--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since pretty much the entire basis of Hitler's reality was that he > >> had to > > come to > >> power in order to rid Germany (and the world) of the Jews. > > > > I thought it was to fulfill the destiny of greatness for the Ayrian > > people. > > The Jews were the main enemy who needed to be eliminated to stop them > > from > > interfearing with this "glorious goal." (Obviously I don't believe > > this > > &%$#; just trying to remember the "logic" that he followed.) > > > Well, that was of course part of his madness, but it is reasonable to > argue that he was more against the Jews than he was for the Aryans. > After all, he materially damaged Germany's chances of winning the war > in the East (or at least of forestalling defeat for a lot longer) by > his policy to transport Jews to the camps. One could argue that he > thought destroying the Jews was more important.
& other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly resonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) 2) No one, even the professor we were discussing in the previous topic, ever compared Isreal to Nazi Germany on an equal scale. The comparison was based on an axis, and suggested that both Isreal and Nazi Germany in WWII are on the same side of the origin. Exagerating anothers concept and then debating the exageration is akin to lying about hearsay. 3) The information you have provided about hitler is a bit questionable. There is evidence that he was appaled at what was going on but could not stop it. What the actual events, feelings, and intent of the man were, he was clearly not a person of good morals and charachter. If he was not in fact directly responsible, he was responsible enough to stop it if he cared to. And that makes him in effect directly responsible. The human desire to see a situation in black and white, to vilify or raise as a hero, is an enemy of truth, and a deterant to our species maturing to the point where we can develop a global society without such evils as raceism. 4) The association discussed above in 2 is in no way anti-semetic any more than it is anti-Germanic. We can debate about the sevarity, and the positions on the axis we are discussing, but to state an opinion about such a position can not any any way be construed as being an assertion that all persons of a particular liniage or celebrating and/ or practicing a particular religion are evil, inferior, or even troubeling. It can not even be construde as a determination of taste. If a man compares the flavor of gin-and-tonic to that of bitter mellon, it would not make sence to then assume that the man had a dislike for alchohol of any sort. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
