Nazi Politics Were Good... For Germany

[fermin25 3]

I am not a neo-nazi guy, I am not from the arian race but I think that the politics applied in the nazi Germany were excellent for the country. For example the first is Adolf Hitler and his leadership was the greatest to a country that was in a politic hole since WWI and with the leadership of Hitler and with his radicalism, maybe the country re-born to a new conception. The unemployees were reduced drastically in Germany since Adolf Hitler went to the power, and the social rules and model of nacionalsocialism were good to create good families where the father have to work to sustain the family and the mother have to be at home to take care of the children. All these politics seeked to reduce the boys who don´t have any purpose in life, future thieves and change this mind to evolving to future good men of Germany. Here in Honduras the nationalism is so so bad. Anybody believes in the country and the press is only dedicated to fill the brain of the hondurans with that stupid ideas of democracy and development when anything is showing a development in the country and the democratic system only works to continue allowing the corruption and damaging the nationalism. I think that a nationalsocialim system actually could work in Honduras and many countries. I am not saying that Honduras could be the mother of Holocaust in the future but in all the countries who have a civil war people died for the good of the country, the bad people had to die or adapt to the changes. The socialism have a lot of strength here in Honduras and I don´t like that because I see how many countries had practiced the comunism and only a few of them have a good goverment, all the others are destinated to the politic extintion. Some political system like nationalsocialism with a dictator can be good to the third-world countries because a person with all this responsability and worried for the country´s development can be better than the stupid democratic system when every fours years came a new president to steal a lot of money from the huge loans that the Wold Bank give to Honduras.Maybe in your country the things can better with a system like this. What do you say???

Notice from rvalkass:

Questionable content removed. While this is a difficult topic to discuss, it would be appreciated if content could be kept inoffensive.

[Harlot 2]

Nationalism is fine, but Nazi Germany was...well racist quite frankly. They believe in white superiority, blond hair and blue eyes (despite the fact that Hitler didn't have either). The Aryan race, you know. That kind of stuff. Its find to believe in nationalism and pride in ones country, but when it comes to believing one race is superior to another, that is dangerous. One race may be more advantaged then another based on social circumstances and historical events, but not based on genetics. As for the Jews, that had a lot to do with economics. Before Hitler came to power Germans were living in slums, must like the people of many African countries to day. Just like whites own the majority in African countries today, the Jews were a minority in Germany, but yet they owned everything. You know...Germany just couldn't have that, so they took the land and wealth from the Jews and pretty much killed them off slow but steadily. I wouldn't say that Nazi politics were good. I will say that the Nazi Party came to power at a time when the people of Germany, besides the Jews, were poor and ready for revolution against the rich (which were the Jews). Hitler came to power because of economic and social circumstances. He did fix those circumstances, but he went way too far. He attempted to wipe an entire group of people off the face of the earth and then proceeded to invade all of Europe. So to conclude, I will say that the Nazi Party served as a benefit to poor Germans in the short term, but that doesn't mean that he was good for Germany overall. Someone who would have been willing to make the economic changes, while not resorting to militarism and genocide would have been much better.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

I can barely believe my eyes...OK. Firstly, Hitler had a weird superstition thing going on. He mixed up bits of Christianity, Paganism, spiritualism and plain old racism, to make his nonsensical arian dream. Quite ironic for someone who looked less than arian himself.Hitler played the oldest, easiest and most morally reprehensible cards a politician has. Choose a victim and then focus all the anger and fear of the population on the scapegoat. Blame them for any problems or policy mistakes. Works everytime. You see it with both the UK and Argentina over the Faulklands.Hitler's central plan was his 1000 year Reich and basically keeping the population pliant but satisfied. Your comments on Jews are racist/antisemitic and don't belong on a civilised forum. They are also deeply ignorant. If you knew history you would know that far from being sacred, the jews were scapegoated from the middle ages onwards by Catholics in particular.Anyone who thinks it is acceptible to drive a segment of the population out of their own country has no basic moral sense.

