Opinion Do people really like Adolf Hitler?

[Blackened]

"One of the three or four necessary historians of the 3rd Reich"

He makes the distinction that Irving is valuable for his command of the language (though he lied through his teeth about the etymology of "ausrotten" and Michael Shermer lit him up for it), and his familiarity with the documents. He also explicitly says at every turn that Irving's opinions suck. That certainly limits the scope of your appeal to Hitchens.

Like I said, it's been over a year since I've seen it.

 

[panamaican]

How is that?

Discount his comments on the environment, for example? On completely unrelated things?

Yes. I think you have to discount his entire line of reasoning across the board. Not just for the Jewish stuff but the racial superiority stuff, the warmongering, etc.

Those choices indicate that he's a flawed thinker. Just because he also ended up at some points that aren't insane doesn't change that.

You find a man that's been locked up in an insane asylum for 10 years because he thinks he should be killing and eating his neighbors...you seriously say well let's put him in charge of the FDA because he's right about the importance of protein? Of course not. He's crazy - his positions on cannibalizing his neighbors are so off the wall that he's discounted from anything of importance. He's not a little crazy...he's batshit crazy.

Hitler was batshit, not just some outside of the box thinker. So, yes, in my opinion you have to discount his entire world viewpoint.

 

[Blackened]

Yes. I think you have to discount his entire line of reasoning across the board. Not just for the Jewish stuff but the racial superiority stuff, the warmongering, etc.

Those choices indicate that he's a flawed thinker. Just because he also ended up at some points that aren't insane doesn't change that.

You find a man that's been locked up in an insane asylum for 10 years because he thinks he should be killing and eating his neighbors...you seriously say well let's put him in charge of the FDA because he's right about the importance of protein? Of course not. He's crazy - his positions on cannibalizing his neighbors are so off the wall that he's discounted from anything of importance. He's not a little crazy...he's batshit crazy.

Hitler was batshit, not just some outside of the box thinker. So, yes, in my opinion you have to discount his entire world viewpoint.

I disagree.

Would you do the same with the Unabomber?

Have you read his manifesto? A lot can be learned from that.

Personally, I think we can learn a lot from Eugenics. I think Hitler and Goebbels went about it the wrong way and it should be done with sterilization, but I think long term it's a great way to strengthen society.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I disagree.

Would you do the same with the Unibomber?

Have you read his manifesto? A lot can be learned from that.

Personally, I think we can learn a lot from Eugenics. I think Hitler and Goebbels went about it the wrong way and it should be done with sterilization, but I think long term it's a great way to strengthen society.

 

[panamaican]

I disagree.

Would you do the same with the Unibomber?

Have you read his manifesto? A lot can be learned from that.

Personally, I think we can learn a lot from Eugenics. I think Hitler and Goebbels went about it the wrong way and it should be done with sterilization, but I think long term it's a great way to strengthen society.

Yes to the Unibomber as well.

I cannot separate a flawed thinker from his flawed process just because he occasionally stumbles upon a decent idea. As the quote goes - a broken clock is still right 2x a day. The important takeaway is that the clock is still broken. You throw it away, you don't hang on to it for those 2 rare occasions.

If an idea is any good, people who aren't flawed thinkers will also come up with it. There is no important innovation in the last 500+ years that wasn't created and promoted by multiple people, often during the same period of time.

Knowing that, I don't have to look to the conclusions of sociopaths and psychotics and other such individuals for good ideas. I can discard their entire body of work and rely on the conclusions/ideas of less flawed people.

 

[Blackened]

Eugenics gets such a bad rap.

It can be done humanely. Think if you forced 150 IQ people to breed a fuck load. Think if you forced super athletic people to breed. Society is dynamic and can be engineered to perfection.

 

[Blackened]

Yes to the Unibomber as well.

I cannot separate a flawed thinker from his flawed process just because he occasionally stumbles upon a decent idea. As the quote goes - a broken clock is still right 2x a day. The important takeaway is that the clock is still broken. You throw it away, you don't hang on to it for those 2 rare occasions.

If an idea is any good, people who aren't flawed thinkers will also come up with it. There is no important innovation in the last 500+ years that wasn't created and promoted by multiple people, often during the same period of time.

Knowing that, I don't have to look to the conclusions of sociopaths and psychotics and other such individuals for good ideas. I can discard their entire body of work and rely on the conclusions/ideas of less flawed people.

Should we disregard Fritz Habers scientific and philosophical work because he invented chemical warfare?

He was a firm believer in developing ways to kill as many people as possible with chemistry, the first of his kind... should we disregard all of his scientific work?

Edit: Maybe we should define "flawed thinker", because I don't think it has any meaning the way you're using it. ** And "no innovative idea wasn't created by multiple people" is total rubbish.

Just disregard the bad ideas, keep the good ones. That's all I'm saying.

 

[panamaican]

Should we disregard Fritz Habers scientific and philosophical work because he invented chemical warfare?

He was a firm believer in developing ways to kill as many people as possible with chemistry, the first of his kind... should we disregard all of his scientific work?

Edit: Maybe we should define "flawed thinker", because I don't think it has any meaning the way you're using it. ** And "no innovative idea wasn't created by multiple people" is total rubbish.

Hyperbolic but not rubbish. Most of our great ideas were being worked on simultaneously by more than person, sometimes with knowledge of each other, sometimes without. Someone gets there first or patents it first or publishes it first but it's rare that only one person was thinking and/or working on it.

As for Haber, he was a chemist working for the military and conceiving military applications of chemistry for war. That's very different from randomly deciding that he wanted to innovate in the world of chemical warfare just for shits and giggles (which is why his pre-WWI work had nothing to do with chemical warfare and his post WWI work didn't either). His own quote summarized this element: During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.

Hitler decided on his own that the solution to one problem was genocide, the solution to another problem was war, that the conclusive idea elsewhere was Aryan racial superiority. No one paid him to innovate these ideas. They weren't part of his job. He wasn't trained in this area of philosophical thought. He self-educated himself to these conclusions and that indicates a deeply flawed thinker. And, accordingly, someone whose overall thought process and conclusions must be dismissed.

 

[Blackened]

Hyperbolic but not rubbish. Most of our great ideas were being worked on simultaneously by more than person, sometimes with knowledge of each other, sometimes without. Someone gets there first or patents it first or publishes it first but it's rare that only one person was thinking and/or working on it.

As for Haber, he was a chemist working for the military and conceiving military applications of chemistry for war. That's very different from randomly deciding that he wanted to innovate in the world of chemical warfare just for shits and giggles (which is why his pre-WWI work had nothing to do with chemical warfare and his post WWI work didn't either). His own quote summarized this element: During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.

Hitler decided on his own that the solution to one problem was genocide, the solution to another problem was war, that the conclusive idea elsewhere was Aryan racial superiority. No one paid him to innovate these ideas. They weren't part of his job. He wasn't trained in this area of philosophical thought. He self-educated himself to these conclusions and that indicates a deeply flawed thinker. And, accordingly, someone whose overall thought process and conclusions must be dismissed.

You just rationalized it for Haber. Now you can't do the same for Hitler?

It's often said you can't judge a man by a few of his thoughts/actions. I'm saying you can't judge a few thoughts/actions because the man was bad. I'm saying there are things that can be learned from them. To dismiss the entire Reich as evil is to completely ignore much of the progress they made, economically, militarily and scientifically.

I'll just agree to disagree. Read Mein Kampf, and you'll see much more than just the rantings of a madman. There is that too, but there is more than that as well. There are some interesting worldviews and not all are genocidal or maniacal. If nothing else, you learn about propaganda. Largely, it's the same strategies used in the U.S. When you understand propaganda, a lot of the irrationality in the media starts to make sense.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I'm not surprised that there are people arguing the virtues of Hitler. The excuse making in the WR has reached all-time levels in recent months. Genocidal maniac? Warmonger? Supporter of a racial superiority that wouldn't even include most Europeans?

All can be minimized or overlooked because he acknowledged some elements of basic large scale governance while also not really thinking the economy was that important to Germany's long term health.

We're at the point where people who support a serial killer if just one time he said something that they agree with. Strange times on here.

Hitler could not have done what he did without overwhelming support from the German people. You cannot blame Hitler without blaming Germany really. Anti-semitism was rife. They took the quickest and most efficient route to ridding themselves of what they perceived was the problem. That being violent action.

It is a re-occurring course of action throughout history really. Many historical figures people like to talk about and admire are basically because they went into some kind of war.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Aside from being an evil piece of shit, he led his nation to absolute ruin. Forty-five years split in two and occupied by foreign conquerors.

Horrible human. Horrible leader.

 

[panamaican]

You just rationalized it for Haber. Now you can't do the same for Hitler?

It's often said you can't judge a man by a few of his thoughts/actions. I'm saying you can't judge a few thoughts/actions because the man was bad. I'm saying there are things that can be learned from them. To dismiss the entire Reich as evil is to completely ignore much of the progress they made, economically, militarily and scientifically.

I'll just agree to disagree. Read Mein Kampf, and you'll see much more than just the rantings of a madman. There is that too, but there is more than that as well. There are some interesting worldviews and not all are genocidal or maniacal. If nothing else, you learn about propaganda. Largely, it's the same strategies used in the U.S. When you understand propaganda, a lot of the irrationality in the media starts to make sense.

I've read it. It doesn't change Hitler into anything resembling acceptable. It's just more indicative that he possessed flawed reasoning.

You completely missed my point regarding the difference between Haber and Hitler. Hitler reached so many flawed conclusions that we can disregard him entirely. Haber's supposed flaws came while working for the military, not because he independently concluded this was the right conclusion.

It's like a a doctor or lawyer who loses his license because of some mistakes. It doesn't matter that they didn't f up all of their clients/patients. When they did f up, it was so bad that you can no longer trust them in the profession.

The scale of bad decisions is as much a part of the problem as the number thereof. Hitler recahed multiple large scale bad conclusions. So, we can say with some confidence that his reasoning and world view are flawed enough that we can ignore him entirely. It's not one thing or the other, it's the totality of events.

As for discussing the Reich, that's a completely different subject from discussing Hitler the individual.

 

[panamaican]

Hitler could not have done what he did without overwhelming support from the German people. You cannot blame Hitler without blaming Germany really. Anti-semitism was rife. They took the quickest and most efficient route to ridding themselves of what they perceived was the problem. That being violent action.

It is a re-occurring course of action throughout history really. Many historical figures people like to talk about and admire are basically because they went into some kind of war.

I can blame Hitler for his own conclusions. There's no need for me to examine Germany as a whole to also examine Hitler as an individual. If Germany was antisemitic and Hitler was not then I wouldn't be saying it's one of his bad decisions. If Germany believed in Aryan supremacy but Hitler did not then I wouldn't examine it as one of his beliefs.

Germany at the time was complicated but Hitler's conclusions and ideas are his. He could have made other choices. Maybe we never hear of him if he did and we find ourselves discussing some other German politician. But he made the choices he made and so I judge him based on those.

 

[Blackened]

I've read it. It doesn't change Hitler into anything resembling acceptable. It's just more indicative that he possessed flawed reasoning.

You completely missed my point regarding the difference between Haber and Hitler. Hitler reached so many flawed conclusions that we can disregard him entirely. Haber's supposed flaws came while working for the military, not because he independently concluded this was the right conclusion.

It's like a a doctor or lawyer who loses his license because of some mistakes. It doesn't matter that they didn't f up all of their clients/patients. When they did f up, it was so bad that you can no longer trust them in the profession.

The scale of bad decisions is as much a part of the problem as the number thereof. Hitler recahed multiple large scale bad conclusions. So, we can say with some confidence that his reasoning and world view are flawed enough that we can ignore him entirely. It's not one thing or the other, it's the totality of events.

As for discussing the Reich, that's a completely different subject from discussing Hitler the individual.

No, I got your point. I just don't agree with it.

Plenty of people with "flawed reasoning" have really interesting/out of the box lines of thinking. I prefer to look through it and judge each philosophy individually rather than dismiss a philosophy because it's associated with an individual.

 

[TheGreatA]

Aside from being an evil piece of shit, he led his nation to absolute ruin. Forty-five years split in two and occupied by foreign conquerors.

