One in 2 Austrians believe Hitler's rule had some positive aspects.

Madam_X

catallus wrote: »

Nope

Yeh you're clearly devastated. :pac:
Is slavery definitely intrinsic to war?

Dodd wrote: »

Just because something is well documented does not make it true.
You have media telling you what they want you to hear/read.

Mass graves? Footage? Survivors? Artefacts? WWII happened in living memory.

catallus

Dodd wrote: »

Just because something is well documented does not make it true.
You have media telling you what they want you to hear/read.

Some people might jump down your throat for dismissing documentary evidence, but you make an important point; we shouldn't swallow everything we are told; but at the same time we are really talking about one of the most heavily documented periods of the twentieth century; 70 years of books and film and the most serious historians and intelligent historiographers have been over it; it's all there for you to check it out; and then make up your own mind.

Dodd

Madam_X wrote: »

Mass graves? Footage? Survivors? Artefacts? WWII happened in living memory.

And all that was told to you by who.?

catallus

Dodd wrote: »

And all that was told to you by who.?

You need to elaborate on your issue against documentary evidence.

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh you're clearly devastated. :pac:
Is slavery definitely intrinsic to war?

Mass graves? Footage? Survivors? Artefacts? WWII happened in living memory.

It is definitely intrinsic to Total War, such as was WWII.

kowloon

seamus wrote: »

It's a collective "Don't mention the war" taboo that's spread across the world where if you say anything which could be remotely construed as positive about Hitler, then you're a dirty Nazi.

Holocaust denial laws and banning of Nazi symbols have only helped neonazi types buy into the idea that they're a persecuted minority. It also helps that nobody has to think about it so much.
I see it as dangerous. I believe in giving these groups enough rope to hang themselves. They should be allowed their platform so everyone can see them for what they are.

Dodd

catallus wrote: »

Some people might jump down your throat for dismissing documentary evidence, but you make an important point; we shouldn't swallow everything we are told; but at the same time we are really talking about one of the most heavily documented periods of the twentieth century; 70 years of books and film and the most serious historians and intelligent historiographers have been over it; it's all there for you to check it out; and then make up your own mind.

I have checked it all out and found that a lot of it is BS.

southsiderosie

seamus wrote: »

I think what's more bizarre is that one in two Austrians are telling themselves that Hitler's time in power had no positive aspects at all.

It's a collective "Don't mention the war" taboo that's spread across the world where if you say anything which could be remotely construed as positive about Hitler, then you're a dirty Nazi.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Austria have legislation in place prohibiting any expression of Nazi ideology. They've banned political parties in the past for having characteristics of National Socialism.

Some people are of the opinion that they never really came to terms with what happened, their leadership have decided that it's better to try and bury it for good.

I don't know my post-war history as well as I should, but weren't the Austrians essentially treated as victims rather than perpetrators? I don't think they went through the same de-Nazification process that the Germans did, so it isn't surprising that they might look back on that era differently than the Germans (or neighboring countries).

Brian_Zeluz

Having lived in Austria the result of this survey is not entirely surprising to me. On a number of occasions I became aware of a rather alarming level of animosity towards people of Turkish descent in particular. To be fair there are two sides to every story and some of the points they made about these immigrants such as their unwillingness to integrate had an element of truth. If Hitler were around now they would definitely be his scapegoat and I can easily imagine someone who holds similar views to what I described above getting into power today.

Another thing a lot of you seem to think is that Austrians will never talk about "ze var". This is not true. The younger generations (<35) have no hang-ups about any part of their country's past and are more than willing to talk about it. They would even make jokes about Fritzl if you were in a pub etc that had a cellar.

catallus

kowloon wrote: »

Holocaust denial laws and banning of Nazi symbols have only helped neonazi types buy into the idea that they're a persecuted minority. It also helps that nobody has to think about it so much.
I see it as dangerous. I believe in giving these groups enough rope to hang themselves. They should be allowed their platform so everyone can see them for what they are.

This is the genius of true democracy: to allow bigots and racists to show themselves to the benign masses as the evil they represent: We all know the background for these laws; the truth of history is too fresh in their minds and they want to ban the neo-nazis, that's their decision, and in my opinion it has had a cooling effect on the rise of reprehensible politics which would otherwise come about. But it's a short term solution to the inevitable hatred of the "other" which lies in all our hearts. We can only trust democracy.

Dodd

catallus wrote: »

You need to elaborate on your issue against documentary evidence.




