Adolf Hitler and His Modern Perception

Before I continue, I'd like to first note that I am not a fascist, Nazi, or white supremacist. I do not agree with Adolf Hitler's ideologies or that of the Germany National Socialist Party. I also do not deny the Holocaust.

I was in the fourth grade when my teacher began teaching World War II history. This was a walk in the park for me; I was an avidly reader as a child, and I had already learned the important parts of the Second Great War from an untold amount of hours spent in the public library. My teacher proceeded to tell us the usual rhetoric: That Hitler and the Nazis were evil, and so on and so forth. I then proceeded to comment that, whatever his faults, Hitler was also an excellent statesman and politician, managing to revitalize the German industry during a worldwide economic depression, reworking the German military and infrastructure into one of the most competent armed forces in the world at the time, and rallying the entire nation under a single cause with much loyalty.

I got in trouble for that.

When I was in the seventh grade, our class was going into a lecture of World War II again. I wisely kept my comments to myself this time, but I found myself pleasantly surprised when my history teacher basically said the exact same thing I did three years ago. It was nice to see an adult harbor a more unbiased view.

He got in trouble for that.

Like I said earlier, I don't condone the Holocaust or much of what Hitler and the Nazi Party did, but I feel that modern society seems to be absolutely determined to paint him as the absolute icon of evil, and that anything attributed to him must be incompetent and wrong (which I find rather amusing; if so, then how did the fascists take over nearly two thirds of Europe?). Granted, I disapprove of the terms "good and evil" (I prefer the terms "right and wrong", and even that's a bit tenuous), but I feel that, sometimes, it gets ridiculous to a point. It seems that modern education systems have become so used to reviling Hitler that teachers are not allowed to teach their students about one of the most significant historical figures of the 20th century from an objective perspective.

And, on that vein, what makes Hitler so special? Mass murders and genocides happen all the time across the world. The reasons why the body count for the Holocaust can be attributed to the following reasons:

• A World War was started because of Nazi Germany (which was, contrary to popular opinion, not fought because the Germans were killing Jews, but because England and France were afraid of their weakening influence over Europe in light of successive Nazi invasions across European territories), adding wartime casualties to the death toll.
• Weapons became more advanced. In ancient times, the bow and arrow was considered the pinnacle of weapons technology, but you needed to reload, and it did not always have excellent accuracy. Likewise, a sword requires that you actually catch up to a victim, who was most likely running. During World War II, most weapons were semi-automatic, had longer range and better accuracy, and some were also explosive, making it that much easier to rapidly kill people. And let's not even get started on gaseous weapons. The Nazis, compared to other genocidal regimes in the past, had the benefit of technology.
• Europe benefited from an excellent infrastructure. To create concentration camps, you needed to transport people to a certain location. Europe had an extensive train system that rapidly transported large amounts of people to these concentration camps at once (which, with aforementioned technology, made taking human life that much easier).

The Holocaust was more significant than other massacres not because Hitler was more "evil" by some of the historical figures we study in school today with less reluctance, but because he had the benefit of modern technology; imagine Julius Caesar and his armies trying to pull off the Holocaust with an army equipped with bows and arrows, swords, and horses, and trying to get people to concentration camps across Europe without trains.

Again, my only interest is objectivity and seeing how others think about this; I don't have a strong view about this one...again. XD

I personally don't see what can rectify over 70 million dead. Even Stalin doesn't get the 'evil renown' that Hitler does. Hitler went above and beyond me thinks.

Firstly I would like to correct your assertion that Hitler revitalized German industry or at least had a hand in it - many historians believe that the economy boost was the result of a "natural rebound effect" in economics, and this just so happened to be under Hitler. Political convenience at its finest.

Hitler was a failure at everything he attempted to achieve. He tried to exterminate the Jewish "race", and as a direct result of his regime's actions Jews not only survived, but were given their own country. He tried to make Germany stronger and more powerful than before, but again as a result of his regime's actions Germany was left even weaker than it was after the first world war. He tried to give Germany a new reputation and have it be seen in a strong light, now Hitler and his so-called "Third Reich" receives ridicule from the ignorant masses even seventy years on.

