Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Alright, that’s fair. The Jews were a scapegoat for the economy in lots of places at the time though, so it was an easy target to get the masses riled up I suppose.
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally.
But he fomented, and implicitly and explicitly assented to the entire process. He delegated the authority to others to engage in the Holocaust freely. He could have removed that authority at any time and did not.
Yeah, that’s exactly why he should be held responsible for it, I’m absolutely not trying to debate that.
I’m just trying to get people to look past the “great man theory of history” and admit that Hitler didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t get a Holocaust without people around him being willing and able to carry out evil themselves. Which means that saying “Hitler caused the Holocaust” let’s a while lot of other evil people off the hook, who all played crucial parts in making it happen.
I’m hammering that point because it’s so relevant again today. Trump might be an evil narcissist piece of shit, but by himself he’s relatively harmless/containable (see the relatively smaller damage the Trump 1 regime did vs Trump 2). It’s the folks who are just as evil themselves enabling him that are exacerbating the impact this time around. And if we’re ever going to see Nuremberg style justice for this presidency, I’d be extremely disappointed if only Trump gets held responsible.
They are conspiring, all of them are 100% responsible. The way you are phrasing it makes it seem like trump is just a puppet, which is not the case. I would also attribute some of the ease to do damage to the exodus of career bureaucrats. Normal people have stepped out of roles that are now filled with sycophants, idiots and criminals.
That wasn’t my intent, both men should be considered to have agency and responsibility for their actions. I just don’t want history to forget that neither man operates alone, and that there was/is a group of people who are just as evil surrounding them that we should hold just as responsible.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Sounds like he had “legitimate beef” with the governments of France and the UK, not goddamn “international Jewry”
Alright, that’s fair. The Jews were a scapegoat for the economy in lots of places at the time though, so it was an easy target to get the masses riled up I suppose.
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
Yes. Thank you.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
That is an insane take
But he fomented, and implicitly and explicitly assented to the entire process. He delegated the authority to others to engage in the Holocaust freely. He could have removed that authority at any time and did not.
Yeah, that’s exactly why he should be held responsible for it, I’m absolutely not trying to debate that.
I’m just trying to get people to look past the “great man theory of history” and admit that Hitler didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t get a Holocaust without people around him being willing and able to carry out evil themselves. Which means that saying “Hitler caused the Holocaust” let’s a while lot of other evil people off the hook, who all played crucial parts in making it happen.
I’m hammering that point because it’s so relevant again today. Trump might be an evil narcissist piece of shit, but by himself he’s relatively harmless/containable (see the relatively smaller damage the Trump 1 regime did vs Trump 2). It’s the folks who are just as evil themselves enabling him that are exacerbating the impact this time around. And if we’re ever going to see Nuremberg style justice for this presidency, I’d be extremely disappointed if only Trump gets held responsible.
They are conspiring, all of them are 100% responsible. The way you are phrasing it makes it seem like trump is just a puppet, which is not the case. I would also attribute some of the ease to do damage to the exodus of career bureaucrats. Normal people have stepped out of roles that are now filled with sycophants, idiots and criminals.
That wasn’t my intent, both men should be considered to have agency and responsibility for their actions. I just don’t want history to forget that neither man operates alone, and that there was/is a group of people who are just as evil surrounding them that we should hold just as responsible.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
I did not, at any point, say that Bin Laden had “legitimate beef”.
No, my original reply was directed at hoppeduponcoffee
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.