Good Intentions, -i guess about hitler- Options

[sadolakced acid]

a debate spawned in lounge.

hitler's intentions - were they good?

and also

what do good intentions count for.



alright: my post about hitler.

hitler was trying to boost the economy of germany. war is good for economy. of course, taking over europe is good too.

Hitler's intentions were not to wipe out the jews. it was just politically convenient to blame them for gemany's problems. They had no one to really stand up for them. easy targets, minorities.

hitler had good intentions- to restore germany to it's former glory. germany was great before WWI, but when they lost the british and the french and the americans (but mostly the french) taxed the germans soo much their economy was going to bomb.

hitler had good intentions- but he useed bad ways to furfill them. blaming jews, trying to take over europe, etc.

but he still had good intentions.

which brings us to good intentions- good intentions are never enough. good actions are needed.

[redpeony]

how is war good for economy? it was the war in the first place that made germany's economy go to ruins. germany owed Britain and France a whole lot of moola to compensate for damages under the treaty of versailles. It was the depression that provided the conditions for hitler's rise to power (he and his Nazi party claimed they had solutions to bring Germany out of the depression.)

the Jews were not to blame for Germany's economic problems, that's not even relevant to why hitler killed them. what reasons did he have to blame the Jews? he was a smart man, he wouldn't randomly point fingers just because it was "politically convenient". He rid of the economic problems basically the moment he stepped into power, by violating the treaty of versailles and cancelling his reparation payments. he also gave people employment by spending tremendous amounts of money on things like transportation routes in the country. at the same time though, he abolished all the other political parties so tha t they would be in absolute power. If his intentions really were to improve the economy, you'd think he woulda stopped right there, eh?

His party was clearly, deeply racist and they believed that Germans were superior. he also targeted communists, homosexuals and mentally disabled people. How's that good intentions for ya?

[sadolakced acid]

notice tho everything you said was things he did

war is good for economy because you effectivley create millions of new 'jobs' for all the soilders.

and the support industry employs people too.

however, post war always is a depression: treaty of versaille made it a lot worst.

as you can see, good intentions doesn't mean good actions tho.,

[redpeony]

notice tho everything you said was things he did  

war is good for economy because you effectivley create millions of new 'jobs' for all the soilders.

and the support industry employs people too.

however, post war always is a depression: treaty of versaille made it a lot worst. 

as you can see, good intentions doesn't mean good actions tho.,

i said it was the things he "did" because it was in the past. what does that have to do with anything?

new jobs for all the soldiers... some don't even get paid.. things like conscription, you are called to war to support your country. some leave jobs where they are at least paid minimally to serve their country for war. what does this result in? their families living in poverty at home, people all over the country are having to live on decreased wages in order to fund for the war. and then what happens directly after the war-- soldiers return home (some don't even), and can't find jobs, the country has previously had to decrease wages to support their country during wartime. that pretty much calls for a preettttty messed up economy.

i agree good intentions don't mean good actions. but i think you have pulled hitler into this kind of irrelevantly. because the bottom line is that his intentions were no good. he was anti-Semitic and racist through and through.

[HelloSunshine]

Hitler, I think didn't have exactly "good" intentions. I mean, explain to me how the war was good for the economy? Have you read books about how horrible the conditions were? Mothers, children, husbands, everyone of different races, especially the Jews were packed in crates [yes, crates] on trains to get to camps. If someone died they'd just throw them out. They had to stand in rooms naked, NAKED waiting for hours to get NUMBERS and LETTER as identification. Many people forgot what they're NAMES were. Tell me this, how was all of that torture, and embarrasement, good for the economy?

[sadolakced acid]

bleh. i'm not saying hitler was good. i'm saying, his intentions were originally good. everything he did was to try to furfill that original intention. even the bad things. it all stemmed fro one good intention turned wrong.

[Sumiaki]

I think Hitler had good intentions, just his tactics were not accepted by much of the world. I mean take a look at the American Civil war. The north used a tactic called Total War. That's where soldiers would burn down everything that the south had in order to lower the southerner's morale. No one found anything wrong with this and there was no trial on anyone from the north who did it. Also in WWII the Japanese land a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, mainly attacking the navy. Then the Americans drop an A-bomb in an industrial zone killing many innocent civilians. America also had Japanese concentration camps. Yet there was no trial. War cannot be justified, yet it will be baised. The winners will look like the heros and the losers will look like the evil villian.

I learned that in my american studies class. Also, please do not get offended and think I support Hitler or anything of that nature.

[sadolakced acid]

in the end the north also used a war of atrictian (sp)

basically, grant knew he had more people than the south. he knew the south would run out first.

so he was just pouring soilders into it without consideration of if they lived or died, just if they killed some rebels.

history is written by the victor.

[iiiiiiiYON]

EVEN iF THE iNTENTiONS ARE GOOD, iF THE RESULT iS BAD, THE WHOLE THiNG WRONG.

[bad_girl]

war is good for economy because you effectivley create millions of new 'jobs' for all the soilders.

right.. and the new jobs were dangerous. and could easily kill the applicant/ soldier.

EVEN iF THE iNTENTiONS ARE GOOD, iF THE RESULT iS BAD, THE WHOLE THiNG WRONG.

way to go! u spoke my mind!!

and um.. is it good that he was only thinking about the economy of Germany? and in order to get to his goal, he killed many Jews and other people as well. was that supposed to be good?? if it was, im speechless.

[dahding]

sure, lets all murder millions of jews to boost our economy. in fact, lets get all asians while we're at it. heck, lets blow up the friggin earth.

they threw babies into the air as target practice god dammit. how the hell is that for good intentions?

and i actually had to read his book, "mein kampf" for a project. god...that book scared the living bejesus outta me... hitler was writing things like, "jew..the word...its covered in filth...i can scarcely believe how ppl can bear to say the satanic word..." he was writing out his entire plan for destruction of jews.

how retarded are u?

[Spirited Away]

I fear a lot of you didn't read into context and have misjudged Mr. Acid from your quick assumptions.

And it is true that war IS good for the economy for certain countries, people. Go learn your history and economics. War stimulates the buying and selling of weapons and things needed for war. It's simple. Demand for things go up, supply goes up along with it and our market equilibrium increases.

However, that is not to say that war is good for everyone in the long run. But know that WWII was what helped us out of the Great Depression because it did a lot of good in stimulating our dying economy.

history is written by the victor.

Exactly.

As for intentions... Hitler intended to killed Jews (or use them as an excuse) for the good of the Aryan race. From his perspective, he was doing something good. From our moral perspective, he was a cold blooded killer.

[sadolakced acid]

Yes, hitler was not good.

yes, almost everything he did was evil and dispicible

but yes, he did start out with good intentions.

(this debate was started when jennypie said that the women who were way over zealeous had good intentions and i said it doen'st matter how good the intentions, look at hitler. )

the point is: hitler started out with a good intention (good for german) Does it matter that he did many dispicible things? YES. which is why good intentions are not good.

but i guess the debate is also about convincing people hitler had a good intention to begin with.

[tofuburger]

no. hitler was evil.

[*krnxswat*]

no. hitler was evil.

I don't think that's the topic of discussion right now.