Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djacq75
The German "perspective" was that the Jews were in the way of stopping Bolshevism.
|
And yet that is not the point of Hilter's Mein Kopf. Hitler's underlying points were to subver the intelligent Germans (intellectuals and merchant class), play up to the ignorant (as Rush Limbaugh does today), and then create an enemy that the simple minded would understand - the Jew. Hitler's agenda was about recruiting the simple minded into extremism for the greater glory of his Nazi party. This Hitler did better than those early Nazi's before him.
Hilter had a purpose for the Jew - to use the Jew in a game of "them verses us" so that Hitler could recruit the simple minded to his growing party of 'Brown Shirts', etc.
The only part I am not answering here is why Hitler so craved this power. From his book, he is more concerned as to why Germany lost the first WW rather than a hate of Bolshevism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djacq75
Reality is not a competition between subjective "perspectives." ....
As for good and evil, there is a fundamental error almost everyone on earth who believe that there is a difference between good and evil make. There is a sort of irrational, subterranean belief that if your enemy is "evil", that is sufficient to make you "good" regardless of what you are actually doing.
|
You have failed to comprehend how the more informed people actually view the world. 'Good verses Evil' is how we channel - redirect - the little people. Great leaders tend to confess in their memoirs about a conflict more in terms of differing interests. Indeed the Civil War was not about slavery. However to simplify a war down to something that the 'less intellectual' could comprehend, then slavery became a Civil War rallying cry. Those evil southerners who enslaved black men - they must be evil.
Meanwhile almost all southerners had no slaves - therefore were not evil. So we forget to tell that to the little people.
Civil War was more about a complex set of disagreements between Northern and Southern states. A conflict that almost broke out ten years earlier in Congress had not some great men found a compromise (I believe this is one chapter of Kennedy's Profiles in Courage).
Those reasons of 'good verses evil' are for the naive. There is no good and evil. There are power brokers with strongly differing opinions and perspectives. Indeed, Japanese in WWII assumed they had a right to build an empire just like Europeans and Americans. Japanese would have avoided war had the US, et al cut off their oil. So, in the Japanese perspective, an evil US was denying the Emperor of "Japan's rights to oil". Ergo - Pearl Harbor.
Ever been to the Arizona? Many tourists are Japanese. What is rarely admitted: USS Arizona represents a Japanese glory. Understand perspectives. Pearl Harbor, to many Japanese today, was not an evil surprise attack. It was a great Japanese victory. This perspective is quite difficult for Americans to comprehend. Again, differing perspectives that, this time, do not result in war.
But war is due to differing perspectives – a total breakdown at the negotiation table. The purpose of war: to take that dispute back to a negotiation table. Hopefully with two parties who now have different perspectives. "Good verses Evil" is a myth about war; promoted so that 'cannon fodder' will make that frontal assault "for the greater glory of god and country". But a myth about 'good verses evil' lives on.
Don't tell an 18 year old. Otherwise he will not be a good soldier. And yet notice how 'good verses evil' becomes nonsense once we define the real purpose of war - to return the conflict to a negotiation table. "Good verses Evil' are only myths for those who don't understand the purpose of war.