hitler.

wilsonian said:
Well if you have a quick glance at germany after the great depression (caused by the debts it was lumped with by the allies after WW1) if was going strong. Unemployment was almost non-existant, people had a car in their garage (the VW beetle - thats right hitler came up with VW), they paid a small % of the cost of the car from their weekly wage, food was plenty and for the average german life was good.

If you didn't fit into the class of perfect german then it was a whole different story. Sure you can argue hitler had good ideas such as labour camps for the unemployed (which I think every country should do - not in a cruel way), the above price plans for cars and other home items but overall it was a smoke screen.

All he ever planned for was a great germany with a empire as large if not larger than the UK. Its just a shame the way he went about it ended up killing huge amounts of people.

In the end I don't think he was any worse than say stalin.

yes, I agree. stalin was a total shithead as well.

i have stalin at 8.5/10, hitler at 9, and pol pot at 10
 
shadygiz said:
wilsonian said:
(the VW beetle - thats right hitler came up with VW)

just for the record the VW factory was kept running by the brits after the war....cant remember the name of the guy, but saw a documentary about an army major who set the production line back up and kept the beetle in production

The rumours I heard was they saw an undamged beetle shell in a bombed factory and decided on keeping it going.

Could be an urban mith....
 
wilsonian said:
shadygiz said:
just for the record the VW factory was kept running by the brits after the war....cant remember the name of the guy, but saw a documentary about an army major who set the production line back up and kept the beetle in production

The rumours I heard was they saw an undamged beetle shell in a bombed factory and decided on keeping it going.

Could be an urban mith....

can't remember the guy's name either but I do know a little bit about this, I've been to Wolfsburg, and sat in the boardroom were Porsche and Hitler held meetings. Very creepy feeling, but the place its-self is astounding in it's scale and attention to detail. It's like a large army base, provides absolutely everything the workers and family could need. The scale of the factory itself is staggering, and everything is spotless, modern, perfectly integrated. The town around the factory was renamed Wolfsburg by the British after the war. The British took over the ruined factory and built cars out of the spare parts already there, albeit a fairly small number compared to what was being turned out pre-war. They tried to sell it on after a few years but Ford and co weren't in a position to take on what was still a major rebuilding project, so it was handed over to the regional government and made into a trust.
 
Re: Was Hitler that bad?

tonea2003 said:
nashark i see in a previous post you give hitler 9 out of 10 in a badness rating

i would like to know who you think is a ten and what constituites a 10 on this scale

personally i'm struggling to think of someone worse...perhaps the one who doesn't really exist

Tamerlane now he was an evil bastard.
 
Re: Was Hitler that bad?

Challenger1978 said:
tonea2003 said:
nashark i see in a previous post you give hitler 9 out of 10 in a badness rating

i would like to know who you think is a ten and what constituites a 10 on this scale

personally i'm struggling to think of someone worse...perhaps the one who doesn't really exist

Tamerlane now he was an evil bastard.

They put up a statue to him when Uzbekistan became independent. bizzarely enough I saw a film about it in a gallery. He's not evil, he's just controversial ;)
 
no other way to look at it the man was a genius, an evil one yes but the man convinced a nation that it was ok to wipe the jewish people from the earth. and led them to into a war for no real reason. hed of made a good football manager imo
 
Re: Was Hitler that bad?

bizzbo said:
Challenger1978 said:
Tamerlane now he was an evil bastard.

They put up a statue to him when Uzbekistan became independent. bizzarely enough I saw a film about it in a gallery. He's not evil, he's just controversial ;)

Lmfao contraversial is one way of putting it.

In the closing decades of the fourteenth century he blazed through Asia like a firestorm, riding to victory after victory at the head of a ferocious army of mounted archers. Cities were razed to the ground, inhabitants tortured without mercy, enemies decapitated. Towers of bloody heads, illuminated by beacons at night, were his most chilling monuments, terrible warnings to those ready to oppose him. On the ruins of Baghdad he had his princes erect a pyramid of 90,000 skulls.
 
Playing devils advocate for a minute,

Hitler wanted to improve the lives of Germans living in Germany. Doesn't sound much like Gordon Brown.

Germany were absolutely shafted by the French at Versailles and the invasion of the Rhineland was akin to England taking back Manchester if it was ever taken by the Scots.

Hitler is demonised by the left wing despite the fact that his party extolled left wing values (hence national "socialism")

he was less evil than Stalin


Having said that, he is still a despicable murderer who had ludicrous views on the Jews. The 6 million can be debated, but even 1 Jew killed for being Jewish is too many

also his "Aryan" bollocks destroyed any chance of sensible discussion on eugenics so now we all brush this topic under the carpet. It's fine for David attenborough to bang on about traits and differences within animal species, but apply this to humans and you're now likely to get banged up in jail.
 
Re: Was Hitler that bad?

Challenger1978 said:
bizzbo said:
They put up a statue to him when Uzbekistan became independent. bizzarely enough I saw a film about it in a gallery. He's not evil, he's just controversial ;)

Lmfao contraversial is one way of putting it.

