Comments
-
@I Are Lebo, it’s kinda hard to distribute evil points here. Hitler had to approve of everything Himmler wanted to do, so it was really hitler who enacted these acts- also to note, himmler very rarely actually killed Jews. He was quite squeamish around blood and became ill at the sight of it or the bodies. So yea, neither of them did any real direct killing- and because hitler approved these things (just as the president approves congressional movements) the honor goes to hitler.
-
@The Common Shaman, this whole thread began based on the point of whether or not Hitler was good at genocide based on his success rate. My response to that is that this issue is more complicated than that and to simplify it down to “the Holocaust happened because of Hitler” is disingenuous. Not every sentence placed between quotation marks is a reference to a comment made by you. I’m remarking that the implication or inference that Hitler is to be credited with all of it is not reasonable.
-
@The Common Shaman, it’s ironic that you call me out for getting worked up when I’ve remained completely calm this entire discussion. I am simply defending my argument. The truth is, in the chef analogy Hitler is not the head chef. Himmler is. In this analogous situation, Hitler would be the restaurant manager or owner. In addition, it’s important to remember that Jews were not the only victims of the holocaust. Approximately twelve million lives ended in the death camps, and about half of them were Jews. You are the one who seems to take it personally when anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t immediately concede to your point of view. Having said that, I appreciate you remaining civil in this thread and not resorting to deliberately inflammatory comments.
-
@The Common Shaman, I understand that, but my father is a teacher who is a member of the Shoah foundation and I grew up learning about the Holocaust. That’s why it bothers me as much as it does when someone tries to deny that it happened. The truth is that for the majority of the time between 1939 and 1945, Adolf Hitler was predominantly preoccupied with fighting the war. The man was a monster, yes, but I think it’s important to remember who did what, lest history lose its meaning. Josef Mengel, Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, this are names that shouldn’t be forgotten. It’s too easy to put everything on Hitler, and by so doing we forget the crimes of the men beside him. Having said that, I don’t really disagree with you on basic principle, it’s more of a matter of degrees for me. It may be a semantic argument, but I think it’s an important semantic to remember. Genocides aren’t performed by one man.
-
@Jdrawer, I’ve backed up my point, you have not. To say that Hitler has total responsibility for each individual killed is like saying that Pablo Escobar is responsible for each individual killed by the cartel. That’s not how responsibility works. Hitler was guilty of many war crimes, but not for twelve million individual murders. I disagree with your point and have backed up my argument.
-
@Jdrawer, because, as I said, Hitler was primarily occupied with the war on the Allied forces, not on the holocaust. When you lay all of the deaths at his feet specifically, you deny the involvement of the actual masterminds of the holocaust. It would be more realistic to blame Hitler specifically for the war deaths. Yes, he was involved in the holocaust, yes, it would likely not have happened without him. But when you say “Hitler was responsible for each and every death” you are, intentionally or not, denying the involvement of Goring, Himmler, Mengele, and the others. I worry that soon the only name remembered for these crimes will be Hitler’s. That’s all I’m saying.
-
Honestly I hate landscapes for the most part. I mean now a days you got photography so I just can’t stand to look at a poorly drawn substitution. I don’t care who paints or takes a picture of it’s something I like but I just don’t like paintings very much. I mean drawing something that you can’t take a picture of like something fictional that’s fine otherwise I dislike it even if it’s from before photography. I know it’s stupid but there you go I have had lots of discussions with art teachers in the few instances where they made me take a art class and plain and simple I hate being made to pretend to appreciate art and am perfectly fine with not forcing students to take art
-
@George Feeny, people seem to think everyone should have to take art for the few people who learn they truly love it. They argue those few who might never have learned of their talent justifies forcing every student to sit through it. I feel the exact opposite, I think it’s a waste of money to force say 30 kids to take a class if only one or two decide to move forward with the subject. It just always pissed me off because I get annoyed having to pretend that a poorly painted landscape or cloudy cityscape means anything more then that’s what the person wanted to draw. I hate when I am asked to “explain what the piece says to me” because I honestly like to think in a more literal sense and not just make crap up and attribute it to a long dead artist.
-
@Jdrawer, i literally said I hate having to pretend that a painting means anything more than what it depicts I don’t do the whole infer emotions of someone I never met as that is beyond stupid. I mean how the hell can anyone tell me what someone meant by a painting made centuries ago. I am fine with stating what I feel about a painting I despise when people state there is a correct response.
I feel like I want to play csgo right now