Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: My thoughts on Germany and life.

  1. #1 My thoughts on Germany and life. 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    My thoughts on Germany and life:

    World War 1 and 2 were awful wars. A lot of people died. There was a lot of hate afterwards. I want to focus on World War 2 and Hitler first. Hitler made a lot of bad choices. He was a mass murdered and committed many atrocities. The Holocaust should have never happened. It was Hitler’s biggest mistake, and mistake is far too light of a word, it was a full blown travesty.

    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.

    If Pearl Harbor still lead to war between Germany and the USA, or Hitler really did not want to break his alliance with Japan, he should have relinquished France and Poland and returned Germany back to its former self. He should have done anything to prevent war and bloodshed. You do not need to rule over people who did not elect you to.

    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity. It is a whole another thing to go on a conquest. Most people probably would like to rule the world, or at least be royal. I do not think that is completely wrong but when people die I think it is wrong.

    I think that people who murder or are responsible for murder, for so called good or bad reasons, probable face damnation. Murder, in Christianity, if that is your belief, is a sin no matter what so you might have trouble getting into heaven if you are responsible for it. Murder is probably one of the worst sins a human can commit. But, then again, if you do it to protect yourself or protect others, or if you indeed fight the good fight, in Gods eyes, you probably are exempt from damnation and will be forgiven.

    People who kill in the name of God, in Christianity, or any other religion, I believe like Hitler did, defiantly face damnation because they are taking the name of their deity in vain. Who are we to kill in the name of God? We are not God. God is the only one who can take a person into his kingdom.

    Take some examples of war and what it is all about:

    Take Hitler for example. He believed he was protecting and glorifying his race, the Arian race. But in actuality it was illogical, perhaps even delusional, and put his people, and others, in danger. He seemed to be blinded by megalomania. His racist beliefs were just wrong. I am not sure if the racist beliefs he had were shared by others and considered the norm at the time but that does not justify what he did.

    Take the Crusaders as another example. When they conquered Jerusalem I believe they killed every Muslim in the city in the name of God. Do they deserve to go to heaven for that? They thought they were doing right but they still, in my opinion, took the name of their Lord in vain. The Muslims ended up winning the war, and they deserved it, after what happened to them.

    Take Abraham Lincoln as another example. When the South seceded from the Union that lead the American Civil War. It was America’s bloodiest war and many people died. But Lincoln did it for a good reason, to preserve the American Union. That made American strong and united. He also ended up ending slavery, another good thing.

    I believe Abraham Lincoln deserves to go to heaven no matter what, and I am sure he will be forgiven of murder, if he is actually technically responsible for it, in the first place. He was trying to dismantle strife, which I believe is righteous, or technically good, in Gods eyes. He was also protecting himself and others buy attempting to quell the strife and form a stronger country.

    Take Napoleon as another example. Righteousness can be seen a matter of perspective. The French see Napoleon as a hero because of his many past military victories, before the failed invasion of Russia and Waterloo, to name two. He also instituted the Napoleonic Code, made economic, legal, and education reforms, and negotiated European peace, which were all important to France. The English, I think, see Napoleon in a different light because he waged war against them. One person’s hero can be another person’s enemy.

    Then there is America and Radical Islam. Some Radical Islam groups seek to form an Islamic state and destroy Israel, the USA, and Britain. I believe Radical Islam hates us because we may have slighted them somehow. Two possible slights were our involvement with the Middle East during the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations. Our culture somewhat values competition and financial success over an Islamic approach to government. The formation of the state of Israel by the British was also very controversial. Radical Islam may see this as an insult because the land belonged to their people before Israel was formed.

    I think almost everybody qualifies for heaven. We are all just human. We are not perfect and make mistakes. Some of our mistakes are choices and some are pushed on to us. Some of our mistakes are rooted in our beliefs and we do not even recognize them as wrong. There is also no way to undo the past. This can lead to guilt and self-hate which can lead to more wrongdoing.

    I have always wondered why we suffer in life and die if there is a God. Wouldn’t he have put us in paradise to begin with? And some of the stories are a little out there, such as Noah’s flood. Sure, God could flood the Earth if he wanted too but why couldn’t he just talk to the sinners and tell them he is upset about what they are doing and convert them to righteousness? Why did he have to kill them all? Why must he exist in secret until we die?

