Was Hitler actually evil?

[crookeddy]

So I have been doing some thinking regarding the morality of World War II, and each time I conclude that the allies really were the "good guys" in this war. (As much as there can be good guys in a war) A lot of times this conclusion is based on the motivations of one Adolf Hitler. I'd say the Japanese were pretty "bad" too, with the way they treated POWs, and even civilian prisoners on the Philippines, but their culture was very different from that of the West at that point in time. Hitler, on the other hand, was born and raised in the West, and thus had to have had the same moral upbringing as anyone else in the Western world of the time.

Knowing that, were Hitler's mandates actually evil? Did he think that some of his actions were really for the greater good? What did he mean to achieve by the Holocaust?

Basically I'd like to discuss whether or not the guy actually had any redeemable qualities. Had Germany's Third Reich survived WWII, would Hitler currently be viewed as a German hero for bringing glory to his people, kind of like an Alexander the Great or a Julius Caesar?

 

[Kirkman1987]

Yes, Hitler was Evil. Regardless of motivation, he killed millions of innocent people in concentration camps.

Regardless, like any person, good or evil, he had reasons for his actions. He wouldn't have done the things he did if he didn't feel it was right. The Holocaust was a means to reach his goal of a perfect society. Hitler's dream was that of a human race that would be superior because of genetics. Impure races wouldn't exist, and only stronger genetic traits would be passed on. This is what is known of course as BATSHIT INSANITY.

But in fairness, Hitler was an excellent leader. He inspired the people of Germany to rebuild and for several years before the war, saved the economy. If it had not been for his radical and militant policies later on, Hitler may have become a hero in history.

As it was though, that didn't happen by a longshot

 

[Trekker4747]

Hitler wanted to wipe an entire race of people off the planet just because. He rounded them up in camps and did horrifically evil things to them in order to try and to setup his idea of a "master race."

That is the definition of evil.

But in fairness, Hitler was an excellent leader. He inspired the people of Germany to rebuild and for several years before the war, saved the economy. If it had not been for his radical and militant policies later on, Hitler may have become a hero in history.

I'll grant the man this. He was a good leader who could certainly motivate people to follow his whim.

He was still batshit-insane and as evil as fuck.

 

[Gertch]

Yes, he was evil. My family is among those harmed by his implementation of the Progressive ideals started in the US, proving just how dangerous those ideals are.

 

[Count Zero]

But in fairness, Hitler was an excellent leader. He inspired the people of Germany to rebuild and for several years before the war, saved the economy.

That's not really true. Germany was on the verge of state bankruptcy just before the war. It only worked because in the early years of the war, we practically plundered the countries we occupied. It wasn't a sustainable economy.
Before the war, unemployment was fought by drafting people into the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, where they worked for nothing, and by pushing Jews from their jobs and stealing their money and assetts.

If it had not been for his radical and militant policies later on, Hitler may have become a hero in history.

His radical and militant policies existed from day one. The Nazis started to prepare for war right after they gained power, not to mention the fact that they arrested/intimidated/tortured/murdered their political adversaries at that time as well.

 

[Michael Hinman]

So I have been doing some thinking regarding the morality of World War II, and each time I conclude that the allies really were the "good guys" in this war. (As much as there can be good guys in a war) A lot of times this conclusion is based on the motivations of one Adolf Hitler. I'd say the Japanese were pretty "bad" too, with the way they treated POWs, and even civilian prisoners on the Philippines, but their culture was very different from that of the West at that point in time. Hitler, on the other hand, was born and raised in the West, and thus had to have had the same moral upbringing as anyone else in the Western world of the time.

Knowing that, were Hitler's mandates actually evil? Did he think that some of his actions were really for the greater good? What did he mean to achieve by the Holocaust?

Basically I'd like to discuss whether or not the guy actually had any redeemable qualities. Had Germany's Third Reich survived WWII, would Hitler currently be viewed as a German hero for bringing glory to his people, kind of like an Alexander the Great or a Julius Caesar?

I'm sorry, but the Japanese did not round up millions of people based on their religion, sexual orientation, etc., and enslave and mass murder them.

If Hitler hadn't done that, no, he probably would be no more evil than anyone else. But he did. And yeah, evil.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Knowing that, were Hitler's mandates actually evil? Did he think that some of his actions were really for the greater good? What did he mean to achieve by the Holocaust?

One thing you have to understand to answer these questions is, that Hitler was very radical even by Nazi standards.
The Holocaust had no other purpose but kill all the Jews - and in Hitler's mind that really meant all the Jews, at least all in Europe but also everywhere else in the world where he could have any influence. It didn't make sense any other way, it was even highly counterproductive to the German war effort.
Whenever there was a decision about what policies to make in regards to the Jews, Hitler always went for the most radical answer. It was not just a matter of politics for him. (not that that would make it any better)

And "greater good" in Hitler's mind always meant only the greater good of the German people. So, exterminating the entirety of the European Jewry in some twisted way supposedly was to the benefit of the Germans, according to the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that were so popular at the time.

I'm sorry, but the Japanese did not round up millions of people based on their religion, sexual orientation, etc., and enslave and mass murder them.

The Chinese might disagree with that.

Japan's war was very much a racial war too, and it also targetted the civilian populations.

 

[Jadzia]

I believe he was a person with a clear vision of the world he wanted to ultimately create, but he knew that the road there would be difficult and unpleasant. His antisemitism wasn't anything new: parts of the world have harbored those views since the Romans, and some continue to do so.

I believe he tried to expediate his plans ruthlessly and aggressively because it was the most direct way to achieve a difficult goal, and he didn't want to fail.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Yes, he was evil. My family is among those harmed by his implementation of the Progressive ideals started in the US, proving just how dangerous those ideals are.

Would you mind clarifying this?

 

[Roger Wilco]

His radical and militant policies existed from day one. The Nazis started to prepare for war right after they gained power, not to mention the fact that they arrested/intimidated/tortured/murdered their political adversaries at that time as well.

Or before that already even.

I once read a book that was published in 1935 (or '36, something like that) by someone who had been imprisoned in KZ Dachau, where he explained what was going on there in great detail. It was all there to see for whoever wanted to see it...

 

[crookeddy]

I believe he was a person with a clear vision of the world he wanted to ultimately create, but he knew that the road there would be difficult and unpleasant. His antisemitism wasn't anything new: parts of the world have harbored those views since the Romans, and some continue to do so.

I believe he tried to expediate his plans ruthlessly and aggressively because it was the most direct way to achieve a difficult goal, and he didn't want to fail.

Is this really a means justify the ends post in a Hitler thread?

 

[Jadzia]

Is this really a means justify the ends post in a Hitler thread?

It's a "that is how I believe Hitler operated" post.

Hitler was an ends justify the means person, which is why he delegated so many tasks to his lieutenants and left them to achieve those tasks in whatever ways they felt were necessary.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Is this really a means justify the ends post in a Hitler thread?

It's a "that is how I believe Hitler operated" post.

Hitler was an ends justify the means person, which is why he delegated so many tasks to his lieutenants and left them to achieve those tasks in whatever ways they felt were necessary.

I disagree, "ends justify the means" implies that the person gives a shit about the means but does it anyway. Hitler didn't just "not care", he did care. He wanted the Jews dead, and the Gypsies, etc. And he wanted them dead ASAP and even risking the war. and once the Jews were dead he would have looked for a new target, imo probably the Polish.
You're completely missing what a fanatic Hitler was.

 

[KimMH]

egads. I hoped this was a joke thread. people's desire to requalify evil as anything else is sad and misdirected and a waste of intellectual effort.

 

[crookeddy]

egads. I hoped this was a joke thread. people's desire to requalify evil as anything else is sad and misdirected and a waste of intellectual effort.

Just lumping people into the evil category without meaningful discussion would probably allow this kind of evil to rise again. You can't just say Hitler was evil because he did bad things. Eventually this just leads to idiotic comparisons, such as "Bush is just like Hitler" and other such invalid comparisons. It's good to once in a while remember why Hitler was evil.

 

[Roger Wilco]

egads. I hoped this was a joke thread. people's desire to requalify evil as anything else is sad and misdirected and a waste of intellectual effort.

Yeah, any definition of "evil" that doesn't apply to Hitler, is very likely wrong.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Hitler was as near the pure personification of evil as you're going to get if you view the world in a relativistic rather than an absolutist way -- although Stalin and Pol Pot came close. Trying to find excuses for him is as wrong minded as believing the moon landings were faked.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

People are only evil through their actions. Hitler's actions were evil, so he, unfortunately, must be seen as a man of evil. I say, unfortunately, because as is usually the case he was a product of his society at the time, and it could easily have been averted had people been more sensible and compassionate.

Hitler was, I have read, severely abused as a child, once being beaten so hard he was in a coma for two days. Then he was a soldier in the First World War, and the horrors of the trenches, and furthermore remember this is a culture where such horrific violence against boys and young men was considered acceptable, indeed promoted. It was a boy's duty to submit to such maltreatment. Can you imagine what it's like to be abused and maltreated on a regular basis, only for all of society- all of European culture- to implicitly, indeed sometimes explicitly, show you that this is normal, to be accepted or excused, that no-one cares if people like you are subject to horrific violence. Perhaps if his society- and indeed all European societies- hadn't shown him every day that the violence and abuse he suffered was okay, and "justified" and his duty to submit to it, perhaps he wouldn't have gone on to be so deranged and twisted to become such a man of evil.

There's a thought. Perhaps if we don't abuse and mistreat our sons, they won't end up genocidal maniacs trying to take over the world.



I mean, we all must condemn evil, but it's not enough to sit idle and wait for it to occur, only to then make a fuss. We all have a responsibility to head these things off before they happen, to do what we can to make our societies places that actually care for one another, so evil people won't arise in the first place. What good is condemning evil if you sat by and let it- indeed, perhaps helped it- arise in the first place?

 

[KimMH]

Not abusing anyone would make the world a better place.

He could be considered a poster child for being a product of your environment, but other people suffered similar if not worse abuses; consider those who don't survive a life of abuse and neglect.

The choices he made and the actions he took (True - DerangedNasat) were evil and he himself was evil.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Not abusing anyone would make the world a better place.

He could be considered a poster child for being a product of your environment, but other people suffered similar if not worse abuses; consider those who don't survive a life of abuse and neglect.

The choices he made and the actions he took (True - DerangedNasat) were evil and he himself was evil.

Agreed. Certainly, definitely, agreed. Plenty of people suffer similar abuse without becoming what he did; but we're all different. Some people just snap, become utterly twisted, while others don't. Understand I'm condemning Hitler just as much as any of you- but we can try to see where he came from so as to ensure it doesn't happen again. Simply saying "evil!" and leaving it at that won't help.