cs193bah@unm-la.UUCP (03/31/85)
[Russel Spence writes...] >Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for >the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals >for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" >for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? Good point. I had an aunt in the Lodz ghetto in 1943 who had no ideals at all (she was only two years old.) This condition was temporary, however, since some courageous Nazi swine soon made her into a victim of one of these "atrocities." I wish I could thank him personally for his high ideals. -- bill peter {ihnp4,seismo}!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/03/85)
[Russel Spence writes...] >Personally I have alot more respect for Hitler and the Nazis than I do for >the Jews. The Jews were just victims. At least the Nazis had ideals >for which they willing to fight and die for and yes even commit "atrocities" >for. Which of the three do you think takes more courage? The "Courage" required to commit atrocities for high ideals is the courage of a Rhinoceros (read the play Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco circa 1935). The Nazis were not couragous - they were blind. They completely tuned out the knowledge of what they were doing in order to make it palatable. A courageous man is one who would let himself be killed for his ideals not a man who would kill for his ideals. larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile