^ See somehow I'm getting the same idea about you and those that feel that Columbus's Jewness is significant to history.
Nazis are people too. To be a Nazi didn't mean you just had to hate Jews, fools. Nazis began as a German Nationalist movement. Slaves and slavers were people too. So were Jews for that matter. Can no separate the ethical judgement of a crime (like genocide) from blind hate for a group of people (like Nazis, Jews, Christians, etc)? Where did you people learn to think? I need to bump that problem with American ed thread.
I learned history in American public schools in both Germany and America. How about you? Did you learn in Israel or Palestine?
We all learned history so differently! Isn't it interesting?
I understood that Hitler was originally a Jew who wasn't able to become a rabbi like he wanted. Many believe resentment over this rejection by the Temple authorities is the main reason, besides the already present hate for Jewish creditors, that Jews were a group targeted by the holocaust. I don't believe motivations can be proven or disproven, only theorized, while actual facts can be investigated for accuracy. I believe it's a provable fact (of I don't have his rabbi school transcript) that he tried to become a rabbi and failed. This information was consistent from junior high through college in my experience.
I was taught he was also a failed painter, a fecophile and had an oedipus complex. I have never heard that he was Christian or Catholic. Unlike Columbus (good ole Chris), I feel it would be quite significant to the whole world to learn Hitler (good ole poop eater) was part of some religion other than disillusioned Jewish given the significant legacy of harm and hate he spawned towards a religious group amongst others.
If the history you learned was that Hitler was a Jew, you weren't taught history, you were taught somemadeupshit. (If the same people taught you he was a fecophile, I'm not shocked...generally not a subject broached by the most serious historians).
He was raised Catholic and publicly espoused quite firmly that he was Christian.
We all learned history so differently! Isn't it interesting?
I understood that Hitler was originally a Jew who wasn't able to become a rabbi like he wanted. Many believe resentment over this rejection by the Temple authorities is the main reason, besides the already present hate for Jewish creditors, that Jews were a group targeted by the holocaust. I don't believe motivations can be proven or disproven, only theorized, while actual facts can be investigated for accuracy. I believe it's a provable fact (of I don't have his rabbi school transcript) that he tried to become a rabbi and failed. This information was consistent from junior high through college in my experience.
I was taught he was also a failed painter, a fecophile and had an oedipus complex. I have never heard that he was Christian or Catholic. Unlike Columbus (good ole Chris), I feel it would be quite significant to the whole world to learn Hitler (good ole poop eater) was part of some religion other than disillusioned Jewish given the significant legacy of harm and hate he spawned towards a religious group amongst others.
If the history you learned was that Hitler was a Jew, you weren't taught history, you were taught somemadeupshit. (If the same people taught you he was a fecophile, I'm not shocked...generally not a subject broached by the most serious historians).
He was raised Catholic and publicly espoused quite firmly that he was Christian.
If I remember correctly, he had some Jewish heritage somewhere like two or three generations back, but it was a sliver and he never identified as a member of the Jewish community.
I thought I had read a story once that he wanted to become a priest when he was a young child, but that's a vague memory at best.
To answer Hab. I didn't say any of those things that you so kindly put into my mouth, and I don't think religion is responsible for everything. All I said was it played its part as an excuse.
And sbp, my response to Mystic (I think) already agreed that Hitler would have found another excuse.
I cant respond fully because I am working today, and also because its too tiring.
And yet the bulk of your responses in threads like this is nanny nanny boo boo, see how much better the world would be without religion?
Yeahno
Thats true, and I have revised my opinion. I hope thats okay with you? As I said in the responses on this thread, Hitler would have found a way to do what he did anyway. It is you that keeps thinking I said "It was all religions fault".
But yes, I do lay the blame at religions feet for many of the wars etc. Not all. And often its just the excuse. But there are some where the excuse is based on religion. Thats just what history looks like to me. To take two at random - the crusades without religion? Or would their be the Israeli conflict if the whole middle east was Jewish. Or if they were all Muslim? Or if they were all atheist?
How exactly did Hitler use the Catholic church as an excuse? That's where I'm confused.
You're not really coming across the way you think you are. Because if you no longer believe religion is the foundation for all the world's problems, you've not managed to convey that even in this post.
How exactly did Hitler use the Catholic church as an excuse? That's where I'm confused.
You're not really coming across the way you think you are. Because if you no longer believe religion is the foundation for all the world's problems, you've not managed to convey that even in this post.
I was saying that it would be harder for anyone, including Hitler, to find an excuse to persecute Jews, if there were no religion. Religion is a handy way of grouping people together and then blaming them for everything.
That statement alone should show that I have moved on from previous positions - I know that I have done exactly that many times in the past.
Following on from that - IF (big if) Hitler was bought up as a catholic, in a majority christian country, then he would be more likely to persecute non catholics. There weren't many Muslims about so that wasn't a useful "enemy", but the Jews were a handy scapegoat, plus they were perceived to control the banks. Easier to go after Jews, than Bankers. And probably done mainly to get money.
