Most controversial thread ever (enter at your own risk)


(ENNIOO) #241

See no reason to delete the thread myself.


(Yodlaf Peterson) #242

[quote=“ENNIOO, post:241, topic:2465”]See no reason to delete the thread myself.[/quote]Me neither, the name of the thread is enough to ley people know.

No use clicking it then being shocked.


(davidf) #243

i agree, can’t see any reason to remove it. doesn’t get used that much anyway. if you don’t like it or are not interested don’t go into the thread. Even better ignore the comments from people , they are entitled to their opinion. and you can make them look stupid with their rants by not biting.


(Silence) #244

I don’t have any problem with Lindberg expressing his opinions, but as I said I personally really don’t want to be involved in any of this. But I’m not gonna force anyone to delete this thread because of that, if no one else wants to delete this thread.


(Yodlaf Peterson) #245

[quote=“Silence, post:244, topic:2465”]as I said I personally really don’t want to be involved in any of this.[/quote]Then don’t get involved young man :wink:

Problem solved.


(Silence) #246

Ok LOL ;)!


(cochino) #247

I think banning ideas is a very dangerous thing and it doesn’t help getting things resolved at all. The banning of all things Nazi in Germany hasn’t stopped violent right wing groups. If you allow discussion and try to debunk and counter argument those ideals it would be a better job against it that just flat out banning. That’s what they did with things like communism or leftist ideologies. What you can penalize are criminal and illegal acts but not ideas, no matter how wrong you think they are. And saying that Hitler is a bad man and that he killed whatever amount of jewish people is simplifying things a bit too much. He had full support from many Germans and non Germans as well. Does that mean all Germans were evil? How could he get so much support? There’s no doubt Germany was in a very bad situation when he came up and he made the country progress in many aspects. I am not trying to justify anything but I think the maniqueism of good/bad doesn’t work. Why are people like Julius Cesar, Attila or any other conqueror/emperor remembered as ruthless sometimes but always with some sense of grandeur or honor and hitler is just a bad man? Didn’t they produced as many deaths as the Germans? Didn’t they subjugate far more population under their power? The main difference is that Hitler lost the war. And why isn’t people like Torquemada remember just as bad and monstruous as Hitler? Just because one if closer to our times than the other doesn’t make any difference in the cruelty of their actions. Why is the jewish holocaust much more important than the ones commited by the European in America, Africa and Oceania? Why do those conquerors still have monuments in their memories, streets with their names and even cities called after them? Again, because they won and Hitler lost. There are so many shady characters in mankind’s history that I don’t think this Hitler fetishism is really justified from a historical perspective.
And just in case, let me make clear that this is not a defense nor a justification of anything Hitler ever did. I just think we need to put things in perspective and I think that banning certain ideas doesn’t help ending problems at all. There are other ways to fight against them.


(Yodlaf Peterson) #248

[quote=“cochino, post:247, topic:2465”]Why are people like Julius Cesar, Attila or any other conqueror/emperor remembered as ruthless sometimes but always with some sense of grandeur or honor and hitler is just a bad man? Didn’t they produced as many deaths as the Germans? Didn’t they subjugate far more population under their power? The main difference is that Hitler lost the war.[/quote]I reckon it also may be to do with where Hitler was in the time line in world history. There are still people alive etc from the time. In hundreds or thousands of years time he may be looked at in the same way.


(cochino) #249

Yeah, I agree. I referred to that fact a bit later in my post by saying that just because Hitler is closer to us doesn’t make him any worse than those other guys.


(Silence) #250

[quote=“cochino, post:247, topic:2465”]I think banning ideas is a very dangerous thing and it doesn’t help getting things resolved at all. The banning of all things Nazi in Germany hasn’t stopped violent right wing groups. If you allow discussion and try to debunk and counter argument those ideals it would be a better job against it that just flat out banning. That’s what they did with things like communism or leftist ideologies. What you can penalize are criminal and illegal acts but not ideas, no matter how wrong you think they are. And saying that Hitler is a bad man and that he killed whatever amount of jewish people is simplifying things a bit too much. He had full support from many Germans and non Germans as well. Does that mean all Germans were evil? How could he get so much support? There’s no doubt Germany was in a very bad situation when he came up and he made the country progress in many aspects. I am not trying to justify anything but I think the maniqueism of good/bad doesn’t work. Why are people like Julius Cesar, Attila or any other conqueror/emperor remembered as ruthless sometimes but always with some sense of grandeur or honor and hitler is just a bad man? Didn’t they produced as many deaths as the Germans? Didn’t they subjugate far more population under their power? The main difference is that Hitler lost the war. And why isn’t people like Torquemada remember just as bad and monstruous as Hitler? Just because one if closer to our times than the other doesn’t make any difference in the cruelty of their actions. Why is the jewish holocaust much more important than the ones commited by the European in America, Africa and Oceania? Why do those conquerors still have monuments in their memories, streets with their names and even cities called after them? Again, because they won and Hitler lost. There are so many shady characters in mankind’s history that I don’t think this Hitler fetishism is really justified from a historical perspective.
And just in case, let me make clear that this is not a defense nor a justification of anything Hitler ever did. I just think we need to put things in perspective and I think that banning certain ideas doesn’t help ending problems at all. There are other ways to fight against them.[/quote]
I agree, and as I said, I defenitely don’t want to bann Lindbergs or anyone elses ideas or opinions, even tho I defenitely don’t agree with them at all. Sorry if it seemed that way. Lindberg has the right to have his own opinions just like the rest of us.


