Who is our hitler

solice

who in irish politics is the closest to hitler.

Trebor

depends on what way you want to look at him.

as a man who brought his country which was in ressesion(?) into one of the worlds most efficient and strong countries at the time

or

as a man who condoned the killing of millions in order to make himself feel good and to keep control of the masses through fear.

but since i can't even remember who was teashoich(sp?) before Bertie then i might not know

GoneShootin

and yay, betie begot John Bruton, who begot Albert Reynolds, who begot Charlie Haughey, who begot someother dead guy

solice, there was only one hitler. and will only ever be one hitler. relating hitler to any of the politicians since hitler world-wide cannot be done. doing so would amount to the obvious lack of knowlege and tact on the posters part

<edited by bonkey - abuse removed>

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by GoneShootin
solice, there was only one hitler. and will only ever be one hitler. relating hitler to any of the politicians since hitler world-wide cannot be done. doing so would amount to the obvious lack of knowlege and tact on the posters part

They used to say the same thing about Napoleon until Hitler came along...

I suggest you read this thread.

DeVore

How can you possibly begin to compare Napoleon and Hitler?

*boggle*


DeV.

GoneShootin

I dont think he is DeVore

He just making a point that people did say what I just said except for Napolean

But then Corinthian, I would not dare class Nappy and Hitler in the same context, so then there has only ever been one Hitler type figure. And I could not imagine another like him ever again.

To think that someone is "like" or "closest to hitler" in todays irish politics is unnerving.






/edit for spelling and wat not

Victor

Originally posted by GoneShootin
so then there has only ever been one Hitler type figure.

No, there have been lots of people like Hitler, they just didn't have the power he does.

mike65

Its Michael McDowell of course!

What an asinine thread topic.....

Mike.

GoneShootin

Originally posted by Victor
just didn't have the power he does.

Hitler didnt just have power landed in his lap. He worked his way up the political ladder and "muscled" his way to the highest echelon of German politics.

Saying that someone is like Hitler means a wide range of things, not just the simple "ich bin ein daft"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by GoneShootin
But then Corinthian, I would not dare class Nappy and Hitler in the same context, so then there has only ever been one Hitler type figure. And I could not imagine another like him ever again.

Why would you not classify Hitler and Napoleon in the same context? You have to remember that Napoleon devastated Europe with his wars, with millions being dispossessed or dieing. Even my grandmother tells a story of how her great grandmother used to recount her grandfather’s horror stories brutality of the Napoleonic troops. Look through much of the ninetieth century and you’ll find him repeatedly likened to the antichrist more than once - A more potent symbol of evil in the eyes of the World than that you’re not going to see. Our view of Napoleon has subsequently softened, of course.

History is littered with Hitler’s - Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, Oliver Cromwell, to name a few - who we vilify as the incarnation of evil until the next fiend is let loose on the world to outdo his predecessors brutality. Adolf Hitler was just another chapter in this darker side of humanity. Just wait till the next one comes along...

As for comparisons, I’ve already presented my opinion on it in the thread I quoted above. I won’t repeat myself.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by mike65
Its Michael McDowell of course!

I'm suprised he asn't stated earlier...
The Minsiter for tereonie and staying in on friday nights... His motto "Be afraid of everything and vote PD"

Éomer of Rohan

Look through much of the ninetieth century and you’ll find him repeatedly likened to the antichrist more than once

Yes but TC, you know that these were the terms set by the very people for whom all three Napoleon's had an instinctive loathing (for emasculating the French version of the Anglo-Saxon 'god's gift' or 'manifest destiny' myth)

Gorgeous George

Gerry Adams has the most potential being the premier mass murderer in Irish politics at the moment.

Éomer of Rohan

Gerry Adams has the most potential being the premier mass murderer in Irish politics at the moment.

I have met the man several times; he is a slimer but certainly not a potential mass murderer. If I was forced to choose a politician most likely to be a mass murderer it would be that Conservative (Hunt I think his name is) that joined the DUP not so long ago.

DeVore

                                                .:\:/:.
            +--------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.
            |   PLEASE DO NOT    |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:
            |  FEED THE TROLL    |           :=.' -   - '.=:
            |                    |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='
            | Thank you, Boards  |              (  (_)  )
            | Quarantine Scheme. |              /`-vvv-'\
            +--------------------+             /         \
                     |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \
                     |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\
       @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW
       \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__
        \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

johnKarma

I'd agree with the people who said that comparing any Irish politician, past or present, with Hitler is an act of futility, but allow me to contradict myself. Surely Eoin O' Duffy is the obvious candidate. If my Junior Cert History serves me well, he set up the Blueshirt movement, which was accused by its opponents of being an Irish version of Mussolini's Blackshirts. They were really a crowd of messers, but O'Duffy did end up fighting alongside Franco.. so make of that what you will.

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Why would you not classify Hitler and Napoleon in the same context? You have to remember that Napoleon devastated Europe with his wars, with millions being dispossessed or dieing. Even my grandmother tells a story of how her great grandmother used to recount her grandfather’s horror stories brutality of the Napoleonic troops. Look through much of the ninetieth century and you’ll find him repeatedly likened to the antichrist more than once - A more potent symbol of evil in the eyes of the World than that you’re not going to see. Our view of Napoleon has subsequently softened, of course.

History is littered with Hitler’s - Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, Oliver Cromwell, to name a few - who we vilify as the incarnation of evil until the next fiend is let loose on the world to outdo his predecessors brutality. Adolf Hitler was just another chapter in this darker side of humanity. Just wait till the next one comes along...

As for comparisons, I’ve already presented my opinion on it in the thread I quoted above. I won’t repeat myself.

I suppose it would be more appropiate to classify so-called "Hitlers" within their own context. To use your 3 examples above as comparrisonjs does a disservice to Adolf.

You must remember that he did his terrible deeds in a time when we no longer sent children up chimmneys for 12 hours a day to suffocate. It was a somewhat "modern" era when he committed his atrocities. IMO Hitler stands out on his own and is beyond comparrison in the Modern era. Maybe, just maybe, somebody like Pol-Pot or Idi Amin would be fit enough to shine his shoes.

Bard

Clearly it's Ian Paisley.

'Cos he's an intolerant bigoted loud-mouthed c*nt.

DeVore

Originally posted by johnKarma
I'd agree with the people who said that comparing any Irish politician, past or present, with Hitler is an act of futility, but allow me to contradict myself. Surely Eoin O' Duffy is the obvious candidate. If my Junior Cert History serves me well, he set up the Blueshirt movement, which was accused by its opponents of being an Irish version of Mussolini's Blackshirts. They were really a crowd of messers, but O'Duffy did end up fighting alongside Franco.. so make of that what you will.

Killed 6 Million people in concentration camps has he?

No?

Well then its hardly the same thing now is it

DeV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
You must remember that he did his terrible deeds in a time when we no longer sent children up chimmneys for 12 hours a day to suffocate. It was a somewhat "modern" era when he committed his atrocities. IMO Hitler stands out on his own and is beyond comparrison in the Modern era. Maybe, just maybe, somebody like Pol-Pot or Idi Amin would be fit enough to shine his shoes.

You’re kind of missing the point.

No doubt a comparison between Attila the Hun and Oliver Cromwell would have been dismissed in exactly the same fashion. After all, Europe in the seventeenth century was not the barbaric place of Attia’s time...

It’s funny how every generation in every century considers itself modern :rolleyes:

johnKarma

Originally posted by DeVore
Killed 6 Million people in concentration camps has he?

No?

Well then its hardly the same thing now is it

DeV.

Er, the first sentence of my post was intended to convey that no, it isn't the same thing. And there isn't anyone in Irish history that comes near to Hitler in terms of atrocities. But the Blueshirts are as close to a "fascist" party that we've had. This debate is quite silly anyway. Damned boredom.

Hobart

It’s funny how every generation in every century considers itself modern

It's not funny at all. Every generation in it's own time is modern, to deny that would be a contradiction in itself!!:rolleyes: It is also folly to try to compare a modern day "Irish" politician with Hitler as, I have previously stated, IMO he is beyond compare, particularly in an Irish context. Listing PPL like Ian Paisely and Gerry Adams is just wrong. However it does beg a deaper question:

It is more or less accepted that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million in concentration camps, and many more on the battlefield. How many would have to die today, to justify a comparrision?

100? 1,000? 10,000?. Don't want to drag the thread off topic but where does somebody come up to the mark in terms of Hitlerness??

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
It's not funny at all. Every generation in it's own time is modern, to deny that would be a contradiction in itself!!:rolleyes:

Then why did you use the argument that his crimes were so much worse because he committed them in our modern era? Im sure every modern era would say the same... :rolleyes:

It is more or less accepted that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6 million in concentration camps, and many more on the battlefield. How many would have to die today, to justify a comparrision?

