Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?

Status
Not open for further replies.

christos200

Never tell me the odds
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
12,075
Location
EU, Greece, Athens
Many conquerors who killed millions of people, like Caesar or Genghis Khan, are admired now and people see them as heroes. This is because a lot of time has passed and no one is directly affected by their massacres. People who lived during the ages of Caesar or Genghis Khan and who were affected directly by their massacres viewed them as villains, but now many people admire them. Also, while Hitler lost in the end, Napoleon also lost but now he is admired by many, even thought many Europeans and Americans at his time viewed him as a villain.

So, do you believe that in 100 or more years from now Hitler could be seen in a more positive way?
 
I doubt many people see Genghis Khan as a hero. And I doubt all that many people see Caesar as one, although perhaps he's complex.

I doubt that Hitler's reputation will ever be rehabilitated. This is because, while people may be prepared to forgive the crimes of ancient or medieval warlords on the grounds of historical context, Hitler didn't have such an excuse. Arguably he was no worse a warmonger than Napoleon, but Napoleon didn't attempt to exterminate an entire ethnicity on industrial lines. That is a horror that will retain its power to appal no matter how many generations pass. As a possible comparison, consider Crassus' crucifixion of six thousand slaves along the Appian Way. That was a very long time ago, in an age when such barbarity was not uncommon, but I think there's still something peculiarly horrible about it even when we learn about it today. Crassus isn't "up there" with Hitler because he's not as well known or as historically significant, but I think it's a good example of an ancient brutality that still appals us now. The Holocaust is orders of magnitude worse than that, not to mention far more culturally significant (I mean so widely known and branded into our cultural memories and awareness).
 
I doubt many people see Genghis Khan as a hero.

I am one of those who do.
 
I doubt that Hitler's reputation will ever be rehabilitated.

Perhaps not here in the west, but in east asia for example, Hitler seems to be even.. celebrated. People there have to be reminded what a horrible man he was. Surely over time Hitler's reputation isn't going to get any worse in that part of the world.
 
Perhaps not here in the west, but in east asia for example, Hitler seems to be even.. celebrated. People there have to be reminded what a horrible man he was. Surely over time Hitler's reputation isn't going to get any worse in that part of the world.
Isn't that in large part due to the fact they don't really teach about the Holocaust over there?
 
Iirc Gandhi spoke of the nazis as some divine punishment against Britain.

Not sure, but i found this in wiki about Gandhi's quotes about Hitler:

Gandhi said:
They will honour Herr Hitler as genius, as a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more. But I should hope that the Germans of the future will have learnt the art of discrimination even about their heroes.

link is http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

I don't know almost anything of note about Hitler, apart from what is common knowledge for most europeans. I doubt he was anything important, let alone "good". The germans commited countless slaughters all over europe, and they have as much a stigma as their celebrated führer.
 
Don't Arab cultures have a hard-on for Hitler and Nazism?
Edit: Pretty sure Ghandi showed remorse for his statements when he realized what a monster Hitler was.
 
As long as Israel is around, it will remind us of how bad Hitler was.
 
Don't Arab cultures have a hard-on for Hitler and Nazism?
IIRC, only to the extent that he simply isn't really talked about as much there and less is commonly known about the Holocaust.

In WWII they were in an odd spot due to the fact most Arabs lived in the British Empire. The Mufti of Jerusalem collaborated with the Nazis on several occasions, at times helping to raise Muslim troops to fight the Serbians. That said, it is still debatable to what degree he viewed a Nazi victory as the best hope for an Arab state and to what degree he actively supported Nazism.
 
Also, while Hitler lost in the end, Napoleon also lost but now he is admired by man

Don't compare military genius Napoleon to military amateur Corporal Hitler.

We should be thankful that Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany - his idiotic leadership largely contributed to German defeat.

If someone else was at the top of Nazi Germany, the war would have lasted at least a few years longer.

