Was Hitler that bad?

Well, okay then.

Don't forget that an uprising would stand more chance of breaking the border lines as well, so at the very least my statement has some value.

Which you seem to have a problem with.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

---

Hmmm, interesting post Lucid...

I had actually not heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

And thanks for willing to take some of the heat. I think anybody that knows me will know how used to it I am by now, but it's much appreciated, and more noble than I'm used to seeing here.

Here is another article I found...disturbing...which I thought you might want to read:



SRC: english.people.com.cn...

Thanks again.

And here's something more:

Tibet's rule was like Nazi Germany

[edit on 5/14/2008 by bigbert81]

You wanted to know why Stalin was treated better than Hitler, and you've just proven to me you already know the answer.





[edit on 14-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

It would seem that I underestimated the value of my own statement.

Just like you did.

reply to post by caballero

---

Actually, that reply has been taken out of context. That was to someone else in regards to him not thinking Hitler would've surpassed Stalin or Mao Tse Tung's body count.

And I think you're assuming a bit too much here too. The thread's topic was 'Was Hitler that bad?' And my answer has been yes, overwhelmingly so. They are all monstrous tyrants who deserve nothing less than the fires of hell, but if I had to pick my 'Most Evil' award, IMO, it would be Hitler.

All of them are terrible memories, but if I had to pick.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

---

i guess so, but thats just stalin there are still plenty more which are for the most part are not even mentioned. pol pot before eddie izzard i had never heard of him and it seems kind of ridiculous i learn more from a comedian than i do from school.

reply to post by bigbert81

---

if i could change the title to avoid confusion i would. jeez since the start everyone has taken this thread out of context even myself at times

of course he was bad, sorry i'm posting such short replies i'm a newbie and trying to post enough to start u2u people.

but there were others just as bad if not worse in the sadistic nature of the genocide right?

Well, i'm afraid the fact of the matter is that Hitler is the *snip* of the 20th century.

Naturally, when you compare his rule to that of, for example; the Pharaohs, who used slave labour to construct massive monuments to their power, killing tens of thousands of slaves on each one - Most modern day dictators pale in significance.

If you want to be pedantic, of course.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

I was in no way defending the Dalai Lama in my remarks, only pointing out that when you asked for a link proving that the Dalai Lama was a mass murdering evil monster, bigbert1 chose Penn & Teller as the authorities for his opinion; and let's face it, when you are thinking about evil, genocidal tyrants, the DL does not spring instantly to mind, right?

I similarly, have no interest in attaining bodhisattva, nivana or any other state of grace but that provided for by God, through Jesus Christ, so that argument doesn't mean much to me, if it is intended to show that the DL is somehow evil because he doesn't abide by strict budhist edict; but then he is the Dalai Lama and is allowed some slack there, no?

reply to post by lightseeker

---

EVERYONE!!! EVERYONE!!!

Lightseeker has done everyone here an extraordinary favor by showing us all how NOT to act here on ATS!!!

Take note of how Lightseeker decided to start attacking me instead of reading the posts, or clicking on any of the links.

Can everyone see that? This is a classic mistake made by many a noob (strange that Lightseeker has as many points as I do to be making such a rookie mistake though).

Don't follow in these footsteps, or you WILL end up making yourselves look foolish.

Thank you everyone for listening, God bless.

He said "Wild Animal", Not "Insects".

Although i do acknowledge that had humans not evolved so quickly, sooner or later another one of "God's Creatures" would have.

Yeah, Lightseeker's the name, seeking light is my game!



Oh yeah, real intelligent reply there, bigbert; if by staying in the dark you mean not believing everything that I hear, or that appears on the internet, then I plead gullty as charged. What's your excuse?



It's o.k., It's about what I expected from you. When someone doesn't agree with you or calls your beliefs into question you resort to insults. Sad.

I am researching all the time;I just don't believe everything I read or hear, without researching it completely.



[edit on 5/14/2008 by bigbert81]

To go back to the original post:



Hitler could be stopped because of the situation he put himself in. However, he could very easily have managed to defeat Britain, and quite possibly the USSR as well. Consider, around the time he started Operation Barbarossa he had already squandered a lot in failing to take out Britain. If he had succeeded in that, the Allies (who now would consist of remaining colonial forces, and maybe the USA) would lack any foothold in Western Europe, and Stalin would have had all of Hitler's forces bearing down on him (since the Atlantic wall is fairly secure with no Britain). Then if Hitler had beaten the USSR they would have (eventually) dominance over land from Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. He would be almost totally unassailable., and free to do whatever barbarity he wants, and surpass what we know Stalin and Mao actually did.

Now why could Stalin not be got rid of? At the end of WW2 (European theater), both sides had taken many casualties, and it is estimated that a further million might be taken in the final conquest of Japan, were it not for the advent of nuclear weapons. If the Allies had wanted to get at Stalin then, they wouldn't have succeeded in that, due to being outnumbered. Russia had far too much strength for Britain and America to take on, and I dare say most of the soldiers were sick of war by then. A war against Russia would have been likely futile without resorting to nuclear warfare, which would serve no purpose other than murdering civilians, which apparently, you want to stop from being butchered by Stalin's minions.

Move on a few years, and you have the cold war, yes, lets make it hot and have a nice Nuclear bomber exchange. Not a good idea.

Then Mao. Well considering that both sides in the Cold war were fighting through proxies, eg


it wouldn't be a good idea to try and get rid of Mao. Unless you're talking some impressive bit of espionage and assassination, you ain't getting to him without a war (which would likely follow an assassination attempt, whether failed or successful). Which would escalate quickly into a full fledged nuclear exchange as the USSR helps their friend out. Not good, bye bye world and possibly billions, to try and save millions.

Now we come to Hussein. well, if the forces of the West had any sense, we wouldn't be having this discussion since they'd have got rid of him in 1991.

Mugabe, no idea really. A bunker buster through his window would have been good, but consider that Africa likes having independence from the old Colonial powers, his neighbours probably wouldn't appreciate you doing that.

So it is possible that not getting rid of them might have resulted in less bloodshed. Not that I think it's right to stand by and let it happen, but the West doesn't have an infinite length arm with which to do things. even a quick assassination and regime change would be hard, you need to get rid of old supporters as well.

Ah ha! I was trying to remember this name. I hadn't read a thing about him, but someone was telling me about him a year or two ago. Thank you!!

There were others on a par - so what?

Doesn't excuse any of it, does it? Doesn't make any of them angelic. All it proves is that theres been some real evil bastards out there.

In fact, I really can't see the point of the discussion here, try as I might.

Was Hitler that bad? Yes he was.

Were other people as bad - yes.

Does that make Hitler anything less than a megalomanic aryan supremacist who led a country full on into war and oversaw some of the worst crimes against humanity in world history? No. It most certainly doesn't.

reply to post by lightseeker

---

You research all of the time, yet when I provide links and a short, interesting video that sums it up, you criticize me.

Here's something that DIDN'T come from Penn&Teller:



This comes from another of the links I posted, but apparently you would rather attack me than take the time to read them.

No he doesn't. That's why when he mentioned murder if struck my interest



Hey that's okay with me! I wasn't trying to debate that aspect. It is my contention though, and I frequently read both sides, the Christs' transcension and Buddhist enlightenment is ultimately one and the same. If their is one ultimate Reality, and one ultimate Creator, paths of transcension necessarily lead, even if different roads are taken, to the same destination. That's my humble opinion. You will note very similar tenets from Christ (Jesus specifically, not the Bible at large) as well as those of Buddhist masters as well. Love, humility, compassion, etc. Something to be pondered. I feel they have a connection to the same Truth, and it compels them to find it



That wasn't my intention. I was replying in response to a few posters. Sorry I should have made that more clear. It seemed like people were attributing the expected humanitarian persona to the Dali Lama, because of his position in Buddhism, and thought talking about him in negative light was absurd. I was just trying to elucidate my point that he isn't the humanitarian that Buddhism expects of their Bodhisattva's. I would have to read more about his involvement in rape and murder to determine if mentioning him in this thread is OT or not...



No