One Evil Owner: Own Hitler's Personal Mercedes-Benz 770K

[eran0004]

He also had buildings. If we were to destroy everything with ties to dictators over the years, there wouldn't be much left.

Who says that we should destroy everything with ties to dictators?

So we should just get rid of VW (and all their partners) then?

No.

 

[DesertPenguin]

That's a terrible film.

Lies

 

[Joey D]

No.

But Hitler founded it, and according to you, none of his stuff should be preserved. VW is his company, or at least was.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Who says that we should destroy everything with ties to dictators?

Did you not just suggest this car be destroyed because it's tied to a dictator? I could swear it was in this thread...

Oh, here it is:

But why destroy it?

Because it's Hitler's car.

 

[Dennisch]

I see that tumblr has sent a scout.

 

[Joey D]

I see that tumblr has sent a scout.

You missed last night, or your morning, or whatever time it was like 12 hours ago. We had some real winners in this thread, but it looks like the mod team took out the trash.

 

[eran0004]

Did you not just suggest this car be destroyed because it's tied to a dictator? I could swear it was in this thread...

Oh, here it is:

Nope, that says that the car should be destroyed because it's Hitler's car. Not because it is tied to a dictator. Was Hitler a dictator? Yes. Was Hitler a human? Yes. Did I say "destroy anything that is tied to a human"? No. I specifically said Hitler.

But Hitler founded it, and according to you, none of his stuff should be preserved. VW is his company, or at least was.

Nope. VW was founded by the German Labour Front.

And a big difference between VW and this car, is that VW actually has a use. It's one of the biggest car manufacturers and it employs more than half a million people.

This Mercedes-Benz doesn't have any use what so ever.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nope, that says that the car should be destroyed because it's Hitler's car. Not because it is tied to a dictator. Was Hitler a dictator? Yes. Was Hitler a human? Yes. Did I say "destroy anything that is tied to a human"? No. I specifically said Hitler.

A needless specification, since it still doesn't explain why this car in particular should be destroyed. So far, we're at "because I say so".

This Mercedes-Benz doesn't have any use what so ever.

Neither does practically any car of this vintage.

And, considering 10% of the proceeds of its sale goes towards education about the Holocaust and how it can be prevented, that's not even an accurate statement.

 

[McLaren]

Revisionist history is a dangerous road. Destroying any of Hitler’s possessions is akin to acting like the man didn’t exist. There’s already enough people out there who believe the Holocaust is a myth.

You should rethink this argument Eran....

 

[eran0004]

A needless specification, since it still doesn't explain why this car in particular should be destroyed. So far, we're at "because I say so".

Nope, so far we're at "because it's Hitler's", which is why you can't just substitute Hitler with any dictator.

Neither does practically any car of this vintage.

Good thing all cars of this vintage weren't Hitler's then.

And, considering 10% of the proceeds of its sale goes towards education about the Holocaust and how it can be prevented, that's not even an accurate statement.

Sure, which is why The Grand Tour should buy it first and then let it have an accident.

Revisionist history is a dangerous road. Destroying any of Hitler’s possessions is akin to acting like the man didn’t exist. There’s already enough people out there who believe the Holocaust is a myth.

You should rethink this argument Eran....

How is it revisionist history? You can always keep a photo of the car. Or even the crushed car.

Was it wrong to destroy nazi monuments at the end of the war? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Snorevette]

I don't agree that the car should be outright destroyed, but that 10% figure is just saddening. Every single penny made off of this car belongs in the hands of memorials, not the already bulging pockets of some private collector.

 

[Dennisch]

Was it wrong to destroy nazi monuments at the end of the war? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let's destroy Auschwitz while we are at it! Hell, why stop there and just completely erase Germany from existence. And Austria.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nope, so far we're at "because it's Hitler's", which is why you can't just substitute Hitler with any dictator.

What makes Hitler different from other dictators in the sense that a car that was once owned by him should be removed from existence?

I know you like to go around in circles, so a straight answer would help.

