Adolf Hitler Does Not Deserve His Reputation as Evil
Does Hitler really deserve to be demonised as he has been for the last seventy years? Or have his crimes been blown out of proportion by the media to the point where he is unfairly branded a hate figure? If we considered the crimes of his regime in a broader historical context, would Hitler still seem so evil?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Others have committed comparable atrocities
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.
If you compare what Hitler did to what America is doing right now in the Middle East they are far from different. The world is so blind because they focus on what instead of why. People would be so much more successful if they focus on the why instead of the what. For example, if youre at your job and you have a big project that'd be nice to finish and look really good for you because of all the effort you put into it, but blew off a small project that'd be a faster more rewarding win, then you're not doing your self or the company any good. You just did a project because of what it was, not why it needed to be done.
In this case, America is at war because of acts of terrorism. Even if you believe in 911 being a conspiracy and whatever else you want to believe, was the train in Spain a conspiracy? Terrorism is real! If you don't believe that then you're blind because they openly admit their ways! The point is, somewhere down the line these terrorists have been threatening us. Whether they have or have had nuclear weapons is not a concern, its the fact that they could one day get them. They won't warn us. They aren't going to say "hey we have Nukes, America, we'll attack tomorrow". Theyre just going to fire them at us. Are we just going to wait until they have this power or are we going to make sure that we're safe. I'd rather my government be too careful to ensure our safety then careless. So even if we are going there just for the fossil fuels (like some claim), they are also doing us all a favor!
But Hitler? Hitler exterminated people because he didn't like their race. There was no threat to Hitler. Hitler was the threat and he was eliminated. If we were to compare WWII to now, we'd have to say Hitler is in the shoes of the middle east. We are not threatening the middle east to destroy their race, they are threatening to destroy ours, like Hitler threatened to Destroy the Jews and Gypsies and Polish.
Hitler was not directly responsible for what occured under his leadership
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.
Our perception of Hitler is coloured by wartime allegiances
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.
Hitler was responding to the problems of his time; we cannot judge him in hindsight
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.
I Hitler was responding to the crises of the time, and was left with a broken and economicly unstable country, then apparently America could have done this during the Great Deppresion, right?
No, because if he did this during a state of weakness and financial loss, then he would not bee able to afford it, because all of the terrible things he did cost money, which he would have not had.
The biggest problem with you idea of why Hitler did what he did doesn't even make sense with what he did. You say he was trying to help fix Germany. If this was true, why was he more focused on taking over more lands than doing what was right for his own country?
-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.
Have you never seen any footage of the Holocaust? Have you never read the Diary of Anne Frank? Have you never even left your hole in the ground of racism?
this is a neutral point
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.
While it is understandable as to why you would want to be neutral (this is actually a valuable skill), the fact that Hitler killed millions of innocent people will not change. Most, if not all, historical events have been written by winners and have biased point of view, but the reason why Hitler deserves his reputation as a evil man is because, even without all the emotion and "selling the idea" garbage, he killed that many people under the belief that his race was superior and was given the right to cleanse the world of all other "inferior races." That remains as the truth.
Mother Teresa has the reputation of being a woman of virtue who helped poor people all over the world. Was this because the media or the government tried to sell the idea or because it was written in the point of view of someone who admired her? No, the fact is, she did do a lot of charity work and helped those less fortunate around her.
While I do agree that people tend to dramatize and exaggerate on some points (it is still highly debatable whether Hitler did have his men make book covers out of Jews' skin for example), Hitler does deserve his reputation of being evil because of the unbiased fact that he killed millions of innocent people. How do we know it's not made-up? We have a myriad of solid historical evidence: from Hitler's own recorded speeches, books, accounts, photos.. etc. to back this up.
Does it all revolve around the Jewish People?
When ever we think about Hitler we know that he killed 6 million Jews, but is that all that he is recognised for?
