How would the world differed if Hitler had never existed?

I was attempting to elevate the conversation above a discussion of one racial group, by addressing a general principle.

Your "statement of fact" is not a fact. Start a thread entitled "Black people are XYZ" and see what happens.

I would love to confront certain poster here but I would be banned.

Ok, you would love to confront a certain poster, based on some value system which you hold. This perhaps raises a question....

Do you respect your own value system enough to risk being banned from one of over a million forums on the Internet? That is, how much do you value your own value system?

This is the question the people of the world faced as Hitler began the oppression of Germany, and then his expansion outwards. They had to ask themselves, were they really willing to fight for what they believed in? Or would they accommodate Hitler in order to avoid a conflict which might cost them dearly?

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight history, we assume the decision and eventual success was obvious. But it wasn't at all clear at the time. Those who confronted Hitler risked everything, and millions of them paid the ultimate price for their defiance.

Typist I can reason with certain people but others I would rather act violently to. I can not do that here so I am ham strung. Violence? yes violence is my only response to a fascist with a christian banner. They ignore the piles of spectacles, the films of innocent children crying for their mothers. Women stripped bare hoarded into gas chambers. Train loads of Jews herded like cattle, casually abused old ladies. My father liberated one camp and I can tell you he would bayonet anyone who denied the jewish suffering. Yes you can debate with their ignorance if you like typist but I would rather kick their heads in. We drove those brown shirted scum of our streets once we will do it again if necessary.

Typist I can reason with certain people but others I would rather act violently to. I can not do that here so I am ham strung.

For the record, just to be completely clear, I am NOT suggesting physical violence. Only rhetorical violence.

To be specific, if Theist keeps posting the Nazi propaganda, I'm asking us to not debate his points, but to instead make it clear he's not welcome here. That's my proposal. Provide no welcome to Nazi sympathizers.

Perhaps the situation will resolve itself on it's own without further discussion.

" That's my proposal. Provide no welcome to Nazi sympathizers"

Isn't it a bit pointless if a debate/argument excludes a strong supporter of one of the debaters?
Is the 'method' of killing people all that is relevant. Dropping a bomb on Hiroshama? was that OK? 'We did that without doubt?!
Have you heard - I come and stand (The Byrds)?

Typist I can reason with certain people but others I would rather act violently to. I can not do that here so I am ham strung.

For the record, just to be completely clear, I am NOT suggesting physical violence. Only rhetorical violence.

To be specific, if Theist keeps posting the Nazi propaganda, I'm asking us to not debate his points, but to instead make it clear he's not welcome here. That's my proposal. Provide no welcome to Nazi sympathizers.

Perhaps the situation will resolve itself on it's own without further discussion.

As an ex soldier violence has it's place in confronting certain aspects of life. It may not be the best way but the only way.
It is this type of propaganda that Zionists use to their advantage in abusing the Palestinians. It annoys me because the jewish lobby has support in US politics but hanging all these sickening garbage on to that fact, does not help the Palestinian cause. Maybe our friend is a Zionist stooge.

-- Updated Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:49 am to add the following --

" That's my proposal. Provide no welcome to Nazi sympathizers"

Isn't it a bit pointless if a debate/argument excludes a strong supporter of one of the debaters?
Is the 'method' of killing people all that is relevant. Dropping a bomb on Hiroshama? was that OK? 'We did that without doubt?!
Have you heard - I come and stand (The Byrds)?

We? The US dropped the A bombs but it is proposed more would have died if they had not. There is nothing nice about war only victory secures the peace. I can debate and I can become angry, I am angry.

Isn't it a bit pointless if a debate/argument excludes a strong supporter of one of the debaters?

Should we have a debate with Ted Bundy to discuss the pros and cons of rape and murder? Should we invite child molesters on to the forum and discuss the pros and cons of child molestation?

If we wouldn't welcome Hitler on the forum, why welcome one of his brown shirt propagandists?

Should we have a debate with Ted Bundy to discuss the pros and cons of rape and murder? Should we invite child molesters on to the forum and discuss the pros and cons of child molestation?

No, of course we shouldn't, we should consider the pros and cons of child molestation and the pros and cons of rape and murder without any input from Ted Bundy (whoever he is) and anybody involved in the pros and cons of child molestation? That way we can confirm our own pros and cons without argument (are you at Public School?)
listen to ' Icome and stand'

....we should consider the pros and cons of child molestation and the pros and cons of rape and murder without any input from Ted Bundy

What are the pros of rape and murder please?

Ted Bundy was a famous serial killer here in the U.S. He killed something like 50 young women before being caught. Sorry, I realize this reference might not be obvious world wide.

Thank you for info -as you probably realise now, I'm in the UK (born in England but living in N Ireland)

Regarding the question 'What are the pros of rape and murder' :-
I've looked up 'murder' on the web and been given the definition as 'Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being' Not much use if we can't agree on Unlawful? but I think we know what it means as we also know what 'rape' means? In relation to the matter we're discussing, the question is whether people convicted of murder and/or rape ought to be listened to in a debate? (if they want to) I would think it can only be helpful to hear their opinion even if we don't agree with it an equally be unhelpful to refuse to listen. Perhaps we can agree that the World is in a mess with so much argument between us all? Clearly our 'Democratic System' is a myth' and we are governed by multi millionaires and 'Established Families' who use Economics to maintain the Slave Trade!
It isn't the'multi millionaires and 'Established Families' who die as a result of conflict between the Slaves of Country A and Country B - it is us! We are clearly brought-up and 'educated' to accept what our 'democratically elected' representatives tell us? It's a 'Con'

[Scott]

Moderation note: I believe this topic started off on a bad-footing as in my view an open-ended question regarding historical fiction as such isn't really philosophical and now wish I had taken the time to consider the topic fully and originally delete it or at least move it to the off-topic section. In any case it has gone off even the original topic. While normally I attempt to save a derailed topic by deleting any off-topic or otherwise rule-breaking posts, I am just going to lock what remains of this topic. This topic is now locked. I recommend everyone read over the forum rules and take note of this elaboration of some of the relevant forum rules which explain the ways in which the topics up for debate are uncensored albeit heavily moderated. Even anyone would like to continue to debate any of the various topics, I suggest making a new topic--no matter how controversial--with a well-defining first post in the appropriate forum.