Horrible human. Horrible leader.

What if the Soviets had attacked Germany without Hitler? Would a weak Weimar Republic have been capable of defending against a potential Soviet invasion to Western Europe? If Germany had fallen without inflicting massive casualties, then it is possible that Soviets would've been capable of eventually conquering much of Europe. France or Italy weren't stopping them. The scale of their armaments was beyond comprehension at the time, even way above Nazi Germany at their peak. A non-Nazi Germany, I'm afraid, would've been chewed up and spit out.

I believe that Germany required a Hitler'ish character at the time, to answer the Soviet threat, but one that would've been capable of convincing Britain, France and the United States to ally against the Soviets, instead of allying with the Soviets, to prevent Soviet expansionism to Eastern Europe. And preferably without the fascist excesses, of course.

 

[Blackened]

What if the Soviets had attacked Germany without Hitler? Would a weak Weimar Republic have been capable of defending against a potential Soviet invasion to Western Europe? If Germany had fallen without inflicting massive casualties, then it is possible that Soviets would've been capable of eventually conquering much of Europe. The scale of their armaments was beyond comprehension at the time, even way above Nazi Germany at their peak. A non-Nazi Germany, I'm afraid, would've been chewed up and spit out.

I believe that Germany required a Hitler'ish character at the time, to answer the Soviet threat, but one that would've been capable of convincing Britain, France and the United States to ally against the Soviets, instead of allying with the Soviets, to prevent Soviet expansionism to Eastern Europe. And preferably without the fascist excesses, of course.

Yeah, it's clearly an example of "written by the victors".

If he convinced the U.S., France and Britain to ally with him the whole "Aryan society" would've just been normalized and we would've rationalized it by saying "Germany is for the Aryans" the same way Putin says "Russia is for the Russians".

There is nothing inherently weird about the stuff. Hitler saw Jews as foreign invaders, similar to the way the majority of people in the U.S. see Muslims, but with usury instead of terrorism.

 

[TheGreatA]

Yeah, it's clearly an example of "written by the victors".

If he convinced the U.S., France and Britain to ally with him the whole "Aryan society" would've just been normalized and we would've rationalized it by saying "Germany is for the Aryans" the same way Putin says "Russia is for the Russians".

There is nothing inherently weird about the stuff. Hitler saw Jews as foreign invaders, similar to the way the majority of people in the U.S. see Muslims, but with usury instead of terrorism.

If Hitler was a Commie, his removal of Jews from positions of power would've been excused as the disposal of the oppressive bourgeoisie class.

Stalin certainly put many Jewish people six feet under the ground himself, although I suppose he gets absolved by not being so concerned with which ethnicity he was purging at the time.

 

[panamaican]

No, I got your point. I just don't agree with it.

Plenty of people with "flawed reasoning" have really interesting/out of the box lines of thinking. I prefer to look through it and judge each philosophy individually rather than dismiss a philosophy because it's associated with an individual.

And if you're discussing a philosophy then the individual is irrelevant. If you're discussing environmental protection as a philosophy, you don't need Hitler's input since, as a philosophy, there are plenty of non-psychos who have weighed in on the subject both before and after him.

I don't entertain the thought processes of deeply flawed thinkers. A person can be wrong on something and no one is always right. But when someone is massively wrong on multiple things, it's time to start ignoring everything they say. And genocide, warmongering and Aryan racial superiority are examples of being massively wrong. Even if you give him a pass for one of them, you can't give him a pass on all 3.

At that point, it's time to take away his license to practice.

 

[Blackened]

If Hitler was a Commie, his removal of Jews from positions of power would've been excused as the disposal of the oppressive bourgeoisie class.

Stalin certainly put many Jewish people six feet under the ground himself, although I suppose he gets absolved by not being so concerned with which ethnicity he was purging at the time.

And honestly, Hitler probably wasn't even aware of the similarities of what he was doing with the Communists.

I mean, he practically did the same thing. The Jews were the 1% and held a lot of power. It was practically communism. *Edit: Well, in that sense.*

 

[Limbo Pete]

"Hitler was basically a communist and if people recognized that he would be viewed sympathetically like Stalin, etc." =The War Room