Hitler’s AI Translated Speeches Go Viral on TikTok in Troubling Trend

[Cameroni]

10 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Which of his policies do you agree with ?

 

Well, I like dogs too, but am more of a Weimaraner man.

 

However, on Viennese chocolates, I am exactly on the same page.

Edited September 27 by Cameroni

[newbee2022]

48 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 they have Vitnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Burma, fresh in mind, so why bother? 

 

It is just us, who believes we are the center of the world!

I don't know your age but obviously you're not aware that more than 60 million people died on WW2, caused by Hitler. 

Not a subject to joke about or to forget. 

And all asian countries had been involved.

[coolcarer]

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Still a hit with the young after 80 years. That rascal...

I can think of better names to call the holocaust instigator responsible for millions of deaths

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 

His words were altered to give what he said a different meaning .

 

 

That's not right, of course. Though adding a bit of music, why not.

 

It would be much better to read Max Domarus collection of all Hitler's speeches. I have a all four volumes in my library fortunately, so I'm immune to any misunderstandings.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler:_Speeches_and_Proclamations

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

How dangerous his words must be that people are not allowed to listen to them 80 years after the event.

 

Same with that Ben Laden letter.

Here is a quote from the letter that I assume Cameroni is referring to:

 

"I say from the onset: Your former president warned you previously about the devastating Jewish control of capital and about a day that would come when it would enslave you; it has happened."

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ubl2016/english/To the American people.pdf

 

[mokwit]

I'm curious. Does anybody here believe that the "as seen on TV version of post 1918, events leading up to WW2, and the conflict itself are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[placeholder]

Just now, mokwit said:

I'm curious. Does anybody here believe that the "as seen on TV version of post 1918, events leading up to WW2, and the conflict itself are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Clearly, you have an agenda. Why not make it clear what you're referring to? Instead of offering inscrutable characterizations.

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

I don't know your age but obviously you're not aware that more than 60 million people died on WW2, caused by Hitler. 

Not a subject to joke about or to forget. 

And all asian countries had been involved.

I know enough about history to know 1. And 2. World War was not because of a singular leader or happening. It is a bit more complicated than that. Thais knows alot more about the war with the Burmese, Cambodian, with or without the French and English heavily involved than exactly what was going on in Europe.

 

I do not think 6 millions jews did matter to much for any Asians to be true, or worth teaching about the crazy wars going on on the other side of the world, mostly because of their own mistakes and greed.

 

Asians was victims of colonization, that's what matters to them, what Europe did the Asia.

 

Who make sure we remember the history? Our leaders and the schoolsystmem? 

 

Who was the real bad and what lead to what and to who.

 

 

Edited September 27 by Hummin

[Nick Carter icp]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's not right, of course. Though adding a bit of music, why not.

 

 

   Did you read this bit of the article ?

 

"One particularly unsettling clip gathered over one million views before it was eventually removed. In the video, Hitler is seen delivering a speech set to a slow instrumental beat, with a misleading narrative suggesting that he did not wish to incite conflict during World War II and only acted out of necessity to save women and children."

 

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I know about history to know 1. And 2. World War was not because of a singular leader or happening. It is a bit more complicated than that. Thais knows alot more about the war with the Burmese, Cambodian, with or without the French and English heavily involved than exactly what was going on in Europe.

 

I do not think 6 millions jews did matter to much for any Asians to be true, or worth teaching about the crazy wars going on on the other side of the world, mostly because of their own mistakes and greed.

 

Asians was victims of colonization, that's what matters to them, what Europe did the Asia

You missed the point

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I'm curious. Does anybody here believe that the "as seen on TV version of post 1918, events leading up to WW2, and the conflict itself are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

An excellent question. As Darryl Cooper has said, after some years pass it is easier to look at history more objectively. With WWI we have seen this more serious examination of the causes of WWI and the consensus is that neither party wanted WWI but it happened by accident almost.