If I am not explaining myself very well, all I can do is apologize. I hope that suffices, because it was never my intent to cause offense, it really wasn't.
An now I have to get back to work, and will feel all disgruntled for the rest of the day, probably.
Right but what I'm saying is that you are mistaken. Hitler felt certain races of people were inferior and tainted his precious Aryan nation gene pool. The practice of the religion itself was irrelevant. So even if there were no religion, he still would have gone after the race, culture, and/or ethnic groups he felt were superior to the race he was trying to create.
That being said, you have a point about the control of the banks even if you are somewhat incorrect in your statement about them. There is a reason why Jews are seen to have control of the banks (even though they don't) and it is religion in nature. Circa Christopher Columbus's day (and before and after actually) Jews handled the lending aspect of banking as it was seen as against the laws of the church for Christians to lend or borrow money from other Christians. I guess not so when it came to borrowing from Jews I guess. So in that sense, if there were no religion, there wouldn't be that history and that pervasive myth.
But I'm sure there would still be the superiority complex that led to persecuting less desirable peoples and scapegoating those populations for various woes. Humanity loves a good witchhunt.
Right but what I'm saying is that you are mistaken. Hitler felt certain races of people were inferior and tainted his precious Aryan nation gene pool. The practice of the religion itself was irrelevant. So even if there were no religion, he still would have gone after the race, culture, and/or ethnic groups he felt were superior to the race he was trying to create.
That being said, you have a point about the control of the banks even if you are somewhat incorrect in your statement about them. There is a reason why Jews are seen to have control of the banks (even though they don't) and it is religion in nature. Circa Christopher Columbus's day (and before and after actually) Jews handled the lending aspect of banking as it was seen as against the laws of the church for Christians to lend or borrow money from other Christians. I guess not so when it came to borrowing from Jews I guess. So in that sense, if there were no religion, there wouldn't be that history and that pervasive myth.
But I'm sure there would still be the superiority complex that led to persecuting less desirable peoples and scapegoating those populations for various woes. Humanity loves a good witchhunt.
I'm just a random Jewish person jumping in this discussion a little late, but I just wanted to expand on your statement about Jews and banking. In addition to what you mentioned, Jews were often barred from owning property and engaging in almost all forms of business other than money-handling/lending. They were essentially forced into finance. These legal barriers for Jews occurred in various forms for centuries and really shaped the evolution of our religion/culture/nationality.
I regularly lurk, but rarely participate in threads on this board. I found this discussion really fascinating, though, so I guess it finally compelled me to jump in on the conversation.
Right but what I'm saying is that you are mistaken. Hitler felt certain races of people were inferior and tainted his precious Aryan nation gene pool. The practice of the religion itself was irrelevant. So even if there were no religion, he still would have gone after the race, culture, and/or ethnic groups he felt were superior to the race he was trying to create.
Wait, you are saying he went after the the different race, culture and ethnic groups. And one of those groups was the jews. And I am saying he went after the jews. Are we arguing about definitions? I realize that Jewish is a religion and a culture. I just wasn't separating the two.
And again, I am not saying it was because he was catholic, or because he was jewish. I am saying that it was easy for him to pick on that group because they weren't the same religion as the rest of the country, and that if there were no jews or christians, it would have been harder to do as its easier to target a religion than a group of otherwise disparate people. Plus usually facts have to be used to discredit bankers, whereas religion handily allows people to embellish and distort until it meets requirements.
I guess I am just useless at saying what I mean, because I really thought that was the point I was trying to get across.
Reeve, people are drawn to people most like themselves, I mean biologically, psychologically, it's a developmental phase for kids to seek out people who have things in common with themselves. History is therefore fraught with conflicts between groups of different people. Often, those differences include religion (see: crusades), but not always, and I'd say not even the majority of the time. There's always an "other" about the enemy - race, ethnicity, religion, location, customs, culture, diet, preference for chocolate donuts over glazed. Removing religion just leaves every other difference between people.
Reeve, people are drawn to people most like themselves, I mean biologically, psychologically, it's a developmental phase for kids to seek out people who have things in common with themselves. History is therefore fraught with conflicts between groups of different people. Often, those differences include religion (see: crusades), but not always, and I'd say not even the majority of the time. There's always an "other" about the enemy - race, ethnicity, religion, location, customs, culture, diet, preference for chocolate donuts over glazed. Removing religion just leaves every other difference between people.
Yes, I agree, and I am sure I said words to that effect - that religion is a handy excuse for many conflicts, but sometimes it is also the actual reason for the conflict.
Reeve, people are drawn to people most like themselves, I mean biologically, psychologically, it's a developmental phase for kids to seek out people who have things in common with themselves. History is therefore fraught with conflicts between groups of different people. Often, those differences include religion (see: crusades), but not always, and I'd say not even the majority of the time. There's always an "other" about the enemy - race, ethnicity, religion, location, customs, culture, diet, preference for chocolate donuts over glazed. Removing religion just leaves every other difference between people.
