Was Hitler a coward?

[Damien Evans]

How can you consider Hitler weak minded? He wrote a book and developed a new social and political philosophy for Aryan mankind.

You do realise that, contrary to what Hitler said, Germans are not Aryans, right?

Aryans are Iranians, generally

 

[Elizabeth I]

Everyone who doesn't want to fall into the
same trap again?

I'm going to break my rule against replying directly to you in a (probably fruitless and bootless) attempt to point out to you that the question of whether or not Hitler was a coward has absolutely no bearing on what he did or on the probability of preventing its recurrence.

It is a point about which discussion is pointless. You might as well be asking, "Did Hitler like pink?"

 

[Oliver]

Aryans are Iranians, generally

The plot thickens ...

Anyway. I honestly think that Hitler was a coward to
face his personality by fighting his own, inner conflicts.

He blamed others instead.
That's the Text-Book definition of a coward.

 

[Oliver]

I'm going to break my rule against replying directly to you in a (probably fruitless and bootless) attempt to point out to you that the question of whether or not Hitler was a coward has absolutely no bearing on what he did or on the probability of preventing its recurrence.

It is a point about which discussion is pointless. You might as well be asking, "Did Hitler like pink?"

Unless Pink says something about someones whole
psychology, you may be right. However, to avoid another
Coward being a Dictator elected in good hope, you might
be interested in understanding this guys Psyche.

That's indeed a good point.

 

[gtc]

You're kidding, right?

In certain quarters he is admired. You only have to look at this thread to see that.

How can you consider Hitler weak minded? He wrote a book and developed a new social and political philosophy for Aryan mankind.

There is a paranoid schizophrenic who has written a book about how the government is beaming holographic space rays into his head. He photocopies it and leaves it around libraries. Writing a book proves nothing. (Hey, maybe you could chat about the holographic planes at the WTC?)

His social and political philosophy lead to the deaths of millions of his fellow countrymen, the destruction and partition of Germany and the loss of land and political influence.

On the other hand, the paranoid schizophrenic's philosophy for mankind (that the government should not be beaming holographic space rays into his head) has led only to the loss of his job. His philosophy is more succesful than Hitler's.

I think one could argue that Hitler was indeed a hero. He fought for what he believed and fought against the odds.

Actually, he did not fight for what he believed. He sent German children to fight and die on his behalf. The paranoid schizophrenic I mentioned before has not asked anyone to die on his behalf.

Hitler also tried to simultaneously wage war aganist the Brits, the Russians and the Americans and other allies. We would laugh at a man who (without provocation) tried to single handedly take on the three toughest drinkers in a bar brawl. Interestingly enough, I have no evidence that the paranoid schizophrenic I mentioned before has ever fought in a pub, let alone tried to pick a fight against three opponents.

I do not have any expectation that this will cause you to question your misguided and bigoted beliefs.

Germany was already destroyed post-WWI, he helped make it a superpower in a little time period.

And then helped reduce it to rubble in an even shorter period. Many illegal drugs make you feel like a superpower 'in a little time period' and then leave you feeling worse in an even shorter period of time. Hitler fans might do well to think on that.

Stop looking at this issue like ''omg hitler killed jews etc everything he did was bad'', look at it objectively. He was a great leader for Germany, whether you personally do not agree with his ideas is another matter.

BS. I have pointed out above what he achieved for Germany and greatness was not one of those things.

I personally do not agree with his beliefs although i am tired of all the pro-jewish pity me media coverage and the forcing of pro-zionist literature such as Night(which has no place even being called literature) upon students.

So you are not a nazi sympathiser, you merely think that Hitler was a great leader and that there is a Jewish/zionist conspiracy to force people to pity the Jews.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Whether Hitler was a brave psychopathic dictator or a cowardly psychopathic dictator seems to be concentrating on the unimportant variable.

The key is that he was a psychopathic dictator.

Oliver, your arguments are starving to death, here. Whether or not to make the same mistake and allow another brave vs. cowardly psychopathic dictator? What does it matter if he was brave or cowardly. I reiterate... the issue is that he was a psychopath who became a dictator.

To go through all of Hitler's actions and determine whether to score them with a B(rave) or C(owardly) is an absurd exercise, and of no avail. And the truly interesting study, which I think you noted and which someone cited above, is not possible... just what made him a psychopath(we know what made him a dictator). Without having gone to the shrinks we have very little chance to view him in view of anything other than his actions and how those actions interfaced with those whose paths he crossed.

