6 votes

If Hitler had murdered Muslims instead of Jews...

would the Western world view him differently?

So far, not too many people (besides the Liberty Movement and Anti-War Democrats) have questioned the continuous killing of Muslims since the 1950s by the United States Central Government and its allies.

It makes me wonder.

Feel free to opine. I am genuinely curious what you think.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have the same questions as Ahmedinajad in Hitler's victims.

If their were 50 million innocent people murdered than why are the one group of six million the only ones talked about? Far more Christians and Buddhists died than Jews. Piers Morgan answered this question quite rudely, "It was the way they were killed, it was genocide". The Germans killing Russians civilians could be classified as genocide too I would imagine. And what about Japanese killing Chinese, genocide?

If my family and I are being killed what in the world do we care what the reasons are whether it is because of the color of our skin, because they want our bootie, or indiscriminate warfare?

And besides, I do think scientists should be able to examine the allegations. When I do not math for the alleged methods used it just doesn't make sense. If anyone cares I will expand on this.


As I said above...

My focus on the Jewish element is due to the political relevancy because of the Israeli government's current actions in the Gaza Strip. If gypsies were killing the Palestinians, I would have used them in the context instead.

The main reason the Nazi's

The main reason the Nazi's are viewed as such evil people, is that they lost a war against most of the Western world. The "killing jews" meme is just something catchy sounding to hang the hatred of the guy who attacked "us" on.

Similar to the fairytale about the "South" being evil for having slaves, and the North being nice enough to come rescue them in the War between the States.

In all wars, each side likes to propagandize that the enemy is some sort of extraordinary evil force. Just listen to the nonsense spewed about poor village dwellers in Afghanistan and Pakistan these days.

In reality, The Nazi government was evil for the exact same reason every government is evil; because they are the darned government, and use that as an excuse to use aggression against people. Exactly which algorithm they use to pick who they choose to use aggression against, is just some silly trifle detail.

That last paragraph is important, because whenever some government feels it's legitimacy is getting shaky, claiming there is someone singularly evil out there that they either did (Hitler), or are in the process of (Bad Muslim virgins who don't dress like sluts) protecting us against, is how they try to get us to accept them.

While in reality, there are no such things as good governments and evil governments. They're all evil. The only difference is between big governments and small ones.

I see what you're getting at

but anti semitism towards jews has been at least as prevalent as anti Muslim sentiments. I was born in 1969 and heard all the jokes about jews growing up and never a one about muslims. I didn't even know what a muslim was really, until the mid 80's. I knew what a jew was from the time I can remember being in 1st grade.

If I was in my 20's I may wonder the same thing you are wondering, had I not the experiences I've had.

I also believe that people in America didn't really care so much about Jews dying in WW2 until the Nazi invaded France and started lobbing missiles at Britain. Or until the Japs invaded Pearl Harbor (thanks FDR). Similar to Lincoln and his supposed freeing of the Slaves, no one cared until they weren't getting as many freebies from the missing taxes.

Ammunition -- 9mm - 40s&w - 45acp - .223/5.56x45 -- www.ammopit.com
Bulk Components starting this month also with 223 bullets!

Thanks for your insight...

Very helpful!

I was born in 1980. So, I relate to your second paragraph. I wasn't aware if the people (here in America) had any strong feelings or not towards Muslims before my time.

The demagogues muddy the waters so much that it's difficult to have complete faith in what I've learned about history over the years. Maybe that's one of the reasons I stuck with science in the long run. Not even the government can change the laws of physics.

Thanks again!

Guess again

Sept. 11th 2001 the government changed the laws of physics right before everyone's eyes.

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.
John Locke

The buildings fell according to the laws of physics...

regardless of the storyline.

At the time

I don't think much of the Western world at the time was much opposed to the killing of Jews. They were opposed to the expansionism, and the economic upset much more so than the fact that Jews were dying. In as much as the same would have been true if Muslims were the majority non Christian population in Germany, it would have likely been opposed with equally little enthusiasm by the Allies. After all, Israel was created more as a place to stash the Jews so they wouldn't 'invade' Britain as much as anything.
When the Americans and Britons involved themselves in the war "What about the Jews" was a mantra to drum up popular support more so than any moral ideology. The Muslims would have played that role just as well. Perhaps some Jewish leaders had access to Western power players that your average Muslim would not have, given the involvement of Jewish leaders in Central Banks of the Western world. That is the only angle I can see where the notion of whether Hitler was killing Jews or not would have mattered to America or Britain.
At the end of the day, the relationship between Christians and Jews vs. Christians and Muslims probably has more to do with the recent strength (and therefore major conflict) of the Muslim empire (Ottomans)than it has to do with any actual religious issue.

