~mystic_fish
@~mystic_fish
19 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 37 · Posts: 4746 · Topics: 283
Hitler's Last Days ..
anyway, i guess we should all be thankful, even if our politicians are not so perfect all the time; at least we never had to live the alternative.. (although, unfortunately there is still way too much strife and death elsewhere..)
i guess maybe it was the way he went about his mass killings and torture & the powerfully hypnotic effect he had over his own people. They wern't afraid of him as such, and influenced out of fear, so much ..they glorified, agreed & believed whole-heartedly with his new vision of Europe. Most people hate or fear their dictators. So, it's rather confusing to me too; something made him definately stand out amongst the other serial dictators..
Sufferings will never end. But at least one shouldn't be, by any measure, sound sympathetic to those who caused it.
The Allies persecuted the Germans so badly after WWI that they found inspiration from Hitler, he was very charismatic and a brilliant speaker. And to blame all the problems of the country onto a group of people that throughout the ages have been persecuted and vilified was easy for the German population to swallow. Although it wasn't just Jews he massacred to be fair.
Perhaps he was the most successful dictator because unlike Stalin or Pol Pot etc he didn't 'kill' his own people/race if they fit quite a broad image (eg church-going, heterosexual etc) and he pushed for people to be successful economically as well.
Perhaps he was the most successful dictator because unlike Stalin or Pol Pot etc he didn't 'kill' his own people/race if they fit quite a broad image (eg church-going, heterosexual etc) and he pushed for people to be successful economically as well.
"The Allies persecuted the Germans so badly "
So that justifies everything which followed ?
"Although it wasn't just Jews he massacred "
Is that a consolation ?
So that justifies everything which followed ?
"Although it wasn't just Jews he massacred "
Is that a consolation ?
"no action can be justified"
I understand that itz a chain reaction in the end and to trace the original trigger would be quite futile and silly as well. But therez a clear distinction between responsible action and blind retribution. Restraint and introspection at least provide an opportunity to ensure that the resultant response is well measured and finely calculated irrespective of the fact that the outcome,as a last resort, may afterall be violent and bloody.
How reasonable it would be for Japan and Germany to plot another holocaust, nuclear or other, just to get even with the world ? I doubt you can justify that.
In absolute terms, dropping of the atomic bomb can never be justified because it led to deaths and destruction. But both Japan and Germany had to fill their respective karmic loops, given the atrocities previously perpetrated. Arrogance has a history of eventually devouring those very parties which choose to practice it. Americans have started making small noises about it now - itz not enough to be civilized inside and a bully outside. For their own sake, they have to redefine world leadership - one which ensures a resonably equitable distribution of power and wealth. No one is safe in a disturbed neighbourhood.
I understand that itz a chain reaction in the end and to trace the original trigger would be quite futile and silly as well. But therez a clear distinction between responsible action and blind retribution. Restraint and introspection at least provide an opportunity to ensure that the resultant response is well measured and finely calculated irrespective of the fact that the outcome,as a last resort, may afterall be violent and bloody.
How reasonable it would be for Japan and Germany to plot another holocaust, nuclear or other, just to get even with the world ? I doubt you can justify that.
In absolute terms, dropping of the atomic bomb can never be justified because it led to deaths and destruction. But both Japan and Germany had to fill their respective karmic loops, given the atrocities previously perpetrated. Arrogance has a history of eventually devouring those very parties which choose to practice it. Americans have started making small noises about it now - itz not enough to be civilized inside and a bully outside. For their own sake, they have to redefine world leadership - one which ensures a resonably equitable distribution of power and wealth. No one is safe in a disturbed neighbourhood.
Before we acquire great power we must acquire wisdom to use it well.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
>>TIME: Monday, Jan. 3, 2000
Who had the greatest impact on this century, for better or worse? It is too easy just to say that he lost, when in doing so he still changed everything. It was he who opened the veins of the Bloody Century, an epoch that has seen mayhem on a scale unimagined for centuries before. "As a result of Hitler," argued Elie Wiesel in TIME last year, "man is defined by what makes him inhuman." And while the Reich lasted 12 years rather than 1,000, its spores still survive and multiply. "The essence of Hitlerism ? racism, ethnic hatred, extreme nationalism, state-organized murder ? is still alive, still causing millions of deaths," wrote U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke when he reluctantly nominated Hitler as the century's dominant character. "Freedom is the century's most powerful idea, but the struggle is far from over.."
