Here is why Hitler wasn't evil(No holocaust denial)

Sep 2012
8,900
India
Hitler did not simply aim for the "vengeance for Germany". His ambition had been growing to the extent of "carving the huge empire" (lebensraum) at last as he kept scoring success in territorial expansion and diplomacy one after another, culminated with the serious desire for the domination of Europe in AD 1940-41. You cannot simply take the perspective of the "common German" to comprehend a man named Adolf Hitler, who was extraordinarily devoted in fulfilling his own dream and imperial glory to seriousness that few German dared to imagine.

He militarized the Rhine frontier, he annexed Austria, then he annexed Czechslovakia, his goal heightened one after another like all those ambitive opportunitists thought. The British appeasement policy further fueled his ambition. The German nationalism was merely a tool in his eyes — the instrument for serving his military and political goals under his lead.

In short, Hitler had gone too far if his goal was merely "avenging for the unjust suffered in Versailles Treaty formulated by victors". In reality, Hitler desired far more beyond this "limited goal" — not only he wished to overturn that unjust, but "reconstruct the entire Europe" by his own term !

He conquered the entire France, Belgium, the Netherland at the western front, and pushed very eastward almost to Moscow, carrying out the militarized rule in occupied area. Are you telling me that such vastness of military conquest was only motivated by the German nationalism called for revenge ? If you call this "revenge", it had gone too far — far beyond the logics !
What is ' Evil ' in the paras 1,2,3,4 above? These are all political ambitions that a politician keen on revenge will take. Does that make Hitler evil? And the O.P. has intended to keep out the Holocaust and the grisly mass murders that Hitler and his Nazis committed. The thread is about Hitler as an Evil person but exclusive of the genocide that he and his lackeys committed.
Apart from the revengeful treaty of Versailles, the factor of appeasement by the European powers at Munich makes Chamberlain, Daladier equally responsible for the nursing and subsequent strengthening of Hitler. If Hitler is to be considered as Evil incarnate then who were these gentlemen? Lackeys of an Evil man bent on revenge? They just divided up Czechoslovakia as if it was a lamb and threw it to the wolf they knew was sitting opposite them. Hitler rightfully called them ' worms '.
 
Last edited:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,292
Brassicaland
What is ' Evil ' in the paras 1,2,3,4 above? These are all political ambitions that a politician keen on revenge will take. Does that make Hitler evil? And the O.P. has intended to keep out the Holocaust and the grisly mass murders that Hitler and his Nazis committed. The thread is about Hitler as an Evil person but exclusive of the genocide that he and his lackeys committed.
Apart from the revengeful treaty of Versailles, the factor of appeasement by the European powers at Munich makes Chamberlain, Daladier equally responsible for the nursing and subsequent strengthening of Hitler. If Hitler is to be considered as Evil incarnate then who were these gentlemen? Lackeys of an Evil man bent on revenge? They just divided up Czechoslovakia as if it was a lamb and threw it to the wolf they knew was sitting opposite them. Hitler rightfully called them ' worms '.
While alternative history novels are not usually good historical references, the Chinese web novel of Red Dawn (赤色黎明) portrays the pre-WW II British Empire as a hollow giant; Chamberlain and his government sought to maintain the hollow British Empire by appeasements.
Was it true that WW II accelerated the downfall of the British Empire?
 
Sep 2012
8,900
India
While alternative history novels are not usually good historical references, the Chinese web novel of Red Dawn (赤色黎明) portrays the pre-WW II British Empire as a hollow giant; Chamberlain and his government sought to maintain the hollow British Empire by appeasements.
Was it true that WW II accelerated the downfall of the British Empire?
I fail to see what is the relationship between the British Empire and the appeasement of Hitler by serving him a large part of Czechoslovakia for his immediate appetite. The British Empire although burdened with a large debt owed to the USA ( inspite of the systematic loot of India), was still quite strong with a formidable navy and in no way hollow. The British and the French politicians at the time were basically cowards and fools who thought that they could pacify Hitler by throwing him a piece of an innocent nation. More Evil than many other predecessors of theirs.
The British Government confessed their inability to ' hold down India ' in the preamble to the Independence of India Act 1947 that their Parliament passed. Whether it was the effect of WW II ( looming bankruptcy )or the strength of the Indian agitation for freedom or the attack by Netaji Subhashchandra Bose in WW II on the eastern periphery of India or the Indian Naval Mutiny or all of these, it is difficult to say.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Zanis
Sep 2012
8,900
India
I disagree. Hitler and Nazism are not comparable to other horrific and evil facets of humanity throughout history. They crossed the boundary of what can be justifiable by the human mind and soul, to the inhuman darkness beyond the pale. The Nazi theory and actions sought to alter humanity itself. Not only through their vile eugenics practices, genocidal, murderous and racist policies, but also by seeking to alter the rules of morality and the very nature of the human spirit, bringing out the worst qualities there can be found within the human soul, accentuating, legitimising and rewarding them. Nazism was not murderous and evil because of a spiteful outbreak of rage, or because of an accidental or collateral damage. It was a premeditated evil, that used all the achievements and trappings of civilisation to forever alter and negate civilisation as we know it. And that, is what was most bone-chilling about it.

Not to repeat myself, my older reply to the OP is relevant towards you as well:
I regard your opinions highly, excepting that the Versailles Treaty did nurse and strengthen Hitler. If Hitler is to be considered as personally Evil ( keeping aside the Genocide as the O.P. says ), he had been strengthened by Versailles. Moreover, the appeasers like Chamberlain and Daladier immensely strengthened and made Hitler rise to an unassailable position in Germany, which I think is a good reason to call them evil, if not vile cowards and fools.
 
Sep 2012
8,900
India
Actions of war are hard to judge, you are right to suggest that; but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to draw distinctions between those that are wrong and unacceptable and those that are permissable. Outside that context, General Dyer's actions were wrong and those who supported them afterwards were wrong, but I am not sure that evil is the right word here, he was not committing a gratuitous act with deliberately malicious intent, any more tham the milita men who carried out the Peterloo Massacre back in England.
Peterloo Massacre - Wikipedia
Many of the unequivocally evil actions of Hitler, notably the mass-murder of Jews and othe 'undesirables' were not actually acts of war. In the invasion of Russia, he was the ultimate fount for orders that led to the murder of great many civilians and the starving of prisoners of war; such things do not fall among acts of war that are at all hard to judge! The Germans drew an explicit and unequivocal contrast between the way in which war was to be conducted in the east and in N. Africa and Western Europe, where the normal conventions of war were to be followed. If the Germans had been successful in drawing their line from Archangel to Astrakhan, plans were drawn up that were deliberately intended to cause mass starvation among the native populations within that line, especially in the cities, which would have resulted in the death of as many as 30 million people. If all of these things are not evil, and if Hitler was not evil as their instigator, we might as well stop using the word alltogether.
The O.P. has deliberately excluded the Holocaust, so my defence of Hitler as not evil could stand. But I had overlooked that monstrosities were committed on non-Jewish populations in Russia, under orders of or interpretations by the toady Himmler and his Einsatzgruppen or the army generals. So, to that extent, I am wrong.
 
Jul 2018
496
Hong Kong
The British and the French politicians at the time were basically cowards and fools who thought that they could pacify Hitler by throwing him a piece of an innocent nation. More Evil than many other predecessors of theirs.
I disagree with you, like the British historian A.J.P Taylor pointed out :

"The historians should disregard appeasement policy operators as fools and cowards, that is unhelpful for comprehending them. They endeavored to utmost in encounter with realistic issues. They realised that they had to accomodate Germany which was independent and powerful into a fittable structure. Their viewpoints were proved correct according to the later experience....Besides, the appeasement policy supporters worried that the Soviet Union would control enormous of territories if Germany crumble. The later development of events proved how correct they were."

Moreover, A,.J.P Taylor argued that the appeasement policy was actually very popular in the contemporary era instead of meeting heavy oppositions with public opinions. Almost every contemporary British and French domestic newspapers praised the AD 1938 Munich Agreement, except the Reynaud News. Obviously, few opined the appeasement policy was "erroneous" that contradicted with their own country's benefits. France and Britain considered their own benefits prior to others. So unless you deem that waging war against Hitler's Nazi Empire was more expedient than pursuing a bloodless peace favoring both sides, you really should not be so reckless to criticize those politicians and ignore their wisdom and effort in doing best as they could.

The last but not least, the British and the French public were already too wearied and highly unwilling to fight another war after witnessing the horrendous carnage of WW1. Unquestionably none of them (perhaps except few politicians lived in great comfort) desired another military clash with the gigantic Germany, and would sincerely espouse any possible peace policy towards Germany. Any serious war planning for mobilization and rearmament would be absolutely unpopular among the majority of populace in Britain and France even the situation necessitated the hardline response to the growing ambition of Hitler — the wound entailed by WW1 was too deep to be mended in short period ; nobody or very few wanted another large-scale armed conflict. If peace was the better solution than war, and Nazi Germany was a nice buffer state utilized for curbing the Soviet Union, and perhaps sacrificing few countries would be sufficient to satisfy the German political aims, why would they risk another bloody war which meant huge financial burden if diplomatic methods was the more beneficial approach ?

In general, appeasement policy was neither cowardice nor foolishness, it was the inevitable product in the wake of WW1 and the rise of the highly-militarized Nazi Germany. It was stupid to be drowned in your hindsight that you're certainly smarter than those British and French politicians by supposing you could make a better choice in their situation.

If Hitler is to be considered as personally Evil ( keeping aside the Genocide as the O.P. says ), he had been strengthened by Versailles.
Don't blame entirely on Versailles for all guilty jobs done by the Germans. Heinz Guderian conducted no war crime during WW2, while many of other German officers, particularly those of Waffen-SS, carried out an astoundingly large number of atrocities with unimaginable horror in scale and vastness encouraged by Hitler. Is this not enough to convince you of how personality affected humanity even under the influence of a same event ? Guderian also aspired to shatter the unjust caused by Versailles to Germany, but he wasn't as evil as Hitler to madness of having a genius idea about the "racial extermination", "Aryan superiority over the rest of ethnics" and "depopulating Slavs for prospering Germans in Eastern Europe" to legitimize the righteousness of waging war upon USSR. THIS is exactly the difference between both German simultaneously impacted by the event known as the Versailles Treaty.

At least not a guy would think that Heinz Guderian was a "evil guy" (and even a "honorable and upright man" for Guderian-fans) while millions assure that Hitler was very evil. Of course, the experience and role of Guderian and Hitler were very different, it's unfair for comparison. Nonetheless, it is one of the best examples for exemplifying that such bright contrast of personality could be founded among those military and politicai leaders in the totalitarian regime even in the age of terror and bloody warfare.

Right now, don't blame everything on the Versailles. Character and personality played their parts in people's mindset.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2017
309
Poland
Not a word on those nice rather anti Nazi German generals who deliberately killed 3.5 millions soviet prisoners of war
that was not evil ?
That's what I'm talking about. Many people say: "Of course, Nazism was bad, but brutal methods were necessary, it was the war of white people against the threat from Asia." Many German soldiers said: "Killing Jews is stupid ... but we must listen to Hitler, because only he fights against the Asians (leaders of other countries do not do this)", etc. Of course, I consider it a sick thesis. Europe could probably defend itself against the USSR without Nazism.
 
Sep 2012
8,900
India
Yes, the treaty was pretty vindictive.

On Germany's inability to pay, at the economic issues coming out of the treaty and leading all way to Hitler, it remains debatable.

One of the reasons of the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr was that (mainly) French recovered extremely difficulty, less than Germans. The occupation might be one of the major/an important factor in triggering the deep crisis in Germany. For example.

