Could anything in history accurately be attributed to what we

There are actions which according to a system of morality fall within "evil."
If a historical figure is defined mostly by acts deemed "evil" then that figure can be characterized as "evil."

Anything monarchy related or done by religious spearheads. If someone had a plan, gained political power and influence, while commiting atrocities to get in that place and later to secure it, that person is not evil, because they think they are in the right and just.

>>67288
I do not mean evil as in not moral or not ethical.

Evil would be devoid of any benefit to others, completely abhorrent actions, meant to make the lives of all people worse for no reason.

Or is there even no objective evil?

>>67342
Why are monarchies or religions exempt from your reasons?

>>67456
Sometimes people commit actions that they believe have some purpose, but really have no purpose.
For example, any sort of murder committed by an insane fanatic who believes God is talking to them or something.

>Or is there even no objective evil
Your definition of "evil" seems like a good candidate for "objective evil" to me.

>>67456
Because they were basically born into power. They don't need to have any ideals.

>>67244
The Khmer Rouge and their batshit reasoning for killing people just because.

Let's get some triggering going on in here:
Nazis.

>>67456
Probably Hitler. Not only did he treat chunks of his citizens like shit, he also got his country ground into the dust and split up for four decades. He was just bad news for everybody in the end.

>>67664
Japs were worse

>>67565
So people can commit evil unknowingly? If they commit an evil action but are deluding into thinking that it is a good thing they are not evil people, just stupid. But even then, is the action objectively evil if the intent was good?

>>67575
Monarchies were born into power, but their power is still derived from their citizens. Same with religous establishments.

>>67708
Wasn't aware this was a contest?

File: 048.png (154KB, 294x297px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 294x297px

>>67664

>>67732
It was for the Japs.

File: der nazis.jpg (176KB, 570x380px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 570x380px

>>67664
good thing Nazis never existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ3Kx8FZ_wg

>>67732
What else is the point of this thread then, if we cant compare evil then how is there any other indictator of what is evil in the first place?

Elizabeth Bathory.

File: you gonna get savagely hugged.png (165KB, 624x419px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 624x419px

>>67244
>Could anything in history accurately be attributed to what we know as "evil"?
It's hard to classify something as "good" or "evil", not because they don't exist, but because humans are entirely subjective in their view on what is good/evil.

>>67697
What Hitler did was meant to better the German people as he saw fit. Before WW2 he lifted Germany out of their worst depression and made them a powerhouse for a while.

Also, when you say Hitler you mean the Nazi regime that he headed, yes?

>>67788
So there is no objective definition of evil? That which is evil is only decided to be that after the fact by different people than who committed the action?

Not a single being is purely evil.

>>67871
As a Natsoc evil to me is race mixing, bolshevism, liberal imperialism, and disregard for states and sovereignty.

>>67905
Why are those evil? Are the people who would disagree deluded or is it a matter of opinon?

>>67905
evil =/= things I don't like. I really don't like spiders or /v/ but I don't view them as evil

>>67871
>So there is no objective definition of evil?
I wouldn't say that.
In my opinion humans are just incapable of processing good/evil objectively because the outcome will always be coloured by or various desires.

>>67938
Because to me Race is the lifeblood of identity, nation states, and biology.

And I believe in peoples rights to choose what they wish for their people and state, liberals want to enforce their ideology on all through all means including mountains of blood.

>>67960
It is evil.

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.

>>67980
>liberals want to enforce their ideology on all through all means including mountains of blood.
Isn't this exactly what the Nazis did?

>>68001
No?
the NSDAP party didn't want to convert any states, the NSDAP party was the peoples will disregarding this is what liberals do because they believe all peoples should be like them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9fEM-MfSiU

>>67980
So forcing people to conform to your ideologies is evil? Or rather, depriving people of their agency is evil?

>>68083
Correct, forcing your ideology on other states is evil.

>>68034
>the NSDAP party didn't want to convert any states
So they invaded other countries, enforced their racial ideologies and political beliefs but that's not converting the state. That's not them interferring with the will of the people of other states? I'm sure the French, Dutch, Belgians, Poles whoever didn't elect the Nazis and want to be invaded. You said you believe in peoples rights to choose what they wish for their people and state, so surely by that logic an invading nation who comes in, installs puppet governments who were not elected, deport and kill local citizens on laws, beliefs and whatever else of another country is evil then. That's evil by your definition.

>>68111
They invaded poland to retrieve land that was taken from them, britain and france made the world world.

>>67244
>>67456
Based on your description the only man-made thing I can think of to meet such criteria for being evil would be communism.

>>68148
So where does the killing and cleansing of ethnic poles not fall under the definition of evil? This is still another nation going into another territory forcing their ideology upon them. Something you said was evil.

>>68083
>>68102
You may be on to something there.
However, what if allowing someone free agency would result in them harming themselves/others?
>seems we're wandering into utilitarian territory here

>>68111
Hitler didn't want war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vi0POM_q0U

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html

>>68188
>a politician would NEVER lie

>>68178
Hitler never publically said he was going to kill anybody, nor ever endosrsed killing innocents. removing non racial germans from Germany was what he did and wanted.

>>68188
>Doesn't want the war
>Gears entire economy towards military production
>invades other countries
>Doesn't want war

Can you just fuck off to /pol/ please?

>>68221
But he never told anyone to stop did he?

File: nsdap-7.jpg (11KB, 300x238px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x238px

>>68218
your premise is that Hitler wanted war when he sent thousands of peace proposals, it's a contradiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LypePZcUeD8

Hitler wanted to spread national socialism peacefully and through truth, even calling for complete disarmament of the world.

File: 0b4.jpg (40KB, 453x576px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 453x576px

>>68188

>>68233
Neither of those are evidence of wanting war. They were certainly reasons to be brought to war but that doesn't explain their intent.

>>68262
If he didn't want war, he sure did a very lazy fucking job at trying to prevent it.

>>68276
His entire political program was to start a new war, so that Germany could win it and force reparations on the allies/entente.

>>68178
>ethnic cleansing of poles
What.

Should mention that Germans within the land they reclaimed were being persecuted, and that poland broke the treaty of Versailles by breaking the neutrality of Danzig. Poland wasn't aside from land that was German pre-WWI, they were kept under a separate government which would be handed over to the poles when the occupation was ended. When the war was over.

>>68233
>gears entire economy towards military production
In 1943.

>invades other countries
Retakes land stolen after WWI because ethnic Germans are being persecuted, preemptively attacks the Soviet Union which was planning to invade Europe.

>wants war
That's why Hitler offered peace following the Franco-British declaration of war. Then again before invading France. Then again after invading France.

Can you just fuck off the reddit please?

>>68102
I don't know if I can agree with that. People don't always know what is best for themselves, and I think it would be evil to allow people to harm themselves.

>/pol/ once again ruins a thread

>>68294
It was either fight now or wait for soviet union and the allies to arm up to full capacity from their extensive reaches of colonies and resources while Germany was a small country with not enough resources to possibly remain independent, if everyone agreed to reduce arms instead of increase it, Hitler wouldn't have reason to suspect them of militancy and being anti German which they were.

>>68262
so he could kill everyone who wasn't German and take over Europe and eventually the world.

>>68323
This is arrogance, and evil.

>>68305
That's why he offered Britain and France unconditional peace, right?

The Jews wanted the war. NSDAP only wanted Germany to be strong.

>>68328
What?
National Socialism has nothing to do with killing others, it is about your state being racially pure.

>>68350
>/pol/ type subreddits
>not banned

>>68324
>/pol/ once again destroys commie shills with facts

>>67808
>He lifted
His advisors and party took care of most matters. Hitler was an idiot.
Originally he was a figurehead to t h e regime and was used to Inspire people to join the cause, but as WW2 commenced he was given more diplomatic power and military power which he used terribly.

>>68367
Being racially pure wasn't a major part of NatSoc. Their economic and social plans were the heart of it: National unity without class or caste.

>>68367
Hitler hated jews, russians, arabs, slavs, blacks and every other race. He could have killed half of the world population. He hated everyone, really.

>>68354
>That's why he offered Britain and France unconditional peace, right?
You mean the deal he made with Chamberlain, that he never meant to uphold. It was pretty much another Ribbentrop-Molotov deal, just for the UK and France. He knew he needs more time to prepare for invasion into France.

>>68379
>/pol/ type subreddits
>not banned
You would know, as you probably new to 4chan because of them. So here's an advice: go back to /pol/.

>/pol/ once again destroys commie shills with facts
He think those are facts. Oh god, you're an actual retard.

>>68418
Each state has their sovereign state to hate and love what ever they wish, Hitler hated no other race.

We have a difference in opinion as to what constitutes hating a race.

>>67456
>Evil would be devoid of any benefit to others, completely abhorrent actions, meant to make the lives of all people worse for no reason.
Serial killers, maybe? Though depending on how you interpret "for no reason," they could arguably not be purely evil by this definition.

If anything removing a race to establish their own state is loving that race to me, it's preserving their race and a state for their God given biology.

Anything that involves impulsive thinking or tries to destroy technological advancement is the closest to evil we have.

As humans we are motivated to escape the control of a brutal natural world, which means stability, progression and long-term planning is core to the survival of our humanity and anything in opposition should be treated as poisonous.

>>68416
Racial Unity, a state that wasn't racially pure was not a state.

>>68427
>chamberlain
What? Peace was offered after the war started. Both before and after France was invaded.

>>68427
Reedit is degenerate. I don't even put my mouse over links to it.

>not facts
What have I said that isn't a fact? This entire thread was made by shills to try and argue hitler was evil, but that wasn't the case.

>>68517
>progression
You better be talking about technological advancement when you say that. Anything that undermines the foundation of our society should be treated as poisonous.

>>68462
>I have no argument so I'll just post le happy merchant
>>68472
>Hitler hated no other race.
What? Hitler thought that anyone who wasn't of German descent was inferior

>>68540
>This entire thread was made by shills to try and argue hitler was evil, but that wasn't the case.

Why did he kill 6 million Jews then?

>>68540
>This entire thread was made by shills to try and argue hitler was evil, but that wasn't the case.
No this was a thread about evil which pol decided to ruin

>>68580
>hitler thought anyone who wasn't of german descent was inferior
If you read Mein Kampf you wouldn't believe that for a second.

>>68580
No he didn't, and it's irrelevant as Hitler didn't want to mess with other races.

>>68619
>Mein Kampf
>the musings of a mad man

>>68616
Someone said Hitler was evil and we refuted, liberals can't stand giving nationalists equal ground because we are fundamentally different, liberals are actually marxists and their whole ideological pathways are destroyed by what we hold as true, race, and states.

File: Bolshevism.jpg (106KB, 499x700px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 499x700px

>>68640
>always targeting nationalists
>never targeting communists
>hate racial purity
>hate sovereign states
>believe in open borders
hi marx

>>67808
No I mean just the man. Put another Nazi in place and WWII may have only turned out into a minor scuffle with some Slavic nations like Poland instead of blowing up into a global clusterfuck. Hitler meanwhile was a good orator, but god damn insane and thought he could take on the world.

>>68601
>6 million
Let check Jewish population 1940-1945... oh look, it went up? But how? Did every jewish women of child birthing age have 4 children in that time?

>>68616
>say hitler is evil
>not expecting /pol/ to debunk

>>68688
Nazis never existed.

Hitler

>>68708
Lincoln.

>>68640
Yeah whatever. If you read it you would realise he didn't hate everyone who wasn't german. He wanted to uplift the German population, not destroy others. He didn't believe they were better than other, but that they could be better than they were currently.

>>68696

This isn't /pol/ denying the Holocaust happened is silly. It's as much a historical fact as the Vietnam War.

>>68705
Oh fine.

Goose stepping members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

>>68752
Thank you.

>>68737
I don't recognize any Jewish specific holocaust, as I do not recognize Jewish deaths and special.

>>68737
Almost nobody on /pol/ denies that the Holocaust happened. They question certain aspects and numbers - because when you can prove to normise that the media is lying about parts of the Holocaust it's far easier to make them think for themselves.

>>68737
Sure it happened. Millions of Germans were exterminated, millions of franks, poles, slavs and a few jews -incidentally the descendants of converts, not ethnic jews- got in the way too.

They were killed by the zionists in allied governments in the west and the judeo-bolshevik regime in the east.

>>68796
>>68818

You can take the conspiracy theories back to /x/ or /pol/ please.

This is a history board.

>>68889
what conspiracy theory?

Why can't you treat us respectfully and fairly?

>us
>we
Fuck off

>>68926
>Why can't you treat us respectfully and fairly?
lmao, practice what you preach

>>68926

Well let's put it this way. Tens of thousands of scholars have studied the Holocaust over decades and every single one of them with the slightest credibility as historians has come to the conclusion the Holocaust happened.

You denying this and claiming it is all a Jewish conspiracy to keep teh skinhead down is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

>>68889
>lel this is a reddit colony board no /pol/ allowed
please, you accept nothing except the current travesty that they call wikipedia as historical fact

>>69034
I don't care about any holocaust, stop spamming nationalists/fascists.

>>69063

By wikipedia I assume you mean history books.

>>69163
Ally history books.

>>69186

German history books.

>>68889
And I am talking about history. You can anything I say a conspiracy theory when you explain why certain individuals in allied countries forbade the red cross from providing aid to the concentration camps or the civilian population of Germany. You can call me a tinfoil hat wearing madman when you explain how the jewish population increasing during the holocaust. You can say what I have spoken about belongs on /x/ when you explain why almost all banks and media organisations are owned or run by jews. You can tell me why American joined WWI right after the balfour declaration. Go ahead, try to explain that. And when you're done start denying the allied carpet bombing for every major german city using white phosphorous and the mass rape and slaughter the soviets engaged in.

Then let's work Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union and figure out just how many tens of millions of ethnic russians, ukrainians and other persons under the bolshevik regime were starved in engineered famines, for Germany was just the next step in the zionists' bid for total control.

Bringing this thread back on topic, I think the jews are certainly a force for evil, but even they have some good intentions - they try to uplift themselves and the jewish people and that is an admirable goal, albeit not one that is good the rest of us.

>>69197
Written by who?

>>67244
>Could anything in history accurately be attributed to what we know as "evil"?
No, because "evil" is just a social construct.

>>69197
certainty not written by pro axis or pro nsdap.

>>69217

No one's denying mass bombing or Soviet rape or Soviet famines, these are false comparisons.

The rest of yor post was pure tinfoil conspiracy theory while saying "don't call me a tinfoil conspiracy theorist".

>>69221

Ethnic Germans.

>muh they were all Jooooos conspiracy theory.

Just ignore all the edgy race discussions on this board and it will become a nice slow moving history board

>>69303
You mean written by an occupied state?

>>69305
Easier said than done, it pops up in nearly every thread. Hopefully /pol/ will get board of it like they did with the /lgbt/ raids when that started, but I doubt it.

>>69305
Why would race not be up for discussion?
this isn't a marxist board.

Attacking races is what is banned here.

>>69305
You should try to find a subreddit about history.

>>69303
I wasn't saying they weren't ethnic germans, rather they lived after WWII. And that they didn't control what they wrote and if the allied powers occupying germany didn't like it, it wouldn't be published.

>>69347
what makes you think /pol/ people have no right to be here?

because you don't like us?
well we don't like you.

>>>>68517
Paul Virilio and other total accident proponents would argue that technological progress is both good and evil, and that the evil side is going a lot faster and is way better funded. Eventually, because science works through experimentation, accidents occur. The rapid expansion of war technology exponentially increases the chances of a "total accident" in which the technological progress we sought to save us actually is our doom.

>>69347
Shouldn't you be dressing up as a girl and sucking dick?

>>69424
are you offering bby ;)

>>69378
>us

>>69378
you're obviously not interested in history because you get your facts from artifact riddled jpgs with no sources, therefore you don't belong on the history board

/pol/ is one of the most anti-intellectual places on the internet

>>69347
>Easier said than done
It's really easy. Just ignore them. let them sit and argue with them self

>>69374
>>69346

>And that they didn't control what they wrote and if the allied powers occupying germany didn't like it, it wouldn't be published.
>You mean written by an occupied state?

Conspiracy theories.

>>69468
No, we are simply the opposing side of your history, and you are of ours.

You can't get rid of us anymore than we could get rid of you.

>>69493
Soviet occupied states are 100% democratic republics, all written are of the people from their free will.

>>69498
You talk so seriously like this is life and death. Is everyone on /pol/ so melodramatic?

>>69493
So now the allied occupation of Germany isn't real? Oh boy.

>>69468
Go back to your hugbox. Everything written there is fact, I promise...

>>69498

No. You can't provide a single history book written by a respected historian that claims the Holocaust didn't happen and your only response to that is conspiracy theories.

>>69498
>we

>>69535
You mean we aren't shit posters?

>>69535
>Is everyone on /pol/ so melodramatic?
Yes, they are. They genuinely think the world is going to shit.

>>69548
Actually there are many which put the number who died in camps at under a million. Even some jewish historians. And the red cross figures, which I believe at definitive.

>>69547
>So now the allied occupation of Germany isn't real? Oh boy.
>>69511


The idea that the US controlled everything written by historians in West germany for decades is a conspiracy theory.

>>69548


>>69125
stop spamming no one mentioned any holocaust.

>>69549
Yes, us. Anon is referring to people with some sense of sanity.

>>69572
>implying it isn't

>>69580
It is not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v5QCGqDYGo

>>69580
>military occupation
>they don't control the press
They do, until 2199. They have handed power to the German government which is their puppet. They have censorship laws so extreme they could arrest someone for saying only 5,999,999 jews died.

>>69585
This is why people laugh at "you"
Its always a us againstvthem mentality
Its comical

>>69573

Go ahead and cite the Red Cross as claiming this, as in something the Red Cross as an organisation have said, not a scrap of a document that they do not confirm as being their position.

Go ahead and tell me about all the respected historians that put the death count of the Holocaust below one million protip: there aren't any.

This is moving into pure fantasy.

File: 1362693493472.png (108KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 800x800px

>>69585
>/pol/
>sanity

>>67871
Well, the closest thing to "objective" good and evil is this test

>does the act save or perceived to save more lives than it destroys

basically, is it a net benefit?

>>69633
Well this thread has quickly divided into factions, each certain the other side is spouting bullshit.

>>69498
you're on the opposing side of every respected historian on the planet but for some reason you think a bunch of uneducated 20 somethings on a anime website knows the better

if that isn't anti intellectual i don't know what is

>>69640
They pulled their figures around the 50s and haven't said anything about the camps since. There are plenty of documents pre-dating that.

>>69709
>respected historian
See, that's where you win. Whenever a historians says anything other than 6 million she or he loses all respect. Catch-22.

>>69709
>anime website
This is a chinese cartoon image board.

>>69774
>See, that's where you win. Whenever a historians says anything other than 6 million she or he loses all respect. Catch-22.

Conspiracy theory.

>They pulled their figures around the 50s and haven't said anything about the camps since. There are plenty of documents pre-dating that.

Actually they consistently said it was never ever their job to find out how many people died and that neo-Nazis have been misusing one tiny scrap of paperwork that was never intended as any sort of investigation into death count.

>>69828
>chinese cartoon image board
>not a Sumerian Pictogram Staining Ziggurat

Let it be known that this only happened because posters said that Hitler was and evil and that the Nazi were evil and that they wanted to trigger /pol/

>>69837
>conspiracy theory
It's not. Whether they are right or wrong, many good historians have lost their reputation after questioning the holocaust, or suggesting the numbers aren't accurate.

Of course the red cross have been saying that. It's illegal in many countries to say anything else, and the red cross aren't interested in ending up in a courtroom. That 'tiny scrap of paper' is the sum of the official records taken from the camps.

Hey, you wanna know anything funny about the numbers tattooed onto people's arms at auschwitz? There's only 5 digits.

>>67244
>Could anything in history accurately be attributed to what we know as "evil"?

Evil is a metaphysical concept. From Ranke onwards, historiography has rigorously denied the role of metaphysical agents in the events of human social interactions. Definitionally: no.

>Are there any such people who are "evil"?
Theology question.

>>70231
>It's not. Whether they are right or wrong, many good historians have lost their reputation after questioning the holocaust,

When you say many you can't name any except David Irving who has never contested the Holocaust happened in any of his scholarly works and tends to keep that shit to neo-Nazi rallies.

>Of course the red cross have been saying that.

They've never said anything else since long before any laws against Holocaust denial were put in place. You can't provide any citations for claims that the Red Cross, as an organisation, ever supported the idea the Holocaust never happened or merely tried to downplay it.

All you have is one tiny scrap of paper that they have consistently said since forever was not their position.

File: 1436059651713s.jpg (5KB, 249x179px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 249x179px

>>70231
>Hey, you wanna know anything funny about the numbers tattooed onto people's arms at auschwitz?
>There's only 5 digits.
Noice

>>70958

Vague conspiracy theory.

This is /his/ not /pol/.

>>67244
Yes, obviously.

>inb4 hitler
he did what he thought was best for his country and people, he was like an anti-hero, he didn't do the right thing but he didn't do the wrong thing either

>>68221
Hitler was pretty fucking clear about what he was going to do if he came to power in Mein Kampf though. Had the world paid it more attention, things might have been different.

the british empire, especially Oliver Cromwell and Thatcher was motivated by evil

>>69679
Why is benefit good if net benefit is typically the cause of evil?

>>70322
The Red Cross officially stated that Jews were being exterminated by the Nazis in their 1948 report about their war time activities.

>>68083
>>68102

Is depriving evil people of their agency, or forcing your ideology on evil states evil?

>>71230

I agree, anon.

There is not a single person in this thread that can provide evidence the Red Cross, as an organisation, ever said the Holocaust didn't happen.

File: 1445686194690.gif (479KB, 455x340px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 455x340px

>>67244

"The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating." In this sense, the master morality is the full recognition that oneself is the measure of all things. Insomuch as something is helpful to the strong-willed man it is like what he values in himself; therefore, the strong-willed man values such things as 'good'. Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality.

Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is literally re-sentiment—revaluing that which the master values. This strays from the valuation of actions based on consequences to the valuation of actions based on "intention". As master morality originates in the strong, slave morality originates in the weak. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it vilifies its oppressors. Slave morality is the inverse of master morality. As such, it is characterized by pessimism and cynicism. Slave morality is created in opposition to what master morality values as 'good'. Slave morality does not aim at exerting one's will by strength but by careful subversion. It does not seek to transcend the masters, but to make them slaves as well. The essence of slave morality is utility: the good is what is most useful for the whole community, not the strong. Nietzsche saw this as a contradiction. Since the powerful are few in number compared to the masses of the weak, the weak gain power by corrupting the strong into believing that the causes of slavery (viz., the will to power) are 'evil', as are the qualities they originally could not choose because of their weakness. By saying humility is voluntary, slave morality avoids admitting that their humility was in the beginning forced upon them by a master.