• Welcome Guest
Detroit Tigers

Welcome to the Detroit Tigers.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • Evolution of the New Testament ...second attempt
  • 12/19/12
  • rklewis2

<<not at all. the man acted out of idealism, to realize a vision of a world free of these people. don't confuse the means with the end goal. as for isreal, their tulmud god/covenint/testamint is the playbook for achieving eretz yisreal, anything in the way is just garbage obstacle to be eliminated>>

Not buying it. Not at all. Your comments about Hitler don't mesh with what Hitler said or did.

He blamed the <Jews for the German defeat in WW1. He stated it publicly, more than once.

There's nothing idealistic about what he and Nazi's did. They were war criminals of the worst kind.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • Paubranco
he said and did whatever it took to get rid of them. in their vision of the IDEALIZED perfect world -- the naziutopia -- there could be no juden untermenschen. just because you may have a different concept of what an idealized world is like does not mean that other visions are any less ideal.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

Okay. And he paid for his ideal situation.

And so did 50 million other people.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • The_Undisputd_Truth
You're blaming Hitler for the people Stalin murdered too?
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

<<You're blaming Hitler for the people Stalin murdered too? >>

Well...

Hitler first allowed Stalin to begin his butchery with the non-aggression pact. They split up Poland, and lots of people were killed because of it. Obviously, once Hitler threw his army against Russia, it really gave Stalin the green light to impose his will over any country that Russia moved through pushing the Germans back. A whole lot more people were murdered, and the Soviet Union was born - along with a 40 year cold war that followed. We don't know how many more were killed from the end of WW2 in the Soviet Union.

The root cause for ALL of the butchery of WW2 can be traced back to Hitler, along with the future cold war, atomic weapon development, and other miseries...

Of course, some other things were developed, too. Things that were helpful. We might also trace our landing on the moon, and our space program, to Adolf Hitler.

It's a wonderful life, and all that jazz...

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • Paubranco

<<Hitler first allowed Stalin to begin his butchery with the non-aggression pact>>

you have this backwards. take time, there's a lot more to read about the subject.

<<The root cause for ALL of the butchery of WW2 can be traced back to Hitler, along with the future cold war, atomic weapon development, and other miseries>>

the further you go, the deeper the roots: it did not begin with hitler. as for the result/consequences of WW2, consider: cold war, atomic weapon development, other miseries, the US as the preeminent power in the world.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • The_Undisputd_Truth

I'm a little lost.

>>Hitler first allowed Stalin to begin his butchery with the non-aggression pact. They split up Poland, and lots of people were killed because of it. Obviously, once Hitler threw his army against Russia, it really gave Stalin the green light to impose his will over any country <,

First it sounds as though you are blaming Hitler because he "allowed" Stalin to kill unfettered due to the non-aggression pact. Then next you use Hitler's war with Russia as an enabling excuse for Russia to use as a tool for killing.

Seems like you blame him both ways.

>>The root cause for ALL of the butchery of WW2 can be traced back to Hitler, <,

And Hitler would never have come to power had not the armistice ending world war I not been so lopsided and punitive against Germany. So let's take the "blame" back yet another notch.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

<<you have this backwards. take time, there's a lot more to read about the subject.>>

Question: Would Stalin have acted with aggression towards his "neighbors" without an outside force allowing him to do so with impunity? I don't think so.

Stalin understood perfectly that "his" will would and did become the will of the people during the war, and then until the Union collapsed.

The Russians didn't aggressively grow until during and after the war.

<<the further you go, the deeper the roots: it did not begin with hitler. as for the result/consequences of WW2, consider: cold war, atomic weapon development, other miseries, the US as the preeminent power in the world.>>

Certainly. WW2 was pretty much the completion of WW1. If one were to go that far back to find root causes, they'd have to move into the 19th century. Of course, there were root causes for that, and for that, and so on...every event influences another on down through time.

Hitlers actions directly affected the lives of millions of people. Whether they were his direct or indirect actions - the end cause wouldn't have happened without his rise to power, and initiating the biggest bloodbath in history...unless you would speculate that someone else would've started WW2?

I agree with you on the "positive" affects of WW2. It forced us to advance, technologically, well beyond where we had been prior to the war.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

Stalin/Russia only moved into Poland because of what the Germans were doing, hence my blame on Hitler there. From that point on, Hitler's moves reshaped the future of Europe, whether when he was "winning" or from the point where he started losing the war.

Basically, to say that Stalin and Russia would've aggressively expanded as they did during the war, without the war masking that expansion, is speculation. Thus, first Germany, THEN the Russians imposed their will on countries they either invaded or "liberated."

