Was Hitler Christian,Athiest,Savior-Madman) FACTS welcomed along with your opinions

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

If you get the chance, watch "Conspiracy", an HBO special with Kenneth Branagh. It's a chilling dramatisation of the Wannsee Conference, where 'The Final Solution' was organized.

I have seen it, and it was certainly powerful.

"Winds of War" also has been turned into a very good World War 2 series, and its sequel series "War and Remembrance" as well. I highly recommend them.

It's truly shocking what depths humanity can descend to.

[GreyMouser]

Not so much on if the Germans knew, but discussion on whether the Holocaust was part of Hitler's plan from the beginning:

Two historical schools of thought have emerged around the question of the origins of "The Final Solution" (German, Enloesung)- the decision to completely obliterate European Jewry. Tim Mason (1981) has framed the debate in terms of "intentionalists" versus "functionalists. The "intentionalists" (1) have argued that it was Hitler's intention from the beginning (even before his rise to power) to exterminate the Jews and that the war with Russia was a pretext for that undertaking, at the very least, an integral part of it. Based on his avowed antisemitism as early as Mein Kampf (1923) and his early statements (1939) that Jews would be completely destroyed if they plunged Germany into another world war, these historians have taken the view that all decisions, political and military, were made with an eye to the ultimate extermination of the Jews.

The other point of view, espoused by the "functionalists,(2) has argued that the "Final Solution" was decided upon only after many failed attempts to force Jews to emigrate from Germany and that the closure of possible destinations by the rest of the world combined with the logistical problems of such a massive deportation "forced" the "Final Solution" into existence. Further, these scholars suggest, Hitler's style of leadership, his demand for total loyalty from his subordinates (fuhrerprinzip) and the paranoia they engendered, caused subordinate SS agencies to come up with the Final Solution in early 1942.

.......My position is tempered, however, by the distinct possibility, perhaps probability, that Hitler was well aware of the fact that Jews forced out of the Reich would not be favorably received around the world. The year before the publication of Mein Kampf, the United States passed the Johnson-Reed Act (1924) which set very restrictive quotas on foreign immigration. The isolationism following WWI made resettlement through emigration an unlikely prospect. It is not likely that Hitler was ignorant of these policies and the sentiment they represented. If he was unsure of world opinion prior to 1938, the Evian Conference (July, 1938) held at Evian, France should have left little doubt. The conference, called by Roosevelt to address the plight of Jewish refugees, was attended by the representatives of 32 governments -- 20 Latin American countries, Britain, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Denmark and the U.S. The conference ended without taking any significant action. Their resounding non-response sent a message not only to Hitler, but to all the nations around the world. Hitler knew by early summer, 1938 (more than a year prior to the beginning of World War II) that forced emigration would not solve the"Jewish problem." If this is true, all of Hitler's resettlement plans, (e.g., the Madagascar Plan) assume an ominous, hollow sound. Less than four months later, the dastardly events of Kristallnacht unfolded

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/finlsol.html

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But I can well believe the German people were capable of ignoring evidence against Hitler at this time. They were enraptured with him, because he restored to them dignity, pride and an economy. He eradicated their despair, and this could easily blind people to the downsides of their hero.

Very similar to the motivation behind the many muslims today who ignore evidence against their own "heros". The key is so many people living in desparation and grasping for anything that might bring change, not the theology they ascribe to.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quantifying the influence of genes vs. environment is very much up for debate. But I would say that enviroment has a much larger influence when we talk about societies, cultures and governments.

Which changes more rapidly? Environment or Genetics? The point is, the reason why such things happen is that there are definate evolutionary advantages if the risks pay off. Regardless of the cultural environment. Now if you have a cultural environment that limits the benefits of taking those risks, sure it will have an effect. In about 10000 years or so.

Take a baby born in China and toss them into suburban America. While they might not grow up exactly like the native American, they will probably be a lot closer to the American's they grew up with in terms of culture than the Chinese they left.

The genetic difference between an asian and a caucasian or an african is so negligable that I have a hard time understanding why you are even bringing this up...

Maybe if you were talking about the differences between a Neanderthaler and a Modern Human, it might have some bearing...

Of course there's not going to be any difference between two modern humans. They are almost genetically identical. It's why epidemics are of such a primary concern, the entire planet is inhabited by a species that has very little gentic variation, and is therefore susceptiable to a mass die-off if you get a good plague going.

Saying you can take a round peg and stick it in any round hole at all and it is then just like all the other round pegs is not getting us anywhere. Regardless of what color the pegs are, or what pretty designs the holes have.

I don't know about "idealism". I don't think perfection is possible. But there is visible change. The developed world is much less bloody than it was 2000 years ago and many more people live better lives. People are violent by nature, but there are more societal controls on violence today then there use to be.

And if it continues for another 10000 or so years it MIGHT have an appreciable impact on some of the genes involved in human behavior patterns. That was the point I was making. But for some reason you've got it into your head that culture is going to fix human shortcomings.

They aren't shortcomings, they are the nature of the beast. Taking those kinds of risks can pay off heavily in terms of numbers of offspring. You think that the genetic traits that lead to that kind of success don't get reinforced? They certainly have in the past.

I don't see any change in the foreseeable future.

Human behavior is much more complicated than simple genetics.

It isn't any more complicated than any other kind of primate behavior, it just makes humans uncomfortable to contemplate it. Genetics does play a large part in human behavior, at least as much as environment. Calling it more complicated is hubris. Complicated does not mean complex.

Again, you are completely separating genetics from society and with humans. Reproduction alone does not equal "success" in human society. You could have 100 children but if everyone you ever met thought you were a jerk you would be forgotten the moment you died and while your genes might continue evolutionarily your ideas and attitudes would not. Something which is much more important in the human existance.

As far as the impact on human behavior is concerned up to the present date, yes, it does equal success. Genetics have had more of an impact than ideas. Good god man, how long have we had a printing press? 400 years? A drop in the bucket! Absolutely infinitesimal in comparison to the survival strategies tied into your limbic and hormonal systems.

If it were true that ideas could magically transform people into model citizens, then you would expect that none of these atrocities would ever be comitted by educated people... But somehow that just doesn't match up.

On the flipside, you can be the kind of person who effects millions long after you die and not even have a single child. Human existance is genetics and society and it is meanless to try to make conclusions that leave out one of these factors.

I'm not leaving out environmental factors. I'm pointing out that they haven't had a chance to have ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on the gentic side of the equation and won't for another 10000 years of stable culture.

And that is the problem right there. Cultural heritage don't last as long as genetic heritage. In another 5000 years we could be spread acoss 100 planets or in the midst of a dark age so deep it makes neolithic hunter-gatherers look technically advanced.

Either way it doesn't matter, because succesful genetic strategies will still be effective if you're talking plasma weaponry or stone axe.

Your the one obsessed with genetic selection. I'm talking about the evolution of human behavior, which has much more to do with society than genetics.

That is patently wrong. Human behavior remains remarkably consistant across various cultures regarding a multitude of practices. If it were the case that cultural evolution was more important than genetics regarding behavior patterns, you would:

a. see more variation of behaviors across cultures

b. see fewer cultures, as less viable cultures are subsumed.

It's only in the past 100 years or so that you see the disappearance of cultures, and this is related more to the appearance of mass media and empirical consumerism (expansion of "markets") than anything to do with cultural revolution.

Technology drives culture in fact, not the other way around. That means "culture", as viewed in the terms of Philosphy, Religion, and Tradition, has even less impact on human behavior. Technology has always had a larger influence on human behavior than abstract idealism. Philosophy, Religion, and Tradition alter to conform to Technology, not the other way around.

Which has had more impact on human behavior? The ability to forge Metal or Hamurabi's Code? Not a very hard choice.

Where did humans get their ability to manipulate technology? It's a sure bet that Hominids were manipulating tools long before they had sophisticated language and concepts like an afterlife. Which means that the roots of technology lie in our genetic makeup also.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

After all, Napoleon had only three children that we know of- he may have spawned a few on the side, but Genghis style fecundity requires a polygamous society.

_snippity_

Conquest as a way of spreading your genes has dropped off a lot with the passing of the acceptability of rape and enslavement of the enemy- though still popular in parts of Africa, and was apparently carried out by the Christians against the Muslims in the Bosnian War.

At last a pertinant question.

You know about behavior extinguishing? It takes a long time to extinguish a behavior that has been rewarded.

The payoff doesn't have to happen anymore, you can even be punished for it, and still the behavior will persist.

If it takes that long to extinguish a behavior in a neural network, imagine how long it takes to extinguish a behavior in a genetic algorithm with an environmental feedback loop. LITERALLY millenia.

In terms of fucundity, if Napeolean failed, if Stalin failed, if Hitler failed, if the next 100 conquerors fail, and then you get a spate of two or 3 that succeed, what does that mean for extinguishing the behavior?

It means you just went backwards.

It's the right question, it's just that the time frame is too short. Ask me again in 4 or 5 millenia.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

That is patently wrong. Human behavior remains remarkably consistant across various cultures regarding a multitude of practices.

I think my definition of "culture" is much broader than yours. It includes language, technology, communication, social interaction, etc. Basically everything that is not genetic.

Humans, like many of the animals they evolved from, are social animals and their behavior is shaped by the society they grew up in. Thus my chinese baby example. They are genetically identical, but the morality they follow is shaped by the culture they mature in.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Very similar to the motivation behind the many muslims today who ignore evidence against their own "heros". The key is so many people living in desparation and grasping for anything that might bring change, not the theology they ascribe to.

As a non-religious person, you can say that. As a religious person, I have a different perspective.

I also see people embracing death, and they do this for the same reason they did in the time of Muhammed: because of belief. Unless you completely disbelieve what they say in their suicide tapes. People don't lie in suicide tapes or letters. They say exactly what they think.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

"Today I will once more be a prophet," does not sound as though he's saying that this will now be national policy for Germany.

Actually, if you compare it to what he was saying before when he "was a prophet," it does.

Earlier he said he would become leader of Germany, and then bent all his efforts to that goal, achieving it. That was when he was first a prophet.

The second time, he is saying "if there is a World War, the Jews will be eradicated." Given that he made the achievement of his first prophecy an active goal, it is actually somewhat implied that that is what he'll do the second time. It isn't just "oh, this will happen," it is "I will MAKE this happen."

[Lief Erikson]

That's some good analysis, IMO . It would have seemed like quite a stretch to the people of the time, though. You're right that the implication is there, but it's not close to solid evidence of a plan or a desire that this happen. People don't come to the conclusion that a government leader is planning to murder millions because of a possibly coincidental implication.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As a non-religious person, you can say that. As a religious person, I have a different perspective.

I also see people embracing death, and they do this for the same reason they did in the time of Muhammed: because of belief. Unless you completely disbelieve what they say in their suicide tapes. People don't lie in suicide tapes or letters. They say exactly what they think.

How many devout muslims who live comfortably in the united states do you see becoming suicide bombers?

I also suggest you do some reading on the history of the Klan if you think this kind of reaction is just about belief systems and not about real world conditions. The Klan sprung out of a christian society who felt occupied and threatened by another christian society after defeat during the civil war, and their methods were very similar to those of the muslims in the middle east today.

[Lief Erikson]

Since this is the Hitler thread, I'm going to respond to your post in the Muslims Thread.

[Spock]

Thanks heavens!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

At last a pertinant question.

You know about behavior extinguishing? It takes a long time to extinguish a behavior that has been rewarded.

The payoff doesn't have to happen anymore, you can even be punished for it, and still the behavior will persist.

