# Hitler's citizenship



## Bonjules

Hola everybody,
I hear there are efforts in some German legislative body to strip Hitler of his 'citizenship', bestowed on him in 1932 (he used to be Austrian, but renounced that in 1925).
Really. Do they say that reality is often stranger than fiction? This has got to be the strangest news in a while.
By all accounts, Hitler was a pathetic little twirp. The problem was not him. It was the ease with which so many (certainly a majority of Germans, Austrians, but not only; many in the UK, the US, France, the list is long) fell for him. How readily we agree - even with a psychopath - as long as he formulates our own prejudices and delusions so nicely.
Now we'll fix it by claiming 'he wasn't one of us, really'.
This is depressing.


----------



## maxiogee

These retrogressive actions befuddle me.
Tony Blair issued an apology to the Irish for Britain's role in the Great Famine in 1850's Ireland.
Tony Blair has expressed sorrow for Britain's role on the slave trade earlier in the same century.

What's the point? Particularly with the Hitler thing - that can't change anything - nor anyone's concept of who Hitler was or what he did.


----------



## Surinam del Nord

I agree with you. I have read it in the paper today. I find stupid and a huge loss of time all this attempts of showing what proud democrats we are, and how blind our grandparents were, etc. We are not safe from snake charmers now. But in the future no one will want to have nothing with them, and so the world turns.

Regarding to Hitler, the most amazing piece of news I ever read was that some years ago those raelian wanted to clone Hitler so he would be finally judged. Mah!


----------



## Etcetera

Bonjules said:


> Now we'll fix it by claiming 'he wasn't one of us, really'.
> This is depressing.


I can understand them, but still it's all very strange. Above all, it's too easy a way to "fit" it. 
I agree with you, Bonjules - the saddest thing with dictators is that there are so many people who readily follow them - at least on the first stages.


----------



## Kajjo

Please provide links to this extraordinary issue. I have not read about it in the German News, yet.

Anyway, I think you tremendously oversimplify the conditions of Hitler's regime. He and his high-ranking politicians did a "very good job" in controlling, influencing and later frightening the masses into obedience, and in rudelessly exploiting the disastrous conditions of Germany at that time.

I cannot imagine anyone seriously considering that stripping Hitler of his citizenship would fix anything. However, it night be noteworthy internationally to be aware that Hitler actually was Austrian. The old joke that Austria has the genius to make the world think Hitler was German and Beethoven 
was Austrian it not that far off the mark really. In fact it was the other way around of course.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

> In 1932, Nazis in the Braunschweig parliament, one of the two regions in the Weimar Republic where the party occupied key positions at the time, arranged for Hitler to be made “government counsellor in the Braunschweig Cultural and Land Surveying Office”, an appointment that conferred on him German nationality.
> The idea of rescinding Hitler’s citizenship came up during discussions over its 75th anniversary. It was suggested that as Braunschweig, along with other German cities, had withdrawn honorary citizenships from Nazi leaders after the war, maybe Hitler’s nationality could now be taken back as well.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1499828.ece


Absurd.


----------



## Bonjules

Kajjo,
please, I don't think there is a need to rehash all this.
You know very well that 'him and his high-ranking politicians' got to a position of power by the vote in the first place. There is also little doubt that they enjoyed the support of a large majority for many years once in power (Aside from the fact that it wasn't as 'disastrous' a place -except for wounded pride/delusions, maybe; Germany still had great resources in materials, engineering, science, agriculture -all despite the worldwide econmic crisis).
But we like order, don't we. The thought of returning Hitler's remaining molecules to statelessness is maybe too much to bear. So we must ask our Austrian friends:
If they'll really go through with this, will you take him back?
saludos

P.S. I don't know how to how do that 'linking - thingy'.
Can you or somebody explain it to me?


----------



## GEmatt

Do the dead even _have_ citizenship? I can only echo maxiogee: what's the point? Strip the living neo-nazis of _their_ citizenship, why not.


----------



## Poetic Device

I can see the headlines now:  "Infamous Tyrant OVerthrown...  Too Little, To Late."

Maybe they're thinking that he should be overthrown now before he can raise an army of zombies from Hell...


----------



## Sepia

The whole newsstory is pretty weird. First they only refer to Isolde Saalmann as an "MP" trying to push a new law to the mentioned effect through the system. Second, they do not mention that she is actually a member of the Landtag (NDS), e.g. the legislative body of one of the "Länder" - our federal states. 

In ohter words, there is no way she can propose a law to about anything that has to do with citizenship, because such things are regulated by federal law and she'd have to be a member of the Bundestag (the federal parliament in Berlin) to do that. 

Besides I have found only English-language websites - no German ones - reporting any info on this matter, and this is the first time I hear of it. 

Strange indeed.


----------



## Bonjules

Sepia said:


> The whole newsstory is pretty weird. First they only refer to Isolde Saalmann ....
> 
> Besides I have found only English-language websites - no German ones - reporting any info on this matter, and this is the first time I hear of it.
> 
> Strange indeed.


Try today's 'Spiegel OnLine', 'des Fuehrers Pass'


----------



## EmilyD

Ironically, there is a movement here to grant United States' citizenship to Anne Frank.  I'm not sure if her parents and sister would be included in the honor...

Nomi


----------



## .   1

Is anybody able to provide an accurate English translation of the newspaper article in question or are we travelling on a misinterpretation of a line in a travel blog about an opinion overheard in a bar?

