US DRONE ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS

While I can understand why you'd rather make up your own mind, it doesn't hurt to read what other's wrote.

Again, I do read facts. I just don't care about other people's interpretations.

That's why it didn't surprise me that there are several theories about how everything was the big evil industrialists' fault.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What I read didn't pin the sole blame on the big industrials. One of the mainproblems regards the question wether the reach for power of the Nazis could be deduced from the character of german capitalism and the schemes and political goals of the industrial german elite. It isn't as simple as viewing it as the primitive instrumentalisation of the nazis from the start by a power- and moneyhungry group, nor can structural connections between capitalism and the rise of power of the Nazis be denied.

Marxist and nonmarxist historians make out more or less two structural connections: 1) It is evident that influental portions of the industrial elite favoured a more authoritative solution instead of the Weimar Republic, even before the rise to power of the Nazis. This solution would for one repress the workers and thus reestablish profitability. The recession in the early 30ies caused the german economy to be split and unoriented, and in light of a worsening recession portions of the economy showed a willingness to at least accept nationasocialist involvement in the government in order to create a political frame in which the capitalistic system had a chance to recover. But in their search for a solution of the economic crisis, the Nazis were sort of last resort/hope for many and not the first choice for a solution. Due to this quarrel about which strategies and solutions for the recovery of the capitalistic economy would be best, obvious solutions and alternatives were excluded. The german industrial elite commited itself to the new nazi regime, which in return recieved a certain leeway for political initiatves that way.
2) To what extent was nazi policy 1933-45 influenced and shaped by economic reasoning, especially by interests of german industrialists. One could also rephrase that and question to what extent the nazis were able to obtain a political autonomy which allowed for a primacy of ideology over economic goals.

Personally, I don't think the question by themselves nor the answer to those questions are simple. The literature available on this topic alone is immense. And good historians always use facts - or rather documents as their sources.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The startingpoint of any analysis on this issue is the question whether the polarization in "primacy of politics" and "primacy of economy" doesn't equal a crude simplification of the complex structural interrelation between NS politics and the interests of the german industry in itself. Reducing the issue to the alternatives of politics and economy narrows the meaning "politics" down and suggests a crude dychotomy between state and society. Historical research done on Nazi economy suggests a close correlation of goals and interests between the naziregime and the industrial elite which mutually influenced each other. It is virtually impossible to make out a specific political and specific economical domain.

I could write alot more but I don't want to bore you too much. Suffice to say - it is complex. And I don't know how you would look at the evidence and facts just like that because they're not widely available unless you go to archives by yourself or get specific books which compile them for your convenience. The problem with the nazipast as it were is a virtual ocean of historic sources in the form of documents. There is alot that hasn't even been evaluated in archives in Russia. It is almost impossible to go through all of that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I could write alot more but I don't want to bore you too much. Suffice to say - it is complex. And I don't know how you would look at the evidence and facts just like that because they're not widely available unless you go to archives by yourself or get specific books which compile them for your convenience. The problem with the nazipast as it were is a virtual ocean of historic sources in the form of documents. There is alot that hasn't even been evaluated in archives in Russia. It is almost impossible to go through all of that.

You are making this too complicated again. You can always argue that more research is needed.

Nevertheless, SOMEONE created the athmosphere of violence that swept over Europe in the 1940s. And while more research cannot hurt, it seems obvious that violence coming from Germany can hit Germany too.

If you don't want your city destroyed by the British, make sure nobody attacks them in your name.

That's the lesson of Dresden. Worked for me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I won't argue it much further, everyone has their opinion on the subject and that is fine. I do believe my analogy with the Kurds was an accurate one. You said that the Kurd's didn't vote or put Saddam into power (I agree), so were not 'responsible" for Saddam's actions (I also agree). Using the logic you seem to apply (as it appears to me anyway) you say while the people of Dresden didn't deserve to die, it was their fault. One would have to assume by using this line of thinking Hitler won the election by 100% of the vote in 1933, including people that were too young to vote or didn't vote at all. That would mean that German Jews are also at fault, they didn't stop Hitler either, so must have supported him. That's like saying, "so while they didn't deserve it, the German Jew portion of the Holocaust it was their own fault". Of course I disagree with this, but IMO the similarities are close enough to make a comparison. I believe is was unnecessary to bomb Dresden. I'm sure some combatants died and evil Nazis died in the raid, but that was not the plan to fire bomb a city to kill a few people. It was wasteful and had almost no operational value, except to take a bite out of the population. If the people of Dresden had "X's" painted on their roofs, perhaps then I would agree with you.