I agree that it's silly that saying anything remotely praise-like about the Nazi party will get you chastised by people who can't stand to think that certain things associated with Nazism could possibly be independent (yet people haven't demonised Hugo Boss who designed the Nazi uniform or vegetarianism, unfortunately on the latter part), but well, there's things like my post above where the objection is not due to moral outrage, but due to simple disagreement in fact - you think he was successful in his objectives, I see him as, to quote some historian who once gave a lecture on this topic, "a colossal failure" (including as a person).

to say that Hitler was completely incapable of doing anything good, or that absolutely everything Hitler did was evil, is indeed fallacious. It is a guilt by association logical fallacy. Simply because someone did some bad things (or a lot of bad things in the case of Hitler) doesn't meaning that everything that person did or everything that person was associated with is also bad.

It's human nature to see only evil when it SO greatly out ways the good. Hitler was a good politician, obviously. This is fact. Hitler was also a genius when it came to mechanics and weaponry. This is fact. Hitler was also one of, if not the, biggest psychopath this world has seen and he is personally responsible for the genocide of an entire group of people. This is also fact. Now, of those which do you pay most attention to? I don't really believe that the Holocaust is as significant as it is because of Hitler's evil OR because of it's study. I believe that it's significant because of it's shear size and in the time it took place. Not to mention it was part of the world war so it got much more publicity than most modern day massacres. More people know about the Rape of Nanking than the revolt against the Turks in Macedonia because of the differing sizes of the events and the fact that Nanking took place in a major world event while Macedonia took place at the turn of the century. John Wayne Gacy was supposedly a damn good birthday clown, BTK was a recognized and honored churchman. When someone is good at killing, as Hitler obviously was, that doesn't mean that's his only talent. You make some good points, I'll say that, but I can't in all honesty say that I don't like that we don't recognize Hitler as a politician even as he was. The short and sweet of it, to me anyways, is that he was just to much of an evil bastard to remember any other way.

I'm of the opinion that what he got the German people to do is just mind boggling, it showed his mastery of propaganda and speech that sets him in some ways above and beyond other man. However, I don't see the man as some sort of hero, I see him as a genius that he was, he knew how to work a crowd. And if you have a crowd that is eating out of your hands, you really can convince them to do almost anything.

Edit: I wouldn't say that he was a mechanically minded man, rather he inspired his consorts to give their all and in turn advance the German tech. Towards the end, Hitler really became more and more insane, and introverted. I mean, he slept till 3 in the afternoon on d-day?

Flames of War: Oh, no, I'm not asking anyone to rectify that. It would be nice if the Holocaust never happened (although I'd half-heartedly oppose it, if only because I feel humanity in general need to remember the Holocaust and learn from our mistakes and their sacrifices), but I won't be keeping my fingers crossed until that happens. ^_^;

Lord Zero: I am indeed aware of the economic rebound theory, and concede it likely played a great role in the revitalization of Germany's economy. At the same time, though, I find it curious that Germany rebounded before most other major nations. I would also like to mention here that one of the major reasons why Germany rebounded first is because they forcibly took funds from Jewish people and businesses. What is remarkable, however, is not that he took the funds, but how he appropriately administrated and allocated it to accelerate the economical rebound. Of course, I'm slightly glossing over the fact that taking the funds were wrong to begin with, but only to make the point.

Sage of Fire: You've hit pretty much most of the points I wanted to make, so thanks on elaborating upon them for me. ^_^

Dark Wyrm: Hitler became more and more deranged after the Battle of Stalingrad, considered to be the first major turning point against consecutive Nazi strategic victories, yes. And, yes, just as you put it, I don't see Hitler as a hero, but a genius in his own sort of way.

I agree with Lord Zero, hitler did fail.

However there was one thing Hitler was extremely good at, albeit for many underhanded reasons.

Speeches.

Hitlers speaches, are still to this day recognised as some of the most powerful ones ever heard, he had a power to control his audience incredibly well and was an incredible orator. This is despite how he is percieved.


I would also like to point out, that Hitlers incredibly rightwing political failure and backlash to all of his ideas is quite literally the root of todays popularity for liberal and other left wings political standings. After all of his failure he compltley reinforced American and other western countries traditions and beliefs.

Hitler truly was a failure.

Minor point - I would say that his politics were abysmal, instead of an "incredible politician" I would rephrase it as "incredible orator".

Originally Posted by Dark Wyrm

I'm of the opinion that what he got the German people to do is just mind boggling, it showed his mastery of propaganda and speech that sets him in some ways above and beyond other man.

The propaganda was Goebbels' area of mastery, not Hitler. You have to remember that the National Socialist party was indeed a party, not one man.

Edit: I wouldn't say that he was a mechanically minded man, rather he inspired his consorts to give their all and in turn advance the German tech. Towards the end, Hitler really became more and more insane, and introverted. I mean, he slept till 3 in the afternoon on d-day?

That was what he did anyway. He was "insane" from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Bravo

Minor point - I would say that his politics were abysmal, instead of an "incredible politician" I would rephrase it as "incredible orator".

Basically. If it wasn't for his supporters (I mean his direct underlings in the Nazi Party), his regime wouldn't have been as influential as it was.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Flames of War: Oh, no, I'm not asking anyone to rectify that. It would be nice if the Holocaust never happened (although I'd half-heartedly oppose it, if only because I feel humanity in general need to remember the Holocaust and learn from our mistakes and their sacrifices), but I won't be keeping my fingers crossed until that happens. ^_^;

I agree that the Second World War was a necessary historical occurrence, for one reason (which adds yet another failure to Hitler's list) - fascism was on the rise worldwide preceding it. Fascism was popular, fascism wasn't seen as anywhere near all that bad until WWII. If it wasn't for Hitler many of us might oppose fascism still, but the fight for "civil liberties" would be nowhere near as prominent. We needed the Second World War in order to destroy support for fascism in Western society.

Lord Zero: I am indeed aware of the economic rebound theory, and concede it likely played a great role in the revitalization of Germany's economy. At the same time, though, I find it curious that Germany rebounded before most other major nations. I would also like to mention here that one of the major reasons why Germany rebounded first is because they forcibly took funds from Jewish people and businesses. What is remarkable, however, is not that he took the funds, but how he appropriately administrated and allocated it to accelerate the economical rebound. Of course, I'm slightly glossing over the fact that taking the funds were wrong to begin with, but only to make the point.

Given that the National Socialist party was indeed socialist it's understandable that a certain degree of economic control was present, but this likely would have happened one way or another without the intervening hand of the Nazis anyway. I'm not sure they did rejuvenate their economy that far in advance of other nations either, but it has been years since I studied history so yeah.

Dark Wyrm: Hitler became more and more deranged after the Battle of Stalingrad, considered to be the first major turning point against consecutive Nazi strategic victories, yes. And, yes, just as you put it, I don't see Hitler as a hero, but a genius in his own sort of way.

I would contend again that given much of the "brilliance" of the Nazi party was the work of his subordinates, and not his own, and the fact that much of the turning points against the Nazis in the war were due to Hitler's lack of strategic intelligence (for example allowing troops to flee on either D-Day or Normandy when pursuit would have put a serious dent in the Allies resources), on top of the fact that Hitler's primary ideology is itself flawed in so many ways I wouldn't even know where to begin criticising it, a genius is something Adolf Hitler certainly was not.

Most people these days seem to think of Hitler as some sort of "brilliant evil mastermind". This idea, I think, is not particularly accurate. To characterise him best would be to say that he was a sort of perverse visionary, with absolutely no ability of his own to actually implement any of his ideas. The one thing Hitler was good at was manipulating people and weaseling his way into positions that were favourable for him - and with those who saw him as valuable at his side, he managed to gain far more power than anyone ever intended. It wasn't he who orchestrated the vast majority of events surrounding World War II and his other "historical contributions". Rather, he would essentially tell his cabinet what he wanted to achieve, and they would come up with suggestions for him; he would then pick the one he felt was most suited to his goals. In this respect he was much more like a child than he was an evil genius, and he relied entirely on his followers to empower him.

Originally Posted by ɹɐǝqıɹǝ

Most people these days seem to think of Hitler as some sort of "brilliant evil mastermind". This idea, I think, is not particularly accurate. To characterise him best would be to say that he was a sort of perverse visionary, with absolutely no ability of his own to actually implement any of his ideas. The one thing Hitler was good at was manipulating people and weaseling his way into positions that were favourable for him - and with those who saw him as valuable at his side, he managed to gain far more power than anyone ever intended. It wasn't he who orchestrated the vast majority of events surrounding World War II and his other "historical contributions". Rather, he would essentially tell his cabinet what he wanted to achieve, and they would come up with suggestions for him; he would then pick the one he felt was most suited to his goals. In this respect he was much more like a child than he was an evil genius, and he relied entirely on his followers to empower him.

This, basically, is what I was saying. He had an ideology and the will to enforce it, and most of his cabinet were the masterminds behind the "genius" of the Third Reich. Since his ideology is flawed, and any strategy undertaken by him tended to fail (invasion of Russia thus trying to fight a war on two fronts, letting people flee when it would have been easy enough to pursue), it's fair to say that he was not the genius of the Nazi party. Since one reason he got to power is because Von Ribbentrop (I think) and all them thought they could use him to meet their own ends, it was hardly his genius that got him there either.

Hitler was really more of a public relations person than a real leader. As ɹɐǝqıɹǝ stated, he wasn't even really the one making the decisions. He was extremely charismatic, he had to be, how else could he get an entire nation behind his radical ideas?

Yes, he did do a lot to revitalize Germany's economy, and just how much of that is because of him and how much is coincidence, I'm not sure. If Germany had won the war, I'd be curious to see just how long their economy would have stayed that way. I know Germany was printing tons of money without anything to back up the currency in order to fund the war; that would have caused some serious harm to the economy in the long run. However, with the wealth they would have accumulated from the newly conquered land perhaps it could have evened out. I suppose we'll never know...

What I think is really scary is how just by possessing extreme charisma it is very easy to get large masses of people to back any idea. Just look on youtube of videos of Hitler making speeches. The people were crazy over him. This is much like North Korea today; a "cult of personality" has formed around Kim Jong Il... It sure seems like Obama is using this exact same tactic. Obama is a public relations person, that's all. He has wonderful charisma and speaking abilities, and he's leading us further into war... I hope I'm wrong... but just wait a few years and see what happens, it sure seems like things are going down hill for both America and the world as a whole.

History is written by the winners of wars, not by losers. If Hitler had won, then we would view Roosevelt and Churchill as evil people. My opinion is that all three were quite "evil", Hitler the worst, perhaps, but the other two are by no means innocent. (Japanese people were put in concentration camps in America, that were in many ways worse than the ones in Europe, and I think dropping the atomic bombs on cities were civilians are living is completely unjustifiable. Do a search for bombing of Dresden to see how Churchill wasn't such a great guy either. [I'm going to assume that most of you know about Stalin's faults.]) The Holocaust in Europe is one of the worst crimes ever committed in the history of the world, but I do think too much attention is paid to it when there are many other horrible things that have been done to humans as well. Why is it illegal in many countries to deny the Holocaust, but not to deny other such crimes against humanity? Why single out this one genocide? I think it's quite clear why:

It's used as justification for what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people. There are many people with a twisted and racist take on their religion (Zionist Jews and Christians) who believe that Jews and only Jews should be allowed to live in Israel/Palestine. These Zionists play the Holocaust card to silence anyone who speaks out against them. "We have a right to form a Jewish only state because of how we were treated by the Nazis." Well I say that just because your group of people were treated so horribly does not give you a right to do the same to another group of people. If you think Palestinians are not treated horribly in Israel then do some research for yourself and look at the facts. They are not allowed to travel without stopping at checkpoints. The majority Arab cities often don't even have paved roads but the majority Jewish cities are just like any city in North America or Europe. There is not a single member of Israel's cabinet who is Palestinian. And let's of course not forget the Jewish only colonies being established in the West Bank (that's in Palestine, not in Israel) in which the homes of Palestinians are being demolished and new ones being built that only Jews are allowed to live in. (The United States under both Bush and Obama have consistently backed Israel in everything it does.) It's my opinion that one crime against a certain group of people should not be used as justification for another crime against a group of people.