All of you say that Hitler is 'Evil' because he killed 6 million Jews but have you ever met Hitler? No...You never will
You base your conculsion on one fact that he killed 6 million Jews, but what about all the other ethnicities he killed? huh?... you give no mentiont to them its always '6 million jews', you cannot sustain an argurement on one fact.
Do we CLEARLY know why he commited mass genocide? No...
Do we CLEARLY understand how Hitler thought? No..
Do we CLEARLY know what he was like? Yes..., but you dont want to know becuase it is positive!
The film Downfall is based on his Secretary Traudl Junge's account of him, so why do we all discredit this interpreation? because she was biased? No, because it was positive and that Hitler was 'a nice guy'. This cannot posibly be the personality of a mass murder, 'IT MUST BE FALSE!' obviously not when it is one of 'THE ONLY' recently living (died in 2002) FIRSTHAND account of Hitler.
The last living tesimony of someone who was there, why is this not true?...
First off, it is blatant abuse of history perpetrated by Western media and propaganda to mention only Jews as victims of Hitler (and occasionally homosexuals etc), when it is fact that Slavs, not Jews, and Russians in particular, bore the brunt of Hitler maniacal genocide. Jews might be the greatest victims in terms of percentage, but by sheer numbers, Russians and other Slavs were far greater numbers. There were three million Poles, 3 million Russian POVs (as opposed to tens of thousands of homosexuals that are nowadays more frequently mentioned, even jehovah witnesses are mentioned more frequently). But most of Hitler victims did not even die in concentration camps - 20 million civilians on Eastern front, many of whom died in brutal repressials by Wehrmacht (villages burnt, people hanged and starved to death as Wehrmacht took all their food).
The western propaganda rarely mentions other millions of people of different ethnicities that were killed, we mainly use the 6 million Jews example because it is the most notorious and well-known case, and because they do not want to mention the fact that Russians, under Stalin, were most responsible for beating Hitler both militarily and morally. The topic here is "does Hitler deserve his reputation as a evil man," the fact that we are using Jews as an example by no means weakens our stance in that Hitler deserved to be remembered as an evil man. Also, you yourself seem to understand that Hitler did kill more than just 6 million Jews, which further proves our point of how evil this man was: 20 million Russians and Soviets, 3 million Poles, 1 million Serbs, 300,000 Gypsies, 10,000 homosexuals, 200,000 non-Jew and non-Russians, and 200,000 of his own German people.
Yes, I believe we do know clearly know why he committed mass murder, there are a couple hundred people out there who have dedicated their lives on looking into Hitler's pesonality, beliefs, and mentality. On top of that, we have books he wrote (the most famous one being Mein Kampf) and records of his speeches. How can a man who killed millions of inncoent people in the name of his country's so called "glory" and Aryan supremacy be in his right mind? Nothing positive can come out of killing born from evil and unjust causes like Hitler's.
Also Secretary Traudi Junge was biased. Your only explanation on why it wasn't bias is "because it was positive and that Hitler was 'a nice guy'. How do you know? There is nothing to back this up. But there are many things to back up the point that this person's opinions were biased. This person worked under Hitler in an office filled with people who admired Hitler in a society that admired Hitler. Last testimony or not, if you asked anyone who lived under the circumstances of Secretary Traudi Junge, they would all call Hitler a 'nice guy.'
In your Theory you're saying we can not call massive genocide a bad thing? You're basically saying Hitler killed 6 million jews and on top of other ethnicities but thats ok. The extermination of 6 million plus people can be justified, so he's a good guy."
NO! Justification does not make him any less wrong. In fact, people know him for killing 6 million jews because the main population of his targets were jewish. They estimate a minimum of 11 million people died in the holocaust which leaves jews at over 50%. None, the less killing such a high amount of people is, in most minds, an act of evil.