Either way, the Germans were there first, so Hitler is to blame, as the Russians wouldn't have even been at war without Hitler first invading Russia in 1941.

----------------------------

<<And Hitler would never have come to power had not the armistice ending world war I not been so lopsided and punitive against Germany. So let's take the "blame" back yet another notch.>>

Sure, and we can keep going back until there were two people in the world.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here, though. The end (or 20 year intermission) of this conflict is classic "To the victor goes the spoils." The Germans lost, that is true - but the reality is that everyone lost.

I've already said that the German people were shocked and outraged when they found out just exactly what the defeat in WW1 meant to them.

The thing is - and I've already said this, too - that Hitler used the <Jews as a scapegoat for the Germans asking for an armistice to end that conflict. Reality says otherwise. The Germans simply couldn't sustain the conflict any longer - especially since the US entered the war. Not because we were so great - but we brought men that the Germans no longer had, and materials that the Germans could no longer provide.

If you'd like to use the sheep mentality argument, I think it applies here as well. Much of Germany were ready to believe something OTHER than reality about losing that war. Hitler provided it. The Nazi party grew in power, and, once Hitler siezed power, he moved in measures, giving both himself and the people, confidence. Hitler's aggressive behavior got the 2nd war started, and the way he treated his enemies started a policy of brutality that both he and the Russians used throughout the war.

Interesting how this thread is progressing...


Edited 12/20/12   by  rklewis2
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • Paubranco

<<Question: Would Stalin have acted with aggression towards his "neighbors" without an outside force allowing him to do so with impunity? I don't think so>>

try this one on for size: would Hitler have invaded Poland without first having secured a non-aggression pact with the Soviets allowing him to do so with impunity?"

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

Yes.

However, the time frame would've been different, and the entire war would've been most certainly altered.

The non-aggression pact was nothing more than delaying his plan to invade Russia. Getting Poland out of the picture, and giving the Russians a false sense of security most certainly helped Hitler's cause. The Russians looked like oafs during the firt five - twelve months of invasion, and it was really obvious at the outset that they were not ready for a German invasion.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • The_Undisputd_Truth

>>Interesting how this thread is progressing.<<

Well, perhaps I'm just a weepy sentimentalist, but, I grew up in a McCarthyesque America, where all you had to do is stay in school, vote republican, and hate communism, and the government would take care of you.

And in the entire history of the world, nobody killed more communists at war on the battlefield, than Hitler's Germany. It just seems like he should get SOME credit. ;o)

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

<<And in the entire history of the world, nobody killed more communists at war on the battlefield, than Hitler's Germany. It just seems like he should get SOME credit. ;o)>>

You've got a point there...

He does deserve some credit for that.

He also was directly responsible for advances in rocketry, which, when looking at the full picture, may include landing on the moon, space stations, the hubble telescope, satellite TV, etc...

I don't recall, off-hand, if we had expressways in the US prior to seeing Adolf's autobahns...

I'm sure that he's forced changes in the world in many other ways that just aren't coming to mind at the moment.

Hitler is a fascinating study. Of course, I find serial killers to also be a fascinating subject, too...

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • The_Undisputd_Truth

Eisenhower launched the Interstate highway system in 1956 to implement what he had seen of the Autobahns in WWII Germany.

Prior to that the US highway routes were the best developed nationwide system. There were a few states that had turnpikes prior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

I guess here in Michigan, we model our freeway roads on the autobahn.

The autobahn that had been bombed.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • The_Undisputd_Truth

Few years back I had the occasion to drive from Los Angeles to the Detroit area.

I opted for US Route 24 from Minturn Colorado on eastward, and the drive was much more interesting than the Interstate. Took an extra day and a half. But I was in no hurry.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • rklewis2

I bet the roads were better everywhere else than in Michigan.

I've driven right on down 75 to Florida, and the roads get noticeably better as soon as I cross the Ohio border.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/20/12
  • Paubranco
pork barrel politics. beautiful roads throughout the south despite the need for them, as there's much less traffic.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/21/12
  • rklewis2

I drove out to Kansas City in September. The roads were better in Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, too. Been to California and Texas. I'd expected them to be better, though - which, of course, they were...

I think that, here in Michigan, they just mix some <crappy filler in with the cement and/or blacktop to stretch the product, and to make sure that those orange barrels will be out in force every year.

Ah, job security.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 12/21/12
  • Mark16_15
It's too bad that we can't come together as a nation and fix our crumbling infrastructure once and for all. If we just had a charismatic leader who could weave the social fabric into nationalist pride, perhaps then a final solution to pot holes would be found?.

Edited 12/21/12   by  Mark16_15
  • Reply to this Message