Even so, studying Hitler, the man, may be of no significance whatsoever. (Unless your proposing eugenics and culling such personality-deformed monsters at an early age.)

This smacks of the kind of psycho-babble deconstructivist pap that was popular in the 60s and 70s, frankly. Aww, he was just a misunderstood kid, who deep down inside loved his mommy and wanted more than anything to be an artist? I DON'T CARE. There have been lots of people from those same conditions, people who went to a war and were injured, people who then had to face financial hardships and readjustment problems.... who did not go on to be monsters.

What Hitler was like deep down inside is of no importance, whatsoever. Nor do I care if Pol Pot was oedipal. What I care about and the world of victims, targets, and foes has to care about is simply what they did and what they are up to. The deep inner meanings of what formed them may be of interest to academics, but the rest of us have to deal with their surface behaviour and that surface behaviour was an abomination in the case of Hitler, Pol and Stalin.

Next thread topic: Hitler, a Spring Forced to Wear Autumn C0lours.
http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/CindyBuschColorAnalysis.htm

 

[Oliver]

I have to disagree.

Hitler was elected based on the belief that he's a leader
and a strong person to lead Germany out of an economical
depression, IN CONTRAST TO ELECTING A COWARD.

So the Coward-question makes sense to me. Interested
Skeptics should explore this - even if you dislike the topic.

And it's not my favorite Issue either.

Anyway: My point is that Hitler was a coward.

I honestly think that Hitler was a coward to face his
personality by fighting his own, inner conflicts.

He blamed others instead.
That's the Text-Book definition of a coward.

Blaming others is cowardice without facts. You disagree?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have to disagree.

Hitler was elected based on the belief that he's a leader
and a strong person to lead Germany out of an economical
depression, IN CONTRAST TO ELECTING A COWARD.

So the Coward-question makes sense to me. Interested
Skeptics should explore this - even if you dislike the topic.

And it's not my favorite Issue either.

Anyway: My point is that Hitler was a coward.




Blaming others is cowardice without facts. You disagree?

Oooh, can I go for The Million? I answered this before you posted it.

 

[Oliver]

Oooh, can I go for The Million? I answered this before you posted it.

That's not my point to you. It is: Hitler was elected
because people thought he's tough.

Being a Coward or not is all about being tough. You
really can't miss this connection - and therefore to
what extend I think there's much truth and importance
to it.

Just to play the Jumpsuit-Hero doesn't mean that
someone's mind is pretty weak.

That's the danger of electing dangerous people who
finally, which is in your interest as well from what I
read, results in suffering and death.

 

[Loss Leader]

look at it objectively. He was a great leader for Germany, whether you personally do not agree with his ideas is another matter.

By the end of Hitler's "great" reign, the country of Germany did not exist. Now, I don't exactly know what objective standard you want me to use, but I would think that at least one of the marks of a great leader is that he does not, by his actions, get his country wiped off the map.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oliver, I get your point (although I'm an American and obviously suffer from the inherent educational defiiciencies of that state). My point is that it doesn't matter how or why he was elected.

We have a parallel, possibly, going on right now in Russia. Putin was elected for various reasons, and the jury's still out on him... does he continue to consolidate his power and push along to an oligarchy similar to the old Soviet state? Time will tell. But if he does so, then my judgment is going to be determined by what he does with that power, just as it was with Hitler. I won't be truly concerned with how he got elected ten years ago; I'll be more concerned for what he does with less restrictions on his power.

I think "brave" vs "cowardly" were not even in the German groupthink at the time; or if it was, it was a very minor sub-theme. I would tend to think "strong", e.g. "strong enough to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty", "strong enough to get the country's economy back on track", etc... may have come into play, though. But is "strong" necessarily the antonym of "cowardly"?

How he got elected and what emotional strings he got to reverberate are not nearly as significant as how he consolidated his power and took his country and his people to the brink of anihilation, while devestating the populations of the other countries who had the misfortune to be in his gunsights.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, I get your point (although I'm an American and obviously suffer from the inherent educational defiiciencies of that state). My point is that it doesn't matter how or why he was elected.