(El Topo) #251

Well that would make a nice discussion, but there’s a difference between those names you mentioned and Hitler, and its called extermination camps, not Cesar or even Atilla or even Napoleon for that matter ever had those, yes it wasn’t the first time that they existed in world history, but never at such a scale.
I don’t fell too much confortable making historical comparisons on people that lived in very different periods, Atilla’s motives for its conquests were normal in its time, as well the Napoleonic wars that kill millions in Europe, but all reflected the changes of the periods they happen.
Another war in Europe after WWI would have been just a question of time, like it was, but then again maybe WWII and its events was just a reflection of the times, but no, Hitler was no Julius Cesar, and Eva Brown was no Cleopatra .


(cochino) #252

Well, if you could ask those subjugated by people like Julius Cesar I don’t know if they’d agree. And that’s why later I mentioned the conquest of the American continent where things worse than concentration camps happened. I think that might be a better comparission although I absolutely agree that you can’t really compare different historical moments and different realities and that’s why I’m very weary of treating Hitler just as the bad guy since it was a pretty complicated time for German people and it’s easy to say nowadays, after everything’s over what’s good and what’s bad.


(Stanton) #253

But in whatever situation they were, it can’t be an excuse for planed mass murder. Hitler was not the personification of pure evil, but he was responsible for greatest crimes against humanity ever done (maybe Stalin and Mao should be named too as the amount of dead people they are responsible for is equal or even higher). There were maybe dictators like Idi Amin or Pol Pot who were worse (if that is possible) on a smaller level, maybe more sadistic themselves, and there ain’t an imaginable cruelty which wasn’t committed by the European nations (often in the name of a Christian society) in the 3rd world and (as you have mentioned) by the conquest of South- and North America. But Hitler and too many others in Nazi Germany brought the dimensions to a new level. And for that I think he and his followers were indeed the worst. Maybe only part of a historical line of murderers, but then the end point, the climax beyond imagination. World hasn’t become much better since, but I hope nobody as a person, a system or a country will ever be able to overmatch this.

And don’t forget many of these barbarities were committed or aided by more or less normal people.


(cochino) #254

I honestly do no believe that what they did was morally worse, nor more violent and unfair than what happened during the American conquest or the Inquisition. Maybe there weren’t concentration camps, but the mindless brutalities commited are about as bad. And don’t forget that in the case of the conquest, they also took their land, made them slaves and exterminated entire tribes. They drove entire cultures into oblivion.
And sorry if this sounds as an excuse, it’s not meant to be one at all, I just think that saying “Hitler = bad” doesn’t help understand why such a thing happened at all and I believe that’s what history is all about. Not just saying who’s good and who’s bad. And that’s why I think banning all things nazi doesn’t help at all.


(El Topo) #255

I don’t agree with you, yes the massacre of the native people of the Americas by the Colonial powers was indeed a bad note on the history of civilization as many other things were, but it wasn’t a organized project, and it was bound to happen as soon as the Iberian countries started their navigation project. They brought new guns war and destruction, but even most deadly they brought the new diseases for wich the native people didn’t have immunity, but I doubt it would had happen any other way. Colonization in general was a problem created by Europe over the centuries, a problem that is not solve still today.
But yes there was slavery forced convertions and everything, but not an organized killing machine, not a final solution.
I also don’t agree with the Julius Cesar comparison. Cesar made most of his conquests in what is now France and England, against tribes that made a way of living out of fighting, and that most likely would attack Rome, just like other similar tribes end up doing in the future. Cesar was also the emperor of a society that was the basis of the one we have today, in the end all those defetead tribes would end up becoming Romans themselves, the EC is some sort of Sacred Roman Empire of today, there were slaves back them, but that was normal, almost a wasy of living, and the Romans did respect other cultures and gods, sometimes even adopt them, it was also normal that the killings end up the battlefields.
So who’s worst well I don’t know, I do have my own scale of things, and i would prefer to be a Roman Soldier for instance or a Spanish conqueror that crossed the ocean in some boats that wouldn’t be safe in rivers, than a Hitler or Staline agent of anything, and what the common people did or not did doesn’t worry me, cause if I was on the common people in their position I would have done the same, the problem are those that put the people in such positions.


(ENNIOO) #256

Interesting point, and one I think about.


(cochino) #257

[quote=“ENNIOO, post:256, topic:2465”][/quote]
Exactly, that’s why I say that simply saying Hitler was a bad guy is simplifying things a bit. I’m not trying to say he was a nice dude at all. And whether or not the elimination of indians was meant as a “final solution” it was much more final than what the nazis did with the jewish. We’re talking about the end of entire cultures here.


(John Welles) #258

It might have been much more final for the Indians, but the most devestating thing for them was the smallpox virus which the Europeans (accidently) brought over. It was never planned to eradicate the American Indians, but just to get rid of them from lands the colonists wanted. Hitler on other hand, wanted to kill every Jew in Europe as well as many other minority groups like homosexuals, gypsies and so on. In doing so, he had an estimated 12 million people killed in less than six years; killing on an industrial scale that had never happened before.


(Stanton) #259

I have read in a book that the army or Indian agents gave (at least in some cases) on purpose blankets with the smallpox virus on them to the Indians. And I too think that the genocide on the Indians was more or less planned.

I have just read today that some Indians fight for the massacre at Wounded Knee to be named as a massacre and not as a battle, while on the other hand the Little Big Horn battle is often called a massacre. A small example how history is written. The choice of words was probably not even made by purpose but unconsciously. But nonetheless it is telling.


(John Welles) #260

I have heard of this, but from what I have heard or read, this did not seem to be the main factor in spreading the disease, more of a way of wiping out select nusience (for the colonists that is) tribes.