.

No I don't.
You are just trying to take this to the side.Side tracking.

Madam_X

Dodd wrote: »

No I don't.
You are just trying to take this to the side.Side tracking.

No they're just asking you to elaborate on what you say and support it. Not an unreasonable request.

Lone Stone

One thing i never understand about the holocaust deniers, not sure how to put this but for example i saw one of them on some news channel before and he made some quip about it not being what it was made out to be and he just shut down and not allowed to speak, so why doesnt anyone ever say right if you believe that it never happened what is your evidence, prove it. I find it strange no one would publicly squash the claims/evidence put forward by some of the more prominent deniers.

unless some one has ? i have no idea.

Anyway i believe nasa and other space programs would not have come into existence if it wasnt for the nazi's, ecstasy ?

Dodd

Madam_X wrote: »

No they're just asking you to elaborate on what you say and support it. Not an unreasonable request.

Your not trying to get me to brake the law by questioning some of WW11 reports are you.

Do your own research.

catallus

Lone Stone wrote: »

One thing i never understand about the holocaust deniers, not sure how to put this but for example i saw one of them on some news channel before and he made some quip about it not being what it was made out to be and he just shut down and not allowed to speak, so why doesnt anyone ever say right if you believe that it never happened what is your evidence, prove it. I find it strange no one would publicly squash the claims/evidence put forward by some of the more prominent deniers.

unless some one has ? i have no idea.

Anyway i believe nasa and other space programs would not have come into existence if it wasnt for the nazi's, ecstasy ?

I think the problem with holocaust deniers is that they don't ever come out and say it didn't happen; they hedge their bets and say the extent of it is over-stated; that it wasn't as organised as the facts suggest; and that it wasn't an actual policy per se. Most use the lack of documents saying that Hitler ordered it.

I believe that educated cynicism is one of the most important foundations upon which any society can be based, and I support it every chance I get; but there is an inclination in many people to kick against the logic and what is plainly in front of their eyes when an opportunity arises to question what many of us take as fact; and we take it as fact because it is built upon the truth as given to us by those who investigated what happened in Central and Eastern Europe between 1941 and 1944.

The problem is that the underlying facets of fascism and racism give some people encouragement to spout an immature cynicism, and the sad fact is that hatred is easy when you're anonymous. It is an attractive prospect for people to be able to say they have the inside track on important issues such as this.

Dodd

I see the JIDF seem to be here.

NN.

Madam_X

Can't back yourself up - throw toys out of pram. Did NOT see that coming...

iamanengine

I don't know if this has been thought of before but...

AH = Adolf Hitler
AH = After Hours

Dear God

Lone Stone

Madam_X wrote: »

They want to believe it's grossly exaggerated, just because they hate Jews - and even tell themselves that evidence is lies and fed to us by the media etc. The anti Holocaust denial culture is handy for them because it means they can pretend they're being oppressed AND don't have to back up their claims.
Maybe there are exaggerations here and there, but to say a lot of it is bullsh1t - just because they want that to be the case - is amusing.

Yea i just find it an interesting subject because just a year or so ago, i had do some paper on propaganda and i came across all this information on frauds nephew Edward Bernays who was part of the american propaganda machine during ww2 and some of the stuff they did crazy you would get away with it today it would be picked apart in seconds on the internet, they had such control over what people thought by manipulating every aspect of the news they could make you think was falling down back then because you couldnt get an outside news source. It really just me made think when i saw these deniers occasionally popping up, what do they know that makes them think it was all a lie. But can they say it ? cant you be arrested for denial ?

I mean they use to drop flyers into nazi occupied countries suggesting Hitler was a necrophiliac, so really i dont believe they didnt happen but i wouldnt be surprised if some of it was exaggerated to garner support from home, i mean iraq had nukes right !

Dodd

Madam_X wrote: »

Can't back yourself up - throw toys out of pram. Did NOT see that coming...

Well watch this from a former Jew.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhFRGDyX48c

Do watch it and tell me what you think.?

Skylinehead

ejmaztec wrote: »

More importantly, they'd be a bit stuck for programming on the History Channel.

Have you seen the History Channel lately? There's not history programmes at all!

Weathering

Three Seasons wrote: »

Of course there were positive aspects.

Infrastructure was greatly improved in Germany as a result of Hitler's rule.

