My dear friend Hitler?!

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
190
You too Jay! Hope the Georgian heat will not get the better of you! Its pretty nice out here in North Carolina, a state of predominantly Scotch-Irish and German settlers. I'm glad I am making some objective statements. Think about what I said over a glass of red.
thats vodka and V8 my friend ! :D. Red wine gives me heart burn and Vodka makes me rambunctious.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
Correct. Enemy is an enemy and ally is an ally. Hence, Hitler had no problem with non-white Japanese or non-white Indians as allies but had a problem with white Jews, white Russians, white English et al. So it is not as simple as merely a race-conflict as it is made out to be. It is much more beyond that.

But I sure as hell think he would have killed anyone who wasn't apart of the Germanic/Aryan(his idea of it) race in his empire. Which he was doing.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
thats vodka and V8 my friend ! :D. Red wine gives me heart burn and Vodka makes me rambunctious.
All right. Just a parting shot (not of Vodka):

  1. I have utmost respect for the Jews and consider Israel as a friend.
  2. Nazi-Jewish conflict was neither my war nor my cause.
  3. My interest was kicking the Brits in the butt and the bollock as hard as possible and throwing them out of my native land.
  4. I'd rather free my own people from the Brits with Nazi help than ally with the very people who enslaved us for centuries for someone else's cause.

No hard feelings bud, but I will not withdraw what I have already said. This is probably rude, but honest nonetheless.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
But I sure as hell think he would have killed anyone who wasn't apart of the Germanic/Aryan(his idea of it) race in his empire. Which he was doing.
We are both different people with different thoughts that we are entitled to. I condemn what Hitler did to the Jews, yet I strongly support Bose seeking help from Hitler to kick the Brits, a greater evil than Hitler, out of India. That is where I stand.

We can respectfully disagree.
 

niharjhatn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
899
Likes
391
The coincidences of Hitler both using the word 'aryan' and concurrent symbol the swastika is what I find astonishing. It is unimaginable that someone as steeped in history as Hitler would not have realised the connection.

In India, like it or not, there is a subtle fondness, or at least, a neutrality for Hitler. Part of it is due to myths, part of it due to his opposition of the british, relation with Bose, as well as the fact that as a leader, the way he pulled Germany up was quite remarkable (and makes us compare him to politicians at home eh?).
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
We are both different people with different thoughts that we are entitled to. I condemn what Hitler did to the Jews, yet I strongly support Bose seeking help from Hitler to kick the Brits, a greater evil than Hitler, out of India. That is where I stand.

We can respectfully disagree.
Sure..

The coincidences of Hitler both using the word 'aryan' and concurrent symbol the swastika is what I find astonishing. It is unimaginable that someone as steeped in history as Hitler would not have realised the connection.
His Idea of an "Aryan" race is basically the Germanic race. He used symbols like swastika(modified the original symbol btw) and the whole master race thing as tools for nation building.

Part of it is due to myths, part of it due to his opposition of the british, relation with Bose, as well as the fact that as a leader, the way he pulled Germany up was quite remarkable (and makes us compare him to politicians at home eh?).
You give him too much credit,.. Sure he united the German people, but he shoot himself in the foot when he invaded Poland. Where the hell is Nazi Germany now? It lasted like 12 years, that is a pathetic nation.
 
Last edited:

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
Yes, we were used like pawns for their benefit. No different then the British.
Actually much different from what you think. The British colonials were treating all colonies like dogs unlike Nazis who actually treated the British Indian POWs in a very civilized manner. The Nazis had ample opportunity to treat us "dark skinned" Indians like how they treated Jews.


If Indians, Mongoloid Asians or Africans lived in Germany, like the Jews or Gypsies. They would have been gassed simply because we don't fit Hitler's idea of a master race, period.
But the British came to India and had the audacity to write "No Indians or dogs allowed in the premises". Why didn't go to UK first, did we? That puts Nazis on a much better position than British at all.