 

[Snorevette]

Let's destroy Auschwitz while we are at it! Hell, why stop there and just completely erase Germany from existence. And Austria.

Auschwitz is a memorial to those who died there, not to the Nazis who built it. Austria and Germany existed before Hitler did. You are fully aware of this.

Nazi monuments such as swastikas, statues, etc. were built by Nazis to honour Nazis. Destroying them after the war very clearly did not erase Nazi Germany from everyone's memories. You are also fully aware of this.

So why do you act like you don't, aside from to make a half-hearted 'gotcha' when people suggest that maybe symbols of Hitler's power should be destroyed rather than profited from?

 

[TexRex]

He doesn't deserve to have any of his stuff preserved.

It's not his, it's product of authorized seizure. The fact that he likely wasn't the one who authorized its seizure can and should be seen as ein Schlag ins Gesicht (a slap in the face).

 

[eran0004]

Let's destroy Auschwitz while we are at it! Hell, why stop there and just completely erase Germany from existence. And Austria.

That's your opinion, not mine.

What makes Hitler different from other dictators in the sense that a car that was once owned by him should be removed from existence?

I know you like to go around in circles, so a straight answer would help.

The holocaust.

And if you don't like circles, it would probably help if you stopped twisting things.

 

[Snorevette]

It's not his, it's product of authorized seizure. The fact that he likely wasn't the one who authorized its seizure can and should be seen as ein Schlag ins Gesicht (a slap in the face).

I do agree with this and that's why I don't support the destruction of this particular possession (in comparison to monuments built for him, but which he didn't actually own). My main issue is that it's not much of a slap in the face if it's not being used to condemn his entire legacy, i.e. in a private collection for the owner to use as a talking point at dinner parties.

 

[Dennisch]

Auschwitz is a memorial to those who died there, not to the Nazis who built it. Austria and Germany existed before Hitler did. You are fully aware of this.

Nazi monuments such as swastikas, statues, etc. were built by Nazis to honour Nazis. Destroying them after the war very clearly did not erase Nazi Germany from everyone's memories. You are also fully aware of this.

So why do you act like you don't, aside from to make a half-hearted 'gotcha' when people suggest that maybe symbols of Hitler's power should be destroyed rather than profited from?

And this is a monument to Hitler's greatness or something?

No, this is a piece of history that belonged to one of the worst, if not the worst human that ever lived, and by preserving it, there is another piece of memorabilia to remind future people of Hitler and his heinous crimes.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

The holocaust.

Which still doesn't have anything to do with this car, outside of it once being owned by the man responsible. As @TexRex and @Joey D pointed out, it was seized, and can be considered a war trophy of the Allies.

And if you don't like circles, it would probably help if you stopped twisting things.

You've called for the destruction of a car that was once owned by a dictator over 70 years ago. There's nothing to twist there, the words are on the page.

 

[McLaren]

How is it revisionist history? You can always keep a photo of the car. Or even the crushed car.

You start with a car, it spirals from there. Better burn all the copies of his book next; don’t want anyone getting any ideas from Mein Kampf.

And what does a photo or crushed car serve anymore purpose than the car as it stands?All 3 will remain nothing more than a piece of history; at least in its current state, it gives us an idea of how things were done back then.

Was it wrong to destroy nazi monuments at the end of the war? If so, why? If not, why not?

Depends on what purpose they serve. If they were left to glorify what they did, no. If they’ve been repurposed as a teaching tool of what NOT to repeat, yes.

 

[TexRex]

Which still doesn't have anything to do with this car, outside of it once being owned by the man responsible.

Indeed commissioned for--much like aforementioned statues.

But why does the preservation of such things have to be seen as a tribute to the hateful cur? I'd argue that the sustained insistence these things be destroyed plays into his hand and demonstrates the significance of his movement. We should rise above and preserve these things as a demonstration of triumph over him.

Heads on pikes aren't a tribute to the fallen.

 

[Snorevette]

And this is a monument to Hitler's greatness or something?

No, this is a piece of history that belonged to one of the worst, if not the worst human that ever lived, and by preserving it, there is another piece of memorabilia to remind future people of Hitler and his heinous crimes.

The car alone does not actively remind people that Hitler was awful, it reminds them that Hitler had a car. More specifically, it's a reminder of photos like this:

Note that this isn't a photo of his war crimes. It is a photo of him as an influential leader, a reminder that despite being a despicable human being, he still had hundreds of thousands of followers. It's absolutely a monument to him. It isn't enough to just preserve it; it should be preserved in a way that portrays him and his ideology as absolutely unforgivable.

 

[eran0004]

Which still doesn't have anything to do with this car, outside of it once being owned by the man responsible. As @TexRex and @Joey D pointed out, it was seized, and can be considered a war trophy of the Allies.

No, it doesn't. It's got to do with Hitler, which is why it's so important that this is Hitler's car, rather than just any old dictator's. I'm sure some people would prefer to keep it as a war trophy, but personally I'd rather see it crushed.

You've called for the destruction of a car that was once owned by a dictator over 70 years ago. There's nothing to twist there, the words are on the page.

I've boldfaced the part you just twisted. Again. The reason why I would love to see this car crushed by the former Top Gear trio is because it was Hitler's car. You can try crushing Mussolini's car, or Franco's car, but I don't think it would give me as much satisfaction as seeing Hitler's car crushed. The reason why Clarkson & company should do it is because it is my firm belief that they can make it highly entertaining.

 

[Dennisch]

It's absolutely a monument to him. It isn't enough to just preserve it; it should be preserved in a way that portrays him and his ideology as absolutely unforgivable.

Oh absolutely, I think it belongs in a museum too, with the story attached of Hitler's evil doings.

 

[Joey D]

The reason why Clarkson & company should do it is because it is my firm belief that they can make it highly entertaining.

This belongs in the Ludicrous Claims thread. Clarkson and crew couldn't make anything entertaining.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It isn't enough to just preserve it; it should be preserved in a way that portrays him and his ideology as absolutely unforgivable.

Oh, I don't think you'll find many people here that disagree with that.

Unfortunately, it seems some folks would rather destroy history. Not only that, they want to turn said destruction into entertainment. Because that sets a wonderful precedent.

 

[Snorevette]

Indeed commissioned for--much like aforementioned statues.

But why does the preservation of such things have to be seen as a tribute to the hateful cur? I'd argue that the sustained insistence these things be destroyed plays into his hand and demonstrates the significance of his movement. We should rise above and preserve these things as a demonstration of triumph over him.

Heads on pikes aren't a tribute to the fallen.

We unfortunately live in a world where there are people who are twisted enough to see the continued existence of those things as a symbol of his legacy. I'd argue that destroying them is as much a demonstration of triumph as keeping them, as long as the wreckage remains visible.

Oh, I don't think you'll find many people here that disagree with that.

Unfortunately, it seems some folks would rather destroy history. Not only that, they want to turn said destruction into entertainment. Because that sets a wonderful precedent.

I have to agree, actually. If there's anything less respectful to the victims of the Nazi regime than selling Hitler's possessions to a private collection, it's using them to promote a TV show.

 

[eran0004]

This belongs in the Ludicrous Claims thread. Clarkson and crew couldn't make anything entertaining.

Wrong. And I even have the can of beans to prove it.

 

[Dennisch]

We unfortunately live in a world where there are people who are twisted enough to see the continued existence of those things as a symbol of his legacy. I'd argue that destroying them is as much a demonstration of triumph as keeping them, as long as the wreckage remains visible.

We also live in a world/time where people have to be reminded not to eat laundry detergents.

 

[eran0004]

I have to agree, actually. If there's anything less respectful to the victims of the Nazi regime than selling Hitler's possessions to a private collection, it's using them to promote a TV show.

How about using them to promote a site like GTPlanet?