Was Hitler that bad?

he was a bold, courageous leader who was willing to defy international treaties to bring his country and his people power and respect.

Bold is acceptable. There was nothing courageous about defying those treaties. How would that fit courageous, by pandering to public opinion? He courageously led them over a cliff of power and respect and then killed himself in his hole in the ground to punctuate how courageous he was.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by earthman4

 

How many this destructive Bush got killed? Really so much more then Hitler or Stalin or Mao? Just curious.
And this great man Hitler failed at everything he started to do. He ruined his own country much more then it was ruined in WW1. I simply cannot understand how he is considered great leader.

Its unfair to count the tally for Bush as he is still trying to add more to it...

Originally posted by caballero
why does everyone insist i no nothing of WWII or hitler and his reich?

Its something to do with the fact that you want to believe that this particular paranoid megalomaniac racist, who started and lost the second world war because of his own poor judgements, has some kind of redeeming qualities.

yes he was using fear as a tool, against those who didnt like him. most of the aryans loved him though.

There is no such thing as Aryan - unless you are referring to Indo-Iranian people, which come under the real definition of the term. If you are referring to the Nazi theory of a "master race" then I'm afraid you are referring to theory and not an actual people, based on racism and the percieved need to seperate out "aryan" and "semitic" peoples, woven around the Atlantis legends and used to suit the purpose of the Nazi party.

We are exposed to propoganda as well, so to use hitlers propoganda as reason he was evil or a bad leader is ridiculous.

Oh really? So his promotion of the idea that Jews and Russians were sub-human creatures isn't something we should be looking at when we discuss the man?

Originally posted by caballero
Now dont get me wrong hitler was a mass murdering *snip*. However so many have been since hitler yet we do nothing to stop them, we do nothing to educate our youths on stalins evils. Or how about Hu Jintao for letting his country create problems like that in sudan? If you want to go for someone local how about bush who sent us to war for no reason. the reason we went to war was disproved sometime ago.

So why is hitler taking all the bad rap in the bad guy arena are those other bad guys not as bad? or is it that hitler was going off of his own agenda and not the other world leaders so he had to be stopped. and before it was too late our country was attacked and we went to war. If we went to war to stop hitler from tearing the world apart why dont we stop china now who is manipulating africa and killing tibet? So this leaves me with the question, was hitler the only bad guy to rule a country?


[edit on 14-5-2008 by GAOTU789]

If you didn't get historical information on all the bad guys (Stalin/Tjang Kai chek/ Mao/ Mussolini/Franco and all the others from centuries ago) you went to a bad High School. I do not know the educational situation in the US but in Europe we get the whole list, I believe.

The monstrosity of Hitler is always used as a example of pure evil, but off course that wasn't the situation. He was a egomaniacal lunatic with psychotic tendencies with just enough layers of everyday behaviour to hide it. The real uglyness of this era resides IMO in the fact that a lot of people and countries went along with his actions for a long time.

The same you can see in this time. We tend to sit quiet as long as we are not bothered. Most people will watch the Olympic Games in China, a country with a horrendous history concerning human rights (organ trade/political and religious supression). Even the Chinese themselves forget it, because they want their country to be great and joining the world ranks of powerfull countries. People want to forget. That is why we use iconographic examples a Hitler, it is just a warning flag, a parameter. The real stuff is happening right now.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by Pjotr]

reply to post by Pjotr


Let's not forget Burma and whatnot (or the other name for the country, starts with M though).

There was that cyclone there and the ruling junta is keeping all the aid and handing out supplies that aren't in good shape from what I heard.

As for the not watching the Olympics, big deal. I doubt some people not watching it on TV or something is going to kill the show. Maybe if someone threatened China to straighten up and fly right or else they'll choose another place to host the Games, then things would change a bit.

When it comes to evil, I think Hitler is on top. No way around that. Yeah, Stalin and Mao both have records, and if you want to go by death count, there's might be a few more people. But when you have someone claiming Jews are evil and that the "Ayrans" will rule for a 1000 years or something, and wrap it all up by killing 6 million Jews and 6 million others (Russians, anti-Nazi Germans, etc); than I beleive I found a winner.

Not defending Stalin and whatnot, but I rather have Stalin as a neighbor than Hitler.

neformore-

and what was the name of his theoretical master race? and that doesnt change the fact that his "master race" followers still loved him and the only people he was using fear against was everyone against him.

I said he was a good leader, he was, but that doesnt change the fact that he was a very evil man. Im not praising him i am just looking at the situation logically, the fact is for a time he was a very strong good leader for his people and he was he brought them out of a depression he gave almost everyone jobs, he brought his country out of the rubble of WWI and made them a super power that if had been left to go on any longer would have had control of the world. Tell me how that is bad leadership. and i even admitted that he had a fall from grace where he made stupid choices and brought the country down, but for a time he was a very good leader.

Pjotr-

american highschools only teach how bad hitler was, they dont mention any one else just hitler, and thats why i started this thread to find out why.

wytworm-

ok but atleast he was bold. and had the united states not have stepped into the war he would have become too powerful and would have been able to take over the world. he was close, very close, we are lucky we stepped in when we did and made the war a two front war.

another thing I'd like to add here, alot of ww2 veterans that fought both in europe and japan/pacific have said that the japanese were far more brutal and torturous than the nazi's ever were......

Hitler was good to all who loved him and agreed with him. The other 80% of the world was glad to see him no longer a member of the human race.

reply to post by SystemiK


What differentiates Hitler from all the other tyrannical maniacs you've all mentioned is the mere fact that his aggressive war of expansionism cost the lives of 40 million human beings including 27 million soviet Russians. His was a total war of annihilation that enveloped the whole planet and almost all the nations of the world had to contribute to his military defeat. Other than that, the others were just as evil and despotic as Hitler himself.

Just an example of how bad Hitler was even when the Gig was up he sent 14 year old boys and old men to be slaughter in a pathetic hope to save his regime. No need to mention everything else Hitler was responsible for , I'm sure its been mentioned.
The Nazis used every dirty trick in the book to achieve power and place the German people under the boot of fear . Its my understanding the Nazi were the first regime to use mass media coupled with early form of subliminal advertising as one of its tools in its arsenal to savert the public . They also study Alfred Bernay's works , which centered around mass physiological control of the public .Incidentally, Alfred Berney was Sigmund Freud's cousin.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by OpusMarkII]

[edit on 18-5-2008 by OpusMarkII]

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
another thing I'd like to add here, alot of ww2 veterans that fought both in europe and japan/pacific have said that the japanese were far more brutal and torturous than the nazi's ever were......

this is a very good point, in the war the nazis and the allies had sort of an unspoken agreement to leave all field medics alone, the japanese however shot and killed field medics which of course killed anyone who was injured after that because there was no medic to treat them.

and this is just one example.

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
another thing I'd like to add here, alot of ww2 veterans that fought both in europe and japan/pacific have said that the japanese were far more brutal and torturous than the nazi's ever were......

They were, the most of the Japanense military was brutal. Especially Naking, that was horrible.

The Nazis were just mass killing civilians.

reply to post by caballero

Well , since we speak of Japan - do you consider Hirohito who was emperor while Japan built its military might and took large bites into China and what not a great man? Bold, courageous and stuff.
Evil but great too? And is there someone who is great according to your opinion who made it without wiping out millions....

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge



look youre attacking me, i said i agree hitler is evil but he was a good leader til his fall from grace of course.

And since you bring up hirohito, yes he did a lot of bad stuff but he was a goodsymbol for his people. he wasnt really their leader thats why i say symbol. And he made a smart choice throwing in the flag when he did because his advisors and generals did not want to surrender. emporer showa was a good leader but did bad things, you can be both and its ignorant to ignore the facts of the situation. Remove your bias and look at the situation logically.

And yes there are those who were good powerful leaders without killing. One of my favorite leaders to have ever lived would have to be Martin luther king Jr. after all you dont have to be the leader of a country to be leader of something great. and he led the civil rights movement he did a lot of really great things for everyone. and not a single drop of blood to his name, thats something to admire.

reply to post by caballero


I just try to find what really motivates this post, that is all. If your point is that all main figures who did horrible things should be in the school program - i understand it and think that you are correct.
However if your point is that these guys did what they did because they had some noble/good/worthy cause in mind and this is why they are "not that bad" ,or that good vs bad of their actions depends on beholder - i am sorry, i disagree.
Also, i do not attack you. In the worse case - i question your opinion.
Actually i think that standing your own against that much "social pressure" is very good. I just doubt that these guys whose names dot this post (except Martin L.K.) are worthy of such a thing.


Not an attack!!!!!
I just like to ask - what leader of a nation do you think is worthy of being called great except Hitler? None? All aggressive ones?
If i offend you - do not answer and i will see that it is pointless and promise not to bother you again. In this thread at least .

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


no no im sorry i took your question as an attack.

Anyway the reason i started this thread was to ask why it was only hitler that we teach about not the whole lot of them. because it wasnt just hitler that did some really cruel evil stuff. but i have gotten a lot of good insight on my question, that he was on a global scale and many others are monsters to their own country. that still doesnt change my question thogh but it does evolve it a bit. Why do we only teach about hitler and ignore the others as they tear their countries apart?

the whole hitlers leading skills started back a few pages and it just grew into a debate i guess.

Some one leading a country i will go with George Washington. He was a very brave heroic leader who shaped the nation, granted the way the nation is how he told us not to run the country, but he was smart and the people liked him they wanted him to run for office again but he said no because he wanted future presidents to see that they shouldnt have control for much longer than they need to have control. He had a lot on his plate but he finished it all and helped form one of the greatest countries on earth, if only it were still that way. He shed blood but it was not for more power it was in defense he only faught when he needed to which should not be viewed as aggresive.

Its hard to say any modern ones because leadership has changed greatly now everyone is aggresive and wants to control everything. its sad we dont have anymore George Washingtons, because we desperately need him.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by caballero


Great. Then there is no argument (already/ yet who knows... ).
I certainly feel that a thread trying to find why one person is an icon of evil while other mass killers are not mentioned - is worthy one.
I saw posts that explain to me why Hitler is mentioned and others not, but it definitely can be not enough or even wrong reasons. Good luck with finding the right ones.

However maybe Washington will feel uneasy to have a certain colleague in the "great" club.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


ture but hitler is no way part of the same club as George Washington the bad things he caused threw him out of that club

reply to post by caballero


Instead of discussing the Nazi regime, whose high-ranking members were brought to justice (at least 1% percent right) why don't we debate as to why the international Military Tribunal of that time did not bring the Japanese criminal medical doctors to trial and to justice? They experimented with countless prisoners of war with complete immunity and then escaped totally unscathed and unexposed with all their immense medical knowledge? After dropping two Atomic Bombs on a defeated peoples what could've possibly restrained us from pursuing and prosecuting these fascist barbarian doctors? Or is it that Chinese peasants aren't as important and worthy of attention as European Jews, Poles, Soviet Russians, and all the rest who suffered terribly at the hands of these totalitarian governments? When I think of the word Holocaust I do not think of only European Jews, all of these victims together including Jews were part of the same big Holocaust. When one reads of the monstrosities the local peoples suffered under Japanese-occupied Asia, the parallels with Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe are unmistakeable.

hitler was stupid, i cant even believe you for saying he was less than insane. He is the only guy in history who did the things he did stalin and mao were ants compared to hitler.