BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
BigGameBaylorBear said:
Mothra said:
I don't think you understand my questions. If you don't view the death of six million Jews at the hands of Hitler as different than, say, the Irish Potato Famine, why do you get so worked up about it when others do? Why are you annoyed at the attention it gets? You've clearly indicated that it's at least an annoyance to you that other genocides aren't getting their due.
Indeed, I remain perplexed with anyone that views a totalitarian dictator responsible for enslaving millions and sending millions to their deaths in a positive light. I think most reasonable people, who aren't Nazis or neo-Nazis, would likewise find that perplexing, especially coming from someone who purports to be a Christian. In addition to being incompatible with any normal, reasonably-thinking, freedom-loving individual, it is also incompatible with your faith. That is of course why I am trying to get to the bottom of your motivations.
I'm not worked up about anything. You keep asking irrelevant questions about the Holocaust and other genocides but that's not related to the original topic of why someone would think Hitler is awesome.
It's obvious you are unable to review history, particularly the events of Nazi Germany, without removing your personal disgust for Hitler. I can look at Hitler and say he was, despite his many flaws, one of the most remarkable leaders in the 20th century. However, you're unable to do that without making snide remarks and bringing up the Holocaust.
I brought up other genocides to make a point how I wish we could discuss Hitler, Nazis, and the Holocaust the same way we discuss Holodomor or Potato Famine. 80 years removed and the Holocaust is as taboo as it was after the war ended. Arguably, Stalin is equally or worse than Hitler yet he is not nearly as Taboo.
You are under the impression I have some hatred against the Jews but it's not true and therefore want me to put the Holocaust on some pedestal above the other events but I will not do it and that drives you mad.
You seem to be taking my questions personally. I am simply trying to understand how a decent human being and purported Christian could find Hitter awe-inspiring and worthy of reverence. No need to get upset about it.
I think most reasonable people would be disgusted at Hitler's conduct. Most decent people see him as an objectively evil man, responsible for enslaving and killing millions. Yet, you are inspired by Hitler, so I am just trying to understand my disconnect. If it is an inability to be objective, I will take your critiques to heart and try to be more objective like you.
So, please educate me on Hitler's awe-inspiring qualities. I am really interested to find out all of the qualities you find inspiring. Do you believe he has been misunderstood? Was he in truth a good and decent person, in your book?
As for the Jews, I get it, you don't hate them. You just think they're a bunch of babies who whine too much about Hitler. Right?
Your brain is incapable of reviewing history objectively. Some people can, others like yourself cannot. There's really no point in trying to explain this concept any further as you just continue to add new adjectives and ask if I think it is fitting, the new ones are "inspiring" and "misunderstood"
I realize at the ripe old age of 25, you are a lot more brilliant, wise and objective than this old man, but I thought we had defined what the term "awesome" means, and that you agreed with my definition. If you recall, awesome actually includes "inspiring" in some definitions.
But since you are sensitive to that language, why don't you tell us what "awesome" and "remarkable" mean to you, and how Hitler rises to that definition.
As for misunderstood, I asked you whether you believed he was. I didn't say you said he was misunderstood. I merely asked the question do you believe he was. I think it's a fair question, but if you're unwilling to answer same, noted. I know the Gen Z generation is a lot more fragile than us Gen Xers.
Hahaha like clockwork! You go back to the ad hominem attacks. You're not that wise if you resort to logical fallacies every time you attempt to debate me.
What game are you trying to play? I explained how Hitler could be deemed awesome, based off the Oxford definition, "Extremely impressive or daunting, often inspiring awe, respect, or fear (e.g., "an awesome sight," "an awesome task")."
KEYWORD "OR", that doesn't mean all of those definitions are applicable in this case you troglodyte.
However, you nitpick a single part of it - "inspiring". Did you ignore the rest? An intelligent person can use context clues to see how I used the word. I explained it already. Go back to my original explanation.
Also, I clearly acknowledged that you phrased "misunderstood" as a question. Go put your readers back on and reread it, grandpa.
When you said, "Your brain is incapable of reviewing history objectively," was that an ad hom, or did I misunderstand you?
As I said before, I was simply trying to have a discussion with you about why you are in awe of Hitler, and why you respect him like you do. As I said above, it is a bit unusual for a Christian and decent human being to hold a person responsible for such atrocities in such high regard. Combine that with your rather lowly opinion of the Jews, and it does make one wonder (as Oldbear suggests) what it is about Hitler you seem to love.
If you are not interested in having that discussion, I understand. I assume the answers might be a bit embarrassing.
You're right, I clearly overestimated your intelligence. Go back up to the beginning to where I clearly explained why I was in awe.
Who said I don't think highly of Jews? I don't recall ever saying that.
Was that another ad hom?
I get it - you think he was a great leader who was able to unite the country, in a nutshell. I was simply hoping you could expand a little more on the cursory statements, but if you're unwilling to do so, so be it.