As for recent events in Pakistan, it was a terrible shame. It was an accident, but I'm sure that is little comfort for the families of the dead. For the survivors it will probably mean taking hatred of the US to their graves. There will be no GI's handing out candy bars to the kids or US sponsored civil engineering projects to better the community (like there was in Germany after WWII), so no good will erase the bad memories. But hey, maybe it's their own fault. Shouldn't they be able to see the extremists are using their religion to wage war, can't they see how evil Al Quaida and the Taliban are, living among them? That would be some folks perspective. It's interesting how they have a mirror opposite opinion about us.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You said that the Kurd's didn't vote or put Saddam into power (I agree), so were not 'responsible" for Saddam's actions (I also agree). Using the logic you seem to apply (as it appears to me anyway) you say while the people of Dresden didn't deserve to die, it was their fault.

There is a difference.

The Kurds did try to stop Saddam. They fought him. They died. They ultimately won when they helped invading allied troops.

I think of the Kurds more like the Jews who fought against the Nazis in the ghetto than the quiet German supporters of the regime.

And as far as I can tell Saddam was never as universally popular in Iraq as Hitler was in Germany. But I do blame Saddam's supporters for what he did to the Kurds.

One would have to assume by using this line of thinking Hitler won the election by 100% of the vote in 1933, including people that were too young to vote or didn't vote at all.

The law that made Hitler "fuhrer" was supported by 83% of the German parliament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermaechtigungsgesetz

Only the Social Democrats voted against it.

I agree that 83% is not 100% but it's as close as you can get without making up the numbers yourself.

That would mean that German Jews are also at fault, they didn't stop Hitler either, so must have supported him.

Hardly. German Jews did not do anything to help Hitler. Again, I don't believe there is a first-class responsibility for the victims or others to act. The responsibility lies with those who are not targeted and who help the bad guy.

That's like saying, "so while they didn't deserve it, the German Jew portion of the Holocaust it was their own fault".

The Jews did nothing to Germany that made the Holocaust necessary to fight the supposed danger. The same cannot be said about what Germany did to Britain to make the bombing of Dresden necessary.

I think you misunderstand the point.

I am saying that violence started can return to those that started it. And while even they might not deserve being victims of violence (perhaps nobody is), I don't see how their plight is anybody's fault but their own. Britain did not want to bomb Dresden, Britain did it solely because Germany bombed Britain. Otherwise it would not have happened.

On the other hand, the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, Hitler made that perfectly clear, and the Holocaust did not happen as an extension of what the Jews did to Germany.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that 83% is not 100% but it's as close as you can get without making up the numbers yourself.

83% of the Reichstag does not mean 83% of the people. NSDAP got 43.9% of the vote in 1933, not even half, but the percentage of the then governing body, as you provide, does make your argument sound better. We have the same problem here in the US, Congress thinks they ARE the voice of the people.

So would you like to change your argument to reflect only 83% of the people of Dresden were at fault for the Allies bombing them?

The same cannot be said about what Germany did to Britain to make the bombing of Dresden necessary.

I think you misunderstand the point.

Ok, fair enough, you can clear it up for me easily...why was it necessary to bomb Dresden, what did it accomplish? Did it shorten the war? Note: I never said it was right or even useful for the Germans to bomb London.

Successfully updated karma reason!

83% of the Reichstag does not mean 83% of the people.

Legally it does.

So would you like to change your argument to reflect only 83% of the people of Dresden were at fault for the Allies bombing them?

I never said that every single one of them was to blame. When I say that I am thankful to the American people for liberating Germany I am also not saying that I believe that every single American, regardless of his personal beliefs on the matter, is an anti-fascist hero.

Ok, fair enough, you can clear it up for me easily...why was it necessary to bomb Dresden, what did it accomplish? Did it shorten the war? Note: I never said it was right or even useful for the Germans to bomb London.

Why it was necessary you would have to ask Allied Command, not me. I trust their decisions.

