Mein Kampf

[Fungus]

TLG: "You started with the insults so I felt quite justified fighting back."

FFS I argued a point of view, and you replied with insults.

TLG: "You are not totally thick = you might have some inteligence somewhere."

You've been reading "How to be a weasel in 21 days have you?"

TLG: "I knew you couldnt follow an argument so was dismissive of you. "

That's very condescending.

TLG: "as you have decided we are all Nazi sympathisers and holocaust deniers "

Oh for Christ's sake, now you are lying to make your point. READ MY FECKIN POSTS. Can you read?

TLG: "You opinionated twat!"

It's a pity you can't cope with someone who disagrees with you. It must be time for your nappies to be changed.

You childish dishonest ignorant little prick.

[The Lone Gunman]

TLG: "You started with the insults so I felt quite justified fighting back."

FFS I argued a point of view, and you replied with insults.

Just to remind you, you quoted me and your first words in reply accused me of being a Nazi sympathiser and trainee holocaust denier, let me remind you.

So Hitler was a misunderstood genius who went a bit too far? Oh my. I've heard that nonsense too often. This forum seems to be full of apprentice David Irvings.

Do you remember your insulting remarks? You didnt start with a question, you didnt start by trying to understand my proposition, you started by insulting me. Obviously, I cant read so might need you to explain what you meant by the above.

TLG: "You are not totally thick = you might have some inteligence somewhere."

You've been reading "How to be a weasel in 21 days have you?"

Spent a lifetime doing it, but at least you admit I didnt say you were thick!

TLG: "I knew you couldnt follow an argument so was dismissive of you. "

That's very condescending.

Well you have yet to propose anything that defeats my proposal and you have had plenty of time.
What makes you think that Hitler could not have generated a united europe had he not gone to war? As a thug and a bully he was gifted Germany? Worse thugs and bullies have created vast empires and trading blocks, the old Iron Curtain countries for example.
Do you think you might be able to develop this on your own?

TLG: "as you have decided we are all Nazi sympathisers and holocaust deniers "

Oh for Christ's sake, now you are lying to make your point. READ MY FECKIN POSTS. Can you read?

I already answered this above, did I miss something?

TLG: "You opinionated twat!"

It's a pity you can't cope with someone who disagrees with you. It must be time for your nappies to be changed.

You childish dishonest ignorant little prick.

Hoist and petard spring to mind.

Support your own argument, show why mine is flawed and stop throwing insults into the argument.

[Fungus]

Dear Humpty Dumpty aka The Lone Gunman

Here is your statement about Hitler:

"Yes but that is partly due to the fact that they are not rebuilding a starving nation. Hitlers Germans had real reason to be well motivated. It has always been my belief that had Hitler not been barking he could have united Europe before the end of the war had he chosen a peaceful route."

From the above I would say that you admire some aspects of Hitler. A brief mention that he was barking, but no mention whatsoever of the atrocities committed in his name. Not one mention. But you do admire his ability to rebuild Germany and unite people. No mention of how he united people. Of the beating up and killing of political opponents. Of his armed militia. No mention either of the racism that was central to his politics. I wonder if he will be remembered most for uniting people, or for mass murder.

If your posting is not an unbalanced interpretation of Hitler then I don't know what is.

And here's my response:

"This forum seems to be full of apprentice David Irvings. "

That is a quite reasonable response to posts by MailMan and you. I then went on to explain what you had conveniently ignored to mention.

So, it's simple. If you don't want people to think that you are a right wing apologist for Hitler, do not post one sided statements that show admiration of Hitler. Comprende?

As an aside, a year back someone rang up Any Questions on R4 and made exactly your point. Jonathan Dimbleby very quickly said something along the lines of "We don't want that sort of comment on this program" and then made it clear that he would not tolerate Nazi apologists.

Oh and later on I make it plain that I do not think that you or others here condone the murders. But you choose to ignore that too.

TLG: "You are not totally thick = you might have some inteligence somewhere."

Oh FFS. In anyone's books "You are not totally thick" means "You are pretty thick". Can you not accept responsibiity for what you say?

But then again the way that in earlier posts you have attributed to me things that I have not said shows that you have no connection with the truth.

I see that you ignored my points about the Suddetenland and Poland. I wonder why. Could it be because they were once part of Germany and had a huge ethnic German background? And because Hitler stood for reunification of the greater Germany? So is it really that surprising that he had support there? And is that really evidence that he could unite France, Spain, Poland, and so on? Only a simpleton like you would say yes.

But then again your posts show that you are not on speaking terms with the truth.

Fungus

[Fungus]

Who do you confuse me with, Xogg?

You do look rather like Viktor Andriyovych Yushchenko, the Ukrainian president, who was allegedly poisoned by the Russsians. Do I collect £5?

[The Lone Gunman]

Dear Humpty Dumpty aka The Lone Gunman

Here is your statement about Hitler:

"Yes but that is partly due to the fact that they are not rebuilding a starving nation. Hitlers Germans had real reason to be well motivated. It has always been my belief that had Hitler not been barking he could have united Europe before the end of the war had he chosen a peaceful route."

From the above I would say that you admire some aspects of Hitler. A brief mention that he was barking, but no mention whatsoever of the atrocities committed in his name. Not one mention. But you do admire his ability to rebuild Germany and unite people. No mention of how he united people. Of the beating up and killing of political opponents. Of his armed militia. No mention either of the racism that was central to his politics. I wonder if he will be remembered most for uniting people, or for mass murder.

If your posting is not an unbalanced interpretation of Hitler then I don't know what is.

And here's my response:

"This forum seems to be full of apprentice David Irvings. "

That is a quite reasonable response to posts by MailMan and you. I then went on to explain what you had conveniently ignored to mention.

So, it's simple. If you don't want people to think that you are a right wing apologist for Hitler, do not post one sided statements that show admiration of Hitler. Comprende?

As an aside, a year back someone rang up Any Questions on R4 and made exactly your point. Jonathan Dimbleby very quickly said something along the lines of "We don't want that sort of comment on this program" and then made it clear that he would not tolerate Nazi apologists.

Oh and later on I make it plain that I do not think that you or others here condone the murders. But you choose to ignore that too.

TLG: "You are not totally thick = you might have some inteligence somewhere."

Oh FFS. In anyone's books "You are not totally thick" means "You are pretty thick". Can you not accept responsibiity for what you say?

But then again the way that in earlier posts you have attributed to me things that I have not said shows that you have no connection with the truth.

I see that you ignored my points about the Suddetenland and Poland. I wonder why. Could it be because they were once part of Germany and had a huge ethnic German background? And because Hitler stood for reunification of the greater Germany? So is it really that surprising that he had support there? And is that really evidence that he could unite France, Spain, Poland, and so on? Only a simpleton like you would say yes.

But then again your posts show that you are not on speaking terms with the truth.

Fungus

Still cant manage can you, open with an insult, claim to know what others are thinking, extrapolate an argument based on your own prejudices.

Your thickness. I think you are one of the thickest posters on this web site, though I do believe you have a modicum of intelligence. Is that clear enough for you?

I have never said that he was a nice guy, nor have I said that a united europe would have been a nice europe.

You seem to have mentioned Poland as both evidence of supporting Germany and opposing Germany.

I am sorry if I ever misrepresented any of your arguments, I dont remember doing so, but I usualy pass over your posts as unintelligent ill considered drivel.

Still havent given me any further reasoning as to support your stance have you? All you do is use what he did as evidence in an argument based on him not doing what he did.

Are you one of the chaps who thinks Red Ken should have resigned and apologised for making his statements about prison camp guards?
Do you think what you have accused me of is less or more than Ken said?

[Fungus]

I see that your post contains little argument and lots of abuse.

But you now admit that you called me thick. Sigh. You change your mind with each post.

Here is what you said:

"You seem to have mentioned Poland as both evidence of supporting Germany and opposing Germany."

