View Full Version : Would you kill Hitler?
Imagine for a moment you could travel back to 1889 and meet baby Hitler. Would you kill him, knowing what he'd become in 50 year's time?
Many people say they'd try to influence him and bring him up better. But that's out of the question. I'm the time-police and I set the rules. You have one brief shot at meeting him. It's either kill or walk away.
(imagine all the implications here. Not just a moral one of killing a still innocent little baby, but also other things: Israel wouldn't exist for sure, neither would the European Union as we know it today, since it was a direct descendant of WW2. Same thing with United Nations (it's predicesor the inafective League Of Nations would probably still exist). The Geneva Convention (as well as number of other multilateral agreements) was a direct effect of WW2 But on the other hand... no holocaust, no concentration camps, no suffering, no casualties of war... and in the end even if it's worth it... there's still that awful matter of killing this little still-innocent cutie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baby-hitler.jpg ).)
QueenBee
24-05-2005, 21:19
Nope.
thegurgi
24-05-2005, 22:07
yeah, i'd let it be... there's no point in altering history
The first directive prohibits altering the time line, so no. :D
No....may be I could imagine myself killing somebody because I'm nervous but I don't think I could do it with "Cold Mind" ....I mean with "préméditation"..
KillaQueen
25-05-2005, 10:18
nope, i wouldnt kill Hitler. last time i checked, i wasnt a (baby) killer. i couldn't bring myself to do it.
The first directive prohibits altering the time line, so no. :D but freddie is the time-police here and he says it's allowed :p
am i the only one here to be so evil to do so? :spy:
he did no good to anyone. :no:
and to discuss about consequenses on the modern world is a whole another, and way too complex story :rolleyes:
could i do it? i know i would like to but we'll never know that... :dknow:
Taito_Magatsu
25-05-2005, 20:54
this little still-innocent cutie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baby-hitler.jpg)
He resembles Moe from Three Stooges. :D
Many people say they'd try to influence him and bring him up better. But that's out of the question. I'm the time-police and I set the rules. You have one brief shot at meeting him. It's either kill or walk away.
Come on, let me change him, i know i can! :D
Returning to the question. If i have only that moment with him, i would be able to kill him. About the implications, well i would like to see how time would be changed, just for the fun :D . I have my theory of how would it be changed but that's another story, among millions of others, for another opportunity... hehe.
That's right. I am THE time police and I set the rules. Some other basic rules include:
-If you're not savvy in old-fashioned language forms, never interact with people around you. If you meet someone... and they start talking you have 3 options: a) destroy them, b) pretend you're retarded c) have a piece of food ready at any point in time. Start eating furiously when people approach you, which should give you an excuse for not talking, since your mouth will be full (you can also use a combination of b and c)
-Never show people of the past your future gadgets in order to get laid.
-Never attempt to harm or kill Dick and/or Mac McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_McDonald). We want a tasty future, don't we?
I would kill Hitler but I am not sure that another person of equal persuasion would not have taken his place. I just hate what he did but I also fear the consequences of tampering with history. Tough call.
spyretto
12-06-2005, 20:15
I'd rather buy all his paintings and brainwash him that his future lies in art instead ;)
Why worrying about something that will never happen :rolleyes: :lalala:
Tough decision. I probably would, considering he was more harm than good. But a baby? :bum:
Talking about world history, there are many other leaders that caused equal damage... But since the time cop specify only Hitler... Well, what gadgets u will give us? What do we kill the baby with? And do we get away with the crime comitted, or we just have to run for our lives?
You get a chain-saw and an AK-47 riffle. After you do your job, you're safely transported back to 2005 to the place you were born in. No running away from the Austro-Hungarian police of the late 19th century. That'd only make the decision harder. And it's not the point to get away with it anyway. The point is to get away from your moral stature and values in order to convice yourself to do something horrible to save millions of lives.
I said Hitler cause he's an obvious choice: you can easily replace him with Charles Manson, Jack The Ripper (whoever he was), Gingis Khan, Sadam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Augusto Pinochet... you name it.
KillaQueen
14-06-2005, 11:18
look who likes playing God :p dangerous game, freds ;)
i still wouldn't kill him.
if you're curious about "what would have happened if..." you can always read about counterfactual history :heh:
Ok. Then i don't want ur gadgets, Time Cop. Chain saw? It's gross! I'll just dump him into a well or something. It's a horrible thing to do, but ppl do horrible things everyday for a horrible cause, with malice and without sacrifice. U say who am i to judge what's horrible or not? But a judgement is already made when a discussion happens. It's inevitable. And what will happen if Hitler died when he was a baby? Did i mention I love chaos? :D
There's this one theory about time-paradoxes that as soon as one little detail from the past (as insignificant as it may be) changes, the whole "future" which represents our present disapears into nothing. Then there's this other interesting theory of paralel universes, where all endless possibilities that exist in life actually happen in one of the paralel universes that coincide with our present (just in a different dimension), while we're just a loop of one of those strings of infinite possibilities. Like one drop in an ocean full of water. Our fates are sculptured around one of the possibilities that can and do happen elsewhere (and at the same time) in other dimensions.
Okay, but the point of this thread wasn't time-travel and it's mysteries, per se (though it was splendid it took that turn - I have no objections. :D). It was just a test of the struggle within a person when they have to do something bad for greater good of mankind.
We have no guarantee that killing Hitler as a child would make history better though.
Hitler did not invent fascism, fascism was spreading all over Europe in the 1930s, it was a deep general historical movement, Hitler managed to use that movement to cease power.
If Hitler is removed, who's to say that another national socialist leader isn't going to take his role in history, one that will be actually better than Hitler (from a Nazi point of view), one that will be more in control of himself and won't make the same strategic mistakes like starting the war in 1939 (too soon, they needed 10 more years to be ready) or having the USSR and the US drawn into the conflict (easily avoidable mistakes, the USSR was happy with the non-aggression pact and the US was happy to remain neutral in this nth European civil war). With a better leader, it would have been totally possible for Nazi Germany to invade and control all western and central Europe, and we may very well all be citizens of the IIIrd Reich today.
In an alternative scenario, if national socialism had collapsed without Hitler, well, national socialism was not the only extremist movement in Germany in the 1930s, the communists were also working to cease power. If national socialism had failed, the communists would have most probably made a coup and turned Germany into a Soviet state right at the heart of Europe. Soviet Germany and Soviet Russia would have been strong allies and would have easily invaded all the rest of Europe to create a huge Soviet Empire.
But at least in both scenarios Europe would be unified and definitely one of the superpowers of this planet instead of being the nothingness that it is today, lol.
KillaQueen
14-06-2005, 17:26
We have no guarantee that killing Hitler as a child would make history better though.
And no guarantee it would change it. The perfect example in that sense would be the Oedipus myth. You try to change stuff to avoid something happening in the future, but destiny will still have its way. So suppose it was possible to go back in time to try and kill Hitler. Who's to say the killer wannabe won't die first? Don't wanna mess with the forces of the universe, man :no:
Well most of Hitlers followers weren't exactly right in the head either. On the contrarary, more then half were chronic phychotics. So whichever of those extreme nacionalists took power and attempted to create the 3rd Reich wouldn't exactly be any more successful then Hitler. The thing is that Hitler ventured into something unknown - a war of that scale has never been attempted before. He had an army of well-trained professionals behind him, suggesting every tactical move, so it's not like he acted like a clueless amateur. He was just overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the "project". I don't think any other leader would do any better (any worse, rather). Though I seriously doubt anyone else would be able to gain popularity and then exploit it quite as well Hhitler did. He was the ultimate evil genious. Smarter and more evil than Joker & Penguin put togeher.
