Hitler. a discussion.
Discussion
I would put this in P&P but I cannot post in there yet so I will pop it here and hope it stays put long enough for me to continue posting in my own thread.
I had a discussion with a mate tonight and the subject of governmental controls came up and I drew comparisons to the early days of the war when the Government of Germany took more and more control of the population until the population were mostlly in a state of blind following and did what ever Hitler/the Nazis said.
Now we all know Hitler was rum sort of fellow, its taught to us that he was responsible for a lot of crimes against humanity BUT did he ever DIRECTLY commit a crime? did he pull the trigger or wield a knife ? did he gas anyone ? or did he just get a brainwashed public to do his bidding ?
Please help settle this discussion, I dont think he did ever actually do any direct crime (it was all evil by proxy) but my mate thinks he did pull the trigger himself on a number of occasions.
I had a discussion with a mate tonight and the subject of governmental controls came up and I drew comparisons to the early days of the war when the Government of Germany took more and more control of the population until the population were mostlly in a state of blind following and did what ever Hitler/the Nazis said.
Now we all know Hitler was rum sort of fellow, its taught to us that he was responsible for a lot of crimes against humanity BUT did he ever DIRECTLY commit a crime? did he pull the trigger or wield a knife ? did he gas anyone ? or did he just get a brainwashed public to do his bidding ?
Please help settle this discussion, I dont think he did ever actually do any direct crime (it was all evil by proxy) but my mate thinks he did pull the trigger himself on a number of occasions.
Edited by Getragdogleg on Sunday 18th January 23:43
Hmm, sorry for ruining some folks night by not being able to put this in a different section.
when/if it gets moved i will have to wait a bit to reply but hopefully someone will be able to provide me with an answer.
when/if it gets moved i will have to wait a bit to reply but hopefully someone will be able to provide me with an answer.
- i totally missed the "gassing" reference, I was too busy wondering how badly I was about to get flamed for the wrong sction thing*
Hitler was culpable of war crimes in that he orchestrated them, allowed them to happen and gave orders, both direct and indirect, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, IIRC, there is no real evidence that he personally pulled the trigger on anyone. Legally or morally however, that in no way reduces either his legal or moral responsibility. Put it this way - Churchill was not an active combatant in WW2 but is rightly viewed as instrumental, perhaps even critical to the Allies success.
Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
Pappa Lurve said:
Hitler was culpable of war crimes in that he orchestrated them, allowed them to happen and gave orders, both direct and indirect, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, IIRC, there is no real evidence that he personally pulled the trigger on anyone. Legally or morally however, that in no way reduces either his legal or moral responsibility. Put it this way - Churchill was not an active combatant in WW2 but is rightly viewed as instrumental, perhaps even critical to the Allies success.
Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
so you could also argue that the directors of the banks are culpable of the current banking crisis and should be arrested?Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
stigmundfreud said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Hitler was culpable of war crimes in that he orchestrated them, allowed them to happen and gave orders, both direct and indirect, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, IIRC, there is no real evidence that he personally pulled the trigger on anyone. Legally or morally however, that in no way reduces either his legal or moral responsibility. Put it this way - Churchill was not an active combatant in WW2 but is rightly viewed as instrumental, perhaps even critical to the Allies success.
Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
so you could also argue that the directors of the banks are culpable of the current banking crisis and should be arrested?Not terribly sure about his early political career though as its been a while since I looked into it but I don't recall him personally committing any violence although there is no question that from very early on he used violence to achieve his aims. Hitler was an interesting mix of a brilliant orator, an exceedingly cunning political strategist and someone with a very strong ability to read and predict peoples actions.
What made him so terribly dangerous was his total megalomania. He is often charecterised as a madman and while he certainly had psychological issues, to simply accept that he was barking and not look at why he was able to influence so many people is a glib but utterly unrealistic characterization.
t at your job isn't a crime at the moment.Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff