. That's not something I "plucked," it's historical fact, I don't think it's necessary to cite but I guess I can dig some things up for you if you like.
Now the rest of what you say, I totally agree with, in terms of real motivations for going to war or fighting a dictator. The horrendous things a given enemy may do are usually used to get popular support; nobody gives a damn what atrocities dictator X is committing until a real motivation to fight him comes along, then the media goes crazy talking about the horrible things he has done as if it hadn't been common knowledge amongst people who were interested for decades.
So if that's the angle you were taking I have no real argument, I mistook your premise. I get really tired of Nazi apologists who try to put their regime in any kind of positive light, is all. It's really ridiculous to look at a failure as large as fascism and cherry pick positive points to make it look good.
Incognitus
Member
Nphyx":2ymmpmbp said:
Well that depends how you define "popular" in this context. :P Do they have money? Do they have any strategic value?
Nphyx":2ymmpmbp said:
That's not what I meant. sorry, I see in retrospect I was incredibly unclear: I meant where you picked that up from my post.
Nphyx":2ymmpmbp said:
Or us. That's one of the key issues of my first thread. And it doesn't even have to be a dictator. The United States has carried out actions or enabled third parties to commit actions that are similar to Nazi Germany's in all but scope. The British Empire carried out actions that could rival Nazi Germany's in all but ferocity. (In fact, by today's standards, I once read that Britain has successfully commited at least six genocides across three hundred years - and this doesn't include the... controversial things such as the Irish or the Indians.)
Nphyx":2ymmpmbp said:
In their own definitions, the kind of fascism that Hitler and Mussolini once advocated is still going strong today, amongst ourselves and across our allies: you don't have to goose-step to be a fascist.
I tend to see the whole world in an kind of "Angels and Devils" way, or as a composition of the two. I think Nazi Germany did have a few Angels, but there were far more Devils there. Do I win the understatement award?
Yeah I think we're actually on the same page, I just misinterpreted you. It's really unpopular to compare any modern regime (or any popular historical one) with one as demonized as Nazi Germany.
The word "fascism" is profanity and any time you compare any other action with it it's dismissed offhand like a racial slur would be, which is ridiculous. In many situations it's most easy to understand and define things in comparison to their most extreme examples; maybe the sky isn't quite perfect pure blue but it's much easier to compare it to blue than to call it "not red, green, yellow orange or purple". When you compare the policies of many modern governments with the fascist ideal they certainly have a lot in common, but call what they're doing 'fascist' and you must be some kind of bleeding heart hippie liberal communist :/ The whole concept of political correctness is a sort of Orwellian agenda to limit the ways people can think about concepts by eliminating the terms they can use to describe them until there is no way left to criticize them.
The word "fascism" is profanity and any time you compare any other action with it it's dismissed offhand like a racial slur would be, which is ridiculous. In many situations it's most easy to understand and define things in comparison to their most extreme examples; maybe the sky isn't quite perfect pure blue but it's much easier to compare it to blue than to call it "not red, green, yellow orange or purple". When you compare the policies of many modern governments with the fascist ideal they certainly have a lot in common, but call what they're doing 'fascist' and you must be some kind of bleeding heart hippie liberal communist :/ The whole concept of political correctness is a sort of Orwellian agenda to limit the ways people can think about concepts by eliminating the terms they can use to describe them until there is no way left to criticize them.
I'm guessing he would have enslaved everyone that wasn't christian and white. He would have cut the populations of Jews or wiped them out and would have turned all the 'inferior' races to slaves (black, asian, chinese, anything that wasn't white christian.)
It's a good job that guy from Medal of Honour and Indiana Jones stepped in.
It's a good job that guy from Medal of Honour and Indiana Jones stepped in.
Incognitus
Member
The Great Terror":qskh0axg said:
Actually the question and the definition is pretty much up in the air still. It really depends how you define it. and obviously there's a lot of disinformation, distortions and parties with a vested interest in proving either way.
He really didn't like Christianity as we'd define it - from the broad spectrum that would encompass Mother Teresa and Hagee, but he apparently had a lot of admiration for Jesus who he seemed to think was an aryan whose legacy had been bastardised by Saul/Paul.
Dissonance
Member
[quote="Ñ
Incognitus
Member
[quote="Ñ
Yes, because if a group of people belonging to a certain denomination kill someone you like, every single person belonging to that group is responsible for it from that point on.
Personally, I don't really believe that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. In the days of Jesus, Jews were an oppressed minority, given few rights by the Roman government. Furthermore, it was never practice to release a prisoner to the Jewish community. I assume that after Christianity began to grow in popularity, the Roman government decided that it would be better for them if they had been on Jesus' side all along, so they painted the Jews as scapegoats.
Then again, don't quote me on this. I might very well be wrong, but... it doesn't all add up to me.
[/horrendously off topic]
The point is, even if the Jews did kill Jesus, why hold every Jewish person responsible for what a small community of Jews might have done two thousand years ago? Muslim extremists brought down the World Trade Center, but would you try and hold Farah and I responsible for that?
Personally, I don't really believe that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death. In the days of Jesus, Jews were an oppressed minority, given few rights by the Roman government. Furthermore, it was never practice to release a prisoner to the Jewish community. I assume that after Christianity began to grow in popularity, the Roman government decided that it would be better for them if they had been on Jesus' side all along, so they painted the Jews as scapegoats.
Then again, don't quote me on this. I might very well be wrong, but... it doesn't all add up to me.
[/horrendously off topic]
The point is, even if the Jews did kill Jesus, why hold every Jewish person responsible for what a small community of Jews might have done two thousand years ago? Muslim extremists brought down the World Trade Center, but would you try and hold Farah and I responsible for that?
sixtyandaquarter
Member
[quote="Ñ