Thanks for an honest response...

You seem to be pretty well informed about the topic. Are you aware of any anti-Muslim bias that may have existed in the U.S. before WWI (WWII) occurred? Was the sentiment here (in the States) solely fostered by nationalization of oil resources in the Middle East later?

I have no idea

Americans must have carried some of their bias across the ocean. There certainly seemed to be much less love for Jewish people than for Muslims. Probably because of the Jewish involvement in American society that Muslims didn't have. Jews held office, ran businesses, and organized as a groups of Jews. That made Jewish people a much easier target for disaffected citizens. The same way the Irish/Chinese etc. went through those times in America's history. Whether Muslim people didn't have that problem because they weren't here, or didn't involve themselves I have no idea. It is even possible that Muslims had the same problems, but it is less written about because of the obvious focus on Jewish people when writing the history of the period.

It's interesting to me to consider how people...

came to be considered "inferior." For instance, how did black Africans end up being a prime choice for the use of slavery? I wonder whether it was simply socioeconomic status, or was it due to "antiquated" beliefs about the world? The reason I say that is because they are likely the oldest race of people in the world. It follows by logic that they may have held the oldest belief systems.

Sometimes it seems to me that the amount of technological progress a society experiences is inversely proportional to how much they are rooted in tradition. Of course, this says nothing about their happiness (which IMO is more important).

According to Murray Rothbard,

my most loved Historian and Economist, the black Africans were prized because they were already being used as slaves in Africa so they were, if you will, already trained. The Native Americans from both the South and North did not make as good of slaves because of hardiness.

But upon the arrival of the first settlements here in America white indentured servants where the majority. They were 70 percent. They were preferred because they were not the actual property of the master and so he did not need to care for the well being. They served an average term of seven years. They became slaves to pay for their trip to the colony, or chose to do it in lieu of prison for crimes like excessive debt, or non violent crime and were sent from England. Children were kidnapped off the streets of London and sent over as well. Some kids without money for school were sent for life training.

Black Africans ended up

Black Africans ended up slaves for the same reason we are slaves now: They were outgunned. Back then, Massa Slavetrader had guns, they had spears. Now, Massa Gommiment has all kinds of cool kit, while even most of those amongst us who claim to be "pro 2nd amenment" seem content to be "allowed" to own a semi automatic popgun, without access to ammo capable of even denting the body armor Massa Gommiment's lackeys are fond of wearing.

The Jews, "liberals" in Germany just as they generally are here, were in the same situations in the 30s and 40s. Heck, why not exterminate them? They're pretty easy targets, not likely to have much to shoot back with.

For all of Israel's supposed evils, at least many of her resident's seem to finally have figured that one out.

Good points...

However, I don't think we are slaves due to being outgunned. I think Americans are slaves because the propaganda is effective, and there's a television in nearly every home.

It makes a lot of sense regarding Africans and Jews though.

The Reich DID kill Muslims...

as well as Priests, homosexuals, vagrants, gypsies, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped...all you ever hear about are jewish victims....and I believe you are smart enough to figure out why that is. Roughly 6 million people lost their lives...only a fraction of those were jewish. Things under Russian rule were much, much worse.
The Reich had an idea for "bettering" mankind by ridding itself of those who did not fit the Aryan ideal. In popular vanacular this is called eugenics...breeding the qualities you want or don't want in or out of a population, much like what we do with cattle, horses, dogs or whatever.
Your question is, would the world view things differently if the percieved victims were different. The simple answer is that, the world will believe how it is told to believe. Remember the story of "1984"? The principle character, Winston Smith,edits history books in an effort to get the future reader to reach a pre-determined conclusion. THAT is exactly what has happened in Amerika and around the world.
I may not know the truth, but I know I'm being lied to...

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

"Roughly 6 million people lost their lives..."

As I understand it, nearly 13 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, approximately 50% of them Jews. If you have the hard stats to back up your claim, I'd like to hear them.

Why the downvote?

I merely stated the fact that over six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, as well as an equal number of Gentiles. For that I get downvoted?

Slight Correction

According to commonly agreed stats, the Germans killed over 6 million Jews in concentration camps. However, musicians, Gypsies, mentally handicapped, etc... made up over 7 million killed.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain


Sooner or later, all undermench would have been eliminated or reverted to a slave class to serve the Reich. This is pro forma for tyrannies to remove the culture and language of a conquered people to raise future generations to be subservient to their rule. Social engineering at its finest to produce the perfect utopia--for some, anyway.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

From reading, it seems Hitler admired some Muslim tradition...

That's why I supposed that very few - if any - of the victims intentionally sent to their death were Muslims.

"If everyone is thinking alike then somebody isn't thinking"

A favorite quote of mine from Patton.

One should always consider things from more than one perspective. This is a legitimate hypothetical question.

Do you believe people would think differently?

He would not have killed them

because they were hard core Nazis too. The Muslim Brotherhood is a direct descendant of the Nazi Party. Former Justice Department prosecutor John Loftus has been trying to tell people for 20 or 30 years and can only now speak out about U.S. (CIA), U.K. (MI-6), U.N. and other countries involvement with them because of declassified documents. Don't believe me? Research it yourself and you will be shocked.

To say that Muslims are Nazi

To say that Muslims are Nazi because the Muslim Brotherhood is Nazi, is completely bogus. Wuld be the same as:

Muslim Brotherhood=Muslims
Muslim Brotherhood=Nazis

Muslim Brotherhood=Germans, therefore Germans must be Muslims...

The fault of this argument is that SOME radical Muslims are Muslim Brotherhood, and SOME radical Germans are Nazis, but Muslim does not equal Muslim Brotherhood just as German does not equal Nazi.

Muslim does not equal Nazi.

The Nazis did not discriminate against who they killed, based upon religion, they killed of all religions, based upon WHETHER OR NOT YOU SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED NAZISM. The "Jews" have used the Nazis to create this Holocaust, just as they tried unsuccessfully to do in WWI, when the fact is the Nazis killed of all religions/beliefs that opposed their own. If you were not with them, then you were against them, and a target.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Fair enough

I'll fine tune my statement. I did not say MUSLIM=NAZI. Nor did I say GERMAN=NAZI.
My intent was; Hitler didn't plan on wiping out Muslims because he saw them as a 'pool' for future followers. Some of Hitler's advisors were shocked that Adolf often invited Arabic Nazis to Berlin and shared secrets with them. When asked why, he replied, "Because they make such good Nazis!"
Of the known Muslim Nazis from the war era (yes there were Nazis who were Muslim), their children and grandchildren are the current leadership in the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not just my opinion. Please research it for accuracy, and if you discover that I am wrong in my understanding of this, I will concede.

The Muslim

Empire had recently had its ass kicked too. Hitler was a natural ally for the Near East power brokers in an effort to oppose Britain. That they supported the ideology of fascism at the time does not make them unique in world history, nor does it suggest that the Near East culture has a propensity for fascism as that area of the world was the most creative and revolutionary part of the world for long stretches of time in modern human history. If your only point is that the Muslim Brotherhood learned its nature from Nazi Germany, I do not know if you are right or not, but I don't see that being terribly relevant to the question posed.

Still beside the point...

The post is not concerned with the technicalities - because of this... because of that...

The post only contends - what (if any) would be the difference in Western opinion regarding Hitler if the Jews were replaced with Muslims during the Holocaust?

Do you suppose there would be any difference?

Okay I think I get what you mean.

The world hates Hitler for killing millions of Jews. IF Germany had been full of Muslims instead of the Jews, would he have made them the cause of Germany's problems? ..And would the world have felt the same about Hitler if he tried to wipe out ANY ethnic group. I see your point about my original response, you are correct,..it is moot. Having said all that; no, I don't think it would have made a huge difference..
BTW, I am quite neutral about the Arab/Israeli issue. I think we've done enough damage and should get the hell out of the way.

I'm still not certain either way, but I agree...

that our government's meddling hasn't helped matters but made them worse.

I try to make it a habit to always put the shoe on the other foot and see if it makes a difference. It's one of the easiest ways to identify a personal bias. We all tend to have some that we are usually unaware of. Confronting them helps us to grow.

As well, I think talk of Hitler has also become taboo, but there is a lot to be learned by the lover of liberty by examining how he came into power. Personally, I've watched quite a bit of Nazi propaganda in order to make it easier to identify U.S. propaganda. The Prince by Machiavelli also helps to make nefarious intentions of "leaders" (more accurately - plunderers) more transparent.

I appreciate your response. I wonder how things may have turned out differently.

That's beside the point...

It's a hypothetical question.

the western world hates hitler

because he pretty much attacked everybody in the western world. Both stalin and mao killed a lot more people than hitler but it was never mentioned because the media is full of communist pigs. Heck many of the jews that went to concentration camps and gulags said that the gulags were worse. The reason why the jews stood out for the persicution on them during world war II was because it was not that they just got spirited away in the night like many others but that hitler was pretty much blaming jews for all the problems in germany (not unlike some people here blame jews for the fed and a lot of the worlds ills) and made them where stars of david on everything and litterally tried to systematically execute them all.

Frankly if so many people in the western world had not faught in world war II then we would not ever here about hitler, or the concentration camps.