Here is what I said:

"Parts of Western Poland also supported Hitler. Now I wonder why. Tough one that."

Clearly that one was far too tough for you. I had over-estimated your knowledge.

And then I said:

"And is that really evidence that he could unite France, Spain, Poland, and so on? "

I thought you had some knowledge but I will have to explain this very slowly for you. Sit down, and read carefully. You obviously do not realise that Hitler considered Slavs to be an inferior race. Ethnic Germans lived in parts of Western Poland. As they did in the Suddatenland. That is because parts of Germany were taken away as reparation for WW1. Hitler wanted to subsume regions with large numbers of ethnic Germans into a greater Germany. That is why many ethnic Germans in those regions would have supported him. You claim to be an expert on the issues involved and yet I have to explain things to you.

Here is what you said:

"Still havent given me any further reasoning as to support your stance have you? "

I have given you plenty of evidence which you ignore. I have yet to hear one single sound argument from you. You have not given one single reason why non-Germanic peoples would have supported him and hence why he could have united Europe. You also have not addressed his profound racism including hatred of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies (which constituted a substantial proportion of many Eastern European countries) etc.

The two key tools of Hitler to unite Germans were the use of racism to demonise other groups (Jews, Slavs, the mentally retarded, homosexuals etc) and the dislike of war reparations that were destroying the country. Now, how would that appeal to Poles? Or Hungarians? Or Spaniards? Or the French?

You have yet to give one single reason why Hitler would appeal to non-ethnic Germans. Or would it be his famous oratorial skills?

"All you do is use what he did as evidence in an argument based on him not doing what he did."

What on Earth does that mean?

God knows what Red Ken has to do with this. Of course he should not have been reprimanded.

You completely thick twat.

[The Lone Gunman]

I see that your post contains little argument and lots of abuse.

But you now admit that you called me thick. Sigh. You change your mind with each post.

Here is what you said:

"You seem to have mentioned Poland as both evidence of supporting Germany and opposing Germany."

Here is what I said:

"Parts of Western Poland also supported Hitler. Now I wonder why. Tough one that."

Clearly that one was far too tough for you. I had over-estimated your knowledge.

And then I said:

"And is that really evidence that he could unite France, Spain, Poland, and so on? "

I thought you had some knowledge but I will have to explain this very slowly for you. Sit down, and read carefully. You obviously do not realise that Hitler considered Slavs to be an inferior race. Ethnic Germans lived in parts of Western Poland. As they did in the Suddatenland. That is because parts of Germany were taken away as reparation for WW1. Hitler wanted to subsume regions with large numbers of ethnic Germans into a greater Germany. That is why many ethnic Germans in those regions would have supported him. You claim to be an expert on the issues involved and yet I have to explain things to you.

Here is what you said:

"Still havent given me any further reasoning as to support your stance have you? "

I have given you plenty of evidence which you ignore. I have yet to hear one single sound argument from you. You have not given one single reason why non-Germanic peoples would have supported him and hence why he could have united Europe. You also have not addressed his profound racism including hatred of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies (which constituted a substantial proportion of many Eastern European countries) etc.

The two key tools of Hitler to unite Germans were the use of racism to demonise other groups (Jews, Slavs, the mentally retarded, homosexuals etc) and the dislike of war reparations that were destroying the country. Now, how would that appeal to Poles? Or Hungarians? Or Spaniards? Or the French?

You have yet to give one single reason why Hitler would appeal to non-ethnic Germans. Or would it be his famous oratorial skills?

"All you do is use what he did as evidence in an argument based on him not doing what he did."

What on Earth does that mean?

God knows what Red Ken has to do with this. Of course he should not have been reprimanded.

You completely thick twat.

Mwhaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, havent had such a laugh in ages.

You accuse me of not being able to read? I change ny mind with each post?
which bit of "you are not totally thick, or I credit you wiyh a modicum of intlligence did you interpret as you are totally thick?

Of course I havent presented my argument, we have never got onto the subject because there is a child in the audience who wont let the issue get beyond his thicknes or his twatishness and insists that there is no argument other than his own.