And no guarantee it would change it. The perfect example in that sense would be the Oedipus myth. You try to change stuff to avoid something happening in the future, but destiny will still have its way. So suppose it was possible to go back in time to try and kill Hitler. Who's to say the killer wannabe won't die first? Don't wanna mess with the forces of the universe, man :no:
You know you got me to thinking: Who would had dreamed that one could replicate an exact clone of a human being 40-50 years ago. It just wasn't on the barometer. So, instead of a game, let's suppose time travel became a scientific reality. Would someone actually take the risk of tampering with even the smallest detail of history? My guess is that some would and strange things would begin to surface all around us. I know there are books and all that on the subject but I never really thought about it as a possibility.
We have no guarantee that killing Hitler as a child would make history better though.
Hitler did not invent fascism, fascism was spreading all over Europe in the 1930s, it was a deep general historical movement, Hitler managed to use that movement to cease power.
If Hitler is removed, who's to say that another national socialist leader isn't going to take his
I think that a better strategic leader than Hitler but a man with the same agenda would have/could have easily taken all of Europe except perhaps England and then re-tooled under a united Europe to take on the British empire first and then ultimately the Soviet empire. After that, retool and choose the US or Asian community next. Use middle Africa for Jurastic Park. He wanted too much, too fast. Someone said it right, he tried to manage too big of a "project". You got to wonder why? Like someone said, he wasn't stupid, maybe just "crazy with autocratic power" to believe he could pull it off that quckly.
Of course not.:no:
cuz I admire him.
Not a very bright thing to say. Please avoid saying such things that could offend other members. Thank you.
I didnt mean to offend anyone.sorry if I did.
But that's my idea.
KillaQueen
01-11-2005, 23:04
well, why do you admire him? what's to admire? :spy:
He had great ideas.
Dont you think it would be great if the world had only a leader?
Do you know any leader who isnt killer?
He had great ideas.So killing millions of Jews was totally ok? :bum:
Dont you think it would be great if the world had only a leader?No, no-one should have that much control.
Do you know any leader who isnt killer?It doesn't make it right.
KillaQueen
01-11-2005, 23:18
He had great ideas.
killing Jews, gay people, gypsies and opposers just because they were who they were is not what i'd call a 'great idea'.
Dont you think it would be great if the world had only a leader?
no, i dont think so. but, sadly, we do (in one too many ways): the US president.
Do you know any leader who isnt killer?
no, he only killed millions of people. but got his army to do the dirty job, of course. no leader gets his hands dirty, you see. still happening. look at Bush.
Got nothing to say now xmad? :rolleyes:
I'm guessing you're gay, right? If Hitler had won you would have been killed for being gay. Infact you wouldn't even have existed as your grandparents probably would have been killed as I'm guessing they weren't blonde with blue eyes.
So much for a good idea.
KillaQueen
01-11-2005, 23:53
we dont mean to offend you, xmad. you're a new member and we don't want you to think we contradict you just for the sake of it. we're merely trying to have a discussion, expressing ideas and opinions backed up by rational arguments. we gave you our arguments and now we're waiting for yours.
It's funny how adolescent kids seem to find somekind of a quasi-rebelous statement in admiring this charismatic killer. I guess it's the same as the phenomenon of Che Guevara who's found his way onto every T-shirt of an average teen rebel without a cause. It's a clear case of parodizing hiddeous acts of these people, after enough time has passed. Like it or not, Hitler became a symbol for all the modern quasi-rebels against the institution - because he represents such ridiculous evil it'll immediately tickle the fancy of youth - because youth is attracted to the extreme - doesn't even matter if it's extreme NEGATIVE in question. Same reason why satan-worshiping societies exist. Sieg heil! O, brother. :rolleyes:
KillaQueen
02-11-2005, 00:36
It's funny how adolescent kids seem to find somekind of a quasi-rebelous statement in admiring this charismatic killer.
that's true, and i wouldn't have even bothered to ask xmad for further details if that were the case, but from what i can see here, she's 27, freds. so i thought maybe she'd have some explanations. oh, my brother :coctail:
Sean Jon
02-11-2005, 01:27
i would
Khartoun2004
02-11-2005, 01:40
I don't like the idea of tampering with history, however in the case of getting the chance to kill Hilter before he got the chance to kill about 50% of my family...
I'm afraid as a half German Jew, I would have to say, Yes I would jump at the opportunity to murder the son of a bitch.
I dont like that part of history so I suggest dont try to change history :P
As you can see in Back to the future you can do really do stupid things
I hope hitler wont kill me because i have blond hair and blue eyes
The dead of hitler is a good thing in history :D
Got nothing to say now xmad? :rolleyes:
No that's not right.Actually I had something to say but unfortunately I lost my internet connecton.
I didnt say he was perfect.He had mistakes.
No one is perfect.
KillaQueen,No,you didnt offend me at all.that's your idea and I respect it.
KillaQueen
02-11-2005, 10:54
again, no offence, but it's funny that you should call the death and torture of millions of innocent people a 'mistake' :none:
That was a war.What did you expect?
That doesnt mean I agree with war cuz I know how terrilbe the war is.
Sean Jon
02-11-2005, 13:09
you really dont know how to make a good point
Yeah, but see... there was one simple difference with Hitler - he actually PLANNED to erracicate a bunch of nations and ethnic groups. It wasn't really a mistake. His plan was to completely wipe out the jews (not 'cause he hated them - that was just an excuse - but rather to take their money. European jewish population of the time usually consisted wealthy families) and make a permanent working class out of slavic people.
I don't think there is any room for compassion for this guy and whoever does so clearly doesn't know history nor all the facts.
On the other hand of course I can't see anything wrong with people finding him interesting as a historical figure. Some might even admire his charisma and ability to lead a nation of deseperate people into commiting blatent genocide without even feeling bad for it. It takes a very special man to play the right strings to achieve that. However that doesn't change the fact that he as a person was a total sociopathic psycho. :p
I don't think there is any room for compassion for this guy and whoever does so clearly doesn't know history nor all the facts.
What a conclusion!!
No,you cant say that.If I didnt know I would never say I admire him.
I dont think you can change my mind and I cant change yours either.
So lets stop it.
1. I would never kill a baby ( be it Hitler or Stalin or someone else)...because who in right mind could murder a newborn??
2. Admire Hitler ? That is so wrong.
I dont think you can change my mind and I cant change yours either.
That’s your choice! But please remember that little insignificant xmad is in her position now entirely due to the kindness of millions and millions people who gave their lives away to nail the beast.
I'd rather buy all his paintings and brainwash him that his future lies in art instead ;)
I'd do the smart thing: travel back to when he was a young adult (not a baby), take him with me to 2005, make him listen to My Chemical Romance's CD, read Mossopp's posts in Tatysite, then dump him back in his original year.
You'd be surprised to see how fast he'd take a gun to his mouth. :D
I see no future in hate and suffering, and ever since I took history class, I pitied the poor fool. He could've been a brilliant mind and quite possibly a torchbearer for his generation's thinkers (without even having to go close to his "Mein Kampf" theories and exposed ideas), but he wasn't. He chose a path he thought would benefit his country and "race", but nobody, as sick as one can be, can live on blood and death every day.
Sure enough, he did a lot of damage and traumatized people up and down, but as Freddie mentioned, he was not to blame for half of the movements his very ideas birthed.
That was a war.What did you expect?
That doesnt mean I agree with war cuz I know how terrilbe the war is.
I find it hard to believe you can be as dumb as to think the Holocaust can be clouded behind "a war". That's like closing your eyes and thinking the Sun dissapeared. His hatred of a whole race made him a negative icon in his culture. Some people (granted, not the brightest people) remember Germany as a crib of hatred and horrors, only because he directed his operations from there.
Seriously, while we don't like imposing our ideas on others in this forum, several of us are radically different. Mentally, sexually, ethnically. Saying you admire a deluded fucktard like Hitler can only sink you like the Titanic, and giving those retarded arguments like "he made mistakes" and "it was only a war" does not help your case.
Seriously, while we don't like imposing our ideas on others in this forum, several of us are radically different. Mentally, sexually, ethnically. Saying you admire a deluded fucktard like Hitler can only sink you like the Titanic, and giving those retarded arguments like "he made mistakes" and "it was only a war" does not help your case.
