Hacker News Reader

Comment by lispm | Hacker News Reader

Hitler was not fighting against an oppressor - he was upon something greater: conquer Europe, enslave people to get them working for the Germans and kill everyone that he was thinking of as unworthy. Hitler was a racist, he was the oppressor, tried to conquer a bunch of countries and caused the murdering of millions of people.

The 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing might explain that some people like him (there are other reasons, too). But if we look at Hitler himself and rate him on what HE did, then it is easy to see that he is in no way somebody that can be seen in positive light.

Also, when Hitler thought of 'Arier' he was thinking about a white, germanic 'race'. The word 'Arier' was a political tool and redefined as necessary.

View on HN

"Hitler was not fighting against an oppressor -"

You could argue that the post World War 1 "reparations" policy on Germany was indeed oppression.

But I wasn't talking about that. I meant that for Indians (and Pakistanis) of the time, Hitler was fighting the British, who was their oppressor/colonizer. The struggle for Indian Independence was in full swing when WW 2 broke out.

"if we look at Hitler himself and rate him on what HE did, then it is easy to see that he is in no way somebody that can be seen in positive light."

And yet many Germans did see him in a positive light. And if he had won the war would he still be considered universally evil? Stalin and Mao killed more people than he did yet there are significant numbers of Russians and Chinese who admire them today.

I agree with you that Hitler was evil. I completely agree that Hitler's "Aryan race" meant something completely diufferent from what people in India/Pakistan who admire Hitler think he meant.

I guess just don't see things completely in black and white and/or expect other people to believe exactly as I do, especialy about judging historical figures, and find them "cringe worthy" if they differ in opinion from me.

When I was living in the USA I met many people who thought the Confederates were fighting for a noble cause for e.g. and I didn't "cringe", though I didn't believe that myself. I understand that History is rarely uni dimensional and that other people have different views of History and historical figures than I do.

Europeans don't universally condemn Mao or Stalin. And there are a least a few who admire them.

Why should Pakistanis universally condemn Hitler? And why can't there be some Pakistanis who admire him?

Hitler wasn't that much interested in fighting the British. He was more interested in getting space ('Lebensraum') in the East, getting rid of of the Jews and enslave the 'slavic people'. That's where the war took place mostly, where tens of millions of people died and where Hitler Germany killed millions of jews. He was also fighting a war in the West, but that was not his true aim.

Hitler in Germany is seen as evil. He did not win the war and he never would have won the war. Secondly people in Germany see him as evil not because he lost the war, but because he caused the death and suffering of so many people, was a brutal dictator and so on.

The discussion over the past decades in Germany makes this very clear. The current generation hasn't much positive to say about Hitler - especially those who learned a bit. Older generations loved that he built autobahns and got people to work - before these people then died in the wars. But those people were brought up in a different Germany with different values.

Mao and Stalin? I can't remember hearing here in Germany saying anything positive about them.

'Why should Pakistanis universally condemn Hitler?' Because he was a racist, started a war, caused killing millions of people, his secret policy tortured and killed many people, removed basic rights, installed a one party system, got rid of democracy, installed concentration and labor camps to kill millions of based on their worthyness and their race, his army fought a brutal war killing millions of civillians... I could go on for a while.

> Hitler wasn't that much interested in fighting the British.

Didn't he try to make peace (or even an alliance?) with the British for a long time?

> Mao and Stalin? I can't remember hearing here in Germany saying anything positive about them.

You are right in a main stream sense, but see e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Gruppen for the loonies.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your point-by-point rebuttals regarding the historical facts and their many interpretations, etc. However, the crux of your argument is essentially, "Well, you guys (Brits, Americans, et al) admire bad people too and we don't say anything!" And frankly, it misses the mark entirely.

This isn't a question of whose 'wrong' is right or even whose 'wrong' is a little more right. It is a question of 'is it wrong at all?' And it is. It just isn't possible to argue that Hitler effected a positive (or even net neutral) change on the world - hence he is worthy of no admiration, regardless of what nation it comes from.

That's basically what it comes down to - 'Is X praiseworthy?' If X is not, then ultimately it doesn't matter a bit where the praise comes from. To say otherwise is to be an apologist for evil men and evil actions (as being evil makes an X not worthy of praise.)

"the crux of your argument is essentially, "Well, you guys (Brits, Americans, et al) admire bad people too and we don't say anything!"

No that is not my point at all. I said explicitly I think Hitler is an evil person. I am not trying to defend Hitler at all.

My point is what is "good" and "bad" varies from person to person and country to country and is rarely a binary judgement (and history is rarely "black and white" wrt good and bad) and where it is , it keep shifting with time.

Germans cringing because Pakistanis(!) don't see Hitler as completely evil makes no sense to me. Their historical "experience" of Nazism is too different to expect a consensus. Complete with a picture of kids making a swastika (the Swastika is a Hindu symbol of good fortune btw) that article is ignorant and supercilious.

Germans don't cringe about "bigger" murderers. Why should they hold Pakistanis to an unattainable standard? Rank Hypocrisy and sensationalism(imo).

Moral Relativism leads directly to logical contradiction - how can an action be both evil and not evil at the same time?

Imagine if our judicial branch worked that way, would that lead to a sustainable society? Absolutely not. You couldn't legitimately punish anyone for a crime because what is a 'crime' to you may not be a 'crime' to the perpetrator. And so on, and so on...

Bottom line, if an action is evil, it is fundamentally evil. The nature of an action doesn't change according to who commits it. The day humanity stops "cringing" when faced with apologist behavior is perhaps the day when humanity dooms itself.

'really bad' is 'really bad', independent of country. What we fear is that there are people in other countries who see him positive for example based on looks and fashion. That would be stupid. What's worse is if there are people who adore him for what he stood for. He stood for death, killing, torture, slavery, war, racism, race struggle. There are no positive values or positive motives to learn from him.

'bad' cannot vary from country to country - Adolf Hitler cannot be seen anything but pure evil.

That the Swastika is a symbol from India, Germans know already.

> Germans don't cringe about "bigger" murderers.

Yes. But they should.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com