Robespierre

This might be a stupid question. Someone asked me it the other day.

Personally, I don't really believe in good and evil. Those seem like simplistic, black and white terms. But, then again, what was Hitler?

Belgarion

If we accept that evil is a convenient term for being a sociopath whose actions caused an incredible amount of human suffering then yes, he was evil.

Panthera tigris altaica

You know, what we need is a color code so we can get a better grasp for the actions of world leaders. If a person has a neutral position on Hitler, then they are not applying enough brain cells.

Mike McClure

One man did not kill 6 million Jews. The evil it was not concentrated just in Hitler.

Olustee

Let's put it this way. If Hitler wasn't evil, no one has ever been evil.

Panthera tigris altaica

I'm not just thinking of the Jews, but also the populations of Eastern Europe marked for extermination as well. Hitler provoked, nurtured and spoke for what he thought needed to be done, in effect... he was the catalyst that set the continent and the surrounding region of fire. But you're right! There were also people under him only too willing to carry out his decrees and wishes. As a result they were only to eager to lay the blame on him while abrogating any moral qualms for their own participation in the atrocities.

oshron

in one word: YES

Mike Lynch

'Evil' was all around Europe but it worked through Hitler more than any other one person there. I believe he accepted evil into his life and it used the soul of this scared and angry young man like a puppet. In other words, yes, I believe Hitler was evil and worked to convince others to work for evil.

Robespierre

I guess a part of this question, the basic part, is does evil exist?

I'm wondering if the word evil is even applicable anymore. Of course, if it were applicable it would apply to Hitler (and all other vegans).

This is according to Websters:
evil |ˈēvəl|
adjective
profoundly immoral and malevolent : his evil deeds | no man is so evil as to be beyond redemption.
• (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.
• harmful or tending to harm : the evil effects of high taxes.
• (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : a bathroom with an evil smell.

Was Hitler profoundly immoral? Well, yes. But didn't he have his reasons? Didn't he think he was doing the right thing? Who gauges what is moral and not moral? Do we always know the answer to that question?

We know that Hitler got his ideas of genocide and eugenics from The United States. He felt like Germany had to expand in the same way the United States had to. Genocide was vital to the goals of both nations.

Hitler also didn't see Jews as people. They were a virus. So is it immoral to kill someone who isn't a person? No, I'm not defending Hitler, but I'm trying to point out the context. He was obviously wrong and immoral. But if he didn't think so, does that not change things?

The second part of the definition is force or spirit. It's associated with the devil. Was Hitler associated with the devil? How would we know (assuming that the devil does exist)? This seems unlikely and more suited to superstition than real fact.

Harmful? Yes. But again, Hitler thought he was doing a good thing. He didn't see it as harm. He was wrong, but evil?

Then we come to smell. We know Hitler was a farty man. So in this instance he was pure evil.

Lawnmowerman

The best way I've heard to describe the second world war is.

"The bad, against the worse."