I'm just a random Jewish person jumping in this discussion a little late, but I just wanted to expand on your statement about Jews and banking. In addition to what you mentioned, Jews were often barred from owning property and engaging in almost all forms of business other than money-handling/lending. They were essentially forced into finance. These legal barriers for Jews occurred in various forms for centuries and really shaped the evolution of our religion/culture/nationality.
I regularly lurk, but rarely participate in threads on this board. I found this discussion really fascinating, though, so I guess it finally compelled me to jump in on the conversation.
Wait, you are saying he went after the the different race, culture and ethnic groups. And one of those groups was the jews. And I am saying he went after the jews. Are we arguing about definitions? I realize that Jewish is a religion and a culture. I just wasn't separating the two.
And again, I am not saying it was because he was catholic, or because he was jewish. I am saying that it was easy for him to pick on that group because they weren't the same religion as the rest of the country, and that if there were no jews or christians, it would have been harder to do as its easier to target a religion than a group of otherwise disparate people. Plus usually facts have to be used to discredit bankers, whereas religion handily allows people to embellish and distort until it meets requirements.
I guess I am just useless at saying what I mean, because I really thought that was the point I was trying to get across.
And I'm saying, it wasn't about their religion. You do realize that Jews are both a religious and an ethnic group, yes?
That one can convert to Judaism and not being of Jewish descent and be of Jewish descent but not practice Judaism, right?
Kind of like not all Arabs are Muslim and being a Muslim doesn't make you an Arab.
Oh yaaaa, I forgot about them! The gypsies were persecuted too. I think they were first and easiest ones to turn the country against. Kind of like the illegal aliens from Mexico, they seem like invaders taking the jobs in an awful economy. I don't remember the catholics...
I'm very interested in the idea that Jews were forced into banking and moneylending. Where/when did this happen? Was it before or after Christ? I understood Jews were money lenders well before Christ. Is it also true that after the holocaust, Jews made it a priority to gain control of all propaganda machines (news stations, newspapers, etc.) so that such horribleness could never be covered up again. That was a religious person that told me that last part, not history class/books.
Hitler was able to promote intolerance for Jews by playing on already present prejudices against creditors in a country impoverished by war and reparations. He didn't target them first for their religious beliefs, but for their "lesser" quality and their responsiblity for causing fiscal problems and making it harder for the country to recover from debt.
Many people still live that were there during the rise and fall of Hitler. Talk to some. Try reading the older text books people, as well as the newer ones. He did many good things for the country at first. Everything went to shit when he started invading other countries. Imagine what it was like to have your country rise, lose, rise again, lose hard, get split in half by a wall and lose all respect from the world.
I see this absolute hate for Nazis as a negative thing. I am slightly confused why it's so wrong to think Nazis (it was a political party, a government) were people or their uniforms were hot (especially when all uniforms are hot). I bet these same people would think the same if I said a communist is a person too. Brainwashed is the only explanation for this lack of ability to even describe where this stance is coming from.
I met the dude that wrote Finding Eichmann in college. He gave a lecture over his book and then answered questions. There were several Palestinian students that just wanted to bring up crap about Jews getting Israel. The rest of us in the audience were just like, shut up and sit down, you're wasting the question time! One guy, I guess Palestinian, got really upset and had to be removed from the auditorium. It was odd and eye-opening to me that people today are still mad about what happened so long ago to someone else. I have relatives that fought in WWII, but even they are not mad. Why are you people so mad at Nazis that they can't even be people?
Hitler did not target the gypsies first and Europe was already antisemetic anyway so he really didn't have to turn the people against them. Instead, he passed an increasingly stricter network of laws until he was able to start rounding them up. Basically, he isolated them bit by bit so that the general population had a visual target to blame.
He also ranted in his speeches about the need for a pure race and nazi party officials spent a significant amount of time deseminating propaganda that played up on all the existing and historical negative stereotypes of people he found less than desirable. This included the mentally ill, the disabled, the terminally ill, gays, poles, gypsies, and people of slavic descent.
The Nazi party was founded on the principle that a pure, Aryan race needed expansive living space in order to create a perfect society. To that end, not just Hitler but the entire Nazi party was dedicated to the goal of spreading the borders of the Third Reich as far as possible and ridding those areas of anyone who didn't fit the ideal.
As a whole, the Catholic church remained largely silent while this happened. However, there were a number of Catholics and Catholic clergy who decried this ideal and tried to help those the Nazis oppressed. For their troubles, they were sent to concentration camps if not killed outright.
I cannot stress enough that there is a marked difference between the German people and the Nazi party. By the strictest sense, Nazis are people, yes. However, the ideals of the Nazi party cannot be respected. Whatever they want for themselves, whatever the Nazi party managed at the beginning of the Nazi era is forever negated by the unavoidable truth that they wanted and needed to rid their world of everyone they deemed an "undesireable."
If this makes me brainwashed, so be it but I cannot countenance a world where everyone who does not fit a certain arbitrary physical ideal should be rooted out and killed in some of the most brutal ways possible. Google the Einsatzgruppen then come tell me the Nazis are just a political party we should respect.