Without Hitler on top, Nazi Germany would be equally atrocious (there were many people with even more racist and genocidal views than Hitler - for example Himmler) and at the same time more efficient. So we should be thankful, that Germans chose an idiot as their leader.

Regarding Genghis Khan - he was brutal, indeed, but most well-known Mongol massacres (such as the slaughter of Baghdad) were commited by his heirs. I protest against equating an idiot and war criminal Hitler with much less atrocious and much better leaders: Napoleon for example.

Napoleon is known for his massacres in Egypt - granted. But the scale of his crimes is by no means near to that of Hitler's crime.

Please also note, that Hitler lived in period of time when international law of military conflicts was already well-established.

Hitler lived in a much more civilized world than Napoleon, yet his savagery was many times more cruel.
 
I am sure in the distant future when some developer decides to revive the Civilization franchise, they'll have Hitler as a leaderhead.

Otherwise, I share my sentiments with calad.
This.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-baffling-ways-continent-asia-loves-hitler/

They simply have a different view of world and history. There are plenty of aggressor who are glorified somewhere as a good example. Or simply forgotten like Vandals or Tiberius.

In west Hitler will be always seen as a evil entity, until hi is forgotten.
 
I don't think Hitler will ever be seen in a positive light in the West, and rightly so IMO. However, I do think that - in general, and from an international perspective - the leaders of the Allied nations (and not just Joseph Stalin) will be viewed less positively as time goes by, which may have the effect of dampening the negative reception of Hitler.
 
Furthermore, there is no surprise why some other states of Asia - ones which experienced the hell of Communism but not the hell of Nazism - love Hitler.

In the same way many Westerners - who experienced the hell of Nazism but not the hell of Communism - love Stalin.

Both sentiments are of course dangerous - the fact that Hitler fought against Stalin after 1941 should not be the reason to love Hitler, just like the fact that Stalin fought against Hitler after 1941 should not be the reason to love Stalin.

Only people who during their history experienced both the hell of Nazism and the hell of Communism can understand this.

Such people equally hate both of these oppressive systems and their leaders.

One should also realize, that both those systems had many things in common and cooperated in some periods (like 1939 - 1941).

=================================

Belarussian historian Vladimir Beshanov calls Russians / Soviets in clear and unambiguous way occupants of Belarus.

Beshanov is a best-selling author of history books in Belarus. His books also have their Polish-language editions.

Vladimir Beshanov is an author of many books, including "Krasnyj Blickrig" ("Red Blitzkrieg").

This book is not only about the Soviet Invasion of Poland in 1939, but also about the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States (chapter "Baltic people with a pistol at their heads") and parts of Romania (chapter "Bessarabia"). One chapter ("Meeting with general Guderian") is also about the joint Soviet-Nazi victory parade in Brest-Litovsk on 22.09.1939. One chapter is ironically titled "Russian style of democracy". Another chapter is ironically titled "Within the family of free nations" (after "liberation" by the Soviet Union). Beshanov's book is clearly not a pro-Polish book (he writes about wrongdoings of Polish authorities to Belarussian people), but it is also by no means a pro-Russian book - it describes actions of the Soviet Union in all "liberated" states as occupation.

Already on page 1 of his book, Beshanov quotes the following statement of Comrade Molotov:

"I saw my task of being a minister of foreign affairs [of the USSR] as a task of extending the boundaries of our Homeland as far as possible. It seems to me that together with Comrade Stalin we have accomplished this task quite well." - W. M. Molotov.

And Beshanov adds his comment to this statement:

"With this one statement already retired Comrade Molotov, recollecting events of the old days, characterized the essence of the Bolshevik internal and foreign politics, their unalterable goal of creating a Worldwide Soviet Republic."

Beshanov on the same page also quotes Stalin who said that Soviet calls for peace, international security, defence of homeland against the Nazi Germany, etc., were all: "Just pulling the wool over their eyes, just pulling the wool... All countries do this." - said Joseph Stalin.

On page 3 of his book, Beshanov quotes another historian - A. Avtorchanov (Абдурахман Гиназович Авторханов) - who wrote:

"According to theories of psychologic probability, criminals give a wide berth to places where they commited crimes. This is also how Soviet / Russian historians do with the subject of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. When writing about circumstances of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, they give a wide berth to this pact in a very painstaking way. Why? Because by signing the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Stalin directly invited Hitler to invade him. First of all, he created necessary territorial-strategic conditions favourable for the Germans; secondly, he supplied Hitler with strategic military resources, thirdly he set Soviet Russia at variance with Western Democracies which were trying to sign an anti-Hitler alliance with Russia. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact solved Hitler's previously tied hands for war against the West, at the same time supplying Germany with essential for waging wars, strategic resources. While pretending neutrality of the Soviet Union, Molotov received a task of supporting Hitler in political way, and Mikoyan - under the banner of "trade exchange" - a task of supporting Hitler in economic way."

Then Beshanov continues with his own comment:

"That mutually favourable cooperation of the Bolsheviks with "Nazi monsters and cannibals", already busy with their war against Western Europe, ensured 1,5 years of peace for the Soviet Union. When all other limits of "friendship" were already exhausted, one crafty fellow [Hitler] knocked the other one [Stalin] in his head, suspecting him of lack of sincerity*. And no German-Soviet peace agreements prevented Hitler from doing so. Stalin, however, was expecting something different. Nearly until his death retired Comrade Molotov was giving a wide berth to the scene of his crime, denying the existence of secret protocols to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Only 8 months before his death, tormented by Felix Chuyev and his own conscience, Molotov reluctantly jerked out: "And maybe they existed?"."

*When writing about this "lack of sincerity" of Stalin, Beshanov is referring to German suspicions about the alleged planned Soviet invasion of Germany - and the preemptive (in their own opinion at least) German invasion that followed.
 
That's a bit worrying if, as your OP implies, you think Genghis Khan is comparable to Hitler.

No, no and again no. Genghis did more good than bad in the world:

Genghis Khan influenced the world far more than some here think. His conquests allowed East-West trade to begin again. A famous example of East-West communication in the time of the Khans was Marco Polo. Thanks to the peace brought by the Khans in Asia, trade flourished.

Also, the Westerners started to want the Chinese and Indian products, which after the Mongol Empire collapsed led to the discovery of America.

Genghis Khan was tolerant to other religions during an age that the so called civilized Arabs and Christians fought the Crusades.

In military strategy, Genghis Khan managed to show to the world how a small but well trained mobile force could defeat, with the right strategy, a far larger but less mobile and trained force. Also his tactic of faint retreat and how he used it reveal Genghis to be a military genious.

During his and his sons rule, several scholars from Persia, China and Europe worked together at the court of the Great Khan, which allowed scientific progress.

================================================================

I do not understand the hate of Genghis Khan. And anyway, in my opinion, psycholgical warfare is one of the best forms of warfare. We attempt in wars to have morality, but in the battlefield it is either you will be dead or the enemy. If you must nuke a city to make peace and secure the interests of your nation, then I fully support that. If you do not want people dead, do not start wars in the first place. The "start wars, but make them moral and good" is idiotic.

Either be pacifist and do not start wars or go to wars but use any means possible to defeat the enemy, from nukes to psychological warfare. If you do not like it, do not start wars.

Don't compare military genius Napoleon to military amateur Corporal Hitler.

I did not compared him to Napoleon. Napoleon is my favourite historical person along with Genghis Khan and Eleftherios Venizelos. I just used Napoleon to say that and persons who were defeated, were later glorified.
 
Yes Napoleon was glorified, which is wrong.

However, majority of people do not glorify him. It is a margin who glorifies him.

Most people simply admit that Napoleon as a person had both bright sides and dark sides.

Hitler also had a few bright sides - his paintings were rather nice. But I don't see any other bright sides.
 
His economic policies were also good. Sure, it was Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk who did the economic policy, but without Hitler's support, he would not have been able to do his work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom