Poll of the Day > "Hitler wanted to end poverty"... how do you even respond to that?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lokarin posted...

Y'all are kinda missing the point...

Someone I was talking with was against socialized health care because it would end poverty and "hilter wanted to end poverty"

maybe you should stop talking to zeus, problem solved, ok?

---

Lokarin posted...

Y'all are kinda missing the point...

Someone I was talking with was against socialized health care because it would end poverty and "hilter wanted to end poverty"

It's like you can almost feel your IQ being sucked into a black hole of intelligence.

---

emagdnE posted...

Having the high score when it comes to killing Nazis is a pretty big mitigating factor.

Not to mention Hitler killed more people total. He was more than just the Holocaust. He was WW2 as a whole.

You do realize that Stalin was almost on the Nazi's side; right? As in 'he and Hitler invaded Poland together'. Pretty much the only reason he wasn't part of the axis is because Hitler made the dumb mistake of trying to invade Russia. And no, Hitler is not responsible for the atrocities committed by the Japanese. Hell, what they did to Nanking was so bad the NAZI'S were appalled! Not to mention that blaming him for WWII is kind of... well... murky. Things like what happened in Poland make it so that the whole thing could have been easily averted and other things like the multitude of treaties burdening Germany is what made Hitler's rise even possible in the first place.

This is veering dangerously close to the "We should have supported Hitler against Stalin as the lesser of two evils during WWII" school of thinking

I'm not. Hitler was a terrible person who let his hate blind him and committed so much evil and wrong I doubt we'll ever fully understand all of it. Stalin was terrible, arguably WORSE, but his siding with the Allies (even if it was because Hitler invaded) allowed for the removal of one of them. What I am saying is that, for lack of a better way to say it, at least Hitler wanted to make the world 'better'. It's true that his version of 'better' is largely horrific and would have resulted in a fascist empire being born; but compare that to people like Stalin and Mao who cared only for their own power and had no problem oppressing and destroying their own people to maintain it and, well...

But let's keep in mind. I'm making this judgement call from a world in which Hitler died in 1945 while Stalin lived to 1953 and the Soviet Union lasted till 1991. I'm 100% positive my opinion would be different if the inverse was true. But, thankfully, we don't live in such a world. Especially since I'm also fairly certain that Hitler wouldn't have had the self-control to keep his finger off the 'nuke' button so such a world might be me speaking as a pile of radioactive goop.

---

You can't hate Hitler. After all, he's the guy who killed Hitler.

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Stalin's regime killed more people than Hitler's. But we don't talk about that for some reason.

It didn't. Stalin killed some 10 million people via genocide, starvation, purges, and prison camps. Hitler's genocides alone killed 17 million. He also started WW2.

---

ZeldaMutant posted...

It didn't. Stalin killed some 10 million people via genocide, starvation, purges, and prison camps. Hitler's genocides alone killed 17 million. He also started WW2.

He got the stats confused with Mao.
---

GNS1991 posted...

And yet, there is no such thing as Soviet Hunters (from the family members that were in Gulags), but there are Nazi Hunters (from the family members that were in concentration camps). And before you say Gulags are not equal to CC, in there and in there people died by the hundreds.

Also, what you are essentially saying is... if you do not discriminate and kill every one, you are essentially not as bad as the one who does kill only one portion of nationals. GG.

...because Soviets weren't rounding people up on the basis of race and other factors to mass execute them in death camps. What you're essentially claiming is that there's no difference between somebody dying in a camp and bringing people specifically into a camp to mass-murder them. That argument is fucking insane, even for you. The difference between concentration camps and gulags is the surgical precision with which people were exterminated and the meticulous record-keeping involved in that whole process. But hey, go ahead and tell me all about the Soviet gulag gas chambers. I'll wait.


---

Zeus posted...

...because Soviets weren't rounding people up on the basis of race and other factors to mass execute them in death camps. What you're essentially claiming is that there's no difference between somebody dying in a camp and bringing people specifically into a camp to mass-murder them. That argument is fucking insane, even for you. The difference between concentration camps and gulags is the surgical precision with which people were exterminated and the meticulous record-keeping involved in that whole process. But hey, go ahead and tell me all about the Soviet gulag gas chambers. I'll wait.

You're a fucking nitwit like those fucking nitwits that gave Eastern Europe after the war to USSR, because... merits. Good luck in your life, mate.

Unbridled9 posted...

Things like what happened in Poland make it so that the whole thing could have been easily averted and other things like the multitude of treaties burdening Germany is what made Hitler's rise even possible in the first place.

Your argument is that Hitler should not be blamed for the start of World War II because Polish nationalists should not have resurrected the Polish state after 1918?

And the only treaty "burdening" Germany was Versailles. But Germany had already stopped making reparations payments in 1932 (after debts had been reduced and rescheduled under the Dawes and Young Plans) even before Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the occupation of the Ruhr had ended in 1925 and of the Rhineland in 1930, Germany became a member of the League of Nations with a permanent seat on the Council in 1926, and in the German referendum of 1929 -- on whether Germany should pass a law formally renouncing the Treaty of Versailles and banning the collection of reparations -- over 85% of German voters cared so little about the Treaty, they didn't even bother to turn out.

Moreover, even when German memories of defeat and Versailles were fresher and more bitter, it wasn't the right-wing parties that dominated German politics -- throughout the 1920s, despite the early struggles to pay reparations and hyperinflation, it was the centre-left SPD that remained the most popular party in Germany. The Nazi share of the vote actually fell from 6.5% in May 1924 to 3% in December that year, and then crashed to a feeble 2.6% in May 1928.

Nothing about Versailles made the rise of Hitler or World War II inevitable. Nor did Versailles "create Poland"; it merely rubber-stamped a de facto situation with de jure recognition. By the time the Treaty was signed, Polish nationalist militias had already created new facts on the ground by physically taking control of territory where the Reich government's writ no longer ran -- and there was very little the Western allies could have done to reverse things. Articles 87-98 of the Treaty simply amounted to an official acceptance of this new status quo.

---

I like to talk about hitler and bloodborne because of communist street battles
mostly tho they were just breaking windows before hand and someone popped off starting a chain reaction of shootings most likely a police plant or something
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDKKN3Dk4dI

---