We have a parallel, possibly, going on right now in Russia. Putin was elected for various reasons, and the jury's still out on him... does he continue to consolidate his power and push along to an oligarchy similar to the old Soviet state? Time will tell. But if he does so, then my judgment is going to be determined by what he does with that power, just as it was with Hitler. I won't be truly concerned with how he got elected ten years ago; I'll be more concerned for what he does with less restrictions on his power.

I think "brave" vs "cowardly" were not even in the German groupthink at the time; or if it was, it was a very minor sub-theme. I would tend to think "strong", e.g. "strong enough to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty", "strong enough to get the country's economy back on track", etc... may have come into play, though. But is "strong" necessarily the antonym of "cowardly"?

How he got elected and what emotional strings he got to reverberate are not nearly as significant as how he consolidated his power and took his country and his people to the brink of anihilation, while devestating the populations of the other countries who had the misfortune to be in his gunsights.

Why else would the majority of people vote for someone
if not out of the hope to change the course into a positive
direction? (Would you vote for someone who is weak-minded?)

Personally I'm all for a psychological test before anyone
holds a top-level position - but unfortunately, this isn't
the case for alcoholics and people like that.

It's almost natural that those in power try to expand their
powers. The dangerous part is whenever people fall for
false promises. And at this point, the Coward -or- psychological
background comes into play.

I understand that this is debatable, but I'm glad that
you're a well-educated person about the Issue.

You know, some threads ore annoying to some while
others are pretty entertaining. I agree that this one
isn't one of the entertaining sorts, but the OP-Question
itself arose from an obviously bad education.

And I don't see Putin as a threat for the world, while
I agree about the national concerns - despite "Pakistan
acting just fine".

Anyway: I let MagZ reply in the meantime ...

 

[Zenskeptical]

In certain quarters he is admired. You only have to look at this thread to see that.



There is a paranoid schizophrenic who has written a book about how the government is beaming holographic space rays into his head. He photocopies it and leaves it around libraries. Writing a book proves nothing. (Hey, maybe you could chat about the holographic planes at the WTC?)

His social and political philosophy lead to the deaths of millions of his fellow countrymen, the destruction and partition of Germany and the loss of land and political influence.

On the other hand, the paranoid schizophrenic's philosophy for mankind (that the government should not be beaming holographic space rays into his head) has led only to the loss of his job. His philosophy is more succesful than Hitler's.



Actually, he did not fight for what he believed. He sent German children to fight and die on his behalf. The paranoid schizophrenic I mentioned before has not asked anyone to die on his behalf.

Hitler also tried to simultaneously wage war aganist the Brits, the Russians and the Americans and other allies. We would laugh at a man who (without provocation) tried to single handedly take on the three toughest drinkers in a bar brawl. Interestingly enough, I have no evidence that the paranoid schizophrenic I mentioned before has ever fought in a pub, let alone tried to pick a fight against three opponents.

I do not have any expectation that this will cause you to question your misguided and bigoted beliefs.




And then helped reduce it to rubble in an even shorter period. Many illegal drugs make you feel like a superpower 'in a little time period' and then leave you feeling worse in an even shorter period of time. Hitler fans might do well to think on that.



BS. I have pointed out above what he achieved for Germany and greatness was not one of those things.



So you are not a nazi sympathiser, you merely think that Hitler was a great leader and that there is a Jewish/zionist conspiracy to force people to pity the Jews.

I never once said there was a kind of conspiracy, don't be ignorant and say that there isn't much Pro-Jewish propoganda out there, people looking to bank in on the holocaust, It's evident everywhere.

Again, I stand by the fact that Hitler was great because he helped Germany become a super-power and an incredible economic power after the terrible reperstions they were forced to pay in WW1, without a strong leader like Hitler, i doubt they would have came out of their debt in the time they did. I do not think he needed to massacure an entire race to achieve this and i think it was a terrible thing but imo great is not moral based, just objective achievement based.

 

[rockoon]

Alexander The Great

 

[CFLarsen]

True. He was a hateful, genocidal, sociopathic mass murderer. But he wasn't a coward. Of his military service, in which he witnessed great horrors and terrible suffering, he wrote that it was the happiest time of his life. I think that says a lot.

That wasn't why he described it as such. It was because, for the first time in his life he found a purpose - something to do. Up until then, he had been a lazy daydreamer. His time as a soldier gave him meaning and an outlet for his already-then profound paranoia and antisemitism.