And I think it did shorten the war because Germany suddenly learned the reality of the war and what it was they had done to all those other countries.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But as I said, I don't like reading interpretations. I don't want to know the views of historians, I'd rather just read facts and what they meant at the time and then make up my own mind about them.

Again, I do read facts. I just don't care about other people's interpretations. That's why it didn't surprise me that there are several theories about how everything was the big evil industrialists' fault.

Historical reconstruction is a complex process and all the "facts" of the past have not survived in the cntext in which the events unfolded therefore the historian persey has to rely on interpretation and structural depth in order to make the past yeild its meaning and only then does the present become understrandable. So you really cannot divide the the facts from the interpretational gloss which surround them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So you really cannot divide the the facts from the interpretational gloss which surround them.

That might well be true for some of the more complicated issue. But not for this one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know, you're right with the claim that maybe I complicate the issue. But Bahu has a valid point in mentioning the problematics surrounding "historic" facts. What is a fact.. there is a whole section of historiographic science dedicated to this issue. History and its facts are never not complicated.

Dreseden on its own seems easy enough, I suppose. The ctiy was bombed in war that the country where the city is in started - the end. But that fact doesn't really do much to further understand the circumstances and context, and without understanding this it is impossible to come to a neutral/objective judgement of what occurred. (I don't mean to say that you're not able to judge it or that you don't know the context, this argument is about the importance of the context of the facts not your personal knowledge)

You don't have to be a historian to be able to judge history, but everybody who seriously claims to be an expert on certain historic periods knows the surrounding context and circumstances, and that isn't by accident. If you just had to look at the facts by themselves to derive any knowledge that wouldn't be the case.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You know, you're right with the claim that maybe I complicate the issue. But Bahu has a valid point in mentioning the problematics surrounding "historic" facts. What is a fact.. there is a whole section of historiographic science dedicated to this issue. History and its facts are never not complicated.

The facts on the ground are almost never complicated.

Take civilian victims in a war, for example.

For me, and I have seen war with my own eyes and was shot at, civilian victims are easily explained. Some parties fire directly at civilians. They are usually excused by world opinion as "resistance" or "freedom fighters". Other parties actively try not to hurt civilians. They also built field hospitals for enemy victims and are constantly demonised by the media.

I understand that soldiers who are risking their lives can shoot human shields rather than the terrorists behind them and I am not arrogant enough to expect them to care more about the terrorists' human shields than about their own lives. (Heck, the human shields often didn't care enough to run away when the terrorists hid behind them.)

Although many solders still do care more about other people's lives than their own. This is why most human shields tend to survive these days.

There is a famous video from the 2006 Lebanon war that shows how Hizbullah fired rockets from behind an apartment building which was later hit by Isralis returning fire. Any idea how it got hit? It's not difficult. Somebody fired from its vicinity (a war crime), the people didn't leave the building for whatever reason (also a war crime), the building was hit by returned fire (not a war crime). As soon as world opinion screams I know what happened because the media and the idiots on the street ALWAYS get it wrong by ignoring plain, simple facts and instead relying on the more complicated bigger story that makes war criminals into heroic freedom fighters and careful soldiers into baby killers despite the evidence.

Hence I tend to stick to simple solutions that require less interpreting.

Dreseden on its own seems easy enough, I suppose. The ctiy was bombed in war that the country where the city is in started - the end. But that fact doesn't really do much to further understand the circumstances and context, and without understanding this it is impossible to come to a neutral/objective judgement of what occurred. (I don't mean to say that you're not able to judge it or that you don't know the context, this argument is about the importance of the context of the facts not your personal knowledge)

Often-times the reported "facts" contradict what I have seen with my own eyes. Facts plus research doesn't add up to "more facts" it merely adds up to better-known facts. And better-known facts tend to displace other facts, even if those other facts are more important.

The reason we even learn about civilian victims in Afghanistan is because lots of people are doing research there. And the reason lots of people are doing research there is that there are comparatively few civilian victims in that war (otherwise the researchers would likely be among the victims).

Whenever I see a television report from a certain region I know the region is safe enough to support television crews. So I am not too worried about civilian deaths because I know at least our side (the side that allows journalists who are criticial of our military in) is already doing what it can to prevent civilian deaths. Accusing them of not doing enough is arrogant. I don't know how to protect civilians better than the military does. And neither do the journalists.

