• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

"Hitler was a great man."

Being the devil and a racist or whatever people will rightfully call him, he was quite the extraordinary speaker. Certainly one of the best ever. He managed to, certainly at one point, have unanimous support from all people in Germany to do whatever he wanted to do to further Germany. It wasn't manipulation, more so, promising and delivering with a hidden motif. For such an "evil" man, he had an unparalleled skill for making his people happy.

He wasn't the best at anything, perhaps at speaking he could definitely be put atop that pedestal, but I'm pretty sure anyone who is unbiased would agree he was a genius at rallying support. If he hadn't gone and started a huge failure of a war, he would have been considered the greatest German politician of all time.

I don't think you're a "closet racist" if you believe Hitler was a genius, or a "great man." Actions do not define who a person was, you can't denounce a person for beleiving something you don't even know.
I guess you could call quite a mass of people "closet racists" in Germany. People who lived back in that time surely supported Hitler, not because of his very VERY late in his career attempt at Jewish extermination, but because of his efforts to reach out to his people, and support them.


@lati0s, What morals, your morals? Morals are principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
I'll agree, my morals totally oppose the Holocaust. But I just don't like it when people use "morals" to support a point. X3
 
If it was actually carried on by someone, then surely, they must have been more complexity to it. If it was actually carried by an entire nation, then it must either good or complex. Nobody is evil enough to do things that are simply evil. Humans are complex beings and morality is a complex thing.
 
I'm surprised to see that there is not one mention of the Japanese in here. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't they allies to the Germans?

How does that make Hitler, the great man, a racist? Or are we going by Jews only, because this is really confusing me.
 
Hitler may have been racist, but he was not so stupid as to try to dominate the world without allies.

Hitler in Europe, Mussolinni in the Mediteranean sea, and Hiro Hito in the pacific. Colonies in africa. Leave Britain, America and Franco alone. That was the plan.
 
Colonies in Africa? That's got to be the complete opposite of the race he was fighting for.

Put that aside, if someone were to call another a racist, make it a clear definition. Hitler was racist to Jews (and whatever else.)

I'm guessing the reason why everyone is nonchalant about this is, is because Hitler really was close to exterminating an entire race.
 
The OP feels personally involved and can't overlook Hitler's racism when his peers are talking about Hitler's other traits. No one is claiming that he was a saint and the OP knows that. This thread is nothing more than one person wanting to close the hitler profile case one the one simple racism stamp. Personal preference as well as over simplistic. I don't really see much point of arguing in this thread given the startingh point.
 
I wasn't sure if the OP was being ignorant or anything, but I was under the same impression he figured people would totally agree with him on such a topic. I'm sure he got a little shock when people sided to an extent with them "closet racists." Or whatever, this type of subject pertaining to Hitler is never closed by "if you think he ever did anything good you're a racist." It's never been that way, and will never be that way.
 
lati0s said:
It's not really that hard to see that the holocaust was morally wrong.
Click to expand...

By your morals and my morals, yes, the Holocaust was wrong. However, Hitler's morals were different from yours and mine, so, from his point of view, the Holocaust was morally right. Everyone has different morals in one way or another, and just because our morals don't agree with his, it doesn't make his morals any more wrong than ours. It doesn't make him evil.

Which brings me to my next point. You say Hitler was evil, but you have to remember that good and evil are perspectives. Good and evil are nothing more than points of view, and are very similar in more ways than most like to admit. Both are capable of destruction, both are capable of construction, both are capable or war, and both are capable of peace. It's what we believe or what perspective we view as right that judges what is "good" and what is "evil".
 
assassinfred said:
By your morals and my morals, yes, the Holocaust was wrong. However, Hitler's morals were different from yours and mine, so, from his point of view, the Holocaust was morally right. Everyone has different morals in one way or another, and just because our morals don't agree with his, it doesn't make his morals any more wrong than ours. It doesn't make him evil.

Which brings me to my next point. You say Hitler was evil, but you have to remember that good and evil are perspectives. Good and evil are nothing more than points of view, and are very similar in more ways than most like to admit. Both are capable of destruction, both are capable of construction, both are capable or war, and both are capable of peace. It's what we believe or what perspective we view as right that judges what is "good" and what is "evil".
Click to expand...
I realize that morality and the idea of someone being evil are subjective concepts but I judge people based on my morals. If someone does something that I think is very morally wrong then I will call them evil and I don't care if they recognize it is wrong or not.
 
lati0s said:
This is not how I view things. If someone does something bad and they know it is bad they are evil. If someone does something bad and doesn't realize that it is bad then they are evil and crazy. In my mind evil people are not people who do things that they think are wrong they are people who do things that I think are wrong.
Click to expand...
Bolded is to bring out the issue here - you are essentially claiming that your opinion on what is bad or good is fact.

Somewhat related - this is the kind of thing that inspired E-Prime - English without using the verb 'to be', thus forcing you to make it clear that a statement is opinion or observation.

Another point - "If someone does something bad and doesn't realize that it is bad then they are evil and crazy". Do you even know anything about mental illness. Do you honestly think Hitler was clinically insane? If someone takes an action you consider bad that they do not believe is bad then it would be far more appropriate for you to call them ignorant, wong, or misguided. Not crazy.
 
cantab said:
Bolded is to bring out the issue here - you are essentially claiming that your opinion on what is bad or good is fact.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to present mt opinion as definite fact I was trying to emphasize that my opinion is the standard by which I judge people.

cantab said:
Another point - "If someone does something bad and doesn't realize that it is bad then they are evil and crazy". Do you even know anything about mental illness. Do you honestly think Hitler was clinically insane? If someone takes an action you consider bad that they do not believe is bad then it would be far more appropriate for you to call them ignorant, wong, or misguided. Not crazy.
Click to expand...
I meant crazy in a more colloquial sense, not actually criminally insane. But you are right it was probably poor word choice.
 
Arch said:
I don't think you're a "closet racist" if you believe Hitler was a genius, or a "great man." Actions do not define who a person was, you can't denounce a person for beleiving something you don't even know.
Click to expand...
Obviously, the acknowledgment of Hitler's "leadership" skills and eloquence does not make one a racist, or even a closet racist. What I'm saying is that a closet racist would jump to make a true statement that only augments their private prejudice. Let's look at it this way:

A: (closet racists) --> "Hitler was a great man"
B: (one who looks at Hitler purely objectively) --> "Hitler was a great man"

What I'm not saying is that A = B. The difference lies in the manner in which a person in group A lives, speaks, and believes compared to B. It's equivalent to beginning a racist joke "I'm not a racist, but...," except a tad less obvious.
 
I am not an expert from the 20th century, but Hitler was an insane individual. Although, I must give him the fact that he was charismatic; he started as a low-classed soldier, prisoner, and became the head of the German government, Fuhrer. However, even if most people say that he was great at leading a country, he was not. For the most part he was lucky ([economic crisis, treaty of Versailles, the rise of Communism, the will of the German people to regain a certain pride after losing the WWI, etc.) and the rest he leaved it to his subordinate who, for the most part, where brilliant (putting Ribbentrop aside, obviously). In conclusion, Hitler was able to reach the people and his army (which allowed him to keep his control), but he was unable to lead his country correctly. In fact, he made several mistakes that could have cost him the war. Putting his talents aside, he was an horrible person with nearly no morality; no one even really know why he hated Jews, although most people believe it was because at the time the German people needed someone to blame for Germany's ''failures''. These scapegoat ended up being the Jews, unfortunately. The world really doesn't need another person like him again.
 
NixHex said:
Are you being sarcastic?
Click to expand...

I'm not. Honestly, are white people not allowed to make fun of someone who's not white? Isn't that racism in itself? If someone was Jewish and they said Hitler was a great man would you call them a racist? I bet you wouldn't, because they're Jewish, and shazam, that makes YOU a racist.
 
People who consider Hitler a great man are people like the guys that wear all white, SELF HATING JEWS (he was one himself) and straight out demented individuals!
 
Scicky said:
I'm not. Honestly, are white people not allowed to make fun of someone who's not white? Isn't that racism in itself? If someone was Jewish and they said Hitler was a great man would you call them a racist? I bet you wouldn't, because they're Jewish, and shazam, that makes YOU a racist.
Click to expand...
Now I'd call em Hitler JR. :D
 
lati0s said:
It's not really that hard to see that the holocaust was morally wrong.
Click to expand...
What Jack Jack is saying is that there is no objective system by which to judge morality, and that it's therefore ridiculous for you to definitely state that something is morally wrong. Which is to say, it's fine to say "I believe X is wrong", but to say "X is wrong" as an absolute is a fallacy.

EDIT: I realize Assassinfred pointed this out, but since you later posted:
I realize that morality and the idea of someone being evil are subjective concepts but I judge people based on my morals. If someone does something that I think is very morally wrong then I will call them evil and I don't care if they recognize it is wrong or not.
Click to expand...
it's obvious you don't understand the concept.

@ Cantab - you're as guilty as lati0s.
 
I know that, and if you had read my other posts you would have seen that I acknowledged the fact that objective morals do not exist. What I was saying was that I do not find it difficult to judge the actions of Hitler as wrong. It was phraed as it is as a reply to jackjacks comment above it.
 
I am not an expert from the 20th century, but Hitler was an insane individual. Although, I must give him the fact that he was charismatic; he started as a low-classed soldier, prisoner, and became the head of the German government, Fuhrer. However, even if most people say that he was great at leading a country, he was not. For the most part he was lucky ([economic crisis, treaty of Versailles, the rise of Communism, the will of the German people to regain a certain pride after losing the WWI, etc.) and the rest he leaved it to his subordinate who, for the most part, where brilliant (putting Ribbentrop aside, obviously). In conclusion, Hitler was able to reach the people and his army (which allowed him to keep his control), but he was unable to lead his country correctly. In fact, he made several mistakes that could have cost him the war. Putting his talents aside, he was an horrible person with nearly no morality; no one even really know why he hated Jews, although most people believe it was because at the time the German people needed someone to blame for Germany's ''failures''. These scapegoat ended up being the Jews, unfortunately. The world really doesn't need another person like him again.
Click to expand...

He was perfectly sane and reasonable. Well that's not entirely true. He was paranoid, but I guess that comes with the function of being a tyrant.

Like I said, he was mostly a good person, only sadly (disastroulsy) misguided. Like I said, being racist was nothing special at the time. He honestly thought killing Jews was the moral thing to do because they were polluting the gene pool.
 
Jack Jack said:
He was perfectly sane and reasonable. Well that's not entirely true. He was paranoid, but I guess that comes with the function of being a tyrant.

Like I said, he was mostly a good person, only sadly (disastroulsy) misguided. Like I said, being racist was nothing special at the time. He honestly thought killing Jews was the moral thing to do because they were polluting the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Paranoia is a form of insanity, or at least in my opinion it is. And that doesn't come with the function of being a dictator, it comes with a rule of terror. Misguided? Not really. Granted, he wasn't the first one to blame Jews for Germany's misfortune, but he was one of the firsts to think the Nazi way. Also, yes racism was common at the time, but the way Hitler perceived the theory of race was somewhat new.

Hitler, a good person? You, sir, are wrong: He wouldn't have been a good person in any eras.
 
Hitler was the biggest luckiest douche that walked on the planet Earth.

Example 1: Almost got killed in World War I (I think it was neither by sniper or a bomb)

Example 2: Almost got killed by a plane

I can't remember the specific way how he almost died in World War I so help me out if anyone can...
 
Jack Jack said:
He was perfectly sane and reasonable. Well that's not entirely true. He was paranoid, but I guess that comes with the function of being a tyrant.

Like I said, he was mostly a good person, only sadly (disastroulsy) misguided. Like I said, being racist was nothing special at the time. He honestly thought killing Jews was the moral thing to do because they were polluting the gene pool.
Click to expand...

To a degree at least. I would argue that he was clearly insane during the war. As he routinely went against his generals' commands and tried to lead the war effort himself at times. He began to believe himself invincible.

Claiming he was sane is accurate for the most part until ~1942, but to claim he was reasonable may be going a bit far. In my understanding, reasonable sounds like you agree with his actions, rather than commenting at all about him. I think rational would be more accurate, considering you mean his actions are rationalised but misguided.
 
Lelouch said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Although the definition of a good human being varies from place to place, civilization from civilization and eras to eras, the basis of what characterizes a good human were, are and will always be more or less the same everywhere and at any given time. For example, in most societies throughout the years, it has always been considered bad to murder someone for somewhat useless reasons.

Based on that, when we look back at the mentally of the time in the world and in Germany, we can see that even according to these people, what Hitler did was bad. Even by our standards, what Hitler did still remains bad. Therefore, looking at what Hitler's action, we can deduce that he wasn't a good human being. Granted, even if most of his ideas were horrible, some were ''good'', but the way he wished to accomplish these ideas still remained bad. Therefore, Hitler isn't a good human being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top