He didn't eat meat and didn't smoke.

Hitler didn't eat meat because he had severe stomach problems.

You can't understand him or avoid his like again by pretending he was just a real life version of Dr Evil.

That's true: If we want to understand Hitler and how things got so bad, we cannot resort to oversimplified one-liners.

 

[Zep]

I think most would agree he started making mistakes LOOOONG before that.

Indeed! Starting with the failed putsch in 1923 that got him sent to gaol. Incidentally, Goering earned his gratitude for decades by literally taking a bullet for him on that day (as did one Horst Wessel). Not that the whole affair was much more than a bunch of beer-hall braggarts and hooligans who didn't know any better pretending they could influence the government - such activity has been repeated many MANY times since then.

 

[wahrheit]

Again, I stand by the fact that Hitler was great because he helped Germany become a super-power and an incredible economic power after the terrible reperstions they were forced to pay in WW1, without a strong leader like Hitler, i doubt they would have came out of their debt in the time they did.

The fact that after 1933 the economy in Germany got stronger again had more to do with the fact that the world economy got better. Also, they used concealed credits ("Mefo-Wechsel") to pay for the build-up of arms.

Making Hitler the economy king is just plain wrong, it's the same people who say "not everything was bad at that time" or "but he did build the Autobahn".

 

[Loss Leader]

Again, I stand by the fact that Hitler was great because he helped Germany become a super-power and an incredible economic power after the terrible reperstions they were forced to pay in WW1, without a strong leader like Hitler, i doubt they would have came out of their debt in the time they did. I do not think he needed to massacure an entire race to achieve this and i think it was a terrible thing but imo great is not moral based, just objective achievement based.

Do you have any answer as to how objective greatness is acheived by causing one's nation to cease to exist?

If Hitler's leadership helped the economy of Germany recover from the Depression, why is it that by the end of Hitler's leadership, there was no Germany to have an economy? I ask because it appears that the things Hitler did to rebuild the German economy (like massive government investment in the military) were also the very things he did to get Germany removed from the maps of the world.

 

[MaGZ]

Whether Hitler was a brave psychopathic dictator or a cowardly psychopathic dictator seems to be concentrating on the unimportant variable.

The key is that he was a psychopathic dictator.

Oliver, your arguments are starving to death, here. Whether or not to make the same mistake and allow another brave vs. cowardly psychopathic dictator? What does it matter if he was brave or cowardly. I reiterate... the issue is that he was a psychopath who became a dictator.

To go through all of Hitler's actions and determine whether to score them with a B(rave) or C(owardly) is an absurd exercise, and of no avail. And the truly interesting study, which I think you noted and which someone cited above, is not possible... just what made him a psychopath(we know what made him a dictator). Without having gone to the shrinks we have very little chance to view him in view of anything other than his actions and how those actions interfaced with those whose paths he crossed.

Even so, studying Hitler, the man, may be of no significance whatsoever. (Unless your proposing eugenics and culling such personality-deformed monsters at an early age.)

This smacks of the kind of psycho-babble deconstructivist pap that was popular in the 60s and 70s, frankly. Aww, he was just a misunderstood kid, who deep down inside loved his mommy and wanted more than anything to be an artist? I DON'T CARE. There have been lots of people from those same conditions, people who went to a war and were injured, people who then had to face financial hardships and readjustment problems.... who did not go on to be monsters.

What Hitler was like deep down inside is of no importance, whatsoever. Nor do I care if Pol Pot was oedipal. What I care about and the world of victims, targets, and foes has to care about is simply what they did and what they are up to. The deep inner meanings of what formed them may be of interest to academics, but the rest of us have to deal with their surface behaviour and that surface behaviour was an abomination in the case of Hitler, Pol and Stalin.

Next thread topic: Hitler, a Spring Forced to Wear Autumn C0lours.
http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/CindyBuschColorAnalysis.htm

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

 

[MaGZ]

Do you have any answer as to how objective greatness is acheived by causing one's nation to cease to exist?

If Hitler's leadership helped the economy of Germany recover from the Depression, why is it that by the end of Hitler's leadership, there was no Germany to have an economy? I ask because it appears that the things Hitler did to rebuild the German economy (like massive government investment in the military) were also the very things he did to get Germany removed from the maps of the world.

The lesson is: If you turn on the Jews the world will destroy you.

Look out Iran.