The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Alright, that’s fair. The Jews were a scapegoat for the economy in lots of places at the time though, so it was an easy target to get the masses riled up I suppose.
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally.
But he fomented, and implicitly and explicitly assented to the entire process. He delegated the authority to others to engage in the Holocaust freely. He could have removed that authority at any time and did not.
Yeah, that’s exactly why he should be held responsible for it, I’m absolutely not trying to debate that.
I’m just trying to get people to look past the “great man theory of history” and admit that Hitler didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t get a Holocaust without people around him being willing and able to carry out evil themselves. Which means that saying “Hitler caused the Holocaust” let’s a while lot of other evil people off the hook, who all played crucial parts in making it happen.
I’m hammering that point because it’s so relevant again today. Trump might be an evil narcissist piece of shit, but by himself he’s relatively harmless/containable (see the relatively smaller damage the Trump 1 regime did vs Trump 2). It’s the folks who are just as evil themselves enabling him that are exacerbating the impact this time around. And if we’re ever going to see Nuremberg style justice for this presidency, I’d be extremely disappointed if only Trump gets held responsible.
They are conspiring, all of them are 100% responsible. The way you are phrasing it makes it seem like trump is just a puppet, which is not the case. I would also attribute some of the ease to do damage to the exodus of career bureaucrats. Normal people have stepped out of roles that are now filled with sycophants, idiots and criminals.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
Humans have been responsible for pretty much every evil ever invented besides the god of the bible genociding virtually the entire planet. The only thing more insulting than dehumanizing someone is not doing that.
My take is I don’t want to normalize it to the point that it gives people less ethical than my perception of myself to dehumanize people for the wrong reason, therefore it’s never appropriate. It’s not accurate either. These people are human. Calling them something else trivializes them. “A person, just like me, made this decision” is more powerful than handwaving them as subhuman.
Someone else already griped this thing at me and I replied to it down there. You’re allowed to not want to normalize things. I’m happy to dehumanize people who profit off of human suffering and death.
Why do they keep trying to humanize the CEO and claiming that it had a “wife”?
Hitler had a girlfriend. Bin Laden had a wife and many children.
FAFO
The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Sounds like he had “legitimate beef” with the governments of France and the UK, not goddamn “international Jewry”
Alright, that’s fair. The Jews were a scapegoat for the economy in lots of places at the time though, so it was an easy target to get the masses riled up I suppose.
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
I did not, at any point, say that Bin Laden had “legitimate beef”.
No, my original reply was directed at hoppeduponcoffee
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
That is an insane take
But he fomented, and implicitly and explicitly assented to the entire process. He delegated the authority to others to engage in the Holocaust freely. He could have removed that authority at any time and did not.
Yeah, that’s exactly why he should be held responsible for it, I’m absolutely not trying to debate that.
I’m just trying to get people to look past the “great man theory of history” and admit that Hitler didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t get a Holocaust without people around him being willing and able to carry out evil themselves. Which means that saying “Hitler caused the Holocaust” let’s a while lot of other evil people off the hook, who all played crucial parts in making it happen.
I’m hammering that point because it’s so relevant again today. Trump might be an evil narcissist piece of shit, but by himself he’s relatively harmless/containable (see the relatively smaller damage the Trump 1 regime did vs Trump 2). It’s the folks who are just as evil themselves enabling him that are exacerbating the impact this time around. And if we’re ever going to see Nuremberg style justice for this presidency, I’d be extremely disappointed if only Trump gets held responsible.
They are conspiring, all of them are 100% responsible. The way you are phrasing it makes it seem like trump is just a puppet, which is not the case. I would also attribute some of the ease to do damage to the exodus of career bureaucrats. Normal people have stepped out of roles that are now filled with sycophants, idiots and criminals.
Yes. Thank you.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Mrs Goebbels made a lovely strudel.
Too bad she murdered all her children.
Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/how-to-make-strudel-like-magda-goebbels
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
Actually Hitler and Eva Braun got married in the bunker right before they killed themselves. Why do I know this?! Fuck
I have a gift for you
‽
That last bit has been ruined by awful people. Just reading it makes me picture the Secretary of Embarrassing Defeat and feel nauseous.
Because UNLIKE the People He KILLED he had a Wife!
-The Media!
Because the media is owned and run by the same class of people as the allegedly murdered CEO.
Damage control i guess 🤷
You know what also had a wife? Another CEO.
Because he’s a human.
Not anymore lol
It’s wrong to dehumanize people, except people who profit off the suffering and death of others. Fuck those people.
Don’t normalize dehamnization. It’s too easy to exploit. These may be bad awful people but they’re still people.
Humans have been responsible for pretty much every evil ever invented besides the god of the bible genociding virtually the entire planet. The only thing more insulting than dehumanizing someone is not doing that.
My take is I don’t want to normalize it to the point that it gives people less ethical than my perception of myself to dehumanize people for the wrong reason, therefore it’s never appropriate. It’s not accurate either. These people are human. Calling them something else trivializes them. “A person, just like me, made this decision” is more powerful than handwaving them as subhuman.
Someone else already griped this thing at me and I replied to it down there. You’re allowed to not want to normalize things. I’m happy to dehumanize people who profit off of human suffering and death.