1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'World History' started by christos200, Jul 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,547
    Location:
    California
    How is "forcibly tried to move an entire ethnic group, and when met with resistance, massacred the whole group" not THE textbook definition of genocide?
     
  2. DemonicAppleGuY

    DemonicAppleGuY King

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    US
    Because you're doing it for their stuff, we've been down this road.
     
  3. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
  4. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Clearly, the Holocaust wasn't really a genocide either.
     
  5. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    The Germans skipped Denmark, so certainly, they couldn't be targeting the Jews as a whole!
     
  6. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton One. And many.

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,389
    Gender:
    Male
    A different question: Is it morally relevant weather I eradicate an ethnic group (by killing them all) or weather I eradicate a bunch of random people (by killing them all)?
    Genuine question to this thread.
     
  7. haroon

    haroon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paris Van Java
    I might be wrong, but I think the earlier one called genocide while the later is massacre (?). And without question both morally irrelevant.

    Annihilation (both physic or non physic) of huge number of certain race called Genocide. Isn't we always must try to connect genocide with annihilation of race, tribes, or certain culture or religion, because etymologically it also come from the words race (genos)?

    But it can be also understand genocide is something that is too big, too large in number to be called massacre, in that case can we call the killing of 1 million civilian in Iraq from the US occupation can be also count as genocide?

    While if the massacre specialize with only specific nation, ethnic, culture, religion or groups, it strengthen the claim that it is a genocide.
     
  8. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,547
    Location:
    California
    Well, they can have different effects on the survivors (including outside the group) so that matters.
     
  9. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
  10. DemonicAppleGuY

    DemonicAppleGuY King

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Messages:
    881
    Location:
    US
    And it is from that which I derive the argument that killing people for reasons outside of ethnicity does not constitute as genocide.
     
  11. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
  12. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,547
    Location:
    California
    Hey man, it's not an oil spill if we're trying to make money. :cool:
     
  13. Lord Baal

    Lord Baal Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    7,291
    Location:
    Canaan
  14. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    Many South Koreans think highly of Genghis Khan. They also hold Kim Jong Il in high esteem. I had a number of discussions with my students on the topic(s) when I lived there. They consider both 'great' leaders.

    Granted, this is only a very small segment of the society, but the age range was quite broad.

    There is always a chance that western popular opinion of Hitler could change. Make a list of the number of historical people/events about which public opinion has changed. Then consider how frequently history is either re-written, widely looked at from a different perspective, or education changes its objectives. Then toss in an analysis of how often value systems change.

    Even today, despite the atrocities Japan committed during WWII, there is a movement in Japan to rewrite the history books and re-glorify the Japanese leaders of that time.

    Alot of atrocities have been committed in the past century, and are still being committed to this day, by many nations. I'm not suggesting that simply because a person or government acts with a certain amount of disregard for human life that Hitler will be seen in a different light. However, it does suggest that perhaps the only thing that prevents certain parties from more public advocation for reexamining Hitler's ... quality ... is that popular culture in the west despises him. Should popular opinion shift, you could possibly see more public figures speaking out in defense of Hitler's actions and philosophies.

    Please do not read this as my show of support for Hitler. It most certainly is not.

    If a situation such as you describe arose, it would not be genocide. As someone said, genocide includes intent. The intent in the example is not to wipe out the jews, the intent is to stop the attacks. Or so one can assume from your description. You don't actually say *why*, in the example, the Nazis take action. So the example doesn't have much use here.

    A more fitting example might be to say: the holocaust occurred as it did, here are some reasons why it may have been justified, or even, here are the arguments made that attempt to justify it. And then: do any of these reasons have merit?

    Which probably goes much further in addressing the original question too. Could an element of Hitler's "demonization" (as someone put it), as opposed to Caesar's or Gehghis Khan's, have something to with their intent, or society's ability to accept the justification of their actions? Or does it come down to strength of advertising?

    Its pretty hard to accurately analyze something without respecting the possibility that it could have been 'right.'

    Forgive me, but I can't tell if this is simple trolling or not. I've always viewed Manifest Destiny as little more than propaganda for land grabs, which boils down to the desire to gain and secure wealth. And of course it has a direct and obvious relationship to a geoplitical reality. It had a global effect. I can't imagine that I could ever know whether or not the effect that occurred was the one which was intended though. However, it is extremely unlikely that everyone who had an interest in wiping out Native Americans had a shared goal in mind beyond that of wiping out the Native Americans, and thus even less likely that there was a shared goal in the construction of a United States that did not include a Native American presence. The length of time it took to forge the US lends even more doubt to the idea that the geopolitcal status caused by its creation and policies was the accurate goal of the intentions of all of its contributing creators. The fact that the Revolutionary War occurred, and the fact that the Civil War occurred, make it even less likely, in my opinion - clearly there were some conflicting philosophies.

    But the argument boils down to the old 'do the ends justify the means?' This is misdirection. The OP is not about the morality of the Holocaust. It is about whether or not the popular western view of Hitler will ever change. And I think Pangur Ban is absolutely correct on this point. It *could* change. Will it though? Yes, to some degree. To what degree is harder to discern.
     
  15. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    No, not really. I see the distinction he says he was trying to make.

    Do you mean *must* recognize it? Otherwise the question doesn't make sense. The answer would be "no." Once a thing has been defined (actually it does not even need to be defined, it simply just needs to 'be'), it does not need to be recognized as being that thing in order to actually be that thing. If genocide occurs, it is genocide regardless of who recognizes it as being such - or even if nobody recognizes it as such. Don't confuse genocide with acts accepted as being genocide.

    You can kill members of a group for being part of that group without feeling hatred towards that group. I don't see where it hints at hatred.

    I'm not certain you can even morally quantify a consequence. I think you may need to know the reason why the action was taken.

    Is it more immoral to kill the last rhino in the world than it is to kill the first?
     
  16. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    No he would.

    Why compare to Genghis? Genghis was very tolerant. Stalin and Mao could probably but never Hitler, unless the world is overrun by Nazis.
     
  17. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    I could imagine that political opinion around Hitler could shift favourably for Hitler in Europe should strong Anti-American and Anti-Russian feelings occur simultaneously. It would certainly not rehabilitate him, save for some fringe groups, but it would paint him as a product of circumstances and a competent if not immoral leader instead of the brute he is usually painted as.

    Even in countries that have suffered significantly under Hitler, like Russia, Pro-Hitler sentiment is more common in than in the West, due to the nature of anti-semitism in Russia. Hell, even Idi Amin spoke favourably of Hitler, despite he would likely be killed if Uganda ever came under Nazi occupation. In many Islamic countries, Hitler occasionally evokes positive associations due to a combination of Anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism (due to Israel, obviously) and anti-Communist sentiment, though in more recent times, Hitler has been used more often to smear Israel, Iran and the USA in order to attract Western supporters. Provided you have the same enemies as Hitler had, chances are that your sympathies might shift a little, even if you would have been one of those enemies.

    So the Armenian genocide isn't really a genocide? :rolleyes:
     
  18. chrisg7

    chrisg7 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    63
    I can bet that his genocide will never be admired. I can understand wanting the best for the country, but mass murder was not the correct option.

    However, there are some people in Germany who, if you ask them, they'll say Hitler was an incredible leader. It's really kind of disturbing to see how beautiful all the people in Germany are. When Hitler tried to breed the ultimate race, Aryans, he decided the best way was to eliminate the others. Very little people in Germany are ugly, and it's really disturbing when you think that that's because the others were killed.
     
  19. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    You're joking, right?

    edit:
    Ah. Well. Now...
     
  20. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    61,491
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    ^ :rotfl:

    I do think he is joking. I mean just look at Merkel. Not really support for "all german people are beautiful" lines. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page