Amadeus Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Israel to protest Hitler praise in Indian state's school textbooks New Delhi (dpa) - Israel is planning to protest a western Indian state's move to include references in school books that glorify Adolf Hitler, a news report said Friday. The Israeli Embassy is planning to communicate its displeasure to Gujarat state, appalled that the school textbooks "sing praises" of Hitler, the Indian Express reported.(Source) From the Indian Express Article: Mum on Holocaust, books praise Hitler VADODARA: The Gujarat board’s Std IX social studies textbook is silent on the holocaust and glorifies Hitler. ‘‘Hitler adopted aggressive policy and led the Germans towards ardent nationalism... In thinking of Nazism, there is coordination of nationalism and socialism.’’ And the Std X social studies textbook says: ‘‘Hitler lent dignity and prestige to the German government in a short time by establishing a strong administrative set-up.’’ Mentioning holocaust only in passing, it has a subtitle reading ‘Internal Achievements of Nazism.’ ‘‘He (Hitler) adopted a new economic policy and brought prosperity to Germany. He made untiring efforts to make Germany self-reliant within one decade.’’ WTF - there are still people out there that didn't get the message? Why would you include such things in a school textbook? Am I missing some link between the third reich and India here? Dr Rog, paging Dr Rog! Historical Emergency in A&E! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Israel to protest Hitler praise in Indian state's school textbooks New Delhi (dpa) - Israel is planning to protest a western Indian state's move to include references in school books that glorify Adolf Hitler, a news report said Friday. The Israeli Embassy is planning to communicate its displeasure to Gujarat state, appalled that the school textbooks "sing praises" of Hitler, the Indian Express reported. I think perhaps that its not so much a glorification as showing how Germany felt about him at the time before the war. It is a bit over the top saying he was great at doing it, as it was built on the back of utter crap, but the book is supposed to be displaying society and how it works, which is what its doing I suppose, just worded VERY badly. Its trying to describe how Hitler and his other policies worked and how Germany felt about it all. When you read a history textbook like the one I did at gcse its portraying a similar thing for the time period but much more toned down and neutral about the subject, and it tells you how it happened, maybe thats why this book portrays a different message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 History is written by the victors.... its a petty they don't mention the deals the Zionists did with Nazi Germany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 History is written by the victors.... its a petty they don't mention the deals the Zionists did with Nazi Germany There’s no question that Hitler DID do a great deal of good for the Eric-in-der-Strasse and that he DID move the German people from a sense of humiliation and poverty that came about by the disgraceful penalties imposed by the Treaty of Versailles (something that many people, me included, blame 100% for the emergence of Hitler in fact if it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else who would have done much the same). There’s also no doubt that by taking Nationalism and Socialism and combining them he produced an amalgam that appealed to a very high percentage of the German population as both camps, one right wing and the other left wing saw in this emerging party enough of what they liked to put up with what they didn’t. The skew ball comes in when he threw in the seasoning by exploiting the National pride felt by ALL Germans, the national disgrace felt by ALL Germans, and the sense of betrayal felt by ALL Germans and all of this embodied by the terms of Versailles. The seasoning was to exploit the xenophobia and the identification for an internal cause (actually an excuse) for the Germans suffering in WW1. And of course who better to choose than an immigrant population, especially one that was easily identifiable by their appearance, their way of life, and one that had a long tradition of being the scapegoat in Europe if for no other reason than they had been vilified by the predominate religion and one whose very name was used as a term of abuse. Also remember, WW1 was not won. One side just lost a bit more than the other and the Spanish ‘Flu outbreak simply brought the whole terrible business to a stuttering (and coughing and dieing) halt. The outcome was an armistice and an agreement on terms of cessation of war – the Versailles agreement. There is a subtlety there that should not be missed. I’ve not even scratched the surface and could witter on about this interminably but won’t unless pressed. The bottom line. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Hitler and his policies were evil. They DID at least for a while substantially improve the lot of the German people who should never have been so abused by Versailles in the first place. BUT The COST in macro terms were unacceptable and just plain wrong. The thing that is so dangerous about concentrating on the good that was achieved under Nazism is that the costs of those achievements are out of all perspective of the good that they achieved and that is what will be obscured unless great care to ensure that a balanced picture is presented. An example – Autobahns. Great! Love ‘em! BUT why were they built. To ease communications across Germany for the troops when the invasions started as well as to speed commerce and provide work for the unemployed. And of all the development and progress that moved Germany from the state that it was in where so much of what was created in terms of national wealth was being taken as ‘war reparations’ to pay off countries like France and GB for the costs they incurred in WW1? Much was created by printing money backed initially backed with stolen wealth from guess who, and later by stealing valuable assets from countries that were invaded. There is a very great deal that can be said in terms of the progress that was made in Germany under Adolf Schickelgruber . There is far more that can be said about the evil that he unleashed on the world, an evil that still is present today in a many forms. THAT is the important thing that must be taught along side of the positive aspects of his ‘reign’. And magneto How ‘bout you tell us ALL about the relations between some Zionist leaders with Hitler. Let’s see what you REALLY know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 12, 2005 Author Share Posted November 12, 2005 I agree with your (very well worded) response on this - Yes, the Gröfaz (Größter Führer aller Zeiten - Greatest Leader of all times, as he was known back then) did do a lot of good things for Germany. The Autobahn - a prime and often quoted example. Without Mr H from Braunau, Austria, we wouldn't be able to travel all across the Heimatland in the way we do it and are used to today. Yes, he was a great speaker (listening to his speeches from back then, and I have to admit this, still grips me in a strangely fascinating way - it simply sends shivers down your spine - the hate, the passion, the way he expresses things, how he "got the masses going") and he managed to use the situation in just the right way. Imagine yourself in a huge stadium, surrounded by 100.000 fellow countrymen, listening to the current leader of your country appealing to your pride, promising you to make up for past humiliations and throwing in employment for everyone along the way - you would have fallen for it... Unfortunately, he was also a total madman, who was gay, had only one ball and liked his dog more than a man should (the last three bits depend on what part of "history" you believe). The Versailles Treaty, if my memory serves me right, stated (along a whole list of other things), that Germany's armed forces shall not exceed something like 100.000. Now (also, if I remeber this correctly), before WWII started, Germany had significantly more than 100.000 soldiers, yet no-one interferred or suggested to have a closer look at, or even stop Germany in it's tracks towards certain war. There is a very great deal that can be said in terms of the progress that was made in Germany under Adolf Schickelgruber . There is far more that can be said about the evil that he unleashed on the world, an evil that still is present today in a many forms. THAT is the important thing that must be taught along side of the positive aspects of his ‘reign’. I couldn't agree more with this statement. It sickens me to think that even (and maybe especially) back home, a whole lot of idiots still follow his ideals and think it's "cool" or "great" to live by the ideals of the Third Reich. I have never been someone who's "looking for a fight", in fact, I find violence in any way despicable and have only ever been involved in two fights in my life - both I didn't start, and both I lost in a not very glorious way (ok, I won on the legal path in the end, and both paid..) But when a group of "Nazis" (we used to call them "Baby Skins", as they were simply a bunch of juveniles with shaved heads and "Störkraft" - a well known Nazi Band - on their walkman) announced that they would be joined by a group of friends from Berlin to stage a march through my hometown, I was right at the front of the people marching towards them - most scariest moment in my life ever - nothing happened in the end (around 300 grim-faced German cops made sure of that), but I was prepared to put my pacifism aside for this... And magneto How ‘bout you tell us ALL about the relations between some Zionist leaders with Hitler. Let’s see what you REALLY know. A carefully worded response is recommended here... I still don't understand why an Indian textbook would glorify, or at least report in a positive way about Hitler - I'm just missing a link here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ try google ernst zungal this will point you to the missing link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ try google ernst zungal this will point you to the missing link I think that gives the lie to the suggestion that it's only the victors who write the 'history' books. Sometimes they're written by individuals who are clever enough to employ a few 'facts' and quotations and to distort their context enough to give an impression of erudition to suit their own views. Disguising propaganda as history became an art form when Josef Goebbels did it. Let's just hope that there are now enough people capable of rational analysis when they read filth such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 so how did hitler come to power . more historic filth backed by facts http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/06/16/lang.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 The BJP are an 'interesting' party and looking at them and their actions explains quite a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I don't think it would be good to glorify Hitler - sure he was an incredible man who showed incredible leadership - but this is totally detracted by his actions. - Going rather off topic now (although it's still regarding school books) what do people think about many US states playing down the theories of evolution in favour of the theories of creationism?? Also, don't you think there are many parallels between GWB & old Adolph (well apart from Adolph actually being good at making speeches)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 21, 2005 Author Share Posted November 21, 2005 Also, don't you think there are many parallels between GWB & old Adolph (well apart from Adolph actually being good at making speeches)? Nah.. There are significant differences between a psychopathic brainless maniac trying to take over the world and Adolf Hitler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 rofl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.