You have a misunderstanding of what a value is. When someone acts, that person always acts in function of their values. It is impossible to pose an action that isn't ''backed up'' by your values. Making everyone good, isn't bad. A world were everyone was good would be great, however you cannot say that unjust people are good.
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
"Hitler was a great man."
- Thread starter Nix_Hex
- Start date
You have a misunderstanding of what a value is. When someone acts, that person always acts in function of their values. It is impossible to pose an action that isn't ''backed up'' by your values. Making everyone good, isn't bad. A world were everyone was good would be great, however you cannot say that unjust people are good.
If I must say it so be it : I disagree with everything hitler ever stood for. But this is expected as I was born after the holocaust. This is only my passion-based opinion, however, and has little to no value compared to my rational analysis.
By value, I mean something we selflessly consider desirable. An interest is something we desire (regardless if we consider it desirable* or not) because it gives us an advantage. Pursuing a value always involve some form of sacrifice and requires an effort. As we do not always make effort, we are not always acting according to our values.
* we desire undesirable things all the time : Unrequited love, junk food, vengeance, unhonest gain, etc.
What you mean by value is a desire. I suggest you read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural)
Other than that, I looked objectively and rationally at Hitler's actions and they would have been considered unjust even at the time. The fact that Hitler is a good orator, doesn't mean he was just. The fact that he ''cared'' about the German people, doesn't mean he was good; not only his ideal were bad for they were unjust for humanity, but the methods he used to make these ideals real were unjust as well.
A value doesn't require ''effort'' and yes we always act according to our values; our values is something that guides us in our actions at anytime in our lives. We do these undesired things because according to our values doing so will eventually lead you to live a ''good'' life.
I would rather firmly argue that your analysis that Hitler's beliefs were common and held by the majority are far from the rational conclusion one gets from the Holocaust. Even without opening a textbook, it's pretty simple to think it through and come to the conclusion that if that were the case, no one would have batted an eye, and seeing as that was only 60 years ago, massive remnants of that school of thought would have been present in our society in the past 10 to 20 years.
I think the belief that Hitler was a product of his society is both a fundamental misunderstanding of human psychology, and a completely uninformed opinion. While this quote's original context applies to rating Hitler's intelligence, I believe the exact same logic applies to his relative morality:
I'm quite familiar with the textbook explanation of Hitler's beliefs, probably more than most other high school students. I really don't think Jack Jack's opinions are all that extraneous. The way I understand it, most of Europe was anti-semetic to some degree, and Hitler's policies flu with a a fair number of them. The Holocaust was not ever directly tied to Hitler, but it's fair to say he had is input on how to deal with Jews.
A considerable portion of people wanted to do something about the Jewish population. Himmler (and whoever else was involved) simply took it too far for the majority. Very few wanted Jews murdered, and so those that were Antisemitic felt remorseful.
We're all products of our time to some degree. Do you think Hitler was the son of Satan and we should all be relieved he didn't turn out worse? Hitler had ideas that were similar to those around him, except he was far more extreme. Under the political conditions of the time, extremity helped (Producing positive feedback).
Your quote seems to remind me of what I had said on the previous page that you refuted. Hitler was dependent on others. His intelligence can not necessarily be shown through his powerful actions because he was not personally in charge at all times. Without the party, the army, and the people supporting him, do you really think he'd have achieved much?
Obviously (now that I look at it again) it was wordplay, so I think I'll delete the last part of the post as to not offend anyone further. I've never been good with morality arguments. This is going to get anywhere, as no one really knew hitler and then wrote about it, so arguing about his morals, doesn't really make much sense. Sorry about that royalty with cheese, but it seemed you were implying that if hitler had succeeded, the world would be a perfect place.
No, I said that if Hitler had succeeded, Hitler would have thought that the world would have been a perfect place.
Evil persons do not think that their evil ways are good. Evil persons know that their evil actions are evil. They simply don't care.