.,,


----------



## Surinam del Nord

. said:


> Is anybody able to provide an accurate English translation of the newspaper article in question or are we travelling on a misinterpretation of a line in a travel blog about an opinion overheard in a bar?
> 
> .,,


 

I've read it on a spanish paper.


----------



## Etcetera

EmilyD said:


> Ironically, there is a movement here to grant United States' citizenship to Anne Frank.  I'm not sure if her parents and sister would be included in the honor...
> 
> Nomi


Well, and that's just ridiculous. What's the point?
By the way, would Anna Frank accept United States' citizenship? Or would she prefer to keep her own citizenship?


----------



## Surinam del Nord

I think she would find disgusting any speech about this or that citizenship, after what actually happened.


----------



## Kajjo

Link to Spiegel-Online: Hitlers Pass (German)

_ Summary: The city of Braunschweig employed Hitler as civil servant which at that time gave him automatically the German citizenship. This citizenship was necessary for him to run for presidency in the following year. Thus, the Braunschweig decision was an important milestone for Hitler to reach his political goals. One member of parliament of Niedersachsen (the federal state Braunschweig belongs to) now suggested to take back the decision to grant Hitler the German citizenship. The article states that this might not be possible in  Germany because citizenship cannot be withdrawn if the person would possess no other citizenships. Further, it appears to be impossible to perform such juristic acts on dead people.
_
It is probably all about media attention of a otherwise non-interesting member of parliament. The whole idea seems stupid and worthless to me, personally.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Etcetera said:


> By the way, would Anna Frank accept United States' citizenship? Or would she prefer to keep her own citizenship?


In her diaries, she seemed quite proud of being Dutch!


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> Now we'll fix it by claiming 'he wasn't one of us, really'.
> This is depressing.


This has nothing to do with claiming that he wasn't one of us.  What a strange concept.
This is about an attempt to posthumously withdraw an honour.  I see no technical difficulty with this.  Medal may be awarded after death.  Criminal convictions have been overturned after death.
Tyrants become tragic after death.
Will it make people feel bad to slap a dead monster's face?
This is about humiliating a creature that caused unreserved misery.

I find your embedded posthumous swipe at people of the time to be the most depressing part of this depressing thread.



Kajjo said:


> It is probably all about media attention of a otherwise non-interesting member of parliament. The whole idea seems stupid and worthless to me, personally.


I thought as much but I have no German and I am at the mercy of the interpretations of people who claim to speak German but seem to be able to make mistakes consistently geared toward shadenfreude.
Thanks for the clarification.
It's fascinating that there is little noise in Germany regarding this snippit.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> It's fascinating that there is little noise in Germany regarding this snippit.


Indeed, this is the most astounding feature of the whole topic. If not for this thread, I would not have been aware about this issue. I suspect there will be more in the next days as the foreign press appears to have picked up the story with vigor.

By the way, I agree with you that there is nothing impossible or weird about withdrawing an honour posthumously - however, the particular circumstances here are quite ridiculous.

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

Kajjo said:


> By the way, I agree with you that there is nothing impossible or weird about withdrawing an honour posthumously - however, the particular circumstances here are quite ridiculous.


Any attempt to heal the hurt left by this human smudge is to be applauded.

Hitler the Monster sounds more inspiring than Adolf the Dweeb.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> This is about an attempt to posthumously withdraw an honour.




Is there any mention of withdrawing his WWI honours?
August 3, 1914 petitioned King Ludwig III of Bavaria for permission to join in a Bavarian regiment (granted)
December 1914 awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class
October 7, 1916 wounded in combat (grenade splinter in leg)
August 4, 1918 awarded the Iron Cross, First Class
October 13, 1918 temporary blindness caused by gas attack
I find it strange that this 'honour', bestowed by a regime and nation which technically doesn't exist anymore should be withdrawn when the man served his adopted country very well before he sought the honour, and that this is happening over 60 years after his death. If it is worth doing for whatever reason it should have been done long before now. It looks like a pathetic piece of politicking to me.
And yes, I admit he was an unspeakably dreadful person.


----------



## .   1

Jeeze they threw the Iron Cross around with gay abandon back then.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> Any attempt to heal the hurt left by this human smudge is to be applauded.


I do not see how this weird attempt should be able to heel anything. It is about politics and making herself important and not about wounds caused by Hitler, I am quite positive.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

All of these initiatives are nosenses.

I feel the same when trying to remove the honoris causa granted to Franco or declaring void the dismissal of Unamuno as rector of Salamanca University (*).

Shame for the universities and shame for the country that granted Hitler his nationality. 

If Germany has achieved to be an accepted (and admired) nation, it has been because of his role as a democratic and peaceful country during the last 60 years. 

Moreover, Germany payed Hitler's bill with their own bill in territory (Prussia, Silesia..) and, above all, blood (millions of dead Germans).

Compared with that, the removal of Hitler nationality is stupid.

As an example, ETA killers are SOAB, but, unluckily, they are our SOAB. Nobody has thought of removing their Spanish nationality.

Let us work in the future. We can not fix the past, just study it.

(*) He achieved the rarest honour of being dismissed by both republicans and nationalists.


----------



## Athaulf

GEmatt said:


> Do the dead even _have_ citizenship?



They do in most places, if not everywhere, but my impression is that citizenships are more often acquired or reacquired than lost posthumously. For example, in the 1970s the U.S. government posthumously restored the citizenship of some Confederate leaders from the Civil War, including Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis,  as well as the WW1-era political dissident Eugene Debs. Honorary posthumous citizenship awards are fairly common; for example, Raoul Wallenberg got several (from the U.S., Canada, and possibly others).



