Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Hitlers Offspring Possibly Able To Claim Royalties To "Mein Kampf".

2

Comments

  • #32
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,973 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Why would you even tell your son that his father was Hitler?

    Surely in that case not knowing who your father is would be a far better outcome.

    To try and get him to stop walking towards Poland everytime he leaves the house.


  • #33
    LaFlammeRouge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭LaFlammeRouge


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Actually, I'm not a republican. I am a student of history, however, and when sufficient food to feed twice the population is exported from a starving nation, that is not a famine. The events of the 1840s qualify as genocide both under the UN charter and by the definition provided by the man who coined the very word.
    But sure, why bother learning our own history, eh?

    :rolleyes:


  • #34
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,973 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    What's Hitler's son got to do with spuds? Did he work in a chipper or something?


  • #35
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Originally Posted by Cavehill Red viewpost.gif
    Actually, I'm not a republican. I am a student of history, however, and when sufficient food to feed twice the population is exported from a starving nation, that is not a famine. The events of the 1840s qualify as genocide both under the UN charter and by the definition provided by the man who coined the very word.
    But sure, why bother learning our own history, eh?

    Well if you are a student in history you would know who was exporting it. And you would know about the Laissez faire economic system operating in Britain at that time.


  • #36
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    What's Hitler's son got to do with spuds? Did he work in a chipper or something?

    Yeah in Clare along with Elvis.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    44leto wrote: »
    Well if you are a student in history you would know who was exporting it. And you would know about the Laissez faire economic system operating in Britain at that time.

    The Nazis, the Hutus, the Turks all had their own good reasons for conducting genocide too. But there is no mitigation for overseeing a holocaust in my book.


  • #38
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    The Nazis, the Hutus, the Turks all had their own good reasons for conducting genocide too. But there is no mitigation for overseeing a holocaust in my book.

    But it was mainly Irish producers who exported the food. Britain didn't demand that they export the produce, the Irish producers wanted the cash.


  • #39
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    I hate the way Hitler is portrayed as an antichrist. He was not the most evil person in the world by a long shot. I think Thatcher was worse.
    It's not all black and white. Obviously he was no saint but not everything he did was evil. If Germany won WWII I imagine the world would be in a lot better condition today. He was basically a mad genius.


  • #40
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Better dead then red


  • #41
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I hate the way Hitler is portrayed as an antichrist. He was not the most evil person in the world by a long shot. I think Thatcher was worse.
    It's not all black and white. Obviously he was no saint but not everything he did was evil. If Germany won WWII I imagine the world would be in a lot better condition today. He was basically a mad genius.

    Either you are a troll or have never read a history book. Not a saint ah ha ha.
    Thatcher worse? ok...
    And he wasnt a genius, a genius would have won? maybe not have invaded the USSR etc. etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    actuallylike
    Registered Users Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭actuallylike


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I hate the way Hitler is portrayed as an antichrist. He was not the most evil person in the world by a long shot. I think Thatcher was worse.
    It's not all black and white. Obviously he was no saint but not everything he did was evil. If Germany won WWII I imagine the world would be in a lot better condition today. He was basically a mad genius.

    *grabs pop...
    *searches...
    WHERE'S MY FCUKING POPCORN?


  • #43
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,057 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    44leto wrote: »
    Well if you are a student in history you would know who was exporting it. And you would know about the Laissez faire economic system operating in Britain at that time.

    It doesn't really matter who was doing the exporting. All that matters is that it gravely affected a massive amount of people, most of whom happened to be Irish Catholics. You'd need to have your head buried deep in the sand to refuse to accept that the British, along with the help of some Irish land-owners who were loyal to the crown, however passive that loyalty was, committed an act of genocide against the country and its population as a whole.

    Sure ffs; Cromwell was committing acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing here 200 years prior to that, and many will still refuse that it was either of those things, or try to justify it in some way!


  • #44
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Either you are a troll or have never read a history book. Not a saint ah ha ha.
    Thatcher worse? ok...
    And he wasnt a genius, a genius would have won? maybe not have invaded the USSR etc. etc etc.
    You're saying that he was the most evil person of all time?:rolleyes:
    GTFO.


  • #45
    bwatson
    Registered Users Posts: 630 ✭✭✭bwatson


    UglyBolloxFace wrote: »
    What about gay rights, gypsy rights, and countless others - would you not donate anything to them?

    Because Jewish charities would clearly be his choice.

    If you ever give money to a homeless charity, I wouldn't suddenly get in your face asking why you weren't so thoughtful when it came to those with cancer, victims of domestic abuse, those without drinking water, those with HIV etc.

    FFS there really is an anti-jewish vibe on this board.


  • #46
    pacquiao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 465 ✭✭pacquiao


    actuallylike wrote: »
    He'll also inherit the gas bill that was left unpaid.
    There was no gas.


  • #47
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I hate the way Hitler is portrayed as an antichrist. He was not the most evil person in the world by a long shot. I think Thatcher was worse.
    It's not all black and white. Obviously he was no saint but not everything he did was evil. If Germany won WWII I imagine the world would be in a lot better condition today. He was basically a mad genius.

    Honestly like, Thatcher was worse :confused: Seriously, Thatcher?

    You could make arguments for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Japanese Imperial government, even Harry Truman etc.

    But Thatcher? Really?


  • #48
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    You're saying that he was the most evil person of all time?:rolleyes:
    GTFO.

