RE: NAZIs are evil and those slaughtered are innocent?
>Shadowman, do you truly believe that
>the NAZIs did what they
>did because of the racist
>reasons? I do not
>think so, when you go
>to the root of some
>conflicts, you often find that
>they burst because of economic
>reasons, like that one in
>Chechenia. When they try
>to hide their economic reasons
>for causing conflicts...they simply say:
> they are threatening our
>democracy, they are terrorists, they
>are, they are, they are...always
>the same hypocrit lethany.
>NAZIs provoked the holocaust because
>the Jews in Germany controlled
>too much of then country's
>money (in Adolf Hitler's viewpoint,
>of course). In the
>NAZIs eyes, living in a
>world where everything has a
>price and there is no
>limit to what the money
>can buy, is far worse
>than slaughtering ~2.6 million people.
I would say that is more of an excuse than a reason. Nazi "racism" if you call it that has its roots in a pseudo-science at the time known as "eugenics" or the idea that the human species can be improved by selective breeding. People with phyisical/mental disabilities, people born in families with a history of crime, and other such problems were sterilized (no, not killed) during the years between the world wars. The idea of eugenics has its roots in America, where such practices were also being carried out. The Germans saw the ideas as a great way to weed out the less desirable facets of society, ensuring that only the strong would survive.
It was soon "discovered" by the Germans that sterilization just wasn't worth the trouble, afterall they thought, what kind of life would a person with disabilities or behavioral disorders be leading anyway? It would be easier on the problem people and to the society to just "put to sleep" these people rather than keep them alive, but unable to breed. No, this was not an issue of hatred, many people really thought this. That's why many doctors and people after the war still held the belief that what they were doing was not wrong, but that they were actually bettering the human species.
The problems arised when people started targetting certain ethnic groups as problems concerning society. There were already bad feelings towards people of Jewish and gypsie decent as well as others due to persecution of those kinds of people all throughout history. Additional problems arised due to the fact that many Jewish people were well off, successful and in high standing; it was natural that people would become disgruntled towards that group because of their own financial standing compared to the Jews.
Then came Hitler and his propaganda against the Jews and gypsies and other such people. Hitler was very charismatic and was able to stir the people into believing that the defeat of Germany in WWI was not a function of bad luck and poor strategy, but rather that the war was really within, and that the defects of the human race were responsible for Germany's defeat.
> That in the NAZIs
>crusade some countries like Italy,
>Japan and Spain went along
>without knowing the real reasons
>of the war, is flour
>from another sack (a Spanish
>analogy). I am neither
>condemning nor promoting the NAZIs
>actions. I simply put
>some views I pulled from
>reading books on Adolf Hitler
>and the World War 2.
> Books from BOTH sides
>I mean. Your mentioning
>of "Schindler's List" as an
>objective, unbiased and fair opinion
>is a bit off-target.
>I truly doubt that a
>Jew that makes films about
>crimes comitted against Jews is
>unbiased. In "Saving Private
>Ryan" he also emphasized (I
>don't know if the word
>exists) the "Irrational, Evil Men"
>view on the Germans.
>He is just as biased
>as Truman when he made
>choice of dropping the bomb
>on Hiroshima, and just as
>biased as the Japanese who
>alleged that the US where
>inhuman and barbaric, fluidly ignoring
>what massacres had the Japanese
>comitted in Philipinnes, China and
>other countries. I am
>not a NAZI myself, I
>loathe fascism for it is
>opossed to intelligence. I
>think that Hitler had inmense
>hatred for the rich Jews
>but carried the death sentence
>to the poor Jews.
I think he targetted all Jews. They were not really liked to begin with, and by beating them down he could elevate himself up. Usually when you hate one class of one people, you stereotype the entire people, just like how some people associate black people with crime when there are a lot of upstanding black people in society.
>He acted like a bad
>medicine, hurt both the harmful
>part of the problem and
>the harmless part of the
>problem. My point is
>this: when a side
>attacks another, the justification of
>attacking side is as invalid
>and worthless as the justification
>for the counterattack from the
>attacked country.
Is it? How about the USA's declaration of war on Japan after the unprevoked Pearl Harbor bombing? How about Russia's involvement in the war when Hitler attacked?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