If it takes that long to extinguish a behavior in a neural network, imagine how long it takes to extinguish a behavior in a genetic algorithm with an environmental feedback loop. LITERALLY millenia.

In terms of fucundity, if Napeolean failed, if Stalin failed, if Hitler failed, if the next 100 conquerors fail, and then you get a spate of two or 3 that succeed, what does that mean for extinguishing the behavior?

It means you just went backwards.

It's the right question, it's just that the time frame is too short. Ask me again in 4 or 5 millenia.

Except that... almost every society that has reached a modern level of development has had their growth rate plummet to zero or negative.
I'll be the first to admit that it's strange. Even the most extreme K-reproduction strategy should produce at least replacement rates of reproduction, yet in most developed societies the natural rate of reproduction has dropped below that. Non-hispanic whites in the US are at 1.8, well below replacement rates, and about average among other developed countries- note that this is not some particular race suicide thing, as similar rates are found in Japan, Singapore and, my home, Taiwan.

Seems like a few billion years of evolution can be overcome by a few decades of self- centredness.

[inked]

GM,

You are most certainly correct in your final sentence. See the segment "Birth Dearth" in this reference:

http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net...es/001750.html

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Since this is the Hitler thread, I'm going to respond to your post in the Muslims Thread.

Hey, you're gonna put Spock out of a job!

[GreyMouser]

Feder believes there is a clear link between a lack of faith and the loss of that sense of duty to the future that leads people to conceive and bear children. "Having lost their faith and embraced an ethic of radical autonomy," he says, "Europeans stopped going to church, stopped taking the Bible seriously, stopped believing in the future and stopped having children."

But non-Latino white Americans still go to church, still take the Bible seriously- or at least say they do- and still don't have children. Economics trumps religion.

[inked]

GM,

Economics is merely one way self-centredness trumps, not the only one. I was supporting your last sentence:
"Seems like a few billion years of evolution can be overcome by a few decades of self- centredness."

Actually, all seven of the Deadly Sins would be involved and not just money issues usually considered as greed.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

GM,

Economics is merely one way self-centredness trumps, not the only one. I was supporting your last sentence:
"Seems like a few billion years of evolution can be overcome by a few decades of self- centredness."

Actually, all seven of the Deadly Sins would be involved and not just money issues usually considered as greed.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and you're right- I put it too simplistically. While many people are following an evolutionary/economics-based strategy of child-rearing (invest all your effort in producing one very good offspring) other people have been dazzled by the alternatives offered by modern society. We use our intelligence to make very clever ways to corrupt our basic instincts.

Hey, I've done my part - though I'm not so sure about the Western Heritage bit, since my three are only half European-descent.

I've always insisted they go to (Catholic) Church. My wife's family is Catholic, and the Church here is very much tied in with the preservation of Taiwan aboriginal language and culture. The local priest is a Swiss who has been here for thirty-five years, doesn't speak English and only very little Chinese, but is an absolute world-class scholar in the local tribal language- the locals think it's hilarious when I try to communicate with him in my very poor aboriginal.

Personally, I would have sent them to the Protestant Church for foreigners (we don't have enough foreigners to have denominations ) since, as an atheist, I'm sending them there for ulterior motives- to learn the Bible; cause if you don't know the Bible you don't know Western Civilisation

[inked]

GM,

It has certainly been true that to know the Bible was to know Western culture. I found in college, thirty years ago, however, that there was an abysmal ignorance of the Bible. Literature professors had to spend overmuch time connecting the class with the Biblical allusions.

I think your plan for your children is sound as regards cultural education on the Western side. But, what if they become believers? It is a risk.... On the other hand, the benefits to being believers far outway the cultural benefits. Christianity has adapted to many cultures over time and space while retaining its relevance historically and spiritually.

[hectorberlioz]

Hey guys! Look! Roosevelt and Churchill were communists! Why else would they be photgraphed with Stalin?

http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/3..._churchill.jpg

and apperantly Hitler, besides being a christian, was also Muslim!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...80px-Mufti.gif