Political Crossfire Forums

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Johannes wrote: I'd put all three bullets into Hitler. 2 would make him wish he was dead, and the third would grant such a wish.

*Edit* He ended up killing himself anyways...so...
1. Walt Disney: For every children's movie I've ever watched.
2. Dick Cheney: What goes around, comes around.
3. Monica Lewinski: It takes two to tango.

...Why?

Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung both killed far more people than Hitler. So did Genghis Khan.

Hitler did more good than harm for Germany.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:02 am Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote:
Hitler did more good than harm for Germany.

Whatever good he did would have to be pretty damn special to outweigh plunging his country into a war that saw millions of your citizens dead, and your country divided between victorious occupying powers......

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Ah, but it was.

Without Hitler (assuming noone else rose up to do the same thing he did), then Germany would still have been under the weight of the Versaiiles Treaty. I don't think you really know what a **** Germany was during this period. With much longer under the Treaty, Germany would become one of these third-world s**t holes, where masses of people die every day due to starvation and disease.

Britain and France showed no signs of letting up, either...

Melcar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Ah, but it was.

Without Hitler (assuming noone else rose up to do the same thing he did), then Germany would still have been under the weight of the Versaiiles Treaty. I don't think you really know what a **** Germany was during this period. With much longer under the Treaty, Germany would become one of these third-world s**t holes, where masses of people die every day due to starvation and disease.

Britain and France showed no signs of letting up, either...

I actually find some truth behind this statement. Sure he was an insane maniac who plunged the world into one of the most horrifying wars to date, but he did *save* Germany (initially at least). Even after the war, Germany ended up in much better shape than it was after WW1. Not saying that Hitler was a neccessary evil, just that he did manage to ensure a strong Germany for future generations. He was actually doing rather well until the whole Holocaust and territorial expansion war debacle. The question is what would have happened if he had decide to not harm the Jews or simply kick them out of Europe (no Holocaust) and not attack Poland.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

He actually tried to. There was a long campaign to encourage the "undesirables" to leave. Noone really took this seriously, though, so he figured he'd just extermenate 'em.

Melcar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: He actually tried to. There was a long campaign to encourage the "undesirables" to leave. Noone really took this seriously, though, so he figured he'd just extermenate 'em.

Makes you think what would have been the international community's reaction to mass jewish evections rather than exterminations.
I got to thinking on the subject whether the world would have been better off without a figure such as Hitler. Think about it, without Hitler Germany may have turned communist :shock: . I don't think Italy would have been able to secure Franco's rise to power in Spain against a Soviet/German opposition, leading to a communist Spain. Stalin, enbolden by these events, may have decided to lunch his own campaign to conquer Europe. In desperation, Italy declares war on the Soviets and their allies. France and England would have found themselves allies of Italy to stop the spreading of communism in Europe. Japan might have allied herself with the russians to be able to start her own wars of expansion. The U.S eventually enters the war and BAM... another WW2. As for the Holocaust, we all know the Soviets were responsible for just as many atrocities during the war, so another humanitarian crisis was bound to occur.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Good point.

Russia's military was insanely strong...the only one that was superior was Germany's.

Russia could easily have conquered Europe...and Stalin would have had the common sense not to bring the US into the war, making it even easier.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Good point.

Russia's military was insanely strong...the only one that was superior was Germany's.

Russia could easily have conquered Europe...and Stalin would have had the common sense not to bring the US into the war, making it even easier.

Given Russia's performance in the Winter War of 1939-1940 against the tiny nation of Finland, I somehow doubt that........

eynon · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh...killing Mohammed would be a bad idea.

Firstly...the Middle East would have fallen into a similar Dark Age as Europe...basically screwing over any chance for humanity's knowledge to grow for a long while.

Secondly...then you'd have everyone as a Christian or a Jew or something over there... A worldwide religion would be really really bad.

I'd probably go kill Jesus as he was a baby. Would save the world so much grief...in removing the two biggest and most deadly religions (Islam and Christianity). Although it's possible some other religions would take their place, it's unlikely they would have such a far-reaching and dramatic impact on the world.

Although I'm tempted to go back even farther and kill Moses...that would have ended Judaism and thus, Christianity and Islam...but that would give a lot of time for a new, similar religion to form which would probably be just as bad as Christianity and Islam.

we'd still be worshipping the old Grecco-Roman gods, nailing people to trees, enslaving conquered peoples, etc.........basically without Judeo-Christian culture to take the edge off, Western Civ would be a lot more brutal....maybe a bit more rational, but definatley more brutal.

Melcar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:

Eynon81 wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh...killing Mohammed would be a bad idea.

Firstly...the Middle East would have fallen into a similar Dark Age as Europe...basically screwing over any chance for humanity's knowledge to grow for a long while.

Secondly...then you'd have everyone as a Christian or a Jew or something over there... A worldwide religion would be really really bad.

I'd probably go kill Jesus as he was a baby. Would save the world so much grief...in removing the two biggest and most deadly religions (Islam and Christianity). Although it's possible some other religions would take their place, it's unlikely they would have such a far-reaching and dramatic impact on the world.

Although I'm tempted to go back even farther and kill Moses...that would have ended Judaism and thus, Christianity and Islam...but that would give a lot of time for a new, similar religion to form which would probably be just as bad as Christianity and Islam.

we'd still be worshipping the old Grecco-Roman gods, nailing people to trees, enslaving conquered peoples, etc.........basically without Judeo-Christian culture to take the edge off, Western Civ would be a lot more brutal....maybe a bit more rational, but definatley more brutal.

It would have been ugly. People can bash judeo-christianity all they want, but the fact is that it was the best thing to happen to humanity.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject:

Quote: I'd probably go kill Jesus as he was a baby. Would save the world so much grief...in removing the two biggest and most deadly religions (Islam and Christianity). Although it's possible some other religions would take their place, it's unlikely they would have such a far-reaching and dramatic impact on the world.

Egad, go back in time to slaughter the innocent baby jesus in his crib? Tell me, has anyone ever commented on an ungodly, sulpherous stench that seems to accompany you wherever you go? Is your name Damien?

eynon · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject:

Melcar wrote: Eynon81 wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh...killing Mohammed would be a bad idea.

Firstly...the Middle East would have fallen into a similar Dark Age as Europe...basically screwing over any chance for humanity's knowledge to grow for a long while.

Secondly...then you'd have everyone as a Christian or a Jew or something over there... A worldwide religion would be really really bad.

I'd probably go kill Jesus as he was a baby. Would save the world so much grief...in removing the two biggest and most deadly religions (Islam and Christianity). Although it's possible some other religions would take their place, it's unlikely they would have such a far-reaching and dramatic impact on the world.

Although I'm tempted to go back even farther and kill Moses...that would have ended Judaism and thus, Christianity and Islam...but that would give a lot of time for a new, similar religion to form which would probably be just as bad as Christianity and Islam.

we'd still be worshipping the old Grecco-Roman gods, nailing people to trees, enslaving conquered peoples, etc.........basically without Judeo-Christian culture to take the edge off, Western Civ would be a lot more brutal....maybe a bit more rational, but definatley more brutal.

It would have been ugly. People can bash judeo-christianity all they want, but the fact is that it was the best thing to happen to humanity.

considering the other great Western Ethic can be boiled down to "blood and iron" I'd agree with ya..... :wink:

Hyde · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject:

whoever killed kurt kobain, the man who invented barney, and tupacs er

Melcar · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:

Hyde wrote: whoever killed kurt kobain, the man who invented barney, and tupacs er

Well, Kurt and Tupac are like legends of their genres. I don't think they would have been as highly regarded if someone did not come around and wacked them.

Hyde · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject:

Melcar wrote: Hyde wrote: whoever killed kurt kobain, the man who invented barney, and tupacs er

Well, Kurt and Tupac are like legends of their genres. I don't think they would have been as highly regarded if someone did not come around and wacked them.

its not that. its just i got ed off at whoever got kurt kobain because i have yet to find a bad nirvana song. and tupac never got to his real potential.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

Quote:

Given Russia's performance in the Winter War of 1939-1940 against the tiny nation of Finland, I somehow doubt that........

So? In '39 Germany's army was pretty poor too. Armies can grow a lot in a couple years.

Quote:
we'd still be worshiping the old Grecco-Roman gods, nailing people to trees, enslaving conquered peoples, etc.........basically without Judeo-Christian culture to take the edge off, Western Civ would be a lot more brutal....maybe a bit more rational, but definitely more brutal.

I'd actually prefer the old Grecco-Roman gods...but that's unlikely. Christianity was the first religion that spread extremely far. It's unlikely that if Christianity did not exist that another religion would take its place and dominate a huge area.

And religion has nothing to do with brutality. Medieval Europe was heavily dominated by Christianity...that didn't stop it from being a very shi**y time.

Quote:

It would have been ugly. People can bash judeo-christianity all they want, but the fact is that it was the best thing to happen to humanity.

Remember the Dark Ages? Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? Remember the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre?

Best thing to happen to humanity my ass.

Quote: Egad, go back in time to slaughter the innocent baby jesus in his crib? Tell me, has anyone ever commented on an ungodly, sulpherous stench that seems to accompany you wherever you go? Is your name Damien?

I'd much rather kill one innocent baby than allow thousands/millions more to be killed in, say, the Crusades.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject:

Quote: So? In '39 Germany's army was pretty poor too. Armies can grow a lot in a couple years.

No it wasn't, it was well-trained and well-led. Stalin was more interested in the political reliability of officers in the Red Army than in their competence until neccesity of a German invasion forced him to re-evaluate his position.......

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

The re-evaluation would have happened anyway had he needed it.

Germany's army was well-led and armed...but it was small. The only reason they were able to beat France is due to poor leadership.

eynon · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: Quote:

Given Russia's performance in the Winter War of 1939-1940 against the tiny nation of Finland, I somehow doubt that........

So? In '39 Germany's army was pretty poor too. Armies can grow a lot in a couple years.

Quote:
we'd still be worshiping the old Grecco-Roman gods, nailing people to trees, enslaving conquered peoples, etc.........basically without Judeo-Christian culture to take the edge off, Western Civ would be a lot more brutal....maybe a bit more rational, but definitely more brutal.

I'd actually prefer the old Grecco-Roman gods...but that's unlikely. Christianity was the first religion that spread extremely far. It's unlikely that if Christianity did not exist that another religion would take its place and dominate a huge area.

And religion has nothing to do with brutality. Medieval Europe was heavily dominated by Christianity...that didn't stop it from being a very shi**y time.

Quote:

It would have been ugly. People can bash judeo-christianity all they want, but the fact is that it was the best thing to happen to humanity.

Remember the Dark Ages? Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? Remember the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre?

Best thing to happen to humanity my ass.

Quote: Egad, go back in time to slaughter the innocent baby jesus in his crib? Tell me, has anyone ever commented on an ungodly, sulpherous stench that seems to accompany you wherever you go? Is your name Damien?

I'd much rather kill one innocent baby than allow thousands/millions more to be killed in, say, the Crusades.

lots of historical evidence suggest the Middle and Dark ages were far tamer because of the Judeo-Christian ethic....things like slaughtering entire cities and enslaving enemy combatants became frowned on. Many of the eras more violent Kings would often find themselves opposed by the Church.

Not just Christians either, Saladin fought with honor because of his faith, a faith deeply rooted in the one started by Moses and exspanded by Jesus. That system of honor would go on to greatly influence the modern rules of war we have now.

consider this.....far, far more people died in Ceaser's 8 year war in Gaul, then in the entire 200 year history of the Crusades.

More people would die in one Summer of Roman games then in 400 years of witch-hunts and inquisitions.

thundertaker · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject:

Demonic Spoon wrote: The re-evaluation would have happened anyway had he needed it.

Germany's army was well-led and armed...but it was small. The only reason they were able to beat France is due to poor leadership.

It was only through the bitter experiance of WWII that Stalin re-evaluated his position with regards to leadership within the Red Army.
Assuming there was no Nazi Germany, and if Stalin had tried to launch a full-scale assault on continental Europe (which I doubt he ever intended to do) it would have been like the winter war x10. A war of WWII's magnitude would have been impossible to prosecute without the self-defence element the Nazis provided, otherwise Stalin would have over-run Finland regardless of the huge casualties he would have incurred......