Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Harbal]

Hitler loved his dogs. And was a dog person.

It's said that he used to make woofing noises in his sleep, so there could be some truth to that.

[Walker]

Hitler loved his dogs. And was a dog person. As far as I know not a cat person. While not that important of issues, still it could have some bearing on the present discussion.

The two of them smile for pictures but Hitler betrayed his dog. In the wild it might have found a new pack, but he decided for the dog what was best for the dog which leads to the hypothesis that all people, even Hitler, treat their dogs like they treat people when they can.

Will your dog protect you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuZIxjgwd98

Was it a dog who said, "A dog is man's best friend?"

[Harbal]

Hitler loved his dogs. And was a dog person. As far as I know not a cat person. While not that important of issues, still it could have some bearing on the present discussion.

The two of them smile for pictures but Hitler betrayed his dog.

I have a question about this statement, but I am unable to find the right words to frame it.

[Age]

When I was going to school growing up, one of my philosophy professors, Thelma Lavine, basically stated in not uncertain terms in one of my classes with her that Hitler and Nazi Germany are the utmost examples of evil in our time and to be avoided.

It isn't "evil", Gary, it's human psychology, and the more we understand it, the better. Thinking of it as evil, or not thinking about it at all, leaves us defenceless against it.

No. it's not evil to study what happened and why. However, there seem to be people out there who call themselves Nazis and wave swastikas, with full knowledge of what those things stand for. I just want to make sure that we all understand that Hitler and Nazism are bad territory to get sucked into (if that happens). I think when we start sympathizing with people like Hitler, then we've got to step back and recheck our bearings.

So, you do not sympathize with children, right?

[Flannel Jesus]

So, you do not sympathize with children, right?

So, you sympathise with pedophiles right?

[Age]

The OP, including the title, has a few different ideas/questions/possibilities related to Hitler.

Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be? I think so, though I don't really know what judgment specifically is being aimed at Hitler by some.
Ought someone sympathize with Hitler? I don't think one ought to, though it might be a good thing for some people to sympathize with him. A lot depends on what version of sympathize we're intending. Hitler hated Jews. I sympathize with that. That's a problem to me. Hitler was an extremely fallible human being who based a lot of his decisions and conclusions irrationally. I could find some sympathy for him there. I don't however sympathize with his actions. But I could find on some level sympathy for any confused and idiotic creature in a very challenging and often nightmarish universe. Ought I feel that in relation to Hitler. I don't think so. Would it make me a bad person, if at that level of bare humanity I feel some sympathy for him? No I don't think so.

Should I try to move closer to his worldviews? No.

Should I find some way to justify his decisions and actions? I can't see why.

We don*t know the original context where someone suggested feeling sympathy for Hitler or what that meant.

It seems to me that this issue can just be kind of creating volatility over equivocations of 'sympathize'.

I think we should be very specific about what we mean - and I know some people have made efforts to do this, or this is just going to be thread where people get upset, where there is at root perhaps no difference of opinion at all.

Unfortunately or fortunately I can see and feel parts of me that are hateful and nuts. Fortunately I am aware. Unfortunately there are and have been nuts and hateful in me. There but for the grace of God (or certain aspects of parenting or certain friends or some luck in what I encountered in this life or that I had some good books to read at a key moment in my childhood) go I and all that. There were Hitlers in me. I don't mean anti-semites or world leaders. But there were insane, enraged, desperate portions of me and perhaps small, contingent parts of my biography kept them from getting the upper hand.

What were, or are, some of the insane, deranged, and/desperate portions of 'you' in regards to, exactly?

And, where did they come from, exactly?

Sympathize with means many things. That seems to be the central word in the OP.
Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be? is the title of thread.

[Age]

So, you do not sympathize with children, right?

So, you sympathise with pedophiles right?

Do you mean with human beings?

Also, what definition of 'pedophile' are you actually using here?

And, what, exactly, do you mean by 'sympathise'?

By the way was the human being known as "adolf hitler" a what you call 'pedophile'?

If no, then why have you gone so off topic here, now?

[Age]

Unfortunately or fortunately I can see and feel parts of me that are hateful and nuts. Fortunately I am aware. Unfortunately there are and have been nuts and hateful in me. There but for the grace of God (or certain aspects of parenting or certain friends or some luck in what I encountered in this life or that I had some good books to read at a key moment in my childhood) go I and all that. There were Hitlers in me. I don't mean anti-semites or world leaders. But there were insane, enraged, desperate portions of me and perhaps small, contingent parts of my biography kept them from getting the upper hand.

Probably most of us can relate to anger and hateful moments in thought. I certainly can. There but for the grace of God perhaps go I as well, I suppose. If I act on those thoughts and do such enormous harm as kill someone (let alone 6 million), then I think people ought to villainize me.


\_(*_*)_/

Once you learn how the Mind and the brain work, and thus know why every one does what they do, then you do not 'villainize' absolutely anyone.

[Flannel Jesus]

So, you do not sympathize with children, right?

So, you sympathise with pedophiles right?

Do you mean with human beings?

Also, what definition of 'pedophile' are you actually using here?

And, what, exactly, do you mean by 'sympathise'?

By the way was the human being known as "adolf hitler" a what you call 'pedophile'?

If no, then why have you gone so off topic here, now?

Ask all those question to yourself in regards to your recent post at Gary first.

[Flannel Jesus]

It isn't "evil", Gary, it's human psychology, and the more we understand it, the better. Thinking of it as evil, or not thinking about it at all, leaves us defenceless against it.

No. it's not evil to study what happened and why. However, there seem to be people out there who call themselves Nazis and wave swastikas, with full knowledge of what those things stand for. I just want to make sure that we all understand that Hitler and Nazism are bad territory to get sucked into (if that happens). I think when we start sympathizing with people like Hitler, then we've got to step back and recheck our bearings.

So, you do not sympathize with children, right?

Do you mean with human beings?

Also what definition of children are you using here?

And, what, exactly, do you mean by 'sympathise'?

By the way was the human being known as "McCauley Culken" a what you call 'child'?

If no, then why have you gone so off topic here, now?

[Iwannaplato]

What were, or are, some of the insane, deranged, and/desperate portions of 'you' in regards to, exactly?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you rephrase the question?

And, where did they come from, exactly?

I tend to think of these as portions of me that were not integrated well with the rest of me because I had suppressed, pushed away, denied what were reactions to abuse or toxic facets of society or people around me going back to birth and beyond. Once suppressed, denied, pushed away (and I'll add 'judged') they themselves can take on toxic forms. They were me but also to a significant degree not integrated with me. A bit like one hand stopping the other hand from doing something: hitting someone, grabbing a sweet, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Their persecution of "counter-revoluionaries" is similar to Christian persecution of witches and heretics.

No. There's no such thing as "Christian persecution," unless you mean "the persecution of Christians," which is very common worldwide. Nothing that is evil can be genuinely done "in the name of God," just as nothing which is good can be done in service to evil. If a man says he serves God, but does not obey God, he lies. That's obvious.

I'm merely pointing out that blaming Marx for communist persecution of counter-revolutionaries is almost as misguided as blaming God for the Inquisition.

This is a good illustration. The difference is obvious: whereas Marx aimed at revolutionary violence, and whereas Marxists call for perpetual violent revolution, you will not find that anything Jesus Christ taught would allow the Inquisition. In fact, you will find that the Inquisitors were grossly unchristian in everything they did.

Does it surprise you that people are often not honest, and claim one thing while being another? You see it every day: politicians who claim to be "defending democracy" are actually aiming at extending their control over people. Those who claim to be "serving the public" serve only themselves. Those who claim to be working for "equality" are subborn inequality or even racism and sexism. Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the human race. And you will not be short of examples of those who say one thing, but are really another.

By the way, Hitler was worse than the commies because he didn't even bother with trials or excuses.

If a typical Communist show-trial were your idea of justice,... I wonder if a man who makes excuses is not "worse" than one who does not bother...

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that's what you choose, if that's what you choose.

What do you mean by this? That we choose Armageddon? Isn’t it prophetically fated?

One chooses to be involved, or one chooses not to be.

[Iwannaplato]

No. There's no such thing as "Christian persecution," unless you mean "the persecution of Christians," which is very common worldwide. Nothing that is evil can be genuinely done "in the name of God," just as nothing which is good can be done in service to evil. If a man says he serves God, but does not obey God, he lies. That's obvious.

So, Karl Marx says that nothing that was done by Stalin and Mao was the true Communism.

But notice further that Christian persecution is not a phrase that takes a stand on whether God gives it a seal of approval.

This is a good illustration. The difference is obvious: whereas Marx aimed at revolutionary violence,

As did the founders of the US. Further he did not call for what Stalin and Mao did.

and whereas Marxists call for perpetual violent revolution,

But he didn't. That's Trotsky, but hypoctically, all this is KM's fault. Christians using the BibIe to justify killing whomever, they are Christians.

you will not find that anything Jesus Christ taught would allow the Inquisition.

The Bible on the other hand as a whoIe gives aII sorts of messages aIIowing for violence.

[Immanuel Can]

No. There's no such thing as "Christian persecution," unless you mean "the persecution of Christians," which is very common worldwide. Nothing that is evil can be genuinely done "in the name of God," just as nothing which is good can be done in service to evil. If a man says he serves God, but does not obey God, he lies. That's obvious.

So, Karl Marx says that nothing that was done by Stalin and Mao was the true Communism.

That's not possible. Marx didn't know Stalin or Mao. What Marx did, though, is call for violent revolution. He didn't define the terms. Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek." You'll be familar with all that. And that is exactly why Karl Marx hated Christianity (which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

So just listen to Marx. He'll tell you how it is. He needed violence...there was no other "revolutionary" possibility. Thus, that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Maduro, Ceauscescu, Mugabe, Kim Jong, Pol Pot, Hoxha, and all the rest became violent and murderous is no mere coincidence. Any Marxist is going to have to employ violence, because Marx taught that violent revolution and conflict are the essential dynamics of historical "progress."

You won't find that any Marxist regime ever did anything different, either.