A person who do evil actions because he think his actions are good is a good person. A person who do evil because he thinks his actions are goodand cannot be convinced otherwise because of his oratory skills may be a disaster for the rest of humanity, but is still a good person.
Good is not nice, Good is not heroic, Good is not just. Being a good person is doing what you think is right, regardless if what you think is right is in fact, right or wrong.
Today, WWII is singlehandedly the most culturally significative event in history. WWII changed everything. The holocaust, the nuclear bombs, the facism. WWII changed everything so thoroughly, it would make perfect sense to study modern history starting from WWII.
After WWII, philosophy was never the same. It proved once and for all that Rousseau was wrong. It hammered the point home that innovations can be used to kill even better than to improve life.
And then, there was denazification. The planned removal of all traces of the nazi ideology. I don't know how it was made in details, but this is the reason why you can't legally buy Mein Kampf in most countries. It's no surprise there are no mainstream remnants of the Nazi ideology, hard work have been made to demonize it and make it look clearly evil and repulsive.
And yet, eugenism still exist, racism (and antisemitism) still exist, There are even neo-nazis groups.
Now, I'm in no way praising or admiring the man; I believe he was a very evil individual who is probably rotting in Hell for his atrocious, (I believe demonic) intentions... Although in the midst of the evil within him, there is no doubt that the man was indeed a military and Propaganda genius; I've been required to read some of his work in History class on the basis of analysis, and I have found that in regards to his power over the masses and understanding of the human psyche; the man was indeed of extraordinary aptitude...
... he was trying to do what he tought was best for the whole of humanity.
How can you call that a demonic intention? The fact that you don't agree with what is best for the whole of humanity is irrelevant.
I think you don't get the part where, if you don't recongnise the value of a particular human's life, if you think that this human is nuisible, then you can morally kill him.
Let's say killing Hitler would have prevented WW2 without going through a comand and conquer red alert scenario. Then killing someone like Hitler is okay right?
Well, Hitler used to think that every häftlinge was kinda like this. Undersirable and that his life was harmful to the rest of humanity. He came up with the Final solution because he thought their existence was a problem. And he found a solution. For Hitler, killing a häftlinge was a service to humanity, much in the same way we think killing Hitler is a service to humanity.
It is okay to kill vermin. Regardless of size. If humans are vermin, it's okay to kill them. The only thing is, we don't agree with Hitler that there exist some humans which are vermin.
How can you call that a demonic intention? The fact that you don't agree with what is best for the whole of humanity is irrelevant.
I think you don't get the part where, if you don't recongnise the value of a particular human's life, if you think that this human is nuisible, then you can morally kill him.
Let's say killing Hitler would have prevented WW2 without going through a comand and conquer red alert scenario. Then killing someone like Hitler is okay right?
Well, Hitler used to think that every häftlinge was kinda like this. Undersirable and that his life was harmful to the rest of humanity. He came up with the Final solution because he thought their existence was a problem. And he found a solution. For Hitler, killing a häftlinge was a service to humanity, much in the same way we think killing Hitler is a service to humanity.
It is okay to kill vermin. Regardless of size. If humans are vermin, it's okay to kill them. The only thing is, we don't agree with Hitler that there exist some humans which are vermin.
You don't understand what Hitler thought. He didn't act the way he did for Humanity, but for the Aryan race. Murdering Jews wasn't a service he did for humanity but for the German people to ''purify'' the nation.
As far as Hitler was concerned, valuable humanity and aryan race were synonyms. But you are right. Words matter, so I should have said Aryan race. (which, as an aside, does not exist).
He was also exterminating Jews from other countries too. Like France. France was not part of German lennensbraun, so there may or may not have been more to it than purifying Germany.
He was also exterminating Jews from other countries too. Like France. France was not part of German lennensbraun, so there may or may not have been more to it than purifying Germany.