Edited August 14, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[zanzibarjones 1]

Anyone who thinks it is acceptible to drive a segment of the population out of their own country has no basic moral sense.

Ummm...we did this to the native american indians...

[Bikerman 2]

Ummm...we did this to the native american indians...

Well as a Brit I can detach myself from that, but not, of course, from actions that are at least as bad, in their way, over history.
The question is whether you think it is right from a modern outlook, and most decent people would say no, it is not acceptible. You could argue that most 'decent' people have always thought that. The difference is, unfortunately, societies have been very slow to change the definition of what a person is - and unfortunately is doesn't take too much for people to be prodded back into defining another group as 'not like us and therefore not quite people' mentality, which is just one more reason to support free speech and oppose any proposed restrictions...

[mrdee 1]

Well as a Brit I can detach myself from that, but not, of course, from actions that are at least as bad, in their way, over history.

Like, for example, the invention of concentration camps, in South Africa?

Who were responsible for those?

...

Exactly.

which is just one more reason to support free speech and oppose any proposed restrictions...

 

With that, I could not agree more.

Nowadays, according to one side of the political spectrum, freedom of speech is holy, provided of course you say what they want to hear, and provided you belong to their side of the spectrum.

 

Which is why, in a topic like this, people should be allowed to voice their opinion, if you deem what is said to be wrong, then nobody can stop you to try and, by using proper arguments, disprove the poster's statement(s).

 

Now, coming back to the topic itself, I do agree with the fact that Hitler flipped completely and that the Holocaust should never have happened.

 

However, coming back to the title of the topic, he did try to give the German working class a decent quality life, he managed to almost completely wipe out unemployment, the Volkswagen (meaning "People's car") was an idea of his for which he went to see Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, and requested that he design a car that would cost well below 1000 Deutsch Mark (in those days, that is), so every German working class family would be able to afford their own car (hence the name).

 

He was also the one who ordered the construction of the Autobahn (motorway), to ensure effective and fast moving traffic throughout Germany.

 

While I am not trying to defend any of the crimes the Nazi regime committed here (see what I wrote earlier), I am trying to point out a few things in accordance to the title of the topic.

 

The intentions of National Socialism (until it all went horribly wrong) were in the first place to get Germany out of a total crisis, and, at the same time, making sure that included the working class as well.

 

Let us also not forget that Communism took about 100 million lives, also in the name of "democracy".

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!I'm unfamiliar with the practices of the Nazi regime, but am aware of the inhumane treatment of prisoners at the concentration camps by the scientists who conducted experiments on them. In response to the cruelties committed at the concentration camps, an ethical standard for performing scientific research on human beings was developed and came to be known as the Nuremberg Code. Malpractices associated with research on human beings have occurred in many other instances and are not limited to the Nazi concentration camps, but they are the most publicized cases.

[Bikerman 2]

Like, for example, the invention of concentration camps, in South Africa?Who were responsible for those?
...
Exactly.

Indeed. I am not someone who would defend many atrocities committed by my countrymen over history.

Nowadays, according to one side of the political spectrum, freedom of speech is holy, provided of course you say what they want to hear, and provided you belong to their side of the spectrum.

That is, of course, hypocrisy and not free speech. Free speech means supporting those who say things you find abhorrent.HOWEVER, we accept certain limits on free-speech. We accept, generally, that incitement to violence steps over the boundary. We also have the concept of 'hate speech' which is broadly defined as singling out a group because of some difference that they are born with and belittling/demeaning them because of it.
In an ideal world neither of these restrictions would be necessary. We would be able to rely on the good sense of people to see through the fallacies employed in such rhetoric. Unfortunately history teaches us that people are not so good at doing so and that hatred and division can be entrenched if such hate-speech is not challenged. For that reason I reluctantly support the ban on hate-speech - I wish it were not necessary but I feel that it is. I would not, however, extend this, as it has been in some cases. For example, I would not make 'holocaust denial' a criminal offence, as it is in some parts of Europe.