A few more questions, if you will permit this moron to ask them:
1) Do you believe Hitler has received a bad wrap? Do you believe he's as bad as many claim or is that, perhaps, the Jews ginning up criticism?
2) Do you believe the Holocaust was as bad as the consensus seems to be or is that another case of perhaps the Jews whining too much about it?
3) Did the Nazis send Jews to the gas chambers? If so, how many? And do you think Hitler knew about it or approved it? Or is this an instance in which he has gotten a bad wrap?
4) Who do you respect more between these individuals and why: 1) Hitler, 2) Stalin, and 3) Mao?
I will hang up and listen.
Your first paragraph sums up my beliefs perfectly but I feel like you continuously made things more complicated as you went on. I'll answer your questions.
1) People are entitled to their own opinions, who am I to tell them otherwise? With that being said, I will argue my own. He's not as taboo to my generation as to yours, we treat him more of a historical figure. Your fathers and grandparents fought a war against him, we are further removed. I treat him like Hirohito.
2) Any massive loss of life is bad. What's the consensus these days? Does it receive special treatment? I won't clutch my pearls if someone makes a light holocaust joke.
3) They originally gassed disabled people (some who were Jewish), then Soviets I believe, from there they dipped into other prisoners, gypsies, Jews, etc. Not sure how many. Many historians suggest he knew about the gas chambers, given the structure of the Nazi Regime but there's no surviving signed order from him.
4) I only know the basics when it comes to Mao, keep that in mind. I give the nudge to Hitler since he's not a communist
Thanks for the answers. I would submit that your criteria of what constitutes a "great" leader differs significantly from most historians' definitions. Your criteria seems to be almost entirely focused on power, and the ability to hold on to same - at least for a while. That seems to be what you respect the most - Hitler's ability to acquire power and turn Germany into a war machine. To you, that somehow makes him great.
However, I would submit that a truly great leader possesses more than just a bit of charisma and strongman qualities (if you can call those qualities). There have been numerous totalitarian and brutal dictators throughout history who have been able to amass power through force and intimidation. Hitler is just one in a long line. Mao, Pol Pot, Kim-Il Sung, Stalin, etc. I suppose using your very narrow definition of greatness, all of those individuals could be considered "great," as they were able to amass power, and make their countries more powerful and feared.
But I would submit a "great" leader possess much more than strongman qualities. A truly great leader doesn't merely rule through force and intimidation. A truly great leader has some semblance of integrity and ethics, IMO. He has the ability to rally people not through mere fear and intimidation, but inspiration. He has the ability to listen and empower his constituents. He has self-awareness, and vision. And he has staying power. Hitler possessed very few, if any, of the above qualities. Hitler rose to power through fear and intimidation. He said things that were red meat to a people who had been been brutalized by the repercussions of WWI. The German infrastructure and innovation were already there, but Hitler stepped in a filled a void.
And his tenure was very, very short, and ended very badly for both him and the German people. And that is ultimately his biggest indictment. He had far too many character flaws and personal failings to last for than a few years in power. And in his wake, there was death and destruction. In that sense, Hitler made a decent strongman for a period, but anyone who caused the destruction he wrought is not a "great" leader. Not by any stretch.
The same can be said for the other strongman throughout history. Mao and Stalin were certainly powerful. They ruled much longer than Hitler, and with an iron fist. But does that make them great, or merely powerful? They are responsible for millions of their own peoples' deaths. I would submit that neither of these men were great. They left death and destruction, and a subjugated people in their wake. That is not greatness, my friend. Not in the least. It takes a very warped sense of that term to describe any of the foregoing leaders as great.
1) I agree that there are many in your generation who like and respect Hitler like you and Fuentes, though I don't think that number is as high as you likely believe. Respectfully, it is a sign of how much we have lost our way, and how morally bankrupt we have become as a people. As the saying goes, history has a way of repeating itself. It's why people are still trying communism despite the fact that it has no record of success.
2) We agree massive loss of life is bad. Do we agree there was massive loss of life, however? Does is upset you that perhaps the death of however many millions of Jews you believe died receives more attention than, say, the Irish Potato famine? And if so, have you ever asked yourself why that upsets or at least aggravates you?
3) Yes, there is no question he knew, as did the rest of Nazi leadership. How many Jews do you think died in the gas chamber? I've asked this before, but don't think I've gotten a clear answer: does it make him less culpable that he starved the Jews to death, or left them in conditions that led to death? Respectfully, you kind of seem to be making excuses for him and the rest of Nazi leadership. Could it be because he killed less desirable people in your mind, like the disabled, Jews and Gypsies? If he had killed white people, would that have been a lot worse in your book?
4) What does his form of govt. have to do with anything? Hitler was a socialist. Mao held onto power longer.
