Thread: In defense of Hitler
-
January 31st 2007, 01:44 PM #16
Re: In defense of Hitler
You'll note that there isn't a single homocidal maniac that has a gerbil as a pet.
-
January 31st 2007, 02:00 PM #17
Re: In defense of Hitler
Moreso he seemed to suffer of a dissocial personality disorder. The more severe forms being sociopathy and psychopathy.
There is not much literature surrounding Eva's life and relationship with Hitler. She was rather sheltered from the public eye.None of the biographies I had read on Hitler mentionned Eva as "mentaly insane". Possibly depressed when she atttempted suicide, an event which regained her the attention and affection of Hitler. (after his affair with Renate Muller, an actress).
There is a series of poems he composed addressed to her. I do not have time now but you might be able to dig them out from here:
http://libweb.princeton.edu/librarie...ds/hitler.html
It is an interesting question Pat raised. The answer to Eva's ability to be so attached to her "Schatz" may be that she was fascinated by his personality and rather void of political discernment. He had the reputation to be a "gentleman" with women.Charming in his manners. Yet "boyish" and definitly attractive to the type of women who likes to "nurture" her mate like a mother would. One biography mentionned Eva's excitment to Hitler's moments of "being a little kid" when he would close the doors of his exclusive bedroom (they had separate bedrooms) to play for hours with his toy trains.
-
January 31st 2007, 02:26 PM #18
Re: In defense of Hitler
Hitler was a heck of a complicated man. By all accounts, he WAS very polite to "Arian" women, liked animals a lot (and owned a few), was VERY patient with "Arian" children (and was known to play Santa Claus), and by accounts we have from neighbors and family friends, he was a most likeable man. The kind that would NEVER hurt anyone. You know, the typical story about the kind, courteous next door neighbor who reportedly ventured out for groceries when someone was ill, even.
Now, where have we heard this before?
Ah, yes. Show after show, story after story, "maniac goes on killing spree".
And you'll always usually find SOMEONE who'll say "but they were so NICE!"
Hitler might have had personality issues, but he was fully capable of making choices and making sure they were followed through on. He had a complex system of allegiance and loyalty, and he had more droidish sock puppets than this forum'll ever see.
Sociopath describes him just fine. "As harmless as a fruitcake" doesn't."A yodeling shaver has my full cooperation." -- Vigilante
"...if you were a house, you would want to be built on rock over-looking the sea." - Life As a House
-
January 31st 2007, 02:53 PM #19
Re: In defense of Hitler
From this we learn: beware of nice men.
"My love is nailed to the cross" - St. Ignatius the God-Bearer
“Prove your love and zeal for wisdom in actual deeds.” -- St. Callistus Xanthopoulos
I am Rob, True Poet of the True List. At least, that is what they tell me.
LaRubia is my private eye!