[k_nitin_r 8]

Free speech is limited to non-violent protests. Tossing of objects (shoes, bottles, eggs, tomatoes, ...) is a definite no-no, as that is treated as disorderly conduct and violence. Holding up placard and yelling slogans qualifies as free speech, as long as it remains civil and peaceful.There is often an ethical dilemma on when interfering with free speech is acceptable. When the freedom of speech is used to incite violence or rebellion, it threatens the peace within the country and would lead to dire consequences, if permitted. Interfering with free speech due to a disagreement with the expressed views, however, is unethical and was done by many dictators. Hate speech ought to be prevented because of the emotional damage it causes to the victims targeted.

[Bikerman 2]

There is often an ethical dilemma on when interfering with free speech is acceptable. When the freedom of speech is used to incite violence or rebellion, it threatens the peace within the country and would lead to dire consequences, if permitted. Interfering with free speech due to a disagreement with the expressed views, however, is unethical and was done by many dictators. Hate speech ought to be prevented because of the emotional damage it causes to the victims targeted.

I cannot agree with you about emotional damage. Using that criterion you can outlaw huge areas of free speech. The Catholic is emotionally damaged by the nasty atheist saying there is no God; the Muslim is emotionally damaged by anyone insulting Mohammad...and so on.

[Harlot 2]

I cannot agree with you about emotional damage. Using that criterion you can outlaw huge areas of free speech. The Catholic is emotionally damaged by the nasty atheist saying there is no God; the Muslim is emotionally damaged by anyone insulting Mohammad...and so on.

I don't agree with emotion damage either, but I do agree with collateral damage. You allow one person to burn a few Korans, and it leads to the death of a lot of innocent people. The fact is that limiting freedom of speech is sometimes necessary, but its hard to find a balance or implement measures to ensure that policies are not twisted and turned to justify wrongful censorship of speech.

[Bikerman 2]

I don't agree with emotion damage either, but I do agree with collateral damage. You allow one person to burn a few Korans, and it leads to the death of a lot of innocent people. The fact is that limiting freedom of speech is sometimes necessary, but its hard to find a balance or implement measures to ensure that policies are not twisted and turned to justify wrongful censorship of speech.

I coauthor a site on this which might interest you. It contains some interesting essays.
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Harlot 2]

I coauthor a site on this which might interest you. It contains some interesting essays.http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Nice content, I had a chance to read the article regarding the Koran Burning Day. I think its make some great points, but I doubt if the pastor had the intellectual capacity to have such an unapparent goal under the surface. I think he simply allowed his emotions to take over, and didn't know the consequences until someone with a name such as Abdul Muhaymin or Shams al Din gave him a little phone called threatening death. After the death threats started rolling in, the pastor even got himself 24/7 hour security, so its apparent that he was afraid. The moderate Muslims were constantly in direct contact with the pastor, and they likely re-enforced the idea of him suffering death, by warning what the radical Muslims would do. When the pastor saw that he no longer wanted to be involved in such chaos, he lied and said that the Koran burning would be canceled because an agreement had been reached to move the Islamic Center in near ground zero in New York to another location.

The guy was afraid, but it was definitely not a victory for anyone. We could say that the pastor did get something out of it by further exposing the radical element of Islam. However, radical Islam could have also benefited from it by showing the Islamic world that the West really is against Islam and attempting to destroy it. What better way can America's hate for Islam can be shown to the moderates other than a Koran burning day being held in the U.S.? At the end of the day the real individuals who are hurt are the moderates on both sides, who are being further separated and dragged into the conflict.

[Bikerman 2]

Yes, I pretty much agree with all of that.We (me and Indi, my fellow writer) set the site up to challenge religious intolerance of free speech - particularly at the moment from Muslims but certainly not exclusively. Indi has also written two excellent essays comparing the proposals of this loony pastor with the actions of the The American Atheists (who remove Gideon bibles from Hotel rooms - something I also do).The AA got themselves in a knot because they could not articulate why the two actions are different, so Indi and I decided to help them out and explain why they were doing what they are doing and explain the clear difference.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)