Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

eventually?? i mean...er yeah..maybe..

Well, it isn't really a fair comparison.

Khan - united and made a fighting force from a nomadic tribes people along with carving the biggest human empire seen so far.

Hitler - brought Germany out of the worst ressession seen in the world, managed to make a large sanding millitary force during this time and managed to unite Fractured Germany. He would have won if he haddn't have waited and swiftly invaded England or had (IMO) joined with spain. But then again, the WW wouldn't have started if we'd taken a stand in the Rhineland, not settled for appessment and not been so harsh in the treaty of Versailles.

Eternity is a long time. Things are forgotten or rewirtten. Even today history is constantly changed to suit the moods of the time (perhaps not substantially, but certainly it can be "seen in different lights" depending on the objectives of those writing the history books).

The possibility is there that at some point in the future there will come a time when the majority of humans view Hiter as the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps the right wing will manage to seize power in the west and wage war in the East. Already many right wingers (and here I mean hard line extreme right wingers) think that Hitler was the business.

All it takes is a slow shift in the opinions of the ruling parties and you can be sure that the population will look at things differently.

In "The Dancers at the End of Time", there are several time travellers who claim to be a number of dictators throughout earth's history (past, present and future), as well as from societies which make Nazi Germany look like a hippy love-fest.

Never forget that humans are animals, and often quite stupid.

Phryxis wrote:

We have Hu Hots in the US, after all. They invite you to "raid" your hunger and "pillage" their snack bar, or whatever. I'm sure that would seem pretty insensitive to whatever Chinese peasants got to eat arrows a thousand years ago.

Whats a Hu Hut? Never heard of it.

Guitardian wrote:I will repeat... Khan was just better at it than everyonne else who was doing it at the time, a sign of assholiness and also of competence. Kahn was a warrior. Hitler was a politician. And as a military dictator he kind of sucked and made, as the above poster stated, a lot of premature decisions and the rest of the world had to deal with him at great consequence to everyone. Khan was just rampaging because everyone around him was. Anyone who tries to defend Adolf as 'not as bad a guy as he is made out to be' can have words with me in PM, rather than here on the forum. That feth KNEW what he was doing, the kahn was just following tradition. They all suck, all of these conquerors... napoleon, alexander, caesar, jackson, G.Dubyah, they are all asses... but none can be compared to the next, nor held to the same moral standard given their time frames are so drastically different and the fact that communication is so much improved for our recent times, where we judge people's actions based on what we know in a new quickly increasing high tech world. hitler was the first who had the information and acted like an donkey-cave anyways.

I think you're being dismissive of the Mongolians as "primitives", who couldn't help themselves because they didn't have the benefit of our modern "enlightened" society. The fact was that the mongols did *not* practice primitive warfare. Primitive warfare has a large ceremonial element where killing is incidental to the exercise, if not even an unintended outcome. The mongol horde was completely aware of what they were doing and the set out to war to win by killing those who would not submit. Have you read Genghis's comment about the pleasure of taking another man's women and land. European warfare was actually more "primitive" at the time, as it had a large ceremonial aspect. So I do not agree that Genghis was just better at doing things that everyone else was doing.

Hitler's killing was different in quality, not just quantity, as the killing was done for the sake of killing, not for appropriation of land or what not. Many make the moral distinction there, while I do not.

Guitardian, this is not about trying to "redeem" Hitler. The point is a discussion about actions and how they might be perceived in the future. Making sure everyone knows that you think Hitler is the nastiest, worst of the worst, evilest person on the face of the earth may make you feel better, but it doesn't really contribute anything useful. In other words, you're calling Hitler evil. Nothing new at all there. And I don't see why any discussion needs to be done over PM. If you can say something over PM, you can say it here.

Another interesting read is Hitler and the power of Aesthetics. I conclude from reading this that Hitler was indeed *not* a failed artist, unfortunately, he just wasn't very good at the type of art he wanted to do, namely, portraiture. Hitler apparently had difficulty drawing the human form, and people have tried to psychoanalyze that, which I think is crap. There are lots draftspeople and architects that can draw buildings all day but can't draw people, it doesn't mean they have poor character. Regardless, Hitler had some talent with architectural drawings, but because of his paranoia, believed that those who told him that were "against" him.

One thing I think will be studied is that Hitler did indeed have artistic talent in a way that he may not have been aware of. That talent was theater. Apparently settings for speeches from Adolf were carefully designed, often by himself. His speeches are now seen in grainy black and white, but people who were there said that they were enrapturing, even for some of those people who disagreed strongly with the man. It is known that he would practice gestures that would make his speeches more effective, sometimes practicing for long periods of time.

While Hitler was not a sculptor, that I know of, he actively encouraged art ( art that wasn't "degenerate", of course) including sculpture. While the period is not known for painting, several sculptors worked during the period who are frankly quite good. Ironically, one particular sculpture made during the period, depicting two nude male figures holding hands, which was meant to represent camaraderie, is used as a symbol of the bond between homosexual men in certain German gay groups.

Dismissing Hitler as a failed portrait artist is unfortunately missing an important point to be made concerning totalitarian regimes and the use of media.

Hitler was a nutcase. I personaly think the only positive about the guy was he was arguably the most intense public speaker ever. I mean he convinced a nation that it was a good idea to try and murder an entire race. I watch his speeches on the history channel, and even though I dont know German, the power of his speech is still there.

But Thats it, Khan on the other hand, sure he was incredibly brutal at times, but you cant argue with the results. He made the trade roads about as safe as they ever were. He did more better things for that time, then Hitler ever did for his time.

People seem to miss that Hitler didn't just kill Jews. He killed anyone who he found undesirable - gays, blacks, muslims, etc. I believe there were about an equal number of these people killed during the attempted extermination of the Jews, and yet few people seem to realise it or give it much attention.

Thats because the Jews, again, were more documented. I personally think when someone mentioned the Jews as the people he was killing off, that they are just lumping every group into one really. Its easier then saying the list. Hell he even killed off ALOT of his own people. The crazy basterd

Grignard wrote:[While Hitler was not a sculptor, that I know of, he actively encouraged art ( art that wasn't "degenerate", of course) including sculpture. While the period is not known for painting, several sculptors worked during the period who are frankly quite good. Ironically, one particular sculpture made during the period, depicting two nude male figures holding hands, which was meant to represent camaraderie, is used as a symbol of the bond between homosexual men in certain German gay groups.

Here's the problem with this whole train of thought. It reforms a murderer and his fellow travelers with a simple statement. And its wrong.

He did not actively encourage art. He encouraged propagandist works that supported his view of the Nazi state and the uberness of the blond blue eyes. He in no encouraged art other than for that purpose. In that he is no different than Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, Mussolini, or freeking Santa Anna. Every dictator does it, the Nazis just had better tailors.

The only positive thing he did was die horribly, surrounded by the peasant army he tried to exterminate as a people. As they say, karma is a bitch.

Others could have improved the German economy pre WWII, and looking at the ultimate result it was an economic disaster for the Deutsche. That’s the only positive claim anyone ever made, and its bogus.

Ok maybe we wouldn't have had a VW Bug. But we would still have had the ultimate tanning machine in a convertible Beemer, and frankly they all suck next to the glory that is Ducati anyway.

Ducati, proof of the existence of Kewl God.

SilverMK2 wrote:I believe there were about an equal number of these people killed during the attempted extermination of the Jews, and yet few people seem to realise it or give it much attention.

Hmm.. I disagree about that, it's always mentioned when this/similar Nazi thread crops up every other week for example.

KingCracker wrote:Thats because the Jews, again, were more documented. I personally think when someone mentioned the Jews as the people he was killing off, that they are just lumping every group into one really. Its easier then saying the list. Hell he even killed off ALOT of his own people. The crazy basterd

I think it has something to do with the fact that the Jews were a distinct unified group of people, while most of the other groups were relatively few in number, or not unified or organised. This severely limits their ability to make an issue out of what was done to them.

@Reds8n - I'm seem to remember the figures stand at about 6 million deaths each (Jews vs misc people that they didn't like). I personally (not that I actively seek such discussions/etc) virtually never hear about the other victims. Unfortunately I can't look up any details as work filters block a lot of websites which might help, though I am prepared to do so when I get home.

1. Wherther or not thats accurate only further supports the evil involved by magnifiying the extent of the systematic horror under the Third Reich.

2. Again, we have to remember, the textbook guys like the Mongol tactics and marvel at their capacity to win battles. However, read what the actual opinions are of the mongols from the survivors and you have a completely different view. Mongols were great killers, but they were, well, great killers. As noted, the Chinese survived but the flowers of an enlightened Islam: Kwarazm-Shah and Caliphate in Bagdad were utterly destroyed. Prior to the Mongols-arguably the light of the world. After the Mongols, they fell behind and never returned to former glory. The descendants of the Mongols continued to rule over vast regions through terror and murder. We still remember Tamerlame and his hill sized piles of heads.

The Mongols helped trade. They helped technology and art flows between East and West. But they were killers too.

er..it's alright. I'm quite capable of, for example, reading wikipedia and..oh, look, there's a whole section about the non jewish victims as well.

It's not hard to find, if you want to look. It's not some massively hidden super secret information.

To clarify: I'm not havinga go or anything, i just don't think it's true that the other victims aren't mentioned or known about.

EVERY THREAD.

Still, on the plus side it won't be long until we can sit through the "was he or wasn't he a christian argument"..again...

reds8n wrote:
It's not hard to find, if you want to look. It's not some massively hidden super secret information.

To clarify: I'm not havinga go or anything, i just don't think it's true that the other victims aren't mentioned or known about.

I'm glad you edited that

I am in no way suggesting that there is some massive coverup or anything silly like that. The facts are easy enough to find (as you pointed out - I was only offering saving you the trouble and to confirm my own memory as to the figures).

My point was that is not what springs to most people's mind when people mention the Nazi concentration camps (and other related events) - history is taught (at least it was to me, as far as I recall) in such a way and broadcasts in the millions of doccumentaries on WWII that seem to focus on the Jewish side of the affair (and granted they had the largest loss of life of any group and arguably a bigger impact on history).

I was tying into earlier comments made by myself that history is constantly re-written to suit whatever agenda or prevelance is popular at the time.

This focussing of the extermination of people deemed to be non-desirable by the Nazi party is similar to the lack of coverage (or glossing over) of the Russian killings of millions of their own people which goes on in the education of people (certainly when I covered the wars in school, we heard very little about them).

Of course, I am aware that the information is all there for anyone to look at, and I am sure that further education courses more directly focussing on such events will paint a fuller picture as to what actually happened, but again, the impression I get is that the trend is to "look the other way" almost because the Russians were on "our side".

I would also like to point out that all of the above rambling is more or less all opinion and probably makes little sense as I am writing it between doing actual work

SilverMK2 wrote:

My point was that is not what springs to most people's mind when people mention the Nazi concentration camps (and other related events) - history is taught (at least it was to me, as far as I recall) in such a way and broadcasts in the millions of doccumentaries on WWII that seem to focus on the Jewish side of the affair (and granted they had the largest loss of life of any group and arguably a bigger impact on history).

The Iranian guy at work astonished me.. for a moment or two.. ... when he said the Jewish deaths were barely mentioned when he was taught about WWII at school.

I'm not quibbling there's a lot or even a majority of the coverage on the jewish deaths,and again there's a veritable plethora of reasons as to why that is the case.

I would also like to point out that all of the above rambling is more or less all opinion and probably makes little sense as I am writing it between doing actual work

..90% of Dakka is that eh ?

In years to come I'm sure they'll prove this entire recession was actually caused by people not actually working at work. On the plus side I should hit level 150 on Castle Age this week too

Yeah, I would imagine that it varies greatly in how it is taught based on the ideology of those in power/who make up the population - which is kind of my point

And I honestly can't remember what level I am on CA - I think it is about 100ish, but it has been so long since I have played it properly

But more power to you for helping sink the world into debt!

*goes off to do his part - or not do his part as the case may be...*

warpcrafter wrote:
In India, Hitler is revered by many people, but they don't really know more than a few superficial bits of trivia about him.

This covers it I think. The vast majority of the (American) population knows about Ghengis because he was in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and the Civilzation games (Or similar pop culture). The folks that heard about him for a week during an elective world history class or saw a documentary on the History Channel for an hour are even fewer, while the folks who have actually read a book and learned something about him could likely fit in a football stadium with elbow room. I'm not sure if he qualifies as being revered, short of a good chunk of people recognize his name without bad connotations.

The stuff that seems important to us now fades with time. Is there ANYTHING that happened over 100 years go that you'd be comfortable saying the majority of people are knowledgable about, and I mean TRULY knowledgable - not just the Cliff Notes version? Oh don't get me wrong, there are experts and hobbyists for Civil War reconstruction, steam engines, and military history, but it's a very niche hobby.

Given time, Hitler will be remembered by how pop culture chooses to protray him. The biggest strike he has against him is that he lost, and American culture generally does not favor losers. Then again, the Titanic technically lost too, but look at what Cameron turned that into.

Heck, there are ALREADY people who revere Hitler. We dismiss them as anti-social racist nuts, but they dismiss us as misled sheep. I can't help but wonder what the general attitude towards Hitler is in a good chunk of the Middle East. My suspicion is that it's relatively neutral.

Stalin is probably worth looking at in this case. He was a mass-murdering monster, but even after a mere half century his legacy is muddled and apparently leaning positive. Folks are willing to...for lack of a better term, "overlook" the atrocities and remember how he made the Soviet Union into a strong, modernized state.

People tend to forget the bad and remember the good. I mean really, how many figures from history are remembered as genuine villians with no redeeming qualities? They seem to always be described as "He was a great but ruthless leader". If anything, it's the ineffectual rulers that get worse press than the evil guys.

1-UP wrote:I can't help but wonder what the general attitude towards Hitler is in a good chunk of the Middle East. My suspicion is that it's relatively neutral.

Your suspicion is correct. The Nazis found fast allies in the Middle East for three reasons:

1) Antisemitism was a common political thread due to what was, unjustly, viewed as exploitative behavior on behalf of the Jews.

2) Germany represented a direct challenge to the nominal, colonial powers in the region.

3) The single-party aspect of Fascism lines up well with the aspiration to the Caliphate.

That said, the extent to which Hitler is regarded neutrally has as much to do with the disconnect between European history and Middle Eastern history as anything else. Had the Nazis rolled through Syria as a conquering army, the manner in which they would be regarded would be very different.

I think time could very well change attitudes, as it has happened before. Look at pirates; they did some truly terrible things back in the day, comparable in some ways to the terrorists of today. And yet, pirates have been romanticized to the point that we have pirate themed rides, Halloween costumes, and booze. Kind of makes you wonder what the people of that time would think of it all; Imagine fast-forwarding 200 years and going to Disney World to try out the Al Queda Theme Ride!

I was shocked when I read the tittle. My answer will be no.

Hitler, is without a doubt, one of the most evil men to have ever lived.

The people who revere him are Neo Nazis/SKinheads.

^
very true.

SilverMK2 wrote:People seem to miss that Hitler didn't just kill Jews. He killed anyone who he found undesirable - gays, blacks, muslims, etc. I believe there were about an equal number of these people killed during the attempted extermination of the Jews, and yet few people seem to realise it or give it much attention.

There is well documented deaths among Jews of all nationalities along with gays. Blacks were subject to forced sterilization but were not systematically killed off like the Jews.

Personally I'm flabbergasted that no one called you on the attempt to slip Muslims into the group of persecuted peoples above. Muslim ideology aligned closely with Hitler's and he had admiration for them if nothing else for their desire to kill Jews. Hitler certainly would have considered them inferior to Aryans but there was by no means any attempt to systematically kill them like there was the Jews, Poles and gays.

Hitler is often condemed for killing millions of Jews, but Stalin killed 10s of millions during his industrilisation of Russia, as well as during and after the war killings of POWs and other geneocides, but because he was on the winning side, no-one really bothers about it.

Mao Zedong killed more Chinese people with his policies and reforms than probably died in the whole of the second world war, but because we weren't at war with China when it happened, it often isn't talked about in Western society.

I for one never knew about it until I did some research.

The Green Git wrote:Personally I'm flabbergasted that no one called you on the attempt to slip Muslims into the group of persecuted peoples above. Muslim ideology aligned closely with Hitler's and he had admiration for them if nothing else for their desire to kill Jews. Hitler certainly would have considered them inferior to Aryans but there was by no means any attempt to systematically kill them like there was the Jews, Poles and gays.

Aside from the Muslim Romani who were rounded up and killed...

Although you may be correct that they were targeted primarily for other reasons (such as their race), rather than religion.

Stalin may have killed more, but his paranoia motivation was political. Hitlers was just plainly nuts.

To play devils's-advocate for a second, ever been to Flatbush, Queens, NYC anyone? place that is full of schoolbusses full of wierd hebrew script on the side, little hsssidic kids with ringlet hair, women who aren't allowed to speak without their husband, and gangs of Rabi following you down the street like a mafia hit about to happen... because you obviously aren't one of them... then they rip you off for a job you did for them and probably go home and laugh with each other about the stupid outside they took advantage of?

hmmm.. I don't hate most Jews, but those people are clearly self-serving and insular community who hates contact with everyone else unless they can make a buck off of them.

Maybe that is what Hitler saw and wanted to stop, eradicate, get rid of. Hey Jesus turned over the tables of Jewish moneylenders in a temper tantrum outrage and he was made a hero for it.

Systematically designed genocide is not something Ghenghis was about. Sure he managed one of the best slaughetrfests in history, but he didn't necessary slaughter people just because they were a different people, he killed because they wouldn't assimilate. Same goes for Alexander the Slightly Good. Hitler's motivation was just hatred. They were already submissive to him. Perhaps his excusability could be reinforced by stereotypes of cultures much like the ones I saw in Flatbush, but irrational hatred and slaughter of a culture or race compared to dominance over one's neighbor for the sake of your own are extremely different motivations.

I don't think Adolf will ever be viewed as any kind of hero other than by ignorant neo-nazi skinhead punks. Ghenghis will be respected as a great general and visionary leader, loathed as a slaughterer... Adolf will be remembered as the reason that mob nationalistic mentality proves to us all just how dumb and cruel people can get when faced with a different culture that they can only glimpse the surface of.

Ghenghis was a conqueror, yes, as were many British, French, Spainish, Dutch kings years before. Their purpose was empire expansion not extermination. Origionally his motives may have been to restore germany's pride after WWI but ultimately it ended in death camps and lines of people just being systematically killed under the guise of german pride. Well feth that. germans have absolutely nothing to be proud of about the nazi regime any more than United Statesians have anything to be proud of about our slavery issues and our civil rights issues and our continued racism that is more just murmered that exists to this day.

Hitler will not get off the hook. He will long long long be remembered as the worst, meanest, nastiest donkey-cave in the history of the world.

The Green Git wrote: Muslim ideology aligned closely with Hitler's and he had admiration for them if nothing else for their desire to kill Jews.

Not all Muslims hate Jews. Its incorrect to refer to antisemitism as a component of Muslim ideology; which is itself a wonky concept.

Guitardian wrote:Stalin may have killed more, but his paranoia motivation was political. Hitlers was just plainly nuts.

Actually, I disagree. (IMHO)Hitler was not actually nuts, but he saw a country that his values and morals had taught him to treat as a fatherland being quashed and trodden down by other countries. That lead to a natural search for a culprit behind this which nazi germany unforunately identified as the jews and other 'inferiors'. As much as I hate to admit it, it is human instinct to search for someone else to blame for our problems.

Guitardian wrote:The Japanese get slack because you can blame it all on Shinto (aka Japan is the center of the universe and Emprah is all powerful... sounds familiar) So they have religious dogma to blame... plus they are all completely nutty anyways if samurai movies are to be believed... Italians get slack because they changed sides once they realized that they were losing, plus they make better food than Germany.

Plus Italy ends up getting its butt stomped by about everyone in the war before it even starts. They couldn't even beat Ethiopia... Its like if the local elementary school soccer team got dropped into the world cup finals. Yikes!
Don't forget Ducaties come with optional hawt Italian girlfriend. That counts for a lot.

Cadet_Commissar_Ludd wrote:
Actually, I disagree. (IMHO)Hitler was not actually nuts, but he saw a country that his values and morals had taught him to treat as a fatherland being quashed and trodden down by other countries.

He may not have been legitimately crazy at the beginning, but the gradual deterioration of his mind though out the war is well documented.

Let this be a lesson kids, don't contract syphilis. It will doom you to failed military campaigns and a Napoleon complex.