I would give you my evidence, but if you cant see any possible course for this then you clearly cant think outside your own little box so sthere is no point.

We all know what actualy happened and what Hitler actualy thought and did, you can google it up in many places.

The original proposition was that "had Hitler gone down a peaceful route".
Do you think the Germans and Nazi sympathisers abroad could wield no Political power?
Do you think enough people cared about the plight of the Jews, the retarded and the gay? The evidence of their plight was clear well before the war and europe said nothing!
Do you think any of Hitlers neighbours would not have noticed the rapid rebuilding and industrialisation of Germany, possibly its rapidly rising wealth?
Do you think they might have been willing to negotiate trading deals?
Even if he stays in aggressive bully mode, how many of the neighbouring countries would have signed up to non aggression deals and traded to avoid going to war?
That fact that he was a bully with very nasty tactics and a hatred for "lesser races" did not stop him from coming to power in Germany. Had he united the non slavic nations he would have had an extremely strong block for the slavic nations to ignore dont you think?
Throw in a couple of other fascist dictators willing to make a pact and who knows what might have happened.


What has red Ken got to do with it? Didnt you say we should be allowed to make any points we like, to let the debate evolve?

It seems you think being an agressive murderer precludes a chap from being a great leader. I take it you think little of Genghis Khan or Suliman the great? How about the Pharoes? How do you think China became the nation it is today?

You are not worth the effort are you.
Get back in your box.

[The Lone Gunman]

Aha! My cunning disguise has been penetrated!

Bummer!

And there is me thinking you and xoggy are the same being, one sans skin, his skull looks remarkably similar in form to your head.

[Fungus]

The lone Tosspot said:

"Mwhaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, havent had such a laugh in ages."

You sad and pathetic git.

How is anyone expected to understand what you are trying to say when you continually contradict yourself? In your previous posting you say:

"Of course I havent presented my argument,"

Well that was obvious. But in an earlier posting you say:

"I knew you couldnt follow an argument so was dismissive of you"

So which is it to be? Had you presented an argument as you say, or had you not presented your argument as you also say? Or are you changing your mind with each post? If I were you I'd change your mind for one that works.

I've walked all over you regarding Poland and the ethnic German issue. You've remained silent because you have no counter argument. The fact that you were ignorant of the matter is shocking. Fancy asking about the difference between Poland and areas of Poland with large ethnic German populations. Doh, Mr. Thicky Thicko Lone Tosspot.

And I've walked all over you with an explanation for Hitler's popularity. Again you've remained silent because you have no counter argument. You have yet to explain how he would have achieved power and united people had he not used violence and racism.

You said:

"Do you think any of Hitlers neighbours would not have noticed the rapid rebuilding and industrialisation of Germany, possibly its rapidly rising wealth?
Do you think they might have been willing to negotiate trading deals?"

What was a major reason for the recovery of Germany? It was the fact that until then Germany was being destroyed by crippling war reparations which Hitler ignored. And why were war reparations imposed? That's a tough one. For you. Could it be because Germany and before that Prussia had a history of waging war against other countries? That's another tough one. For you.

So, according to you, a strong industrialising Germany that ignores war reparations would have been admired and welcomed by neighbouring countries. Not totally convincing that one.

Oh yes and you refer to a nice fluffy bunny version of Hitler. In which case how would he have achieved power? I've asked you this so many times and received no answer. He would have had to use completely different methods from the ones he used. In which case he would have been a completely different person.

Hence your argument can be summarised as:

"If Hitler was a competely different individual with different motivation and character, used different methods to unite people (not racism and violence) and if the political and economic situation was completely different, then he might have united Europe."

Well, yes, that's fair enough. When you put it like that, it is inarguable. But utterly asinine.

Oh FFS you dim-witted half brained twat.

Next you'll be arguing that had Churchill been more in contact with his feminine side he could have outshone Nijinsky and danced with the Ballet Russe.

Fungus

[sasguru]

Can someone give me a management summary of this argument? Can't be bothered to read all the kak.