Adolf Hitler

[PoliStud]

I don't think Hitler was so bad.. Heres why.

My Oma (german grandmother) told me that the reason why Hitler hated the jews was because when Hitlers mother was sick, and she was in the hospital, the doctors (who were jewish) couldn't save her, and thus developed his hated towards them.

Anecdotal folk tales are nice, but usually shouldn't be used as the basis for historical fact.

Also, my Oma and Opa (german grandfather) have told me that Hitler was very, very kind to his people, he was very nice and treated his children (the Hitler Youth, I believe) with care and gentleness.

Until he sent them to their deaths, be it through secret police and the holocaust (intellectuals, gays, jews, gypsies, racial minorities), through the war (soldiers), or when he forced them to stand up, unarmed, to Soviet Tanks (The Hitler Youth).

So I think the only people who should be mad with Hitler are the people that were directly affected by his actions; family members falling vitcim, if you jewish. You know.

as well as, the families and descendants of 50 Million killed in WW2? That's pretty much everyone in the Western world

 

[OmniscientOnus]

First of all, in order to decide whether or not Hitler was a "bad" man, you would have to define the word bad. You can use it in the sense of evil, which most would like to, but then you'd have to define evil as well. I think you'll find yourself quickly running around the daisy chain trying to get a good, solid definition of good and bad.

If you allow bad to be defined by the most common, most agreed upon terms, which is oddly enough a good portion of the ten commandments (don't murder, don't cheat, don't lie, don't steal, etc) then you can obviously say that he is a bad man. But, where's the debate in that?

So, instead, I think we should leave the terms of bad and good behind and simply speak about our own opinions of the man and whether he affected the world in a way that we see as positive or negative.

Now, the opinions I'm going to express from here on out about the subject are mostly for the sake of debate. While I do proscribe to a good portion of it, I still don't condone his actions of murder or mass mind control attempts in any way.

First of all, and this one always gets me in trouble, the murder of 6 million jews, and I believe another 2 or so million other minorities (black, gypsies, gays, etc) isn't necessarily entirely bad. Yes, yes, it was sad. No, most of them probably didn't deserve to die. However, can you imagine what the world would be like if they hadn't?

Humans multiply exponentially with each generation. I don't remember the world's average off the top of my head, but I believe it's 2.5 kids per couple. If 8+ million people had been multiplying right along with them, that means approximately 20,000,000 more people would be walking the Earth right now as we speak (provided I got the average correct, and these people had the same life/death ratio average). And then those people would also be multiplying, and then their children would multiply, and so on and so forth. That's a lot of extra people. That means that that many more people would be polluting our Earth, using up natural resources, consuming our produce, occupying land, etc. That would have brought us just that much closer to an uninhabitable planet.

In short, genocide lengthens the life of the Earth, and therefore the time in which humans can live there.

Now, as I've said before (though some of you will still scream and shout), I do not think that genocide, or murder in any form, is a good thing. I'm just saying that it's not purely counterproductive.

The second issue. Hitler was quite possibly thee best speaker the world has ever seen. He had such force, such power, and an heir around him that just made people leap to their feet and surrender their minds. Granted, Germany was in a slump at this point and time, and people were desperately looking for a leader, but still. The man knew what he was doing when it came to public speeches.

The ability to speak well didn't necessarily help add to him being either good nor bad, but it does make him intelligent. To have such a vast knowledge of the human psyche and how to make it respond so well with just words... incredible. The study of such a man surely has broadened all of our horizons, at least just a little.

Last, but not least, is the contribution he has made that will never go away, and that is in our history books. In no good American, or Global history book will you be able to flip through the pages and not see a section about Hitler. Not just about WWII, but a whole section on Hitler and his Nazi's. Love him or hate him, it is almost impossible to not know his name. He left behind a legacy, and that legacy can be studied, and those studies can lead to vast amounts of knowledge about not only history, not only psychology, but about the future, and about life itself. Anyone who contributed to the world that much, positively or negatively, isn't entirely bad in my book. The actions may have been deplorable at best, but the knowledge is priceless.