-
January 31st 2007, 02:58 PM #20
Re: In defense of Hitler
"A yodeling shaver has my full cooperation." -- Vigilante
"...if you were a house, you would want to be built on rock over-looking the sea." - Life As a House
-
January 31st 2007, 03:20 PM #21
Re: In defense of Hitler
"Insane" may be too broad a brush. I'm not attributing his ideology to insanity, either. He exhibited symptons of seclusion, antisocial behaviour, manic depression; he had bizarre sexual habits (involving women, including his neice, and excriment/urine) and he is known to have complained to his doctor about having orgasms during his public speeches. Now; I don't think insanity would explain this symtpoms. But, I would say that Hitler suffered from a kind of "insanity" because of his addiction to various drugs that, while relieving his addiction to them, certainly caused strange behaviour (megalomania). Hitler also suffered from brain degeneration not so long after coming to power; one sympton from which was parkinson's disease (characterized by his shaking left hand).
Just my view, but.....
Originally posted by Darth Executor
Germany was already slowly recovering from the depression before Hitler came to power, thanks to the achievements of Bruning (he ended reperations and brought normality to the economy). After you've removed all the negative elements of the Third Reich, you're not left with anything. He didn't end unemployment; he simply threw them into the army and started a war; and the rest of unemployment was solved by replacing the jobs of disenfranchised Jews.
On the other hand, Mussolini was a very good leader. It's just a shame he allied himself with a degenerate like Hitler (a man who was so mentally unstable, during the war, that he allied the Soviet invasion to happen despite knowing it in advance; who allowed the allies to invade Northern France unchallenged; etc etc etc). Mussolini solved Italy's economic problems through the greatest idea I think anyone has had in the last 60 years for unemployment: he stopped women being allowed to work and had them stay at home in the kitchen. Brilliant! Also, his economic policy of making Italy independent in terms of resources was a masterpeice. And, to his credit, Mussolini was intelligent enough to know, in 1939, that a war would be lost if it was started before they had fully prepared (which they hadn't).
Was Hitler even a racist? He had a Jewish doctor, and EVERYONE knew Reinhard Heydrich was part-Jewish. I think these inconsistencies show he was derranged.
Correct - I would have had him exiled to St Helena (or maybe a nice tropical place, like Israel?
Originally posted by SpinyNorman
). I think the real monsters were the bureaocrats who met at Wansee; such cold calculation. BTW, there's no direct evidence that Hitler ordered genocide; infact, he didn't seem to involve himself in anything much, choosing to stay at his Bavarian house.
I hear he had a pet trout.
Originally posted by Meh_Gerbil
-
January 31st 2007, 07:15 PM #22
Re: In defense of Hitler
Hitler was a drug addict.
-
January 31st 2007, 10:22 PM #23
Re: In defense of Hitler
-
January 31st 2007, 10:29 PM #24
Re: In defense of Hitler
-
February 11th 2007, 03:00 PM #25
Re: In defense of Hitler
Beware the bearded biohazard and the beedling horde.
-
February 11th 2007, 03:06 PM #26
Re: In defense of Hitler
Nochyu mokraya ptitsa nikogda ne letaet.
A wet bird never flies at night. -unknown [old Russian proverb]
Eudyptes: you are....as usual....100% correct
-
February 11th 2007, 03:14 PM #27
Re: In defense of Hitler
"Years ago, I mean decades ago, I read a quote about politicians performing quid pro quo favors for campaign cash, and whether or not we could prove it. The guy who was quoted opined that it was difficult to determine. He noted that in many cases, the payoff might not take the form of votes on legislative action -- those might be detectable, and so are avoided -- but could take subtler forms, like the question that is never asked at a hearing.
The media's doing a terrific job of not asking questions it doesn't want to know the answer to. It doesn't ask these questions in bulk, and the great volume of questions it doesn't ask makes it cheap to not ask questions.
And it passes these savings on to you, the customer." Ace
-
February 11th 2007, 03:29 PM #28
Re: In defense of Hitler
We had a discussion at work a while back about what Mel Brooks was trying to accomplish with the “Springtime for Hitler” idea in The Producers. (Aside from merely trying to create an unlikely hit musical.)
On the surface, it seems rather tasteless and even macabre. A Jewish filmmaker making a film about two Jewish men producing a play extolling Hitler as – not a monster – but on the contrary, an ordinary and even loveable guy.
But when you think about, it makes sense. Hitler was not a monster at least in the sense of being the kind of supernatural demi-demon he appears to be in the projection of history. On the contrary, he was just a man; a man who let himself be taken over by hatred and so became a monster.
So “Springtime for Hitler” is a cautionary tale. A caution against the view of history that there are born monsters, and a reminder that it is ordinary people who become monsters when they choose to follow evil rather than good. Likewise, the surviving films of the real Hitler’s ordinariness, even affability, are in many ways more frightening than the records of his atrocities. The atrocities remind us of the monster that was, and so we should never forget them. However, the ordinariness reminds us of the monsters that are always lurking there, and that we must always guard against. And that is something at least as important to remember.
-NeilYou can build a prototype by the book, but a legend you build by the seat of your pants.
-Carroll Shelby
-
February 11th 2007, 03:35 PM #29
Re: In defense of Hitler
-
February 11th 2007, 04:07 PM #30
Re: In defense of Hitler
Oui... allegedly kidnapped in 1917 by a French man. His disappearance seems a bit suspicious since despite of Hitler's love for Blondi, it was recorded in one of the biographies I read that he tested the efficiency of cyanide on Blondi and one of her pups before ingesting it himself. Both bodies of the dogs were found in the Bunker.
Similar Threads
-
I think Hitler was right
By Manwë Súlimo in forum Rec RoomReplies: 16Last Post: April 18th 2011, 10:26 PM -
Hitler and Stalin
By RanRan in forum Theology 201Replies: 14Last Post: March 30th 2006, 08:34 PM -
Hitler and Napolean
By TheOneAndOnly in forum World History 201Replies: 3Last Post: November 17th 2004, 01:18 AM -
Was Hitler right?
By stevencarrwork in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 5Last Post: October 24th 2004, 05:07 PM -
Is Hitler in Heaven?
By TheOneAndOnly in forum Apologetics 301Replies: 92Last Post: August 6th 2004, 09:29 PM















































































Quote

Pssst! Did you hear the news? I have a blog now!

YEC perspective of TE and OEC
Yesterday, 10:53 PM in Christianity 201