Posted on 07/05/2012 10:33:02 PM PDT by nickcarraway
the cruelest human beings to walk the earth have a separate set of rules for themselves. They may kill people, as he did, and rationalize whatever ‘kindness’ they want to serve themselves. It doesn’t mean he had a kind or gallant streak. It meant that his whims took precedent over rules, even ones he created. The person he spared might have looked up to him - and for a narcissist, that’s a free meal. The person he spared may have saved his life in WWI, and for a narcissist, that means that person ‘realized’ just how special Hitler was. These actions may be interpreted as kindness, but when you can exterminate millions, where you choose to spare a life here or there is not a ‘good place in his heart’ but an instance where the rules don’t apply to him. He may have enjoyed Tapioca pudding with the same enthusiasm he saved a friend from the gas chambers. His whims must be indulged.
I remember watching open-mouthed in shock as my friend’s creep of a husband sneered that he ‘forgot’ to pay his infant son’s medical insurance premium, knowing full well the little baby had malignant brain tumors and should he lose this insurance policy, no other would be obtainable. Yet this man was spoken so highly of - the way he loved his children blah blah blah. He ‘chose’ to be the loving father when and where it pleased him. He chose to be less than human where it didn’t. I see Hitler the same way, a vile, evil man with some pleasant self serving vices (sparing his friend before killing everyone elses friends, family etc.)
“Adolf Hitler made a personal intervention to spare a Jew from the Holocaust that consumed millions of Jewish lives it has been revealed.”
The way that sentence is written, it sounds like Hitler was witnessing ‘the Holocaust’ instead of identifying it as HIS HOLOCAUST.
Naturally, imposing rationed state-controlled health care on the masses, threatening to suppress opposing opinion and free speech through a “fairness doctrine”, and using quasi-terrorist tactics to stonewall any attempt to roll back socialism (for example, legislators in Wisconsin fleeing the state with a clap on the back from Fuhrer Ubama in order to prevent a vote on pending legislation) perfectly fits the modus operandi of America's own 21st century Nazi party.
In other words, America’s Democrats are operating in EXACTLY the same way the original version of their party operated in Germany during the 1930s.
BTW, the "right' on the traditional layout designed by the French parliament are ROYALISTS.
Democrats, however, refuse to see any parallels between them and the Nazis, because they rewrite history only to flatter themselves. Not to provide a lesson. If you tell them the Nazis were socialists, they’ll usually say “no they were fascists”, as they the two terms are mutually exclusive. They’ll say the Nazis hated the communists, so therefore they couldn’t have been socialists. They don’t really want to know the details about it, though. And what do you get if you ignore history? A repeat of it. Now they’re giving us socialized health care. The very thing the Nazis used to kill millions of people. They’re in denial of the otherwise obvious path they’re taking us down.
Thank you so much for adding moral clarity to this thread. I am perplexed at the people who point to some villain and say, “but he had his good side, too” as if it matters that some sociopath sometimes granted somebody a favor. My understanding is among the first people Hitler went after were German Jewish veterans of WWI because they knew how to fight and could have resisted well had they been organized.
He loved his dogs too, and then had them all killed. He certainly didn’t intervene to keep the Goebbels from killing all their beautiful little girls and boys.
A true psychopath, with many kindred spirits around him.
The media loved the Soviets. When fascists attacked the Soviets, the mediots started describing them as “far right”, even though they were nearly identical.
That reminds me of the cynical comment my father once made.
“Hitler was the only politician who kept all of his campaign promises.”
Good points. Like Harry Reid calling the TEA Party “terrorists” they demonize the innocent and euthanize the unwanted.
Eric Holder has been allowed to use the power of his office to violate the civil rights of white people.
America needs more Dietrich Bonhoeffers to speak out against the new negro Nazi party.
See my tagline.
in Europe far right implies nationalism and xenophobia and is not used to describe the economic structure ... it really only implies tribal supremacy.
Nazis were totalitarian, militaristic, authoritarian and nationalistic. Republicans tend to be more nationalistic and support the military more than the Democrats. Authoritarian tendencies could be a toss up, but in my mind hard core Democrats are more authoritarian than any Republicans.
Clearly, Democrats are much more totalitarian than republicans.
Your crosshairs are a little high...
That exemption was eventially lifted at the Wansee Conference, I believe. There were a lot of exemptions that eventually got lifted.
First newbie, it's not the Poster's point, he just started a thread on an article in the news. But anyway, as to your question -- one point is that there's still many unknowns about Hitler that would shock most people, this being one.
Another thing many don't know is that he always wasn't the raging Jew Hater that emerged in Mein Kampf, to wit: When he was younger he had a crush on a Jewish Girl but he was too shy to approach her. How many people know or would think that? Or know that it wasn't Hitler's initial goal to 'eliminate' (kill) Jews in Germany, just that they leave the country. He promoted emigration but not many countries, including the USA under FDR, WANTED these Jews.
So the fact is Hitler wasn't always an anti Semite with a 'final solution' planned. That hatred came after Germany's unconditional surrender in WWI. Which to the troops in the field came as a big shock as they thought they were winning the war - or at least it was a draw. It was that capitulation that he blamed on 'The Bankers' (sound familiar?), most of whom were Jewish. He also blamed the Communist Party of Germany, which most of its leaders were also Jewish (and of the Trade Unions too). And there was one thing Hitler hated above all else; 'Bolsheviks' and Communism.
Folks also think that Nazi = socialist = same as communist. Not so to Hitler. As such, most folks put too much stock in the 'socialist' part of the Nazi Party's name. Ernst Röhm and other SA leaders were 'removed' during The Night Of The Long Knives solely because they wanted Hitler and Germany to be MORE Socialist, a slightly lesser version of the USSR. That 'their socialist revolution' still needed to be fought. Hitler warned him to back off on 'all that socialist stuff' but Röhm refused. In doing that he wrote his own death sentence.
Now do I have a point in the above? No. History has no point, just facts. And when it comes to Adolph Hitler the only fact is that over time he went freaking nuts.
(Maybe due to syphilis? He was 100% paranoid about it -- another fact.)
(Sorry but this is the Readers Digest version. Can't go into every detail here from his birth to death. Or how France started WWII, back in 1871)
I'm not so sure about that, I mean have you taken a look at who the Republican-party's anointed for nomination: Romney!
If Romney wins, it'll signal to the Republican-party "it's ok who you put out there, we'll blindly vote for him"; in short the Republican-party isn't very Right-winged at all right now, and selecting Romney only tells them that it doesn't have to be.
Franco-Prussian war?
How did France start WWII?
When they bombed the Panama Canal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.