Everyone seems to think that Hitler was incredibly evil, however this is simply not true. Yes, Hitler disliked many minor groups, but so did everyone at the time. The real evil came from the people around him who were trying to impress him. The worst thing Hitler ever did was to allow these people to commit these atrocioties. They way I understand it in fact, it seems that Hitler even encouraged this competition between his advisers/followers.
I am not sayin Hitler was a good man either, but as has been mentioned before, Hitler has been demonised beyond belief. Sure he was a bad man, but he was not the Devil's P.A. either.
Also, I'd like to point out that Hitler's only real talent was his charisma and art and his way of manipulating people. All his other said achievements were done by his many helpers.
The only good thing Hitler ever did was pull Germany out of such a dark depression using his Leadership to unify his country.
Most of the time, Hitler spent his time with his family, living a life of luxury.
Hitler, IMO, was a great speaker, that is all. He was no Napoleon at all.
I am not sayin Hitler was a good man either, but as has been mentioned before, Hitler has been demonised beyond belief. Sure he was a bad man, but he was not the Devil's P.A. either.
Also, I'd like to point out that Hitler's only real talent was his charisma and art and his way of manipulating people. All his other said achievements were done by his many helpers.
The only good thing Hitler ever did was pull Germany out of such a dark depression using his Leadership to unify his country.
Most of the time, Hitler spent his time with his family, living a life of luxury.
Hitler, IMO, was a great speaker, that is all. He was no Napoleon at all.
Anyone who defends Hitler's action is racist. Killing over 13 million people (there were more than just Jews in the group, though they were the primary targets) for any reason, whether you think its right or not is wrong. Obviously his conscience allowed him to do terrible things, he might have thought he was right, but ultimately that was not his choice. His mind was so twisted and perverted that every other "accomplishment" (persuading a govt. to do this, gaining power, trying to dominate the world) means nothing because he was a terrible, disgusting man.
To say that Hitler was a great person is an absolute disgrace. A man who had an ideologie of Ubermensch(people who were superior, the Aryan race) and Untermensch(people who didn't deserve to live in Hitlers opinion, including homosexuals, the Jewish race, the people of nowadays Balkans etc.). The man was crazy, but as they say drastic times ask for drastic measures.
In the 1930's Germany was clear out dead as a country. Their was no money after the Treaty of Versailles and this is something that a lot of people seem to forget. Hitler was the only one who dared to say that the Treaty of Versailles just killed Germany. This was the actual only reason why people followed Hitler in the first place. Germany was standing on this last legs. And the Germans hoped that if they would follow Hitler, they could rebuild their country again. But as you all know, Hitler blamed the Jewish and the rest of all the Untermensch for the Treaty of Versailles. After Hitler gained too much power, he started World War II. The rest of the story is generally known I hope.
The person Hitler was an awful, xenonphobic and very aggresive person. But he had great talents, but he used them for wrong purpose. Hitler had great charisma and was very talented in the arts of retorica(the arts of convincing people). Charictaristics that every politician nowadays would kill for.
I find it very black-white to say that it's not done to say that all those who defend Hitler are racists etc. Of course it is absolutely bad to say or state that Hitler was a great person, but you can say that he had great talents, but that is my opinion
In the 1930's Germany was clear out dead as a country. Their was no money after the Treaty of Versailles and this is something that a lot of people seem to forget. Hitler was the only one who dared to say that the Treaty of Versailles just killed Germany. This was the actual only reason why people followed Hitler in the first place. Germany was standing on this last legs. And the Germans hoped that if they would follow Hitler, they could rebuild their country again. But as you all know, Hitler blamed the Jewish and the rest of all the Untermensch for the Treaty of Versailles. After Hitler gained too much power, he started World War II. The rest of the story is generally known I hope.
The person Hitler was an awful, xenonphobic and very aggresive person. But he had great talents, but he used them for wrong purpose. Hitler had great charisma and was very talented in the arts of retorica(the arts of convincing people). Charictaristics that every politician nowadays would kill for.
I find it very black-white to say that it's not done to say that all those who defend Hitler are racists etc. Of course it is absolutely bad to say or state that Hitler was a great person, but you can say that he had great talents, but that is my opinion
Jack Jack, I totally get what you're saying and I for the most part share your philosophy. Personally, I've reasoned that since good and evil, moral right and wrong, are subjective, human made concepts that they do not exist outside of the context of our society. Also, I disagree with TheAmazingFlygon who seems to think that just because the majority of people in the majority of societies have a fairly similar core of morals that this moral code somehow transcended subjectivity and becomes objective. No many how many people share and subjective belief, it is still subjective. There are still people that disagree with this commonly held morality, and because it is subjective they cannot be objectively "wrong".
Anyway, the bottom line is that I think that you cannot say that anyone is undeniable evil because there is no objective definition of evil. Therefore, Hitler is not undeniably evil. He is evil by my own personal moral code and most people's moral code, but that does not make it "undeniable".
Anyway I'd say more but I got an appointment, by for now :)
Anyway, the bottom line is that I think that you cannot say that anyone is undeniable evil because there is no objective definition of evil. Therefore, Hitler is not undeniably evil. He is evil by my own personal moral code and most people's moral code, but that does not make it "undeniable".
Anyway I'd say more but I got an appointment, by for now :)
Honestly, if somebody admires a certain trait of Hitler such as his leadership and feel the need to say it out loud, they should pick a less controversial person to admire. Hitler isn't the only person in the world who has these traits, so if you want to pick someone to admire because of their leadership, don't pick Hitler, there are plenty of other people who were just as good leaders and weren't as terrible people as Hitler.
I've stayed out of this topic so far because to be honest some of you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever and are letting emotions get the better of you. I just wanted to point out that doing this completely changes how WWII itself is viewed. There's a reason that 20th Century History starts with the Balkan Wars. You cannot correctly study WWII - or Nazi Germany - without understanding WWI and the aftermath of WWI.
21st century history when it gets late enough to start studying it will likely start with the events of September 11th, 2001.
I wouldn't say he was a great man. The Holocaust, Concentration Camps, those were terrible.
Great /= Good.
I personally never understood why the wars were ever considered to have ended. The Treaty of Versailles was a joke, and basically meant there was a ceasefire and not the end of the war.
I think you just said what I've been trying to say all along. In other words, why is Hitler the go-to guy? Why do people bring up Hitler out of nowhere (trust me, the scenario i talked about in the OP has happened more than once in front of me)? Is it for shock value, black humor, or simply inner racist sentiments? It's something one should just roll their eyes at, but it's always bothered me. And trust me, I'm not someone who calls for reparations for some distant ancestors' suffering, and no close relatives of mine are descended from Germany (most came from Russia), but the culture of the people transcends the borders, especially those of fragmented countries at that time. Therefore, I have a right to feel insulted when people say stupid stuff like this.
It seems like this thread has split into a "Hitler is a horrible person thread" and "20th Century history lesson thread" lol. Even though the debate has strayed far from the intent of this post, I'm glad to see such heated debate come from it. I'll have to say that I'm learning a lot just by reading some of the more intelligent posts. Better than any History classes I took at high school or the university.
Well, Hitler and his exploits are well-known enough and recent enough. That's a big draw for "Hitler was a great man." After all, people are attracted to power. Also, Hitler does have shock value. However, that is no reason to just bring Hitler out of nowhere. I agree with the theory of "inner racist sentiments" the most.
I believe most military scholars and history experts on the 20th century agree that World War II was merely a continuation of World War I. At least, this is what I have been taught in high school and University/College level classes.
The Treaty of Versailles made it impossible for Germany to survive and/or thrive and thus the status quo had to be changed. It is a shame, however, that it was someone like Hitler that had to make the change.