Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Even I admire those qualities but only if he'd used his qualities in a good way. He used that for what? Criticise the so called inferior races. Yeah that's why I said his madness for eugenics nulled all his positives. But he wasn't the originator of eugenics or eugenicide. Instead it was the western powers, especially United States. http://hnn.us/article/1796 In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization. The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Eighteen solutions were explored in a Carnegie-supported 1911 "Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population." Point eight was euthanasia. The most commonly suggested method of eugenicide in America was a "lethal chamber" or public locally operated gas chambers. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect. California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia. United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense. Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German officials and scientists. During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States." America funded Germany's eugenic institutions. By 1926, Rockefeller had donated some $410,000 -- almost $4 million in 21st-Century money -- to hundreds of German researchers. In May 1926, Rockefeller awarded $250,000 to the German Psychiatric Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later to become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry. Among the leading psychiatrists at the German Psychiatric Institute was Ernst Rüdin, who became director and eventually an architect of Hitler's systematic medical repression.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 People talk about holocaust, there have been worse crimes perpetrated - systematic elimination of indigenous people in South America and Australia - Colonialisation and associated genocides - Slavery - milllions of lives in US invasions across the world in the last 50-60 years - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - blind wiping away off civilian populations amounting to a quarter of a million with side ffects continuing to this date
Khalpat Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Able administrator - Yes Charismatic leader - Yes Skillful orator - Yes Technocratic and visionary - Yes Decisive - Yes Bold - Yes For a minute I thought you were talking about PM of India :giggle:.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 And yeah, every time a boy/girl is forced to marry someone chosen by parents - it is subtle eugenics at work (the same stuff that Hitler preached) - No further proof required for eugenics practised in India than the matrimonials. When millions of people starve and continue to starve when another section of the economy is growing - that's also eugenics at work. Every poor/downtrodden streetperson we pass by in the morning without a second glance, we are all participating in a eugenics program. Hitler was utterly foolish in completely believing the Americans in case of eugenics. He was a fool to be blinded by anti -semitism and merge that with his eugenics propaganda. Jews are one of the most intelligent population in the world, and had he embraced them instead of gassing them, probably all of us would've been living in the third reich.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 For a minute I thought you were talking about PM of India :giggle:. I could've been talking about myself there really :p :p plus that I am handsome as well.
Mariyam Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 And yeah, every time a boy/girl is forced to marry someone chosen by parents - it is subtle eugenics at work (the same stuff that Hitler preached) - No further proof required for eugenics practised in India than the matrimonials. Now you're stretching it. Can you further elaborate how forced/arranged marriages = Eugenics?
CSK Fan Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Now you're stretching it. Can you further elaborate how forced/arranged marriages = Eugenics? Don't they always choose same relgion/caste/demographic partner? When was the last time arrange marriage was forced with someone of different caste/religion?
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Now you're stretching it. Can you further elaborate how forced/arranged marriages = Eugenics? forced/arranged marriages happen within closed groups - with the prime objective of ensuring "purity of bloodline", harmonisation of family groups, easy assimilation, call whatever you want of the clan/family whatever.
gaurav92 Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 He didn't kill many people. He killed millions. Absolute genocide. He is the reason we got independence? That is some twisted way of thinking to justify your like for a genocidal maniac He wasn't as bad as he was made out to be? Why? So now in your books, many does not count for millions? He was a maniac? Yes. But I only admire a few qualities he had which were completely overshadowed by his hate for other races. The reason I say he wasn't as bad as he is made out to be is because he did what the English did, and no one criticizes the Brit for their mass killing. He was not the only one genocide in the world, but then he is the lone man blamed for mass killing which I feel is wrong.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 So now in your books, many does not count for millions? He was a maniac? Yes. But I only admire a few qualities he had which were completely overshadowed by his hate for other races. The reason I say he wasn't as bad as he is made out to be is because he did what the English did, and no one criticizes the Brit for their mass killing. He was not the only one genocide in the world, but then he is the lone man blamed for mass killing which I feel is wrong. Geroge Bush is imho even more terrible person thn this guy - authorising invasions of countries with little evidence and then lying about the whole thing - just to fool the "muricans" and ensure his reelection.
CG Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 People talk about holocaust, there have been worse crimes perpetrated - systematic elimination of indigenous people in South America and Australia - Colonialisation and associated genocides - Slavery - milllions of lives in US invasions across the world in the last 50-60 years - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - blind wiping away off civilian populations amounting to a quarter of a million with side ffects continuing to this date Yup hypocrisy is unbelievable.Its just propaganda machine at work which has brain washed people.