In the closing decades of the fourteenth century he blazed through Asia like a firestorm, riding to victory after victory at the head of a ferocious army of mounted archers. Cities were razed to the ground, inhabitants tortured without mercy, enemies decapitated. Towers of bloody heads, illuminated by beacons at night, were his most chilling monuments, terrible warnings to those ready to oppose him. On the ruins of Baghdad he had his princes erect a pyramid of 90,000 skulls.

wow. I knew he cultivated his image as a badass, but that's pretty serious.

It's true tho. Obviously not much in favour with Hindus! But many in the trans-oxanian states still adore him. He did leave a legacy behind, unlike Hitler he didn't take everyone under him into the depths of hell, the regions to the west really did flourish. I'm really only saying this because I have a romantic notion of Samarkand around that time from reading books. His nastiness was legendary in every way, he cultivated it whenever possible for the fear factor. Attrocities where the norm for your average Central Asian warlord of the time, but yes, his were incredible in their scale and inhumanity, and as ghoulish as he possibly could make them.
 
pee dubyas crayons said:
Playing devils advocate for a minute,

Hitler wanted to improve the lives of Germans living in Germany. Doesn't sound much like Gordon Brown.

Germany were absolutely shafted by the French at Versailles and the invasion of the Rhineland was akin to England taking back Manchester if it was ever taken by the Scots.

Hitler is demonised by the left wing despite the fact that his party extolled left wing values (hence national "socialism")

he was less evil than Stalin


Having said that, he is still a despicable murderer who had ludicrous views on the Jews. The 6 million can be debated, but even 1 Jew killed for being Jewish is too many

also his "Aryan" bollocks destroyed any chance of sensible discussion on eugenics so now we all brush this topic under the carpet. It's fine for David attenborough to bang on about traits and differences within animal species, but apply this to humans and you're now likely to get banged up in jail.

Ahaha his fascism slightly outweighs that he wanted the abolition of interest,profit-sharing in big business, land reform and a pension system. Not to mention that those things were only for those he deemed to be Germans and that the first two of those could be seen as attacks on traditionally Jewish professions.
 
without a dream said:
bizzbo said:
as if hitler's despicable views were limited to jews

ask the next pole you meet what 'untermensch' means

seriously. don't.

Who said that?

umm.. well, I was referring to PDC's post. it was a pretty lame attempt. hitler's vision of humanity did not include the jews and romanys (not to mention the disabled and slow), but you have to remember the slavs, the eastern europeans untermensch. all of them were less than human to hitler. there was just an easy 'solution' on the table for dealing with them, they could be slaves or just pushed further east.
 
bizzbo said:
without a dream said:
Who said that?

umm.. well, I was referring to PDC's post. it was a pretty lame attempt. hitler's vision of humanity did not include the jews and romanys (not to mention the disabled and slow), but you have to remember the slavs, the eastern europeans untermensch. all of them were less than human to hitler. there was just an easy 'solution' on the table for dealing with them, they could be slaves or just pushed further east.

Not to forget the communists and trade-unionists. I agree with you there though, difficult not to tbh!
 
without a dream said:
pee dubyas crayons said:
Playing devils advocate for a minute,

Hitler wanted to improve the lives of Germans living in Germany. Doesn't sound much like Gordon Brown.

Germany were absolutely shafted by the French at Versailles and the invasion of the Rhineland was akin to England taking back Manchester if it was ever taken by the Scots.

Hitler is demonised by the left wing despite the fact that his party extolled left wing values (hence national "socialism")

he was less evil than Stalin


Having said that, he is still a despicable murderer who had ludicrous views on the Jews. The 6 million can be debated, but even 1 Jew killed for being Jewish is too many

also his "Aryan" bollocks destroyed any chance of sensible discussion on eugenics so now we all brush this topic under the carpet. It's fine for David attenborough to bang on about traits and differences within animal species, but apply this to humans and you're now likely to get banged up in jail.

Ahaha his fascism slightly outweighs that he wanted the abolition of interest,profit-sharing in big business, land reform and a pension system. Not to mention that those things were only for those he deemed to be Germans and that the first two of those could be seen as attacks on traditionally Jewish professions.

Abolition of interest is a baaaaad idea. Not quite as bad as the holocaust but still bad!
 
just for emphasis, let's mention the 'death's head' squadrons that Hitler sent into Poland. His recorded instructions were to kill anybody of Polish descent, man, woman or child. The broad intention was originally to kill all but a handful who would serve as slaves for the Germans who'd taken their land. They would be forbidden to marry, even. As the war went on, they backtracked, because killing so many people systematically would have been an incredible drain on their resources, and because they realised that it the countries they had envisioned as their future neighbours would always fear this would happen to them, so there could be no end to the war.
 
Dont know if this has been covered but he was probably the best general of the modern age, the fact that he was a deranged syphlitic monster.

that is not a support vote, just a view of his invasion tactics

And just b4 anyone bangs on about what a twat i am, remember who also tried taking over the world...yes us English
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top