 

With WWII we're not quite at that stage where the truth about the causes of WWII can be told in polite society, however, in due course this too will change and as always, the truth will come out. 

 

 

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

You missed the point

I did not, read one more time. How can Asians know about the war, when nobody teaching them.

 

I'm sure Asian countries might have different views than us on today's crises and wars as well. 

 

 

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Did you read this bit of the article ?

 

"One particularly unsettling clip gathered over one million views before it was eventually removed. In the video, Hitler is seen delivering a speech set to a slow instrumental beat, with a misleading narrative suggesting that he did not wish to incite conflict during World War II and only acted out of necessity to save women and children."

 

 

Hitler really did believe that of course. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war over Poland. He also considered that saving German women and children trapped in the territories annexed by Poland after 1919, who wanted to rejoin Germany was the right thing to do.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

An excellent question. As Darryl Cooper has said, after some years pass it is easier to look at history more objectively. With WWI we have seen this more serious examination of the causes of WWI and the consensus is that neither party wanted WWI but it happened by accident almost.

 

With WWII we're not quite at that stage where the truth about the causes of WWII can be told in polite society, however, in due course this too will change and as always, the truth will come out. 

 

 

It's notable that when questioned about Hitler's stance on the issue of Jewish influence, you kept curiously mum. Now you're referring to some truth about the cause of WW2 that can't yet be told in polite society. This kind of evasive language is what anti-semites use.

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Hitler really did believe that of course. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war over Poland. He also considered that saving German women and children trapped in the territories annexed by Poland after 1919, who wanted to rejoin Germany was the right thing to do.

 

   Would you have joined the Nazis if you were in Germany in the 1930's or would you have joined the resistance 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Hitler really did believe that of course. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war over Poland. He also considered that saving German women and children trapped in the territories annexed by Poland after 1919, who wanted to rejoin Germany was the right thing to do.

They were "trapped" Did the Poles prohibit them from emigrating?

[Cameroni]

Just now, placeholder said:

It's notable that when questioned about Hitler's stance on the issue of Jewish influence, you kept curiously mum. Now you're referring to some truth about the cause of WW2 that can't yet be told in polite society. This kind of evasive language is what anti-semites use.

 

You can relax, I'm not referring to jews, though you're clearly desperate to imply that. I was referring to the contributions made by all countries prior to  the outbreak of WWII. I view WWII in the same way as most historians now view the origins of WWI, that its outbreak was caused by people making miscalculations, and in effect WWII broke out by accident, not by design.

 

 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Would you have joined the Nazis if you were in Germany in the 1930's or would you have joined the resistance 

 

Hard to say. My  Great Grandfather was in the resistance, but I think you would have to be in that situation to make a true assessment.

 

It was a very difficult time, the fear of communism emerging, the dismemberment of Germany by the Versailles treaty, hardly surprising that almost everyone supported Hitler.

[mokwit]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

the consensus is that neither party wanted WWI but it happened by accident almost.

If you look at Europe. I can't help but think Germany building up it's fleet to rival that of the UK and colonial ambitions came into this somewhere. Britain effectively controlled other countries colonial ambitions through the strength of its navy. You operated your colony through the grace of the UK - as evidenced by Germany losing control of its colonies in 1914. You could take over a British colony on land, but you would never get its extracted wealth back to your economy.

[placeholder]

 

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

You can relax, I'm not referring to jews, though you're clearly desperate to imply that. I was referring to the contributions made by all countries prior to  the outbreak of WWII. I view WWII in the same way as most historians now view the origins of WWI, that its outbreak was caused by people making miscalculations, and in effect WWII broke out by accident, not by design.

 

 

Sure. That's why you reference that anti-semitic Bin Laden letter. That's why you refuse to say whether or not you agree with HItler that Jews wielded too much influence in Germany.

[mokwit]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's notable that when questioned about Hitler's stance on the issue of Jewish influence, you kept curiously mum. Now you're referring to some truth about the cause of WW2 that can't yet be told in polite society. This kind of evasive language is what anti-semites use.

So anybody who questions the "historical" record is anti semite?

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They were "trapped" Did the Poles prohibit them from emigrating?

 

If that was all the Poles had done, it would not have been such a problem. Sadly the Poles did a lot more than that.

 

"Polish soldiers and civilians reacted with violent reprisals against ethnic Germans, who in turn reacted with more violence. A Polish investigation concluded in 2004 that approximately 40–50 Poles and between 100 and 300 Germans were killed"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

[Cameroni]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Sure. That's why you reference that anti-semitic Bin Laden letter. That's why you refuse to say whether or not you agree with HItler that Jews wielded too much influence in Germany.

 

Lol, so persistent. I replied to someone who mentioned the Ben Laden letter first, as anyone who actually reads the thread can see.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

If that was all the Poles had done, it would not have been such a problem. Sadly the Poles did a lot more than that.

 

"Polish soldiers and civilians reacted with violent reprisals against ethnic Germans, who in turn reacted with more violence. A Polish investigation concluded in 2004 that approximately 40–50 Poles and between 100 and 300 Germans were killed"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

You really think that you were going to get away with making that misleading quote? Or maybe you just forgot to include this?

"Standing in the path of the German army's advance during the early days of the invasion, tensions quickly escalated in Bydgoszcz between the city's sizable German-speaking minority and its Polish majority.^[1] On 3 September, as the Wehrmacht was preparing to assault the city, members of the German minority working in conjunction with the German intelligence agency (Abwehr) attacked the Polish garrison.^[1][2][3] "

In other words, according to your potted version of history, Germany invaded Poland to defend Germans who were being attacked by Poles because of the German invasion.

[BangkokReady]

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

One disturbing comment on the post read, “modern society absolutely needs him.”

 

Hitler was a powerful speaker, a populist, and appealed to people's fears.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, mokwit said:

So anybody who questions the "historical" record is anti semite?

No. Only if they offer anti-semitic explanations. Is yours one of them?

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Lol, so persistent. I replied to someone who mentioned the Ben Laden letter first, as anyone who actually reads the thread can see.

You referred to the Bin Laden letter as being like Hitler's speeches because it was "dangerous." How so? And you still haven't answered if you think Hitler was correct in claiming that Jews wielded too much influence in Germany.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Hard to say. My  Great Grandfather was in the resistance, but I think you would have to be in that situation to make a true assessment.

 

It was a very difficult time, the fear of communism emerging, the dismemberment of Germany by the Versailles treaty, hardly surprising that almost everyone supported Hitler.

Almost everyone supported Hitler? He came in second in the 1932 elections.

[Cameroni]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You referred to the Bin Laden letter as being like Hitler's speeches because it was "dangerous." How so? And you still haven't answered if you think Hitler was correct in claiming that Jews wielded too much influence in Germany.

 

Somebody had mentioned the Ben Laden letter to say it was censored as well. I agreed, and obviously the reason that letter and Hitler's Mein Kampf were censored is because many consider the words dangerous. 

 

In particular the Ben Laden letter is dangerous, because if you read it, a lot of it makes cogent sense. Even though you quoted only a small part of it out of context, the rest of the letter was obviously very persuasive to a lot of Americans who went on Tik Tok to discuss it, and were then banned.

 

 

Edited September 27 by Cameroni

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Somebody had mentioned the Ben Laden letter to say it was censored as well. I agreed, and obviously the reason that letter and Hitler's Mein Kampf were censored is beacuse many consider the words dangerous. 

 

In particular the Ben Laden letter is dangerous, because if you read it, a lot of it makes cogent sense. Even though you quoted only a small part of it out of context, the rest of the letter was obviously very persuasive to a lot of Americans who went on Tik Tok to discuss it, and were then banned.

 

 

The blatant anti-semitism in both is just a coincidence then?