Was Hitler a coward?

[danielk]

The problem is that Radrook fights some invisible imaginary enemy, because both Lonewulf and I have already voiced our opinion that this cowardice thing doesn't make much sense. Given this somewhat bewildering fact, and Radrook's childish rhetoric (again largely a conversation with himself against an imaginary enemy!) forces me to question either his motives, his sanity, or both.

Also, I had hoped wahrheit would address Ocelot's obvious quote-mining himself... But he's probably simply quicker on the uptake than I am and abandoned this bizarre thread after realizing it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a conversation with someone who keeps muttering strange sentences to himself.

 

[bigred]

Oh, and good job picking up Bigred as an ally.

Sorry, I don't play "allies." It's a silly school yard playground mentality which I don't think I even bought into much when I was a kid on a playground. I'm only interested in the discussion of the topic at hand, and could give a flying flip who does or doesn't agree with me.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, I don't play "allies." It's a silly school yard playground mentality which I don't think I even bought into much when I was a kid on a playground. I'm only interested in the discussion of the topic at hand, and could give a flying flip who does or doesn't agree with me.

I took you off my ignore list out of curiosity. Seems like you weren't saying as I thought you were (you weren't quoted so much, so I only got bits and snips).

Out of curiosity, though, what were you talking about when you said,

Never underestimate the power of PC. Talk about a monster.

Were you calling me, or another poster a monster? If another poster, then who? And why, exactly?

Oh, and to be fair, I wasn't saying that "you" played allies. I was suggesting Radrook was. The sign there was that I said, "Good job picking Bigred as your ally", not "I see Bigred chose you as his ally".

Here's to hoping you up your reading comprehension.

 

[a_unique_person]

The fact is if Hitler did not target the Jews you would not care.

It was the invasion of Poland that started the war with rest of Europe.

 

[a_unique_person]

Uhm, well, that depends very much on your personal view of suicide. I think suicide does indeed require courage -- for instance, I couldn't do it. Also, in the context of Hitler the idea of "resigning" and "letting someone else lead the party" is, uhm, ludicrous. I think he knew long before that he would go down together with his Reich, and so it came to be. The suicide was absolutely in character, and also something he demanded from his subordinates. Hitler was in rage when he received the news that Friedrich Paulus, commander of the 6th army at Stalingrad, hadn't committed suicide. Certainly, Hitler followed through according to his own convictions.

Suicide can mean different things to different people in different circumstances. After promising the thousand year Reich, then massacreing his own armies in pointless battles and sending children to die rather than face up to the fact that he had screwed up, Hitler was a coward. A clean bullet to the head was much easier to face than what he sent his own people to face.

Uh, well, this is an often expressed sentiment, but let's face it: it's just silly. There may have been a time where state leaders fought themselves along with their soldiers on the battleground. It may have been heroic, but it sure was a lousy strategy to win a war. Let's not use this argument. There's no need to anyway: it isn't as though we're going to run out of reasonable arguments against Hitler anytime soon.

Hitler was someone who didn't care much about the lives of people -- including his own.

 

[gtc]

Suicide can mean different things to different people in different circumstances. After promising the thousand year Reich, then massacreing his own armies in pointless battles and sending children to die rather than face up to the fact that he had screwed up, Hitler was a coward. A clean bullet to the head was much easier to face than what he sent his own people to face.

I agree. Those actions can only be construed as cowardly.

 

[juniper_ann]

The fact is if Hitler did not target the Jews you would not care.

My ancestors are Slavs. My cousin is a lesbian. One of my best friends from elementary school is in a wheelchair. I would care.

Futhermore, even though I have no personal connection to anyone who might be called a “Gypsy” (whether or not they self-identify as such) or to Jehovah’s Witnesses or Communists, I am not okay with them being killed because they are in that group. I would care.

And, yes, the Germans did target Jews. And they managed to kill millions of them. I care about that, too. The owner of my company is a Jew. I don’t really feel a personal connection with him, but I still don’t think he and his wife and children should be killed or harassed because of the ethnic or religious group that he belongs to.

The U.S. at the time of World War II was, by modern standards, quite anti-Semitic. See Gentleman’s Agreement (1947), starring Gregory Peck, for an American look at American anti-Semitism.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_2.html#hitler
In 1938, more than 300,000 Germans —mostly Jewish refugees —had applied for U.S. visas (entry permits). A little over 20,000 applications were approved. Beyond the strict national quotas, the United States openly denied visas to any immigrant "likely to become a public charge."

When I was at Texas A&M University, Dr. Arnold P. Krammer showed my class a newspaper article in the New York Post (I think) entitled (and I’m paraphrasing) “Largest Massacre in Recorded History Occurs in Poland”. It was on page 16. I think the headline for the day had something to do with baseball. Please note that I’m not a reliable source here, but you could probably track down and email Dr. Krammer if you want better data. Be aware, though, that he is Jewish and lost relatives in Hungary. I doubt that he will tolerate neo-Nazis lightly.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that 1.3% of Americans are Jewish.

I’ve never actually met a Holocaust denier in America. They are fairly rare. To suggest that 1.3% of the population somehow planted the seed of “Nazis = bad” all by themselves is beyond absurd all the way into psychotic.

Don’t think that America hasn’t considered the question of Nazi atrocities before. We turned a blind eye once. We’re not going to do it again.

ETA: I recognize that not everyone on this forum is American. I have neither the academic knowledge nor the experience to speak for other nations.

 

[Radrook]

In response to Danielk:

Sorry, but I don't consider anyone here my enemy, I am not directing my messages to myself, far from being childish, the points I brought are relevant to the issues raised, neither did they attack your hero Hitler since I only said that a definition of the word "cowardly" is in order. This recommendation provoked an ad hominem response. which convinced me that any further conversation with the ad hominer was useless. Whereupon you became seriously offended and are mindlessly joining in with your buddy in his drivel. Which in my opinion makes you, with all due respect, as much of an idiot as he is.

 

[Radrook]

Sorry, I don't play "allies." It's a silly school yard playground mentality which I don't think I even bought into much when I was a kid on a playground. I'm only interested in the discussion of the topic at hand, and could give a flying flip who does or doesn't agree with me.

You hit that one right on the head. Schoolyard mentality is a perfect description!

 

[autumn1971]

Since the OP never defined "coward", every attempt to answer the question is only adding fuel to the posters's egos (including my own).
Was George Washington very tall?
Without outlining what "very tall" means, I am merely baiting folks into responding to a loaded question, and then jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along. I know that even though Washington is not the infuriating figure that Hitler is, my question about Washington's relative height would no doubt have devolved into a frenzy of slave-ownership questions and military questions, as well as well argued statements about nutrition among the classes during Colonial times.
My point is that the OP is not answerable without inviting further baiting. This thread was not started as an attempt to hold a discussion, rather it was concieved as an attempt to provoke a fight. Let's all just leave it and get on with the drinking and whoring.

Oh, just me?

 

[Tolls]

Suicide can mean different things to different people in different circumstances. After promising the thousand year Reich, then massacreing his own armies in pointless battles and sending children to die rather than face up to the fact that he had screwed up, Hitler was a coward. A clean bullet to the head was much easier to face than what he sent his own people to face.

Or, you could take the view that, considering what happened to Mussolini when his enemies caught him, Hitler would rather die than be captured by his enemies. Remember, this is what he expected Field Marshal Paulus to do at Stalingrad. If that gets classed as cowardice then you run the risk that any person who takes their own life rather than be taken prisoner (the old "saving a bullet for yourself") is a coward.

In other words, I think you run the risk of oversimplifying to a vast degree.

 

[Oliver]

Since the OP never defined "coward", every attempt to answer the question is only adding fuel to the posters's egos (including my own).
Was George Washington very tall?
Without outlining what "very tall" means, I am merely baiting folks into responding to a loaded question, and then jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along. I know that even though Washington is not the infuriating figure that Hitler is, my question about Washington's relative height would no doubt have devolved into a frenzy of slave-ownership questions and military questions, as well as well argued statements about nutrition among the classes during Colonial times.
My point is that the OP is not answerable without inviting further baiting. This thread was not started as an attempt to hold a discussion, rather it was concieved as an attempt to provoke a fight. Let's all just leave it and get on with the drinking and whoring.

Oh, just me?

The definition of "Loser" is pretty obvious and doesn't necessarily
require a textbook definition.

If I have prejudices and rather blame other, innocent people instead
getting rid of my own distortions about the world, then I am a coward.

There is no heroism in any way to:

1. Send Soldiers into their death
2. Blame a minority for the economical circumstances
3. Invade countries based on imaginary threats
4. Kill people I dislike
5. Completely ignore other opinions

I rather tend to think that Hitler wasn't just a coward, he also
was one of the most egocentric persons I've ever learned about.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The word 'coward' is thrown around by people who are too cowardly to explore the inner complexity of what they know to be evil.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Oliver]

The word 'coward' is thrown around by people who are too cowardly to explore the inner complexity of what they know to be evil.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Well ... What's your stance regarding Hitler's cowardice?

 

[Tolls]

The definition of "Loser" is pretty obvious and doesn't necessarily
require a textbook definition.

If I have prejudices and rather blame other, innocent people instead
getting rid of my own distortions about the world, then I am a coward.

There is no heroism in any way to:

1. Send Soldiers into their death
2. Blame a minority for the economical circumstances
3. Invade countries based on imaginary threats
4. Kill people I dislike
5. Completely ignore other opinions

I rather tend to think that Hitler wasn't just a coward, he also
was one of the most egocentric persons I've ever learned about.

But then you can completely ditch the "coward" tag and simply go with self-centred egotist. You'd get pretty much the same results.

Point 1 would apply to any leader involved in a war.
Points 2 and 3 came from his view of the world, which I find hard to see as some sort of definition of cowardice. Indeed, point 3 is incorrect. He didn't view the Slavs as a threat, he viewed them as being in the way of expansion to the east.
I also fail to see how 4 and 5 apply to cowardice.

 

[Lonewulf]

In response to Danielk:

Sorry, but I don't consider anyone here my enemy, I am not directing my messages to myself, far from being childish, the points I brought are relevant to the issues raised, neither did they attack your hero Hitler since I only said that a definition of the word "cowardly" is in order. This recommendation provoked an ad hominem response. which convinced me that any further conversation with the ad hominer was useless. Whereupon you became seriously offended and are mindlessly joining in with your buddy in his drivel. Which in my opinion makes you, with all due respect, as much of an idiot as he is.

Does anyone else catch the hypocrisy here?

Tip: If your definition of "ad hominem" is "saying mean things about me", then calling someone an idiot is, by your own definition, engaging in ad hominem.

I'm laughing my ass off now.

I love the "your hero Hitler" bit there. Are you claiming that as soon as someone contests the usage of a certain word, that they must see the person they're defending as a "hero"? If so, then that's a rather dishonest attempt at a strawman.

It's becoming more and more evidence who the real "idiot" here is, let me tell you.

 

[bruto]

Since the OP never defined "coward", every attempt to answer the question is only adding fuel to the posters's egos (including my own).
Was George Washington very tall?
Without outlining what "very tall" means, I am merely baiting folks into responding to a loaded question, and then jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along. I know that even though Washington is not the infuriating figure that Hitler is, my question about Washington's relative height would no doubt have devolved into a frenzy of slave-ownership questions and military questions, as well as well argued statements about nutrition among the classes during Colonial times.
My point is that the OP is not answerable without inviting further baiting. This thread was not started as an attempt to hold a discussion, rather it was concieved as an attempt to provoke a fight. Let's all just leave it and get on with the drinking and whoring.

Oh, just me?

So are you trying to tell us Washington was not tall? Why do you hate America?

 

[bigred]

Out of curiosity, though, what were you talking about when you said, "Never underestimate the power of PC. Talk about a monster."

Were you calling me, or another poster a monster? If another poster, then who? And why, exactly?

Pardon any confusion. "PC" meaning Political Correctness. It is a monster running amok nowdays IMO.

I have a chunk of posters here on ignore too, but don't think I've run into any which qualify as a "monster."

Oh, and to be fair, I wasn't saying that "you" played allies. I was suggesting Radrook was. The sign there was that I said, "Good job picking Bigred as your ally", not "I see Bigred chose you as his ally".

Here's to hoping you up your reading comprehension.

Ah got it, appreciate the clarification. Not sure he did that either, but it's here nor there IMO.

We now take you back to you regularly scheduled Hitler/cowardice discussion.

If I have prejudices and rather blame other, innocent people instead
getting rid of my own distortions about the world, then I am a coward.

Disagree; there is nothing inherently "cowardly" about that. It's wrong, bad, stupid, foolish, delusional, ignorant...many words could describe it....and it COULD be cowardly too, at least to some extent, but not automatically so.

There is no heroism in any way to:

1. Send Soldiers into their death
2. Blame a minority for the economical circumstances
3. Invade countries based on imaginary threats
4. Kill people I dislike
5. Completely ignore other opinions

There is no inherent cowardice regarding those things either.


Anyway this appears to just be going round and round so I'm out, but was an interesting topic - enjoy

 

[Radrook]

Pardon any confusion. "PC" meaning Political Correctness. It is a monster running amok nowdays IMO."

Thanks for the clarification. Personal Computer Political Correctness. Since I usually don't communicate in abbreviations of that kind I am a little bit unfamiliar with their usage. Of course Lonewolf would jump on that opportunity to go ad hominem. Since I am averse to people who deviate from subjects whenever it seems convenient and go into ad hominem in order to evade answering a pertinent question or simply to try to annoy, I tend to evade any further fruitless communication. As for reading comprehension, I really wonder whether Lonewulf really understood the basic points I brought up in reference to the necessity of definition of terms since he went berserk after reading that post. Now THAT is really an indication of lack of reading comprehension.


I agree with you on the political correctness thing. It definitely can stifle the exchange of ideas if applied too stringently. In fact, horrendous beaviour seems to be ether ignored or whitewashed in an effort to stay within the political correctness parameters, A real shame since evil is evil no matter who commits it and should be condemned vigorously whenever to rears its ugly head.

 

[danielk]

Radrook, I'm still wondering who exactly you think defended the "Hitler was a coward" thing on grounds of PCness. Care to elaborate? Because I'm confused.