PDA

View Full Version : The Secret History of Hitler



Gary D.
01-12-2010, 08:41 PM
I’m a conservative, and Rush Limbaugh probably wouldn't approve, but I'd like to see Oliver Stone's Secret History of Hitler, which I understand is coming out this year on Showtime.

The more I learn of Hitler and his Nazis, the more I hate them. When I see color photos of him relaxing on the Berghof’s terrace, chatting with Fräulein Braun, or playing with Blondi or Eva’s two dogs, the overused, overworked cliché phase, ‘banality of evil’ comes to mind.

From what I read, Hitler was always courteous to his underlings, begging his secretaries’ pardon for ‘asking’ them to come into his office for dictation, patiently listening to their personal problems.

Too many younger people, in our video-games society, don’t have the foggiest idea of what led up to the Second World War. Hitler—they probably equate him as living at the same time as Genghis Khan. Don’t laugh—we had a receptionist at the firm where I worked who didn’t know the capital of England—and she graduated—probably to get her out of the school’s hair.

herman2
01-13-2010, 11:47 AM
:army:
I’m a conservative, and Rush Limbaugh probably wouldn't approve, but I'd like to see Oliver Stone's Secret History of Hitler, which I understand is coming out this year on Showtime.

The more I learn of Hitler and his Nazis, the more I hate them.


I think the easiest way out of a situation is to hate first and learn later. Although I too hate the demonic things that happened during ww2, I have come to understand that all through history we have had demonic leaders from the time of Christ to current day. We talk and talk about history, but do we ever learn by it? We have studied Hitler until the cows come home, but what do we learn? There are new Hitlers amongst us, and we still did nothing to prevent it! I do not agree that Nazi's are to be hated. My grandfather and family were members of the Nazi party, but I don't hate them. I hate the man and the leaders who made it unjust for them to refute being members. they did not have a choice. If you did not pretend at least to be Nazi, you would suffer. Remember the movie Sound of Music and what happened when the Captain did not hang up the Nazi flag at his house? I do not agree to the generalization that we must all hate Nazi's. They were Germans that were unfortunately forced to becopme members...and don't tell me they could refuse...it was a different time back then. you just did and could not refuse, if you knew what was good for you, back then, so I am told, and so I have learned from my old relatives.
P.S. I do agree that Hitler was a monster !

Gary D.
01-13-2010, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE=I do not agree that Nazi's are to be hated. ![/QUOTE]

It's hard not to hate concentration-camp guards, Nazis, shoving helpless people into gas chambers.

Digger
01-13-2010, 06:46 PM
It's hard not to hate concentration-camp guards, Nazis, shoving helpless people into gas chambers.

Agree, but throughout history and today we can find such individuals prepared to commit the worst atrocities for their political masters.

digger

Gary D.
01-13-2010, 08:31 PM
Agree, but throughout history and today we can find such individuals prepared to commit the worst atrocities for their political masters.

digger

No excuse, of course. It's always appalling to read of Nazi leaders--Himmler, for one--who were very fond of their children, and then went out and gave orders for other children to be 'terminated.' Of course, the SS--particularly when they started drafting into that group--picked up the worst trash to handle the dirty work.

flamethrowerguy
01-14-2010, 05:46 AM
Of course, the SS--particularly when they started drafting into that group--picked up the worst trash to handle the dirty work.

But even the worst trash was psychologically ****ed up by their nasty KZ or Einsatzgruppen activity after a couple of months. Nazi authorities recognized that problem ("We're breeding ourselves a bunch of psychopaths"), that's why they oftenly chose to use KZ inmates or foreign auxiliary forces to do the dirty work.

Rising Sun*
01-14-2010, 06:46 AM
It's hard not to hate concentration-camp guards, Nazis, shoving helpless people into gas chambers.

I find it harder to take the conduct of the Japanese and Koreans who were generally more mindlessly brutal, at least by Western standards, than the Nazis.

But less clinically and efficiently murderous than the Nazis.

There isn't a country in the world right now that couldn't find people to staff the equivalent of the Nazi and Japanese camps under similar, or even lesser, conditions than obtained under those regimes.

Some of those people are already serving in the military and police forces and prison services in every country. Some of them are already in prison as prisoners rather than warders, or will be in time, while most of them are in the community most of the time whether convicted or not. And some of them are just amusing themselves stubbing out their cigarettes on their de facto wife's sorry little children of different fathers, or beating up people of different races in the street just because they're different, and generally just being vicious mindless thugs.

And I'm talking there about Western countries which supposedly hold to high standards of liberty and respect for life, not the countless shitholes around the planet where such notions haven't been heard of, let alone anyone making any attempt to observe them.

The problem with the concentration camp guards wasn't them, but the system which allowed and ordered them to do what in most cases they did, willingly or not.

But it's worth remembering that some of the worst offenders in the concentration camps were the kapos drawn from the prisoners. Whether they were worse to try to survive; or worse because they worked out their fear and anger on other prisoners; or worse just because they were bad is debatable and probably unknowable, but the fact remains that they were often worse than the Nazis running the camp.

So to be fair we should revile the kapos as much as we revile the guards, but they seem to have slipped through the moral cracks for some reason when it might be argued that they were doubly bad by turning on their own.

Gary D.
01-14-2010, 07:29 AM
Even as much as I've read about Nazi era Germany, I admit I've never been able to get a handle on how one of the most civilized countries in the world could have permitted what went on. Perhaps we should keep Germany in mind as an object lesson. Didn't the Nazis use the system to obtain their ends? Hitler was, after all, legally appointed chancellor by President von Hindenburg.

I try to put myself back in, say, 1937, or so. I'm not sure just how brave I'd be myself in going up against Nazi thugs. Would I get up and give an old Jewish woman my seat on the trolley? Many Germans did, however, to show their disgust. I guess we all accommodate ourselves.

I had an older friend, who came from a wealthy Hungarian Jewish family. Marianne was very blonde as a young woman, and when the Nazis forced Admiral Horthy to abdicate and began rounding up Jews, talked herself out of being deported by claiming she was 'Aryan.' I can hardly blame her for that. She survived the Nazis and the Communists 'allowed' her to run, but not own, her own paint factory. During the 1956 revolution, she escaped to the United Kingdom, where she resumed her career as a paint chemist.

I hadn't known that much about the treatment of Jews in Denmark--apparently they fared much, much better than those in France, for instance. Most of the population was saved, and even those who were sent off returned to find their homes intact, furniture not looted, and pets well cared for.

Thanks for the input.

Rising Sun*
01-14-2010, 07:59 AM
Even as much as I've read about Nazi era Germany, I admit I've never been able to get a handle on how one of the most civilized countries in the world could have permitted what went on.

I'm not sure it was one of the most civilized nations in the world after WWI, any more than any of the other nations which participated in that appalling exercise in international butchery and inhumanity.

Hitler and many of his henchmen came out of that butchery and inhumanity, with a burden that the Allies didn't of Germany being crushed by the terms of peace.

For whatever reasons, it encouraged them to want more war where probably most men on all sides who had been ground through that mill didn't.

Among the reasons are probably that German civil society was ruptured towards the end of WWI by revolutionary impulses and events and subsequently by various civil and economic disruptions which made life in Germany much more difficult than in the Allied nations, and in part because of the harsh peace terms imposed upon Germany.

It might not have been all that different from the hostile sentiments which continued in the defeated South after the American Civil War, ably reinforced by the carpetbaggers etc.


Perhaps we should keep Germany in mind as an object lesson. Didn't the Nazis use the system to obtain their ends?

We should definitely keep the Nazis in mind.

Didn't Dubya and his tame law officials pervert the law to allow torture of terrorist suspects to obtain their ends?


Hitler was, after all, legally appointed chancellor by President von Hindenburg.

Maybe, but how he got to that point is a different issue.


I try to put myself back in, say, 1937, or so. I'm not sure just how brave I'd be myself in going up against Nazi thugs. Would I get up and give an old Jewish woman my seat on the trolley? Many Germans did, however, to show their disgust. I guess we all accommodate ourselves.

As a stupid headstrong teenager / early twenties when I had a bit of moral and less physical courage I might have, but once I had children to protect I probably wouldn't have. I can't imagine how people who, for example, hid Jews at their own and their families' risk did it. I'm afraid I wouldn't put my children at risk for a stranger. (Well, I would now, but when my children were young before I realised that I had sired a couple of arseholes I wouldn't have. If only I had the choice now! ;) :D )

32Bravo
01-14-2010, 08:23 AM
Most evil is committed as a result of hatred. As we all know, sometimes evil people manipulate the emotions of the masses, fueling hatred, in order to achieve power and control. Waste of energy hating Hitler as he's been dead for a while. Much better to promote justice and toleration, and be against those things which Hitler and his like represent - especialy hatred.

Gary D.
01-14-2010, 09:15 AM
Waste of energy hating Hitler as he's been dead for a while. * * *

We can't forget Hitler; however, we seem to keep forgetting and thus repeating our mistakes. The fact that I'd like to know what made Hitler tick, and how he came to be what he was, doesn't mean I endorse him. He probably started off no more anti-Semetic than any other German (or Frenchman, or Pole, or Brit, or American) of his time. After his mother died, the young Hitler wrote a letter of thanks to the Jewish doctor who cared for his mother, and to the end of his life, the doctor said that Hitler had been a devoted son.

32Bravo
01-15-2010, 04:05 AM
Big difference between not forgetting and learning lessons from history, and hating. However, people do have short, political memories and there have been tyrants throughout human history. This particular one has been a little closer to our time and there is much recorded evidence of this evil which can impact upon us more than that, say, of Ivan The Terrible.

The solution might be in education.

I think we all have equal potential for both good and evil, it realy depends on individual life experiences, and the levels of hunger for power within each of us, which brings out the best or worst of each of us.

Gary D.
01-15-2010, 10:49 AM
[QUOTE=32Bravo * * *

I think we all have equal potential for both good and evil, it realy depends on individual life experiences, and the levels of hunger for power within each of us, which brings out the best or worst of each of us.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. In the past, I've done some very brave things--or, if you prefer, stupid--mainly in coming up animal abusers, which, if I'd given it much thought, I'd probably have turned tail and ran. 'What business is it of yours?' My reply, in a particular instance: 'I'm making it my business.'

I wonder if I'd been so brave had I come across a Brownshirt knocking around an old Jewish shopkeeper?

Each of us might surprise ourselves, to come upon that sudden cowardice or bravery.

Digger
01-15-2010, 11:20 PM
We can't forget Hitler; however, we seem to keep forgetting and thus repeating our mistakes. The fact that I'd like to know what made Hitler tick, and how he came to be what he was, doesn't mean I endorse him. He probably started off no more anti-Semetic than any other German (or Frenchman, or Pole, or Brit, or American) of his time. After his mother died, the young Hitler wrote a letter of thanks to the Jewish doctor who cared for his mother, and to the end of his life, the doctor said that Hitler had been a devoted son.

I don't think we as a society are forgetting Hitler. He his underlings and his murderous regime are probably more under the microscope than ever before.

Ignorence, intolerence and hatred are bigger problems for our world today.

digger

Rising Sun*
01-16-2010, 05:00 AM
We should pay less attention to Hitler now than to the many other current regimes which grossly abuse human rights and engage in tribal, caste, racist, religious, and political oppression and slaughter, but most of them are in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (including Israel) and the level of Western interest in and response to them is determined by Western self-interest rather than concern for the proud principles of human rights which supposedly underpin Western democracies.

I am, of course, excluding actions by those Western powers, eternally pure of motive, which might be seen in similar terms by those subjected to Western military invasions and occupations, for these are but fine and noble acts by selfless powers concerned only to rid the world of weapons of mass distraction; avoid regime change at all costs; redefine waterboarding as 'not torture'; engage in rendition programs which actually never happen; and generally jerk the public's gherkin with propaganda of vastly greater deceit and impact than Goebbels could have hoped for on his best, or worst, day.

While the human rights activists in the affected countries are routinely oppressed and murdered.

Hitler is a metaphor for racist evil and extermination of opponents and people he didn't like, but he's long gone and has been replaced by countless other bastards of equally great evil, albeit generally on a smaller numerical scale.

Which isn't any comfort to the victims of those regimes.

But they're the leaders and regimes we should oppose now.

Digger
01-16-2010, 05:42 AM
Well said RS.

I guess the old 'you're either with us or you're against us' statement has shifted the world into a potentiall more lethal phase, than any time in history.

Wouldn't be surprised if you disagree with that sentiment.;)

digger:)

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 06:42 AM
Hitler is a metaphor for racist evil and extermination of opponents and people he didn't like...


Maybe. :neutral:



But they're the leaders and regimes we should oppose now.


Who, where, why, when and how should we choose to oppose?

RS: "I am, of course, excluding actions by those Western powers, eternally pure of motive, which might be seen in similar terms by those subjected to Western military invasions and occupations, for these are but fine and noble acts by selfless powers concerned only to rid the world of weapons of mass distraction; avoid regime change at all costs; redefine waterboarding as 'not torture'; engage in rendition programs which actually never happen; and generally jerk the public's gherkin with propaganda of vastly greater deceit and impact than Goebbels could have hoped for on his best, or worst, day."

Rising Sun*
01-16-2010, 06:44 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if you disagree with that sentiment.;)

digger:)

Do you seriously think I would disagree with anyone who says I've said something well?

Most of the planet thinks I'm an idiot. According to my wife, anyway, who is an expert on everything. Except how to make me happy. ;) :D

Rising Sun*
01-16-2010, 07:03 AM
Who, where, why, when and how should we choose to oppose?

Who: For example, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the alleged government in Afghanistan.

Where: Depends. Mostly in our countries by denying them commercial and personal migration and participation.

Why:Because from the Western perspective they are sponsors of anti-Western terrorism and practitioners of primitive social oppression of women, as well being the antithesis of everything we stand for to do with human rights, liberty and basic human decency towards one another.

When: Now.

How: For a start, withdraw political and military support from them and tell them that they're on their own. And mean it. For example, Saudi Arabia exists in its medieval shell largely because of American support for it, because of oil. The same with Pakistan to a lesser extent, but because there the bonus is Pakistan's supposed support for the supposed 'war against terror'.

But none of that will happen because all nations will do a deal with the devil to preserve their interests.

In which case none of them have the high moral ground to be too upset about Hitler, because in one way or another they are all equally corrupt, just not so directly.

As, for example, were the Yanks with the destruction in Chile of the emergence of liberty which the Yanks extol but would not allow the people of Chile to experience under their democratically elected Allende government, because it wasn't the right sort of democracy and liberty for the Yanks.

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 07:14 AM
I heard, through a malt whisky induced fog, yesterday, that once an argument reaches a point where someone says: "...behaving like Hitler!" then the argument has deteriorated to apoint that there is nothing to be gained by continuing - or something to that effect.

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 07:21 AM
Who: For example, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the alleged government in Afghanistan.

Those would be examples of your choices, RS. How do the rest of us choose?



Where: Depends. Mostly in our countries by denying them commercial and personal migration and participation. What would we be denying ourselves when we deny these countries commercial participation, and what would we be brewing by destabilising the economies of that region?



Why:Because from the Western perspective they are sponsors of anti-Western terrorism and practitioners of primitive social oppression of women, as well being the antithesis of everything we stand for to do with human rights, liberty and basic human decency towards one another.

So, we do have the moral high-ground?



When: Now.
A hasty decision?



How: For a start, withdraw political and military support from them and tell them that they're on their own. And mean it. For example, Saudi Arabia exists in its medieval shell largely because of American support for it, because of oil. The same with Pakistan to a lesser extent, but because there the bonus is Pakistan's supposed support for the supposed 'war against terror'.

Maybe Pakistan is simply trying to survive in a nightmare, no-win scenario?

Rising Sun*
01-16-2010, 09:00 AM
Those would be examples of your choices, RS. How do the rest of us choose?

You asked me how I would choose. I expressed my choices.

I wouldn't presume to make choices for other people.

Which distinguishes me from politicians and a whole host of other arrogant arseholes who impose their idiotic views on me all the time.

Such as, for example, our latest great legislative innovation that when one lesbian has a kid via turkey baster or whatever the latest medical equivalent is then both mothers can be shown on the birth certificate, with no father. The last I heard was that a man and a woman had to make a baby, but apparently I've missed a huge evolutionary step which now allows two women to do it so that two mothers can be registered on the birth certificate without the nuisance of a male.

I'm sick to ****ing death of reality being manipulated to conform with absurd ideas of political and cultural correctness.

Even the average moron can work out the difference between right and wrong, sense and nonsense on simple issues like who can be a mother and a father.

It takes a ****ing politician or some other self-appointed guardian of community attitudes to decide that a kid can have two mothers and no father.

And these are the same sort of ****wits who decide whether or not we should invade Iraq to deal with weapons of mass distraction which even Blind Freddie could see weren't there on the weak 'evidence' produced beforehand by the nations chomping at the bit to get into Iraq.



What would we be denying ourselves when we deny these countries commercial participation

Leaving them to revel in their seventh century attitudes and conduct, and freeing ourselves of having to accommodate that bullshit.

Why should women in Saudi Arabia be denied the right to drive a car, or even to go out of the house or to attend a doctor alone, and women in other parts of the Islamic world be punished for being raped because they lack the requisite number of four male witnesses to the rape to confirm it was a crime, or punished for reporting a rape without the requisite number of male witnesses coming forward, which automatically makes them an adulterer or slut deserving of male punishment (which, surprisingly, can include being raped. As the Yanks say: Go figure.). I may have missed something here, but the last time I heard of four blokes witnessing a rape they were the offenders.

It's a bullshit system of outrageous male domination, oppression and exploitation of about half of the human race in those countries.

I couldn't give a **** about their oil.

I'd rather walk than see a woman hit with acid or killed for some bullshit notion of an 'honour killing', whether here or in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or some other shithole where men think it is 'honourable' to kill women for being victims of crime or, worse, just because they talk to someone of the wrong caste or village.

And I don't care to hear any more in my community about how we should be culturally sensitive to a system which oppresses women and how we should see them as liberated because they're not wearing bikinis. While their blokes have their tongues hanging out at every non-Muslim sheila showing a bit of flesh, never mind wearing a bikini.


and what would we be brewing by destabilising the economies of that region?

Equality.

Humanity.

Modernity.


So, we do have the moral high-ground?

Of course not.

It's not that long ago the what used to be called Negros were terribly oppressed in America, and it's still the case that some people are oppressed in various Western democracies.



A hasty decision?

If it's worth doing, it should be done now.


Maybe Pakistan is simply trying to survive in a nightmare, no-win scenario?

Yeah, like Musharraf suddenly came on board after 9/11 when he realised he was on a hiding to nothing from the Yanks, who stupidly fell into his trap.

Pakistan is entitled to pursue its own course of covert support for Islamic terrorists, part of which is aimed at India, because that is their orientation (a capital called Islamabad is a clue) but that doesn't require the rest of us to accept the venom it exports.

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 09:34 AM
You asked me how I would choose. I expressed my choices.

I wouldn't presume to make choices for other people.

It was a question intended for the forum as a whole.

Wasn't trying to imply that you making choices for others - we all ought to fight our corner. Furthermore, if we don't, then we have no other opinions with which to compare and guage our own.




I'm sick to ****ing death of reality being manipulated to conform with absurd ideas of political and cultural correctness.

On that point I'm in your corner.

Arguably, one thing which we humans have in common is that we're all different. Not just our fingerprints, but also our wants and needs are different for as many reasons as there are individuals. So, to come up with solutions to problems which seem fair and acceptable to everybody is impossible.



Given that, is it in the interests of any First World government to promote the advancement of the Third World to equal membership of the First World?

If it is not, then should we be making judgements on Third World regimes using First World standards?

If the Third World should be assisted into becoming First World, then should we not have a description of that mission, and should we not then have a long-term strategy, together with the short-term plans, in place to achieve the mission?

If we, the First World, continue to exploit the Third World, then do we have the right to complain when the Third World kicks back. If we do, do we just go over there and kick some arse, just to demonstrate that we're not to be messed with?

Just being a little circumspect, chaps.

ISLAMABAD

After the formation of Pakistan in 1947, it was felt that a new and permanent Capital City had to be built to reflect the diversity of the Pakistani nation. It was considered pertinent to locate the new capital where it could be isolated from the business and commercial activity of the Karachi, and yet be easily accessible from the remotest corner of the country.


A commission was accordingly set in motion in 1958, entrusted with the task of selecting a suitable site for the new capital with a particular emphasis on location, climate, logistics and defense requirements, aesthetics, and scenic and natural beauty.

After extensive research, feasibility studies and a thorough review of various sites, the commission recommended the area North East of the historic garrison city of Rawalpindi. After the final decision of the National Cabinet, it was put into practice. A Greek firm, Doxiadis Associates devised a master plan based on a grid system, with its north facing the Margallah Hills. The long-term plan was that Islamabad would eventually encompass Rawalpindi entirely, stretching to the West of the historic Grand Trunk road.

Islamabad nestles against the backdrop of the Margallah Hills at the northern end of Potohar Plateau. Its climate is healthy, pollution free, plentiful in water resources and lush green. It is a modern and carefully planned city with wide roads and avenues, elegant public buildings and well-organized bazaars, markets, and shopping centers.

The city is divided into eight basic zones: Administrative, diplomatic enclave, residential areas, educational sectors, industrial sectors, commercial areas, and rural and green areas?

The metropolis of Islamabad today is the pulsating beat of Pakistan, resonating with the energy and strength of a growing, developing nation. It is a city which symbolizes the hopes and dreams of a young and dynamic nation and espouses the values and codes of the generation that has brought it thus far. It is a city that welcomes and promotes modern ideas, but at the same time recognizes and cherishes its traditional values and rich history.

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 10:16 AM
A part of the problem regarding Political Correctness for the likes of you and I, RS, and others who frequent this site, is that we were raised with good, Christian values. Whether one follows the faith, or not,, is an individual matter, but the values are there. Unfortunately, many people today do not share those values of what is right and wrong, which opens the door wide for the PC Brigade and, as a consequence, the rest of us have to suffer the dictatorial vomit of those that think themselves wiser and better informed than the rest of us.

Rising Sun*
01-16-2010, 10:28 AM
A part of the problem regarding Political Correctness is that thee likes of you and I, and others who frequent this site, is that we were raised with good Christian values. Whether one follows the faith, or not,, is an individual matter, but eh values aree there. Unfortunately, many people today do not share those values of what is right and wrong, which opens the door wide for the PC Brigade and, as a consequence, the rest of us have to suffer the dictatorial vomit of those that think themselves wiser and better informed than the rest of us.

I don't much care for Christians of the annoying sort who bang on my door on Sunday when I'm trying to sleep, or the other sort at work who just shit me with their assurances that God loves me and everyone else when I can point to countless pieces of random brutality which contradict that, but I can't think of better values than those which Christ, as distinct from the arseholes who noisily claim to be Christians and who always want money from me rather than principle, espoused.

Which principles, unless you're a decomposing vegetable, are very clear and simple and obvious rules for living together in harmony

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 12:25 PM
I find Katherine Jenkins uplifting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2D5UaNO5HE&feature=related

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 12:36 PM
Speaking of things Islamic. When serving in North Africa during WW2, 2 Para (typically British) adopted the battle cry "Waho Mohammed"

They were portrayed howling this in the series Band of Brothers, when celebrating there escape across the Rhine, aided by some American chaps.

Nickdfresh
01-16-2010, 02:12 PM
...
Too many younger people, in our video-games society, don’t have the foggiest idea of what led up to the Second World War. Hitler—they probably equate him as living at the same time as Genghis Khan.....

Not true! :evil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBnDjXeKtY

Nickdfresh
01-16-2010, 02:24 PM
Most evil is committed as a result of hatred. As we all know, sometimes evil people manipulate the emotions of the masses, fueling hatred, in order to achieve power and control. Waste of energy hating Hitler as he's been dead for a while. Much better to promote justice and toleration, and be against those things which Hitler and his like represent - especialy hatred.

Is it just hatred? Or is it an irrational fear in the face of a misunderstood or misstated threat, the (dehumanized) "other," where peoples' natural impulses of self-defense and insecurity are manipulated into making them the "Scary Monsters" they're supposedly afraid of?

Even many participants in the most horrifying of genocides may be (very perversely) interpreting their actions as a form of self-defense...

Nickdfresh
01-16-2010, 02:28 PM
Big difference between not forgetting and learning lessons from history, and hating. However, people do have short, political memories and there have been tyrants throughout human history. This particular one has been a little closer to our time and there is much recorded evidence of this evil which can impact upon us more than that, say, of Ivan The Terrible.

The solution might be in education.

I think we all have equal potential for both good and evil, it realy depends on individual life experiences, and the levels of hunger for power within each of us, which brings out the best or worst of each of us.

That's why we read Lord of the Flies in some schools here...but it's often hard for many people to make those connections...

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 06:22 PM
Is it just hatred? Or is it an irrational fear in the face of a misunderstood or misstated threat, the (dehumanized) "other," where peoples' natural impulses of self-defense and insecurity are manipulated into making them the "Scary Monsters" they're supposedly afraid of?

Even many participants in the most horrifying of genocides may be (very perversely) interpreting their actions as a form of self-defense...

Sure. Flight or fight. For some, in order to fight they must get angry,usually as a result of fear. There fore they turn the energy of fear into hatredwhich is how they are able to commit acts of violence which they might not be able to commit in ordinary circumstances.

Dehumanizing doesn't necesarily equate with hatred. In a slave society, the slaves are often dehumanized in order to justify their enslavement but it does not follow that their masters necessarily hate them, providing they know their place.

However, hatred can easily lead to dehumanization taking a violent form.

32Bravo
01-16-2010, 06:36 PM
That's why we read Lord of the Flies in some schools here...but it's often hard for many people to make those connections...

An excellent book. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehuMZjyA6z8&feature=related

It would have been interesting to see how the society would have developed if they had been adults.

Digressing slightly
The Admirable Chricton is an inteerresting old film

Act One is set in Loam Hall, the household of Lord Loam, a BritishUnited Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. It is an island country, spanning an archipelago including Great Britain, the northeastern part of Ireland, and many small islands...
peer, Crichton being his butlerButler
A butler is a servant in a large household. In the great houses of the past, the household was sometimes divided into departments with the butler in charge of the dining room, wine cellar, and pantries. Some also have charge of the entire parlour floor, and housekeepers caring for the entire house...
. Loam considers the class divisions in British society to be artificial. He promotes his views during tea-parties where servants mingle with his aristocratic guests, to the embarrassment of all. Crichton particularly disapproves, considering the class system to be "the natural outcome of a civilised society".

At the beginning of Act Two, Loam, his family and friends, and Crichton are shipwrecked on a deserted tropical island. The resourceful Crichton is the only one of the party with any practical knowledge, and he assumes, initially with reluctance, the position of leader. This role begins to take on sinister tones when he starts training Ernest, one of the young aristocrats with them, to break a liking for laboured epigramEpigram
An Epigram is a brief, clever, and usually memorable statement. Derived from the "to write on - inscribe", the literary device has been employed for over two millennia....
s by putting his head in a bucket of water whenever he makes one. Crichton's social betters at first resist his growing influence and go their separate ways, but in a pivotal scene they return, showing their acquiescence by accepting the food Crichton alone has been able to find and cook.

Act Three reveals the island two years later. Crichton has civilised the island with farming and house building and now, called "the Guv.", is waited on with the trappings and privileges of power, just as his master had been in Britain. Lady Mary, Loam's daughter, falls in love with him, forgetting her engagement to Lord Brocklehurst at home. Just as she and Crichton are about to be married by a clergyman who was shipwrecked with them, the sound of a ship's gun is heard. After a moment's temptation not to reveal their whereabouts, Crichton makes the conventionally decent choice and launches a signal. As the rescuers greet the castaways, he resumes his status as butler.

Act Four (subtitled "The Other Island") is set back at Loam Hall, where the status quo anteStatus quo ante
Status quo ante is Latin for "the way things were before" and incorporates the term status quo. In law, it refers to the objective of a temporary restraining order or a rescission in which the situation is restored to "the state in which previously" it existed...
has returned uneasily. The Loams and their friends are embarrassed by Crichton's presence, since Ernest has published a false account of events on the island, presenting himself and Lord Loam in key roles. Lady Brocklehurst, Lord Brocklehurst's mother, quizzes the family and servants about events on the island, suspecting that Lady Mary may have been unfaithful to Lord Brocklehurst. The household evades these questions, except for a final one when Lady Mary reacts with shock - "Oh no, impossible..." - to the suggestion that Crichton might become butler at her married household. To protect her, Crichton explains the impossibility is due to his leaving service, and the play ends with his and Lady Mary's regretful final parting.



http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Admirable_Crichton

Gary D.
01-16-2010, 07:04 PM
Not true! :evil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBnDjXeKtY

Perhaps a lot of Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment was a put on--people acting stupid to get on television--but I wonder . . .

Too many younger people (20's and under) couldn't place the American Civil War--they thought it was probably in the 1930's. A school teacher thought the Panama Canal ran through Florida.

I don't know if it was a high school or university, but a Berkeley, California (where else?), school was proposing to do away with science programs because not enough 'minorities' were attending them--they were disproportionately Anglo-white. If Chinese, for instance, are minorities in California, are they included in that 'study'? Because of the school regime, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are probably outdistancing whites.

Weren't the Hitler Youth, because of all the hours spent in studying Nazi dogma, marching, and training for war, deprived of the traditional German education? I read this somewhere, and was surprised, because I thought, that even under the Third Reich, and even given what they were supposed to study, their education was good. As a result, after the war, how did Germany cope with the (surviving) young people?

I still maintain, even though young people are very adept with video games, they are, by and large, abysmally ignorant of history. My young cousin, twice-removed, proved this--he's near-genius but I'm always amazed what he doesn't know.

32Bravo
01-17-2010, 06:41 AM
This probaly not unusual, but it is also probably not the norm.

With some people, like horses, you can take them to water but you can't make them drink.

Clave
01-17-2010, 12:45 PM
Let's not forget Stalin in all this - in terms of his own people he was far worse than Hitler...

Don't get me wrong, none of what any of them did was good, but Hitler's aggression was mostly outwards, while Stalin was responsible for 20 - 30 million deaths of his own countrymen - good old 'Uncle Joe' had the facade of an amiable but tough leader, but in reality he was every bit as rabid and psychotic as Hitler.

32Bravo
01-17-2010, 05:21 PM
Let's not forget Stalin in all this - in terms of his own people he was far worse than Hitler...

Don't get me wrong, none of what any of them did was good, but Hitler's aggression was mostly outwards, while Stalin was responsible for 20 - 30 million deaths of his own countrymen - good old 'Uncle Joe' had the facade of an amiable but tough leader, but in reality he was every bit as rabid and psychotic as Hitler.

Most of us are aware of Stalin and his misdeeds -but why stop with Stalin?
...If we were to draw up a list of despots and their crimes, it would take some time to produce and some time to read. Furthermore, it has always suited the agenda of the Western powers to highlight Stalin's crimes for political reasons. So, no, we're not discussing, nor forgetting, Stalin as a despotic dictator but the thread is about Hitler, even though we do meander and digress.

32Bravo
01-18-2010, 02:03 PM
Most of us are aware of Stalin and his misdeeds -but why stop with Stalin?
...If we were to draw up a list of despots and their crimes, it would take some time to produce and some time to read. Furthermore, it has always suited the agenda of the Western powers to highlight Stalin's crimes for political reasons. So, no, we're not discussing, nor forgetting, Stalin as a despotic dictator but the thread is about Hitler, even though we do meander and digress.

Bloody hell...what a pompous arse!

I don't know what I was on, but I shall certainly try some more...but, perhaps, not before logging on.

My apologies, Clave. You raise a good point:

Hitler's aggression was mostly outwards, while Stalin was responsible for 20 - 30 million deaths of his own countrymen - good old 'Uncle Joe' had the facade of an amiable but tough leader, but in reality he was every bit as rabid and psychotic as Hitler.

As Herman has alluded to, Hitler terrorised his own people and had many of them transported to the concentration camps. These included Jews, Gypsys, the disabled and, of course, political rivals and dissenters. In comparison, for the most part, Stalin was confined by his own national boundaries, but if he had been free to operate abroad, I'm sure he would have equalled Hitler in his brutal treatment of other nationals. Hitler, on the other hand, was projecting outwards as he was pursuing a war of conquest.