    Did I say that? I dont see where I said that? That's one point you made that had some sense in it.


  • #49
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • #50
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    A genius who started a war on two fronts? who went against all advise of his generals and disregarded the brilliant advise he had in the German Army, yes indeed very intelligent.


  • #51
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Honestly like, Thatcher was worse :confused: Seriously, Thatcher?

    You could make arguments for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Japanese Imperial government, even Harry Truman etc.

    But Thatcher? Really?
    The way she sunk that ship that was no threat what so ever shows just how evil she is. She certainly on a par with Hitler anyway you'd have to admit.
    A cold woman, I'll say no more.

    I don't see why people have a problem when someone says Hitler was not the most evil person in the world. To me there's so many more... but no, I can't have a different opinion or else I'm a troll.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    The way she sunk that ship that was no threat what so ever shows just how evil she is. She certainly on a par with Hitler anyway you'd have to admit.
    A cold woman, I'll say no more.

    I don't see why people have a problem when someone says Hitler was not the most evil person in the world. To me there's so many more... but no, I can't have a different opinion or else I'm a troll.

    No, it was you saying that Thatcher was worse and that we would be better off if Germany had won, that he was a genius, not that he wasnt the most evil person in the world. That means you dont know anything about history or a troll, because anybody who had basic junior cert history would know hitler was much worse than Thatcher.

    How many ships do you reckon the Germans sank?


  • #53
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    No he wasn't a combination of the right place at the right time and a psychotic ruthlessness. Sure he failed art school, like how do you fail art school.

    If he would have left his generals in control as Stalin did, who knows, what the outcome would have been. But I still think they would have eventually lost.


  • #54
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    The way she sunk that ship that was no threat what so ever shows just how evil she is.

    If you go to war then you go to win. It's not a computer game

    And it was hardly a hospital ship, it was a powerful cruiser

    I don't know why people are still saying it was not justified


  • #55
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    The way she sunk that ship that was no threat what so ever shows just how evil she is. She certainly on a par with Hitler anyway you'd have to admit.
    A cold woman, I'll say no more.
    No I would no admit she is on a par with Hitler. As unpleasant as Thatcher was the sinking of a single ship-a ship from a belligerent state remember, does not make her evil. Under that criteria the head of any state ever involved in a war is evil.

    Hitler certainly does not have a monopoly on evil but attempting to portray the actions of the German state under his leadership as worse than the actions of the UK under Thatcher is no really comparing like with like.
    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    I don't see why people have a problem when someone says Hitler was not the most evil person in the world. To me there's so many more... but no, I can't have a different opinion or else I'm a troll.

    List some of these people-I'm quite prepared to acknowledge differences of opinion. I always found Stalin and Franco more sinister individuals than Hitler. Many of the atrocities committed during the break up of Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan or Iraq or Argentina or Northern Ireland all have elements of evil in them on par with the worst of Nazi atrocities. I've even made arguments for Harry Truman as being the only leader to ever order a nuclear attack on civilians etc.


  • #56
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    44leto wrote: »
    No he wasn't a combination of the right place at the right time and a psychotic ruthlessness. Sure he failed art school, like how do you fail art school.

    If he would have left his generals in control as Stalin did, who knows, what the outcome would have been. But I still think they would have eventually lost.

    Well actually art schools have a drop out rate of 90% or so in most cases :eek:. Seems like it's qutie easy to fail actually.

    Stalin didn't leave his generals in control in the beginning (the ones still alive after the Purges) he personally interferred in the mass defeats of 1941 and 1942 to a ridiculous degree. He gradually learnt his lessons but the Red Army sufffered hugely due to his incompetence and interference to a greater degree than the Germans ever did from Hitler.


  • #57
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Originally Posted by TeddyTedson View Post
    The way she sunk that ship that was no threat what so ever shows just how evil she is.

    It was a threat, as was the Argentinian navy, but they had no defense against nuclear submarines so after the sinking of the Belgrano the Argentinians locked their navy up at port. What do you think it was doing at sea during a war. In effect the British removed an Argentinian chess piece or an option they thought they had.


  • #58
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Well actually art schools have a drop out rate of 90% or so in most cases :eek:. Seems like it's qutie easy to fail actually.

    Stalin didn't leave his generals in control in the beginning (the ones still alive after the Purges) he personally interferred in the mass defeats of 1941 and 1942 to a ridiculous degree. He gradually learnt his lessons but the Red Army sufffered hugely due to his incompetence and interference to a greater degree than the Germans ever did from Hitler.

    But he generally left them alone after those defeats, he learned his lesson. Hitler start interfering during the Russian campaign with disastrous consequences.

    And 90% fail art school:eek: that is shocking.


  • #59
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,704 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    I don't think he failed art school, he didnt get in.


  • #60
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users Posts: 7,820 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    What a heap of dung.

    Unless the radio was lying the other day, the Bavarian government holds the worldwide rights to mein kampf and will not licence it's publication and any versions in print are illegal and subject to legal proceedings.

    Which at this stage is all a moot point as apparently the rights run out in a few years and anyone can publish it for free and without threat of legal challenge from Germany.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    44leto wrote: »
    But he generally left them alone after those defeats, he learned his lesson. Hitler start interfering during the Russian campaign with disastrous consequences.

    And 90% fail art school:eek: that is shocking.

    Millions had to die for him to learn his lesson though :eek:.

    Yep, the drop out rate is absurd.


Advertisement