-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
"Hitler was a great man."
- Thread starter Nix_Hex
- Start date
I think if there's one point to this thread existing, it's that you can't use such simple and weak qualifiers to describe the evils of Hitler's regime. As written you post barely alludes to killing millions of people as "issues" that "suck ass". How can anyone take that so lightly?
Don't forget the Armenian Genocide either.. even if the US government won't acknowledge it as such.
The atrocities commited by Hitler et al clearly outweigh any good he might have done. Because of the Nazi regime, at least, what, 11 million (most likely innocent) people died? As in, lost their lives? How does this not get through peoples' heads?
When talking about Hitler you shouldn't ignore for a second that Hitler was a horrible human being first and foremost. I'm all for open-mindedness but this is ridiculous, quite frankly.
Trust Man to make light of things while sitting safely in their bedrooms chatting shit on internet forums. We are horrible.
When talking about Hitler you shouldn't ignore for a second that Hitler was a horrible human being first and foremost. I'm all for open-mindedness but this is ridiculous, quite frankly.
Trust Man to make light of things while sitting safely in their bedrooms chatting shit on internet forums. We are horrible.
Yeah, I tried saying it in my first post, but I don't think the OP's meaning in accusation, rather than how to recognise when people cross the line between appreciating Hitler and agreeing with his ways and some of his ideology when saying it. Since people might just say it because they respect the man's talent, and that's acceptable. But saying "Hitler is a good man" as a way of saying "What he's done was the right thing to do / was good and shouldn't have been stopped", aka agreeing with his ways that we've all saw in motion during WW2, is something completely different.
It will (eventually) get acknowledged. The only reason we aren't pushing for it being acknowledged is because Turkey is an incredibly important ally in the middle east and we really don't want to lose them.
the only thing Hitler was bad at was Military planning. Period. He Was a great man. Had it not been for his poor Military tactics Germany would have AND should have won WWII
I don't think Hitler was necessarily bad at military planning. Rather, military tactics and strategy were subordinate to ideology. The invasion of former ally Russia is a prominent example. That was a disaster militarily, but it was a key aspect of the Nazi ideology to take the "lebensraum" of eastern Europe and Russia.
It's possible to comment on Hitler's politcal skill or ability as a military commander without reference to his ideology at all. The two can be kept seperate, and it's probably best not to jump to the conclusion that because a man respects one of Hitler's traits, he therefore respects all of Hitler's traits. However, it's also probably best not to use ambiguous terms like 'Hitler was a great man' without going into further detail if you are describing one of his specific characteristics. If someone does confuse you, it's better to ask them to specify rather than labeling them a racist right away.
That's not a very good analogy, as the Holocaust wasn't actually the cause of Germany's economic recovery. A more analogous statement would be "The serial killer murdered 5 cops, but he also volunteered at Habitat for Humanity." They both say that he did some good, but obviously the bad outweighs it.
I'd also like to point out Hitler was not a monster. He was a man. A very evil, despicable man worthy of total condemnation, yes, but still a man. I think that tends to be forgotten more than it should.
See, whenever I come across topics like this, people are always one sided about subjects, which should not happen. You have to think from the mind of Adolf. Or even yourself. Adolf, in order to fuel the needs of his world, did what he thought was right. Of course, most everyone was against it, but people are stubborn. Even you would stand up for what you believe in. You couldn't just say, "Oh, yeah. I'm wrong. You rule the country now." You would want to do everything you could to help Germany, or the U.S., or wherever you are.
Hitler wasn't a horrible man, persay, but simply a..... decisive man, more decisive than most would think, but everyone who can't understand what he went through perceives it as blind rage and inhumane bloodshed. I know we're talking about the 11mil people, but you would do anything to keep what you know or love.
Let's go into a situation here. If your house was broken into by one man, and your family was being threatened at gunpoint, and you had a gun, what would you do? You (well, most likely) wouldn't drop it and put your hands up. You would try to protect your family, any way you could. Hitler was trying to give Germany a new view on the world, how it could be more effective with his union. People had grown accustomed to the status quo, and naturally, rejected it.
Hitler ultimately wanted to establish an absolute Aryan Hegemony in Europe. He killed millions of jews, as well as disabled individuals, gypsies, etc., and that was his view of how the world should be. His purpose. Natural selection. An artificial selection of the people who should be leading the world powers.
So don't just succumb to the fact he was a violent man, open your mind and think that he is just a man. He was a kid, I'm sure he wasn't bullying kids or frying ants when he was young, no. He wasn't born with intentions or killing people. As he went through life, new things changed him, as they do to all of us. He was a man with a vision of a perfect world, but everyone elses visions were nowhere near his.
Quagsire, it's ok to believe in what you stand for and whatnot, but to some extent. You can't have all that you want when it means others won't have the basic things that they need. That's the base of democracy, and obviousy Hitler didn't really give a fuck about it since not everyone are equal, right? -____-
Going by what you feel is right is sometimes the best thing for you, but there is a limit. Hitler broke that limit entirely, infact, he broke over 11 mil limits.
Going by what you feel is right is sometimes the best thing for you, but there is a limit. Hitler broke that limit entirely, infact, he broke over 11 mil limits.
I hear he wasn't very good at human rights either.
So because Hitler thought killing millions of people was just and right means we should treat his memory as something other than him being a monster? It takes a certain kind of evil to do that. It's not just something most of us think of but never get the power to do.
Well in my honest opinion democracy in itself is flawed. In democracy everyone, in theory, has power and should be equal, yet we have leaders and other powers controlling what we do. If everyone is equal, why do we have adults abusing the fact that they are adults to overpower children or young adults in pretty much every subject? Democracy wasn't relevant, by the way, his party was a group in itself. He wanted to be equal, but saw certain things as a precursor for incident in the world he envisioned.
I'm not saying his actions were justified, simply that we shouldn't just say that the only thing that matters is that he is an "evil man"
I have no idea where you're going with this unless you're going to suggest that Zyklon B was in some way supernatural, in which case you're probably better off not elaborating.
why is it necessary for morm to be so sensitive about hitler's evils, especially in comparison to lesser known and probably more brutal historical figures? he can use weak quantifiers if he pleases. i dont need to hear "he was sooo bad yo" every post. it's implied when he says that hitler was morally twisted that he was exactly that. can we just discuss instead of saying he was bad to not offend anyone or embarrass ourselves? can't we just assume that we're all reasonable and not hateful people please?
i am in awe of the sheer charisma he possessed. he mobilized millions towards his cause, something most of us could only fathom. and he started from nothing, just pure charm, know-how, boldness and yes he took advantage of weak morale on the part of germany. getting a party of 100 people is an impressive feat for me, but what hitler did was astounding. he was great in that sense, but not in the sense that he had positive character traits.
i am in awe of the sheer charisma he possessed. he mobilized millions towards his cause, something most of us could only fathom. and he started from nothing, just pure charm, know-how, boldness and yes he took advantage of weak morale on the part of germany. getting a party of 100 people is an impressive feat for me, but what hitler did was astounding. he was great in that sense, but not in the sense that he had positive character traits.
Nah, Hitlers tactics weren't actually all that bad.. he just needed to not be so ideology obsessed and Germany would've at least stood a chance against Russia (by which I mean.. don't waste time crushing people in the Ukraine who greeted you with open arms, thus pushing your invasion of Russia back by months).
Of course had France been remotely decent with military tactics Hitler would've been fucked.
Hitler had good tactics at first, but, like in a football game, he came to a time where he stopped playing with his head and started using his heart instead. He wanted German troops in Stalingrad to resist using "the German power of will". His initial overwhelming successes ended up being his ultimate demise.
But about the OP. I don't think there is anyone that entered history through infamy that doesn't have any credit to be attributed to them. Hitler managed to bring a backrupt nation to a worldwide threat that could have defeated all of Europe, had it not been for some bad decisions (attacking the Soviet Union before England was under their grip, thus forcing a division of forces). That is quite a feat.
Despite giving him that credit, he was not, in my opinion, a great man. I doubt he was even human. But that's another discussion.
But about the OP. I don't think there is anyone that entered history through infamy that doesn't have any credit to be attributed to them. Hitler managed to bring a backrupt nation to a worldwide threat that could have defeated all of Europe, had it not been for some bad decisions (attacking the Soviet Union before England was under their grip, thus forcing a division of forces). That is quite a feat.
Despite giving him that credit, he was not, in my opinion, a great man. I doubt he was even human. But that's another discussion.
When you resort to absurd comments like this that are patently false, it only serves to discredit your argument.
You know, thinking democracy is flawed is one thing. Heck, making your own ways is understandable too. But Hitler's gone to the point where he treated humans, his equal, as if they were rats (and compared them to those, too). Honestly, he's crossed so many lines it's unbearable to even think about looking up to such a person.