Crookbond Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 It's you who is living in a Hollywood movie not myself. Do you not remember the jalianwala bagh massacre? Peaceful protesters protesting. Do the British give a crap? No innocent men and women killed for no reason. Bhagat singhs methods were used by the Vietnamese against the Americans. You think the Vietnamese would have gone on satyagrahas to defend their homeland? The Vietnamese were united in their resolve to defeat the worlds superpower and they did it. If they had waited for a gandhi an figure, then Vietnam today would have been a much different place There is more to the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre - both before and after - than what we are generally taught about.
Mariyam Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 The world made unbelievable scientific progress during the World Wars and much of it came from Germany. Post WW2, how many scientists/tehnicians were emigrated to US who went on to develop the superpower's backbone as it is now? Why do you attribute all this to Hitler?
Mariyam Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Don't they always choose same relgion/caste/demographic partner? When was the last time arrange marriage was forced with someone of different caste/religion? forced/arranged marriages happen within closed groups - with the prime objective of ensuring "purity of bloodline"' date=' harmonisation of family groups, easy assimilation, call whatever you want of the clan/family whatever.[/quote'] Arranged marriages/ marriages of conveniences are within families belonging to the same social status/sect/caste etc more than a bloodline thing. These are mainly economic/political unions. How likely are you to see an arranged marriage between an rich guy and a poor girl from the same demographic? Eugenics is based on fictional notions of purity of blood. No direct and/or immediate mercantile benefits. The two aren't even remotely comparable, me thinks.
Mariyam Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Because he was a man of ethical courage' date=' a man of spiritual perception and good intent. He had great leadership skills and was an able administrator.[/quote'] Hitler, through his machinations, inherited a nation which was fundamentally very united and homogeneous. It had a strong industrial manufacturing base. It had a strong army (or at least officer corps). And its population pyramid was that of a country that can afford another war. In spite of all this, Hitler lost the war. I'm hardly an expert on history. Maybe Mulo-G and the others can better expound on this; but it makes zero logical sense to reserve a portion of your economy, military and logistical resources to exterminate a people you call subhumans (and by extension a non threat), smack in the middle of a world war against 2 super powers. Those resources could have been put to better use in the war. Its not being a good administrator at all. Its being very stupid.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Why do you attribute all this to Hitler? Whom should I attribute those then? When there is a clear state policy actively advocating technical progress and indsutry?
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Arranged marriages/ marriages of conveniences are within families belonging to the same social status/sect/caste etc more than a bloodline thing. These are mainly economic/political unions. How likely are you to see an arranged marriage between an rich guy and a poor girl from the same demographic? Eugenics is based on fictional notions of purity of blood. No direct and/or immediate mercantile benefits. The two aren't even remotely comparable, me thinks. Many. Many people I know put kula/jaathi/gothra etc ahead of money. And fact again remains,even if money is a factor, still the marriages follow principles of eugenics doesnt it? I am talking about majority, not Saif Ali khan - Kareena Kapoor type unions.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Hitler' date=' through his machinations, [i']inherited a nation which was fundamentally very united and homogeneous. It had a strong industrial manufacturing base. It had a strong army (or at least officer corps). And its population pyramid was that of a country that can afford another war. In spite of all this, Hitler lost the war. I'm hardly an expert on history. Maybe Mulo-G and the others can better expound on this; but it makes zero logical sense to reserve a portion of your economy, military and logistical resources to exterminate a people you call subhumans (and by extension a non threat), smack in the middle of a world war against 2 super powers. Those resources could have been put to better use in the war. Its not being a good administrator at all. Its being very stupid. After the WW1 impact? I don't agree at all. Below is just one indicator: In 1932, in the dying days of the Weimar Republic, 5.6 million people were unemployed – many of whom gave their support to the Nazi Party as the only party that offered them hope. By 1934, this figure had fallen to 2.7 million – a seemingly impossible decrease. By 1936, only 1.6 million people were unemployed and by 1938 the figure was 0.4 million. Therefore in five years, unemployment had fallen by 5.4 million – 96%.
hhunaeh Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 Whom should I attribute those then? When there is a clear state policy actively advocating technical progress and indsutry? he was the chancellor from 33 to 45. It think it takes a good while longer to develop the capability to produce scientists/tehnicians. And by late 30s many of them had already started leaving germany. So it is not like hitler did miracles in 10 - 12 years. So the only conclusion is that they already had the capability before hitler to produce top class talent. All he did was to give them away to other countries.
Precambrian Posted August 27, 2014 Posted August 27, 2014 he was the chancellor from 33 to 45. It think it takes a good while longer to develop the capability to produce scientists/tehnicians. And by late 30s many of them had already started leaving germany. So it is not like hitler did miracles in 10 - 12 years. So the only conclusion is that they already had the capability before hitler to produce top class talent. All he did was to give them away to other countries. Lol, it doesn't. The guy reduced unemployment in Germany to nil within just 5 years. FIVE YEARS.
Recommended Posts