Only until the allies bombed the ar$e out of it

heartseeker

Also didn't he pave the way forward for the US to try out their nukes,assume their role as superpower bully boys and row out their own unique style of fascism and colonialism in the middle east and Arabian peninsula ...they can't wait to start another war with Iran or north Korea ...its like dont stand in our way as we take over your country and "westernize" it ! I dont claim to know much about Hitler but you sometimes have to wonder did we finish on the good or bad side or merely the winning side....??

mikemac1

ejmaztec wrote: »

More importantly, they'd be a bit stuck for programming on the History Channel.

You won't find many war documentaries on History Channel.

You will find plenty about mystical predictions and aliens and conspiracy theories.

The channel has gone downhill

im invisible

History through the years

kowloon

Three Seasons wrote: »

Of course there were positive aspects.

Infrastructure was greatly improved in Germany as a result of Hitler's rule.

Okay, you can have that, but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Nazis ever done for us?

iamanengine wrote: »

I don't know if this has been thought of before but...

AH = Adolf Hitler
AH = After Hours

Dear God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vtXRI32MQ

Hidalgo

heartseeker wrote: »

Also didn't he pave the way forward for the US to try out their nukes,assume their role as superpower bully boys and row out their own unique style of fascism and colonialism in the middle east and Arabian peninsula ...they can't wait to start another war with Iran or north Korea ...its like dont stand in our way as we take over your country and "westernize" it ! I dont claim to know much about Hitler but you sometimes have to wonder did we finish on the good or bad side or merely the winning side....??

US took the role as global superpower as there was simply no one else. The had taken a position of isolationism for as long as they could.
UK was no longer in a position to continue as a global superpower. For some it was a case of the Soviet Union or the US taking the mantle of overseer.

Whilst the US have far from covered themselves in glory, to question whether we finished on the good or bad side is stretching it (to put it mildly)

Duckjob

Nothing unusual there. Peoples perpectives vary.

Most chinese people I know think Mao was a great lad. Try to talk to them about the millions of deaths of his countrymen that resulted from the "Great Leap Forward" , his culling of the educated in the Cultural Revolution, and his other hair brained schemes, and you'll be met with a blank look.

Dyr

catallus wrote: »

But given that the right side won the war, would you be willing to risk having him in charge?

Hell no. At least Hitler liked his armor. No way Goering would have given us any decent tanks epics.

Wibbs

kowloon wrote: »

Holocaust denial laws and banning of Nazi symbols have only helped neonazi types buy into the idea that they're a persecuted minority. It also helps that nobody has to think about it so much.
I see it as dangerous. I believe in giving these groups enough rope to hang themselves. They should be allowed their platform so everyone can see them for what they are.

+1000 these laws I have issues with for the reasons you give. Plus I am very wary of aspects of history being pickled as divine truth. History should be a constantly revised science open to debate. Locking it is dangerous. As well as the reasons you gave it can also be open to exploitation for political means. "The holocaust industry" is a good book to read on that subject.

catallus wrote: »

I think the problem with holocaust deniers is that they don't ever come out and say it didn't happen; they hedge their bets and say the extent of it is over-stated; that it wasn't as organised as the facts suggest; and that it wasn't an actual policy per se. Most use the lack of documents saying that Hitler ordered it.

Yep nail on head. They pick on tiny details, often with some basis in truth to deny the whole thing. EG the once current idea that some still believe that the Nazis turned the bodies of their victims particularly Jews into soap. Untrue. It was an idea mooted even in WW1 against the Germans as a propaganda exercise. It was again raised in US media in WW2 by people trying to raise awareness of the actual murderous genocide against Jews. This was years before the digusting truth about the nazis murderous campaign came out(contrary to popular the world had a fair idea of what was going on concerning the plight of Jews in nazi territories). The claim went that this soap even had stamped initials in German that translated as "made from Jews" or somesuch. It didn't it was simply the initials of the company involved in one brand. It also makes no sense. I mean who is going to willingly bathe in human fat? Another one is the people with tattoos being flayed for their skins to be turned into lampshades. Again no evidence of it, though oft repeated. So the deniers will point to things like this and say it's all a lie, which is nonsense.

The plain facts are that the nazis stated aim was the removal of Jews and other "subhumans" from their sphere of influence. It was no secret and the evidence is clear that the bastards very nearly succeeded.

Hidalgo

catallus wrote: »

Some people might jump down your throat for dismissing documentary evidence, but you make an important point; we shouldn't swallow everything we are told; but at the same time we are really talking about one of the most heavily documented periods of the twentieth century; 70 years of books and film and the most serious historians and intelligent historiographers have been over it; it's all there for you to check it out; and then make up your own mind.

Not necessarily, who knows what decisions were made behind closed doors that went undocumented or have no counter-information to contend it

Hidalgo

catallus wrote: »

I think the problem with holocaust deniers is that they don't ever come out and say it didn't happen; they hedge their bets and say the extent of it is over-stated; that it wasn't as organised as the facts suggest; and that it wasn't an actual policy per se. Most use the lack of documents saying that Hitler ordered it.

I believe that educated cynicism is one of the most important foundations upon which any society can be based, and I support it every chance I get; but there is an inclination in many people to kick against the logic and what is plainly in front of their eyes when an opportunity arises to question what many of us take as fact; and we take it as fact because it is built upon the truth as given to us by those who investigated what happened in Central and Eastern Europe between 1941 and 1944.

The problem is that the underlying facets of fascism and racism give some people encouragement to spout an immature cynicism, and the sad fact is that hatred is easy when you're anonymous. It is an attractive prospect for people to be able to say they have the inside track on important issues such as this.

That's largely due to the fact that from 1937, there were no official parliamentary meetings led by Hitler, if anyone below him wanted an audience, it was conducted person to person. Many that did get an audience got it through connections rather than the importance of the meetings.

Rather good politiking really not to have his name attributed to policy. That way if something goes right he can take credit but if it goes wrong, he can shift blame to the failures of others and thus maintain almost demi-God statues

the_syco

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Some people need to take a good read of slave labour under Nazi Germany.

Regarding the topic at hand, I'm thinking that the German an Austrian governments did such a good job in ignoring and covering up what happened with censorship laws, that many who live there don't know as much as they should. I'm guessing that it'd be mostly the older generation that saw AH as having done some good?

snausages

People say he 'miraculously' reversed Germany's downturn, but wasn't that partly down to spoliation of property and a lot of other generally sh!t things he did? I'm not too well informed on it tbh.

snausages

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 these laws I have issues with for the reasons you give. Plus I am very wary of aspects of history being pickled as divine truth. History should be a constantly revised science open to debate. Locking it is dangerous. As well as the reasons you gave it can also be open to exploitation for political means. "The holocaust industry" is a good book to read on that subject.

Holocaust denial isn't revisionism though. There's scrupulous scepticism and then there's lending credence to a dangerous cultural myth.

catallus

"The Holocaust Industry" is not a good book to read on the subject. It has it's own agenda; it's pop-history at best. An it's quite misleading on a large part of the issue.

The veil of history blurs our view of truth, but having a history that is constantly open to debate is as bad as having no history at all.

Wibbs

catallus wrote: »

"The Holocaust Industry" is not a good book to read on the subject. It has it's own agenda; it's pop-history at best. An it's quite misleading on a large part of the issue.

While I agree it has it's own agenda(few don't in this arena), quite a number of pre eminent historians of the period backed much of the history made in the book. Raul Hilberg among them. As the wiki says of him "He was widely considered to be the world's preeminent scholar of the Holocaust, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution."*. So I'd not dismiss the book so readily. Both of the authors parents survived Hitlers death camps and had the arm tattoos to prove it. Most of the members of his extended family were murdered by the bastards and he is no denier that's for sure. Yes he defo overcooks the pot at times, but is worth a read for a different angle on the post war politicking around the tragedy.





*fascinating man. IMHO one of the best parts of the 80's movie Shoah on the subject are the interviews and insights from Raul.

catallus

Well if people want to inform themselves maybe they should go to Hilberg instead.

We know that unscrupulous people tried to profit from the Holocaust from the 60's on, and a lot of the perceived attraction for holocaust deniers is that it is a chink in Israel's armour when they manipulate the memory of the dead to carry out their own misdeeds.

It's just we should be careful not to allow the truth to get covered in the fog of history, and we can only do this if we all realise how tenuous our grasp of that truth and reality are; there are lots of people out there who'd like the forget the whole nasty thing ever happened.

Wibbs

snausages wrote: »

Holocaust denial isn't revisionism though. There's scrupulous scepticism and then there's lending credence to a dangerous cultural myth.

Sure S, the problem comes when laws make it so polarised that Holocaust denial and scrupulous scepticism are conflated and any research that suggests changing opinions is lumped in with the loonies. That's the major problem with sacred cows. EG I've seen media and websites, even official outlets claim Belson was an extermination camp*. When some pointed out that it wasn't, that there were no gas chambers at Belson(there weren't), that it wasn't an extermination camp like say Treblinka, charges of denial and anti Semiticism were thrown about and history suffers.





*extermination camp, death camp and concentration camp are usually merged into one entity when they were not, or it's far more complex than that.

old hippy

heartseeker wrote: »

Also didn't he pave the way forward for the US to try out their nukes,assume their role as superpower bully boys and row out their own unique style of fascism and colonialism in the middle east and Arabian peninsula ...they can't wait to start another war with Iran or north Korea ...its like dont stand in our way as we take over your country and "westernize" it ! I dont claim to know much about Hitler but you sometimes have to wonder did we finish on the good or bad side or merely the winning side....??

Seriously? :rolleyes:

starskey77

hitler was wrong in some aspects ie the jews ok banish them to madagascar
but he was right in others the soviet threat. In saying that today we have one germany that controls europe whats the diferance

heartseeker

Extreme views are those that are formed unchallenged without understanding or compassion .simplified beyond reproach.The easiest conclusion to reach is that Adolf Hitler was the most evil man in history and that its absurd to suggest otherwise.you can't get a more polarized view than that and when its all you have been told and thought for 20 years of education,its difficult to see any other perspective and even harder to go in search of one.

Latchy

Many Austrians and Germans would soon have realised Hitler was a mad man but in their desire for change , got swept along with the mania and fear of not shown loyalty .Hitler with his propaganda machine exploited this desire , proposing brute force over political will to bring about the changes.

Hitlers final words on the faith of the German civillian population was '' let them suffer '' . I'm pretty sure he would have said same about his fellow Austrians had they to been surrounded by the Russian hordes .

Fox_In_Socks

Latchy wrote: »

Many Austrians and Germans would soon have realised Hitler was a mad man but in their desire for change , got swept along with the mania and fear of not shown loyalty .Hitler with his popogranda machine exploited this desire , proposing brute force over political will to bring about the changes.

Serious topic, I know but look!

http://cdn.trinixy.ru/pics4/20110525/video/funny_dancing_grandfather1.jpg

Latchy

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Serious topic, I know but look!

http://cdn.trinixy.ru/pics4/20110525/video/funny_dancing_grandfather1.jpg

??? Gary Glitter in disguise again ?

I assume that's a pic of an Austrian Neo Nazi rally ....or something along the same lines ?.

I know there was a big push a year or two ago to get some right wing Austrian politician (who had some very strong policies on just about everything) into power .

Fox_In_Socks

Latchy wrote: »

??? Gary Glitter in disguise again ?

I assume that's a pic of an Austrian Neo Nazi rally ....or something along the same lines ?

Nope, nothing so sinister. Just a joke. A teensy tiny small joke that was based around your misspelling of the word propaganda to the spooneristic "popagranda", which I highlighted in my post. I attempted to show a true-to-life popa-granda. And failed.

Joke explained. Please move on! SCHNELL!!!!

Latchy

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Nope, nothing so sinister. Just a joke. A teensy tiny small joke that was based around your misspelling of the word propaganda to the spooneristic "popagranda", which I highlighted in my post. I attempted to show a true-to-life popa-granda. And failed.
Joke explained. Please move on! SCHNELL!!!!

Ahh...only noticed the mispelling now , I've been in and out of the kitchen keeping an eye on something in the oven and on the hob ...hence my less than 100% attention .


Faliure is not an option ...Jawohl .

TwoShedsJackson

starskey77 wrote: »

but he was right in others the soviet threat.

Do you reckon he was right to regard all Slavs as subhuman and only worthy of being wiped out then? And it's thanks to Hitler that the Russians dominated Eastern Europe for nearly 50 years.

studiorat

AT least he saved us from the Borg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YziNL20nivA

Rightwing

Grayson wrote: »

depends on how you view him. i think he did. But that doesn't mean I think he was a nice guy. hell even Ted Bundy had a nice smile and the judge said he was impressed by him. He also said he was locking him away forever.

You can say something positive about Hitler like he made the autobahns. But that doesn't mean that you support the holocaust. was he good? I'd say 98% nasty, but managed to do a couple of good things too (even if some were accidents).

Good job that judge wasn't Carney, he'd probably have given Bundy a suspended sentence.

tonyroc

if you ever go to Vienna all you will see is palace after palace all dedicated to vanity .Vulgarity at its best