^^ That cinches it. Evil.
Was Hitler actually evil?
- Thread starter crookeddy
- Start date
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?
He was guilty of evil acts -- killing unarmed civillians is always an evil act. Especially if you do it ways that most people would find to be to cruel for animals.
That said, I absolutely agree that there were other things going on -- child abuse, heavy drug use (forget the drug, but I think it was something akin to meth) disease, and mental illness. Besides that he was heavily involved in a cult that preached the "master race" idea. I think this might very well be a case of a suseptable individual being influenced by the wrong people and acting on those beliefs.
The Germans themselves I have more sympathy for -- they were hungry, desprate and scared shitless that the whole state was going to collapse around them. Inflation was probably 100%+ with no end in sight. Someone came with a vision of "saving Germany" and the people jumped. Remember that, because but for the grace of Iove, any nation could be just as evil under the right cirumstances.
WW2 did nothing to change the global political scene for the better though. Largely what it did was make the world safe for communism. I don't see the difference between Hitler's Germany in control of a section of the world and Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and an assortment of other despots in control of a section of the world. The aftermath of WW2 created a situation in the Middle East that has been a powder keg for 60 years and could conceivably still lead to nuclear war.
The best thing the U.S. could have done for the Jews was open are border and encourage their immigration here(we in fact did the opposite). We should have bribed Germany into allowing them to repatriate. We also should have concentrated on building up the Western Hemisphere, but we preferred to see the Europeans as are main allies and not the brown people south of the border. America could have done a lot of good for the world in the 30's and 40's, but entering a war that killed 56 million people was not one of them.
I'm not sure Hitler was a sociopath, but Mussolini almost certainly was. Unfortunately, Hitler bought into a far more deadly revision of socialism than Mussolini did. Had Hitler not existed, someone else probably would've led the Nazi party down the same path, as the course of events was largely built into Nazi philosophy. However, it's doubtful that another Nazi leader would've been as personally effective in rallying Germans and others to follow them.
Yeah, this I've got to hear.
Yeah, this I've got to hear.
Hitler had universal health care. Democrats want universal health care. Therefore, Hitler = Democrat.
No, Hitler was far more progressive, into hope and change, than most Democrats, who normally stick pretty close to the middle of the road. Hitler was about transforming the existing power structures to make them work for Germans, with the long term goal of true socialism, with a society whose members were genetically pure and advanced enough for true socialism.
Oh, we already know what would have happened without Hitler....
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDm2JcnTPs[/yt]
A fair point, but letting the Axis powers trample over even more of their rivals would have been even worse. WW2 was the worst war ever, but for the Allies, it was still a necessary one.
Murderous and disastrous as those other regimes were, they weren't as genocidal as the Nazis and, thanks to the Allies "winning" WW2, could be contained to a livable degree.
The Middle East is as much a cultural-demographics problem as anything. And the 20th-century proliferation of nukes was a travesty, but again, not something that would have been helped by the Allies not fighting off the Axis.
This, I think, is your only really correct point. If the US had aggressively welcomed the persecuted Jewry, there might not have been a successful push to create the modern state of Israel, which is a perpetually volatile factor in the world's most sensitive geopolitical region. Alas, coming out of the Great Depression, it's hard to blame our grandparents for not welcome millions of thoroughly foreign, Eastern-European immigrants to our shores. We should have taken in far more than we did, but that alone wouldn't have solved the problem.
The core problem of WW2 was that Britain and the US essentially failed to police the German state to the extent which the Treaty of Versailles required during the 20s and 30s. And when the war did start, the US entered far too late, largely thanks to (as has been pointed out previously) right-wing isolationism.
But the treaty of Versailles was itself part of the problem, aside from its enforcement. That's why so many historians consider WW-I and WW-II part of the same war, with an intermission.
The need for a Jewish historical homeland was made vastly more obvious by WW-II, but being forced from Europe to another continent makes the same argument. They were not in charge of their fate.
Much of the Muslim resentment stems not from the Jews, but from their failed reactions to European imperialism. In Egypt and elsewhere they found themselves powerless to stop Europeans, and the birth of Isreal further humiliated them by showing that they were even powerless agianst decimated European refugees. That's a hard pill for a macho culture to swallow.
The need for a Jewish historical homeland was made vastly more obvious by WW-II, but being forced from Europe to another continent makes the same argument. They were not in charge of their fate.
Much of the Muslim resentment stems not from the Jews, but from their failed reactions to European imperialism. In Egypt and elsewhere they found themselves powerless to stop Europeans, and the birth of Isreal further humiliated them by showing that they were even powerless agianst decimated European refugees. That's a hard pill for a macho culture to swallow.
Oh my God. All I can say about this thread is that this is what happens when Dukat-excusers completely lose whatever tenuous grip on reality they have left.
Hrm... Dukat excusers?
Sure, one of my cousins was executed at Nuremburg, but that doesn't mean that excusing the existence of Israel is the same as excusing Nazism, nor is saying that 'Nazism didn't depend on Hitler 'excusing evil. Hitler found himself in a fertile environment. Fortunately for the world, his military decisions were blinded by the same philosophy that gave him his power. Unfortunately for the world, absent that philosphy no military decisions would've had to been made, because there would've been no war.
I would also like to point out that cultural relativism IS an attempt to excuse the Nazis. The philosophical foundation of modern liberalism is the 60's counter-culture which was based on the French counter-cultural revolution of 1968, which was admittedly and publically based on the philsophical works of Martin Heidegger. Martin Heidegger was also the chief philospher of the Nazi party who came up with cultural relativism (the basis for Avatar) to argue that the Western power can't judge the Nazis unless they've walked in Nazi shoes.
Sure, one of my cousins was executed at Nuremburg, but that doesn't mean that excusing the existence of Israel is the same as excusing Nazism, nor is saying that 'Nazism didn't depend on Hitler 'excusing evil. Hitler found himself in a fertile environment. Fortunately for the world, his military decisions were blinded by the same philosophy that gave him his power. Unfortunately for the world, absent that philosphy no military decisions would've had to been made, because there would've been no war.
I would also like to point out that cultural relativism IS an attempt to excuse the Nazis. The philosophical foundation of modern liberalism is the 60's counter-culture which was based on the French counter-cultural revolution of 1968, which was admittedly and publically based on the philsophical works of Martin Heidegger. Martin Heidegger was also the chief philospher of the Nazi party who came up with cultural relativism (the basis for Avatar) to argue that the Western power can't judge the Nazis unless they've walked in Nazi shoes.
All I can say is, if you've seen some of the whack jobs in the DS9 forum who try to claim Dukat's just this wonderful, jolly guy who was SO misunderstood by the Bajorans and just wanted to make it ALL better for them during the Occupation...well, the excuses I'm seeing for Hitler here are no better. If relativism cannot even condemn those who MOST deserve condemnation in our history, then it is worthless. Period. Evil MUST be named, condemned, and opposed.
Well that would point out the flaw in cultural relativsim , which argues that you can't judge another culture. You can understand the point of view of Nazis or ancient Aztecs without losing your commitment to the elimination of their behavior. Cultural relativism is says "No, wait, you must try to understand their culture." If you show a masterful understanding of the culture in question, they just repeat the question ad-naseum.
Do what is right. Don't be second-guessed.
Yeah, this I've got to hear.
If I had to guess the progressive ideals he is referring to probably has something to do with eugenics. How that impacted his family i couldn't begin to say.
Cultural relativism as a term and a concept largely came out of the growing science of anthropology in the early 20th century. I believe Franz Boas is considered the founding father.
But cultural relativism attained widespread acceptance as a result of Matrin Heidegger, who was the Nazi party's chief philosopher. He went to his grave believing that his work proved the might and rightness of the Nazi cause. If you can't judge another culture, you can't judge Nazi culture.
That's an extremely simplistic interpretation of Heidegger's work.
Similar threads
