With all the horrible events in history considered does Adolf Hitler deserve his damning reputation?

The science of the time was without a doubt completely and fundamentally flawed. However, while heinous crimes like the holocaust were committed under Hitler’s rule, aren't we still to a lesser extent committing similar crimes? The South African government has attempted ethnic cleansing. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations we have been trying to spread democracy by killing off the pre-existing government structures and replacing them with our own. I would suggest that many Americans, due to the negativity of the media, feel about Muslims what Germans felt about Jews. Some would even compare the former Guantanamo Bay and its gross human rights violations to a touchier camp. All through history there have been attempts at racial and cultural genocide: China in Tibet, Roman rape policy, deliberate starvation in Ireland, and South Africa to name just a few. So does Adolf Hitler deserve his reputation as one of the worst men in history? Or is our history, like Churchill said, "Written by the victors".

The scale of ethnic cleansing undertook by the Nazis fully deserves its horrific reputation. Yet it is not an isolated historical event; there have been many comparable atrocities, yet those responsible have not been demonised in the same way as Hitler.

There can be no doubt that acts of genocide took place before the Adolf Hitler's extermination of the population of Europe, that acts of genocide have happened since, or that acts of genocide will happen again in the future. We should not judge the morality of an action on its rarity, however; all such acts should be condemned for their flagrant disregard for the rights and freedoms of their victims. To put recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq in the same bracket as the holocaust is frankly absurd. The Nazi regime carried out a refined and systematic extermination of various groups among the population, motivated by hatred and designed to remove them from the face of the Earth. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused civilian casualties, and have damaged infrastructure; but they were initiated in order to bring democracy and rights to the people. Even if one finds the imposition of political order by a foreign order to be undesirable, we can not class its moral character alongside acts of genocide. " I would suggest many Americans feel about Muslims what Germans felt about Jews." This is a rather distasteful sentiment, whose comparison is inaccurate. Many Americans dislike Islamic fundamentalists; some, perhaps, may misguidedly view all Muslims in this light. But to suggest that any significant proportion of the American public would seek the death of the global Muslim population on the grounds that they are racially inferior is an assessment of gross absurdity. "You could see Hitler like Judas the betrayer, Without him there would be no Israeli, and without Judas the Death and resurrection of Jesus could not have happened like it did. The lord works in mysterious ways, sometimes good comes from evil." Aside from the fact that Jewish lobbies had been pushing for the creation of an Israeli state long before the second world war, it would seem a little bizarre for the Lord to kill six million of his chosen people, as genocidal as His Biblical self is. To state the creation of the Israel as an equitable good for the evil of the holocaust is also repugnant; had this trade off been presented to the prisoners of Auschwitz, I think they would have chosen life over land. 'Or is our history like Churchill said "Written by the victors".' Perhaps our history is written by the victor. This is not regrettable in the modern era, however, when the conventions on human rights, international cooperation in justice and a widened respect for human life are the principles which guide the victorious powers.

Aditionally, you cannot in any way justify anything by comparison to others. They should be dealt with individually.

There is a fundemantel difference between Adolf Hitlers hate of Jews, blacks and gypsies and the American's population distrust of Muslims. Hitler believed that the arayen race was superior to any other race in the world. He believed that that the Germans were the betters of the Slavs and Jews and therefore they could be exterminated without second thought and there land could be inhabited by racially pure Germans. However the American population do not trust muslims due to the repuation of a minority (suicide bombers and extremists). There deeds are so horrific that they overshadow any attempt by modern normal muslims to stake thier claim as law abiding citizens. To the second claim that genocide occured in many other countries and therefore Hitler was just one on the list of murderers. To this I say Germany was an advanced nation not a backward and superstisious society like Rome. Many other atrocities have been comiited due to revolution in conquered territories like Tibet and Ireland but never due to a loathing of a race not of thier deeds not of thier reputation but of them that they exist.

Another arguement is that the horrific way in which the Jews were murdered is testimony to the Nazis horrific deeds. Perhaps it amy be argued that there were other acts of genocide throughout history. But never on the same scale and with the same ruthlessness have 7-8 million people been murdered in cold blood.