You could ask this of any year, any century: Which has the greater impact, good or evil, the heroes or the villains, Roosevelt and Churchill or Hitler and Stalin? Thoughtful people who argue for Hitler as the Person of the Century do not want to honor him; they want to autopsy him, understand what made him strong and what finally killed him, and search, perhaps, for a vaccine for the virus that reappears still in ethnic enclaves ...
There are those who insist that Hitler is not the century's dominant figure because he was simply the latest in a long line of murderous figures, stretching back to before Genghis Khan. The only difference was technology: Hitler went about his cynical carnage with all the efficiency that modern industry had perfected.
If all Hitler had done was kill people in vast numbers more efficiently than anyone else ever did, the debate over his lasting importance might end there. But Hitler's impact went beyond his willingness to kill without mercy. He did something civilization had not seen before. Genghis Khan operated in the context of the nomadic steppe, where pillaging villages was the norm. Hitler came out of the most civilized society on Earth, the land of Beethoven and Goethe and Schiller.
He set out to kill people not for what they did but for who they were. Even Mao and Stalin were killing their "class enemies." Hitler killed a million Jewish babies just for existing.
Who had the greatest impact on this century, for better or worse? It is too easy just to say that he lost, when in doing so he still changed everything. It was he who opened the veins of the Bloody Century, an epoch that has seen mayhem on a scale unimagined for centuries before. "As a result of Hitler," argued Elie Wiesel in TIME last year, "man is defined by what makes him inhuman." And while the Reich lasted 12 years rather than 1,000, its spores still survive and multiply. "The essence of Hitlerism ? racism, ethnic hatred, extreme nationalism, state-organized murder ? is still alive, still causing millions of deaths," wrote U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke when he reluctantly nominated Hitler as the century's dominant character. "Freedom is the century's most powerful idea, but the struggle is far from over.."
You could ask this of any year, any century: Which has the greater impact, good or evil, the heroes or the villains, Roosevelt and Churchill or Hitler and Stalin? Thoughtful people who argue for Hitler as the Person of the Century do not want to honor him; they want to autopsy him, understand what made him strong and what finally killed him, and search, perhaps, for a vaccine for the virus that reappears still in ethnic enclaves ...
There are those who insist that Hitler is not the century's dominant figure because he was simply the latest in a long line of murderous figures, stretching back to before Genghis Khan. The only difference was technology: Hitler went about his cynical carnage with all the efficiency that modern industry had perfected.
If all Hitler had done was kill people in vast numbers more efficiently than anyone else ever did, the debate over his lasting importance might end there. But Hitler's impact went beyond his willingness to kill without mercy. He did something civilization had not seen before. Genghis Khan operated in the context of the nomadic steppe, where pillaging villages was the norm. Hitler came out of the most civilized society on Earth, the land of Beethoven and Goethe and Schiller.
He set out to kill people not for what they did but for who they were. Even Mao and Stalin were killing their "class enemies." Hitler killed a million Jewish babies just for existing.
Hitler may have set the century's agenda; he was a sort of vortex of negative energy that sucked everything else in. In five centuries, we'll look back and say the story of the century was not Hitler or Stalin; it was the survival of the human spirit in the face of genocide.
.."Evil may be a powerful force, a seductive idea, but is it more powerful than genius, creativity, courage or generosity?"
I think not ..
.."Evil may be a powerful force, a seductive idea, but is it more powerful than genius, creativity, courage or generosity?"
I think not ..
Good.. ! you are proving yourself day by day sp.. I am proud of you, honestly..
India's secret history:
'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'
A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them.
In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.
Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.
The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.
"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.
His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.
The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."
cont....>>>
India's secret history:
'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'
A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them.
In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.
Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.
The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.
"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.
His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.
The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."
cont....>>>
There is a macabre undercurrent in much of the correspondence. In one incident Misra recounts how 2m letters lay unopened in government warehouses, which, according to civil servants, showed "the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindoos and Mohammadens, who killed our women and children."
Misra's casualty claims have been challenged in India and Britain. "It is very difficult to assess the extent of the reprisals simply because we cannot say for sure if some of these populations did not just leave a conflict zone rather than being killed," said Shabi Ahmad, head of the 1857 project at the Indian Council of Historical Research. "It could have been migration rather than murder that depopulated areas."
Many view exaggeration rather than deceit in Misra's calculations. A British historian, Saul David, author of The Indian Mutiny, said it was valid to count the death toll but reckoned that it ran into "hundreds of thousands".
"It looks like an overestimate. There were definitely famines that cost millions of lives, which were exacerbated by British ruthlessness. You don't need these figures or talk of holocausts to hammer imperialism. It has a pretty bad track record."
Others say Misra has done well to unearth anything in that period, when the British assiduously snuffed out Indian versions of history. "There appears a prolonged silence between 1860 and the end of the century where no native voices are heard. It is only now that these stories are being found and there is another side to the story," said Amar Farooqui, history professor at Delhi University. "In many ways books like Misra's and those of [William] Dalrymple show there is lots of material around. But you have to look for it."
cont.....>>>
Misra's casualty claims have been challenged in India and Britain. "It is very difficult to assess the extent of the reprisals simply because we cannot say for sure if some of these populations did not just leave a conflict zone rather than being killed," said Shabi Ahmad, head of the 1857 project at the Indian Council of Historical Research. "It could have been migration rather than murder that depopulated areas."
Many view exaggeration rather than deceit in Misra's calculations. A British historian, Saul David, author of The Indian Mutiny, said it was valid to count the death toll but reckoned that it ran into "hundreds of thousands".
"It looks like an overestimate. There were definitely famines that cost millions of lives, which were exacerbated by British ruthlessness. You don't need these figures or talk of holocausts to hammer imperialism. It has a pretty bad track record."
Others say Misra has done well to unearth anything in that period, when the British assiduously snuffed out Indian versions of history. "There appears a prolonged silence between 1860 and the end of the century where no native voices are heard. It is only now that these stories are being found and there is another side to the story," said Amar Farooqui, history professor at Delhi University. "In many ways books like Misra's and those of [William] Dalrymple show there is lots of material around. But you have to look for it."
cont.....>>>
What is not in doubt is that in 1857 Britain ruled much of the subcontinent in the name of the Bahadur Shah Zafar, the powerless poet-king improbably descended from Genghis Khan.
Neither is there much dispute over how events began: on May 10 Indian soldiers, both Muslim and Hindu, who were stationed in the central Indian town of Meerut revolted and killed their British officers before marching south to Delhi. The rebels proclaimed Zafar, then 82, emperor of Hindustan and hoisted a saffron flag above the Red Fort.
What follows in Misra's view was nothing short of the first war of Indian independence, a story of a people rising to throw off the imperial yoke. Critics say the intentions and motives were more muddled: a few sepoys misled into thinking the officers were threatening their religious traditions. In the end British rule prevailed for another 90 years.
Misra's analysis breaks new ground by claiming the fighting stretched across India rather than accepting it was localised around northern India. Misra says there were outbreaks of anti-British violence in southern Tamil Nadu, near the Himalayas, and bordering Burma. "It was a pan-Indian thing. No doubt."
Misra also claims that the uprisings did not die out until years after the original mutiny had fizzled away, countering the widely held view that the recapture of Delhi was the last important battle.
For many the fact that Indian historians debate 1857 from all angles is in itself a sign of a historical maturity. "You have to see this in the context of a new, more confident India," said Jon E Wilson, lecturer in south Asian history at King's College London. "India has a new relationship with 1857. In the 40s and 50s the rebellions were seen as an embarrassment. All that fighting, when Nehru and Gandhi preached nonviolence. But today 1857 is becoming part of the Indian national story. That is a big change."
Neither is there much dispute over how events began: on May 10 Indian soldiers, both Muslim and Hindu, who were stationed in the central Indian town of Meerut revolted and killed their British officers before marching south to Delhi. The rebels proclaimed Zafar, then 82, emperor of Hindustan and hoisted a saffron flag above the Red Fort.
What follows in Misra's view was nothing short of the first war of Indian independence, a story of a people rising to throw off the imperial yoke. Critics say the intentions and motives were more muddled: a few sepoys misled into thinking the officers were threatening their religious traditions. In the end British rule prevailed for another 90 years.
Misra's analysis breaks new ground by claiming the fighting stretched across India rather than accepting it was localised around northern India. Misra says there were outbreaks of anti-British violence in southern Tamil Nadu, near the Himalayas, and bordering Burma. "It was a pan-Indian thing. No doubt."
Misra also claims that the uprisings did not die out until years after the original mutiny had fizzled away, countering the widely held view that the recapture of Delhi was the last important battle.
For many the fact that Indian historians debate 1857 from all angles is in itself a sign of a historical maturity. "You have to see this in the context of a new, more confident India," said Jon E Wilson, lecturer in south Asian history at King's College London. "India has a new relationship with 1857. In the 40s and 50s the rebellions were seen as an embarrassment. All that fighting, when Nehru and Gandhi preached nonviolence. But today 1857 is becoming part of the Indian national story. That is a big change."
original source
Question is.. why give the Hitler a bad name..??
At the end, it was the Jew bankers who declare the war against Germany earlier..!
I have some correct information about it and not the one way propaganda shit from the allies.
Question is.. why give the Hitler a bad name..??
At the end, it was the Jew bankers who declare the war against Germany earlier..!
I have some correct information about it and not the one way propaganda shit from the allies.
Zionist assholes do the same practice in Palestine for 60 years and nobody cares.. Americans did the same in Vietnam (4 millions civilian death) and no one cares..!
HELL?.They do the same shit right now in Iraq and Hitler was a bad guy..??
Huh.. puuuleiease..!
HELL?.They do the same shit right now in Iraq and Hitler was a bad guy..??
Huh.. puuuleiease..!
It was the Khazar Jews (converted Jews) who start the war against the German people, not the crap we've all been fed all along by the same propaganda (Jew owned media) machine.
Real Jews are generally different than those Zionist mother fuckers in IsraHELL!
Real Jews are generally different than those Zionist mother fuckers in IsraHELL!
To me.. Hitler was a patriot, loves the Germans and loved back by the German people, he was a real Gentleman with style .
"Beethoven and Goethe and Schiller.."
There's many things that make a culture civilized of course, to name a few; i'd take these guys over war any day of the week.. *i have loads of admiration and respect for our artist's and artistic culture, past and present. They were far from the enemy. If only mankind could only "express" themselves in healthier ways..
Puppet, culture, race, politics, etc, etc ..there is NO exuse for killing another human being.
There's many things that make a culture civilized of course, to name a few; i'd take these guys over war any day of the week.. *i have loads of admiration and respect for our artist's and artistic culture, past and present. They were far from the enemy. If only mankind could only "express" themselves in healthier ways..
Puppet, culture, race, politics, etc, etc ..there is NO exuse for killing another human being.
the khazarian myth....??
What exactly mythical about it..? In about 740AD, The Hazards had been under continual pressure from their Byzantine and Moslem neighbours to adopt Christianity or Islam, but the Hazard ruler, called the Khaki, had heard of a third religion called JUDAISM. Apparently for political reasons of independence, the Khaki announced that the Hazards were adopting Judaism as their religion. Overnight an entirely new group of people, the warlike Hazards, suddenly proclaimed themselves Jews - adoptive Jews. The Hazard kingdom began to be described as the 'Kingdom of the Jews' by historians of the day. Succeeding Hazard rulers took Jewish names, and during the late 9th Century the Hazard kingdom became a haven for Jews of other lands...
Again?What exactly mythical about it..?
These bastards are behind the holocaust (MYTH), murdering state of Israel, bolshevism and communism.
What exactly mythical about it..? In about 740AD, The Hazards had been under continual pressure from their Byzantine and Moslem neighbours to adopt Christianity or Islam, but the Hazard ruler, called the Khaki, had heard of a third religion called JUDAISM. Apparently for political reasons of independence, the Khaki announced that the Hazards were adopting Judaism as their religion. Overnight an entirely new group of people, the warlike Hazards, suddenly proclaimed themselves Jews - adoptive Jews. The Hazard kingdom began to be described as the 'Kingdom of the Jews' by historians of the day. Succeeding Hazard rulers took Jewish names, and during the late 9th Century the Hazard kingdom became a haven for Jews of other lands...
Again?What exactly mythical about it..?
These bastards are behind the holocaust (MYTH), murdering state of Israel, bolshevism and communism.
Americans are against the Communism, ironically, Hitler was that too that's why he started the war.
So fuck you, you ignorant bitch.
What ever you believe BABE..!
Just stop lying to yourself and the other people..!
Anti Semitism bullshitagain? is that really you've got .all along gay boy??
Fuck you then, Ignorant bitch.
Fuck you then, Ignorant bitch.
youre a loser guy
Moi..?
Har har har..
Moi..?
Har har har..
har har har..
And , at the end.. Hitler had every right to fuck with you all.
Fucking (converted) Jews..!
Fucking (converted) Jews..!
Why would I need guaranties to tell the TRUTH..??
Your hypocrisy has no limits...! I piss on their fucking face too, stop counting me by your cowardice standards.
I have no problem with (the original Jews), in fact my best friends are from Sephardic and barbars tribes.
Those fuckers in IsraHELL are not JEWS. Err.. they are not even HUMAN for fuck sake..!
Your hypocrisy has no limits...! I piss on their fucking face too, stop counting me by your cowardice standards.
I have no problem with (the original Jews), in fact my best friends are from Sephardic and barbars tribes.
Those fuckers in IsraHELL are not JEWS. Err.. they are not even HUMAN for fuck sake..!
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Chinese Crakdown in Lhasa What do you think of this.
by:Paul Craig Roberts 18/03/08 ICH -- -- In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972), Correlli Barne
So, the planet's population continues to explode: from 1 billion in 1820, to 2 billion in 1930, 3 billion in 1960, 4 bil
Great speech Thursday night!! Obama wins the Democratic caucuses in Iowa which is a state with less than 5% of minoritie
by Alex on November 27th, 2007 If you're looking for the best country in the world to live, head to Iceland. The UN
Here we go again, dare to read the article below..?? Blog by Erla ?sk Arnard?ttir Lillendahl: (English Translati
Demographics Population: 28,243,000 Urban: 76%, Rural: 24% Literacy: 100% College Education: 98% Life Expectancy: 93.
I was talking to someone very close to me about cigarette prices today. I told her that my favourite brand of cigarettes
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071106/oil_prices.html What was I said couple of years ago in very same forum..??
It is ignorance that leads people to believe that this war is pointless. I know because I was very ignorant. Let us thin
whats your view on this issue?
i've always wondered, why are lottery winnings taxed in the united states? Has winnings always been taxed? ..just a curi
SYDNEY, Australia - President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House. ADVERTISEM
The Larry Craig fiasco hits close to home because I grew up in Idaho and was roommates with one of Sen. Craig's adopted
Researchers at the University of Sheffield and Aston Business School have found that investment in Research and Developm
It is known that the U.S. cannot inevitably maintain its dominance forever. Perhaps militarily, but not economically. Th
Forbes European and world views of the United States and President George Bush have dramatically worsened since 2000;
HIROSHIMA, Japan (Reuters) - Japan marked the 62nd anniversary of Hiroshima's atomic bombing with a solemn ceremony on M
The John Howard government on Sunday came in for severe criticism by the Australian media for the 'disgraceful' treatmen
Green Time is Now, says Leo: By Anne Brodie So we find ourselves on the brink ? because we've waited, because we'
I don't know exactly whether it was the History Channel or something similar, since it was late, and i was tired, anyway. Rather the like the twilight zone..lol! Anyway, there was this really long bio of Hitler in his last days, and it centered on finding his whereabouts; if he was truly dead or alive, once the Germans had surrendered. Scientists of today, and a few WW II people still alive giving their own insights and experiences. Anyway, i like history, good or bad and found some interesting facts and rare film footage, involving his death.
----
Did Hitler travel 7000 miles abroad at one point, evading his captors? The hunt was on, but nobody could find him! (many additional sightings were reported elsewhere.)
Was his body secretly hidden by allies and doused with 50 gallons of fuel and buried underground in a makeshift wooden box? (only a skull with a bullet hole, and teeth were found, are they his?)
Dental scientists examine the burned and buried teeth with Hilter's recent dental records. And yes, according to experts were a definative match!
Hitler had extensive, distinctive dental work done, overkill, they called it ..massive gold fillings; so as not to see a dentist for the next 20 years. (he obviously was thinking well ahead, which makes me assume, he felt much more vulnerable than he would admit.)
Did Hitler only fire his gun, once he discovered that the metallic vile of cyanide he bit down on, didn't work effectively enough? Metal bits found between his teeth (?)
Also showed rare footage of Hilter's people in their high glory days; totally spoiled with the tax-payer's money. Free trips abroad yearly, for practically every German. Lot's of smiling faces, and children not getting what price was actually paid for it all. Hitler's powerful, mental/emotional hold on his own people, never really seen to this day.. *and of course, the deadly political agenda that propelled him..