 

[Spyforshinra]

Yes you're describing a very educated, respected man and listing off his achievements. His name has been burnt onto history and forever will be. Yes he was of what you described;

but how can you say he was not bad or evil? He slaughtered 6 million dues, tortured them undeservedly and basically his lust for power and the Anschluss (i can't remember exactly it's been a while) and making one germany for all germans (who satisfied the requirements of Hitler).

However, can you imagine what the world would be like if they hadn't?

That line can be REALLY taken out of context.

The world would indeed be different, Germany's role in today's Europe would perhaps be vastly different if it weren't for Hitler. Regardless of his achievements for Germany, he was a evil man.

 

[Crash]

Um, yeah. Hitler was a bad guy. He was the rarest kind of evil that actually ran around wearing black uniforms with great big signs on them that said "EVIL LOL." If you can't accept that Hitler was evil there's something mighty wrong with you.

There should be no debate about this. Hitler and nazis are a running gag in debate circles. (Godwin's Law.) The first person to compare their opponent to nazis looses!

If you refuse to accept that nazis are bad then Godwin's Law might appear inscrutable to you, or the result of a world "biased" against classifying as evil one of history's great warlords.

If that's the case then internet debate isn't for you. You have issues that can only be addressed by a professional psychologist, who will probably prescribe powerful drugs.

 

[Mega Girl]

First of all, and this one always gets me in trouble, the murder of 6 million jews, and I believe another 2 or so million other minorities (black, gypsies, gays, etc) isn't necessarily entirely bad. Yes, yes, it was sad. No, most of them probably didn't deserve to die. However, can you imagine what the world would be like if they hadn't?

Humans multiply exponentially with each generation. I don't remember the world's average off the top of my head, but I believe it's 2.5 kids per couple. If 8+ million people had been multiplying right along with them, that means approximately 20,000,000 more people would be walking the Earth right now as we speak (provided I got the average correct, and these people had the same life/death ratio average). And then those people would also be multiplying, and then their children would multiply, and so on and so forth. That's a lot of extra people. That means that that many more people would be polluting our Earth, using up natural resources, consuming our produce, occupying land, etc. That would have brought us just that much closer to an uninhabitable planet.

would you condone murder by the same logic?

In short, genocide lengthens the life of the Earth, and therefore the time in which humans can live there.

That is a good excuse. So, if I kill you now because I want to remove you and your descendantd from Earth and as such save resources, it's a valid reason?

Now, as I've said before (though some of you will still scream and shout), I do not think that genocide, or murder in any form, is a good thing. I'm just saying that it's not purely counterproductive.

You are sayig it. You are just trying to use a copout because you do not seem to be willing to take responsibility for your statements

The second issue. Hitler was quite possibly thee best speaker the world has ever seen. He had such force, such power, and an heir around him that just made people leap to their feet and surrender their minds. Granted, Germany was in a slump at this point and time, and people were desperately looking for a leader, but still. The man knew what he was doing when it came to public speeches.

are you trying to present demagoguery as GOOD trait?

The ability to speak well didn't necessarily help add to him being either good nor bad, but it does make him intelligent. To have such a vast knowledge of the human psyche and how to make it respond so well with just words... incredible. The study of such a man surely has broadened all of our horizons, at least just a little.

care to show us some links showing how the study of Hitler has so enriched our civilisation?

Last, but not least, is the contribution he has made that will never go away, and that is in our history books. In no good American, or Global history book will you be able to flip through the pages and not see a section about Hitler. Not just about WWII, but a whole section on Hitler and his Nazi's. Love him or hate him, it is almost impossible to not know his name. He left behind a legacy, and that legacy can be studied, and those studies can lead to vast amounts of knowledge about not only history, not only psychology, but about the future, and about life itself. Anyone who contributed to the world that much, positively or negatively, isn't entirely bad in my book. The actions may have been deplorable at best, but the knowledge is priceless.

well, it does probably teach us that people who would think to excuse genocide and barbarism should not be allowed out of mental institutions, but that is just my opinion.

Fact is, you are making rather lame excuses for what appears to be your fascination with a very repulsive individual.

 

[Finnegan III]

^^^ Knows.


The amount of Moral Sceptic discussion in this thread is making me sick, and the constant "Define the word 'bad'" is also pretty fucking stupid, we all know what Bad means, you're just all questioning for the sake of questioning.

The idea of the thread was "WAS HITLER A BAD MAN?" not "Let's spend 7 pages defining the word bad and trying to appear smart and philosophical when we AREN'T"

So, WAS HITLER A BAD(EVIL/WHATEVER WORD YOU PEDANTS WANT TO USE) MAN!

Yes, he was, see my previous post.

(You see if I did this sort of "define the word" or going off-topic I would get infracted ¬_¬)

 

[The Scriblerian]

Hiter=bad.

He wanted power, he wanted a certain type of race to rule, and he wanted to kill all jews and other denominations, and he almost did.

Evil.

 

[EstranGed]

Since the death of jesus, the jews have been hated. they werent able to own land. also because they lived in such clean conditions they were not that badly affected by the plague.

wanted to kill all jews and other denominations

no he didnt. he wanted to kill all jews but that is all. your moronic if you think he wanted to kill people just because they were religious.
Hitler created the third rich which he hoped would last for 1000 years, he wanted to expand so that there was enough room for all the german people. Hitler was Austrian so he wanted anchluss with austria because of this and because he would have more people for his army.
the only way you can argue that hitler was good was how he restored germany. but that isnt important when contrasted to the attrocities he commited. hitler didnt kill intellectuals. that was pol pot and idi amin who did. hitler euthanised mentally retarded people.

Hitler was quite possibly thee best speaker the world has ever seen

hitler learnt how to speak from mussolini, he also stole his salute from him. so he isnt the best public speaker but just an immatator.

mass mind control attempts

your talking about propaganda right? every government uses propaganda

 

[OmniscientOnus]

but how can you say he was not bad or evil? He slaughtered 6 million dues, tortured them undeservedly and basically his lust for power and the Anschluss (i can't remember exactly it's been a while) and making one germany for all germans (who satisfied the requirements of Hitler).

First of all, as I mentioned in the very beginning of my post, and I quote:

If you allow bad to be defined by the most common, most agreed upon terms, which is oddly enough a good portion of the ten commandments (don't murder, don't cheat, don't lie, don't steal, etc) then you can obviously say that he is a bad man. But, where's the debate in that?

I realize he's a bad man by the common definition, and since no one can really debate that, we have to bother defining the word in order to make it into a debate. Stop trying to make it so one sided. I don't idolize Hitler or something, I'm just trying to debate rather than have everyone say "oh yeah, he's bad... now what?"

There should be no debate about this.

Then why was it posted in a debate forum? If we want to debate it, let us debate it. Just because we're going to have to stretch a few meanings here and there doesn't make it any less of a topic to debate on, in fact it just helps make our skills at debating more fine tuned.

would you condone murder by the same logic?

Do you guys actually read what I post? Or do you instead just pick the parts that you think would be best to try and rip on me for? Once again, and I quote:

I still don't condone his actions of murder or mass mind control attempts in any way

Now, as I've said before (though some of you will still scream and shout), I do not think that genocide, or murder in any form, is a good thing.

That is a good excuse. So, if I kill you now because I want to remove you and your descendantd from Earth and as such save resources, it's a valid reason?

It's not an excuse, it's called finding the good in a bad situation.

You are sayig it. You are just trying to use a copout because you do not seem to be willing to take responsibility for your statements

Why would I try and "cop out" of what I said on an internet forum where no one really knows who I am? Who would I be kidding? I speak what I believe in openly and frankly (as I do in real life). I have no need to hide. I found some good in a bad situation and all you want to do is bash me.

are you trying to present demagoguery as GOOD trait?

Not necessarily, but it did shine a light on his intellect.

care to show us some links showing how the study of Hitler has so enriched our civilisation?

Study the possible in depth causes of Hitler's emotional being from a psychological standpoint for just one day and see if you can't learn a thing or two. Everyone has enriched our civilization in one form or another. This particular being, however, took a little more digging to find a good thing. You guys gotta remember, I play the devil's advocate a lot. Not to "cop out" or whatever other bullshit you might call it. I just like to challenge myself in a debate, and finding the good in Hitler is what I would call a good fucking challenge.

well, it does probably teach us that people who would think to excuse genocide and barbarism should not be allowed out of mental institutions, but that is just my opinion.

Fact is, you are making rather lame excuses for what appears to be your fascination with a very repulsive individual.

Not even close. Fact is, I know very little about Hitler, nor do I care to know. This obviously one sided idea was brought into a DEBATE forum so we could all DEBATE it and I decided that I didn't want to just agree with everyone so I would find some ground to try and stand on for another side of the DEBATE. I still stand in what I believe in, and everything I have said, it just took a little extra effort to debate against you guys. Can you accept that, or do you feel I need to further prove myself to you?

"Define the word 'bad'" is also pretty fucking stupid

Defining the word "bad" is the only real way to turn this into a debate. Otherwise, this is just a one sided rally against Hitler. Not that he doesn't deserve it, but it doesn't make for much of a debate, now does it?

The idea of the thread was "WAS HITLER A BAD MAN?" not "Let's spend 7 pages defining the word bad and trying to appear smart and philosophical when we AREN'T"

I challenge you to find a way to debate him as anything but a bad man without defining the word bad. It's just not possible. By all general terms of the word "bad", he was a sick, sick, bad little man. Once again... not much of a debate now, is it?

So, WAS HITLER A BAD(EVIL/WHATEVER WORD YOU PEDANTS WANT TO USE) MAN!

The fact that you refuse to try and debate the issue because you think the definition of "bad" should just follow your own (and most widely accepted) silly ideas doesn't make you automatically right. You have to provide evidence on exactly what makes him bad. Since that's just too easy by your definition, and you don't want to broaden the terms, why are you even posting in the debate forum on this subject? You should form a Hitler bashing fan club in the spam forum instead. If you do, I will of course post there. Hitler bashing is much easier than Hitler justifying.

hitler learnt how to speak from mussolini, he also stole his salute from him. so he isnt the best public speaker but just an immatator.

Just because he imitated another doesn't downgrade his ability any. If I were to watch a skater, for example, do an impossible move, and then copy him, would I be any less of a good skater? Of course not. Unoriginal maybe, but not bad my any means.

your talking about propaganda right? every government uses propaganda

And I don't think any of them should use them, hence why I said that I don't condone the use of them.



Please people, all of you, actually read and try to comprehend what I say before you post your angry, angry posts at me. This is just foolish to sit around defending myself (especially when I already did in a prelude to my own post) instead of actually debating. I don't disagree that Hitler was a bad man, but that's just not a debate. A debate is two sides posed against each other in the attempt to either cause one side to stand down on their opinion, or to sway an audience. To sit around and just bash Hitler is not a debate. You are all certainly entitled to do so, and I would have to agree with you all that he is indeed bad, but please allow me to debate the other side without getting singled out as some sort of Hitler supporter.

I saw everyone taking down Hitler and said to myself, "that's just too easy," so I took the more difficult route and look where it lead me. Shame on you people. Let everyone debate. Destroy my arguments with well thought out counter arguments of your own all day long, but leave me out of it. No one is debating the person I am, just the ideas that I bring to the table (whether I believe them or not (as is the case when I play the devil's advocate)).

In other words, debate, don't degrade. Silly silly people.

And as a side note, where's the mod help here? Riku? BustaMo? Lady Aerith even? Can someone please help defend me? This is just asinine in a debate forum. God forbid I actually try and debate. Alright, I'm done bitching now. And to everyone who already knows what's going to happen after I hit "submit reply", yes I understand what people are going to do despite what I've tried to do here... they just don't understand, do they?

 

[The Scriblerian]

Since the death of jesus, the jews have been hated. they werent able to own land. also because they lived in such clean conditions they were not that badly affected by the plague.

no he didnt. he wanted to kill all jews but that is all. your moronic if you think he wanted to kill people just because they were religious.
Hitler created the third rich which he hoped would last for 1000 years, he wanted to expand so that there was enough room for all the german people. Hitler was Austrian so he wanted anchluss with austria because of this and because he would have more people for his army.
the only way you can argue that hitler was good was how he restored germany. but that isnt important when contrasted to the attrocities he commited. hitler didnt kill intellectuals. that was pol pot and idi amin who did. hitler euthanised mentally retarded people.

hitler learnt how to speak from mussolini, he also stole his salute from him. so he isnt the best public speaker but just an immatator.

your talking about propaganda right? every government uses propaganda

First off, grow up and learn how to debate without having to prove yourself an immature fool.

And yes, Hitler did want to kill many religous people besides jews, Jehovah's Witnesses were almost completely taken out around Hitler's time in concentration camps etc...and their were others too. Get your facts straight.

 

[Davey Gaga]

And as a side note, where's the mod help here?

First of all, I'm here to tell a few of you that you will be receiving warnings for inappropriate posts and/or spam. Without naming people, just check your inbox for notification on warnings - you know who you are, anyway.

no he didnt. he wanted to kill all jews but that is all. your moronic if you think he wanted to kill people just because they were religious.

And you would think that "killing them for the sake of it" is any less moronic?

It would seem I can't leave a thread alone for a day or two without having to hand out warnings. Saddens me, really.

Lastly, I'm going to emphasise just how much I agree with OmniscientOnus. There's absolutely no need to be singling anyone out in a debate, no matter what their opinion. As he has said, he doesn't agree with what Hitler has done and he doesn't condone his actions. In fact, I couldn't agree more about the concept of a debate; to present to sides to the debate and to argue both of them. A 'Hitler Bashing' can go in the spam forum or somewhere equally useless, whereas a debate on whether or not Hitler was a bad man should be debated. I realise that some people might have difficulties seeing both sides of this particular debate, but still, it's a debate - not a chance to persuade others into believing whatever you believe.

I think that just about covers it.

 

[Tifa AC]

well do anyone of you know why he hated the Jews that much?
my Grandpa once told me that story.
But first i'd like to know what do you know why did he hate the Jews that much he let kill them?

 

[Clyde]

The world would have admired hitler if he hadnt killed those jews and other minority groups. He was a great leader, he was just a bad man.
In fact, i reckon Germany would have been the most powerful country if Hitler used his powers to do good.

To Tifa AC, i think he kiled Jews because, well, i think he used the excuse that Jews killed Jesus or something...

 

[Tifa AC]

No its something happend between Jews and his Family as you know he was not a German he was born in Austria (shame on us)anyway.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Hitler was an excellent leader. He may have been a bad person, but he was a genius and he pretty much screwed over everyone in WWII.
He did what he wanted to do in it.

He hated the Jews because when Germany lost WWI the Germans were poor. The Jews were living in the big houses and living the rich life in Germany. This obviously made a lot of people angry...

 

[Chaos Theory]

Adolf Hitler was a great motivator, and a poor leader.

He was more concerned with the genocide of the jews than the actual war effort, which became painfully obvious towards the end of the war.

He made critical mistakes during the war, that if he had done differently, perhaps he would have won.

Declaring war on the US. ~ Big Mistake
Blitzkrieging the Soviet Union ~ Big Mistake

Difference between a great motivator and a great leader.

 

[Doc Holliday]

He wasn't a poor leader, but the power got to his head towards the end of the war.

 

[Tifa AC]

Okay he just killed the Jews because the always had more power then the others.
As you know he born in a poor familie and he coudent stand that there were some people who had more power than he had.
Second if you look at it well he wasent the first who killed for power there were many others bevor we just have him in the mind because he killed so many poor jews an a realy bad way.
If he havent done that in that way we wouldent remember him that much.

 

[Doc Holliday]

...What?

 

[Rasputin]

Hitler should have focused more on creating an empire rather than the compete extermination of the Jews. The idea that his German army could possibly maintain control over Jewish populations all over the globe is absurd. Rather, if he could force surrounding countries to submit to his rule and then use THEIR armies to continuously spread (like Rome) is much more efficient.