12 Million deaths in concentration camps - the 6 million non-Jews didn’t get an Academy Award winning movie made about them though...

It is not necessary for anyone to die to make such a comparison. A racist regime that would sterilize, rather than kill, millions would arguably be a better comparison to Hitler than a brutal dictator who caused millions of deaths trough purges or ‘cultural revolutions’.

Of course, that would require mature objectivity, and we’re not going to get that if the H-word is mentioned, are we? Moment that happens, we get people falling over each other waving their indignant little fists, blubbering about how there can never be a comparison with what he did - I do hope they’re the first to get it when the next guy who you could never do a comparison with Hitler comes along...

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Then why did you use the argument that his crimes were so much worse because he committed them in our modern era? Im sure every modern era would say the same... :rolleyes:

I did'nt say that. Re-read what I said. I never said that they were much worse at all. I am simply stating that each of your examples were out of context.

12 Million deaths in concentration camps - the 6 million non-Jews didn’t get an Academy Award winning movie made about them though...

I stand corrected. Indeed there were (I believe) 5 Million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust whom are seldom remembered.

It is not necessary for anyone to die to make such a comparison. A racist regime that would sterilize, rather than kill, millions would arguably be a better comparison to Hitler than a brutal dictator who caused millions of deaths trough purges or ‘cultural revolutions’.

I agree. But Hitler did more killing than sterilisation. So lets compare like with like shall we?

Of course, that would require mature objectivity, and we’re not going to get that if the H-word is mentioned, are we?

That's your opinion and your entitled to it. I, personally, can understand the huge emotion thats involved when the so-called H-word is mentioned. But I am also mature enough to ignore blatant Trolling and Flaming when I see it. Maybe you should take aleaf out of my book!:p

Moment that happens, we get people falling over each other waving their indignant little fists, blubbering about how there can never be a comparison with what he did - I do hope they’re the first to get it when the next guy who you could never do a comparison with Hitler comes along...

I simply don't have a reply to the above.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
I did'nt say that. Re-read what I said. I never said that they were much worse at all. I am simply stating that each of your examples were out of context.

But you did - you implied that his actions were so much more heinous given they were committed in a more modern, civilized age where “we no longer sent children up chimneys for 12 hours a day to suffocate”.

I agree. But Hitler did more killing than sterilisation. So lets compare like with like shall we?

You’re missing the point; which is that to define Hitler in an emotive and simplistic fashion is foolish. Is a man like Hitler because he kills millions or because he has a similar motivation, yet does not kill millions?

I simply don't have a reply to the above.

I’m glad to see you didn’t :rolleyes:

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
But you did - you implied that his actions were so much more heinous given they were committed in a more modern, civilized age where “we no longer sent children up chimneys for 12 hours a day to suffocate”.

I'm not going to get into a oh! no I did'nt. oh! yes you did argument with you. But. I will try to explain, again :rolleyes: what I said. I simply said that your comparissons were out of context in relation to the current times. Can I just clarify this!! The deeds of your 3 examples where, I'm sure, just as henious as those of Adolf Hitlers'. However the world was a different place then and so, IMO as the times were so different I believe that they do not bear relevence as a comparison. You do. Good. we will agree to disagree so.

You’re missing the point; ?

Firstly I'm not missing any point.

which is that to define Hitler in an emotive and simplistic fashion is foolish.

I agree. It is foolish. But you seem to have a problem with what I have said. I never defined Hitler as simplistic or emotive. I understand that the mere mention of his name encourages emotion to run into overtime. But don't let that statement lead you to believe that it is a definition of the man. It is far from it. Although he was academically flawed he was a complex individual which I would not attempt to explain in a posting. So I have not tried to define him anywhere. If I have point out where.

Is a man like Hitler because he kills millions or because he has a similar motivation, yet does not kill millions?

In the current context. "Because he kills millions". Thankfully "Thought Crimes" has not made it into the realms of the statuate(ws) just yet!:rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
The deeds of your 3 examples where, I'm sure, just as henious as those of Adolf Hitlers'. However the world was a different place then and so, IMO as the times were so different I believe that they do not bear relevence as a comparison.

So if my comparisons cannot be made due to his living in a more modern, civilized age, then how are you arguing that my comparisons were out of context?

I agree. It is foolish. But you seem to have a problem with what I have said. I never defined Hitler as simplistic or emotive.

I never said you defined Hitler as simplistic or emotive - I said that people (and by extended inference, you) are generally too simplistic or emotive where it comes to Hitler to be able to consider any comparison other than the most obvious.

In the current context. "Because he kills millions".

The ‘simplistic or emotive’ stuff I was taking about.

Thankfully "Thought Crimes" has not made it into the realms of the statuate(ws) just yet!:rolleyes:

Whatever.

Gorgeous George

he is a slimer but certainly not a potential mass murderer.

Gerry Adams is a former Chief of Staff of the Provisional IRA so he isn't a potential mass murderer he is an actual mass murderer.

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So if my comparisons cannot be made due to his living in a more modern, civilized age, then how are you arguing that my comparisons were out of context?

I will not repeat myself. If you cannot understand what I am saying it's ur problem.

I never said you defined Hitler as simplistic or emotive - I said that people (and by extended inference, you) are generally too simplistic or emotive where it comes to Hitler to be able to consider any comparison other than the most obvious.

But you said "which is that to define Hitler in an emotive and simplistic fashion is foolish" Notice the following words, "Define, Hitler, Emotive, Simplistic." Not only do you seem to have trouble reading my replies but also what you have typed yourself.

The ‘simplistic or emotive’ stuff I was taking about.

You asked the question. I answererd it. Not emotive, after all they are my emotions, but yes simplistic, just like the question it was pertaining to.

Whatever.

Very non-simplistic and condusive to mature and quality debating.

TC I do fell that this "argument" is disintigrating into a stupid tit-4-tat argument. So lets just agree to disagree and move on shall we?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
I will not repeat myself. If you cannot understand what I am saying it's ur problem.

I understand what you said; it’s you who are avoiding my rebuttal.

But you said "which is that to define Hitler in an emotive and simplistic fashion is foolish" Notice the following words, "Define, Hitler, Emotive, Simplistic." Not only do you seem to have trouble reading my replies but also what you have typed yourself.

What I said makes perfect sense in English. If you don’t understand it or would prefer not to understand it, that’s your problem, not mine.

Very non-simplistic and condusive to mature and quality debating.

You came out with a sarcastic quip geared towards the public gallery and that is the only response it deserved.

TC I do fell that this "argument" is disintigrating into a stupid tit-4-tat argument. So lets just agree to disagree and move on shall we?

It is, but only because you are presently retreating into sarcastic obfuscation rather that address what I’ve said.

I’m not the one using semantics as a defence to end the argument, am I?

Mighty_Mouse

Gerry Adams has the most potential being the premier mass murderer in Irish politics at the moment.

Seen the thread title an just knew it would be cited.lol

Disappointed with the predictability!

Bard

Originally posted by Bard
Clearly it's Ian Paisley.

'Cos he's an intolerant bigoted loud-mouthed c*nt.

CLEARLY, I'M RIGHT!

Éomer of Rohan

So, we have a vote for paisley, a vote for Gerry Adams and a petty dispute on who refuses to understand who's point of argument. Hmm.

In my opinion there are no mass murderers in Irish politics today from a neutral point of view. Look at the Northern Ireland situation, which for some god forsaken reason people seem to revolve around; all sides, British, Loyalist and Republican were fighting a war - one side for the freedom of the catholic people and then for the reality of a united Ireland and finally for control of the drugs scene - in the latest 'war' there have been no mass killings on the scale of things like the Shankill Butchers. The loyalists fought against what they regarded as a threat to the union (and for what the protestant upper class, while cosily ensconsed in Malone and Balmoral, far from the front lines told them was their freedom - anything ring a bell at this point?). The British fought to restore law and order amidst the ****hole that was Northern Ireland, and if I say so myself, despite getting a little tarnished along the way for their methods, they did a reasonable job - hence why I can sit at my computer without fear of getting a pipe bomb thrown through my window. Many of these 'wars' resulted in 'collateral damage' - that appalling euphemism of the US upper military echelons - and some resulted in near genocidal acts, with groups targeting random protestant and catholic areas with bombs or picking innocent catholics and protestants of the street and shooting them - but at the same time, neither the IRA nor UVF et al committed a mass murder by the definition of the holocaust because they were involved in a 'war' and to call this mass murder would be calling the firestorming of Dresden or Hamburg or Cologne during the second world war mass murder, or the dropping of the two nuclear bombs mass murder, or indeed, the raining of cruise missiles down on Iraq mass murder. But sure we know they aren't.....are they?

Please excuse the deep and bitter irony there.