Hey Shady!

[Jack Weber]

Could you please back up your claim with any evidence that anyone is defending Saddam Hussein and/or Al Quaeda???

[Shady]

Sure.

You've been defending him for several pages. Claiming that he wasn't so bad. And that many other dictators were worse than he was.

if not more brutal than Saddam...

Saddam had things in check.

Regardless of how he kept things in check, my point was he did keep thinks in check.

Go big or go home the US way they can do it better then Saddam ever could!

Precisely why Saddam had to be a brutal dictator. It's the only way to run countries composed of groups like this

Saddam probably never knew he had so many admirers.

[BubberMiley]

Is there some kind of school among Republicans for taking quotes out of context? If so, you must be failing miserably, because even out of context they don't back up what you're saying at all.

[dre]

Sure.

You've been defending him for several pages. Claiming that he wasn't so bad. And that many other dictators were worse than he was.

Saddam probably never knew he had so many admirers.

None of those quotes mean what youre asserting.

[Jack Weber]

I'm so glad Professor Kitzel responded and proved what a clueless ideologue he really is...

His feeble mind fits perfectly with the Fox news/Tea party crowd...

[GostHacked]

You've been defending him for several pages. Claiming that he wasn't so bad. And that many other dictators were worse than he was.

Don't mistake this for support for Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur, and Mao made Stalin look like an amateur. In terms of history and brutality, Hitler ranks low on the Most Brutal Dictators list.

[ToadBrother]

Don't mistake this for support for Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur, and Mao made Stalin look like an amateur. In terms of history and brutality, Hitler ranks low on the Most Brutal Dictators list.

It's a tough call. I have a problem with putting Mao on the same level with Stalin and Hitler mainly because I think the evidence suggests that why Mao was a maniac, he didn't really intend to kill tens of millions of people with his economic policies. Even with Stalin, it's hard to tell whether a lot of the deaths were intentional or whether, again, it was just the product of ridiculous economic and agricultural policies. So far as I know, neither Stalin or Mao created instruments and organs of government with the explicit purpose of wiping out an entire ethno-racial group. Certainly there were massive abuses, particularly in the case of Stalin, who would literally uproot entire groups and move them elsewhere, but the Nazi death machine, so far as I can tell, is rather unique.

[GostHacked]

Certainly there were massive abuses, particularly in the case of Stalin, who would literally uproot entire groups and move them elsewhere, but the Nazi death machine, so far as I can tell, is rather unique.

I can see that. All situations are different and the way the killings were carried out were different, but I am thinking for at least very similar reasons/motives. A group was not liked and had to be dealt with.

[ToadBrother]

I can see that. All situations are different and the way the killings were carried out were different, but I am thinking for at least very similar reasons/motives. A group was not liked and had to be dealt with.

True enough. Stalin has long got something of a break in the West in large part because the USSR was so instrumental in the defeat of the Nazis. The full extent of what he was doing to some ethnic groups and in the Ukraine wasn't really known, or rather wasn't exactly underlined by the other Allies, because they needed Uncle Joe on board.

Still, the Nazi concentration camp and mass murder system still seems very different to me. You couldn't write it off as bungling or mad paranoia by top officials. The Holocaust was literally a part of the German bureaucracy. It wasn't just SS types, it was civil servants. It was bizarre in the ordinariness of how this branch of the Nazi regime worked. It functioned rather like how, say, you would set up a government Liquor Board or a Ministry.

[Yesterday]

I have to wonder what Germany would be like today if Hitler had not turned outward to challenge the world. Would it have been like the middle east? Would the world of just stood back and let him demolish the Jews like the jack ass in Sudan is murdering the Africans in Darfur?

[ToadBrother]

I have to wonder what Germany would be like today if Hitler had not turned outward to challenge the world. Would it have been like the middle east? Would the world of just stood back and let him demolish the Jews like the jack ass in Sudan is murdering the Africans in Darfur?

I don't think you could envision such a Germany under Hitler. Long before he made his way to the top, his plans were hardly secret. Mein Kampf makes that pretty clear.

Without a massive arms build-up there would have been no "economic miracle" in Germany in the mid and late 1930s. The entire economic situation was built on a house of cards, and even if Hitler and all his mad lunatic cohorts had been killed, the old Prussian military machine could not have stood by and let it all go to waste. Maybe the Holocaust wasn't inevitable, but I think WWII was.

[Yesterday]

I don't think you could envision such a Germany under Hitler. Long before he made his way to the top, his plans were hardly secret. Mein Kampf makes that pretty clear.

Without a massive arms build-up there would have been no "economic miracle" in Germany in the mid and late 1930s. The entire economic situation was built on a house of cards, and even if Hitler and all his mad lunatic cohorts had been killed, the old Prussian military machine could not have stood by and let it all go to waste. Maybe the Holocaust wasn't inevitable, but I think WWII was.

I think I understand what you mean. I would prefer to think the Holocaust wouldn't of happened without the war and there is definitely a major difference in the fact that a major economic movement was intrinsic to the development of the war with Hitler as compared to the genocide going on in Darfur and other regions.

Did the war though push his maniacal vision to the extreme of genocide with the Jews? Would he of been satisfied to merely subjectify them in the absence of the actual war and would we have been lenient as with Stalin?

[ToadBrother]

I think I understand what you mean. I would prefer to think the Holocaust wouldn't of happened without the war and there is definitely a major difference in the fact that a major economic movement was intrinsic to the development of the war with Hitler as compared to the genocide going on in Darfur and other regions.

Did the war though push his maniacal vision to the extreme of genocide with the Jews? Would he of been satisfied to merely subjectify them in the absence of the actual war and would we have been lenient as with Stalin?

Who knows? Apparently at one point in the late 1930s there was some debate over whether to exile the Jews or kill them. My feeling is that the increasing intensity of anti-Semitic laws and activities from the time Hitler came to power and right on up through the war suggests that the Holocaust would likely have happened anyways. But as I said, I think the war was inevitable under Hitler. He wanted to avenge Germany's humiliation, and that meant invading France. That is a sentiment that was shared by many Germans and Austrians, even those who didn't agree with a lot of the Nazi principles. The Holocaust was specifically Nazi-inspired, and even though there were some pretty strong anti-Semitic sentiments in parts of German society, I'm not sure without Hitler there that it would have lead to a genocide.

[Jack Weber]

I don't think you could envision such a Germany under Hitler. Long before he made his way to the top, his plans were hardly secret. Mein Kampf makes that pretty clear.

Without a massive arms build-up there would have been no "economic miracle" in Germany in the mid and late 1930s. The entire economic situation was built on a house of cards, and even if Hitler and all his mad lunatic cohorts had been killed, the old Prussian military machine could not have stood by and let it all go to waste. Maybe the Holocaust wasn't inevitable, but I think WWII was.

I think you're correct,but only to a point.If the NAZI party had never taken power I highly doubt there would have been a holocaust of any type.I do agree that the military aparatus was still intact,but it had been greatly weakened by the Treaty of Versailles.It's hard to envision some sort of bourgeoning democracy out of the chaos of the Weimar Republic,however,I could envision a quasi return of the German Monarchy,and a new Kaiser (perhaps a Hohenzollern) on the throne.The reason I say this that Germany had never really known Western democracy before the imposition of the Weimar Republic.It's easy to see that,in the absence of NAZI lies,a falling back to the pre WW1 Imperial Germany would seem palatable.

To the military question within that scenerio...

I think German agression would be almost assured,but it would not be on the grand global scale Hitler envisioned.It would be more along the lines of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and 1871,where Germany throttled the French for their agression.I suspect it would be a revenge thing mainly because the Treaty of Versdailles was not a peace treaty,but a punishment treaty,and most of the punitive measure in that treaty were demanded by the French.

[bloodyminded]

Still, the Nazi concentration camp and mass murder system still seems very different to me. You couldn't write it off as bungling or mad paranoia by top officials. The Holocaust was literally a part of the German bureaucracy. It wasn't just SS types, it was civil servants. It was bizarre in the ordinariness of how this branch of the Nazi regime worked. It functioned rather like how, say, you would set up a government Liquor Board or a Ministry.

That's true. It's this phenomenon that inspired Hannah Arendt to coin the phrase "the banality of evil."

[bloodyminded]

Who knows? Apparently at one point in the late 1930s there was some debate over whether to exile the Jews or kill them. My feeling is that the increasing intensity of anti-Semitic laws and activities from the time Hitler came to power and right on up through the war suggests that the Holocaust would likely have happened anyways. But as I said, I think the war was inevitable under Hitler. He wanted to avenge Germany's humiliation, and that meant invading France. That is a sentiment that was shared by many Germans and Austrians, even those who didn't agree with a lot of the Nazi principles. The Holocaust was specifically Nazi-inspired, and even though there were some pretty strong anti-Semitic sentiments in parts of German society, I'm not sure without Hitler there that it would have lead to a genocide.

Yes. Raul Hilberg, the man usually credited with inventing the field of Holocaust studies itself, says that not only did anti-Jewish policy intensify through the war, but that it lacked a clear focus that could tie it in clearly with earlier anti-Jewish policies. The anti-Jewishness became increasingly unhinged and murderous as time went by.

As you say, Hitler's influence can hardly be understated; there were other parts of Europe that were more anti-semitic than Germany, but free of any murderous policies.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

That's true. It's this phenomenon that inspired Hannah Arendt to coin the phrase "the banality of evil."

Well,it's based in the matter of factness of the NAZI racial hierarchical cause.It also goes to the Fascist Darwinian belief that mankind only survives through conflict and the strong will crush the weak.

I agree with his Toadness that it's bizarre,at least to any sane person,but not shocking when one delves into the ethos of NAZIsm...

[Yesterday]

Still, the Nazi concentration camp and mass murder system still seems very different to me. You couldn't write it off as bungling or mad paranoia by top officials. The Holocaust was literally a part of the German bureaucracy. It wasn't just SS types, it was civil servants. It was bizarre in the ordinariness of how this branch of the Nazi regime worked. It functioned rather like how, say, you would set up a government Liquor Board or a Ministry.

I must agree, it was bizarre. The middle east is bizarre too. All the different situations going on over there are almost to much to grasp. It's scary that it's the norm in so many places, in so many times past and present, this ethnic genocidal mentality. I wish I could snap my fingers and have it all go away. Have it fix itself. I know that's a naive little statement...

Yes. Raul Hilberg, the man usually credited with inventing the field of Holocaust studies itself, says that not only did anti-Jewish policy intensify through the war, but that it lacked a clear focus that could tie it in clearly with earlier anti-Jewish policies. The anti-Jewishness became increasingly unhinged and murderous as time went by.

Did it start becoming unhinged at a time when he was winning in the war or at a time when he was losing. I would imagine arrogance and or anger would have had a good degree of effect on his mentality and actions. I'll look up Raul Hilberg and Mein Kampf. I have watched the Docs about it but would really like to know the title of a good book. Something that will help me to understand everything you are all saying about why. Something intellectual as opposed to shocking like most shows about it. I don't need the pictures and often can't get past them to get the history behind them. Got any suggestions?

[Jack Weber]

I must agree, it was bizarre. The middle east is bizarre too. All the different situations going on over there are almost to much to grasp. It's scary that it's the norm in so many places, in so many times past and present, this ethnic genocidal mentality. I wish I could snap my fingers and have it all go away. Have it fix itself. I know that's a naive little statement...

Did it start becoming unhinged at a time when he was winning in the war or at a time when he was losing. I would imagine arrogance and or anger would have had a good degree of effect on his mentality and actions. I'll look up Raul Hilberg and Mein Kampf. I have watched the Docs about it but would really like to know the title of a good book. Something that will help me to understand everything you are all saying about why. Something intellectual as opposed to shocking like most shows about it. I don't need the pictures and often can't get past them to get the history behind them. Got any suggestions?

As far as books go,and if you want to know how the rise of the NAZI party began,rose, and fell,Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the best source,IMHO...

I would also read Mein Kampf just to try to get your head around what Adolph Hitler was trying to say...

As far as the mass executions go,I would say that their are some schools of thought that say that the NAZI's tried to kill the Jews to cover up their horrendous treatment of them,vis avis things like the Warsaw Ghetto.Others suggest that it was always part of the plan,but only gained real favour after Adolph Eichmann proposed the infamous "Final solution to the Jewish question" and the military failings in Russia,such as Stalingrad...

Edited August 27, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

Did it start becoming unhinged at a time when he was winning in the war or at a time when he was losing. I would imagine arrogance and or anger would have had a good degree of effect on his mentality and actions. I'll look up Raul Hilberg and Mein Kampf. I have watched the Docs about it but would really like to know the title of a good book. Something that will help me to understand everything you are all saying about why. Something intellectual as opposed to shocking like most shows about it. I don't need the pictures and often can't get past them to get the history behind them. Got any suggestions?

One of the elemental classics (which, fair warning, I've never read...but it's more or less universally acclaimed) is Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews.

This is the book that really started the whole field we are here talking about.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

Don't mistake this for support for Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur, and Mao made Stalin look like an amateur. In terms of history and brutality, Hitler ranks low on the Most Brutal Dictators list.

I don't know if Hitler had been given as much time as Stalin or Mao things probably would have been different.

Edited August 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Jack Weber]

I don't know if Hitler had been given as much time as Stalin or Mao things probably would have been different.

I think that's a certified guarantee...

Unless you talk to Lictor,wjo feels that if we had sided with Hitler instead of Stalin the Jews would have simply been deported to Madagascar.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think that's a certified guarantee...

Unless you talk to Lictor,wjo feels that if we had sided with Hitler instead of Stalin the Jews would have simply been deported to Madagascar.

And the whole gas chamber thing was a mistake.

[Jack Weber]

And the whole gas chamber thing was a mistake.

Well...It was brought upon becuase the Jews were actually Communist aparatchiks,and that's the reason they were exterminated...

[nicky10013]

Don't mistake this for support for Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur, and Mao made Stalin look like an amateur. In terms of history and brutality, Hitler ranks low on the Most Brutal Dictators list.

I disagree. He murdered 10-12 million people in the course of essentially 3 years. The holocaust in terms of the actual murder of Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals etc. didn't start until 1942. Then, you have to look at intent. Did Stalin mean to starve the Ukraine which was easily the #1 cause of death under his regime? Did Mao mean to starve people in the great leap forward? There are good arguments for both sides. What cannot be argued against is that Hitler absolutely had the intention to murder those people. To me, that makes it worse. Numbers aren't everything.

I went on a holocaust trip and one of the people on it was Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt who is the world's foremost expert on Auschwitz. He made an incredibly poignant argument that the crematoria there are the most important buildings ever built in human history. They showed how low the human race could go. The buildings had no other purpose than the mass extermination of human life. I've never heard of any such similar buildings created in either China or the Soviet Union.

Edited August 28, 2010 by nicky10013