:lol: dont worry I wont sink.
Nice to know we're amusing you xmad :rolleyes:
KillaQueen
03-11-2005, 10:16
maybe if you could explain yourself a little bit better... we tend to analyze things here, sometimes write mini-essays to make points. you're not going to be understood unless you develop your opinions. otherwise, you risk being mistaken for a stubborn child. of course, it's just a forum, but we take it seriously and it's meant to be taken seriously. there are people working hard to keep it going. i think we owe it to them, and also to the other members, to act accordingly. hope you don't get me wrong, Aida :)
dont worry I wont sink.
It's not you sinking that's the problem, it's your reputation that's just gonna pretty much preceed you every time you post. Please try developing your point so we understand it?
I dont get you wrong.In a way you are right.
Thanks for your points.
Girl... never, ever venture into politics. :p
Girl... never, ever venture into politics. :p
Do you really think who you are to let yourself tell me what to do and what not to.:mad:
It's just a fair suggestion. ;)
And a pretty safe one to that. >_>
Do you really think who you are to let yourself tell me what to do and what not to.
He meant that your claims of adoration will never allow you to get further than your neighbourhood politics-wise as Herr Hitler is internationally recognised as a war initiator responsible for mass murder. It's the same as if you claimed adoring Devil while heading for the Pope’s position.
I will do my best to make everything clear.(sorry for my English because it isnt good at all).
I do admire 2 persons,one of them is Joan of Arc and the other one is Hitler.
And why do I admire him?! I have so many reasons to say that.I admire him since I was a child.I read so many things about him and also I read his book.I like his character.
He wanted to take over the all countries.If he could then the world would be leading by only one person so all the countries would have the same rules.Isnt it good?!Well,take a look at EU.(Turkey is doing his best to be a part of EU).It's almost abit like the Hitler's idea,but this one is better developed.This one has no war.(I hope you know what I mean)
So many people hate Hitler because they think he was the most cruel person that has ever existed.In fact everybody is cruel if you have more authority you are more cruel.People are cruel even for themselves.There are so many people who are alive but are they really living?Do they know that they are just alive?
Anyway lets go back to politic/politic game.Nowadays there isnt that much killing in this game but does it make it better?Do you know Afghanistan,Iraq or Iran?Do you know their leaders/presidents?There are people in Iran who agree with the war and they just want someone to save them even though they've seen and lived the war.Unfortunately they think US can save them.They are tired of being just alive.
Do you know anything about Iran rules?Do you know about Iran people?
Iran is leading by a group of really ignorant(or maybe really wise)and cruel people.
I have a great idea too. I really wish this world to get AIDS-free. So, alternative #1 is to start a mass murder of all AIDS infected and alternative #2 is to wait until we get a proper medical treatment plus vaccination against it. This is a simple idea as Hitler's was. He had an utopic vision for his time and used crime to satisfy his curiousity and a pure craziness. The man hadn't enough neurons up there to realise impossibility of his own ideas.
Modern politics have less cruel methods but still need to improve. I agree on that.
Sorry but there is not possible connection between Joan of Arc and Hitler!
You dont have to find any connection between them.
for instance: one of my hobbies is doing sports and the other one is the internet,can you find any connection between them??:confused:
You dont have to find any connection between them.
for instance: one of my hobbies is doing sports and the other one is the internet,can you find any connection between them??:confused:
This sentence wasn't a question to you , it was just to notice that one of our political men who wants to become the president of France has made this connection: he took Jeanne d'Arc as emblem for his party :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1960000/images/_1961927_pic14.jpg the statue of Jeanne d'Arc in Paris...each May 1rst , Jean-Marie LE PEN make a ceremony there.
http://politique128.free.fr/lepen5 one of his friends ;)
http://politique128.free.fr/lepen4 here the guy was beating a politic woman who was in an opposite party from his
http://www.worldpress.org/images/0702france.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1947160_lepen150.jpg
If you don't know the guy , you can read that ..... http://www.adl.org/international/le-pen_new.asp
No , indeed my questions were further in the post ;)
The sentance "He wanted to take over the all countries.If he could then the world would be leading by only one person so all the countries would have the same rules.Isnt it good?! should be framed and put on someone's wall as the most skewed thing ever uttered about Hitler.
Yeah, true, he did want to make one country with one set of rules, but that was besides the point - any self-respecting dictator will have that ultimate desire. However you conveniently forget that in that one grand country he envisioned, there was no place for the jewish, blacks or just about anything else that wasn't 100% aryan. And his solution to achieve that goal was mass genocide. And you think that unified country would be eventually FAIR? Dream on. It'd be the oligarchy of the rich germanic nobles who'd directly and indirectly exploit billions of people. Lovely ain't it? Joy to the world.
He wanted to take over the all countries.If he could then the world would be leading by only one person so all the countries would have the same rules.Isnt it good?!
xmad, why don't you admire Stalin as well? He managed to lead quite a large part of a world and this "1/6th of the planet" obeyed the same rules. All those who did not want to obey these rules were imprisoned, deported and killed :) Do you think this kind of world was a better place to live in?
Are you sure that Hitler was so "strong"?
Yes,for sure he was.
As you seem to know this "nazi world"..people who has a such admiration might have found people sharing the same ideal....have you tried to observe them?
How are these persons in their private life?
Hmm nice point:done:
I've heard about them.I dont agree with them.most of them dont even know what they are doing.I dont know maybe they have psychological problems like satanists.
http://politique128.free.fr/lepen4 here the guy was beating a politic woman who was in an opposite party from his
It's so sad to see this.
And you think that unified country would be eventually FAIR?
Yes,I do agree with unified country.
why don't you admire Stalin as well?
I do really like Evanescence, so do I have to like all rock singers or bands??
Yes,I do agree with unified country.
Your replies are tedious and taken out of context. That's not really what I was asking. I'm not wondering whether you'd think a unified country in general would be bad, but rather this specific type of a unified country: one which a single race would be prefered and given advantage, while others would be either slaughtered by genocide or put into use as a permanent working classes. Because you can't agree with that specific country unless you agree with purpuseful murder and extreme race segregation at the same time. This utopic country would never be able to exist without those two factors.
And futhermore ...
Originally Posted by nath
Are you sure that Hitler was so "strong"?
Yes,for sure he was.
This is one of those things that can't really be known "for sure". There'll be legends around him and his persona, but most people that knew him had conflicting things to say about him - maybe because he just was a conflicting personality. You though, say it like you know for sure he was strong. Like a fact. It's not a fact. It's an opinion. Present it as such.
one which a single race would be prefered and given advantage, while others would be either slaughtered by genocide or put into use as a permanent working classes. Because you can't agree with that specific country unless you agree with purpuseful murder and extreme race segregation at the same time. This utopic country would never be able to exist without those two factors.
What a conclusion!!!
This is one of those things that can't really be known "for sure". There'll be legends around him and his persona, but most people that knew him had conflicting things to say about him - maybe because he just was a conflicting personality. You though, say it like you know for sure he was strong. Like a fact. It's not a fact. It's an opinion. Present it as such.
I'm repeating this again.He was strong.That's a fact.
samira_vip
05-11-2005, 21:09
I read all your posted messages. Since you've asked this question or u 've said yes! what is the difference between all you and Hitler? But I myself admire him, because of many reasons.
i can tell u if u are interested in! (also say hello to everyone :) and wish to have fun with each other)
But I myself admire him, because of many reasons.
i can tell u if u are interested in!
Yes, I believe that we are interested. Please, post your explanations.
It's ironic that we are discussing the virtues of Hitler on tatysite:rolleyes: I had thought that Tatu was representing all the ideas opposite to Nazism: freedom of mind, speech, love...
But world is a strange place and full of surprises:rolleyes:
Welcome samira vip. :flag:
it's great to see someone who admires Hitler.
samira_vip
05-11-2005, 21:43
thank you dear xmad:rose: . and thank you linda for your interest.:done:
xmad and samira_vip have the same IP… :rolleyes: IP belongs to a university in Famagusta in the Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus, enough said.
university in Famagusta in the Turkish occupied northern part of Cyprus
Well, that sounds interesting. Being occupied by Turks provokes admiration towards Hitler... Really interesting... Thanks, haku/Amber for this detective work.
samira_vip
05-11-2005, 22:02
!!!!this is not very difficult to find it out!!!!!!!!! is it so strange that 2 people from one country who are friends and study in a same university also same field, have got same idea!! is it restiricted to invite our friends to here????!!! it sounds meaningless dear Amber:confused: . if u have answer to that i am waiting to hear it.
But, still, samira vip and xmad can you explain your ideas in a more elaborated way? Not just: he was strong, he wanted to unify the countries. Why specially you, two Cypriots are so fascinated about him?
I never said I'm CYPRIOT.Im not.Im a student in Cyprus.
Why are you saying this???Why specially you, two Cypriots are so fascinated about him?
If I was Cypriot I couldnt admire him??
You say you are against discrimination but you've proved something else.:confused:
!!!!this is not very difficult to find it out!!!!!!!!! is it so strange that 2 people from one country who are friends and study in a same university also same field, have got same idea!! is it restiricted to invite our friends to here????!!! it sounds meaningless dear Amber:confused: . if u have answer to that i am waiting to hear it.
Not only it has happened before that a member cheated others out of an opinion by posting twice on different IDs (and again thanks to Amber for that detective work), but I find it very very hard to believe that while xmad lives in Cyprus (as it mentions in the profile), samira_vip doesn't have the need to disclose where he/she lives, BUT has the same IP xmad does, studies in the same University, shares the same fuckwarded point of view about Hitler, has the same broken english and grammar, and also likes Tatu.
And samira_vip isn't logged on when xmad is. :rolleyes:
Seriously, your credibility at this point is null. Stop thinking your line of though is superior to the rest of the forum, stop playing stupid, and explain your point before people actually start ignoring you. Many of us don't have english as a first language, and many of us aren't even in the same educative level you are, the least you could do was behave like the student you are and make an effort to make yourself understood.
samira_vip
05-11-2005, 22:59
OOOOOooopppssssss!!!! I am not Cypriot. that's why i didn't mention my nationality. people mostly judge without knowing exact details about others. i just wanna ask u if u have ever read his book? have u ever read other politician's opinion about him? have u ever tried to look at him from other aspect? are u sure about other existed politicians,artists,..... that u may admire? think Hitler is not just a killer. read his memories, his ideas, do not just listen to the news agancies which try to show what they want. loosing homes, families, death, diseases,.... are all parts of wars, all the wars. it is not correct but it is just a result. mostly people say Hitler have been a bad person or such e thing just because he failed through improving his idea. maybe some part of his thought was not right but generally i think he was not depend on other political groups.firstly i admire him because he tried to achieve his goal. secondly he did not accept other's idea just because of their prototypes or .... . he did not accept theoricall opinions which are not real, which are just like a mirage! he tried to prevent poverty, even for black people..... just think. i do admire him. but i don't force others to accept my idea. (plz notice: since this is a discussion, no need for offending others! )
I ordinarily don't get pissed off over people with different ideals and heroes, because quite honestly if we all liked the same thing these forums would be really boring.
What I don't understand is why both of you (if there is a both of you) refuse to understand that we're asking "why", not "who". Hitler was an intelligent man who could've been a leader of his country and continent into something other than pain and anger. Why he became this dark, horrible character in history, we can never pinpoint, but we're not asking you guys that. Hitler was a man of pride, the fact that he took a gun to his temple when he was humilliated losing one of the most painful wars is faithful proof to that. He. Couldn't. Stand. Losing. Ideologically, or otherwise.
I'm merely angry that we've repeatedly asked why do you admire him if he effectively was responsible for the genocide of a whole ethnia. Not his hands, but his whole damn self was drenched in the blood of innocents and he wouldn't acknowledge it, because to him every race other than "aryan" was unworthy of being called human. He thought of everyone else as animals. A man with that sort of ideals is unworthy of tolerance and respect, which is why it baffles me that you both endorse him as one of the greatest thinkers you say he was.
samira_vip
05-11-2005, 23:23
read my idea completely plz then u will see why. (ofcourse we are all here because all of us have got same interest so why you, darje could say people will ignor u both? just because u can not see both of us log on at the same time or by a clever man discovery u all found out we have same root ip? it is clear when we study in a same university also live in a same place we should have same root ip. but be sure u are talking to 2 different people with same idea about a man u mentioned to kill him just because political history have been tried to give him a dark horrible character?! i just said my idea with mentioning why. what u are looking for is not my answer, or my friend's, you do try to ignor ours and clear urs! but like us if it is not right to u just say it, this is ur opinion and i do repect it.)
You'd better believe we are 2 persons.Cuz we actually are.
You dont have to be merely angry darje.You are reapiting the same question but did you really read my answers?
You can not take something that you dont like it,whether it's true or not.
If you want you can ignore us.We dont care.We just talked our minds.
Thanks for all the things you said.There's no need to mention,you know what I mean.
(ofcourse we are all here because all of us have got same interest so why you, darje could say people will ignor u both?
Because I have an incredibly hard time believing you two could ever be the sort of nice, cultured people that visit these forums, seeing as you hero-worship a dictator on whose shoulders the deaths of millions of people burden.
At this point it's pointless to try and understand why, because every time that an answer's request of you, you keep saying to trace back to Hitler's ideas. Can't either of you think for yourselves? It's apparent you can't, since you'd rather blame "the media" for our bad impression of Hitler, rather than the fact that in these particular forums, it is our differences that makes us, not one particular ideal. I find it pathetic and sad that you're unable to articulate a response of your own as to why you admire a monster like Hitler, and I'm just gonna stop giving a shit about what you think and avoid both you and xmad like you had the plague, which is what I should've done in the first place. -_-
I'm really interested as to WHAT in your honest opinion was portrayed by the media and actually wasn't true. Did he not plan to completely erradicate the jewish and steal their riches? Did he not dream of a pure aryan race that wouldn't be mixed with other "lesser" races - and that includes YOUR races, whether you're a cypriotes or turks... your great hero would want you OUT of his pure mix, if not dead. Was that all a lie? And if it was, is this the first case in history where journalists,writers and news-groups of all nations collaborated together to create this elusive lie about an otherwise noble man who just wanted joy to the world? I mean COME ON.
I'd understand your admiration up to an extent if you made some valid points. However stuff you two are saying is absurd. With friends like these Hitler needs no more (additional) enemies. :p
If he won the war we wouldnt face any problem cuz WE are ARYAN.
samira_vip
06-11-2005, 03:18
dear friends, have u posted this question just because u all wanted to say FOR SURE YOU WOULD KILL HITLER!!!!! if yes so what's the usage of this question?? but if not plz do not offend some one u don't like, this is not acceptable in a free discussion. BUT i tell u all, we live in a world that everyday brings us hot news of wars, diplomacy problems, poverty problems and etc. would u kill all the leaders all over the world???? do u know why Hitler has started a war like that? maybe u just think this is a way that monsters act, but be aware... if u see you are going to loose your culture, your customs, your language, your flag and etc, will u just sit down infront of your tv and eat your delicious food and try to be sorry for what's happening? OFCOURSE NOT. because of that i ask u if you've ever read his memories or even any historic book of that period. Germany on that time was a country which had not got any chance to improve, any chance to show its culture to its new generation. maybe it is not important to you but i myself as a person who respect to all these items can not accept it. how is it when u see all these are done by some special groups of people?!(they were jewish on that time). i do not wanna say killing people is ok to me but you can not avoid it during the war time. i do not say it is acceptable that u prefer one race! NO NOT AT ALL! but i accept that people can defend thier nationality and all its related. i mentioned why i admire him but u did not care. and also it is not neccessary to say it again. but remember what u admire is not perfect from all aspects. and let me say this is not related to my race. also remember living in a country does not mean that's ur nationality!!!!
I have no words for all this. I mean , good ones .
And mind you , that is creme de la creme : mature (25-27y.o.) ,educated , university students , without any known vice (drugs , alcohol etc.) , healthy , loving sports and such
dysfunctional .
What could you expect from uneducated mobs then ?
Probably the same what is going on in Paris now --- riots and disorder ! some youths who think they are trying to sort out the world and problems of capitalism.
KillaQueen
06-11-2005, 12:53
like freds said, hitler could be admired if you look at him as a leader of people. he had a VERY big influence over the germans (and not only) if he made them fight for his cause. but that's all he can be 'admired' for.
he wanted one supreme race, of which he personally wasn't part of. need i remind you what a typical aryan is? blonde, blue eyes, tall? if he's so admirable, why didn't he kill himself in the first place, right in the beginning to... i dunno, set an example? he wasn't an aryan. but he was something alright: a coward. and the fact that he killed himself AFTER causing so much destruction proves it. if he believed so much in the justice of his cause, why didn't he wait to see what was coming to him? why did he kill himself? because he KNEW he had done so much evil that he would be punished for it. and he was scared. that's why. he wasn't able to support his cause till the end. he failed his people. admirable? not really. you cannot challenge that, whatever you say. you said he was 'strong' for sure, and i told you for sure - trough facts - that he was weak.
and the fact that he killed so many people - not only the jews in his country (if you say that they were bugging him), but also the jews in other countries. and gypsies. and gays. and slavic people. and opposers. a total of over 10 million INNOCENT people. you just simply cannot blame this on "the war" and you can't overlook it. for moral, ethical reasons you just cannot. it was straight up genocide. and that alone should teach you NOT to admire him. but if you are able to dismiss the holocaust as a side effect of "the war", then i give up. right here and now. i'm not going to discuss this anymore.
samira_vip
06-11-2005, 13:13
since i clear my point of view, i won't discuss any more!
since i clear my point of view, i won't discuss any more!
I wont discuss either.
If he won the war we wouldnt face any problem cuz WE are ARYAN.
This wraps it up perfectly, doesn't it? We're aryan, we'd prevail in a racialy segregated society. Screw the rest.
Germany on that time was a country which had not got any chance to improve, any chance to show its culture to its new generation. maybe it is not important to you but i myself as a person who respect to all these items can not accept it. how is it when u see all these are done by some special groups of people?!(they were jewish on that time). i do not wanna say killing people is ok to me but you can not avoid it during the war time. i do not say it is acceptable that u prefer one race! NO NOT AT ALL! but i accept that people can defend thier nationality and all its related.
See, I read many history books about Germany at the time, I've heard about the poverty and humiliation they endured after WW1 by the hand of the allies (which was btw their own fault anyway, since they started the first one as well). But those aren't really excuses. Just reasons. The way you say it it's like you're trying to find excuses for genocide in radical thinking in general in these reasons. There is no excuse.
no, cause i can't kill anyone. it's because i dont think i can actually kill someone. unless he/she is trying to kill me and i act defensively, i can't kill anyone. even if i'm understand attack, it's hard to resort to basic instincts and doing whatever it takes to survive.
kishkash
08-11-2005, 04:34
he wanted one supreme race, of which he personally wasn't part of. need i remind you what a typical aryan is? blonde, blue eyes, tall? if he's so admirable, why didn't he kill himself in the first place, right in the beginning to... i dunno, set an example?
very valid points my romanian friend with the hot voice...yet there is one fundamental flaw in the logic of both you, hitler and most of europe.
Hitler neglected to realize the perfect aryan isn't white with blue eyes...aryans are from arya..which back in the day is around where babylon was...in what is currently the middle east. Aryans aren't just white people...they engulf all people from that region including spanish and portugese and french and germans and arabs and iranians and afhganis.
So to provide a master race of aryans who would he kill..just the blacks? he painted the term aryan to suit his needs and with his misinformation he basically wanted to create a superrace of recessive genes which would result in complete albino freaks in a few generations
<end karens contribution to the discussion>
Good call , kishkash !
And let's not forget that Hitler supported islamic leaders in middle east! They rebelled against british imperial troops. Luftwaffe send german planes to support Iraqi rebels. From research we know that people in Israel and surrounding countries go back to the same nomadic ancestors. So ?
He supported people of the same "racial" background in middle east, which he murdered in Europe !
Hitler neglected to realize the perfect aryan isn't white with blue eyes...aryans are from arya..which back in the day is around where babylon was...in what is currently the middle east. Aryans aren't just white people...they engulf all people from that region including spanish and portugese and french and germans and arabs and iranians and afhganis.Not Arabs, Arabs are Semite, not Indo-European. ;) But yeah, the real historical Aryans (as opposed to the mythical ones invented by the Nazis), which are now called Proto-Indo-Europeans by scientists, are the ancestors of all Indo-European people from India to Iceland (Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Persian and Indian groups).
As for the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland, it's true that some theories put it in Mesopotamia, some others in Northern Iran (the word 'Iran' comes from the same root as 'Aryan'), but the most accepted location by modern archeologists is a bit further North, between the Black and Caspian seas, this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png) shows the Proto-Indo-European homeland in purple and the expansion of Indo-European people toward India and Western Europe.
Nobody really knows what those Proto-Indo-Europeans looked like, but it is generally considered that Iranians are probably the closest to the original people.
between the Black and Caspian seas
That's Azerbaijan !:cool: they do look like iranian a bit ....
But what happened to these Proto_Indo_Europeans , Amber ? Were they kicked away by short, brown skinned and slant eyed guys ?:) and fled?
KillaQueen
08-11-2005, 12:32
Hitler neglected to realize the perfect aryan isn't white with blue eyes...aryans are from arya..which back in the day is around where babylon was...in what is currently the middle east. Aryans aren't just white people...
yes, my friend with the sexy avatar :coctail: i know that, and this is why i said "typical aryan" (as in what hitler perceived as "aryan"). i was only refering to his point of view in order to demonstrate something regarding his character, nothing more.
Please notice : I dont wanna discuss so please just read it.I just wanna let you know this:
Hitler supported islamic leaders in middle east
Hitler supported Iran King and his name was Reza.
But what happened to these Proto_Indo_Europeans , Amber ? Were they kicked away by short, brown skinned and slant eyed guys ?:) and fled?No, they didn't flee anything, nobody could beat the Proto-Indo-Europeans actually, that's precisely why they were able to expand up to India and Western Europe.
After the end of the last ice age (around 10,000 BC), the region between the Black and Caspian seas became extremely fertile, the Proto-Indo-Europeans who lived there were able to develop rapidly a successful civilization, they invented agriculture, livestock farming, the wheel, the chariot, metallurgy, they domesticated the horse. Because of those improved living conditions, their population simply exploded, they had to expand, gain new territories for their increasing population. Some Proto-Indo-Europeans went east (and became the Persian/Indian people) and some went west (and became the European people), along the way they sometimes met local people (the Indus civilization in India, the Minoan and Megalithic civilizations in Europe) but they were all easily conquered by Indo-Europeans.
Indo-Europeans had a warrior caste, they rode horses (something those local people had never seen), they had chariots, they had better metal weaponry… Wherever Indo-Europeans went, they easily conquered new territories, and then they settled and developped the Indian, Persian and European civilizations as we know them.
:spy: Amber, are you sure that you only work for ***? Don't you have a degree in History or something?
I've always been interested in ancient history. :)
kishkash
09-11-2005, 00:03
Not Arabs, Arabs are Semite, not Indo-European.
yeh sorry amber...got carried away LOL
yes, my friend with the sexy avatar i know that, and this is why i said "typical aryan" (as in what hitler perceived as "aryan"). i was only refering to his point of view in order to demonstrate something regarding his character, nothing more.
LOL :kwink: that's why i said good point..but i wanted to clarify the true meaning of the word aryan...tho amber has done his research and has provided more detail than me ;)
Hitler supported Iran King and his name was Reza.
Reza Shah...and he wasn't an islamic supporter...he was the opposite. He was a revolutionary who wanted to modernize iran and had great support from the US and european countries. When he was overthrown it was the US who helped him come back to power.
KillaQueen
09-11-2005, 00:23
LOL that's why i said good point..but i wanted to clarify the true meaning of the word aryan...tho amber has done his research and has provided more detail than me
ok then, kishy. and yeah, Amber knows her stuff well :yes:
speaking of which, pour moi brainy = sexy. Amber, if i hadn't a girlfriend, i'd ask you out tomorrow evening, you hot, irresistible, french lezzie, so that you could fill my every pore with knowledge spoken in the language of amour.....rrrrrrrr :lady: :kwink:
p.s. i'd wear a red wig just for you :laugh:
You made me blush like a young maiden, KQ :o The geeky lesbian in me got moist just from reading your post. :gigi:
aww :rose: yes, i have that power, thank you :laugh:
speaking of which, pour moi brainy = sexy. Amber, if i hadn't a girlfriend, i'd ask you out tomorrow evening, you hot, irresistible, french lezzie, so that you could fill my every pore with knowledge spoken in the language of amour.....rrrrrrrr
p.s. i'd wear a red wig just for you
:lol: :lol: :lol: You're into geeks too, KQ?
KillaQueen
09-11-2005, 01:20
You're into geeks too, KQ?
all the way, baby! :D
Reza Shah...and he wasn't an islamic supporter...he was the opposite. He was a revolutionary who wanted to modernize iran and had great support from the US and european countries. When he was overthrown it was the US who helped him come back to power.
Yes, Reza Khan/shah wasnt an islamic supporter that's why I said Iran's king.
" Reza Shah tried to avoid involvement with Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR; formed from the Russian Empire in 1922). Even though many of his development projects required foreign technical expertise, he avoided awarding contracts to British and Soviet companies. Although Britain, through its ownership of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, controlled all of Iran's oil resources, Reza Shah preferred to obtain technical assistance from Germany, France, Italy and other European countries. This made problems for Iran after 1939, when Germany and Britain became enemies in World War II. Reza Shah proclaimed Iran as a neutral country, but Britain insisted that German engineers and technicians in Iran were spies with missions to sabotage British oil facilities in southwestern Iran. Britain demanded that Iran expel all German citizens, but Reza Shah refused, claiming this would adversely impact his development projects."
"Following Germany's invasion of the USSR in June 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union became allies. Both turned their attention to Iran. Britain and the USSR saw the newly opened Trans-Iranian Railroad as an attractive route to transport supplies from the Persian Gulf to the Soviet region. In August 1941, because Reza Shah refused to expel the German nationals, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, arrested him and sent him into exile, taking control of Iran's communications and coveted railroad "
for more information you can visit this site :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_dynasty
Thanks for answering my question perfectly , Amber:rose:
Was there ever such a thing as an Indo-European ethnic group or at least a collecitve entity of this sort?! :confused: I thought this just meant similarities between different cultures that were bound together by closeness, military alligances and shared one family of langauges (proto-indo euroepean)? I mean, I know there's evidence of a linguistic connection, since Persian langauge is obviously Indo-European, let alone the fabulous family ties of all Euro langauges, but is there any evidence of there being a single genotype of common Proto-Indoeuropean ancestors?
Was there ever such a thing as an Indo-European ethnic group or at least a collecitve entity of this sort?! :confused: I thought this just meant similarities between different cultures that were bound together by closeness, military alligances and shared one family of langauges (proto-indo euroepean)? I mean, I know there's evidence of a linguistic connection, since Persian langauge is obviously Indo-European, let alone the fabulous family ties of all Euro langauges, but is there any evidence of there being a single genotype of common Proto-Indoeuropean ancestors?
Yes, genetic analysis has showed that except for Basques, Hungarians, and Finns, all European people have Proto-Indo-European genes; Persians and Indians (except for Dravidians in Southern India who are of African origin) also have Proto-Indo-European genes.
There was a Proto-Indo-European nation… and Greek, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Persian, and Indian people all came from that original homeland… one people, one language, same genes… And those genes are still there in modern Europeans, Persians, and Indians and of course they all speak languages derived from that original single language.
That does not mean that European people are 100% Indo-European though, European people are a combination of 2 different genetic materials, one part comes from Pre-Europeans, and the other part comes from Indo-Europeans, on average European people are 70% Pre-European and 30% Indo-European.
Very basically, in Europe, things happened like this:
Homo-Sapiens started to populate Europe about 50,000 years ago during a warm period.
During the last ice age, most of Europe got covered by glaziers and became uninhabitable, Human population decreased to a very small number and only managed to survive in the Iberian and Italian peninsulas and Greece, those people are the 'Pre-Europeans'.
After the end of the last ice age (10,000 BC), Pre-Europeans slowly repopulated northern Europe, eventually they even developed 2 main civilizations, the Minoan one in Crete, and the Megalithic one in North-Western Europe (those people who raised menhirs and dolmens).
From 2,500 BC, Indo-Europeans arrived from the East in several waves, first the Greek group, then the Italic and Celtic groups, then the Germanic group, and finally the Slavic group.
It will take a few centuries for Indo-Europeans to take control of the whole continent and subjugate Pre-Europeans. Pre-Europeans were obviously not eradicated by Indo-Europeans since modern Europeans still have 2 thirds of their genes coming from that old group, but Indo-Europeans clearly became the new rulers of the continent, they imposed their languages, their social structure, their culture, their pantheon…
After the arrival of Indo-Europeans, Pre-European cultures and languages totally disappeared (except for the Basque language), by 1,000 BC, Europe had become linguistically and culturally totally Indo-European.
70%? I find that number almost hard to believe. Especially considering those people were subjugated completely. I doubt any self-respecting indo-european would want to mate with pre-european savages - at least not massively up to an extent where pre-europeans would become genetically dominant.
And I'd say there's another group besides the Ugro-finnish (Hungarians, Estonians, Finns) that's an isolated island surrounded by Indo-European cultures - Albanians! No one really knows for sure where they're coming from. Some say they're the last remains of ancient Iliric cultures. Definitely a mysterious bunch. They make damn good ice-cream though.
I don't get it .
Indo-European....but where are all those mongolian genes , Asiatic ? They also mixed and scattered their genes among Indo-European . Surely they contributed towards creating the distinctive look visible to this day in a small percentage of the eastern European population ?:)
An alternative theory of the development of Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian languages has been created by a Finnish linguistic professor Kalevi Wiik. According to him Finno-Ugrian languages had far more bigger impact on Indo-European languages and genetically he sees no difference between Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugrians. You can find some of his basic ideas in the following article: http://www.lib.helsinki.fi/bff/399/wiik.html
I don't agree with this professor. Ugro-finnish langauge group is completely distinct from Indo-European languages. Sure if you'll look for similarity you'll always find it in most langauges - I mean Japanese has been linked to the altaic langauge group (turkish etc.), by some linguists. Of course it must have influenced neigbouring Indo-european dialects as well as Indo-european ones influenced them (for instance hungarian has a whole bunch of slavic expressions in their vocab, just like Romanian for instance). It comes with the territory - quite literaly. But they're clearly a seperate entity in terms of belonging to any other family of langauges around them. Ugro-finnish has been connected to other (extinct) groups of langauges from Asian tundras - there's much more similarity between those groups of langauges and Ugro-finnish than there is between Ugro-finnish and Indo-European. I think that says it all.
And Marina... I don't think there's any real resemblance or genetic similarities between mongoles which were oriental and Indo-europeans of the time. There are however some theories that link genes of North/South American indigenous tribes and oriental people. I'm not familiar with the details of that one, though.
I don't think there's any real resemblance or genetic similarities between mongoles which were oriental and Indo-europeans of the time.
Yes , you are probably right , freddie . The thing I've been reffering happened much much later ....it's just I was googling and came across this :
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr18.htm
I don't agree with this professor. Ugro-finnish langauge group is completely distinct from Indo-European languages. Sure if you'll look for similarity you'll always find it in most langauges - I mean Japanese has been linked to the altaic langauge group (turkish etc.), by some linguists. Of course it must have influenced neigbouring Indo-european dialects as well as Indo-european ones influenced them (for instance hungarian has a whole bunch of slavic expressions in their vocab, just like Romanian for instance). It comes with the territory - quite literaly. But they're clearly a seperate entity in terms of belonging to any other family of langauges around them. Ugro-finnish has been connected to other (extinct) groups of langauges from Asian tundras - there's much more similarity between those groups of langauges and Ugro-finnish than there is between Ugro-finnish and Indo-European. I think that says it all.
When I studied philology at the university in the 1980s this theory you are describing was the most dominant. We studied that Finno-Ugrians had an "original home" in Urals and that
all Finno-Ugrian languages have developed from one proto-language. It was so-called "theory of a language-tree". Professor Wiik's theory proves that if Finno-Ugrians had an original home, it was somewhere in Southern Ukraine and quite a vast territory of Europe was inhabited by people speaking Finno-Ugrian (or Uralic) languages (8 000 BC - 5 500 BC). It was only in 5 500 BC when Indo-Euroepan language became prevalent (cf. Map 2 in his article)
Read his article, it's quite interesting :)
I read Professor Wiik's article. These kind of arguments about the geographical origins of language groups are notoriously difficult to settle. It appears from what I've read elsewhere that a weakness in his theory is that the reconstructed Proto-Finno-Ugric language contains words for Siberian pine, Siberian fir and Siberian larch - which does seem to point to the Finno-Ugric Urheimat being in the Urals. Supporters of Wiik point to Indo-European loan words, which they say are very old and indicate the Urheimat spread from the Baltic to the Urals. But I don't see how you can really know how long ago Indo-European loan words crossed over.
There is genetic evidence that Finno-Ugrics have genetic links with people across northern Europe, but genetic origins and linguistic origins can be quite different. The old idea that the ancestors of the Finns and the Estonians migrated from the Urals doesn't stand up to modern genetic evidence, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the language can't have.
Think of the Magyars (Hungarians). The Magyar language is Finno-Ugric too (although about as closely related to Finnish and Estonian as English is to Farsi and Hindi) and known to have migrated from somewhere east, probably near the Urals, in the first millennium. The Magyars themselves show relatively little genetic difference from their Indo-European neighbours. Their language is from the east, but their genes predominantly aren't. It seems that the language was imposed on the Pannonian people of the area by Magyar conquerors after their arrival in 896. It's like the way the French and Romanians speak languages based on Latin. It's not that their ancestors were Romans, it's that Roman occupation displaced Gaulish and Dacian. Something similar could have happened with the Proto-Finnic language thousands of years earlier.
I eagerly await Linda16's rebuttal.
Think of the Magyars (Hungarians). The Magyar language is Finno-Ugric too (although about as closely related to Finnish and Estonian as English is to Farsi and Hindi) and known to have migrated from somewhere east, probably near the Urals, in the first millennium. The Magyars themselves show relatively little genetic difference from their Indo-European neighbours. Their language is from the east, but their genes predominantly aren't. It seems that the language was imposed on the Pannonian people of the area by Magyar conquerors after their arrival in 896. It's like the way the French and Romanians speak languages based on Latin. It's not that their ancestors were Romans, it's that Roman occupation displaced Gaulish and Dacian. Something similar could have happened with the Proto-Finnic language thousands of years earlier.
In the case of Magyars it's not that the language itself was enforced onto indigenous (indo-european?) tribes. It's just that what was left of the original genetics of this people slowly erroded away and merged with an average indo-european genepoll that was all around them. But eventhough they're genetically much more similar to average Europeans these days (so basically Indo-Europeans with a foreign langauge), they still holda lot of differences inside their culture that makes them very un-european in parts.
As for the theory - I don't know exactly how old load words from Indo-European langauges could contribute to a belief that these langauges were infact familial. Who's to say that both cultures didn't have contact in ancient days when both families of languages were still developing (of course as seperate entities) and thus influencing eachother while still existing as two distinct groups with different evolution.
On a side note I'd have to say that Finnish and Hungarian share a whole lot more similarities than Hindu and english or any other kind of germanic language. I'd say the similarities between Finnish and Hungarian are comparable to similarities between German and English.
spyretto
11-11-2005, 02:05
On a side note I'd have to say that Finnish and Hungarian share a whole lot more similarities than Hindu and english or any other kind of germanic language. I'd say the similarities between Finnish and Hungarian are comparable to similarities between German and English.
So the Hungarians have also evolved from the Mongols? Because the current English are Germanics
And I'd say there's another group besides the Ugro-finnish (Hungarians, Estonians, Finns) that's an isolated island surrounded by Indo-European cultures - Albanians! No one really knows for sure where they're coming from. Some say they're the last remains of ancient Iliric cultures. Definitely a mysterious bunch. They make damn good ice-cream though.Albanian is indeed a strange language, but it is still considered Indo-European, an isolated one, or so i've read. Wikipedia has a short page on Albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language), there is an interesting table that compares a few key words in various Indo-European languages and whereas other Indo-European languages are obviously related, some Albanian words seem totally isolated. In all Indo-European languages, the words for 'mother' for example are all obviously based on the Proto-Indo-European root 'mater', but not in Albanian, strange indeed.
http://www.lib.helsinki.fi/bff/399/wiik.htmlIf i understand this theory correctly, it says that Indo-European languages spread through cultural contacts, but that no Indo-European people actually settled in Europe. For me it's going from one extreme to another. One being that Europe was solely populated by Indo-European tribes, which would make Europeans 100% pure Aryans, and the other being that European populations remained unchanged since prehistorical times and that not a single Indo-European tribe ever actually entered Europe.
As often, the reality is most probably in between, Europeans are the result of the mixing of local populations that had been there since prehistorical times with Indo-European tribes that entered the continent at the dawn of historical times.
Also, this theory dates the spreading of Indo-European languages as early as 5,500 BC, which is much earlier than what is generally accepted. Indo-Europeans did not arrive in Greece before 2,500 BC and in Italy before 1,200 BC, much later.
And based on how close Sanskrit and Ancient Greek still were in historical times, linguists generally consider that the Proto-Indo-European language started to break into several branches no earlier than during the 3rd millennium BC.
Moreover, saying that Indo-European languages spread from cultural contacts without the invasion of actual Indo-European tribes is contradicted by actual historical records.
We have countless ancient Greek documents describing how Greek tribes travelled East to West and finally settled in what would become Greece, ancient Greek documents also tell how there was 2 different types of people in Greece for some time, Indo-Europeans who spoke Greek dialects and 'barbarians' who did not.
Archeology shows that Indo-European Italic tribes entered Italy around 1200BC. Before the arrival of Italic tribes, the local population had a totally different culture, but after the arrival of Indo-Europeans, everything changed, language, art, crafts, religion…*This is not simply the propagation of a new language, it's the arrival of new people that actually settled there and changed everything.
Same thing with Indo-European Celtic tribes that arrived in Gaul at about the same time as Italic tribes in Italy, before that, Megalithic people were raising stones everywhere and they had a religion centered around a mother goddess. All of that disappeared with the arrival of Celtic tribes, once again it's not just a language that arrived, it's actual people with a totally different culture from the previous inhabitants.
And even more recently, when the Germanic tribes arrived in western Europe during the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire was at its peak, we have countless Roman documents describing the arrival of those new people at the borders of the Empire. Again, it was not just a language spreading by itself, it was actual Indo-European tribes that had travelled East to West and were now pushing on the borders of the Roman Empire.
Same thing will happen a few centuries later with the Slavic tribes who were also traveling East to West.
So no, i don't think that Indo-European languages spread by themselves through cultural contacts without populations actually moving, those languages were brought in Europe by Indo-European tribes that traveled East to West, settled everywhere in Europe and became the new ruling class, imposing their language and culture to the older European populations.
spyretto
11-11-2005, 03:11
Archeology shows that Indo-European Italic tribes entered Italy around 1200BC. Before the arrival of Italic tribes, the local population had a totally different culture, but after the arrival of Indo-Europeans, everything changed, language, art, crafts, religion…*This is not simply the propagation of a new language, it's the arrival of new people that actually settled there and changed everything.
They've actually found ruins in Greece of a ralatively sophisticated culture that dates back to 7000BC and was the way you describe it, before the arrival of the Indo-European tribes. We don't know what language those people spoke, the oldest Indo-European language is Greek, which is based on linear B but even linear A which preceded it and remains undecipherable does not date before 1800BC.
Okay, would it even be POSSIBLE to spread a whole family of langauges and stifle most of the old euro langauges in the process without the people actually moving? So just by contact? I don't doubt there were infulences even before the supposed migration, but there's a difference between an influence while still retaining the original language (for instance like Hungarian and Romanian were influenced by slavic langauges around them) and complete annihilation of the original language. IMO that's hardly plausable without a foreign invasion.
kishkash
12-11-2005, 03:24
...wow this thread has certainly gotten interesting...I LOVE IT
how did it morph so much from 'would u kill hitler?' into 'the history of race'
:gigi:
*keeps reading*
Okay, would it even be POSSIBLE to spread a whole family of langauges and stifle most of the old euro langauges in the process without the people actually moving?
freddie , given the such long amount of time , I cannot see why not ...
freddie , given the such long amount of time , I cannot see why not ...
Yes, if the Indo-europeans were actually PRESENT, it's quite probably that they'd wipe out entire families of langauges. But not in-directly, is what I'm saying. Only thing that would achieve is alter original languages up to an extent where they'd have a lot of indo-european vocab. But no doubt the core of the langauge would still be the same. Hungarians are a nice presentation of this. The majority of their vocabulary consists of loan-words from their slavic, romanic and germanic neigbours (Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Austria...), and only a small percentage of the original ugro-finnish vocabulary (linking them to Estonians and Finns) remains. However the structure of the language and the core grammatical principles (especially word formation) still say faithful to ancient ugro-finnish prinicples, just like in Finish or Estonian. So point being: you can't wipe out the core of the langauge with indirect influence. To achieve that you need full-out invasion, if not enslavement.
I eagerly await Linda16's rebuttal.
I kept a lower profile in this discussion, because I'm not a professional linguist, but only a philologist;) At the same time a feel a certain missionary challenge to introduce professor Wiik's theory to a wider audience.
His theory is at least taught at Estonian universities, because an Estonian professor of Uralic studies Ago Künnap is his supporter: http://www.ut.ee/Ural/kynnap/kpls.html
The older theory of Fenno-Ugrian "Urheimat" has also been abandoned in official Estonian promoting materials:
http://www.einst.ee/publications/language/history.html
http://www.einst.ee/publications/language/language.html
On his homepage professor Wiik introduces also "A NEW ATLAS on the Origins and Early History of the Europeans" and you can see a demo of this atlas here: http://www.wiik.fi/kalevi/juuret/atlasdemo.pdf
A collection of pro or contra articles about his theory is possoblie to find here: http://www.geocities.com/isolintu/voodoo.html
I, personally, tend to find Wiik's theory interesting. After all, it's nice to know that Finno-Ugrians are among the oldest people in Europe and it's nice to know that genetically there is no difference between Finno-Ugrians and other Europides ;)
I totally agree with freddie on that point. We are talking of very ancient times here, the metal ages, the period between prehistory and history, at the time Europe was one big forest, the whole Pre-European population was in thousands, a typical settlement had 50 to 100 people, people communicated with their close neighbors but that was it, there was no reason for Pre-Europeans to abandon their previous languages to adopt new languages spoken thousands of kms away near the Black Sea.
Why would a Pre-Gaulish tribe adopt a Celtic language originally spoken on the other side of the continent? And we can ask the same question for India, why would the non-Indo-European people who were living in the Indus valley and had a flourishing civilization not only adopt an Indo-European language but go as far as to rename their land 'Aryana' from the name of the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European without a single actual Aryan tribe settling in the Indus valley? It's much more likely that Indo-European tribes actually settled there, bringing their language with them and imposing it on the indigenous population (and not just the language, but also their religion and social structure).
Also, there is another indicator, the ancient Indo-European languages spoken outside the original Indo-European homeland, like Celtic in Gaul, Italic in Italy, Greek in Greece, Sanskrit in Northern India… those languages were still very close to Proto-Indo-European, they still had a very complex system of cases with many declensions and difficult conjugations. Now, we have many examples, even in recent history, of people learning a foreign language by contact, that gives a creole, a very simplified version of the original language, declensions and conjugations don't make it into a creole because it's too complex to learn just by contact. That's what would have happened if Pre-Europeans had learned (for whatever reason) the Proto-Indo-European language by contact, most of the complexity of the language would have been lost (there was no 'schools of Indo-European' where indigenous people could learn the proper noun declensions or verb conjugations of the Proto-Indo-European language). This shows that people who brought Indo-European languages in Europe were native speakers.
And like i said in another post, Indo-Europeans had domesticated the horse and knew how to ride it. [Pre-Europeans did not, the horse was domesticated in the vast plains of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the horse had disappeared in Europe thousands of years before, when the continent got covered by forests after the end of the last ice age. The horse came back in Europe precisely with Indo-European tribes who were riding them.] They also had chariots, so traveling far and fast was not a problem for Indo-European tribes, they also had better weaponry (metal work was more advanced in the East) and a warrior caste who knew how to use them.
So it was not difficult for an Indo-European tribe riding horses and using advanced metal weapons to take over a Pre-European settlement of simple farmers.
[side note: Pre-Europeans had never seen horses before Indo-Europeans arrived and of course never seen people riding horses, which must have impressed them a great deal, many mythologists believe that this is the origin of the centaur myth, the first Pre-Europeans to see Indo-European warriors on horses (probably from a distance if they survived to tell what they saw) may have thought it was fantastic creatures and reported it to their villages, giving birth to the legend.]
People interested in Indo-European languages can check this web site (http://indoeuro.bizland.com/atree.html), it has lots of information on all of them.
Wikipedia also has an interesting page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Indo-European_roots) with a list of many Proto-Indo-European roots, anyone who speaks a modern Indo-European language will recognize many roots still present in their own language. The personal pronouns are especially remarkable, they have barely changed in 5,000 years.
KillaQueen
13-11-2005, 23:11
*multiple mental orgasm*
:dead: :dead: :dead:
thank you, Amber, for yet another enticing read & history lesson *claps frantically* :kwink:
and judging by the way this thread has evolved, you all killed hitler *standing ovation* :laugh:
So that’s how it was !
In a deep luscious forest my young Pre-European mother was picking up sweet red berries for breakfast ….She was tall and slim, long legged , with very pale white skin , her hair was red gold and her eyes-- dark green as forest itself ...Druidess!
And suddenly strong, large, handsome man, with dark hair and big brown eyes, who looked so powerful on his horse and with all his metal thingamajigs , came riding up to her…
Hello ! -- said my Proto-Indo-European father
Kurgudu Nuoli ? -- she said.:dknow:
:)
Hello ! -- said my Proto-Indo-European father
Kurgudu Nuoli ? -- she said.
And the communication was immediately installed!! Marina , you're the fruit if a real fairy tale!:D
Good point, Amber. Pre-european tribes would never have been able to learn Indo-european languages in all it's complexity were it by indirect contact. It's the same as asking a bunch of simple villagers from a random Euro country today (lets say non-romanic speaking village, at least), to learn scholar latin in it's entirety with all it's exceptions and specialities.
Speaking of myths: there's an anechdote that Ancient Greeks started giving the name "barbarians" to all non-Greeks because they didn't speak Greek and all that was audiable to a native Greek was stuff like: "..barbarbarbar..." Gibberish, basically.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.