He was not in his right mind
It is a known fact that when two family members have a child together that, that child can be affected Hitler's mother and father were cousins. Also Hitler spent some time homeless where he was led to believe that it was because of the Jews that he was there. He fought in the first world war where he was gassed which could have confused his brain also because of this gas whenever the'November Criminals' surrendered it would have been harder to accept for him leading him to be more determined for the strong and united Germany he outlined in the 25 point programme. So to summarise I believe that Hitler was never truly evil.
Can you be truly evil while actually being in your 'right mind'? Evil is so deviant from the norm and so against everyday morality that anyone who truly is evil is almost certainly not of what we would consider a right mind. If they think what they are doing is right while the rest of humanity believes it is abhorrent then we cannot think they are in their 'right mind' at the same time.
Answering this question depends entirely on how one perceives and defines the notion of evil.
Before one can answer this question, the concept of 'evil' has to be understood and defined.
What exactly is evil? The concept of evil is very complex and ambiguous. One would say it's simple: that evil is 'what is bad', that it is ' what is morally wrong', 'that which is in violation or has the intent of violating moral code". Here lies the problem though and the inherent ambiguity: of what consists the moral code? Morality is not easy; it has many paradoxes:
"If you think something is morally wrong but society (or other people) thinks it's morally right, is it right or wrong?"
"If one believes (as Hitler did) that a certain class of people (the Jews) are the root of all that is morally wrong (evil), shouldn't that person act on those beliefs? Shouldn't one deliver oneself and others from evil?"
Genocides, torture, and other 'crimes against humanity' are not the product of a person's senseless actions or a certain mystical/absolute evil. These acts are the cause of irrational group (because it's never just one individual) behavior stemming from misperceptions, ethical ideals, psychological traumas, delusions, dogmas, radicalism and loss of control over emotions (irrational hatred). There are many examples of this: Rwandan genocide, the heretics during the Middle-Ages, the witch hunts, the terrorism of Al-Qaeda so on and so forth. Even modern examples such as the Srebrenica massacre, the Sabra and Shatila massacre; these happened during warfare by groups of people who had an irrational hatred, who were under a state of mind of warfare and brutality.
Hitler wasn't evil, he was racist, he believed that the Jews were inferior and extremely detrimental to society and on the other hand that Germans were a superior race. He actually (along with his followers) lifted germany from the rubbles of WWI and made it (arguably) the most powerful nation during the late 1930's, early 1940's.
One should not judge by evil or good. Hatred breeds hatred. One should understand and learn from the past, not condemn its actors.
Hitler banned Smoking and Vivisection..
In 1933 the Jews declared War on Germany ,The Night of Broken Glass (1939): In retaliation for the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris and Jews were rounded up(Mainly Communists) and sent to concentration camps (When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Japanese US citizens were rounded up and put in concentration Camps)within Germany (No German Camps were claimed to be Death Camps).. To answer any question as to why Jews were not welcome in Germany.(Over the centuries Jews have been expelled from 109 Countries)
,German Soldiers were forbidden to smoke and drink in occupied France and rapes committed by Germans was virtually unheard of (The liberating allies especially Red Army went on a raping spree)
Poland: 1940 the Jewish led NKVD executed 25.000 Polish officers.. In 1941 the Nazis discovered the Mass Graves and attempted to report their findings to the wider World but the controlled Media under orders from allied governments blamed the atrocity on the Germans.
Propaganda Before During and after the War : It is a documented, verified fact that Hitler did not want War but the British antagonists ensured war would be waged ,, The Brits gave Poland the incentive to destabilise Germany and when it was discovered that ethnic Germans in Danzig and Bromberg were being massacred by Communist dregs (58.000) Hitler found himself in an hopeless situation.. (Hitler had offered the Poles favourable terms before the massacres) .. When Hitler invaded Poland (If you research Poland invades Czechoslovakia reasons become clearer) the British and France declared War against Germany .
Unlike WWI propaganda where stories of Germans eating Babies was the norm (Post Rothschild meeting with British War ministers after Britain had LOST the War) during WWII Atrocity stories were significant but also German expansionist (conquered Nations) goals were used to frighten Citizens to accept the draft (UK: conscription) ;(German propaganda warned of Communism).
Propaganda after the War was by way of the Nuremberg War crimes trials, The sole mechanism was to point all the blame at Germany and white wash the allies. (1.5 000.000 German prisoners of War were starved to death in open fields after the War .. Fuerstenfeldbruck was Hell on Earth but that has been omitted from school History books)
Is Hitler evil ?? God no but i know a few who are .. Stalin, Churchill Eisenhower, Ilya Ehrenberg(Kill) Lazar Kaganovich (Gulags)
Pointing the finger at others does not mean that Hitler was not evil too... it seems particularly difficult to see how you come to the conclusion that Ike was evil but not Hitler. Ike as a general was simply following orders and fought the war as best he could. I am not aware of any particular massacres that are put at his feet. If Ike was evil then so was every other general.
Your idea that the Jews declared war on Germany is so twisted from the facts as to not be worth responding to.
Hitler was no worse than Churchill or Stalin
Stalin is often quoted as responsible for 20 million deaths, was totalitarian just as Hitler, while Churchill was a racist, responsible for Bengali famine which killed 7 million Indians, and is quoted as being pro use of poison gas, eugenics, etc.
The fact that Churchill and Stalin were no better (and certainly no heroes their nations assume them to be) bears no weight in argument that Hitler was evil.
But lets get data straight: Stalin DID NOT kill 20 million people, as often misquoted in the cold war western propaganda that persists to this day. NYTimes admitted that, and that total number is more likely less than 10 million, most of which died in hunger in Ukraine, and around 1 million died in Gullag and less than that were directly shot. Now political reprisals not withstanding, death from hunger and from genocide is not the same thing, plus Stalin was repressing his own people, not attacking other.
As for Churchill, yes, same as Stalin is hero to the Russians but not to some other people, he is hero to British but is widely hated in India. He was racist which was very widespread in England in XIX century and even in his time, but although British rule was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths by hunger in India during two centuries (and Hitler modeled his racist approach on British practices, which included concentration camps for women and children in the Boer war), death from hunger, even of oppressed racially hated people, like Indians, is not the same as the use of poison gas in concentration camps. Although British had all the racist elements of Holocaust and were also involved in genocides and war crimes, Hitler was first to use poison gas (used by British on Iraqi civilians in the 1920s), concentration camps (invented by British empire in Boer War) and hunger in COMBINATION - to great effect.
Although Churchill and Stalin have some evil in them, Hitler was much worse.
Something just doesn't add up about the slandering of Hitler. Ok, so, he supposedly killed all these Jews and was a terrible person, but why is it that others who have done the exact same thing are not slandered in the same way that Hitler is? Think about it. The British, French, Dutch, and Spanish royal families have done the exact same thing that Hitler is accused of. The British, Dutch, French, and Spanish went around the world, and still continue killing millions more than Hitler is accused of. Christopher Columbus killed 4 million Native Americans, but we have a holiday for him. The Spanish, British, and French regimes killed over 50 million Native Americans. All of the guys printed on the U.S. dollar have all been guilty of the same crimes Hitler is accused of. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies also do things that are very similar to what Hitler is accused of, so how come there is so little criticism of them? Why are we constantly not reminded of the crimes they committed? Obviously the critics of Hitler aren't really concerned about genocide, and torture, because they only seem to focus on attacking Hitler, while keeping silent on the crimes of the American, Australian, Canadian, and European regimes.
Hitler is evil
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
Committing suicide seems like an obvious choice when it was certain he would be executed anyway - would you not prefer to choose the manner and place of your death when you know it is coming soon anyway?
What is evil then?
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!
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.
What the hell you talkin bout foo?
Individuals who have done similar things to Adolf Hitler are considered evil.
Your statement makes no proper point and therefore no sense
Adolf Hitler has at least killed 17 million people during his time in goverment and thats just people from the halocuast. His Gestapo and Waffen SS killed, tortured and imprisoned thousands of people who spoke out agaisnt him. Also during operation Barbosa he cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. When he ussualy ordered his generals not to retreat. At the end war his refusal to leave berlin cuased the deaths of many civillans who were killed by arty fire or russian troops. Hitler may have rebuilded Germany at one point but he still is Evil!
Adolf Hitler probably did not kill a single one of those with his own hand, he simply set the policies that did.
:/ Adolf Hitler was not evil he wasn't a murderer he didn't kill the jews directly he ordered people to kill the jews. you might be thinking " he ordered the soldiers to kill them so he has to be evil." well your wrong in my point of view its like this,if the U.S President Or Whoever Is In Power Told You To Jump Off A Bridge Would You Do It?
The opposite is actually a yes argument!
Being evil does not just mean doing things yourself but setting the conditions for it is equally 'evil'. Creating an ideology where such a thing is acceptable or even encouraged is a worse kind of evil as it is deeply insidious twisting others morals. Many people learn what is right and wrong from those with authority and based upon 'the moral standards of the time'. If those in authority are setting moral standards that are abhorrent evil will result.
What Hasn't He Done?
Hitler was responsible for leading the holocaust which killed an estimated 11-17 million people. How is that not evil? Even though he did not directly kill people himself (During WWII) does not mean his acts are not considered evil. In the bible, the story of David and Bathsheba has a more simple scenario where David sends Bathshebas husband to war. God considered it murder. Even if you still hold true to the Nazis being more at fault, saying Hitler didn't kill anyone you are still mistaken. Hitler was in the trenches for 4 years during THE FIRST world war. He had to have killed several people at the time. He also killed 2 of his dogs and took his own life. Suicide is arguably an act of evil.
Furthermore he is rumored to kill his niece Angela (Geli) Raubal. Though the official documents say she killed herself and he wasn't there at the time, some back up look at the situation would say that even if she did kill herself (using Hitlers gun), she did so because Hitler refused to let her live the life she wanted. Hitler and her were having sexual relations but she wanted to be with someone else, which he forbid. Even if he didn't kill her you must think its odd that 3 woman he had been involved with committed suicide and 2 others attempted.
If you want to talk evil, lets look at the methods he used for executing conspirators. He would sit them down in a Garrote. Which is essentially a chair that the victim sits in. A Strap is put around their neck with a stick in the back that is twisted to tighten the strap around their neck. For the conspirators, however, Hitler had enforced Piano wire to be used instead of the normal straps. He allegedly brought these conspirators to near death via strangulation several times before allowing them to be executed. (It is also rumors that these executions were video taped for him to watch in his own leisure.
A small known fact states that Hitler loved the circus because he loved the idea that under paid people were risking their lives to please him. This is an act of selfishness and disrespect toward others. Its an evil way to view a circus act.
He also played favoritism. He did not follow the simple psychological human behavior "Leadership by example". We learn by watching people we look up to. However, Hitlers view was if he liked you, you could not commit crime. If the low class stole it'd be punishable by death, but if someone close to him stole it would not be considered a crime. His law also stated that you could not publicly speak out against his ruling, however, stating something in private would get you executed as well. His law spoke "A person taking an object not belonging to him is not therefore necessarily a burglar - only the nature of his personality can make him such". This meant all "belonging to the polish subhuman race" and jews were much more subject to breaking the laws since Hitler deemed them as less human. Hitler believe Jews created and earned nothing, which in turn meant they stole everything they have.
His story contains murder, incest, torture, self entertainment at others physical pains and deaths, suicides of those around him, a group he's led to commit mass genocide resulting in over 10 million deaths and finally his own suicide. If this is not evil, i don't know what is
What do you think?