The structure of the Nazi party meant that policy was not necessarily handed down from the top. Instead, officials in the party were said to be 'working towards the fuehrer', proposing actions that correlated with the broad aims of Adolf Hitler. So while Hitler's ideas on Aryan racial superiority lay at the core of the holocaust and he almost certainly sanctioned it, he was not the one responsible for instigating or implementing the creation of the death camps. Responsibility for this tragedy must be shared with the other members of his government; Himmler in particular was particularly influential in the racial policy of the Third Reich.

Just because it was not Hitler holding the gun and herding thousands of innocent people into concentration camps does not mean he is not responsible. He created a racist, fascist dictatorship and gave approval for this mass programme of ethnic cleansing. He had ultimate power and therefore the ultimate responsibility for what took place.

Although Hitler had his officials organise the death camps, the ideas of racially purifying Germany and exterminating the Jews were still his idea, and thus he was directly responsible for the atrocities comitted.

The wartime divisions between the Allies and the Axis powers have left a deep cultural impression. You only have to watch England and Germany play football to see that the old antagonism dies hard.

We need only look at the image that Stalin holds in public perception to see the difference. He was responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians who starved due to his economic policies in the thirties and many more in the political purges of the USSR. Stalin's Gulags were as cruel as many Nazi camps. Yet despite the divisions of the Cold War, Stalin retains an image as a kind of 'cuddly dictator' that is far from the demonic portrayal of Hitler. Why? Because Russia fought with the Allies in WWII, whereas Hitler, in the minds of the public, is eternally the figurehead of the enemy.

Wartime allegiances have nothing to do with our modern political judgements. The West stood against communism in the USSR despite them being a former ally. China were also on our side in WWII, but we still freely criticise their breaches of human rights.

Hitler's reputation is built on his actions; the destruction in Europe and the political and racial killings that he instigated.

In retrospect, knowing what we do about the devastation of WWII and the holocaust, it is easy to condemn Adolf Hitler. Yet he took power in a country that was suffering from terrible economic depression. Germany had been broken by the disastrous outcome of WWI and the reparations awarded at the treaty of Versailles. The threat of communism also lay heavy over the whole of Europe in the wake of the Russian revolution.

In these kind of extreme situations, people naturally turn to extreme solutions. Fascism was a way forward for Hitler, a way to make Germany great again. Patriotism and the belief in cultural supremacy is hardly unique to Nazi Germany; it was equally part of the political belief of the British Empire.

The racist elements of Nazi ideology are naturally abhorrent to us. But at the time there were plenty of scientists who believed in the inferiority of some races and that physical appearance was an indicator of some inner nature. This thinking was behind a lot of criminological practice in nineteenth century Britain.

The point is, none of the elements of Hitler's belief were new or unique. Germany in the 1920s and 30s was an extremely problematic society. In this situation, it is almost inevitable that a radical ideology like Nazism would come to the fore as a solution; Hitler was responding to this climate, rather than actively leading Germany astray.

The problems of his age cannot excuse Hitler's actions. The Holocaust is not a logical response to poverty or political weakness; it is merely an atrocity motivated by personal racial prejudices.

Fascism may have seemed a solution to the political problems of the early twentieth century but it was not the only way; Hitler and his associates made a political choice. They must be responsible for their reaction to even the most difficult of circumstances.

He CAN be judged in hindsight, not by what we think we would do but judged in comparison to those who ALSO lived in his and did not chose the path he chose.

Under the chancellorship of Stresemann, many of the problems of the time had already been solved - the reparations were no longer so crippling, hyper-inflation had been contained... While it can be argued Germany would have been justified in starting WWII following the excessively harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, by the time Hitler came in there was no longer such justification. Hitler was not simply responding to the climate, as could be argued had he risen to power through the 1920s, but at least to a degree setting the climate.

-Hitler does not desreve his reputation of unique evil because there was nothing unique about "The Holocaust". Even if one ignores the conclusive evidence of the revisionists that "six million" did not die, there is no basis for asserting unique German evil. Jews had been expelled from European society many times before Hitler expelled (not exterminated) them. They usually deserved it because of their criminal tax farming and merciless gouging of debtors with 40% or higher compound interest. It is usually asserted that Jews were innocent victims of Hitler. But they were not so innocent. Jews had gotten the US into the First World War as the payoff for Britain's Balfour Declaration, promising the Jews a "national home" in Palestine in return for Zionist assistance in getting the US into the war. Academic historians dispute this claim, but so said both David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England and Mr. Samuel Landman, Political Secretary of the Zionist Organization in London. Jews were very powerful at the Paris Peace Conference after the war, where they got the Entente to pass "minorities treaties" guaranteeing the Jewish "state within-the-state in Central Europe and got the League of Nations to pass the Mandate over Palestine, giving away Arab Palestine to the Zionists. Jews moved into Germany while the great inflation was raging and bought up evertyhing in sight while the German people starved, thereby exploiting the misery of the defeated. Naturally, the German people resolved to take back what the Jews had grabbed at bargain basement prices.

The gravest charge of all is that Jews were responsible for communism. They were. Not just in Germany but in Russia, Hungary and Poland as well. Any academic reference work will give the truth away. A few titles are "The Jewish Century" by Yuri Slezkine, "Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics: The Jewish Sections Of the CPSU, 1917-1930" by Zvi Gitelman or "Dark Times, Dire Consequences: Jews and Communism" by Dan Diner and Jonathan Frankel". All these volumes show the deep Jewish involvement in communism and the warm support Jews gave it all over the globe. It is small wonder that the Germans shot hundreds of thousands of Jews in Russia. No group of criminals more surely deserved their fate. That the claims of extermination are phony is shown by the fact that all the Soviet satrapies after the war were dominated by Jewish commissars installed by the supposedly anti-semitic Joseph Stalin. (Consult "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State" by Professor Ginsberg for confirmation.

The Jews got a very small dose of their own medicine at the hands of Adolf Hitler. One to two million died of all causes, not the fabled "six million". The twenty million or more killed by the Jewish commissars of Joseph Stalin was a lot worse. Jews like to make a big deal of their losses in WW2 to make the world feel constantly guilty. It puts the blame on the wrong people and takes the attention off the real killers-the Jewish commissars. By making the west pay reparations for "failing to rescue" a mythical "six million" the real question is obscured: Why did the very influential western Jews fail to rescue the twenty or more million being slaughtered by the Jewish bolsheviks? All peoples suffer in war and the sufferings of the Jews were no worse than the sufferings of the Arabs when Hulagu and the Mongols rampaged throught the Middle East in the early 1200's. Nor was it any worse than the atrocities inflicted upon the Irish by Oliver Cromwell.

Adolf Hitler was a conqueror and, like all conquerors, he was not a nice man. But he was going after the right people for the right reasons. Since it is now becoming increasingly clear that Joseph Stalin was himself planning to attack Europe in the summer of 1941, perhaps the world owes Hitler a great debt for beating Stalin to the punch. Had Stalin struck first, all of Europe would have been communized under the control of some very murderous Jews. And then the world would have had a problem on its hands far more severe than a bunch of Jews wailing over "gas chambers" which never were.

First, the level of anti-semitic remarks in this argument is worrying. Hitler did not merely 'expell' the Jews - the deaths of 6 million of them show that his actions were far worse. Also, to claim that ethnic cleansing is acceptable because of allegations against a few members is a vile, evil viewpoint. Jews were hardly involved with 'criminal tax farming and merciless gouging of debtors with 40% or higher compound interest', and to suggest this about all Jews is plain ignorant.

To then claim that the Jews were responsible for WW1 and Communism shows a distinct absence of understanding of the 20th century. America became involved in WW1 purely because it knew that it would have to act soon, and the bombing of the Lusithania was the trigger needed. Communism was barely a Jewish concept - vast numbers of Jews were killed or expelled by Stalin's regime, and the proposition would do well to actually describe the supposed 'deep Jewish involvement in communism', so that future readers may have the chance to see the reason why a proper education is important.

Saying that the Jews 'bought up evertyhing in sight while the German people starved, thereby exploiting the misery of the defeated' is yet another example of the author's ignorance. Germany had always been a centre of Judaism in Europe - it had also become a centre of anti-semitism, and this was partially responsible for Hitler's rise to power.

Onto the original point raised, nobody is claiming that Hitler was 'uniquely' evil - he was just evil.

Ultimately, I would like to remind the author than neo-Nazism is considered a crime in most of the world,

History is written by the winners of the wars.

I am against racism/fear/ignorance in all forms, but understand that culture is an influence on anyone.

I used to watch tv movies like "sobibor", "Schindler's List", etc., and feel just as angry about the atrocities portrayed in such movies. Let me tell everyone, that I felt similar feelings when I saw the Abu Ghrahib gallery.

At that point, I realized that any culture, any civilization, can become insane/evil. In fact, the ones most likely to become 'evil' are those who believe it cannot happen to them. I do not know how this applies to Germanica; all I know is my own time.

The truth is... is that all we 'know' about WW2 has been taught by textbooks and movies written by people who have taken second hand information for truth without critical thought.

It has occurred to me that most educated civilians everywhere on Earth regard war and violent conflict of any kind as repugnant. So a government needs to sell the idea to its people. Like the 'secret map' speech by FDR (later debunked by, of all people, the Swiss), or the 911 attacks, dissectible by anyone with the presence of mind to digitally record the news from Hour One on that 'fateful' morning, or anyone with enough memory to remember the way the Mujahideen (Taliban), or Saddam Hussein were glorified by the US during the years of Reaganomics.

The truth is, that the US needs its underclass, to ignore the inconsistencies and unexplained anomalies whenever a foreign conflict is brewing. Such an underclass is, by nature _and_ nurture, incapable of collecting all of the historical data in order to think critically about whether or not to rush into battle with a culture they have never bothered to learn about, and, even more insidiously, anyone with enough education/intelligence to question, is probable worried about social standing and credit rating enough to not want to rock the boat. Even Noam Chomsky, an outspoken critic of US foreign policy, or the author of Zeitgeist (a flawed and yet uncowardly vocal masterpiece regarding that which 'everyone "knows"' about the last hundred years of Western/Judeochristian civilization/economics) remain tight-lipped when it comes to the most relevant questions about the last few decades of the world.

Consider this a completely _neutral_ comment about Hitler. If there were such a person as described by history or Spielberg, then, yes, such a person would be considered a psychopath. However, it has also been demonstrated that everything we know about these things is a product of media; media which can be controlled/censored/corrupted by interested and entrenched parties with a determination to control that which we think. In other words, if I am to truly hate someone or characterize him/her as evil, someone who I have never met (and never will), then I reserve the right to demand an opportunity to examine _critically_, the very facts upon which such a powerful, potentially negative/destructive emotion is based upon. And unfortunately, the opportunity here is limited... rendering this entire debate moot.

Peace

Adolf Hitler did what he thought, and what most thought was right at the time. The reason why he gassed people is because he didn't want them to suffer in the camps, because they had nothing to do. But the healthy ones actually could work properly so he didn't kill them all.

I think there is too much fuss over Hitler being "Evil", I even think child molesters and terrorists are not being fussed about anymore. Hitler is not evil.They are.

Think of the good things about him.

There are more good than bad.

And there is no actual evidence of the German Shepard's death.

Too much to type really.

oh baby

the kids

the sausage rolls!

kidneys

i personally think that hitler was madder then mad he killed a lot of people he killed hi German shepored that he loved a lot.

he got inicent litle disabled babies killed with out thinking twice so he killed a poupilation of pure Germans.

so that means he was out of his mind beacause how can you get babies killed.

and in the end he was so scared that he commited suicide.

so that proves it that he was a coward a murdrer a madman i mean he should have been in a mental ayslum instead of the fuher of Germany

Evil is committing an offensive or violent act purely for self gain, without any concern for a greater cause. (Rape or Child Molestation) Adolf Hitler, while undoubtedly corrupted was not an evil man. He sought to bring his country glory, and while his methods were at least corrupt and at worst heinous, his primary goal was to help his country. He was a patriot. I am by no means an advocate of his message or methods, but he was a man that sought to do what he felt was right. I for one, cannot condemn a man who I do not know personally. Who are we to condemn him? We don't know him, and we don't know how much control he actually had over the Camps. So, I implore you to get off your high horse and look at his philosophy. What he did, to him, was a means to an end. The end being bringing his home country out of a terrible state and into a glorious one. What is a more noble goal? Once again, he was corrupt, not evil. There is a difference.

If you do not label hitler as evil,then what is evil? He is the epitome of evil...do you now think that killing innocent people is not evil?He did this for no benofit to the world,for his own selfish thoughts and childish unrealistic wants. killing is the worst you can do to someone as their life is over,there is nothing to carry on with and this can never be undone. Not only did he kill Them but he tortured them.. If this is not evil,and you cannot get much worse than killing people,then what is evil!

Individuals who have done similar things to Adolf Hitler are considered evil.