> I can only echo maxiogee: what's the point?


In some cases, it can have significant consequences for the surviving relatives of the deceased.


----------



## Arrius

Restoration England exhumed Oliver Cromwell to stick his head on a spike.
Jean Cauchon who presided over the trial of Joan of Arc was disinterred and thrown on a dungheap when the inquisition finally decided it had made a mistake. 
Taking away Hitler's nationality posthumously is rather less grusome but even more pointless.


----------



## Bonjules

Kajjo said:


> I cannot imagine anyone seriously considering that stripping Hitler of his citizenship would fix anything. However, it night be noteworthy internationally to be aware that Hitler actually was Austrian. The old joke that Austria has the genius to make the world think Hitler was German .....
> Kajjo


 


GEmatt said:


> Do the dead even _have_ citizenship? I can only echo maxiogee: what's the point? Strip the living neo-nazis of _their_ citizenship, why not.


That would be illegal, of course. When it came to the rights of Rightwing/conservative/Nazi-whatever formations the German judiciary has traditionally followed the law to the letter (which greatly aided Hitler in his ascent). It still is overall more conservative than not, one might say(I know a little about the subject, I studied law and history there; my father was a public prosecutor -'Staatsanwalt'- and Nazi party member).

'What's the point"? as GEmatt and Maxi ask. If it is not merely to cause personal attention, as Kajjo suggests, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that it is what
he suggests in his above quote: To let the world know once and for all that Hitler was not really 'German'.
As absurd as this seems after everything, it would probably make some 'feel better', wouldn't it.


----------



## Athaulf

Arrius said:


> Restoration England exhumed Oliver Cromwell to stick his head on a spike.
> Jean Cauchon who presided over the trial of Joan of Arc was disinterred and thrown on a dungheap when the inquisition finally decided it had made a mistake.
> Taking away Hitler's nationality posthumously is rather less grusome but even more pointless.



Let's not forget the less widely known, but even more spectacular Cadaver Synod. What a pity that the corpse is not available in this case.


----------



## JanWillem

maxiogee said:


> These retrogressive actions befuddle me.
> Tony Blair issued an apology to the Irish for Britain's role in the Great Famine in 1850's Ireland.
> Tony Blair has expressed sorrow for Britain's role on the slave trade earlier in the same century.
> 
> What's the point? Particularly with the Hitler thing - that can't change anything - nor anyone's concept of who Hitler was or what he did.



Yes, I agree with that. This apology-wave that is going around the world these days..just because the country or state in which things happened, happens to still exist today. If person A does harm to person B, then person A should apologise to person B - and even then apologies are worth little in my opinion. It wasn't me who suffered in WW2 but my grandparents, and it wasn't the Germans of today who caused this but some of their ancestors. So what's the point of these apologies? Alike for the Virginia slaves. The thing with the Japanese in WW2 and the Turks in Armenia is a bit different, I think, because they aren't even ready yet to face the facts. Will come..just wait.
The things that happened are the result of properties that all humans can have, not just the ones who did those things. Who cares that Emperor Nero was a Roman and nazism German?


----------



## cuchuflete

Suppose some politicians were to succeed in 'removing' citizenship from a corpse.

The new history would have to present this timeline:

1925- Hitler renounces Austrian citizenship, becomes stateless
1932- Braunschweig parliament arranges for Hitler to be appointed to Braunschweig position, thus
making the monster eligible for German citizenship
1932-1945- Adopted Monster and followers commit horrible deeds, causing death of millions and widespread destruction
2007- Citizenship of Monster rescinded; death of millions and widespread destruction not rescinded

2007- Publishers of textbooks rejoice at the need for new editions to reflect the ongoing dishonesty and stupidty of political figures.


----------



## EmilyD

I like the quote I've seen attributed to *Virginia Woolf.*

_As a woman, I have no citizenship_[or country or nationality]--
_*I am a* *citizen of the world*._

My apologies to Virginia's ghost for not having the exact wording. If someone knows the exact quote and source, please let me know!

Thanks in advance, Nomi


----------



## Poetic Device

I think something in my head just broke...



. said:


> This has nothing to do with claiming that he wasn't one of us. What a strange concept.
> This is about an attempt to posthumously withdraw an honour. I see no technical difficulty with this. Medal may be awarded after death. Criminal convictions have been overturned after death.
> Tyrants become tragic after death.
> Will it make people feel bad to slap a dead monster's face?
> This is about humiliating a creature that caused unreserved misery.
> 
> I find your embedded posthumous swipe at people of the time to be the most depressing part of this depressing thread.
> 
> I thought as much but I have no German and I am at the mercy of the interpretations of people who claim to speak German but seem to be able to make mistakes consistently geared toward shadenfreude.
> Thanks for the clarification.
> It's fascinating that there is little noise in Germany regarding this snippit.
> 
> .,,


 
There must be a missing link in my head or something...  Why on GOD's green Earth would you take away a dead person's citizenship, especially when it's been over 60 years since they lived let alone committed such a horrible crime towards humanity???  There is no sense in it.

Yes, medals are posthumously awarded, However, at least one of two things are in that equation most of the time:  either they have living relatives that would benefit and be proud of the achievement and/or it is done somewhat shortly after death.  The same thing goes for pardoning a person that was executed on death row.  Nothing can give them their life back, but if the person is pardoned then at least there is not as much shame that is brought to the family.

Will it make people feel bad to slap a dead monster in the face?  Probably not, but it will leave their hand slimey and smelly.


----------



## maxiogee

EmilyD said:


> I like the quote I've seen attributed to *Virginia Woolf.*
> 
> _As a woman, I have no citizenship_[or country or nationality]--
> _*I am a* *citizen of the world*._
> 
> My apologies to Virginia's ghost for not having the exact wording. If someone knows the exact quote and source, please let me know!
> 
> Thanks in advance, Nomi


 
As a woman I have no country. As a woman my country is the whole world. 
[_Three Guineas_, Virginai Woolf]


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete;2463748 thus....
making the monster eligible for German citizenship
1932-1945- Adopted Monster and followers commit horrible deeds said:
			
		

> See, Cuchu, here is the problem. The world has gotten comfortable shelving Hitler under the label 'Monster'.
> Even 'demonic' powers were ascribed to him, what have you. In the end all such labelling serves the main purpose of relieving us from a lot of the responsibility for having the Monster made possible. He didn't fall from Mars ready and able to inflict all this misery.
> 
> Personal accounts of people close to him are very mixed.
> He could be very charming and helpful, apparently treated his close employees (and his dog) very nicely; he also was ruthless, compulsive, unstable and -at least at the end- delusional (the movie 'Der Untergang'-the Downfall- delivers a very good psychogram; I highly recommend it).
> There are many in the world suffering from magalomania, ideas of grandeur and racist ideation. Whether he was 'clinically ill' is in the end not that important either.
> 
> What made this man so effective (aside from his keen sense for exploiting human weakness and prejudice)was his ability to impress with the enormous force of his conviction (they say the same about Robespierre) he projected; there seems something very attractive to us about that. Why we fall for that sort of thing - especially when combined with ideas of greatness, cultural/racial superiority - we need to explore; if the idea to declare him now 'non - German' is designed to get us out of that responsibility we have learned nothing.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bonjules said:


> Hola everybody,
> 
> By all accounts, Hitler was a pathetic little twirp. The problem was not him.





Bonjules said:


> See, Cuchu, here is the problem. The world has gotten comfortable shelving Hitler under the label 'Monster'.   See, Bonjules, the problem was Hitler, a vicious
> and sick man who stimulated hatred and murder.  Your characterization of him as a pathetic little twirp might engender sympathy for a heinous, evil man.  You really need to think about that.  Sure, he played to the crowd, and the crowd had lots of latent hatred.
> He helped turn it into action.  That is monstrous.     If you want to substitute your own
> wishy-washy labelling for someone else's, go right ahead.  You may spread the blame around to all those who may deserve it, but don't relieve the most blameworthy leader of the butchery of responsibility for leading the evil.  *
> * Even 'demonic' powers were ascribed to him, what have you. In the end all such labelling serves the main purpose of relieving us from a lot of the responsibility for having the Monster made possible.



"The problem was not him."  That's half a falsehood.  The problem, as you have explained, was
the people who were anxious and quick to follow and support him.  That doesn't mean that the
vile monster Hitler was not also a very large part of the problem.


----------



## maxiogee

Bonjules said:


> See, Cuchu, here is the problem. The world has gotten comfortable shelving Hitler under the label 'Monster'.
> Even 'demonic' powers were ascribed to him, what have you. In the end all such labelling serves the main purpose of relieving us from a lot of the responsibility for having the Monster made possible. He didn't fall from Mars ready and able to inflict all this misery.


 
We didn't make the Monster _possible_ - the Monster was all too human, and that it what people don't like to even _think_ about. We are all capable of appaling behaviour, and of justifying it when challenged.

The contribution 'we' made to the Monster's reign was in believing that we can hand over the control of our countries and our lives to politicians and then abdicate any responsibility for their actions. We do it time and again - look at any country you care to mention and you will find at least one corrupt, evil, or whatever, politician who has been returned to office again and again.
'We' in many countries in the middle of the last century volunatrily handed (or attempted to hand) control of our countries to fascists of one shade or another.


----------



## Sepia

Well whatever you all say:

fine, it is in the "Spiegel" now - days and days after it was in the English news.

And no matter what should or should not be done - the mentioned politician can suggest a lot, but she has in no way the authority to put a law concerning this to a wote simply because she is not a member of the legislative body whose jurisdiction this is. 

So doesn't it all just seem to be a publicity stunt which has more to do with promoting herself than doing any kind of justice?


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete said:


> "The problem was not him." That's half a falsehood. The problem, as you have explained, was
> the people who were anxious and quick to follow and support him. That doesn't mean that the
> vile monster Hitler was not also a very large part of the problem.


Sure, cuchu. There is always a way to make any of one's statements more unassaillable, better, less ambiguous.
The truth is, he was both, a pitiful creature (watch the movie) and at the same time someone who held great power over people - because they let him - and used that power towards terrible ends. There often is ludicrousness about great dictators (same with Mussolini), banality. And then there is the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome, as long as everybody feeds into it.
I just don't like the 'Monster' label because it makes things  too easy for us.


----------



## Etcetera

cuchuflete said:


> "The problem was not him."  That's half a falsehood.  The problem, as you have explained, was
> the people who were anxious and quick to follow and support him.  That doesn't mean that the
> vile monster Hitler was not also a very large part of the problem.


How true it is, Mr Cuchu. 
It seems to me that there's no "simple" problems. Each problem consists of several parts, and all of them are important.


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> I just don't like the 'Monster' label because it makes things too easy for us.


Hitler was a monster!  I will brook no hair splitting on that point and if necessary I will start a poll.
Hitler was a monster of the most vile kind and according to reports from the time there were probably less than a hundred people like him in Germany at the time who would have done what he did.  They too were monsters, abberations, not really human, psychotic, weak, damaged little dweebs who could not really function in civilised society.
There were staggeringly more good people who were totally deluded by these few monsters but in a contest between a monster who does not follow the mores of society and a citizen there will be only one result if the monster has any power.

This power was given to the monsters by some bone headed decisions made by the 'victors' of the War To End All Wars.  If Germany hadn't been subject to such draconian measures after their defeat perhaps this whole matter would not have happened but it still needed monsters to propogate the problem.

Monsters on both sides of the 'victory'.

Hitler should have all citizenship removed from him.

No one refers to him as Mr. Hitler anymore unless it is mocking.
Our society should encourage us to belittle monsters until they become minibeasts.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Hitler was a monster!  I will brook no hair splitting on that point and if necessary I will start a poll.



The problem with calling Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and common serial killers and rapists "a monster" is that it dehumanises them. They were not beasts, nor monsters nor demons - they were people. Human animals just like the rest of us, but not animals in the commonly accepted sense of the word.

The reason that the actions of people like these must be remembered, and why we need to guard against such things happening again, is that it is all too easy for people - apparently ordinary people - to do such things given the opportunity. We are an imperfect being, full of flaws and failings and often willing to yield to our desires.

Calling such people "monster" implies that they were totally different to us, in the way that a ogres or trolls or suchlike might be - something from the realms of unreality.

WordRef gives five definitions of the word:

monster
1 	monster, teras
 		(medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus

2 	monster
 		an imaginary creature usually having various human and animal parts

3 	freak, monster, monstrosity, lusus naturae
 		a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed

4 	giant, goliath, behemoth, monster, colossus
 		someone or something that is abnormally large and powerful

5 	monster, fiend, devil, demon, ogre
 		a cruel wicked and inhuman person
​Now, that last one seems to be the meaning you are using and it brings up the concept of what it is to be 'inhuman'. WordRef defines that as:
inhuman
1 	inhuman
 		belonging to or resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises"

2 	cold, cold-blooded, inhuman, insensate
 		without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"​
So the first doesn't fit Hitler, and the second describes a very vague and contradictory concept. Many people do various things 'without compunction'. 

Also, can any act by any human be accurately described as being done 'without human feeling'? 
Isn't it really a way of saying "not what most people might do in the circumstances" and putting a value judgement on another person's actions? I have heard of people who disposed of an unwanted litter of kittens being described as 'inhuman', but it hardly is - it happens all the time. 

What good would a poll do?


----------



## .   1

OK.  You called my bluff.  I wouldn't waste the paper necessary to run a poll here because I wouldn't care about the result.
A poll would prove what I wanted it to prove.
If I started the poll with questions like;
Do you think that butchering six million (6,000,000) is a sign of depravity?
Do you consider that laying waste to vast tracts of land for political gain is evil?
Does the subjugation of entire nations to appease the vainglorious ego of a madman seem surreal?

POLL. Was Hitler a monster?  Answer - manipulated.

If I start a poll with questions like;
Does a child need both parents to live together happily in order to be able to grow up normally?
If a child is bullied at school will this damage their self esteem?
Is a person with damaged self esteem more likely to act abnormally?
Does cruelty beget cruelty?

POLL.  Was Hitler a monster?  Answer - manipuated.

The Collins dictionary:

*monster *_n_ *1  *an imaginery beast, such as a centaur, usually made up of various animal or human parts.  *2*  a person, animal or plant with a marked structural deformity.  *3*  a cruel, wicked or inhuman person.  *4a* a very large person, animal or thing.  *4b* _(as a modifier):  a monster cake_ [C13:  from Old French _monstre_, from Latin m_onstrum_ portent, from _monere_ to warn]

*inhuman *_adj_ *1*  Also: *inhumane* lacking humane feelings such as sympathy, understanding, etectera; cruel; brutal.  *2*  not human.

I did not call Mr. Hitler an animal.  Just imagine him bleating "I am not an animal".
I did not call Adolf a demon.  This is an imaginery entity used only to frighten the young and ignorant.

 monster is a warning word.  It's roots are in portent and warn.  This is why Hitler is a monster.  It is as a warning.  
You are not a monster.  You could not even begin to contemplate taking action that Der Dweeb just flipped off as nothings, signed the paper and destroyed them.
Monsters can do this.
I do not think that Hitler was a centaur and I certainly do not think that the little runt was a giant in any way, I will concede that he was homo sapiens (recent findings indicate that neanderthal DNA is still present in some humans so maybe...), as to the marked structural deformity you have to admit that he was as ugly as a hatful of busted bums, didn't use a razor properly and couldn't even wave normally so he comes close but I reckon that he fits all the other criterium.

Or is it possible that you consider a person to be a monster only if they fit all the definitions of an imaginery monster not just all the real bits?

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

maxiogee said:


> The problem with calling Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and common serial killers and rapists "a monster" is that it dehumanises them. They were not beasts, nor monsters nor demons - they were people. Human animals just like the rest of us, but not animals in the commonly accepted sense of the word.
> 
> The reason that the actions of people like these must be remembered, and why we need to guard against such things happening again, is that it is all too easy for people - apparently ordinary people - to do such things given the opportunity. We are an imperfect being, full of flaws and failings and often willing to yield to our desires.
> 
> Calling such people "monster" implies that they were totally different to us, in the way that a ogres or trolls or suchlike might be - something from the realms of unreality.


