Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 24, 2024, 5:38 pm

Poll: Was Hitler objectively bad?
This poll is closed.
Yes
52.63%
20 52.63%
No
39.47%
15 39.47%
I dont know
7.89%
3 7.89%
Total 38 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was Hitler objectively bad?
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
One way to test for objecive badness is to ask: Does anyone, including Hitler, want to be treated the way Hitler treated the Jews? If so, then you could say Hitler was subjectively evil, but if not then it is reasonable to suggest he was objectively bad.
Blame Hitchens, Dawkins & Harris...
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
Quote:For certain that once the US and Russia were involved Germany was never going to win.

I will have to disagree with you here.

If Germany had pushed through with their plan to invade England before declaring war on the USSR, I am sure things would have been differnet.

At the start of WWII, Germany & the USSR had a pact, and thus allowed Germany to remain safe on her Eastern Flank. If Germany would then have pushed through England, thus securing the major Allied staging point, their position would have been much stronger. The Allies would have had no base for bombing runs or a staging point for an invasion of mainland Europe. The Germans should then have pushed as far as Iceland, thus securing the entire Northern sector.

The next step would be to secure Northern Africa & the Middle East to Turkey, all while remaining 'friendly' with the USSR. Thus, securing the Southern sector, and another prime staging area.

Next, Geramany should have worked with Japan to close on the USSR. Using a pincer movement from two fronts, and fighting only during the summer season, while conductiong bombing during the winter.

OK, the USSR falls. The final movement on the continent would be towards India and SE asia.

Employ the same tactic, as with the USSR, with the USA and victory would have been inevitable.

Lastly, just mopping up efforts through Southern Australia, Southern Africa and South America.

Then the real war would have started or we would have had World peace. I think there could have then been a war between Japan and Germany, but it is also possible that there could have been a peace between these two nations.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
(October 18, 2010 at 11:14 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: If Germany had pushed through with their plan to invade England before declaring war on the USSR, I am sure things would have been different.

The reality is that Hitler had no such plan to invade England. The argument he put forward was that if England would fall, the British empire would fall and none of its colonies would fall into the hands of Germany, and would more likely be picked up by enemy countries. Secondly, Hitler admired the English, as they were cousins to Germans and therefore part of the Master Race.

So his strategy was to bomb London and other major English cities in the hope that England would give up its fight, make peace with Germany and recognised its gain in Europe. His big mistake was not realizing that Churchill was another war monger who would never give up.

Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
I will draw your attention to Operation Sealion.

Quote:So, on 16 July 1940 Adolf Hitler issued Directive Number 16. It read, 'As England, in spite of the hopelessness of her military position, has so far shown herself unwilling to come to any compromise, I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary to carry out, an invasion of England... and if necessary the island will be occupied.'

The Germans, surprised by the speed of their military success in Europe, had no detailed plans for an invasion of Britain with the man made responsible for the venture, General Franz Halder, now having to start from scratch.

But this absence of a plan did not prevent Hitler from announcing on 16 July that an invasion force would be ready to sail by 15 August. The operation was given the codeword Sealion.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
(October 19, 2010 at 8:42 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: I will draw your attention to Operation Sealion.

Quote:So, on 16 July 1940 Adolf Hitler issued Directive Number 16. It read, 'As England, in spite of the hopelessness of her military position, has so far shown herself unwilling to come to any compromise, I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary to carry out, an invasion of England... and if necessary the island will be occupied.'

The Germans, surprised by the speed of their military success in Europe, had no detailed plans for an invasion of Britain with the man made responsible for the venture, General Franz Halder, now having to start from scratch.

But this absence of a plan did not prevent Hitler from announcing on 16 July that an invasion force would be ready to sail by 15 August. The operation was given the codeword Sealion.

He issued the directive but he was never enthusiastic about it.

And it is unlikely that a seaborne invasion would have succeeded as the Kreigsmarine would not have been able to protect the invasion barges from the depredations of the Royal Navy.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
Even though the German Navy wasn't the strongest in the reagion, I believe a combination of the Luftwaffe, heavy guns, U-Boats and the Kriegsmarine surface fleet would have been sufficient to combat the Royal Navy.

Quote:From mid July the Luftwaffe stepped up the military pressure by attacking the channel ports and shipping to establish command of the Straits of Dover, while German heavy guns were installed around Calais to bombard the Dover area where the first shells started to fall during the second week of August.

By the end of July the Royal Navy had to pull all its larger warships out of the channel because of the threat from German aircraft.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
(October 19, 2010 at 9:05 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Even though the German Navy wasn't the strongest in the reagion, I believe a combination of the Luftwaffe, heavy guns, U-Boats and the Kriegsmarine surface fleet would have been sufficient to combat the Royal Navy.

Quote:From mid July the Luftwaffe stepped up the military pressure by attacking the channel ports and shipping to establish command of the Straits of Dover, while German heavy guns were installed around Calais to bombard the Dover area where the first shells started to fall during the second week of August.

By the end of July the Royal Navy had to pull all its larger warships out of the channel because of the threat from German aircraft.

The German surface fleet had been largely decimated in the Norwegian Campaign, U-boats would have been ineffective in this sort of action, the Luftwaffe would have been useless because the invasion fleet would have been crossing the channel at night in order to land at dawn and the same with heavy artillery (presumably K28E's and the like) being able to intervene.

All the R.N battleships would have had to do is just drive through the middle of the invasion barges and swamp them with their wakes.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
Well will have agree to disagree.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
(October 19, 2010 at 9:33 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Well will have agree to disagree.

But it's fun speculating.

P.s I've got a model of the K28E Leopold, when I finally get around to building it........

[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
RE: Was Hitler objectively bad?
Isn't a Leopold a K5E? Railway Cannon 28cm?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can too much respect be bad? Fake Messiah 48 4500 January 14, 2020 at 11:28 am
Last Post: roofinggiant
  Technology, Good or Bad Overall? ColdComfort 41 5673 July 7, 2019 at 1:02 pm
Last Post: Chad32
  Emotions are intrinsically good and bad Transcended Dimensions 713 106831 February 25, 2018 at 11:32 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Name one objectively bad person ErGingerbreadMandude 57 14877 October 16, 2017 at 3:47 am
Last Post: Ignorant
  Is there a logical, rational reason why hate is bad? WisdomOfTheTrees 27 3663 February 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Is developing a strong habit of philosophizing bad for your social skills? Edwardo Piet 31 4081 May 25, 2016 at 8:22 am
Last Post: Gemini
Smile a bad person Sappho 30 5011 December 8, 2015 at 7:59 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  The bad guy Marsellus Wallace 18 5221 July 28, 2015 at 8:15 am
Last Post: Marsellus Wallace
  What makes a person bad? Losty 53 13090 December 3, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Last Post: Losty
  >without the bad you can't appreciate the good MusicLovingAtheist 19 3747 October 22, 2014 at 10:41 am
Last Post: bennyboy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)