Was Hitler Evil? (The Politics of Evil)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Third Reich wanted to create a Nazis empire rival to that of the British Empire or other European imperalist views at the time.

If Nazis Germany only wanted to reclaim territory lost from the first world war they could of because europe was bending over backwards to avoid another world war.

Yes Hitler and the Nazis represented some of the eugenics, anti-semitism and racist views at the time but they gave it a platform and made it state policy to commit genocide on an industrial scale. The Nazis massacred any opposition (The Night Of The Lone Knives, The Kreisau Circle, The White Rose Movement). Even if ordinary Germans did oppose Nazism it would lead to them being branded a traitor and executed.

Racism and genocidal views have existed in many countries but many of those views and not been acted upon on a national level.

I get people wanting to get the facts straight or giving Hitler and Nazis Germany a fair and balanced analyse but there seems to be a weird Nazis apologist culture with some people in recent generations.
 
Last edited:
There's a reason "reasonable" nationalists didn't get into to power. Not for a lack of trying either.

My point is, even if Hitler had died, there'd be a few genocidal bastards eager to take his place. Hitler didn't even attend the conference where they planned the holocaust.
Agreed. Hitler is less a monster and more like the Great and Powerful Oz. We all remember the Oz character but forget the pathetic little man operating it.

I like the point Thundercracker85 makes about denialism. Who needs it when you can blame one guy.

There's little doubt Hitler hated the Jews, so I'm more than comfortable he signed off on their deaths. Many Nazis would've done the same, and frankly, as had been pointed out, vicious anti-semitism wasn't rare in Germany then. After all Hitler wasn't the only man who stood against the Jews for religious/political reasons.
 
That's not saying much.

Well, I meant command responsibility as in the entire segment of the country who voted Hitler into power, and all those who supported him.

Metaphorical. I guess it does work to a limited degree, with the higher echelons.
It's funny too, because during the Holocaust there were a ton of actions that really couldn't be blame on anyone but the individual. I've even read due to the power wielded in the camps by Nazis they pretty much did what they wanted unquestioned. That some of the atrocities that befell the inmates were simply based on the whims of their captors, and they weren't some order handed down.

In fact I think it's recorded that Hitler ordered some Nazis removed for abuses and ordered others to "lower the death rate" in the camps.

It's funny this level of organizational obviousness has been routinely applied to Mao but never Hitler.

I definitely know many that said they were just "following orders" in fact probably did as much on their own as the leadership they claim handed down the order.
 
The Third Reich wanted to create a Nazis empire rival to that of the British Empire or other European imperalist views at the time.

If Nazis Germany only wanted to reclaim territory lost from the first world war they could of because europe was bending over backwards to avoid another world war.

Yes Hitler and the Nazis represented some of the eugenics, anti-semitism and racist views at the time but they gave it a platform and made it state policy to commit genocide on an industrial scale. The Nazis massacred any opposition (The Night Of The Lone Knives, The Kreisau Circle, The White Rose Movement). Even if ordinary Germans did oppose Nazism it would lead to them being branded a traitor and executed.

Racism and genocidal views have existed in many countries but many of those views and not been acted upon on a national level.

I get people wanting to get the facts straight or giving Hitler and Nazis Germany a fair and balanced analyse but there seems to be a weird Nazis apologist culture with some people in reason generations.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! It is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Nothing more. People think it makes them sound smart and intellectual to say things like, "Hitler wasn't evil," or rationalize his behavior. It doesn't. There is a very simple answer to this question: yes.
 
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! It is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Nothing more. People think it makes them sound smart and intellectual to say things like, "Hitler wasn't evil," or rationalize his behavior. It doesn't. There is a very simple answer to this question: yes.

That's the balm of time though. People don't get angry and shake their fists when they hear the name Genghis Khan because he lived centuries ago. As Hitler slips from recent historical figure to distant historical figure in the next hundred years, we'll see a growing amount of detached intellectualism surrounding Nazi Germany.
 
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! It is pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Nothing more. People think it makes them sound smart and intellectual to say things like, "Hitler wasn't evil," or rationalize his behavior. It doesn't. There is a very simple answer to this question: yes.

It's not that simple though. Nazism wasn't the top-down regime it's painted as. It's very much like our Democracy in that if a Concentration Camp is built its more than just one guys call: you have Congress and the Judiciary and so-on.

It also misses the point that what the Nazis did, really, is something all major industrialized are guilty of. The Nazis reached a level of efficiency about it that's an anomaly. But you have your finger in yours ears when you dismissively call them evil.

The only reason we're inundated with their crimes and not ours is they lost.
 
That's the balm of time though. People don't get angry and shake their fists when they hear the name Genghis Khan because he lived centuries ago. As Hitler slips from recent historical figure to distant historical figure in the next hundred years, we'll see a growing amount of detached intellectualism surrounding Nazi Germany.

It's not detached intellectualism at all. It's being even handed. It's getting away from that xenophobic telling other history where there is America and those "other people".
 
It's not that simple though. Nazism wasn't the top-down regime it's painted as. It's very much like our Democracy in that if a Concentration Camp is built its more than just one guys call: you have Congress and the Judiciary and so-on.

It also misses the point that what the Nazis did, really, is something all major industrialized are guilty of. The Nazis reached a level of efficiency about it that's an anomaly. But you have your finger in yours ears when you dismissively call them evil.

The only reason we're inundated with their crimes and not ours is they lost.

OK so what are you trying to say the Nazis were no worst than anyone else so aren't that bad?

Do you think history judges them too harshly and if so I why does that bother you?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just a little confused at what your getting at.
 
IMO, Hitler not attending the Wannsee Conference means one thing...plausible deniability.

Himmler, the chief of the SS, didn't attend it either. It was chaired by his right hand man Heydrich.

It is known that shortly beforehand, Hitler had a private meeting at the Chancellery with Himmler and Heydrich. Hmm. Wonder what they were discussing.

In the transcript of the conference (which is blood-curdling, by the way, for the matter-of-fact tone and laborious detail with which they thrash out every detail of the Holocaust over tea and light refreshments), Heydrich begins the meeting by saying the Fuhrer and Reichsfuhrer (Hitler and Himmler) are both aware of what is being discussed.

None of the very top Nazis--Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Bormann--were at the meeting, but they all had representatives from their office in attendance.

Like I said, plausible deniability.

Also, Hitler's words in his last will and testament about the Jews bearing responsibility for their own fate, "although my methods were more humane than they deserved", doesn't leave a lot to the imagination.

Goebbels' diary entry about it is even less ambiguous.

"The Jews are all being taken to camps in the east. There they go through a sort of process, after which there really isn't much left of them".
 
Last edited:
OK so what are you trying to say the Nazis were no worst than anyone else so aren't that bad?

Do you think history judges them too harshly and if so I why does that bother you?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just a little confused at what your getting at.
Well look at what the Americans they were fighting did to get your country? Which was also bad and evil. The world dominating and so forth.

I'm not sure really any Government deserves to be earned the title of "good" because it seems very few exist that don't use "lesser" people to prop up the greater "good".

It's not that I am diminishing the acts of the Nazis but rather try to understand how much of their evil is just "they lost".

I'm rather intrigued by what, for example, black prisoners would've said had Nazis shown up and 'liberated' them in the United States.

They probably (understandably) would paint a fairly negative picture of our Government, our leaders (even the ones on 'their side'), our police, national guard and army.

Moreover any rumor they'd heard about us, about the things we've done, even if they weren't true would become history.
 
IMO, Hitler not attending the Wannsee Conference means one thing...plausible deniability.

Himmler, the chief of the SS, didn't attend it either. It was chaired by his right hand man Heydrich.

It is known that shortly beforehand, Hitler had a private meeting at the Chancellery with Himmler and Heydrich. Hmm. Wonder what they were discussing.

In the transcript of the conference (which is blood-curdling, by the way, for the matter-of-fact tone and laborious detail with which they thrash out every detail of the Holocaust over tea and light refreshments), Heydrich begins the meeting by saying the Fuhrer and Reichsfuhrer (Hitler and Himmler) are both aware of what is being discussed.

None of the very top Nazis--Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Bormann--were at the meeting, but they all had representatives from their office in attendance.

Like I said, plausible deniability.

Also, Hitler's words in his last will and testament about the Jews bearing responsibility for their own fate, "although my methods were more humane than they deserved", doesn't leave a lot to the imagination.

Goebbels' diary entry about it is even less ambiguous.

It seems a fairly common tendency to try to leave the people at the top in this plausible denial-ability, especially in matters of genocide or displacement.
 
Well look at what the Americans they were fighting did to get your country? Which was also bad and evil. The world dominating and so forth.

I'm not sure really any Government deserves to be earned the title of "good" because it seems very few exist that don't use "lesser" people to prop up the greater "good".

It's not that I am diminishing the acts of the Nazis but rather try to understand how much of their evil is just "they lost".

I'm rather intrigued by what, for example, black prisoners would've said had Nazis shown up and 'liberated' them in the United States.

They probably (understandably) would paint a fairly negative picture of our Government, our leaders (even the ones on 'their side'), our police, national guard and army.

Moreover any rumor they'd heard about us, about the things we've done, even if they weren't true would become history.

Except the Nazis never would liberated black people in America. Hitler didn't like black people either, he just hated Jews more and there were not a lot of black people in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Hitler often tried to portrayed the US as a "racial degenerate society" where black people were given more freedom and power then they deserved. He felt white people listening to jazz was betrayal of their race. Hitler seemed to think 1930s America was too liberal. Hitler also planned to colonize Africa and set up apartheid like regimes in the countries he conquered. If the Nazis had conquered America, they would just sent MLK to a death camp, not let him make his case.

Put it this way, when Hitler invade Eastern Europe, at first a lot of people thought the Nazis were liberating them from the Soviets, but soon realized that Hitler considered them racial inferior, had no intention of liberating them and was more then willing to kill large amounts people he considered racial inferior. When Hitler invaded the USSR, he had no intention of liberating its citizens, he wanted to kill half the Russian population and make the other half into slaves. He was so bad, that he made Stalin a preferable choice for the Russian people.
 
Last edited:
Except the Nazis never would liberated black people in America. Hitler didn't like black people either, he just hated Jews more and there were not a lot of black people in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Hitler often tried to portrayed the US as a "racial degenerate society" where black people were given more freedom and power then they deserved. He felt white people listening to jazz was betrayal of their race. Hitler seemed to think 1930s America was too liberal. Hitler also planned to colonize Africa and set up apartheid like regimes in the countries he conquered. If the Nazis had conquered America, they would just sent MLK to a death camp, not let him make his case.
Yeah, I realize the fact that Hitler disliked Blacks, although it's fairly common practice to release the inmates of a country you've conquered because they'll be your allies since they already have an axe to grind with the people there.

Since it was meant strictly as a hypothetical though I ignored the Nazi policy against blacks.

Maybe we could change it and say the Japanese invaded our land and freed our blacks (and Japanese), perhaps that's slightly more believable.
 
I think Hitler's "evilness" also comes, in large part, due to him being popularly elected. Osama Bin Laden, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all seem like warlords. People who took power, and didn't deserve to have it, but corruption landed them in opportune positions.

The Hitler election may well be more legitimate than our Bush43 election.

I think Hitler being "evil" makes it easier to forgive an electorate we see as 'brainwashed' or 'duped' when the fact is they got what they asked for. However, for us, we'd much rather confine the evil to one man or a few individuals, rather than indite a whole electorate for trumpeting anti-semitism.
 
Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by President von Hindenburg.
 
Um the Imperial Japanese were racial supremacists too.
Still, like I say, when you get on foreign soil, frequently you side with their disenfranchised regardless of your domestic policies. Example: all the awful dictators and rebel forces the United States has backed during military operations. Of course, this is a hypothetical, and it was more about what our history would read if blacks were allowed to re-write it in the fifties.
 
Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by President von Hindenburg.
But as I recall didn't the Nazi's win the largest percentage of the legislature as a party, and basically took the place of the traditional Conservative party?
 
Still, like I say, when you get on foreign soil, frequently you side with their disenfranchised regardless of your domestic policies. Example: all the awful dictators and rebel forces the United States has backed during military operations. Of course, this is a hypothetical, and it was more about what our history would read if blacks were allowed to re-write it in the fifties.

I don't think Hitler treated Stalin's political prisoners very well, considering he just didn't like Slavs. Hitler was way harsher in the areas he conquered then in Germany itself.
 
I don't think Hitler treated Stalin's political prisoners very well, considering he just didn't like Slavs. Hitler was way harsher in the areas he conquered then in Germany itself.
Honestly if you wanted to pick holes in that hypothetical scenario, believing Nazis would side with are blacks is way more believable than them somehow conquering mainland America. That's actually improbable enough as it is.

You guys keep arguing the details and missing the point.

The point is America takes on a different slant if we're the losers in that conflict, and I could see our atrocities at the time as something that would've come up in a War Crimes trial.
 
Honestly if you wanted to pick holes in that hypothetical scenario, believing Nazis would side with are blacks is way more believable than them somehow conquering mainland America. That's actually improbable enough as it is.

You guys keep arguing the details and missing the point.

The point is America takes on a different slant if we're the losers in that conflict, and I could see our atrocities at the time as something that would've come up in a War Crimes trial.

Neither is believable, but there still a mountain of evidence that Hitler would have treated blacks worse then the US government did.

I think the point you are ignoring is that US was at least on the path to making social progress towards treating black people more equally. After WWII, the US army was desegregated, two decades later MLK was able to campaign for civil rights in America. In a world controlled by Hitler, Hitler would have sent both Ghandi and MLK to death camps. Hitler would have been worse for non whites then the US and UK governments were. Heck, if Hitler can make Stalin look like the lesser of two evils to the Russian people, it would be an even greater moral divide between Hitler and FDR and Churchill.
 
Well to be fair, there was a lot less for Khan and Timur to conquer. That was back when you could conquer the world (or at least Eurasia) with a well-equippred horde.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about world conquest.

They conquered their modern worlds at the time. Genghis Khan not only depopulated entire lands, his armies would also enforce a scorched earth policy, even redirecting rivers and streams to permanently change the landscape so the land would become a wasteland.

People like him, and Timur, would create hills of skulls. One for men, women, children, dogs, cats, birds, and any other living thing they could get their hands on. They would even use human heads as credit for payment. If we are talking about evil, they are it.
 
Neither is believable, but there still a mountain of evidence that Hitler would have treated blacks worse then the US government did.

I think the point you are ignoring is that US was at least on the path to making social progress towards treating black people more equally. After WWII, the US army was desegregated, two decades later MLK was able to campaign for civil rights in America. In a world controlled by Hitler, Hitler would have sent both Ghandi and MLK to death camps. Hitler would have been worse for non whites then the US and UK governments were. Heck, if Hitler can make Stalin look like the lesser of two evils to the Russian people, it would be an even greater moral divide between Hitler and FDR and Churchill.

It can be argued that most nations, given time, reform.

I think with the Nazis it's conceivable they could've killed every Jew and impure person. However all that was based on Lamarkism which has been proven false everywhere now. Even the Nazis were beginning to doubt Aryanism based on all their experiments that failed.

Progress is a funny thing though.

I'm sure progress today is scant consolation to blacks who lost relatives and friends during Jim Crow.

We still have prison camps in other countries though, so while blacks have made progress it's not like that's the only thing we could be accused of.
 
They conquered their modern worlds at the time. Genghis Khan not only depopulated entire lands, his armies would also enforce a scorched earth policy, even redirecting rivers and streams to permanently change the landscape so the land would become a wasteland.

People like him, and Timur, would create hills of skulls. One for men, women, children, dogs, cats, birds, and any other living thing they could get their hands on. They would even use human heads as credit for payment. If we are talking about evil, they are it.

What about the people behind the Spanish Inquisition

[YT]3hEh2NH6teY[/YT]

scary stuff
 
Um, no. Lincoln actually did not originally end slavery in borer states. In fact, the reason the Emancipation has no teeth was it only applied to Southern states, during a time of active rebellion, and left the border states (pro-Union states with slaves, for example: Kentucky) alone.

Lincoln's colonization plan changed and he truly did view slavery as evil. His ultimate goal was to end slavery all together, as it was an evil institution that weighed on his mind since at least his first trip down to New Orleans as a young man working on the Mississippi. Read his Second Inaugural. Study his debates with Douglas. Even watch Spielberg's excellent, Lincoln to see how he evolved. His views on African-Americans changed drastically from 1860 and 1865. But he always believed slavery was an evil institution.

And again this is a false equivalency. As his ultimate action was to end slavery and he hoped to reconstruct the South softly, but with an emphasis on introducing African-Americans into the culture. Hitler went from banishing Jews to trying to exterminate an entire race. Again, I hate such over-simplified logic. I am not trying to pick on you, but this kind of false equivalency drives me nuts.


Again you spoke for me.:highfive:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,805
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"