 
Well stated, Maxi.
Another example of this is soldiers ('common people', this time) in the middle of some genocidal campaign, sitting around the fire at night. There is some drinking, joking, singing of songs from home and  talking tenderly about their wives and children. In the morning, the killing continues.
Happens all the time, 's happening right now. Humans.

Sure, if you want to yell out with 80 decibles of rightousness: 'Hitler was a monster!' - who would want to disagree with you? 
But does this stating of the obvious much more than make you feel better? Does it help you to recognize when the next one comes along and protect you from being susceptible to his song of great destinies, shared
with all the other rightous folk?


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> Sure, if you want to yell out with 80 decibles of rightousness: 'Hitler was a monster!' - who would want to disagree with you?
> But does this stating of the obvious much more than make you feel better? Does it help you to recognize when the next one comes along and protect you from being susceptible to his song of great destinies, shared
> with all the other rightous folk?


That's the general idea.

Something weird happened with our language recently.
Tidal waves started being called tsunamis (which means something very close to tidal wave or a nonsensical harbour wave) and people stopped understanding what they were seeing when the tide rose like a wave.

Tsunami means nothing. It is just a flash word.
Tidal Wave is instantly recognisable.

Monster is instantly recognisable right now whereas any post modern terms coined now won't make sense until they are not post modern anymore.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Tsunami means nothing. It is just a flash word.
> Tidal Wave is instantly recognisable.



Tsunami may mean nothing to those who hear it for the first time. Then the smart person looks it up and recognises its meaning the next time they encounter it.

Indeed it is "tidal wave" itself which means nothing as all waves coming to shore are tidal - except for a tsunami.So 'people' may have instantly recognised the meaning of it, but only because it was only used to describe tsunamis


----------



## .   1

I have no idea about England and Ireland and the continent but I do know about Australian ocean waves and the vast majority of those waves are wind generated.
The only effects that tides have on waves is to change the point that they break, at low tide the waves break fouther out to se and at high tide the waves break on, or near, the beach and to change the shape of the breaking wave.  Th wave shape is changed by an outgoing tide as the undercurrent rips back through the wave giving the front face of the wave a very hollow shape.  Tubes that curl over riders are only on the middle of the outgoing tide.  An incoming tide flattens out the wave and gives the front face of the wave a bulbous shape and many of these waves don't even break as such.

This tide effect has nothing to do with the size or frequency of waves in Australian waters.

I am trying to envisage how a tide can produce an ocean wave.
I have heard of 'bore waves' caused by large tides in large rivers but this is generally a single wave and is as regular as clockwork so no one is ever surprised by it.

A 'tsunami' is almost always described in terms very similar to;
It was like a wave that came in like the tide.
What this means is that a tidal wave is nothing like a wind generated wave.  
A wind generated wave has a lovely sine wave pattern and travels quite slowly in the open ocean and when it breaks on shore it is a shallow band of high water that soon recedes as the shallow trough follows.  The water doesn't actually move very far at all.

A 'tsunami' is totally different.  There is no sine wave pattern.  There is a small front travelling at almost supersonic speeds and this is followed by an extremely long burst of high water.  This burst can often be kilometres across and will pass under ships in the ocean with almost no effect on the boat.  The sailors will feel a small bump and then about 5 or ten mihnutes later thew will feel another small fall as they go back to sea level.

As the 'tsunami' hits shallow water it suddenly slows and bunches up on itself and results in a huge 'high tide that just keeps rushing in for minutes on end'

It is like a series of between three and seven massively high tides each followed by a massively low tide.  The first indicaton of a 'tsunami' is a massively low tide.
This saved thousands of locals while the gawkers actually wandered into harms way and were destroyed.

Everything about this 'tsunami' is like a tide but we pussyfoot around an obvious descriptive like tidal wave.
Why is it not a tidal wave?

.,,


----------



## Benjy

Hitler's citizenship anyone?

(Although the posts on tsunami vs tidal wave have been most instructive a return to the thread topic would be nice)

If anyone would like to open a topic on how we conceive (!in general!) of people who do horrible things they are invited to start a new topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

When the average person hears another described as a monster, they 

1-  Do NOT reach for a dictionary

2- Do think of a vile human who does or has done horrible things to other people


It's really that simple.  All the highly intellectualized nitpicking crap doesn't change it.

If you call someone a pathetic little man, you may create a negative image, but not one that
characterizes a national leader who unleashes powerful armies that overrun neighboring nations,
murders millions of citizens of his own 'adopted' country and other countries in cold blood.  Those actions
are monstrous. 

Here's a news story for the self-serving legislator who would revoke the citizenship.
Adolf Hitler, once known worldwide as the horrible monster who brought massive death and destruction to
Europe and Africa, has had his citizenship adjusted posthumously.  He is now a stateless individual, reduced to the
status of a pathetic little man who is not even entitled to a passport.  All victims of his atrocities remain
citizens of their respective countries, and their pain and death has not been adjusted retroactively.


----------



## maxiogee

What is wrong with ....

Adolf Hitler, once known worldwide as the *unspeakably evil man* 
who brought massive death and destruction to Europe and Africa, 
has had his citizenship adjusted posthumously. He is now a stateless individual, *who retains **his *status of a pathetic little man who is not 
even entitled to a passport. 
All victims of his atrocities remain citizens of their respective countries, and their pain and death has not been adjusted retroactively.
Their humanity vastly outweighs his.


----------



## Bonjules

Cuchu, what are we arguing about. You can take comfort from the fact that for a great majority of mankind Hitler has become 'evil incarnate', no doubt.
The problem, as I see it is that the more 'fixed' such a notion becomes, the more it elicits a 'knee jerk' response, the less it seems necessary to probe what this experience exactly implies, for us, for the future (it also reinforces the human tendency towards 'personalization', one of our great escape mechanisms). You can easily verify this state of affairs if you talk to some people, young or old, 'on the street' around the world. The simplistic view of him and of what he stood for can be quite disheartening.


----------



## Poetic Device

I still don't understand the purpose of revoking his citizenship.  Is it supposed to lessen the pain he brought upon his victims and their families/decendants?  Doe this mean that the gruesome events never happened?  What is it proving???


----------



## cuchuflete

Bonjules said:


> ..(it also reinforces the human tendency towards 'personalization', one of our great escape mechanisms)...


  "Personalization" seems to be a very odd way to criticize
characterizing _a person_, evil incarnate or pitiful little twerp, as you wish, as _a person_.  

You may choose to complicate the matter as much as you like. Leaders need followers.  Granted.
Followers' propensities to follow a leader have causes.  No dispute.  History is full of context. Agreed.

The role of a despicable, malignant, malevolent leader is important in understanding historical events. The role of that vile and hateful person is undiminished by attribution of collective blame.  

Changing citizenship status for an evil person decades after his death is a foolish distraction from
understanding history.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> What is wrong with ....
> 
> Adolf Hitler, once known worldwide as the *unspeakably evil man*


What's wrong with...
Adolf Hitler, once known worldwide as the monster....

Where would be the confusion?
Who would expect that there was anything other than a depraved human being?
What is your objection to monster?  How does unspeakably evil man outrank monster as a more descriptive man.

You have knocked monster on the head because of the supernatural connotations of chimeras and such and now you bring evil in as a descriptive.

What does the person who does not believe in evil do with this definition?

Is not an unspeakably evil man only a struck match away from a demon?

Evil brings in connotations of Lucifer and demons and eternal damnation which seems rather more flowery than a monster.

I suspect that a translation along the 'Chinese Telegraph' of 'He's a monster' would remain pretty intact but I would be fascinated to see what the result of multi translations of 'He's an unspeakably evil man' would result in.

I like the K.I.S.S. principle and will shy away from the flash words to retain clarity.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> What is your objection to monster?



Please refer (again?) to my earlier post…



maxiogee said:


> The problem with calling Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and common serial killers and rapists "a monster" is that it dehumanises them. They were not beasts, nor monsters nor demons - they were people. Human animals just like the rest of us, but not animals in the commonly accepted sense of the word.







. said:


> You have knocked monster on the head because of the supernatural connotations of chimeras and such and now you bring evil in as a descriptive.
> 
> What does the person who does not believe in evil do with this definition?


I am not aware that one 'believes in' evil. Does one 'believe in' kindness, or charity?

I don't think one has to believe in devils and demons to describe someone as evil. 



. said:


> Is not an unspeakably evil man only a struck match away from a demon?


How close to being an angel, or a god, is an unspeakably good person?  



. said:


> Evil brings in connotations of Lucifer and demons and eternal damnation which seems rather more flowery than a monster.


... for some, evil might well bring in those connotations — just as monster brings its own connotations, to my mention of which you have objected strenuously.
I am at a loss. It seems that your connotations are worthier than mine.

I withdraw.


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete said:


> "Personalization" seems to be a very odd way to criticize
> characterizing _a person_, evil incarnate or pitiful little twerp, as you wish, as _a person_.
> .


 
This is was 'personalization' means here: The temptation to focus on him, as a ...whatever horrible person, rather than the problem he exemplifies, which is much greater than him, which has to do with all of us. That is exactly the point.
With almost everything else you are saying, I agree.


----------



## Etcetera

Poetic Device said:


> I still don't understand the purpose of revoking his citizenship.  Is it supposed to lessen the pain he brought upon his victims and their families/decendants?  Doe this mean that the gruesome events never happened?  What is it proving???


Nothing really. 
Some people just try to get rid of him by such means. Strange, but... people have done stranger things.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I am not aware that one 'believes in' evil. Does one 'believe in' kindness, or charity?


To my mind the concept of evil is all bound up with religion. To call a person evil indicates that Satan has his hoof in the matter. This is not the case. Monsters are just tragically flawed human beings. The concept is evil is a sop to the weak kneed. Monsters are created by us not by Satan. 
Hitler wasn't born a monster. Hitler came out perfect and it was only after he met the rest of us that he became a monster



maxiogee said:


> I don't think one has to believe in devils and demons to describe someone as evil.


I challenge you to find one person who can consider the concept of evil and not give it some 'imaginery best friend' connotations. Either Lucifer of God. It doesn't matter. For the sake of the argument either are interchangeable.




maxiogee said:


> How close to being an angel, or a god, is an unspeakably good person?


Again with the demon (angel) and Devil (God).
Hilter wasn't magic, he was an arsehole with an eye to the main chance.
He didn't have the Devil helping him and God was sure as hell unomnipotent at a a hell of a lot of crucial times. He wasn't able to smell the burning ovens.




maxiogee said:


> ... for some, evil might well bring in those connotations — just as monster brings its own connotations, to my mention of which you have objected strenuously.
> I am at a loss. It seems that your connotations are worthier than mine.


This doesn't sound like the most convincing admission I have ever heard.
This is at best a twisted statement.
You have objected to my use of the word monster.
You have objected quite strenuously on the flimisiest of micro-split hairs.
You are the first person I have ever met who had a problem with me calling that smudge on our species a monster.
Now you withdraw with a disingenuous statement.
You engaged me on this matter.
You decided that monster was not an applicable word for Hitler. It's in the dictionary and seems to be applicable to humans. 
Do you have a better candidate for a human to be described as a monster than Adolf Hitler?
If not perhaps we had better ask the dictionary writers to amend their copy because while I can think of some other monsters who were in the same league of monstroslously inhuman people I just can't think of one who exceeds Hitler in depravity. The Spanish Inquisition had a few bottlers.



maxiogee said:


> I withdraw.


I don't.

Citizenship bestows some form of honour or it wouldn't be possible to renounce or declare it void. There would be no point.

If there is there any precedent for posthumously stripping a person of citizenship I can't think of a better candidate to update the precedent and if there is not I nominate Hitler as the groundbreaking first candidate to be declared to be of this world but not of our civilisation.
Citizenship is a product of our civilisation which Hitler tried to destroy.
Hitler renounced our civilisation with totalitarianism and then renounced his humanity with unspeakable brutality and then renounced his life with a 148 grain, copper covered, lead ear-ring.
If that is not an indication that he didn't value his citizenship then I'm not sitting here on a big blue ball typing this.


.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> To my mind the concept of evil is all bound up with religion. To call a person evil indicates that Satan has his hoof in the matter.


To your mind, not to everybody.



> I challenge you to find one person


Why. What if I name Fred Murphy? What then?



> Again with the demon (angel) and Devil (God).


Don't you recognise your own argument cast back at you? You're the one bringing demons and gods into the matter.


Hilter wasn't magic, he was an arsehole with an eye to the main chance.
He didn't have the Devil helping him and God was sure as hell unomnipotent at a a hell of a lot of crucial times. He wasn't able to smell the burning ovens.




> This doesn't sound like the most convincing admission I have ever heard.


It wasn't even intended to be convincing.



> You engaged me on this matter.


Reread the thread. You engaged with myself and others.




> Do you have a better candidate for a human to be described as a monster than Adolf Hitler?


Try Idi Amin. Go look at his deeds!

Goodnight!


----------



## cuchuflete

In the spirit of peaceful coexistence, can we accept that all parties to the linguistic dispute agree that Hitler was at least very bad, and focus on the citizenship proposal?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> To your mind, not to everybody.


That is the point discussion, at least in Australia I am becoming confused about the motives of some.




maxiogee said:


> Why. What if I name Fred Murphy? What then?


Have Fred Murphy come along and tell us for real. Or os this particular Fred Murphy an 'imaginery friend'?




maxiogee said:


> Don't you recognise your own argument cast back at you? You're the one bringing demons and gods into the matter.


I brought flawed humanity in with monster.  You brought magic in with evil.




maxiogee said:


> It wasn't even intended to be convincing.


I'm not really that stupid.




maxiogee said:


> Reread the thread. You engaged with myself and others.


I read it again and again.  I said Hitler was a monster.
This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly controversial claim.
I doubt if I could generate many pub brawls if I called Adolf Hitler a flipping monster.
I doubt that I could find too many people who are offended by my use of the descriptive monster as applied to Adolf Hitler.
I can't believe that this point has been hair split down to the micron and that you have lashed yourself to the mast on such a subject.





maxiogee said:


> Try Idi Amin. Go look at his deeds!


So is Amin able to be called a monster?
Can I say that Idi Amin is a monster without raising your hackles?
How was Idi Amin more 'evil' than Adolf Hitler?



maxiogee said:


> Goodnight!


And goodluck!!

.,,


----------



## .   1

The Collins dictionary:
*Hitler* _n _*1 Adolf* Grandmother's maiden name and father's original surname _Schicklgruber.  _I889 - 1945. German dictator, born in Austria.  After becoming president of the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazi party), he attempted to overthrow the government of Baveria (1923).  While in prison he wrote _Mein Kampf, _expressing his philosophy of the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of the Jews.  He was appointed chancellor of Germany (1933), transferring it from a democratic republic into the totalitarian Third Reich, of which he became Furer in 1934.  He established concentration camps to esterminate the Jews, rearmed the Rhineland (1936), annexed Austria (1938) and Chezovlakia, and invaded Poland (1939), which precipitated World War II.  He committed suicide.

I wonder how many other humans have a dictionary entry that absolutely nails their antecedents and original nationality.

This is obviously, and understandably, a matter of great concern to many people.

No wonder he went with Hitler rather than Schicklgruber.
Could you imagine a group of rabid Nazis being whipped up to a nationalistic fervor screaming Schicklgruber, Schicklgruber, Schicklgruber, Schicklgruber.  There would be false teeth flying left, right and centre and the blokes in the front row would drown.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Q: Do you have a better candidate for a human to be described as a monster than Adolf Hitler?
A:Try Idi Amin. Go look at his deeds!

Q: How was Idi Amin more 'evil' than Adolf Hitler?
A: Idi Amin's diet was interesting, to say the least. Also - Hitler didn't carry out his own evil plan, he had plenty of people ready to do that for him. Had he done it himself he might possibly have been your 'monster'.

We can all dream up dreadful punishments for our enemies, but putting them into place and then carrying them out requires more of us - and probably just as well. Most of us would be unable to do the things we dream up. I imagine Hitler was probably no different - a bitter and twisted individual who needed thugs and conscienceless people to carry out his schemes.

Hackles - I don't have any.


----------



## Poetic Device

(This is to prove a piont...)

Do you know or any other tyrrants that have relatives that refuse to procriate?  Schicklgruber/Hitler/hypocritical retard does.  His family (who are in their 60's) refuse to have children because they do not want anymore hitlers in the world.


----------