They were racist, but if Hitler ruled India I bet they would be a lot more racist.
Hitler saw British, French and rest of Europe as a challenge. He wanted to create space for Germans in Europe because French and British were constantly expanding their empires. You've no idea what the British were like in India in those days. Though my part of India didn't see so much of atrocities, the rest of India suffered greatly. And add to it the useless Portuguese who were thrice more brutal than British themselves. For what they did in Goa, India should bomb Portugal to stone age. They're lucky you're their protector.

Hitler was a problem only for Jews. It was wrong which I agree, but he was fine with us. He was actually quite friendly to Indians. Not just for Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose but also for other Indians like the legendary hockey player of India, Dhyanchand to whom Hitler himself mentioned that he was his ardent fan. From reports, Hitler even offered Dhyanchand to coach German team.

Erwin Rommel never supported Hitler.
Rommel is not the point of this mentioning; the point is, Nazis were selective racists. They didn't want anyone foreign in their country but didn't barge into non-white countries and start treating their natives like street dogs. Very similar to a concept that neo-Nazi idiots of Russia don't understand (Russia's biggest allies of all time were all non-whites, similar to Nazis).
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
Sure..His Idea of an "Aryan" race is basically the Germanic race. He used symbols like swastika(modified the original symbol btw) and the whole master race thing as tools for nation building.
Every power uses some or the other agenda to project itself around the world. The old world European powers used wealth and race as measures, you use "justice and democracy" for projection while Nazis used German pride as a tool.

You give him too much credit,.. Sure he united the German people, but he shoot himself in the foot when he invaded Poland. Where the hell is Nazi Germany now? It lasted like 12 years, that is a pathetic nation.
:lol:All the laurels that most of the modern world is enjoying on is a result of Nazi research. Every single modern weapon system, strategic weapon system and other deadly power projection instruments that your country owns is a result of Nazi research. Heck! Even the nuclear bomb that you dropped on Imperial Japanese was first conceptualized in modern history by a German Jew!

In 12 years they did enough research that rest of the world couldn't even manage in 120 years even if they tried. Hitler transformed a wannabe nation into a powerful industrialized world power in just first 4 years into his administration. He transformed the development and infrastructure in his country in just months. Technology and science reached at its peak under him in modern history. The very concept of testing weapons on other countries using some excuse and using it to propel research and arms industry and hence national economy to peak was a Nazi concept that US modified according to certain democratic principles in its strategic doctrine.

Heard of the famous saying by Adolf Hitler? Here:

"The prosperity of a nation must come from the tears of war".

If you notice, NATO applies this logic the most. Hence it is at the peak of its weapons and strategic arms R&D. Iraq? Libya now... etc etc. By the meaning and reasons of warfare, this is not reasonable. But still, your country adopted it. Did it not? What about all the sensitive research in germ warfare done by Shiro Ishi and others in Imperial Japan? Your government let the war criminals in Imperial Japan off just because they agreed to provide you with the results of all their valuable research. Isn't that wrong?

But it suits national interests and hence it becomes justified. Same as that, an Axis victory was favorable to a powerful India, whose foundations would have been iron strong under the INA rather than the slave government of Gandhi-Nehru alliance who were nothing but lap**** of Colonials.


I condemn what Hitler did to innocent Jews, but purely in terms of administration, nation management, infrastructure and technological innovation, he's perhaps the greatest patriot and leader in modern history. His cruelty is what screwed his image. But now Europe has become its opposite; it is so horribly weak and spineless that apologetic attitude is now on the bring of destroying European countries.

The BIGGEST MISTAKE that Hitler did was the same as what Napoleon did: He invaded Soviet Union/Russia in winter. If the nuke had not been invented and Hitler had not done that, the scenario would have been a lot different.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,511
Country flag
@ Tshering 22

Hitler wanted prosperity for his country ,but it was not necessary for him to do ALL that he did

Hitler was a great patriot but then when he destroyed whole Europe he became Germany's biggest Liability

When Russians and French were fighting the German troops they knew that German people were the prisoners of Nazis

In The Nazi army there were several officers who were opposed to Hitlers MADNESS and were concerned that due to Hitler the German nation and people would suffer ie when Germany would eventually loose in the end
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Nazis were selective racists. They didn't want anyone foreign in their country but didn't barge into non-white countries and start treating their natives like street dogs.
If you think the Germans never engaged in colonialism, you've obviously never heard of the German Colonial Empire.

Every power uses some or the other agenda to project itself around the world. The old world European powers used wealth and race as measures, you use "justice and democracy" for projection while Nazis used German pride as a tool.
That is quite the moral equivalence you made there, apparently racial supremacy = democratization. What an Orwellian view.

Every single modern weapon system, strategic weapon system and other deadly power projection instruments that your country owns is a result of Nazi research. Heck! Even the nuclear bomb that you dropped on Imperial Japanese was first conceptualized in modern history by a German Jew!
Not all of todays advanced military technology came straight out of Nazi Germany, and those projects that did; many were based off other European designs and advancements that came before, with some exceptions. Although it is interesting to see you draw a direct parallel between German Jews and German Nazis as somehow being the same, I wonder if you consider Nietzsche, Kant, Beethoven, Mozart to be Nazis by association. Why not Marx and Freud while we're at it?

His cruelty is what screwed his image. But now Europe has become its opposite; it is so horribly weak and spineless that apologetic attitude is now on the bring of destroying European countries.
This I partially agree with, Europe is spineless but for different reasons than you're probably trying to get at, but going between two moral extremes isn't worth condoning; especially if you're going to be against colonialism in the first place.

The BIGGEST MISTAKE that Hitler did was the same as what Napoleon did: He invaded Soviet Union/Russia in winter. If the nuke had not been invented and Hitler had not done that, the scenario would have been a lot different.
He could have beat the Russians, sure, but also the rest of Europe, the US, and the world; which would have been screwed. Not an ideal scenario, but then again neither is an Axis victory in WWII either.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
Actually much different from what you think. The British colonials were treating all colonies like dogs unlike Nazis who actually treated the British Indian POWs in a very civilized manner. The Nazis had ample opportunity to treat us "dark skinned" Indians like how they treated Jews.

Not different at all. We were their pawns, and Bose used Hitler as well. If our land wasn't valuable to his enemy he wouldn't have cared. Remember the rule "I have no friends, only interests."?? If the Italians or Japanese ruled India, he would not have done jack sh*t to help us.


Every power uses some or the other agenda to project itself around the world. The old world European powers used wealth and race as measures, you use "justice and democracy" for projection while Nazis used German pride as a tool.
The whole Aryan/Master race was not a tool to project around the world. It was only to nation build. Build a new identity for his own people.

Rommel is not the point of this mentioning; the point is, Nazis were selective racists. They didn't want anyone foreign in their country but didn't barge into non-white countries and start treating their natives like street dogs. Very similar to a concept that neo-Nazi idiots of Russia don't understand (Russia's biggest allies of all time were all non-whites, similar to Nazis).
The Germans have participated in colonization, and if the Nazis had some time to breath in Europe I sure as hell think they would have. Like all the racist Europeans did back then. If you wanted wealth and power back then, you colonized.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
The coincidences of Hitler both using the word 'aryan' and concurrent symbol the swastika is what I find astonishing. It is unimaginable that someone as steeped in history as Hitler would not have realised the connection.
That's not a coincidence, Swastika as a symbol was pretty common in pre-christian Europe. It was probably associated with Indo-Europeans (Aryans),

And Hilter was an extermist, so its very unlikely that he would have been 'steeped' in history. He most likely believed the part of history that confirmed with his world view and he would have just dismissed or ignored the rest of history. For example the nazis firmly believed the Aryans were Germans, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
@ Tshering 22

Hitler wanted prosperity for his country ,but it was not necessary for him to do ALL that he did

Hitler was a great patriot but then when he destroyed whole Europe he became Germany's biggest Liability

When Russians and French were fighting the German troops they knew that German people were the prisoners of Nazis

In The Nazi army there were several officers who were opposed to Hitlers MADNESS and were concerned that due to Hitler the German nation and people would suffer ie when Germany would eventually loose in the end
You have made some valid points.

I want to know your position. Do you think the British Empire was worse than Nazi Germany or was the British Empire better than Nazi Germany from an Indian point of view as per things that happened on the ground?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
The BIGGEST MISTAKE that Hitler did was the same as what Napoleon did: He invaded Soviet Union/Russia in winter. If the nuke had not been invented and Hitler had not done that, the scenario would have been a lot different.
There was only one mistake Hitler did, and that was the ill treatment of the Jews. He should have treated the Jews as equals. Had that happened, the US would not have had the nuke. It would be the Nazis who would have the nukes.
 

niharjhatn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
899
Likes
391
That's not a coincidence, Swastika as a symbol was pretty common in pre-christian Europe. It was probably associated with Indo-Europeans (Aryans),

And Hilter was an extermist, so its very unlikely that he would have been 'steeped' in history. He most likely believed the part of history that confirmed with his world view and he would have just dismissed or ignored the rest of history. For example the nazis firmly believed the Aryans were Germans, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that.
I have to respectfully point out a couple of things here:

Yes, the swastika was very much a world wide symbol being found everywhere, even in Norse pottery etc. which may have influenced Hitler greatly. However, its eastern (i.e. Asian/Indus Valley) origins and connections is undisputed, and the fact remains it was not a very common symbol outside of Asia (at that time), so the question arises why Hitler, a person who believed in the purity of the white race, would even draw the misconception of promoting an eastern symbol.

Hitler was an extraordinary historian. He, along with Goebbels, managed to portray Hitler as the next big thing for Germany, after Frederick the Great, and Bismarck, and even called his reign the 'Third Reich' after the first Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Hitler continued to borrow symbols of ancient years, such as the SS runes, and surrounded himself with like minded people (e.g. Himmler), resulting in weird and wonderful events, such as the nazi expedition to Tibet.

Hitler was also a historian in more than one level - he was very interested in architecture, and his work with Albert Speer highlighted a distinctive classical/neo-classical tone to their designs - all rejecting the more modern German designs, instead borrowing more from Greek and Roman architecture.

Hitler's use of "Aryan" was just a name - it is likely it related to the original proto-indo-europeans, and was not restricted to Germans alone, highlighted by the extension of the Lebensborn program which removed nordic-looking children from orphanages, and in some cases, families, from conquered territory, especially Denmark and Norway.

However, I am not sure what he knew/didn't know, when we are not even clear of the origins of the Indian and European people. All I am sure of is that "Aryan" is a sanskrit word - I once had a tremendous opportunity some years ago to talk to a German Jew who had survived the nazis, and he himself told me "What is an Aryan? An Aryan is an Indian!"
 

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
Bengal famine was was man made, caused by the British policies. At least 4 millions died. Maybe more. Estimates made by Prof. P.C. Mahalanobis, of the Indian Statistical Institute were that at least 5 million died directly and another 4-5 million died subsequently in famine related diseases.


That too was a genocide, not less condemnable than genocide of jews. It too was a holocaust.

Were British any less fiends than Hitler?
 
Last edited:

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
@ Tshering 22

Hitler wanted prosperity for his country ,but it was not necessary for him to do ALL that he did
Agree. I am NOT praising him. But I don't despise him either. That's what.

Hitler was a great patriot but then when he destroyed whole Europe he became Germany's biggest Liability
He got over ambitious; when embarking on a project like this, when inner enlightenment is absent, even the most determined minds can be lead astray. That is what happened to Hitler. Had he simply exiled the Jews and let them leave without violently experimenting on them, even then he'd have been considered the finest political leader in the modern history. I mean come on, if Mughals can be praised, Hitler is a thousand times better. :lol:

When Russians and French were fighting the German troops they knew that German people were the prisoners of Nazis
That's a false propaganda. Not having the power to vote doesn't mean one is a prisoner in one's country. We have the power to vote and what power do people in India have? We are perfectly the opposite case of what Nazi Germany was in its extremity. Germans didn't need to oppose Hitler; he was their god not just because of Waffen SS patrolling the streets but simply because of the fact that he revolutionized Germany such a way that no one felt the need to oppose him. 90% of the Germans in the peak of Nazi era didn't even know what was going on with Jews. Most of them assumed that Jews were driven out, that's all. Hitler transformed a dying economy into a world industrial power in 4-6 years into taking the power. He had a large dark side which I condemn very strongly, but equally appreciate his dedication for his country. Had evil not clouded his mind so totally, he'd have been really appreciated worldwide.

In The Nazi army there were several officers who were opposed to Hitlers MADNESS and were concerned that due to Hitler the German nation and people would suffer ie when Germany would eventually loose in the end
I agree. Hitler was a man who was consumed by his darkside. As I said: I am not praising him for ALL the things; I condemn his ruthless killing of millions of innocent jews for nothing. Kids, women and even men who were nothing but mere civilians. That was wrong and he did horrendous work. But his principles of administration are still being followed in Germany due to which we can see Germany continuing to peak in every technological venture and retain the state's technological might and economy within a democratic framework.

If you think the Germans never engaged in colonialism, you've obviously never heard of the German Colonial Empire.
Every European power engaged in colonialism; the worst were Spanish and Portuguese. But British were no less in those days and least of all, Germans and French both of whom were more or less benevolent when put behind the Iberian savages and Greedy brutal Brits of that era.

That is quite the moral equivalence you made there, apparently racial supremacy = democratization. What an Orwellian view.
I didn't equate them in literal sense if you re-read my post. I said that every power uses some or the other excuse as agenda to spread its empire. Turks used Islam,Nazis used race, Russians used language and Americans are using "democratization". Okay for your sake, let us take it in literal terms for a moment. I don't think that democratization of Iraq was any different from the wars that Nazis started. Bringing democracy through bombs and jets is not ethical. It is equally forceful as a dictatorship.

I am surprised how you get so blinded by the "power of vote" when half the world's governments don't even run on democracy in true, honest sense.

Not all of todays advanced military technology came straight out of Nazi Germany, and those projects that did; many were based off other European designs and advancements that came before, with some exceptions. Although it is interesting to see you draw a direct parallel between German Jews and German Nazis as somehow being the same, I wonder if you consider Nietzsche, Kant, Beethoven, Mozart to be Nazis by association. Why not Marx and Freud while we're at it?
What European technologies are you talking about? Obviously the first flight was done in US and all that, but who revolutionized all these first inventions? Germans did. Who brought in the jet fighter? Germans. Who designed the assault rifle? Germans. Who revolutionized heavy tank design concept? Germans. The whole point of 5 former world powers fighting and still struggling to find any straight victory for a long time (until later) was because Nazi Germany was 2-3 decades ahead in military technology than US, UK, France and Soviet Union combined.

I never equated Nazis with Jews. I said that most of the modern inventions especially in terms of weapons tech has come from some or the other Germans whether Nazi (mostly) or Jew (Einstein). This again has no direct literal context of comparison.

This I partially agree with, Europe is spineless but for different reasons than you're probably trying to get at, but going between two moral extremes isn't worth condoning; especially if you're going to be against colonialism in the first place.
Anything extreme is wrong. This includes pacifism, secularism, liberalism and all the likes as well. These qualities in extreme just like racism and stuff, tend to weaken the pride, honor, culture and self-esteem of any host country, thus weakening its structure in the society and providing a fertile ground for the downfall of that country. Balance is the key. This is why I said that Hitler crossed that balancing point a little too much and met with a downfall. I'd say that the modern day Chinese are using this balance concept very smartly in geo-strategy (except in some costly goof ups).

Reasons whether different or not, this mannerism of European government shows that the guilt industry wrongly imposed on the continent has become parasitic. The only ones who can save Europe are Europeans if they remove this guilt industry and be reasonably balanced between ethnic/racial/cultural pride and extreme suicidal Gandhian pacifism. This has penetrated India as a result too and you can see that in our puppet PM and his owner. :lol:

He could have beat the Russians, sure, but also the rest of Europe, the US, and the world; which would have been screwed. Not an ideal scenario, but then again neither is an Axis victory in WWII either.
It was possible provided he had taken one nation at a time like what US did and learnt from its mistake. Most of US' military strategy of modern time is derived from Nazi Germany's thinking (barring anti-semitism and racial superiority concept). Axis downfall came simply because they confused ambition's rationality with self-smugness. Both are a very dangerous mix and do not fit in the doctrine of a nation's strategy especially when in military aspects.

Not different at all. We were their pawns, and Bose used Hitler as well. If our land wasn't valuable to his enemy he wouldn't have cared. Remember the rule "I have no friends, only interests."?? If the Italians or Japanese ruled India, he would not have done jack sh*t to help us.
The point is, he didn't. But the British did. And no a few decades; 2 full centuries and a half. That's why this discussion on who was better.

The whole Aryan/Master race was not a tool to project around the world. It was only to nation build. Build a new identity for his own people.
I know that. But in your case, "we will bring democracy" is the war cry usually. That's what I was equating to. Inside US, this same tool is mentioned as "the power of freedom and justice". Though it is not bad since it instills pride in your countrymen. Hitler thought of a different method to get that sense of pride in his countrymen. Simple as that.

The Germans have participated in colonization, and if the Nazis had some time to breath in Europe I sure as hell think they would have. Like all the racist Europeans did back then. If you wanted wealth and power back then, you colonized.
But still he didn't. Hitler had only a few selective targets: Jews, Poles and later Allies (whites as well). So race was simply not an issue otherwise he wouldn't have gone to war with fellow white countries using non-white Asians as allies.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
baloney!~ Bose is a disgrace , a egotistical maniac that for self egotistical purposes was blinded to bring shame upon Indians by allying with the NAZIS. There is no justification to ally with a genocidal maniac for any reason , period.
India's Gandhian principles and this sham democracy is a disgrace anyday compared to what Bose did. Bose had the courage to take the decision and go out and fight for the motherland. The Brits killed 4-5 million Indians in Bengal famine. Is that anything less that what Nazis did? No maybe to you since democracy is your god. But not to us. Hitler on the other hand helped INA a non-national non-entity who was nothing in front of a then world power. And that is proven. That is what matters in the end and for that, we are proud of Netaji's decisive stand.

Stop living in la-la land and repeating the apologetic, weak lines of how evil Hitler was. Most Europeans were evil then and British of that time were far worse than Nazis. It is said that the victors write the history. Allies (British of that time) won and became the "heros" while they did worse things than Nazis which got covered up. Same like Congress slaves of British who got the leftovers from their Colonial masters and changed Gandhi into a living god while Nehru into a divine king, both of who in reality were egoistic, selfish and shameless traitors.

The world knows about Jewish genocide because US and UK spread it around; what the world doesn't know is the Indian genocide that was committed by the "great" Churchill (ba$t@rd) and his country. What Nazis did in open and didn't get the time to cover up, was done by then-Brits so they emerged as heros while Nazis were the "bad guys".
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top