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

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of which would matter much if the persons involved weren't actively interested in Germany coming to terms with it recent past. I don't pass judgment on the reasons why all this was undertaken, I merely mention that it has, and should not be simply brushed aside as 'cosmetic changes' (The Wiederhutmachungs policy didn't just to countries, by the way, but also to indivduals who had sufferen under Nazism.) Cosmetic changes is more something that might be applicable to what happened during those years in East Germany - and Japan. And I suggest that the difference is not just one of quantity, but of quality.
 
I don't view forbidding Japan from having a military as cosmetic.
 
For the original question, i think it's impossible he will ever be seen more positive by intelligent, normal & reasonable peoples.

Of course lunatics who worship all kinds of messed up "things" exist in all parts of the world, but when looking at the stunning number of cruelties & deaths he was responsible for..
why would any person that actually matters ever see anything positive connected with his name?

Figures like Genghis Khan can be seen as fascinating because they were usually great strategists or warlords, with somewhat reasonable goals behind their doing.

Hitler was mostly just an insane, drug addicted lunatic who even crippled their own war efforts by his stupid decisions (that most of his generals never agreed with).
So..where does that question even come from in the OP ;)
 
I don't view forbidding Japan from having a military as cosmetic.

I'm not sure what you'd else call the Defense Force they have? Not to mention the regular feature in the Conservative party to propose to lift Japan's defensive use only clause out of the constitution? (Each time someone mentions it, it still causes a storm of protest, but that doesn't impede them from launching the idea time and again.)
 
We get all of our information from the winners--not from the Germans in the thick of it who were living it. Lots of free speech was banned in occupied Germany, and that screams historical revisionism. Little-known fact is that, in September 1939, German people thought Poland attacked THEM. I have followed German accounts of the war, and often that includes them bragging about the ways they killed lots of Americans. It's hard to stomach. But then I'm biased. The truth lies in authentic analysis of BOTH sides' accounts. It's not like the Germans' viewpoints were all "Hitler was stupid. We were all stupid. The Allies were right to kill us."
 
We get all of our information from the winners
Ah, that'll be why the West was so heavily pro-Bolshevik until 1991. They won the Civil War, so naturally they got to write the history.
 
Actually that's rather well known, they did set this fake radio station attack up after all and Propaganda had fully taken over germany already.

A foreign witness in Berlin reported total silence in the streets the day it became known war was declared. Quite a difference with 1914.
 
None of which would matter much if the persons involved weren't actively interested in Germany coming to terms with it recent past. I don't pass judgment on the reasons why all this was undertaken, I merely mention that it has, and should not be simply brushed aside as 'cosmetic changes' (The Wiederhutmachungs policy didn't just to countries, by the way, but also to indivduals who had sufferen under Nazism.) Cosmetic changes is more something that might be applicable to what happened during those years in East Germany - and Japan. And I suggest that the difference is not just one of quantity, but of quality.

Said "likewise" as in not necessarily out of a desire to do away with residual Nazi ideology. Banning Nazi paraphenelia is an act of covering up and looking away from history. The benefit for Germany is that others will look away too.

The Wiedergutmachungs policy was substantial in its effect on Germany and countries affected by it. I do not know the actual figures, though it wouldn't be surprising to found out more funds went to the state coffers of France and Israel than individuals. Then again, it is how politics works and it seems to work well for everyone involved.

A foreign witness in Berlin reported total silence in the streets the day it became known war was declared. Quite a difference with 1914.

Because the tone was different: The German invasion of Poland was sold to the German public as an act of self-defence. Before WW1, the only war experience of the German empire was one of victory, in part because they faced incompetent opponents.

Ah, that'll be why the West was so heavily pro-Bolshevik until 1991. They won the Civil War, so naturally they got to write the history.

On a more serious note, they did write the history of Russia. It was destinied to be the Mecca of the global workers revolution and it didn't pan out as planned, which was called 'Socialism in one country'.
 
Said "likewise" as in not necessarily out of a desire to do away with residual Nazi ideology. Banning Nazi paraphenelia is an act of covering up and looking away from history. The benefit for Germany is that others will look away too.

