Was Hitler actually evil?
- Thread starter crookeddy
- Start date
Well, you know what, I'll take Hannah Arendt's opinion of Heidegger over yours, no offense.
Arendt and Heidegger were lovers, weren't they? Wouldn't that have biased her opinion somewhat?
Maybe, but I would still trust her objectivity and expertise over gturner every time. 
Maybe, but I would still trust her objectivity and expertise over gturner every time.
Well, to be diplomatic, I can't say that I disagree.
In hindsight, as always, some things should have been done differently. But one of those things would have been supporting our allies when they needed us. The war would have unfolded and ended quite differently had we done so.
Maybe not the best thing, but, yes, this should have been done.
Building up the Western Hemisphere as a counterpoint to a Nazi-dominated hemisphere? I think supporting our allies was a better course.
He also had flag-burning laws, anti-Gay laws, book burnings....
Exactly. Letting the Nazis take the Rhineland was disastrous.
No problem. Being born in 1935 my dad grew up in WWII Germany. Between scrounging for food, forced from city to city dodging bombs and finally escaping East Berlin under gunfire I think we can call that a hardship.
I'm not sure I agree. Mussolini was certainly a strong-man politician, and his predatory, dictatorial rule over Italy was the lowest point in our history in many centuries. But being a sociopath needs a lack of empathy and understanding of consequences that I doesn't see in his political behaviour. He did jump on Hitler's cart because he was convinced that Nazi Germany was going to win and he the ruler of Europe, not because they shared the same philosophy. From what I've read, Mussolini was actually quite worried about Hitler's fanaticism, but he thought (wrongly) that he could control him: which makes him a cynical politician, but not really a sociopath.
Good God, your posts are so stale it physically makes me sick to read them.
So far, nobody has proclaimed Hitler a "wonderful, jolly guy who was just misunderstood". His evils have been named, condemned and opposed. So you can take your accuses and, well, you know the rest. If anything, trying to understand where he came from, and why he did the things he did is the best way to make sure something similar doesn't happen again. Nazism, for all its undeniable evil, was a product of its time and social environment, and it must be understood in those terms if you want to recognize the symptoms early and eradicate it before it is too late. If you fail to recognize the difference between understanding the reasons for an action and finding excuses for said action, you live in a very limited and dogmatic world which has a really flimsy connection with actual reality.
You utterly misunderstand relativism, and you completely fail to understand its principle: that actions are to be praised or condemned over their consequences, not over some preconceived notions that you hold true just because. Relativism is not about excusing evil: it's about recognizing evil case-by-case, instead of just some sweeping generalization that most often doesn't hold true upon inspection. But I guess you are less interested in understanding than in condemning everybody who disagrees with you. As usual, I can say.
That's certainly a hardship, yes, and I'm glad your father made it through all of that alive, but I fail to see what scrounging for food and dodging bombs (World War II) and escaping East Berlin (Cold War) have to do with American Progressivism of the 1930s. Perhaps you could clarify which of these dangerous Progressive ideals Hitler implemented that resulted in global war and devastation.
And that has what to do with this?
Nobody's saying he's Santa with a funny mustache. But I think cultural relativism is problematic. Moral laws are moral laws, and they don't change just because. Human sacrifice is wrong, not just because it brings about an evil, but because it IS evil. No amount of excuse making can make it OK to murder someone in cold blood. Not even if you think that this will bring about a good for hundreds or thousands of others.
Besides which, I think cultural relativism is somewhat racist. We can't hold people to standards because their culture is incapable of such things? Only if you believe that cultures never change, or that Aztecs were geneticly predisposed to think that murdering thousands of people would bring back the sun. If it's wrong for me to kill, it should be wrong for you to kill as well.
Well, that's exactly what Nerys Ghemor accused us of doing, and I took exception at that.
Now, your reasoning would have more footing if the sacrifice would actually bring fortune or prosperity. Since it doesn't work, the point is moot. But even if it was true (in a "go back in time and kill Hitler before he rises to power"-scenario), I can see why a case could be made for a cold-blood murder, and still think it's morally wrong to do it. Moral relativism is not about not having an opinion on right and wrong, but about understanding it's an internal human opinion and not an external rule of the universe.
No such things. From their cultural point of view, one that espoused care for the community above everything else, letting people die because they don't have enough money to buy food is utterly evil. Are you saying that Western people are genetically incapable of caring for others? As you see, it's all a matter of perspective.
Another point is that relativism is a different beast from "everything goes" morality. Understanding that there are different frames of moral reference doesn't mean that I cannot hold some higher that others. I can see why someone acted in a certain way and why he thought it was right, and still think it's wrong. The point is that morality rises from the individual's feelings and reasoning, and not some outside force.
Hitler was great for his own country. He took them from being nothing to a leader in the World. He got greedy and connected to the Madam Blavatsky theories. However, it wasnt him alone, he had the psychos around him too. I often wonder how much was Hitlers ideas and how much were is side kicks.
Someone idiotic enough to take the Jewish (6 million) AND the disabled, coloured, gypsies (ANOTHER 6 MILLION WHICH IS OFTEN FORGOTTEN), to kill and experiment on them while they dont have enough troups on the front line is just foolish. If instead he had put them into his forces he would have won the battle.
I do believe his cabinet and SS forces were made up of Psychopaths. They werent just normally cruel they thrived on it. Many of the torture methods are still used in interrogation.
Someone idiotic enough to take the Jewish (6 million) AND the disabled, coloured, gypsies (ANOTHER 6 MILLION WHICH IS OFTEN FORGOTTEN), to kill and experiment on them while they dont have enough troups on the front line is just foolish. If instead he had put them into his forces he would have won the battle.
I do believe his cabinet and SS forces were made up of Psychopaths. They werent just normally cruel they thrived on it. Many of the torture methods are still used in interrogation.
Six years of peace and six years of war following which Germany needed to be almost totally reconstucted from the ground up -- not really that great. And really only a leader of countries with similar ideologies, or those like Finland, which preferred being an ally of Nazi Germany to being overrun by Stalin.
Maybe, but I would still trust her objectivity and expertise over gturner every time.
You might want to rethink your opinion.
Slate article
Was Hitler evil? Evil enough that during the war, the democracies struck an alliance with "Uncle Joe" Stalin to defeat him. In the USSR, an estimated 11 million had died under Stalin before World War II.
That has to be en example of a certain moral relativism. We had to rationalize that Stalin was actually OK compared to Hitler. To this day, we tend to forget that Stalin may have actually been even more evil.
We can rationalize striking a deal with the devil to defeat Hitler. And, I suppose one can debate the morality of certain political, economic, and cultural aspects of Hitler's regime. But I think the uttter immorality of Hitler's governance, the repression and brutal violence the regime used to stay in power, is undebatable. No good can be rationalized by those methods.
That has to be en example of a certain moral relativism. We had to rationalize that Stalin was actually OK compared to Hitler. To this day, we tend to forget that Stalin may have actually been even more evil.
We can rationalize striking a deal with the devil to defeat Hitler. And, I suppose one can debate the morality of certain political, economic, and cultural aspects of Hitler's regime. But I think the uttter immorality of Hitler's governance, the repression and brutal violence the regime used to stay in power, is undebatable. No good can be rationalized by those methods.
This was not known to be a fact. FDR refused to think of Stalin as an evil man, choosing to believe that he would change after the war. Unfortunately he was wrong.
Maybe, but I would still trust her objectivity and expertise over gturner every time.
You might want to rethink your opinion.
Slate article
Nope, still trust her more than you.
Besides, I would be shocked if Hitler ever read anything Heidegger wrote.
Was it the same dog he tested the cyanide capsule on in the bunker several years later?
Similar threads
