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.

[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.