You seem to be highly skeptical about motive. Let's be fair: I don't think you will meet anyone in Germany (save the old Nazi) who is proud of the Hitler period. And banning paraphernalia doesn't mean things Nazi weren't or can't be discussed. They can and have, often quite vehemently. This is not likely to go away with time.

The Wiedergutmachungs policy was substantial in its effect on Germany and countries affected by it. I do not know the actual figures, though it wouldn't be surprising to found out more funds went to the state coffers of France and Israel than individuals. Then again, it is how politics works and it seems to work well for everyone involved.

The only countries involved in the policy were Israel... and Ireland. Not France. Most claims were paid to individuals.

Because the tone was different: The German invasion of Poland was sold to the German public as an act of self-defence.

I think you gravely underestimate the effects of WW I on people in the interbellum. This was fresh in people's memory, and even Hitler might have realized that his war plans weren't exactly popular.
 
You seem to be highly skeptical about motive. Let's be fair: I don't think you will meet anyone in Germany (save the old Nazi) who is proud of the Hitler period. And banning paraphernalia doesn't mean things Nazi weren't or can't be discussed. They can and have, often quite vehemently. This is not likely to go away with time.

Indeed I never directly met any German so far who is openly Pro-Hitler, although I also have encountered resentment about discussions about Germany's past. However, at the same time, items with national socialist symbolism are a reflection of how Germany was at the time. The legal suppression of Nazi items turns the Third Reich into an abstract concept from history books into popular view, so it becomes a popular focal point of banter, because the items that contained on them symbols of Nazism are hidden from view. You can no longer educate people on the power of ideological symbols in general by suppressing such concrete examples. Guess that would turn Germans into anarchists.

The only countries involved in the policy were Israel... and Ireland. Not France. Most claims were paid to individuals.

My bad.

And now that you mention it, indeed no Wiedergutmachungs money was paid to any belligerent against Germany during World War II, except for the Wiedergutmachungs policy of East Germany in regards to Poland and the USSR. Makes one wonder whether the FRG simply wanted to outdo the GDR in terms of goodwill.

And yes, I am skeptical about motives. It is both a curse and a blessing. Politics is never about moral imperatives unless it's somehow self-serving. Which is tolerable, though not like we are living in a beacon of brightness. People tend to be stupid and the more you understand your own misgivings - I'm still working on it myself - the better you realise it.

I think you gravely underestimate the effects of WW I on people in the interbellum. This was fresh in people's memory, and even Hitler might have realized that his war plans weren't exactly popular.

Figured as much; the idea that war is a nice thing because of the spoils was weakened by the memories of the great war, given how it didn't exactly give Germany any spoils at a very big cost.
 
Indeed I never directly met any German so far who is openly Pro-Hitler, although I also have encountered resentment about discussions about Germany's past.

I think guilt might have something to do with that. But apart from that, it's a bit rude to start such a discussion. You may not know this, but present day Germans are generally very polite people.

However, at the same time, items with national socialist symbolism are a reflection of how Germany was at the time. The legal suppression of Nazi items turns the Third Reich into an abstract concept from history books into popular view, so it becomes a popular focal point of banter, because the items that contained on them symbols of Nazism are hidden from view. You can no longer educate people on the power of ideological symbols in general by suppressing such concrete examples.

Not being familiar with German history lessons in person, I'm a bit at a loss with this argument. You don't assume the Nazi period is simply 'skipped over', I hope?

And now that you mention it, indeed no Wiedergutmachungs money was paid to any belligerent against Germany during World War II, except for the Wiedergutmachungs policy of East Germany in regards to Poland and the USSR. Makes one wonder whether the FRG simply wanted to outdo the GDR in terms of goodwill.

Actually, the GDR simply refused any personal Wiedergutmachung. Their position was that it was covered with their 'reparations' to the USSR and Poland. Your skepticism as to motive is a bit misplaced though: Adenauer's start of the policy was actually a bit of an act of personal bravery, as Anti-Semitism didn't just die with the Nazis.

And yes, I am skeptical about motives. It is both a curse and a blessing. Politics is never about moral imperatives unless it's somehow self-serving. Which is tolerable, though not like we are living in a beacon of brightness. People tend to be stupid and the more you understand your own misgivings - I'm still working on it myself - the better you realise it.

Well, to err is human they say. Although indeed humans do err a lot.

Figured as much; the idea that war is a nice thing because of the spoils was weakened by the memories of the great war, given how it didn't exactly give Germany any spoils at a very big cost.

Which sort of repeated the 'lesson' of WW I. Possibly the only time the war gained any sort of popularity was during the victory period. After that, Gestapo records give a clear indication of Germany's war fortune being reflected in popular opinion getting less favourable. And then there's the odd distinction between feelings towards the Führer and Nazis in general. As if there could have been Nazis without Hitler.
 
My mother was born in Germany just before the war and I have numerous Aunts, Uncles and Cousins who lived there post-war. They told me that the view of Hitler for many years after the war was actually pretty positive. It was only after some of the public international trials took place that the attitude started to become generally negative. So, anything is possible, I guess.

At least here we can have a discussion of these things. On Steam you never know what you can discuss. You can make post after post suggesting Hitler as an alternative German leader but make a joke about Dirlewanger as an alt and your post gets deleted. How on earth is the guy who initiated everything allowed but a subordinate is not? There is nothing in the discussion rules about it... anyway, I digress.

As others have posted elsewhere, Genghis Khan was a murderous psychopath, and views on him seem to have softened of late, he's even been a leader in Civ, so perhaps the Dolf can see this occur as well.

meh
 
The Neurenberg Trials started in November 1945. That's a whole 6 months after the surrender date, May 7..
 
Well, apart from your German family not seeming particularly well-informed (selective memory loss?), Eichmann's was specifically not an international trial. He was abducted by the Mossad to stand trial in Israel.

As to Hitler being 'popular' in 1945 when all German cities had been bombed and the whole country appeared to Allied soldiers as a wasteland (which in cities would be an appropriate description), the Führer was well aware that the war was not making him popular. (Which is one reason that - despite Goebbels advice - he hadn't made any public speeches since 1943 at least.) Hitler was well acquainted with blaming others for one's own misgivings, but since he had take personal command of the military the blame could only fall on himself.

So I find myself wondering in what untouched part of Germany your loyal family could have been living to still have fond feelings towards the man who had plunged Germany into catastrophy and complete and utter defeat?
 
Last edited:
As others have posted elsewhere, Genghis Khan was a murderous psychopath, and views on him seem to have softened of late, he's even been a leader in Civ, so perhaps the Dolf can see this occur as well.
Well, the difference there is, the heirs of the Khan ruled the large empire Earth had ever known, while Hitler ended up on fire in a ditch. All taboos aside, he just wasn't very good at his job.
 
Well, apart from your German family not seeming particularly well-informed (selective memory loss?), Eichmann's was specifically not an international trial. He was abducted by the Mossad to stand trial in Israel.

As to Hitler being 'popular' in 1945 when all German cities had been bombed and the whole country appeared to Allied soldiers as a wasteland (which in cities would be an appropriate description), the Führer was well aware that the war was not making him popular. (Which is one reason that - despite Goebbels advice - he hadn't made any public speeches since 1943 at least.) Hitler was well acquainted with blaming others for one's one misgivings, but since he had take personal command of the military the blame could only fall on himself.

So I find myself wondering in what untouched part of Germany your loyal family could have been living to still have fond feelings towards the man who had plunged Germany into catastrophy and complete and utter defeat?

Did I say my family was "loyal" ? Nope, that is you putting words in my mouth again. So, once more, they said the view of Hitler post-war in Germany was pretty positive.... in other words, since you can't seem to comprehend, the GENERAL feeling there was pretty positive towards him. My family are Mennonites, you know those pesky pacifists, so no they were not loyal to Hitler, since they were disriminated against by the Nazi's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom