Quote# 91826

Adolf Hitler had no hate for any peoples. He was extremely respectful of all cultures and wanted the best for all nations and that they also prospered.

The British/French were in Holland ready to begin an invasion of Germany after a few months of build up after Germany's invasion of Poland.

Mythistory Channel, Stormfront 50 Comments [1/2/2013 4:35:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 42

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Well, I guess if there's Christians who've never read the Bible, it makes sense that there are Nazis who've never read Mein Kampf.

1/2/2013 4:40:21 AM

Raised by Horses

And he gave out lollipops to orphans on weekends.

1/2/2013 5:09:15 AM

New Face of Rev

Yeah he really came across that way didn't he.

1/2/2013 5:29:10 AM


He must be talking about the two British intelligence officers who were kidnapped in Venlo and whisked across the German border. Ah, that was a menacing invasion force! And Hitler showed all heads of sovereign states the same respect he accorded Schuschnigg and Hacha.

1/2/2013 5:35:08 AM



The British/French forces in holland, about to begin an invasion AFTER GERMANY's INVASION OF POLAND!
What part of 'justification' doesn't fit here?

Besides that: Did this bozo fall on his head or something? That he seems to see Santa Clause with a black moustache?

1/2/2013 5:51:38 AM


Has to be a Poe.

Dear Lord, please be a Poe.

1/2/2013 5:58:33 AM

D Laurier

Adolf Hitler hated slavic people with an almost insane fury. He considered anyone who was not "racialy pure" to be an abomination that MUST be destroyed... and the slavs were just such an abomination, to his fantasy. He ordered their extermination, but set aside a reserve population to be slaves.

He hated Roma (gypsys), and Tartars, and he ordered their extermination with no exeptions.

He hated jews because they killed Jesus, and were "secretly plotting to take over the world".
He tried to expel them to the middle east where he thought they belonged.
When this failed he authorized their exploitation as slave labour, and their segregation from his "aryans". Eventualy he agreed to simply exterminate them alongside Slavs, Roma, and Tartars.

Did I mention that he held batshit insane notions about "race"?

1/2/2013 6:44:28 AM

Doubting Thomas

"Mythistory" is an apt description here.

1/2/2013 6:56:45 AM


Here's the problem with this. It all depends on your definitions. If you arguing within Nazism this is actually defendable, if you are arguing from any other ideology it simply isn't.
For those now standing up and wanting to wave the "Jewish nation" at me, well, it is even doubtful if Hitler actually hated Jews or, if he, like communists think of the burgouisie, simply saw them as an enemy of his own group - nor evil or good but selfishly fighting just like them. Let's not forget that when communists took over in other countries they treated the burgouisie similiar to a race - they even killed the children who could have been raised under a normal family, because they thought "once an enemy of the working classe, always an enemy of the working class". I'm not sure if this signifies hate or extreme pragmatism.

We don't know what went on in Hitler's mind, we simply can't know, he might have written books but Hitler is known to have lied, we might have psychologists evaluate him based on other people's impression of him, but these methods are dependend on the data we have.

In our writing of history - especially popular history - we humans tend to simplify people. George Washington was a freedom fighter (actually he beat his slaves bloody if they disobeyed him), The American Civil War was about slavery (actually it was a long looming power struggle between two cultures occupying a single government), Mao was horrible dictator that had no clue and was completely misguided (actually the cultural revolution was a power struggle within the CPCh in which Mao utlized the youth of the country against the other side, and the heavily attributed genocide was in fact femine fueled on disorganisation and totalitarian-fueled fear of reporting the actual numbers to Peking) and we write Hitler as the ultimate evil filled with hate and bloodthirst - a war-mongering racist maniac when factually he was nothing more than a guy with messed up childhood who fell into all the wrong ideologies, who was smart enough to be a politician but too bullheaded to know when to give up.
But again, our stories need heroes and villains, and this shit is what we end up with.

1/2/2013 7:00:51 AM



Actually, you're a little mistaken about the civil war. It was predominantly about slaves, since the South's economy and way of wealthy life depended on them.

And Mao might have been a great general and charismatic, but he was a horrible administrator. He seems like Ulysses S. Grant taken up to eleven and with reservations about leadership removed.

1/2/2013 7:36:54 AM

The only way this gets more wrong is if he thinks Shitler "liberated" Poland.

1/2/2013 8:37:57 AM


I think Hitler himself would take issue with this statement.

1/2/2013 8:40:37 AM


Is the OP from Bizarroworld?

1/2/2013 9:00:15 AM


You're mistaken. The issue of slavery and state's rights were the primary tool of discourse and of course the final straw in a big pile of straws, but the tensions between the South and the North ran deep ever since the industrialization of the North fundamentally transformed that part of the country and it's politics, philosophy and culture - thereby creating what factually was (and to a degree still is) two different nations with the same language but only one goverment. This is not unusual, the aftermath of the industrialization still carries on in all countries that reached this process, look at any Western election map. But in the US these tensions were brought to an extreme due to the wide land that seperated these cultures.
You confuse the reason behind a conflict with the discourse used to justify it. For example the reason World War II happend in Europe was a feeling of inferiority in Germany (caused by Germany's history having missed out on building an empire, like every other European country had done in some way, the loss of World War I with its Treaty of Versailles shaming Germans into submission), but the justification used in discourse was to make Germany great "again" (it never had been an Empire worth of notice - even with colonies). To give another example, on both sides of the Cold War the justification was freedom (In the West freedom from government, in the East freedom from capitalism) but the actual reasons were a game of power and influence.

I'm not denying that Mao wasn't a good administrator, he was good on the battlefield, but pop-history writes him as a slaughtering misguided maniac having millions of deaths on his plate - while actually the number of deaths directly attributable to him is rather small (relative to China), as the hunger and femine problems were also a collective fuck-up of the newly established republic. It happend not only because the central control had no fucking idea what they were doing, but also because administrators on all levels polished the numbers the send up to their superiors who then also polished a bit and so on until central control had completely fake numbers and the adminstration not just no clue what they were doing but also false data.

1/2/2013 9:57:29 AM


Please come to Germany and let us beat you. With history books.

So much of this sounds not even semi true, but I'm not in the mood to debate. About Hitler, I mean, I know little about what went down in China.

1/2/2013 11:04:13 AM

Forget Jews, Roma and the poor guys who went to the concentration camps. Ernst Rohm has a word with you.And Hans Kanaris, for that matter.

1/2/2013 11:37:56 AM


I like the little tweeting blue birds dancing around his head whenever Goering would hit him.

1/2/2013 11:50:07 AM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

"Has to be a Poe."

C'mon Ebon, you're not a newbie here. This is Stormfront we're talking about, don't be so naive :)

1/2/2013 12:21:42 PM

J. James

I can't believe the words are coming out of my mouth, but you are putting Adolf Hitler to shame. The fucker lived to despise other cultures and races. It was his entire raison d'être. He hated people; that is simply what he did. He hated Jews, blacks, Slavs and gays. He hated Muslims and Native Americans and Asians and Roma. He hated other European groups like the British. He hated those with mixed cultural heritage. He hated liberals and socialists and atheists and especially communists. He hated miscegenatiors and race traitors, Jew-sympathizers and Indians. He hated Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders, he hated Australians and Kiwis, he hated the Maori and Latinos. He barely brought himself to tolerate the Japanese and lily-white Argentinians.

Am I missing anyone? Oh, wait, he also hated Jehovah's Witnesses and put other cultish religious minorities to death too.

By the way, UHM, it is commonly believed that slavery was not the cause of the civil war. Indeed, there were a few other factors. However, that is like saying that the Hindenburg's barely flammable skin, and not the seven million cubic feet of Hydrogen, was the major cause of the conflagration. Not only does it hopelessly, disproportionately exaggerate factors that may or may not have been involved at all, but it discounts the overwhelmingly important cause of the event by belittling it with a comparison to factors so minor as to be nearly inconsequential. By saying that slavery was "just another straw," you're basically ignoring the fact that it was 98% of the problem.

Slavery caused the civil war. Period. No further explanation is needed. Because slavery was so hopelessly entwined in the southern economy and culture, it is literally inconceivable what the south would have been like without it, ergo it is pointless to argue that other social factors that were caused by slavery were more important than slavery itself.

1/2/2013 12:38:49 PM

Pule Thamex

Adolf Hitler is Stormfront's kind of guy. Not difficult to deduce when you realise that Adolf Hitler had no hate for any peoples just like Stormfront doesn't.

Ae least, I'm certain Stormfront don't admire Hitler because he was a mono-testicular psychopath with a funny moustache.

1/2/2013 1:04:31 PM


"Adolf Hitler had no hate for any peoples."

Yay, like when he scapegoated and discursed at great length how Slavs and others were Untermenschen, ie subhumans, how Jews were vermin, how "Reds" were the scum on the earth and how disabled were a drain on society.

"He was extremely respectful of all cultures and wanted the best for all nations and that they also prospered"

You mean extermining the Jews and the Gypsies, enslaving the Slavs and colonising Eastern Europa Tasmania-style?

Yes, you're rignt, national-socialism stands for nonviolence and world peace.

1/2/2013 1:22:51 PM


People don't generally commit highly thorough and organised mass-murder against Jews, blacks, gays, communists, Roma, the disabled and other minorities unless they have at least mild dislike for them.

1/2/2013 3:20:40 PM



The issue of slavery and state's rights were the primary tool of discourse and of course the final straw in a big pile of straws, but the tensions between the South and the North ran deep ever since the industrialization of the North fundamentally transformed that part of the country and it's politics, philosophy and culture - thereby creating what factually was (and to a degree still is) two different nations with the same language but only one goverment.

If so, then why did each and every declaration of secession dwell on slavery to the near-complete exclusion of any other issue?

E.g., Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, et al.

1/2/2013 3:43:36 PM


'Fraid you're the one who's wrong about the Civil War, UHM. Sure, secession was dressed up in a lot of fancy legal language about "states' rights," but when you ask exactly what rights the South sought to preserve from the federal government, it comes down to one thing: the "right" to own slaves.

I think you're crafting your own straw man in the image of Mao as well. Also, with your example of Washington, you underestimate the degree to which people can say one thing and do another. History is replete with examples of people who fought for their own freedom yet exploited others. In Washington's case, he at least freed his slaves in his will; while the image of other founders - notably Thomas Jefferson - gets ever darker. Jefferson wrote soaring words about universal equality and freedom, but recently-unearthed details about his slaves' actual treatment belie that.

Similarly, I really have to call bullshit on your characterization of Hitler. We can't know what he really thought, you say; that's true of anyone, but we can certainly judge by his actions. To argue that he slaughtered millions without "hatred" is to create a distinction without a difference.

1/2/2013 4:22:11 PM

FSTDT=For Satan The Demonic Teacher

1/2/2013 6:35:14 PM

1 2 | top: comments page