I am worried about civilian deaths in conflicts that are not covered 24/7 by journalists sitting in luxury hotels.

If you are worried about innocent deaths you can really save a lot more lives if you spend money on building hospitals in Africa rather than send journalists to war zones.

You don't have to be a historian to be able to judge history, but everybody who seriously claims to be an expert on certain historic periods knows the surrounding context and circumstances, and that isn't by accident. If you just had to look at the facts by themselves to derive any knowledge that wouldn't be the case.

I'm not an expert in German history but I know about the circumstances.

Start a war against England and you get your cities blown up. Lesson learned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please don't mix respectable historians together with sensational media.

The media presents the facts according to the story they want to tell. After all, a jourmalist wants to make a profit from his/her work.

A serious historian looks at a fact or source of information (like the videoclip) and the first thing he would do is to analyze who filmed it, what the circumstances of the war in Lebanon were and who might have had an interest in presenting the video the way it had been in the media. This is called "Quellenkritik" and it is an essential part of a historians work. Things are never taken at a face value, especially not in the age of multimedia that we live in. It makes the work of historians decidedly difficult as a matter of fact because it is easy to "produce" evidence aka propaganda and facts as you see fit. There are forged documents even from mideval times, so that is nothing new per se, either, but I think that the new media age makes it alot easier to accomplish.

To historically judge the 2006 year in Lebanon a historian would need access towritten documents from both sides, multimedia clips, blogs (if it were possible to secure them somehow) and maybe do some oral history as well, consider the history of Isreal and Lebanon - then analyze what he got and put everything in context. It's alot of tedious work.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why it was necessary you would have to ask Allied Command, not me. I trust their decisions.

Hum, much the same response I would expect from many period Germans concerning the bombing of London, "...ask the Luftwaffe, not me. I trust their decision." Very interesting.

And I think it did shorten the war because Germany suddenly learned the reality of the war and what it was they had done to all those other countries.

I'm willing to bet they knew the meaning of war by Feb 13, 1945.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hum, much the same response I would expect from many period Germans concerning the bombing of London, "...ask the Luftwaffe, not me. I trust their decision." Very interesting.

That's just me. I trust anyone who liberates my country and feeds my family and then protects us against the Soviet-Union for 60 years.

And I am sure the bombing of London was also necessary to achieve Germany's goals. But were those goals as noble as self-defence and trying to end the war?

I don't appreciate your attempt to compare me with a Nazi.

Let me give you an easier example:

If a fire man destroys a door to save a house, the door is broken and the fire man will claim that breaking it was necessary to save the house. I would believe him and I wouldn't blame him for breaking the door.

If a robber destroys a door to steal stuff from a house, the door is also broken and the robber will claim that breaking it was necessary in order to steal things. And I am sure his robber friends would agree with him about the necessity of breaking the door.

But a comparison between the gang of robbers and people who trust fire men still doesn't make a lot of sense now, or does it?

I'm willing to bet they knew the meaning of war by Feb 13, 1945.

Not to the degree that they would try to end it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Please don't mix respectable historians together with sensational media.

I find it more worrying that historians might not see the difference themselves.

The media presents the facts according to the story they want to tell. After all, a jourmalist wants to make a profit from his/her work.

Exactly. I wish more people would remember that. A journalist's point of view is also his point of sale.

A serious historian looks at a fact or source of information (like the videoclip) and the first thing he would do is to analyze who filmed it, what the circumstances of the war in Lebanon were and who might have had an interest in presenting the video the way it had been in the media. This is called "Quellenkritik" and it is an essential part of a historians work.

And that's what I have a problem with.

It DOESN'T MATTER who filmed it. What the video shows is either true or false regardless of the nationality, religion, or profession of the cameraman.

And it also doesn't matter why it was presented to the media (obviously so it be made known to the public, duh).

Your "serious historian" does the same as the sensational media would: he looks at the who and the why but not the what.

He would analyse everything and everyone except the simple fact that explains why the civilians were hit.

Things are never taken at a face value, especially not in the age of multimedia that we live in. It makes the work of historians decidedly difficult as a matter of fact because it is easy to "produce" evidence aka propaganda and facts as you see fit. There are forged documents even from mideval times, so that is nothing new per se, either, but I think that the new media age makes it alot easier to accomplish.

Fake video evidence is not easy to produce. Even single photographs are difficult to forge.

If the "serious historian" looks at the "who" and the "why" before he looks at the "what" he is making a mistake because he opens the door to allowing his prejudices to dictate whether or not to believe that the evidence is fake.

Here's an excellent example of what happens when one looks at the "who" and "why" rather than the "what":

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

To historically judge the 2006 year in Lebanon a historian would need access towritten documents from both sides, multimedia clips, blogs (if it were possible to secure them somehow) and maybe do some oral history as well, consider the history of Isreal and Lebanon - then analyze what he got and put everything in context. It's alot of tedious work.

I would think that a single video released by Hizbullah where Nasrallah announced that he wants to kill all Jews does plenty to explain why the war happened and how it likely proceeded.

But then the answer would be too simple again, wouldn't it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

You assume that the population couldd have ended the war if they had only wanted it enough. You completely disregard the dynamics that evolve in the course of a war - any war - and insist instead that the people didn't WANT to do anything. I think the majority were just trying to survive, especially the refugees and bombed out populace all over germany. The majority didn't do anything to actively prolong the war and surrendered as soon as they could.

Those that did actively or surreptously resist lead a very very dangerous existance and risked death, but they did exist.

You paint with a too rough brush.

Successfully updated karma reason!

.

Successfully updated karma reason!

my internet connection sucks sometimes - sorry for this

Successfully updated karma reason!

Double post

Successfully updated karma reason!

It DOESN'T MATTER who filmed it. What the video shows is either true or false regardless of the nationality, religion, or profession of the cameraman.

And it also doesn't matter why it was presented to the media (obviously so it be made known to the public, duh).

Your "serious historian" does the same as the sensational media would: he looks at the who and the why but not the what.

He would analyse everything and everyone except the simple fact that explains why the civilians were hit.

The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious I didn't thinkto list them. And no - what I said is pertinent to any true analysis. One quick look at a "fact" to see "what" it was is never enough to be able to tell the whole story, as you seem to think. You often oversimplify issues or use sensational examples yourself to "simplify" complicated structural connections that exist in every society, culture and conflict. I wish the world was as easy to see through as you make it out to be, with villains and heroes easily labeled and evil and good clearly distinguishable in all instances. Sometimes that is the case - but that is the exception. Usually the facts are more ambigous than you could imagine - which is proven in the number of different interpretations that are possible whith referencing the same facts. But then you seem to believe that ambiguity shouldn't exist or is an excuse of somesort to not point out the obvious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You assume that the population couldd have ended the war if they had only wanted it enough. You completely disregard the dynamics that evolve in the course of a war - any war - and insist instead that the people didn't WANT to do anything. I think the majority were just trying to survive, especially the refugees and bombed out populace all over germany. The majority didn't do anything to actively prolong the war and surrendered as soon as they could.

Those that did actively or surreptously resist lead a very very dangerous existance and risked death, but they did exist.

You paint with a too rough brush.

I don't doubt that they simply tried to survive. And I don't insist that the people didn't WANT to do anything.

Nevertheless, the violence is going to hit someone.

When the first synagogue was burned down, the people of Dresden could have acted. The fact that they didn't meant that more buildings burned down.

Many countries lived through the 1930s without setting out to murder a few million people and starting a world war so it was obviously possible.

I think we should spend more time researching what we (Germans) did wrong back then rather than explain how difficult it was to do right when apparently almost everybody else has already figured out the latter.

The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious I didn't thinkto list them. And no - what I said is pertinent to any true analysis. One quick look at a "fact" to see "what" it was is never enough to be able to tell the whole story, as you seem to think. You often oversimplify issues or use sensational examples yourself to "simplify" complicated structural connections that exist in every society, culture and conflict. I wish the world was as easy to see through as you make it out to be, with villains and heroes easily labeled and evil and good clearly distinguishable in all instances. Sometimes that is the case - but that is the exception. Usually the facts are more ambigous than you could imagine - which is proven in the number of different interpretations that are possible whith referencing the same facts. But then you seem to believe that ambiguity shouldn't exist or is an excuse of somesort to not point out the obvious.

Who speaks of a quick look?

Look as long as you want, just make sure you look at the "what" rather than the "who". If the video is not fake (and as I said this can be determined by an expert), we would ideally not even know who made it. The video cannot become more true just because the cameraman is or isn't Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian or chocolate-covered.

And yes, I do believe that claims of ambiguity are very often just an excuse not to point out the obvious.

There was no ambiguity in World War 2. Dresden was bombed because of what Germany did and for no other reason. Dresden has Germany to thank for being bombed.

There is no reason to assume that all conflicts are necessarily complicated. If a man sets out to murder millions of people and finds millions of supporters, it is indeed easy to see why he would murder millions of people. It's not complicated.

And if the assumption that it must be complicated steers us away from the simple facts the there is something wrong with making that assumption.

If you think of all the violent crimes that happen in Germany, can you imagine how many of those crimes have a complicated background and how many do not? My guess is that 99% of violent crime is not complicated at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The statistical numbers of victims that died are so obvious

Statistics of "innocent" victims (i.e. absolute numbers) are not very useful either.

My guess is that I could have died in 2006 if my university (like the entire north of Israel) had not been evacuated. If Lebanon had done the same, I am sure their number of victims would have been very low too.

So the statistics simply showed that a country with lots of (necessary) bunkers and an evacuation plan has fewer civilian victims than a country that doesn't care that much about civilians.

But that's not how people see those numbers.

Many many people have analysed the statistics but failed to arrive at the most simple conclusion.

When I arrived in Jerusalem, I knew why I probably wouldn't die in that conflict. And suddenly, without much analysis, it was clear to me what the statistics would look like at the end and why.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't appreciate your attempt to compare me with a Nazi.

Wow, thin skin where no such comparison was made. Didn't realize you equate "period Germans" as Nazis. If I mean "Nazis" in my words I would have said"Nazi". Sorry for having an adult conversation when you are obviously not up to it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That is too simplistic. My father didn't chose, had he potentially had deserved to die in an airraid? (He was born 1940)

You think nobody would have the courage to counter you? you think an appeal to emotion would solidify your case? (what a cheap trick to use it as a preamble for revisionist history, more on that later) complicated my rear end!

To be perfectly blunt, YES. To be more specific, while he individually as a child did not deserve it, his life was less important than the lives saved by stopping hitler.

He might have been an innocent child, but when the choice is "agressors and their children" vs the "innocent and their children" then yes, the children of the innocent deserve life more than the children of the agressors; or those who put the aggressors in power, or those who followed them out of fear. Even the children of innocents caught in the same region by chance (although those are a completely separate issue). If the choice is between killing a human shield to stop a violent maniac and letting a violent maniac kill innocents, then you kill the human shield along with the violent maniac.

If hitler sat in a bunker full of newborn jew babies whom he had there for the sole reason of stopping an air raid, then said air raid should still have commenced.

There are two separate aspects here, both are true:

1. An innocent human shield may have to be killed to stop a murderous madman. The fault for that lies on the person who uses the human shield.

2. An innocent on the side of good, deserves life more than an innocent on the side of evil.

2a. Children have their side decided by their parents. Choosing between a child on the side of evil and a child on the side of good, the child on the side of good deserves life more. (of course, if you can save both then you do)

In ideal "fairy tale land" you NEVER have to make this choice. Some people PRETEND that the choice doesn't need to be made and in so doing choose the life of the children [whose parents are] on the side of evil. In the real world this is a choice that comes up often.

Who really chose the war - was it the people, or maybe it was big industry and their interests, was Hitler really in power or rather a weak dictator

So, making excuses for hitler now? oh poor hitler, he didn't REALLY mean to wage his war (mein kaumpf), he didn't MEAN to have a final solution, he didn't MEAN to kill all dissenters... he was actually just a puppet for the EVIL BIG BUSINESS! (/sarcasm)

Why the sympathy for hitler? why the excuses? why the revisionist history?

You are an evil, evil person utemia. Unimaginably stupid and gullible isn't enough, because even if you were just parroting someone's claim, you have chosen to believe them over an honest source.

You just MIGHT not be a nazi (which isn't certain considering you are making excuses for hitler), but if so, you are just one step short of one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

US DRONE ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS

VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS