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.

[Kathe76]

Hitler was injected on average three times a day with heavy doses of amphetamines by his personal doctor. This went on many years, so I doubt that he was making coherent decisions. There are many theorys on who was running the show behind the scenes. Many people who were around him near the time of his death of stated that he did not commit suicide, that he was killed. I was not there, I have no clue, but I do know that like now with Obama, there are people behind the scenes that are pulling the strings and Obama is simply the public persona of them. Hitler was a pawn. MIsguided would be my best thought.

[Cool Chick]

I can't speak to what Hitler and Obama (laughs hysterically) or even Bush believed to be true about themselves and their actions. I can make an educated guess that THEY don't believe they were pawns. Can you imagine going to bed at night "perceiving" the weight of the world on your shoulders?

I find it deliciously interesting that people throw around the term "pawn" as if it were something foreign. Many of us are pawns in one way or another; either by someone else in a position of power or our own perceptions. We can believe we are in control. Most of us are not. Manipulation comes in many forms.

There is a relatively high amount of self actualization floating in these forums however ... so Maslow would be proud. I am still on the food and shelter bit of the hierarchy of needs so what do I know anyway??

[Kathe76]

Pawn is just a word. It was just a lable used to make a point.

[Excellent Lodestar]

Originally Posted by Kathe76

I do know that like now with Obama, there are people behind the scenes that are pulling the strings and Obama is simply the public persona of them.

Spot on.

...and before him Bush, Clinton,Bush Sr,Ronnie...You gotta go back to Kennedy to find a Pres who wasn't a pawn...the true power would have none of that and solved that Kennedy "problem".

[Kathe76]

Originally Posted by Excellent Lodestar

Spot on.

...and before him Bush, Clinton,Bush Sr,Ronnie...You gotta go back to Kennedy to find a Pres who wasn't a pawn...the true power would have none of that and solved that Kennedy "problem".

My thoughts exactly. Hitler was an interesting person though to say the least. But I guess anyone on meth could be interesting.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Gene

If the above is correct would a dark worker see all light workers as misguided?

To say polarizing the opposite way from yours is misguided, because both roads lead to the same destination: self-actualization.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by ar81

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.

If you think dropping one nuke is insane, ponder the insanity that made them realize they had to drop a second one. All sides were insane.

[Excellent Lodestar]

LOL yeah, Hitler had military delusions to be sure.His own commanders probably knew they were doomed.

Whenever I think of Meth, I always think of Jim(Jimmy Tango) Carrey selling "Fatbusters"
Jimmy Tango's Fat Busters • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Gene

... or Pol Pot and Cambodia.

excellent post, think its because usa had direct conflict with this guy

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Kathe76

Pawn is just a word. It was just a lable used to make a point.

Obama is clearly a black bishop on white squares.

[JSB]

The idea that Hitler was merely a puppet of his advisors is not supported by any serious historical study of the inner workings and individual personalities within the Third Reich. Hitler was absolutely dominant in his leadership of the Nazi Party and of Germany.

Mentally ill? Influenced by demonic forces? Naturally evil? Corrupted by power? Simply misguided? I don't know why he did what he did, but he was the one leading and everyone else was following him (eagerly or unwillingly).

[Gene]

Originally Posted by The Unconquered

If you think dropping one nuke is insane, ponder the insanity that made them realize they had to drop a second one. All sides were insane.

In war insanity is abundant and every participant of the conflict is immersed in varying degrees of insanity. For some participants of war the insanity never ends. Killing people is a bad idea, a very bad idea. YMMV

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Kathe76

Hitler was injected on average three times a day with heavy doses of amphetamines by his personal doctor. This went on many years, so I doubt that he was making coherent decisions. There are many theorys on who was running the show behind the scenes. Many people who were around him near the time of his death of stated that he did not commit suicide, that he was killed. I was not there, I have no clue, but I do know that like now with Obama, there are people behind the scenes that are pulling the strings and Obama is simply the public persona of them. Hitler was a pawn. MIsguided would be my best thought.

..and yet Hitler would be on my list of current and past figures to spend a week end with in an attempt to understand the human being rather than the historical narrative. I would of course exclude the SS body guards from our mythical meeting.

[The Unconquered]

Originally Posted by Gene

In war insanity is abundant and every participant of the conflict is immersed in varying degrees of insanity. For some participants of war the insanity never ends. Killing people is a bad idea, a very bad idea. YMMV

I've never seen combat myself, so although I hate the idea of killing people, if someone was after me, and I could defend myself, I would do whatever is necessary. Maybe I'm insane, LOL.