what good did he do?

what ever it is it can't possible cancel out 6million dead jews...

Nobody's perfect.

I am nobody :)

close, but no...

LkI3
Posts: 220
Popularity: Cool Dude (16%)

What about reanimating 6,000,001 jews?

You can't do that.. but

What about circumcising 6 million boys?

Would work if Hitler had killed only jews, and if it was funny.

All the funny south park episodes?

well, if he didnt do any good, whe he was chosen as man of the year in 1938 or somewhere around there?


he made german working after WWI and economy and all the shit german suffered in WWI, he fixed it.

also cleaned streets out of drug addicts and alcoholists and all other low-life criminals, united ppl in german (except jews ofc)


its also hard to read all the facts of hitler because if u write those publicly or somewhere where masses can read it, ure instantly marked as nazi etc...

Nazi.

Well those things he did are all good and well but it doesnt matter much if the way he united the german people led to WWII,

I doubt much was left of his positive reforms after the carnage, effectively cancelling all good things and leaving a whole mess of genocide, economic standstill (in germany and the rest of europe), and basically the destruction of important cities, manpower, culture, etc etc the list goes on.

So if you would measure the good and the bad on a scale, it wouldnt really matter.

true, he fucked up many things on a big scale. and became too ambitious once he got the taste of power.

but it still doesnt quite answer for the reason for the ignorance and blind hate for him.


+ german actually did not start WW2 (but played a big part in it as everyone knows :) ) and first invasion in WW2 was made by italy (german supported it tho) , then became japan and then soviet union, and THEN german if i remember correctly.

Those nations all did their part true, but Germany invaded several countries and I think it was the invasion of Poland that was the last straw for the rest of the world (did not check google for this so I might be mistaking country names).


People are probably ignorant to the good things he might have done before WW2, but then again, the things he started doing a few years before WW2, and during it are so extreme that I doubt it even leaves a reason for people to do the research.

Anyone with such a resume would never be able to show enough good deeds for redemption imo.

yeah, nobody really gave a shit what germany were doing until they occupied poland :P

No, everyone was paying pretty close attention. "Allies" simply waited out for Germany to make as much damage on the East as possible.

lol wut?

wut

You seem to have funny history books in Finland. You are pretty much the first person I hear saying that Italy started WW II.
Eithers it's Japan or Germany.
That Albanian thing was "just" a small incident which none reacted to. Just like remilitarizing the west rhine, or annexing Tschecheslovakia and Austria.

In Europe WW II started when France and England reacted to the invasion of poland.

they gave little reaction for germanys invasion in poland, last nail in the coffin was after soviet union invaded poland too. after soviet union pledged alliance with UK and its allies and was denied, UK and its allies thought germany was in alliance with soviet union.

and as far is i remember uk declared war on germany after they invaded, but did very little before soviet invaded also.

whatever you do in your life, don't get a job that involves historical knowledge.

why not ?

what he meant was : "please don't ever have kids".

Finnish Quakers are more affective at birth control than a vasectomy. Ask Endi.

In Europe WW II started when France and England reacted to the invasion of poland.
although your post don't seem to be full of shit like danskies' but that phrase is just plain wrong.
first of all: france and england reacted? how? saying "not my trouble" i guess
secondly: what the fuck is invasion of poland if not the start of ww2?
and last but not least: Poland (based on other countries names in your post)
/polish rage

Well, they didn't just say not my trouble.

They said, "WE'RE AT WAR" then proceeded to do fuck all untill Germany attacked them :)

The argument is pretty pointless anyway, the very start of a world war is always going to be hard to pin point as it requires that all the major powers of the time (more or less) take part in a war.

I'm sure that to some people the invasion of Czechoslovakia was the start, or the militarisation of the Rhine.

or italys invasion of ethiopia in -35

:)

It's WAR!

Haha, thats hillarious!

invasion of poland started ww2. as i said before.

they declared war on Germany, and in my book that's often how wars start.

well, you could say that when Japan attacked China or America that it really became a worldwide war.

Sorry about typo :)

well it could also be said that its not a world war yet if 2 countries declare a war against 1 country.

true, but at that time those three countries had influence over big part of the world so it was involved.
Plus that conflict later evolved into the worldwide war. It had to start somewhere after all.

I mean it's pretty much a conscensus that WW I started in Belgrad, even though it wasn't worldwide at that point and was also called "the great war" at first.

yep.

rofl, dont they teach you history in finish schools? what you write is 100% based on neo nazi lies

"true, he fucked up many things on a big scale. and became too ambitious once he got the taste of power."

Wow, you were in his head?

ure amazingly funny.

You're amazingly self-deluded.

Attached Demo: 65767-Vo0-vs-czm-cpm22-2008_07_27.zip (2997KB)

im not

hal9000 rullez, more better than this game

glad to see some CPM demos too. Vq3 is kinda boring :)

Amazing skills

Nice bump, douche nozzle.

27 July 2008

Actually, every German under 40 covered that in school.

The good things Hitler did are mostly myths. For example the economic decisons were completely desastrous in the long run.
Germans were hardly united under him.
He did not build the first Autobahn and the ones he did build were mostly for war efforts.
etc.

but if u think about the situation back then; japan, france, italy, soviet union and UK were rearming their forces too, everyone were afraid new war will come. he only did what he saw was good for german, since if he wouldnt have done nothing some country would have just ran them over.

lol wut?

They were all planning war? So if they were reaming their forces why did they follow through with their appeasement strategy?

and I agree he did what he thought was good.
To bad it ended in the biggest catastrophe in history for Germany. With millions dead, whole cities in ruins, the industry severely damaged, most of the intelectual elite gone.

For example here in my twon we used to have a beautiful old town, but of that maybe fifty houses survived most had to be rebuild. Many relatives died, my great aunt had here house bombed when she was out shopping, as Hitler is responsible for that.
Any more questions as to why people aren't exactly fond of him?

aye, but it wasnt the germany that launched WW2.

and should we finnish ppl be pissed about stalin everytime we hear its name / see his picture since he invaded finland ? many died, u know ?

yes, it was Germany.

Things may be a bit fuzzy with WW I so maybe you are confused there, but there isn't much discussion as to who started the second one (in Europe).

That comparison makes no sense, or was Stalin the Finnish president and started an attack on Russia? Didn't think so. But yeah you would have every right to hate Stalin, even though I hear Finland wasn't carpet bombed to rubble during the invasion...

since they lost the war, they got the blame and played a big role in it, but they did not start it :)

Haha, yeah. All they wanted to do was bring everyone pink unicorns and rainbows. Genocides, racial purity, colonization and enslavement of all other races were just sunshine kisses.

wow.

tell me you´re a troll

Hitler was making alliances and claiming lands that the peace treaty after world war 1 declared did not belong to Germany, as well as repeatedly declaring might and power to Germany and it's strength and superiority over the rest of Europe and the world.

World War 2 sort of already started in 1936, Spanish Republicans, anarchists, communists, the Soviet army and international brigades with French, English, Italian, Russian, Polish, Americans and civilian volunteers from many other nations uniting in the fight in the Spanish Civil war against the Fascist forces of Spanish Nationalists, the Italian army, the German Army and Portugal. The war went on until 1939, and 8 months after the Republicans surrendered in 39, Germany invades Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2 <- all the facts are there, just read up. Hitler was and should be regarded an asshole to this day.

he is asshole, but the main question on my topic is, why the blind rage and everything when anyone sees hitler / hears its name. i dont get it. since i was not teached in school to hate hitler.

you ... don't get it. okay. maybe read this again.

yes, i know they killed all they saw as sub-human. but u really think its nazis fault that 60 million died, i know they killed approx. 6 million ppl in deathcamps that includes jews, criminals, homos, slavs and some random pows and ppl. but u think soviet union / japan / uk / usa didnt kill anyone except their enemies ?

and i honestly dont believe they killed even half of that suggested 60 million people ALONE.

Well, would you sympathize with someone who says: "Kill those 6 million people, they're not human.", because he gives a bunch of people a job and builds highways (untrue)?

btw: Funlands school-system seems to be not that good, after all.

i dont sympathize him. i never said i ever supported his actions or sympathize him. the whole reason for topic is to ask why the fuck so absolute and mindless rage and hate against him.

all i know that most of the hate towards him is learned / teached in schools.

For some reason, most of the unsympathetic, pro-violence, and generally conscienceless and antisocial people I encounter online these days seem to be from Finland. There are many nice people I meet from Finland as well of course, but Finland seems to have a larger quota in my life for some reason.

Not sure if its the cold social climate, the genes or the school system or something, but it certainly seems to be there. Look at pushbabon, danskie, demu, etc. The school shooter and the fan clubs, 4chan members(lots and lots from Finland), Finnish Johns going to Thailand to buy kiddie sex, that pro-genocide guy in the woods who wants to kill the world, I'm sure I could name a few more.

Stalin sucks a lot as well of course.

funny how u include me in a list of pushpabon and demu since im not at all like them, im not pro-violence and concienless, im not anti-social, i dont shout random fuck u to every ppl i see or i write to.


only thing i prolly differ from mainstream esr user that i dont troll 99% of time and im not ignorant to everything thats not quake 3 or just logically untalented


also every those ppltypes u mentioned can be found in every country in europe and every state in usa :)

Your just ignorant to all the important stuff :)

mmm, not.

Why do you include me in your list of nazis? You seen me campaigning for authoritarianism and racial segregation and what not? No. I'm as far away from that as possible. My stance of individual freedom = libertarian. People aren't any different even if their melatonin absorption capability is. Fuck you for deliberately trying to screw me every chance you get.

i didnt include u in list of nazis :D

Attached User Img: 65723-used_elixir_strings_avatar.jpg (8KB)

Sorry, just to clarify, after talking to you in QL, you don't seem antisocial and I guess it's wrong to judge someone from just a few ESR posts, which, I'm sure, I mixed you up with other posters as well. Sorry sir. But still, Hitler is a real demon :D.

You're so full of shit if you took an enema you could fit in a matchbox.

Read my comment above and don't mistake me for a nazi next time moran.

Also Stalin doesn't just suck 'much'. He's in the same league with Hitler. Just as bad, or even worse if we look at the statistics. Stop defending commies just because they weren't vilified and demonized for 60+ years like they were supposed to.

'As well', meaning, as Hitler. Not sure if you're a proper nazi, but I've seen you agreeing with demu in matters of race, and like yesterday, posting that video of the israeli soldier shooting the prisoner, with 'fuck waterboarding, this is way cooler', and the essay about pressing that button to kill off humanity. Something in that isn't entirely healthy in my opinion.

Hearsay and distortions. It's easy to just call people racist or nazi because the burden of proof lies to the accused every time in this special case. Guilty until proven innocent. I've made clear what my political stance is many times.

What does 'fuck waterboarding, this is way cooler' has to do with anything? You don't find it troubling that an israeli soldier shoots a prisoner in the leg? You don't find any similarities with that treatment and how america treats people in guantanamo? How does that make me a nazi? Can't criticize jews anymore? Ok.

When have I agreed with issues of 'race' with demu except maybe for trolling or lulz. It's culture and religion, not RACE. Islam is not a race nor are jews.

And the essay you're talking about mentioned killing millions which itself was simply referring to overpopulation, a problem you might've heard of. If you love humans and humanity you don't want an endless supply of them here overcrowding the planet and ruining everything that is good. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1382251841067168618

You kind of misunderstood me. I was referring to your comment about that video, which seemed very uncompassionate and mean, and was something along those lines if i can recall. You probably visit 4chan as well?

So you hate muslims then? Ok, you're not a racist. Still a prejudice-filled cockburn. ¡Me cago en tu leche, hijo de puta!

Wanting to kill millions is not better than wanting to kill a few. Killing people is not an acceptable solution to the problem of overpopulation, end of story.

Once again wrong. I don't hate muslims. I hate islam and the culture of hate, virgin cult, oppression, intolerance, segregation, prejudice and authoritarianism. Religion, bigotry, stupidity, not 'race', which itself has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't hate people on an individual level but if you come from a culture where you're brainwashed into believing such crap then I can expect certain characteristics to be present in you. If you're born in india you're most likely a hindu, speak their language and embrace their culture. Similarily you're likely to embrace islam, their culture and habbits if you're born in syria regardless of your genetic background ("race") or parents ethnicity ("race") or nationality.

It's all arbitrary more or less and I wish people would see it.

I also don't visit 4chan unless being linked to on irc.

<3

4chan is serious business.

"Also Stalin doesn't just suck 'much'. He's in the same league with Hitler. Just as bad, or even worse if we look at the statistics. Stop defending commies just because they weren't vilified and demonized for 60+ years like they were supposed to."

Well, I guess Bush has allies on ESR too!!
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1946332

Yeah having the same opinion of one thing makes us allies gg logic.

Obviously on this topic, yes. But my bad, of course you're not allies, as one of you is a tool. Guess who.

PPB exposed

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6168/ircswasticajl5.png

its a swastika, so what o_O ?

hmmmm

You really shouldn't include Linkola in that bunch of your fave irc trolls.

Sure his way is oversimplified and anti-humanistic but on the other he's correct, that's what makes it so hard to swallow

Things once seen can't be unseen :/

ALL HAIL KALI

Actually he loves life, that's why he has these views. If you think he hates life and people then you haven't understood his message.

Learn to read, as in 'sisälukutaito'

Where did I suggest that his drivel was anti-life.

Anti-humanist, as in, oppposed to humanism, which is an umbrella term for
various strains of philosophy, which tend to place man at the helm.

His 'message' is hardly unique, he did pioneer deep ecology in Finland though.

BECAUSE HE KILLED 5-6 MILLION JEWS!?????????

brains or gtfo.

What I learnt about the German economy in the 1930s was that Schacht (Think I've got the right name) had "fixed" the economy and was starting to strengthen it when Hitler decided he wanted to go to war in three years (iirc) and he put Goering in charge and he basically undermined Schacht (Who eventually quit).

Goering was an idiot and ruined everything.

More or less like that :P

indeed, all his economic policies were designed with one goal in mind, to make the german economy capable of sustaining the war.

A great book to read by a fantastic historian on this subject is called ' The War of The World' by Niall Ferguson.

rofl, where the fuck did you read that? All the "good" things you listed are completely untrue or aren't Hitlers achievements (the economy was fixed before Hitler came).
The only "good" thing he did is to build motorways (even he just wanted them to be able to move tanks and troops fast)

And even that is more than suspectable http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/01/7...=&vl=0

interesting, thx

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Purge15.html

you obviously just looked at the graphs and didnt even read/understand the text.

since u replied so fast u didnt even read it completely.

I read the part that matters and disproves your bullshit.

so u read what u want and ignore other facts ?

Time's man of the year isn't chosen because he does good. He is chosen because he had most influenced the world that year. It's a common misunderstanding for retards.

really you just have no fucking clue
get your history right and thsn come back
he did nothing good he just made the statistics good
for example he just puted the women out from the working statistics baam some millions less uneployeds wow etc. etc

really noe offense your just not good informed ask your history teacher hopefully he has a clue

Best post with the worst spelling and grammar so far!

atleast i know better than you. atleast judging your post.

Time Moty is based upon the influence the person has on the world, wether it is good or bad.

Man of the year? Please. That's an award given by Time Magazine, and receiving it only means that Hitler had considerable influence on world affairs, it is not a judgement of whether what he did was good or bad. And as for fixing all the stuff that went wrong during WWI, well, the Germans were responsible for that, too, so he really didn't help things out very much, did he? As for removing "undesireable" persons from Germany, that would only be a good thing if they had been reformed or productively dealt with, (and under the auspices of some other credo than national socialism,) not forced (as they were) into ghettos and concentration camps. Yeah, it is hard to find anything positive written about Hitler because most people understand that trying to defend him is reprehensible; he was a murderous, twisted man who did horrible things to people to satisfy his own morbid agenda. It doesn't matter if he liked puppies or gave to the Aryan Children's Fund, or whatever...he was EVIL, and anyone seeking to defend his actions should be forced to watch all the hours of 35mm film the Nazis made of executions, gas chambers, liquidations, not to mention the cruel, inhuman medical experiments carried out by Hitler's "reformers," like Mengele and Goebles, and then they should be made to sit and talk to a survivor of one of the death camps Hitler sanctioned and find out just why everyone else takes such a dim view of Hitler and everything he stood for.

Hitler = hero

c'mon nuke this, be a good goyim

most young ppl here dont understand it either tbh

wtf

"explain to me please. i never found it out, it cant be about holocaust since nobody really cares about jews."

that was mean to be about the, why do germans go crazy when the see or read hitler somewhere, question

just a flamebait =D

are you Monkey_Business?

no

what do you mean saddam did nothing good?

quote from wiki

"Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."

read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein

60 million people died in ww2 and germany was left in ruins i wouldnt say he done much good and you make it sound like saddam was worse than hitler.

err... tell me even one modern dictator that have rose to power doing only bad?


u cant get trust of people by throwing shit on them.

then why did you say saddam did nothing good in your topic? lol

well, i have to confess that i havent done much research of him nor read what good he have done since there are not many places where u can read about it, nor read wikipedia about him. :) gonna remove it

As for myself, I'm (nowadays) quite relaxed about the whole topic. I myself got nothing to do with it, even my parents didn't live back then, I haven't lost anyone close due to the WW2 so why should I be offended when I'm opposed to my country's history? It's the same with people being very proud of their nationality, what exactly did you contribute to achieve it? Nothing. You may enjoy living where you live, you may cheer for your national football team, and there's nothing wrong with that. But being proud of or offended by something you simply didn't contribute to in any way is nothing but stupid, imo. However I myself don't want to be connected to anything from back then, simply because I strongly disagree and have a way different view on politics and people than Hitler had.

Contrary to what plenty of foreigners apparently believe, our children don't get taught to be ashamed or depressed by our history. The important part is the awareness of dangers that could possibly lead to something similar again, understanding why it could come to the point it did back then. Now that Germany has some problems with e.g. high unemployment and a split in welfare distribution, you can already see unsatisfied voters parting with the major and moderate parties and instead move to the extreme parties (both left and right wing).

People are very easy to manipulate with media and some bad press, yellow press is quite strong here. It is therefore (imo) not allowed to provide or spread ideas which could possibly attack our constitution, including the whole right wing bullshit. Immigrants still get beaten up every now and then, their houses get burned down, the major right wing party publishes provoking stuff prior to every major election. Even tho Germany is 'apparently' so strict and enforces so much censorship, the last attempt to ban the right wing party didn't go through. Granted, there's several tricky reasons for it but it's basically just not that simple as you may think. There still is danger and there still are nazis in Germany. It's like chickenpox, they're only more or less surpressed but never really gone. You got to find a healthy balance between freedom of speech (and whatnot) and keeping the extremists away from spreading and increasing their power.

Long story short: I don't think it's really as bad as you picture it, there's just probably a higher level of awareness due to our history (and plenty of foreign idiots insulting Germans for our history). There's still danger around, and therefore there's some censorship enforced (really tricky topic) and people are just rather strict with making clear they don't support all the nazi propaganda shit, be it past or present.

finally, someone with brains and intellect without shitty trolls. thanks.

but funny cases of this hitler hate is especially this new wax museum opened in berlin (?) where in first day some angry german came and ripped the head off from hitlers wax doll.

and also this quite extreme thing (from somewhere around 2002) i read from newspaper that someones dog did similiar salute to cops (imagine, a dog) that nazis did. dog was put to sleep and owner got ~1000e bill, and blamed for being nazi.

that's just one idiot out of 80 millions, there's way worse retards in any country than this guy :P (although it's stupid as well).

source for that 2nd story?

i read it from finnish newspaper, i dunno is it somewher in inet

sounds like it was made up tbh.

ooooo. nevermind the other, i remembered wrong, the owner was nazi and the salute was teached + the dog was taken to kennel.

http://www.doggienews.com/2007/12/nazi-saluti...-owner.htm

if this is the same story i read ~2003

the guy ripping off hitlers head did it, because Hitler was the first puppet you saw, when entering afaik.

"Hi, this is the german Madame Tussauds. AND THIS IS HITLER."

that's what freaked him out.

the hitler doll is not the first one and its in the same room as every dictator, and hes especially because that kind of dudes in a dark corner looking sad, to avoid things like that to happen.

you've been in the one in berlin? i don't know, but that's what i heard.

the sueddeutsche wrote that it was mainly a bet and he got angry that the doll was so near to a museum for jews.

Source: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/artikel/971/184395/

"It's the same with people being very proud of their nationality, what exactly did you contribute to achieve it? Nothing. You may enjoy living where you live, you may cheer for your national football team, and there's nothing wrong with that. But being proud of or offended by something you simply didn't contribute to in any way is nothing but stupid, imo."

haha, talk about being short sighted and ignorant and selfish.
Just because you want to forget about your countries past don't mean you should try and belittle others who do.

Your outlook on life is incredibly short sighted and you have no medium or longterm vision.

Just because someone who's starting out his life has not gone to war for his country or made a "contribution" you consider worthy enough, it does not mean their ancestros have not made a COLLECTIVE CONTRIBUTION has led to the contribution of that countries success.

You can get behind your country because you are a collective force over a long enough period of time.
No some selfish individual who thinks about here and now and nothing else. I suppose you treat your parents like shit too?

Did it occur to you that a football team might not even exist to cheer in the first place if it had not been in some small way down to ancestors of various fans of that country all working in their own little way to make it a possibility.

Seriously, you should take a long hard look at what you write.

I'll put it short, especially as I'm slightly drunk: dumb fuck. If my ancestors or anyone did somethign good or created the fundaments of what we enjoy/cheer for/whatever today, I'll support that and worship it. Still this as fuck all to do with me, I had zero influence on this. So there's nothing _I_ have to be proud of. That's my fucking point, maybe learn to read.

maybe learn to read.

don't bother, his reading comprehension skills are nonexistent, he just reads what he wants to read.

like most ppl here in esr.

yeah well, some people make it surprisingly hard to understand what they want to say.


I go by rule of thumb: If at least half of the people undeerstand what the point is (doesn't matter if they agree), then anyone who doesn't should read again. But if almost noone gets the point then maybe the author should accept that he was unclear ;)


I think Jamerio can be taken as a good example in both cases :)

I bet if you did a survey of how proud/patriotic someone felt about their country and plotted it alongside IQ you would get all the dumb people with extremely high ratings of patriotism and all the intelligent with low levels.

Likely so. Probably also less if any religiousity on the higher end of the iq spectrum.

I once read an essay that a relatively high number of high level physicists went back to believing in religion after they studied the structure of the universe etc. claiming that it couldn't be just coincidence etc.

Found that quite surprising, thowever I didn't find any statistics about that claim. Not that I searched for long, tho.

I think what you're trying to say is that they're open to the notion that there could be something, not that there's a christian personal god who answers (or doesn't) to our prayers and looks over our shoulders and sends us to hell if we sin.

True, somewhat bad choice of words there, should have used "powerful entity" instead of religion

"not that there's a christian personal god who answers (or doesn't) to our prayers and looks over our shoulders and sends us to hell if we sin."

Prove it, without theory. You can't. As the christians can't prove they are right. Who's wrong, who's right, then ? You or them ?
If you want to live, you must believe in something, then it depends on your personality/environment etc...
Do you believe in e-Sport ? In your job ? In your family ? In love ?
Then what's wrong with believing in God ? Religions aren't only about wars/fanatics whatever. At least not much than anything else.

Anyway, doesn't matter.

believing in god is just being plain idiot imo.

why that ?

just shows how stupid someone can get by believing anything thats written in bible, since person with working logic or ability to think before believe anything (not just blindly accepting it just because everyone else did too last in 2000 years)

Also everything bible / christianity overall teaches is crap (except those that comes to normal people naturally when they grow, which isnt actually christian teachings btw)

I side with heavy skepticism that there is no God or god. Why is the christian god the only viable one? What about zeus or thor? What about fairies and flying teapots orbiting earth? We can't disprove any of those either, yet somehow the christian god has to be proven to not exist.

In quantum physics the common interpretation is: nothing exists until it is observed. Quite a good view on things imo, think about it for a while.
Another word that might be interesting is truth, which you can very much see connected to objectivity. If you have a look at science, every scientist will end up with the same laws and results no matter who he is (assuming he does it right). It is independent on the scientist what he's gonna find out, the laws are the same for everyone. Now religion is heavily depending on where you're born and growing up, which is completely random. So what has anyone to support his believe in an existance of a god or even to claim that his god is the only/true/right one? If they'd all believe in the same god and just give him different names, then it's quite surprising how much the appearance and principles (number of gods, morals, rules) differ among religions.
Combine that with my first paragraph and you pretty much end up with some good reasons why to doubt and not believe in any god or religion. It's not a rock solid proof that God does not exist, but seeing as there's absolutely zero aspects to prove an existance, I don't see why you would (or actually can) believe in a god. I'd just rather believe in what I can see and prove, else I could as well just make up anything I want.

Y reply @ me when I'm of the same opinion?

was an attempt to disprove this god/religion stuff, I got your position on this and was trying to take it further. :)

Amazing how a purported scientist like yourself manages to string so many approximations in such a short text.

It only takes one sentence for you to give in to the classical pop-science hazardous generalizations that attempt to make guidelines for life from results that normaly apply to a very precisely defined scientific framework. Life isn't quantum mechanics as far as we know. I don't see what would make the principles of quantum mechanics (or whatever interpretation/simplification you're making here) more worthy than others as an attitude to adopt regarding wildly varied phenomena that do not enter its usual framework. That's just an unwarranted generalization in the same vein as using Gödel's theorems to "prove" all kinds of bullshit they never proved.

Of course that wouldn't be so horrible (because that was just your opinion, after all, but I'll think about it for a while I promise!!) if it weren't followed by those naive statements that are repeated all along that thread and all the threads similar to this one all over this website. You say truth is "connected to objectivity" (with ADSL??) and proceed to describing what essentially is the consistency of science (how science and truth are "connected" is a bit blurry in your reasoning). What you're saying is that starting from the same premises and using the same rules to derive laws, scientists reach the same results. Of course what scientists find out is not independant (double negative, beware!!) of them (what the hell does that even mean? How could science, an essentially human endeavour, be independant of humans?), see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, or something.

Religion depends on "where you're born and growing up, which is completely random" (Is this idea of randomness some resurgence of your quantum physics premises again?)? Big deal. So does everything in your upbringing that leads you to whatever set of beliefs you choose. What does that prove about anything?

Religions are not consistent with one another (sometimes not even consistent within themselves). Big deal. They're not scientific theories. Believers don't need to "support their beliefs". They're not the ones writing proofs about the scientific (non)existence of God and whatnot.

Not a rock solid proof, you say? Well, what the hell was solid in that whole post anyway? "an attempt to disprove this god/religion stuff"? What does that even mean? Disproving religion? Now surely there is evidence of religion to "support the belief" that it exists?

I know this wasn't meant to be anything too serious, but God, couldn't you afford some subtlety, precision, and good old plain intellectual probity?


Disclaimer: What I said, I said. What I didn't say, I didn't say. Don't be so lame to turn that into a display of your inability to read. No reply by the usual faggots (ix, Thorin, etc.) will be read nor their putative "points" addressed. Sorry guys, you've had your chance!!

tl;dr

edit: added hide tag, just so you know what I changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously the principles of Q.M. are supposed to work with Q.M. and not religion, the same way as anything in physics deals with physics and not religion. That still doesn't mean you can't use some of the philosophical reasoning behind it in other fields as well. The people around Bohr and Heisenberg spent quite some time with the definition of 'existance', and Q.M. happens to even prove their view on things. Not by half-assed arguments, simply by measuring it in the lab (see Mach-Zehnder-Interferometer with/without 2nd beam splitter and single particles, if you're interested). So far I couldn't come up with a better view on things (but that's probably just me being stupid), so I indeed follow this pop-science view on things from Heisenberg etc. My bad.

Firstly, quantum mechanics "work[ing]" or not with religion, or physics dealing or not with religion was never put into question. The way you put it was that you used the principles of quantum mechanics as a view on "things" (a "good view on things"), not religion. Whatever that would mean.

Secondly, I never questionned your ability or permission to use the philosophical reasoning behind it in other fields. What I said was that in doing so, you lost what made it science. What then makes it a particularly good view? Surely not its scientific rigor. Experiments conducted didn't "prove" the views of Bohr or Heisenberg regarding matters other than quantum mechanics. Your sole reason to choose this view is pretty much a matter of taste (and that's perfectly OK with me), as testifies the appeal to authority at the end of the paragraph.

How is science not independent of scientists? In my original post independence was meant as in: it does not matter who does what he does, or where he does it, or what skills or religious/political views he got, as long as he does 'it' (applying maths or logic, measuring, ...) correctly. Surely all principles are made up by humans, maths, physics and everything else are theories created by humans, everything is derived and measured by humans, all the assumptions and ideas in deriving theories come from humans. But contrary to religious babbling and believing, you got a universe around you that proves you wrong if you are wrong. You don't need humans to decide what's wrong or not, the nature already does. You just need humans to derive all that stuff first, to do the work. The correct result is already there, and independent of us humans. We don't get to decide on it, we just have to find it.

I'm glad we agree on what you meant by independence, objectivity, etc. But seriously, how is science not independent of scientists? Well, science implies scientists, for a start. I guess that settles it.

What you're talking about afterwards is whether "truth", or "results" are independent of scientists. What makes you think the "correct result is already there, and independent of us humans", when a "result" is the outcome of a human process? That's very platonic (but hardly scientific), maybe you'll like Gödel's proof of the existence of God...

The universe around you "proves" you wrong if you're wrong. True (for a fitting defintion of "proves", such as "corroborates or not whatever hypothesis and prior experimental conditions were chosen"). Then again, religions don't try to prove anything.

You can't decide where you're born, you just get put somewhere on the map (so much about the randomness). I agree that everything in your upbringing leads you to blablabla, but in physics you get something (universe, nature, call it whatever you want) to prove you wrong. This does not happen with religions or the existance of god, there's nothing to decide this. There's not a single reason to even believe in the existance of a god. I could as well pull something out of my arse and call it valid.

So much for you definition of randomness. If I really wanted to play the Devil's advocate, I'd probably tell you that believers can be, in a certain sense, "proven" wrong on many accounts (conduct, morality, etc.) by their religion, with more certainty than science, because religion is based on unshakable dogma (for better or for worse), while science is only true until proven wrong (which is precisely what constitutes its beauty, a kind of paradoxical negative capability). The rest is addressed in the previous paragraph.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Sorry I had to mix my answer to your first post (#182) with bits of the second (#184), but that was just too blatant to go unnoticed. What it means is that you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

I guess your last bit of ad hominem needs no particular commenting.

I hope I included enough precautionary parenthetic remarks so I don't get called names again.

Believe in things you can gather evidence about.

Yes and now they can appeal to Hitler every time they want to ban or censor something they don't agree with. Oh it's anticonstitutional!!! BAN!!!

yeh, we "appeal" to Hitler, cause he still rules here....

Oh, and please stop trying to tell Germans how our judicial system works. You tried that at least five times in the last year and still fail. Big time.

Yeah is that some cultural relativism? It's ok to ban and block shit in germany but everywhere else it's censorship. It's ok to ban holocaust denial in germany and still say you have freedom of speech but everywhere else not.

funlands school-system sucks big time apparently.

what becks said.

From what I've read, they've got one of the best scool systems in Europe. The BBC brings up comparisons to European school systems fairly regularly and they always say Finland has the best average grades (Or something like that).

They spend way less time in school though.

yeah, that's what the media tells us, too. but it seems like it fails big time when it comes to history.

Maybe they have a slightly different way of teaching WW2? Especially considering that their involvement was radically different from the UK/Germany.

Or maybe they don't teach WW2 much at all? By the time I finished school they had started to teach WW2 every year whereas I only did WW2 once before A Level.

Yawn, as you might notice I never said that it is not censorship.

I just said, like several times before, that the reasoning is completely different than what you thought up in your own head.

Let's try it again in one single sentence:

Hitler is the cause of certain laws, but not the reason.


But I'm not sure you see the difference between 'cause' and reason' as I did explain the reason a few times already, including a post not too long ago which you didn't reply to (might be caused by the esr- bug o/c).

I'd guess he gets your point but disagrees with the reason anyway.

He seems to dislike any form of censorship, so no matter the cause or the reason he sees it as bad.

I doubt it, cause he repeatedly claims that Hitler and nazis are the (sole) reason, which is simply not true.

For example the actual crime is not "Denying the Holocaust" but "Volksverhetzung":

Volksverhetzung (German: "stirring up the populace", "agitation of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in, though it is not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. (from wiki)

People who don't know a lot (read: certain Finns) think it's limited to Holocaust, cause most agitators do focus on that topic. But there are other cases (e.g. muslim preachers)

And the reason for having such a law at all is, as I pointed out to Mr. Pushpabon a few days ago, a very difficult judgement on how the least freedom is taken from the whole community, including both freedoms at the moment and possible freedoms in the future (e.g. people dieing because of agitation).


It is not, and I reapeat: not, because we can't stand to hear the word Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

I had replied but the site went down before I posted.

Wasn't disagree or anything but I don't care now :D

I WIN!!!

I'll try posting the message I already sent him in PM if it works now because I don't want this thread look as if I GAVE UP!11

This is a reply to #102, somehow I can't reply to that.


It's naive to even think that preaching the mass murder of jews vs. publically not believing holocaust or revising the holocaust theory, say gas chambers in auschwitz or something (interpreted as denial apparently) are in the same league. Thoughtpolice fuck yeah.

Irving, Zundel & co. do not deserve to be jailed for years and fined for what they've suggested. Questioning history is nowhere near the call to arms against a group of people.

This is more or less the best piece about freedom of speech I have heard/read so far and I urge you to watch it even if you think little of me, it's worth it.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1e4cfvUKE
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k

edit: No, I don't appeal to authority (Hitchens) but he makes a damn good point about free speech and why even hate speech should be legal.

Remember, I don't necessarily think little of you, only because I believe your opinion in this matter is flawed ;)

Watched it and I still believe his points stink. That only ever works with open minded people who actually think about things they hear. And everybody knows the larger a group the dumber it gets...

Yes, I know that too much censorship and laws are also negative, that is why a open discussion about the matter must be kept alive ... while still protecting people from others.
I mean I personally couldn't care less about verbal insults, "four-letter words" or sexual harassment, but those are forbidden by the oh so freedom loving Americans...


And yeah, of course there is a difference between Holocaust denial and asking for one. However it is a precaution because of a lesson the past taught us. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend Which I believe is the ultimate reason for the this law. I think I also posted this a longer while ago.

Again, is the freedom of one man to repeatedly (!) write and say something, worth more than risking the lives of millions? And who are you to say so?

"...hear the word Hitler, Hitler, Hitler."

summoning dead dictators on public forums are we?

what becks said.

THEY'RE PISSED COS ALL THAT TAX MONEY THEY HAVE TO PAY TO ISRAEL MWAHAHAHAHAA

aye.

noctis, please explain yourself.

it was all just for the lulz.

ahaha, made my day.

:ASD

Sensors detecting masses of hypocritical bullshit and boasting.
"The moar I hatez HITLUR, the moar WIN I getz."

HITLER has been converted into a crowd controlling EVIL,
like SATAN, DRUGS, INFIDEL, TERRORIST, PEDOBEAR, in their respective classes, so our owners can easily maintain their control over our overly apathetic herd.

(reality&crapnews-tv is even better at that job ofc.)

the intesting thing is that foreigners bring up hitler way more than German's do, and often regard him as not as bad as we do.


Oops, sorry I just answered seriously... :/

the interesting thing is, foreigners bring up Bush, Americans being fat, and a bunch of other crap more than we do. Then they make it out to be something worse than it really is. Oh snap.

might be true, regarding bush.


BUT YOURE ALL FAT!!!
seriously tho, I sure had some "holy shit" moments when visiting an American High School (in OK). At my school at home we had on kid out of ~2000 who was somewhat near as fat and he actually had a disease that caused it.

Shutup fatty

perhaps you don't bring it up is because you're stupid fat uninformed fucks who actually voted for him? oh snap...

this thread is sponsored by a high school classroom.

in a nanny-state

You're giving this thread way too much credit

i understand why ure so angry, ure a german. and u prolly get some tantrums from word hitler ?

OMG, Hitler and Germany both a written with capital letters!!!!!


Happy now?

uuuu, we have a literature police here ! :D

the most evil man to ever have existed apparantly had some good qualities? am i reading that right?

i mean like what? was he kind to elderly ppl and help them cross roads and such?

He had a nice moustache.

And the swastika is a pretty cool symbol

and makes for some great #way2 moments!

I respect Hitler. Not very many people can do what he did. good or bad. Ya,Ya, he did terrible things, but I mean look what one man rose to do. One man apparently got a whole nation of people directed towards one goal. It's a shame it wasn't a better goal, but still he got them to believe in something.

Although his acts were terrible.





Respect to Hitler.

luls.

same did Britney

Hitler and Britney are the bestest.

tbfh, you're argument goes something along this way:

"well Sir, you DID rape my daughter and brutally murder her, but you bought her flowers beforhand, so I guess you're not as bad afterall"

also, we should legalize murder, because sometimes innocent people were convicted for it!

i love the way u dont understand what i write.

You might be under the impression that what you wrote has some intellectual depth to it, but let me assure you, there is nothing hard to understand about your inane ramblings.

good its not hard to understand.

Are Finns defending Hitler because he helped save them from the soviets?

and burned lapland :) no ?

it's the same thing as always: people prefer to crucify some guy instead realising that guy did what he did because they voted for him and encouraged him because the guy was carrying their ideas; it's like one million people pointing to one man and saying : we are not stupid! he is bad!

they are stupid and he is bad.

he is not bad
he is jenna jameson in disguise

Sebastian Haffner in his "Anmerkungen zu Hitler" did devote an entire chapter to Hitler's accompishments as politician. And yes, they must not be ignored to gain a better understanding of this cruel dictator. ²)

It should also be noted that the 3rd Reich was not a fascistic system in the correct sense of the word, but more of a national socialism, probably the only "working" socialism that has ever existed.

But it's a silly question coming from someone who initially posted "Nobody cares about jews" and later edited it out.

²) Allegedly Hitler was a real charmer at the tea table as well, but I cannot confirm it. Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary, wrote about the private Hitler in her book. Check it out.

During what period do you think it was a socialistic system?

isnt there a movie about hitler from his perspective (der untergang) ?

there is actually two new movies, "Der Untergang" which is good and a comedy called "Mein Führer – Die wirklich wahrste Wahrheit über Adolf Hitler" which sucks.

You'll never guess in which country those were made...

Poland

i just watched der untergang last weekend. it was actually pretty good.

that nobody cares about jews was just a flamebait but deleted that part since it wasnt even fun :P

please delete yourself, you are not fun

and they also had some policy called "national security"

EDIT: i love how hard it is for ppl in esr to stay in topic and how they start trolling when they really have nothing to say <3

So, what was your point again? Hitler being not so bad? Or germans being hysteric about the word/person hitler?

come again?

i can bet my balls 90% of germans here who only saw topic shot their baby (if they had one) and burned their house down already.

way to start off a serious discussion, mate. good one.

good thing he bet his balls, tho. Finlands future just became a little brighter!

thats the picture most of the german gives to outer world when talking about hitler.

It's kinda funny because all the Germans I know are the total opposite and like to make fun of Hitler/Nazis :/

So where are these "Germans" you are talking about?

Cause the majority of Germans I ever met are not like that, and I think I have met more than you ;)

[ - ] because you mentioned hitler you fucking cunt

HITLER had a nice moustache

What you really need to understand is that after the second world war, democratic anti-fascism became part of the self understatement. It was integrated in the patriotism. They also changed the word nationalism into patriotism and are saying all the time, that it would be something different. There is a real debate in Germany everytime there is a footbal championship, about patriotism and whether it would be good or bad, and of course it turns out that in democracies there can only be patriotism, whereas in the 3rd Reich there was the bad nationalism. But anyway: why the hell should I be proud of my country? I was born in a certain country completely accidental and got by law (!) it's nationality (I wasn't even asked if I wanted to have it, when I would be old enough). I can be proud of having achieved something, but not of a country. And I didn't read many posts, but typically fascist arguments are: We need someone, who does something, and this is: no drug-addicts in da streets, no criminality, no criminal foreigners, foreigners only, if they do work we wouldn't do and live te same way we use to live, death-penalty, no supranational enterprises exploiting national work, or the national worksmanship, entrepreneurs have to serve the country, the profit must not go into a "jewish-american" shareholder....and so on. So these things are probably things, which many of you think are good, but they are fascist. Remember: In every patriot is a nationalist fascist. You only have to go read newspapers, in every newspaper of every country, there are such demands. And now I will tell you why all these demands are absolut crap, because: all the bad symptoms, f.e. criminality is rised by the way the state is organised. All states want to have power and to be rich and this goes at the cost of the people. They have to do more work, coz of the profits, instead millions of people doesn't have work. In a more rational organised society, people would be happy not to have to work so much, because it means playing more q3.!?

I totally read that.

Genetics and science generally has undermined racism, nationalism, patriotism and 'countries' or identity a lot which is good. [+]

I don't really consider myself finnish even though my nationality is finnish, I speak finnish and was born to white finnish speaking parents. I don't have that much in common with the normal finn. I don't identify with their culture really or their views or their stance on issues or their religion. I really can't stand blind patriotism (nationalism).

Attached Demo: 65760-Foxnoctis.rar (3673KB)

lolwut

I'm the same :o

Born British, to British parents (as were they), I speak English, don't have anything in common with "British" people as a group in any way.

Yeah but that's because you're a nerd.

And you're not?

#Synatax Error.

So are you dyslexic?

Weird. Somehow someone else's demo attachment came to my post......

I don't blame the loser for quitting after 7 minutes on DM6.

I used to love that map, but after playing it more, most people learn to hate it. First spawns are usually bad (You're FUCKED if you get shotgun YA spawn) and once a GOOD player gets control, and keeps it, all he/she has to do is camp each item early with LG.

Of course, people think differently, but yeah, I don't like it.

New map pool should be Hub, ZTN, and...DM9? (Need one map without a rail)

hub is just as shit, bring on pt7 :<

I don't blame the loser for quitting after 7 minutes on DM6.

I used to love that map, but after playing it more, most people learn to hate it. First spawns are usually bad (You're FUCKED if you get shotgun YA spawn) and once a GOOD player gets control, and keeps it, all he/she has to do is camp each item early with LG.

Of course, people think differently, but yeah, I don't like it.

New map pool should be Hub, ZTN, and...DM9? (Need one map without a rail)

I don't blame the loser for quitting after 7 minutes on DM6.

I used to love that map, but after playing it more, most people learn to hate it. First spawns are usually bad (You're FUCKED if you get shotgun YA spawn) and once a GOOD player gets control, and keeps it, all he/she has to do is camp each item early with LG.

Of course, people think differently, but yeah, I don't like it.

New map pool should be Hub, ZTN, and...DM9? (Need one map without a rail)

I don't blame the loser for quitting after 7 minutes on DM6.

I used to love that map, but after playing it more, most people learn to hate it. First spawns are usually bad (You're FUCKED if you get shotgun YA spawn) and once a GOOD player gets control, and keeps it, all he/she has to do is camp each item early with LG.

Of course, people think differently, but yeah, I don't like it.

New map pool should be Hub, ZTN, and...DM9? (Need one map without a rail)

was just about to write something, when i figured you were trolling.
(which also makes you a cunt, if you mean it or not)

im not trolling. and seems like u dont even know what trolling is.

To be honest, I've never really given a great deal of thought to Adolf Hitler.

I will say this, though, now that I'm thinking about it. Whoever wins gets to write the history books. Just remember that.

hi

hahahahhah
fucking plussed!

What comic is that from? :D

viruscomix.com

also: scientology

That's what he did for my city.

It's the best bridge ever, really. I mean, you could drive 10 Trucks next to each other on this beauty!

That's gotta be worth at LEAST a million jews.

Well, it took even more. The railing got replaced with metal, though...

"Hitler had the right idea. He was just an underachiever"

I respect Hitler. In my eyes hes a hero. He made Germany into a pussy country where you can't do the roman salute without getting imprisoned.


SIEG HEIL !

you can't?

you tell me

no no, the way you wrote it you seem to be quite the expert on the matter, while I'm just a humble German who never did the Roman salute AND said "Sieg Heil" along with it.
So please elaborate.
On what ground do you get impronisoned, how long is the sentence etc. I'm very interested...

do it yourself.

didnt a guy just go to jail because he taught his dog the roman salute?

that would be today's journalism for you.

yes, teaching his dog to raise is foot when someone says "Heil Hitler" was part of the charge. However, it's not just the roman salute nor was it the main charge. Also the owner had a long record of crimes related to him being a nazi.

It's the same with pretty much all cases only those who really want to show the roman salute (it's actually called the German Salute / Hitler Salute, bcause the hand is held a little differently) in relation to identity as a nazi get prosecuted in the first place and only those with a substanstial criminal record might have to go to jail.

I don't want to judge whether that is overdoing it, as well.

However, saying that you can't raise your right arm in Germany without going to jail is simply bullshit. It always is about the context.
Things are a bit fuzzy about having to pay a fine for the German / Hitler salute if you are a first time offender.

There, happy?

not really. no need for such titles as nazi when our fellow countries share ties with the united states..

sigh at canada.

and swastika is also generally pointed to being nazi because of him :( quite sad ;<

you would have never heard of it, if he wouldn't have used it.

99% sure.

now you're sad, 'cause you can’t use your precious swastika anymore?

The swastika is used all around the world mate. There are plenty of buildings, arts/crafts etc. that use the swastika across Europe (A lot have been "removed" due to Nazism association).

man, i have too much time at work.

i'm well aware of that. although i never saw it in europe, yet. i just find it hilarious that he's sad because Joe Average from Finland can't use the swastika anymore. for what would you use it anyway?

edit: ok, he didn't meant to use it for anything. point still stands. when i was on sri-lanka some years ago, i saw it several times on temples and beautiful buildings, but not for one second i thought about bad, bad adolf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

funny thing is, germans don't even know the word swastika itself. it's just "Hakenkreuz" for us.
so, for me Swastika != Hakenkreuz.

I used to see it on a building here every day. In fact it's still there only covered up.

TEAR IT DOWN!
They'll make a stytta of you :o

I'm on it sir. Hnns and I will get that swastika bastard!

First off all I won't neither burn my baby nor my house since I do not feel responsible for what one abalienated moron had done.

Hitler would have become a folk hero if he had NOT! gassed ~ 6 million jews - his biggest mistake out of a lump. So basically Hitler was just a megalomaniac faggot who did not know what he was doing actually. An evidence for that is his suicide btw.

Okay, Hitler built motorways etc., but for what price? The only intention for all his "bounteousness" was getting tanks from point a to point b.

It was all a pack of lies and the world would have done much better without him.

So long..

anyone in hitlers position would have done suicide rather than being captured by soviets

If you stood for what you did you would not.

You ever think of the possibility that the holocaust was exaggerated by the soviets/allies/jews?

are you a Nazi or a troll cause either way, that's weird man.

it's not about hitler, it's about being defeated.
There are many countrys who did also genocide (americans taking away the land from the indians and killing them, china killing people in tibet, etc.), but noone cares, because the americans and chinese are the winners of the war, and actually it is like this everywhere in real life in our civilised society in our lives person to person ... there can be so much more truth in your saying than in that of someone else, you can have so much more capabilitys than someone else, if these propertys are not backed up by power, they are worth nothing, and the one who is objectively worse still "wins" ...
that's life, look out not to be one who has no power ...
because there is no mercy, and the least you can expect from life is rationality

You fail.

Americans and the Indians, and China and Tibetans are not even closely comparable to Germany and the Jews.

As a percentage of population I'm sure the native Americans isn't too far off to be quite honest.

you misunderstood my point.

The Jews in Germany were very much a part of the community, they were (jewish) Germans.
The Indinas and Tibetans on the other hand are communties by themselves.

you mean 100%?

There are still native Americans alive

there are more far more jewish people in the world today than there are native americans left, 400 years ago there were definitely way, way, way, way more native americans in the world than jews. there's no estimates of how many native americans were killed in colonial expansion because "virtually all of them" is pretty much accurate.

native americans make up less than 1% of the american population today, and there's no way that many people simply moved to america, we killed them all

So it's not 100% then, thanks for clearing that up.

The problem is, nobody even knows how many Native Americans were there when the Europeans first arrived.

look i don't go around making a bunch of bullshit conjecture about russian history what makes you any more entitled to talk about things you have no clue about

i just love it when these clueless fucking euros go around talking about american history and politics like they're somehow more entitled to hold opinions about it than the people who live here

systematic annhilation of indians >>> systematic annihilation of jews

I'm not Russian, and I happen to have studied this period of time.

And anyway I didn't want to say "xxx was way worse blah blah" or anything when I don't have any facts at hand to back it up and I have better things to do than find any evidence.

I happen to agree with you by the way, you just made a bad choice of words with "100%" (As it seemed you were suggesting they were totally killed off, which isn't true)

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=I1BJTZewsaM

I seriously doubt there is any 'blind' rage towards Hitler.

hey man jonesey can u plz elaborate

It's really interesting no matter how hard history tries to teach us we still do the same shit over and over. The old ones from ww2 are almost all gone, there will be noone to actually *remember* how it was. Instead you'll have a bunch of kids saying "Was it really so bad? He wasn't such a bad guy was he? Playing COD2 was hella fun." Pass few decades and we'll have the same old thing over again.

Lol Hitler

Well I dont understand that too.. OK he was a bad guy and evil, but think what a great man he was. To make people follow you, to belive in you, to go in war with everybody else just because you sayd so is something that I can call power.

Im not nazi or supporting any of that stuff.

he definately had a lot of charisma, yes.

doesn't make a great man though.

think about it tho. would he be so charismatic if he was to show up today? (had there been no ww2)

Hard to say :P

I doubt it. To me hitler speeches look comical, the way he gets worked up and starts raging/screaming I laugh my ass off. Also him talking about tall blue aryan race while at the same time being a scrawny blackhaired midget fuck would make him a bit illegit in todays world. Altho, with characters like bush running the show today, makes you wonder.

It probably wouldn't work as much because people are educated far better these days but still people "like him" pop up every now and again and convince a lot of lower class, poorly/uneducated people.

Also, check out the Middle East, a lot of the powerful people just spew complete raged filled nonsense and it gets a damn good audience. You even get Muslims over here where they have been educated to a "decent" standard being swayed by these people.

Hitlers words were powerful because they had meaning to his audience, German people wanted to be strong and proud again, like they felt before WW1. Hitler talked a great deal about making farmers, factory workers, etc an integral part of soceity and reclaiming German lands that had been taken away (People no doubt had family in these areas).

The Aryan race stuff doesn't have meaning to you because you already think it's bullshit but to the people back then I expect it was quite a powerful message.

Makes sense. "You're not just poor beaten bastards, you're aryan ubermensh. You're not some underprivileged rednecks, you're proud American heros." And they'll follow you anywhere. :)

You should probably admire English empire as well.

Like george bush ?

at least hitler wrote his own speeches.

ye and was able to actually read them without fucking them up :D

Study what Hitler did after the burning of the Reichstagg; then study what Bush did after 9/11. Maybe it can give you a better idea of why everyone hates Hitler (and Bush). Essentially, they both blamed the events on terrorism and began the march of war (and fascism). In other words, they exploited national tragedies to further their insane political agendas.

We (Americans) managed to kill the movement before getting completely screwed, but the German people were not so fortunate. Now they live with the shame of complicity, even though they were in large-part victims of mind-control campaigns (try studying propaganda, both from the Bush administration and the Nazi administration - practically identical).

"We have made the Reich by propaganda." - Joseph Goebbels

i am from austria and here it's pretty much the same
if you only speak his name you're a bad person
i think people are still so in fear that something like the 3rd reich might be happening again, that they are still so serious and strict about it
even the biggest assholes i know, guys that are used to doing things completely against morale, would call you a bad person if you question hitler being bad or just say you dont care about him - it's completely contradictory
anyway, austria (and probably germany too) is a country where people are used to go with the general opinions and habits, and try not to stick out. i think it's probably the best way to get all the way back there again. trust me, if there was a leadership strong enough, people would not think. they would follow

Well I think the kind of führer that would have success these days needs to be much more than hitler was. People got much more sensitive about personalities and mindsets. Everybody knows much more about human nature today, thanks to the internet and thanks to really broken people like hitler. What we need is a person to trust. A person we now everything about. A person who doesn't take itself too serious, but sees the work to be done as the most important.
Also it's not about quantity or speeches, it's about quality and actions. We need someone like Arabella Kiesbauer or Arnold Schwarzenegger!

You kept repeating throughout that you only wanted to know the reason for "blind hate of Hitler".
The answer is actually very simple and your quest vain, there is no such thing as "blind hate of Hitler", especially not in Germany.
Hitler is not just "hated" there, Germans are very well able to laugh at him (c.f cinematography), which shows that he's not even a tense or taboo subject.

sry, but ure wrong.

I know it destroys everything this thread of yours is about and makes you feel useless but... However misfortunate, it is the best way to put it.

no, u just proved u dont know about it.

I'm discussing this issue with a german friend of mine. We're not illiterate and happen to have learned history, but that doesn't even matter.

Let me tell you something.
I know exactly what you think, your mind is an open book, seriously. Like many kids, you have.. well, some of the same dreams as the nazi. Simple minds are close to each other.

I suggest you pursue your natural inclination. Go there then emule and download the movies she directed. You'll be wonderfully comforted in your feelings.

im sry, but you are bad in analyzing people. really bad.

and you and your friend arent like that, but the topics question was not why gazouille and his friend hates hitler. the question was: why GERMANS. read the topic again.

son how many germans do you know? with how many have you spoken about hitler? how many of those got the reaction you keep tooting about?

can't be many.

Sure there are some who are like he descibes them, but you have weird people everywhere.

and I guess he won't answer anyway, see comment #154


yeh, cold have been esr-bug, too but we'll see i guess.

doesnt matter what i say you still deny it.

deny what? are you trolling? he actually IS german and KNOWS germans in personal and has already proven you wrong.

he havent proved me wrong. and i also know ppl from german personally.

ok, so these guys you "know" ... do they go all mental on you when you mention adolf?

not all, some just gets all silent and looks annoyed.

no wonder, if you start a conversation with "look guys, this hitler guy ... was he really that bad?"
maybe they just feely igry for you. or maybe they just cannot grasp your sheer idiocy. who knows, mate ... who knows.

no, im not asking that kind of stupid questions like you.

you are right that I would still deny it.

But it would give you a least some credibility, if you had for example lived in Germany for a few months or had German colleagues with whom you had talked several times etc.
I don't regard contacts over the internet as "knowing" people.
So, personally I don't know any Finns.

i havent lived in germany, i have been there 2 times. there have been many trade students in my school that are german. also i have 4 german friends (who moved from germany to finland when they were 15)

and, do they all go nuts and kill their babies when stand in front of them saying "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler"?

Or do they just deny that he did good things for Germany?
In that case you really should read the book "[url=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAFMEX.html[The meaning of Hitler[/url] by Haffner that agardenchair mentioned. It does indeed mention his achievement's but also denotes that anyone who leads a country will do something good, even if it's just by accident. And then it proceeds to describe to the downfall and the mistakes he made.

Oh, and the book is from 1978, so hardly an new viewpoint.

I'm not a specialist in pedopsychiatry.
You need an education, and I think my movie suggestions are very suited to your case. You have a humongous lot to learn, you're not part of the "people" yet.

One day you'll come to even forget you were having the views you have now, so why bother. I can only pity your current state.

my views of what ? as you seem to know me better than i do, what are my views ?

everybody knows you kid. believe it or not, but you're not special, there are millions like you in every town, in every school in every class. so yes, we know you.

you just proved u dont.

ok, you're a very special boy.

thanks.

Thank you tourist :), this is what i think too.
I told him he'll probably forget he ever was so stupid, someday, or not, and he'll remain so.

surely he'll smarten up and shift his interests toward more profound things, like hating muzzies and niggers.

:o

Here's a fun little list of Goebbels quotes: Fun with propaganda.

Should give you a good idea of what the Bush administration has actually been doing all these years. The 4th quote down is particularly revealing. Unlike the Third Reich, the Bush cabal had to find imaginative new ways of silencing dissent - the SS was not available. It was less police/assassination/torture and more mind-control deception. Of course, the crazy fascists have managed to convince everyone our economic problems are the result of 'ultra-liberalism'.

But, politics is full of shit and boringness. Better to close your eyes and hope Hitler doesn't come your way. Let all the idiots fight life and limb to keep you out of concentration camps, while they receive no recognition, no money, no gratitude, and in fact, are usually the one's getting shit on the most by the very people they are saving. Wonderful world we live in, don't you agree?

yeah :)

and even hitler have said that politics is just a bunch of lies and mumbo-jumbo and he was damn good (if not the best in history) in it.

He's nothing compared to Stalin or Mao.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will
yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself
to a few points and repeat them over and over."


Terroris - Iraq
Al Qaeda - Iraq
WMD - Iraq
x10000000
_____________
= BOMB IRAK

Current pattern probably being

Obama - Nigga Towelhead Muslim
Hussein Obama -> Sadam Hussein(thank you previous propaganda) -> Terrorist
x1000000
___________
= VOTE FOR ANOTHER BUSH

This thread is now about bunnies from this point on.

i hate bunnies. they should be gassed. all! of! them!

[img1]

"what the fuck is wrong with germans and their instantly awakening absolute and blind hate if somewhere reads "hitler" or sees hitlers picture ?"

blind hate? hehe. The man who started the largest war in history and caused over 60,000,000 deaths. Hitler deserves all this hate, especially from germans. he's a huge taint in german history, and most of the germans are ashamed of his acts, some still feel somewhat guilty for it.

"i know he did many "terrible" things but he did much good too (nobody can deny it even they want so much)"

ROFL man. in the bottom line what we remember from hitler is not the fact he helped in recovering the german economy but how many people he killed and how much damage he caused to the world and to germany particulary, i dont think i need to get into details. btw i liked how you putted "terrible" under inverted commas, really says enough about you.

Hitler is the only man in history that deserves so much hate.
his name is a taboo in germany and the world for a legitimate and correct reason.

You forgot to mention that preparation for war (or "war economy") is the biggest boost an economy can get.

It dosen't really matter because everything good that he has done becomes irrelevant compared to the bad things and the damage he caused, which is my point.

Funny to read about "blind hate" and "Hitler" on the same sentence, I wonder what do they teach you in Finland danskie?

I think no one is being teached to hate hitler but you learn to do it by yourself using your common sense.

they indirectly teach you to hate hitler. With the constant, " hitlers an evil man...did evil things ect " .

personally hitler isnt evil much.. and like someone said, stalin was much worse.

and btw why is it that the holocaust gets more attention than the holodumor...

in a very different perspective.. if 60 million did die in WW2.. Well good, 60 million less people that'll make the world less crowded. 60 million less mouths to feed..

"personally hitler isnt evil much.. and like someone said, stalin was much worse."

lol, like what?

"and btw why is it that the holocaust gets more attention than the holodumor..."

Because not everyone is as stupid as you.

"in a very different perspective.. if 60 million did die in WW2.. Well good, 60 million less people that'll make the world less crowded. 60 million less mouths to feed.."

Don't forget all the saved oxygen!!! Hey, how about someone kills you and than your parents, than any other relatives, maybe also everyone else you know? That will make the world an even better, less crowded place, don't you agree?

I guess the only reason you can say that Stalin was worse is cause he got to rule longer.

I mean he was pretty good at making millions suffer, too. But being actually worse for his people than Hitler is ridculous. At least Stalin won his war...

Personally, I would say the dictator who did the most to really ruin his country is Pol Pot.

But the worst in affecting the world I would still say Hitler.

rofl @ the name pol pot

If you're implying any politician(and there is no difference between being a dictator or any other leader) causes someone to suffer and is evaluated in the end by how well he's done overall for his country, I would agree with that. Stalin has won an impossible war by transforming an agrarian disaster country through convulsions, repressions, blood, sweat and tears, into a world super-power.
By beating Hitler, I think he has eliminated a much, much greater suffering, real genocide of his and others nations. Some of the plans, if you read the official plans which include everything that the regime has done previously include reducing the population size down to 30 million, allowing people to count to five and basically enslaving these 30 million for hard industrial/farm work.
So, there are two schools on justice, one by intentions and one by actual consequences. I think Stalin is clearly better in both. 8 million repressed (archives have been opened,so not 40, lol @ solgenicin), only a few thousand more sentenced to death then before Stalin and countless millions and a nation saved on the one hand, and on the other hand we have basically communism = good philosophy, equal rights, socialism, rule of the proletariat, etc, and nazism = genocide, super race exploitation, purity, so bad intentions on the other hand.
PS
The fact that there has been a movement to equate nazism and soviet communism is really disturbing, but not new. However, not only that, but there's been some new history rewriting, brining a "more positive" light to Hitler. This means that cold wars are intensifying to new magnitude and there are coming global changes that will have to do with division and destruction of more countries, and a resurges of a new forms of colonial tactics. Probably has to do with coming confrontation with Islam and Asia. Good or bad, the main weapons of new wars are not firearms, but the media.

hahaha, after all the discussions you still manage to crack me up.

So, causing an agricultural disasters which starves millions is an achievement in your book?

Does that make Kim Jong-il the greatest leader of our times? Cause people are starving in his country too!

"So, causing an agricultural disasters which starves millions is an achievement in your book?"

My book does not include passages from the retards guide to historical obfuscation. Collectivization was an achievement. Terrible, terrible, mass starvations throughout the agricultural regions were a total fuck up. The two can coexist. Not only that, but agricultural disasters still do not overshadow amazing industrial growth which was the key to winning the WW2.

"Does that make Kim Jong-il the greatest leader of our times? Cause people are starving in his country too!"

You don't seem to understand what really happened. Read up on the infrastructural, farming, industrial, and other reforms.

Sure good things and fuck - ups can happen alongside without any connection.
But as every engineer knows, if you change a running system (and with running in this case I mean only providing food) and you end up with a disaster, chances are it's your fault.


"Collectivization was an achievement."

Yeh, they tried that in East Germany, too.

Worked way better than the West German approach.
Wait, no it didn't. It failed miserably.


I always find it interesting that people continually ignore that example along with Korea. Even though it should be what every reseacher of political systems dreams of.
You divide one country down the middle with two different political systems and see which one works out for the better.

"But as every engineer knows, if you change a running system (and with running in this case I mean only providing food) and you end up with a disaster, chances are it's your fault."

Thats pretty obvious. Any reforms are like that. However, it wasn't a functional system *at all* within the new socialist system. It was one of the things holding back the necessary industrialization. If you want to talk about the reasons for starvation, its a different discussion, and is besides the original point.

"Worked way better than the West German approach.
Wait, no it didn't. It failed miserably."

Wow, I guess that proves that Germany isn't Soviet Russia, horray?

"You divide one country down the middle with two different political systems and see which one works out for the better."

What you really see is how that particular country reacts, and most importantly how it's used by other countries.

"used" being the important word there, huh?

Also, I find it notable that the communists took reparitions from their part of Germany, while the evil Capitalists actual gave money. Sure, I guess Russia may have suffered more under the German attacks, but still it is interesting...

And no, not all reforms end in disaster, only badly planned / realized ones.
... or those where the people in charge only care about how the end results and not what happens on the way or to the common people.

But hey in that regard he acted just like a real capitalist, again :P


And yeah I might be on the edge of trolling now, but your rose-tinted glasses about anything related to Russia / Communism / Socialism are just ridiculous.

They could have nuked half of the world and you would consider it a strong move to help the world become a better place...

I state over and over, that what was done was done through blood, sweat, and tears. A lot of it was indeed unnecessary, more could have been done. But hindsight is 20/20, you don't judge hoe good someone is doing by taking away points out of a perfect score. You realistically evaluate the progress. If you think my view is rose-tinted, why don't you consider your own view?
What is my view anyway? All I'm arguing against the equal sign between Stalin and Hitler.
To do that I have to disparage this common perception of Stalin which has been drilled down into everyone head by the West. Again, he got a disaster, won a war defying everyone predictions (everyone gave SU two, three weeks) and left after him a nuclear, industrialized super-power. You might like (or not) to see a comparison of Russian GDP as a percentage of USA's GDP here. Dark grey is Stalin, yellow is Gorbochev, etc. I'm not the one wearing glasses here.

"was done through blood, sweat, and tears."
is in my eyes clearly a euphemism for murder, theft and imprisonment. -> rose-tinted.


And I am not sure what leads you to the conclusio that my view is too positive, cause I really don't have ahigh opinion of any political system in this world. Despite that, I do believe that the Western Capitalism / Democracy is preferable to any form of Communism / Socialism that has been seen until now.
But seeing how many countries fail with this system (e.g. in Africa) and how the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer here I wouldn't say it's very good either.

Also, I really wonder, what is the worth of being a super power?
How many lifes is that worth sacrificing?

""was done through blood, sweat, and tears."
is in my eyes clearly a euphemism for murder, theft and imprisonment. -> rose-tinted."

What is the higher authority determines what is murder and what is just punishment? What is theft and what is confiscation? In my view, the highest authority that yields those for reason that it exists in the first place. The reason government exists is to do what is best for the overall system.

"I do believe that the Western Capitalism / Democracy is preferable to any form of Communism / Socialism that has been seen until now."

How about a type of a system which can evolve into something better then Capitalism? What if it grew old enough for people to forget the blood, sweat and tears, or murder, theft and imprisonment that got the people everything they already had but not the best blessings of consumerist society, like Levis Jeans and Japanese electronics? Should it be destroyed than?

"Also, I really wonder, what is the worth of being a super power?
How many lifes is that worth sacrificing?"

The minimal amount that is less than the amount of people that will die as a result of the defeat. It's an immoral choice, but morality has no place in politics. And I hope you understand that the goal is not really "sacrificing people lives", that's not quite how it works.

That is like saying "Oh, it was only a small battle". Small battles are always big enough for those who don't get up and go home afterwards. Any compassion? Any gut feeling that killing is wrong?

What in the world are you talking about?

nope. nothing there.

"What is the higher authority determines what is murder and what is just punishment? What is theft and what is confiscation? In my view, the highest authority that yields those for reason that it exists in the first place. The reason government exists is to do what is best for the overall system. "

Even the it would still be a euphemism, for punishment. Cause the words make it sound like it was a voluntary sacrifice not a forced one.

"How about a type of a system which can evolve into something better then Capitalism? What if it grew old enough for people to forget the blood, sweat and tears, or murder, theft and imprisonment that got the people everything they already had but not the best blessings of consumerist society, like Levis Jeans and Japanese electronics? Should it be destroyed than? "

Who said anything about destroying? But yeah "can evolve" means nothing. Who says that it is impossible, that by some miracle capitalism will actually evolve into a better society?
You should chose the better possible system and not wait in a worse state until something happens. But that is again, the engineer speaking.

"An amount that is less than the amount of people that will die as a result of the defeat. It's an immoral choice, but morality has no place in politics."

Nice mathematics, but completely inappropriate.
a) I don't think it can be assumed that Stalin was preparing for that war in advance, cause he actually sided with Germany at first and was suprised by the attack.
b) Russia actually waged war first before being attacked. Is that the reason for sacrifice? More bloodshed?
c) The Allies never made such a sharp and (imo)disastrous transition to become a super powers. With that I mean England in the 19th and America in the 20th century.
d) The war against a not very industrialized Finland went badly.
e) The super-powers status after WW II didn't gain Russia that much imo.

So, basically, if Germany hadn't attacked that sacrife would have gained half of Eastern Europe and some dead soldiers in Finland.
Ok, that analysis was not really based on knowledge but more on my opinion, so be gentle :P

a) I don't think it can be assumed that Stalin was preparing for that war in advance, cause he actually sided with Germany at first and was suprised by the attack.

I thought it was pretty much considered that this pact was both Hitler/Stalin giving themselves time to develop. Stalin knew Hitler hated the communists and wanted to destroy them.

c) The Allies never made such a sharp and (imo)disastrous transition to become a super powers. With that I mean England in the 19th and America in the 20th century.

Britain stole from and abused much of the world/people to become a super power. America became a super power due to their profiting from the wars in Europe, so while they didn't do anything directly...

I agree that the pact wasn't meant for eternity, etc. but still I think most agree that he was taken by surprise when the German's broke is. Regardless, I still don't think Stalin knew for certain that Germany would attack when he started his reforms. That was years before Hitler gained power.

"Britain stole from and abused much of the world/people to become a super power. America became a super power due to their profiting from the wars in Europe, so while they didn't do anything directly... "

true enough. However, that I don't believe that that counters my point. What England did and what America profited from, both did not hurt their own people. And I was arguing that Stalin's rule wasn't all good for his own people.


Basically: "killing a few millions now, to maybe(!) save more later" is and was not a defendable decison.

I mean does anyone really believe losing many soldier in Finland helped save his country later?

I don't see how you can be arguing against killing on the one hand then disregard the UK/USA thing based on not harming its own people. Not to mention that technically the people the British harmed were citizens of the British Empire (In the same way that many of the people killed were citizens of the Russian Empire).

Stalin may have been surprised but that wasn't because he didn't think Hitler would attack but because of how soon he did, he was still fighting the British after all.

It may be the case that his attempted invasion of Finland didn't help his country, but he wasn't to know when he made the decision that it was going to go so badly. Like Yeltsin said, hindsight is 20-20.

You can judge Hitlers actions to try and kill all the Jews because the result was obvious when he made the choice, but it is entirely possible that the decision to invade Finland could have been beneficial, in the end the Finns won though and it harmed Russia.

I make that point because Yeltsin started talking about a marginal difference.

And when you talk about how good a leader he was for his people, then if you want to compare him to other nations you can also only include the people of that nation.

Yes, he was aware they will attack eventually and that part was probably somewhat badly phrased in my initial statement, the (keyword was certain). However, what I wanted to say is that I don't think that in the year 1928 he was aware of Hitler attacking him 13 years later...
That there was a possibility of war against Germany at that time, sure. But nothing was certain.

And at that point I must asked again what is so great about being a super power besides polishing your ego?

being able to swing the big penis around to the faces of 2nd/3rd world countries

GREAT!!!

Where do I sign up to sacrifice my unborn children?

stupid as me? rofl okay.. you must be a jew.

yes my parents and family can die..I honestly dont give a shit.. going to have to die one day..

but personally I think you should've been gassed or at least sent to the Gulag.

ok I get your drift. less people less problems, makes sense. so, why don't you lead by example and kill yourself?

a person doesnt make a difference when another is being born at the same time ;)

but it's ok for your family and parents to die? did they make you clean your room?

no, they made me take out the garbage

so how's living on the street been for you?

hitler didnt even come up with the idea to kill all the jews, he banished them from germany. goebbels (or someone else as high ranked as him) came up with idea to kill them in concentration camps / extremely hard work. and hitler just agreed on it.

Even if this was true, which i don't believe.


Go and fucking kill yourself. You misuse the little word "just" right there.

wasnt a misuse

rofl

you should publish your sources, cause the scientists reseaching that very topic should be very interested, cause as to this day it seems to remain unknown who exactly ordered and caused what.

Despite that, pretty much all agree that without Hitler's hate towards Jews the Holocaust would not have happened.

yep

what do you mean "yep"?

You statd that it is a fact that killing the Jews was not Hitlers idea. Which afaik is a new one...

No that is incorrect. HItler was the (only) center of the leadership of Germany for the entire time of his ruling.

No they don't, at school they only present historical facts to pupils' attention, that's all. Unless you live in a totalitarian country that is.

i guess youre a jew and i understand your anger. and you fail :(

danskie you are a real pain in the ass dude, you try to justify what hitler did with such a poor arguments it actually becomes sad the longer the thread goes. You seem to try and prosecute him every way you can, you said earlier you are not a hitler fan or a neo-nazi but you act just like that when defending him in such a way.

This was particulary funny to read -

"goebbels (or someone else as high ranked as him) came up with idea to kill them in concentration camps / extremely hard work. and hitler just agreed on it. "

even if it's true ( and afaik its not ) think about it this way - he was the supreme ruler of germany in these days and nothing could be done without his agreement, it dosen't matter who came up with the idea as long as Hitler agreed to it, because without his agreement on that idea the holocaust would have never happened. you can say extactly the same thing about basically everything he did while in command because he had his advisors and generals that came up with tons of great ideas such as this and he just agreed to them time after time like the invasion to poland or france, bottom line it was his responsibillity for being the ruler in these days.

The things you say simply make no sense, you can find attenuating circumstances for everything he has done including everything but searching so deeply for those kind of circumstances is just pathetic from someone who claim to not being a neo nazi.

You asked why all these "blind hate" for Hitler and you got the same answer from me and most of the guys here whether jews or christian, that it's not a blind hate and its totally justified, i just dont see where this topic is going, you could atleast answer my previous post if you think i'm wrong.

u jews are funny, especially in that how u want to misunderstand everything u read. I dont see a reason why hitler hated jews.

I understand perfectly what u were saying in your topic and answered it to the point, you just didn't reply to me and kept on taking the topic to a different direction. same goes for my last comment, instead of using a real arguments to contradict mine you just say i "misunderstood you" when we both know i didn't. If i did, explain yourself instead of talking periprastically.

if systematically killing 6,000,000 people of the same religion dosen't prove ones hate for those people i dont know what does, it's actually funny you doubt it.

You should read a little about the nazi idealogy, especially the races pyramid part, before spreading bs over the forum. jews were in the bottom of the races according to the nazism, and Hitler was the one who invented nazism, so yes i guess he did hate jews after all, along with slavs, gipsys, and rest of the "sub-races".

u did it again, nice.

either everyone misunderstands what you write ...

or maybe just you yourself.

jews, eh?

Didn't think you could top your previous statements in proving your ignorance, but hey you actually made it.

What's next? His first name wasn't Adolf? Or maybe he was actually Polish?

wow, man. just wow.

again: please go and kill yourself.

Sometimes nations are victimized not by tentacles from abroad, but from cancers within. Tentacles are easier to deal with - a simple sword, swung clumsily, can do the job. What though, will you do, to the cancers within your own body? Stab yourself?

You should thank the non-Nazi Americans. And also the Iraqi's who kept the military occupied. If it was a quick victory, more 'Axis of Evil' nations would likely have been attacked. Sadly, Iraq has literally suffered a holocaust (even though no one wants to use the word). It is the tragic result of Christian (is there any other kind?) fascism.

Maybe this time around, the world will learn its proper lesson: Don't make children feel inferior, don't be affected by propaganda, and most importantly, don't be Christian.

I know politics is horrible. Truth is, politics is horrible because almost all the good people are repulsed. The few who remain face endless, overwhelming numbers of evil bastards. There is a simple trick you can use to tolerate, and even possibly enjoy politics. It is called 'black humor'. Learn it, and get involved. Most atrocities, if not all, could be avoided if the people simply payed attention.

lulz.. liek ... in germany they BE BANNING EVERYTHUINGS and you go to JAIL for saying hitler. olol.


Do you people ever get out of the internet?

I hope you are using a proxy or else you need to RUUUUNNNNN!!!!
They already ordered me to go to jail for 10000 years for writing Hitler 10 times in this thread, plus I wrote "Sieg Heil", also once I greated someone by raising my right hand while driving!!!!

WE ARE DOOMED!!!

Really, what is _blind_ about Hitler hate? It's not like someone is hating him without a reason for doing so..

Here, this is a picture. it can explain a lot why people hate Hitler. (Don't look at it if you don't like pictures of dead bodies).

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shru...caust4.jpg

Everyone of those people in that picture were real people, like every user posting here on esr (even though I sincerely doubt that sometimes loljoke). They died (and millions of other) because of Hitler, and you can't possibly mean he's still an ok dude just because he built nice highways. It's pretty simple, you know. AND THAT IS WHY PEOPLE HATE HITLER.

But unless you really can't understand this, I'll make it even simpler with an example.

I'll kill your entire family and it will be ok with you if I build a highway afterwards (or before, doesn't really matter does it?) and / or fix your personal economy?

Srsly.

make sure you fix his economy by taking massive loans that you will pay with money you stole from his family!

Wasn't these one of those proven doctored "fake" newspaper pictures originally taken in Russia?

Of course the losers in a war will always be painted as the bad guys, because the winners can afford to keep the propaganda machine running and your average population is sheep.

But then, your post is coming from Sweden- land of the political correct, the most "extreme" country in europe and where all the "big" news sources are busy citing false or imaginary facts while throwing dirt at their political opposition. This coming for another person living in Sweden as well

Oh.....this guy is serious

hitler was the man

Your idiocy overwhelms me.

u2

/EOT

WHAT THE FUCK?

wat

I was sorry I clicked on this thread. but now I'm not.

danskie please stop posting, you're making Winland look bad (not like I care about that) but you're also making yourself look stupid.

and mash I wouldn't say anything about education in Finland if I were German :D

yea, when we compare the achievment of finnish scientists with german scientists, its obvious who has better education.

right? :)

damn, you have no clue what you're saying

try to prove me wrong then pizda

education and scientific achievements have nothing in common.

no matter how bad education system is, it will still produce brilliant minds, with certain, very high, amount of knowledge on a certain topic.

now, if you provide certain, very high, amount of money to these minds, it will result in a scientific achievements.


Thats why USA universities lead in number of nobel prizes their employees have won. Because of their private financing they have most money to spend on a research work.



Its also well known fact, that education level rises from west, where its quite low, to east, reaching top in japan, where ppl study all day long in order to pass any class.

rofl :D

all you can say after i destroyed your anus, pizda?:>

i dunno if you actually believe anything you wrote. i guess you are trolling me, because its hard to be that ignorant :p

so far you're being ignorant here.

yea, but at least i know that education actually matters. germany used to have (still has) a very dividing school-system. kids who are good in school get seperated from kids who are bad at school. thats why germany always produces the elites of the scientific community.

whereas finland has a system where all kids get grouped together. everyone gets mediocre in the end.

you dont read. give one proof of education influence on scientific achievements. nazis just get financed.

and it doesnt matter if nazis get divided, if they learn how to add in highschool.

topics in eastern countries are much more advanced