Reply to: Mein Kampf

[Fungus]

Save your breath

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz.

[The Lone Gunman]

That's a nice bit of revisionism from you. You sound more and more like Irving.

Here is your first posting to me:

"Fungus you twat, I dont need a lesson on Hitler and what makes you think you are qualified to give one anyway?"

Nice. Any normal person would have responded with:

"Actually I don't support any of Hitler's crimes but "

and then go on to clarify their position.

But no, you respond in an offensive manner.

"He made no effort to understand my proposal,"

You mean I did not agree with you? It's called debate. You twat. And now you are having a tantrum.

"some peole deserve a kicking"

Is that how you deal with people who you fail to convince?

It seems that you have something in common with Hitler.

Save your breath mate, you will need it to blow up your girlfriend.

[Fungus]

Sorry SAS, I have issues with this loser.
He accused me of being a Nazi sympathiser and a Holocaust denier based on a couple of lines of post. He made no effort to understand my proposal, nay he made up his own version, and then just kicked off.

I dont mean to monopolise this thread or any other, but some peole deserve a kicking.

That's a nice bit of revisionism from you. You sound more and more like Irving.

Here is your first posting to me:

"Fungus you twat, I dont need a lesson on Hitler and what makes you think you are qualified to give one anyway?"

Nice. Any normal person would have responded with:

"Actually I don't support any of Hitler's crimes but "

and then go on to clarify their position.

But no, you respond in an offensive manner.

"He made no effort to understand my proposal,"

You mean I did not agree with you? It's called debate. You twat. And now you are having a tantrum.

"some peole deserve a kicking"

Is that how you deal with people who you fail to convince?

It seems that you have something in common with Hitler.

[Fungus]

"Stop ranting and spitting at the screen and see if you can engage in an intelligent reasoned argument without throwing insults, changing peoples handles and calling them names is a childish tactic."

Here are statements from you directed at me:

TLG: "Fungus you twat"

TLG: "Clearly no point continuing this discussion with you is there, you clearly cant read and are incapable of thinking."

TLG: "You seem to have tunnel vision. Why dont you put your head back up your arse and let the rest of us enjoy an intelligent diecusion."

That looks like hypocrisy to me. And it's only a small selection of your abuse directed at me. It's pretty offensive stuff. No wonder I respond.

And I have put forward an argument. As an example:

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

And you responded with:

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

So clearly you did not understand the issues.

To quote someone else:

"The gunman seems to be getting all irate because Fungus will not agree with what he is saying."

That looks to be the case to me too.

You're having a tantrum because I can pick holes in your poorly expressed argument. Ah, but you say:

"Of course I havent presented my argument,"

And then:

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

And then:

"I had not presented my argument. If you will take things out of context then you are bound to misunderstand. The "I knew you couldn't" bit doesnt mean I had presented one it means I didnt bother as you were too thick to understand. A point on your thickness, that modicum I credited you with. Changed my mind. You have to be the thickest twat I ever crossed posts with."

So what I was commenting on was not an argument. Confused, we will be!
Ignoring the personal abuse, your postings are so contorted and twisted that no normal person could follow them. You seem to have a habit of changing your mind in subsequent posts, or creatively re-interpretating previous ones.

So you are a weasel, a lier, a reinterpreter of history, cannot express an argument, and a complete and total jerk.

[The Lone Gunman]

Nuff said. Now girls, put away the handbags, sort out your make-up and kiss and make up.

Sorry SAS, I have issues with this loser.
He accused me of being a Nazi sympathiser and a Holocaust denier based on a couple of lines of post. He made no effort to understand my proposal, nay he made up his own version, and then just kicked off.

I dont mean to monopolise this thread or any other, but some peole deserve a kicking.

[sasguru]

I dont have time for this

Nuff said. Now girls, put away the handbags, sort out your make-up and kiss and make up.

[The Lone Gunman]

The lone Tosspot said:

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

You sad and pathetic git.

You may be right, here I am having an argument, and winning, with a 3 year old.

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 had not presented my argument. If you will take things out of context then you are bound to misunderstand. The "I knew you couldn't" bit doesnt mean I had presented one it means I didnt bother as you were too thick to understand.
A point on your thickness, that modicum I credited you with. Changed my mind. You have to be the thickest twat I ever crossed posts with.

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.

I didnt ask the difference, I know the state of Europe prior to the war, I know the location of ethnic Germans, that location is part of the basis for my proposal.
What makes you think you are the sole person with any knowledge here?

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.

I didnt say he wouldnt have used violence and racism, just that he would not have gone to war. Sorry if I didnt make that clear.

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.

I never said admired or welcomed. You do seem to have trouble reading and understanding dont you.
Now go back to google and look at the history of Hitler (thats Adolf in case you cant find it again) and see what the rest of Europe was doing and offering him even though he was ignoring all kinds of agreements and rearming Germany.

[QUOTE]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.[QUOTE]Sorry again if you misunderstood, I just said had he not gone to war.

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."

Same character, same motivation, same political and economic situatuion different MO. HTH

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

Not considered that, will give you my opinion when I have formed one

You realy do have issues dont you. Stop ranting and spitting at the screen and see if you can engage in an intelligent reasoned argument without throwing insults, changing peoples handles and calling them names is a childish tactic.

I dont have time to explain all this in detail, if you cant follow my argument then I dont have the time for this.
Stop trying to give me a lesson and show me why it couldnt have happened.
Go from "peace in our time" and then dont invade or annexe anybody.
Ethnic Germans = power in neighbouring territories. With local Germans lobbying and a rapidly rising Germany, these people could have delivered enough pressure. Wouldnt have been instant though.
Spain = Instant ally. Spain would have joined the axis had it not included war. History tells us as much.
Italy = Instant ally.
France didnt want war and could not have (didnt) defended itself so may have chosen a peace deal opening the door to the same nazi political tactics in France.
UK had already signed a non agression and there was some (not a lot) of support for Hitler. Had he not gone to war that support could have grown enough.
With a solid block and its production capabilities he could then have turned his attention to the slavic nations.

I must admit that (for obvious reasons) my considerations on this didnt include the Soviet block, I hadnt included any of them as Europe.

What makes you think that anybody gave a toss about the plight of Hitlers victims, I am sure that many people in other countries could have been persuaded it was a good idea. That doesnt include the death camps, I dont think anybody could have accepted that.

Many great empires have been carved out by vicious leaders. Soviet block wasnt exactly pleasant was it.

I dont have time for this

[Fungus]

Can't be bothered to read all the kak.

Sounds like an astute assessment to me. Surely you've written your own management summary?

[sasguru]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?