    That is all I have to say for now. I wish the best to Germany and every country and people. I have faith in humanity still. I believe we can learn to cooperate and work towards a better future. Thank you!


    Last edited by mmatt9876; July 14th, 2014 at 11:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity.
    If a threat is made war isn't the only option for there are diplomatic ways to ease tensions and resolve problems that exist.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity.
    If a threat is made war isn't the only option for there are diplomatic ways to ease tensions and resolve problems that exist.
    I agree. My mistake!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity.
    If a threat is made war isn't the only option for there are diplomatic ways to ease tensions and resolve problems that exist.
    That's what Neville Chamberlain said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    I forgot to mention I still have faith in God too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity.
    If a threat is made war isn't the only option for there are diplomatic ways to ease tensions and resolve problems that exist.
    That's what Neville Chamberlain said.
    Well Chamberlain was foolish. Diplomacy with people like Hitler who have written works about how expansion is a necessity? Not exactly the brightest idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    There are times when diplomacy can be used but there are other times when it can't. Knowing the difference is the job of a good President/King etc..
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.
    Where did you get the idea that USA and Britain would agree to a non-agression pact? His actions from 1938 on showed how untrustworthy he was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.
    Where did you get the idea that USA and Britain would agree to a non-agression pact? His actions from 1938 on showed how untrustworthy he was.
    I don't think they have a good understanding of the ideology in this period. Evidence for this: instituted a democracy and ended racism. Why would Hitler want to turn Nazi Germany into the one thing he despised most: 'Jewish' liberal democracy i.e a system he perceived the Weimar Republic as.
    Also a continued alliance with Russia and Germany? The Soviets weren't stupid when someone writes a book denouncing Soviet communism and calling for expansion there are rightfully alarm bells ringing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.
    Where did you get the idea that USA and Britain would agree to a non-agression pact? His actions from 1938 on showed how untrustworthy he was.
    I don't think they have a good understanding of the ideology in this period. Evidence for this: instituted a democracy and ended racism. Why would Hitler want to turn Nazi Germany into the one thing he despised most: 'Jewish' liberal democracy i.e a system he perceived the Weimar Republic as.
    Also a continued alliance with Russia and Germany? The Soviets weren't stupid when someone writes a book denouncing Soviet communism and calling for expansion there are rightfully alarm bells ringing.
    In June 1941 Stalin acted pretty stupidly. He received warnings from many sources that Germany was about to attack, but he refused to believe them. As a result Soviet Union was woefully unprepared when the attack came.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.
    Where did you get the idea that USA and Britain would agree to a non-agression pact? His actions from 1938 on showed how untrustworthy he was.
    I don't think they have a good understanding of the ideology in this period. Evidence for this: instituted a democracy and ended racism. Why would Hitler want to turn Nazi Germany into the one thing he despised most: 'Jewish' liberal democracy i.e a system he perceived the Weimar Republic as.
    Also a continued alliance with Russia and Germany? The Soviets weren't stupid when someone writes a book denouncing Soviet communism and calling for expansion there are rightfully alarm bells ringing.
    In June 1941 Stalin acted pretty stupidly. He received warnings from many sources that Germany was about to attack, but he refused to believe them. As a result Soviet Union was woefully unprepared when the attack came.
    I am ignorant of this but is it possible Stalin did this on purpose? I know that might come as a disgusting claim but Stalin wasn't exactly renowned for his virtue. It seems incredibly odd that he would ignore 87 (from what I just read) credible intelligence sources, even attributing this to a paranoid personality and appeasment (again Stalin appeasing?).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    I am ignorant of this but is it possible Stalin did this on purpose? I know that might come as a disgusting claim but Stalin wasn't exactly renowned for his virtue. It seems incredibly odd that he would ignore 87 (from what I just read) credible intelligence sources, even attributing this to a paranoid personality and appeasment (again Stalin appeasing?).
    These is no evidence, as far as I know, that he did it on purpose. Although you could say he ignored the warnings because he believed the sources were lying in order to force a break with Hitler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Hi guys! I was a little confused when I wrote this. Did I say anything offensive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    I think the biggest thing stacked against Hitler in WW2 on the Eastern Front was Russia's T-34 Tank, the number of these tanks, and the number of supporting Soviet troops. The T-34 was eventually captured by the Germans and it had elements incorporated into the new German Tiger Tanks, but it was too late for Hitler. One of the T-34 Tanks best features was the sloped armor which was very difficult to penetrate by some German firepower. Hitler should have focused more on Russia during the War with their bombing and ballistic missiles instead of England. They were never going to get across the English Channel to launch a ground invasion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Hi guys! I was a little confused when I wrote this. Did I say anything offensive?
    By offensive I mean by accident of course. I did not seek to be offensive but thought I might have possibly triggered people by talking about sensitive topics like WW2, murder in the name of God, and Israel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Hitler made other mistakes too. He should have strengthened his alliance with Russia, stopped the conquest after conquering Poland and France, signed a non-aggression pact with the USA and Britain, if possible, instituted freedom of religion, instituted a democracy, ended racism, and should have broken the alliance with Japan after Pearl Harbor.
    Where did you get the idea that USA and Britain would agree to a non-agression pact? His actions from 1938 on showed how untrustworthy he was.
    I figured England and the United States, being honest well meaning countries, would be willing to agree to any option other than bloodshed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    I figured England and the United States, being honest well meaning countries, would be willing to agree to any option other than bloodshed.
    England was already at war and had suffered through many months of bombing. U.S. opinion at the time was very pro-British. Blood had already been shed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    . . . and Hitler first. Hitler made a lot of bad choices.
    Wow. Godwin's Law proven in the very first post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Trivium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I personally am against war, but sometimes it seems to have to happen. If your country faces a threat and has to defend itself then war is a necessity.
    If a threat is made war isn't the only option for there are diplomatic ways to ease tensions and resolve problems that exist.
    That's what Neville Chamberlain said.
    Well Chamberlain was foolish. Diplomacy with people like Hitler who have written works about how expansion is a necessity? Not exactly the brightest idea.
    Chamerlain was frightened rather than foolish, after the unimaginable horrors of the first world war the idea of avoiding another world war must surely have seemed like sanity to most people. Also there wasn't a country on Earth that stood a good chance of defeating the Germans prior to the outbreak of war. Many prior to war might have said Churchil was foolish to fight a war that at the time few would have given him a chance at winning. The point being people do what they think is right at the time, sometimes this works out well as evidenced by the way in which we venerate Churchil for his stance and leadership during the war but also for the derision we afford Chamberlain for his attempts at peace making. There can't really be a right or wrong approach with an indeterminate outcome, history always ultimately decides what is or was a sensible or foolish choice.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Jersey USA
    Posts
    645
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    I figured England and the United States, being honest well meaning countries, would be willing to agree to any option other than bloodshed.
    England was already at war and had suffered through many months of bombing. U.S. opinion at the time was very pro-British. Blood had already been shed.
    I guess the idea of a ceasefire or peace agreement would have been impossible then. It seems Germany was too great of a threat and not very trustworthy. Hitler could have broken the agreement at any time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    It seems Germany was too great of a threat and not very trustworthy. Hitler could have broken the agreement at any time.
    Exactly like hamas, hezbollah, al-qaida, taliban, boko haram.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    26
    OK....so your country OP had to have a civil war to end slavery, attempted genocide against the native Americans, experimented on Afro-Americans medically, and denied Afro-Americans the right to vote through Jim Crows laws.....hmmmm....and still today is a very racist country....wow...and you look down on Germany..lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. World War One - Germany and her allies
    By Maximus in forum History
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2013, 06:59 PM
  2. Returning to Germany.
    By mmatt9876 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 1st, 2011, 11:31 AM
  3. Life Detected on Titan - What are your thoughts?
    By inow in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 21st, 2010, 01:13 PM
  4. Is anyone here from Germany or Austria?
    By icewendigo in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 30th, 2007, 02:35 AM
  5. Greetings from Germany!
    By K.I.T.T. in forum Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •