Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided ?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by PerDev

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?
What do you think guys ?

I've heard no claims that Hitler was aiming to get personal power, so I don't see how he could have been a darkworker.

Regardless, this is a strange question to ask. It's almost trollish; I can't figure out why you're asking it at all, except to get a completely unhinged discussion going like we have here.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I've heard no claims that Hitler was aiming to get personal power, so I don't see how he could have been a darkworker.

Regardless, this is a strange question to ask. It's almost trollish; I can't figure out why you're asking it at all, except to get a completely unhinged discussion going like we have here.

Personally I don't see the post as trollish. I see Hitler as a historical character who fascinates people as they attempt to understand the man and the positive and negative things in his character and the good and extremely terrible things that happened while he ruled Germany.

Light worker versus Dark worker is just another template that people are using in this debate about the man, his actions and the consequences thereof. I believe no one is one hundred percent bad or one hundred percent good. When I/we sift through what we know and think we know about Hitler's internal and external process I/We are trying to find a label, a category in which he fits. I am not sure it is possible to find a label that approximates the incarnate Hitler. None the less it is the nature of people to attempt to understand that which is difficult or impossible to completely understand.

On a tangent, Why is Hitler the subject of these conversations so much more often than Stalin and Mao who presided over larger mass exterminations than Hitler? That question has always been interesting to me.

[Brutha]

Hitler was a figurehead. In the same way that Cheney controlled George Bush, Hitler was controlled by his direct advisors.

Hitler was quite different in than Bush in that regard.
Hitler didn't tolerated anything other than obedience from the people around him.

He made military decisions that went against the better judgment of the military thinkers in Germany.

I would contrast this with what's happening today in America's financial sector. Consider how outraged the people are that corporate executives are receiving outlandish compensation. If the president decided to cut off their heads, I honestly think there are many people who would throw their support behind it.

The amount of damage that the crimes of some corporate executives created is certainly more than the damage that one murderer who gets the death sentence in Texas does.
There a difference if you punish people for their actions or whether you punish them because of their race or the race of their parents.

If someone attacks you (whether it be personally or nationally), is it evil to defend yourself?
Is it best to not defend yourself and either:
a) become slaves of the aggressors,
or
b) be eradicated?

Politics isn't that simple.

[Daniel Birdick]

Originally Posted by Gene

On a tangent, Why is Hitler the subject of these conversations so much more often than Stalin and Mao who presided over larger mass exterminations than Hitler? That question has always been interesting to me.

Excellent question. If we're going to use this darkworker/lightworker motif, one could make a reasonable argument from the little I know that Stalin was more of a bonafide darkworker than Hitler.

Maybe the fascination with Hitler as opposed to Stalin has something to do with his unapologetic anti-Semitism. Or maybe people sense that Hitler wasn't after power alone. Hunger for power is perhaps more understandable than that the “great beast” was as complicated a human being as anyone else. Maybe that’s the fascinating part. Then again, can’t this fascination also be found in the modern day “worship” of serial killers?

I don't really know.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Gene

On a tangent, Why is Hitler the subject of these conversations so much more often than Stalin and Mao who presided over larger mass exterminations than Hitler? That question has always been interesting to me.

I imagine it would correlate to the number of refugees that made it out. That's a guess, though: as far as I know, both Stalin and Mao locked their borders down before they began their campaigns, whereas Hitler solicited aid (and received it) from all of Europe before people started to resist.

Most of us know the name of Anne Frank, for instance, but how many people can name a victim anywhere else? We've interwoven Hitler into our cultural memory far more deeply than we've bothered with vaguely moderner atrocities. How many people even pay attention to the name Darfur anymore?

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Most of us know the name of Anne Frank, for instance, but how many people can name a victim anywhere else? We've interwoven Hitler into our cultural memory far more deeply than we've bothered with vaguely moderner atrocities. How many people even pay attention to the name Darfur anymore?

... or Pol Pot and Cambodia.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Politics isn't that simple.

Sadly, it often is, when it is honed down to basics - greed, selfishness and arrogance.

I was trying to explain that all wars are not necessarily a 'confrontation of evil against evil'. There are justifiable cases in defending oneself and fighting back.

What about the American War of Independence, for example? Weren't the Americans justified in throwing off the British yoke?

[Parthon]

Hitler was.

And I think that is enough.

Perhaps if we concentrated more on our globally combined future than the past, we could see that the light is a much better place to go than staying in the darkness.

Hitler persists because we let him. How could we all learn from what has happened and move on?

Myself for one claim total responsibility for my actions. That way I won't find myself in the position of the soldiers that 'were just carrying out orders'.

[Donkey1]

People have been engaging in wars since the dawn of man. What makes hitler so evil and not other conquerers? Some of you need to stop living in a bubble. War = death to others to achieve an objective.

[Donkey1]

Myself for one claim total responsibility for my actions. That way I won't find myself in the position of the soldiers that 'were just carrying out orders'.

Lol. The odds of that being true are the same as you standing up for a student who gets picked on by the whole classroom, including the teacher. Now give everyone guns and know they have been killing people who go against their beliefs. Is it still that easy now?

[Jthorn]

A crazy man would be out of touch with reality. He would have launched chemical weapons on UK, but he knew that UK would reply with chemicals too.

Chemicals? Really? I 'd really like to know what kind of weapons you 're talking about.
He did order the launch of v1 and v2 missiles into the UK as well as the bombing of civilian areas in order to break the british morale.

Nonetheless, I also believe that seeing Hitler as evil (or a darkworker, or whatever fancy word you come up with to describe your ideal comic book villain) is childish and unrealistic.

Like someone in a book would often say, history is written by the victors. Do you think we 'd be holding this discussion now if we were under Nazi rule? Or are you naive enough to believe that the empires of the past were any different? These are our ancestors.

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by Donkey1

Lol. The odds of that being true are the same as you standing up for a student who gets picked on by the whole classroom, including the teacher. Now give everyone guns and know they have been killing people who go against their beliefs. Is it still that easy now?

Yes it is.

If I don't stand up for what I believe in, freedom, fairness and decency, then I may as well not believe in them.

As the quote goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Parthon

As the quote goes: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I wonder what that means for situations when good men don't even know what's happening

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

I wonder what that means for situations when good men don't even know what's happening

I've long held that goodness goes hand in hand with knowledge. I don't believe in the purity of the innocent; a good man knows what's wrong and does something about it. Someone who is ignorant isn't a good person. He is a statistic.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by PerDev

Was Hitler Darkworker or Misguided or Hipnotized ?
What do you think guys ?

How about Curtis LeMay?
American historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt pointed out that if LeMay wasn't in the winning side he should have been charged with war crimes.

How about the only ones who have dropped a nuke on civilians in the whole history of humanity?

When people point the finger upon Hitler, they forget to point the finger at other Hitlers in every side during 20th century.

[saif]

I think the idea stemed from this author The Passing of the Great Race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was watching a documentary on this and they said that Hitler sent this guy a fan letter and the author paraided it to all colleagues (though that's what the documentary said and not what i know). If this is true then this means that it was a US born idea and he was mearley a puppet.