Another thing that is pointing how the treaty is overestimated is the extent of radicalization in practically whole Europe, regardless countries being winners or loosers of the war. Confrontation between radical/extreme left and right was more the norm than the exception.

If You look at Europe in the late '30s, democratic regimes became the exception. From Bolshevik running URSS to Nazis running Germany You passed through all the spectrum of authoritarian/dictatorships: military, royal, left, right.
Long time, no see, friend! Anyway happy to see you back! Lack of democratic regimes/parties is no excuse for appeasing the dictators like Hitler and Mussolini ( who attacked innocent Abyssinia ), is there?
 
Sep 2012
8,900
India
I disagree with you, like the British historian A.J.P Taylor pointed out :

"The historians should disregard appeasement policy operators as fools and cowards, that is unhelpful for comprehending them. They endeavored to utmost in encounter with realistic issues. They realised that they had to accomodate Germany which was independent and powerful into a fittable structure. Their viewpoints were proved correct according to the later experience....Besides, the appeasement policy supporters worried that the Soviet Union would control enormous of territories if Germany crumble. The later development of events proved how correct they were."

Moreover, A,.J.P Taylor argued that the appeasement policy was actually very popular in the contemporary era instead of meeting heavy oppositions with public opinions. Almost every contemporary British and French domestic newspapers praised the AD 1938 Munich Agreement, except the Reynaud News. Obviously, few opined the appeasement policy was "erroneous" that contradicted with their own country's benefits. France and Britain considered their own benefits prior to others. So unless you deem that waging war against Hitler's Nazi Empire was more expedient than pursuing a bloodless peace favoring both sides, you really should not be so reckless to criticize those politicians and ignore their wisdom and effort in doing best as they could.

The last but not least, the British and the French public were already too wearied and highly unwilling to fight another war after witnessing the horrendous carnage of WW1. Unquestionably none of them (perhaps except few politicians lived in great comfort) desired another military clash with the gigantic Germany, and would sincerely espouse any possible peace policy towards Germany. Any serious war planning for mobilization and rearmament would be absolutely unpopular among the majority of populace in Britain and France even the situation necessitated the hardline response to the growing ambition of Hitler — the wound entailed by WW1 was too deep to be mended in short period ; nobody or very few wanted another large-scale armed conflict. If peace was the better solution than war, and Nazi Germany was a nice buffer state utilized for curbing the Soviet Union, and perhaps sacrificing few countries would be sufficient to satisfy the German political aims, why would they risk another bloody war which meant huge financial burden if diplomatic methods was the more beneficial approach ?

In general, appeasement policy was neither cowardice nor foolishness, it was the inevitable product in the wake of WW1 and the rise of the highly-militarized Nazi Germany. It was stupid to be drowned in your hindsight that you're certainly smarter than those British and French politicians by supposing you could make a better choice in their situation.
Hitler was highly popular in Germany when because of appeasement at Munich, he got a piece of the Czechoslovak Republic free of cost. Should we consider his policy of gobbling up pieces of other nations by making threatening noises about war as justified because he later became highly popular even in the army? Leaders are to lead nations, whether policies are popular or not and not to do trapeze acts to generate clapping. Do you consider dropping propaganda leaflets over Germany instead of bombs after the war had started as a wise and courageous because this was all that Chamberlain contributed to the victory over Hitler? And this man Chamberlain described Hitler as a man who will keep his word, after Munich! After Munich, Hitler swallowed the rest of Czechoslovakia. If that was not foolishness, what is wisdom?
By the way, you and me, we are all armchair historians!
 
Last edited:
Jul 2018
496
Hong Kong
And this man Chamberlain described Hitler as a man who will keep his word, after Munich! After Munich, Hitler swallowed the rest of Czechoslovakia. If that was not foolishness, what is wisdom?
Of course you could deem yourself wiser than Chamberlain because you know what happened after Munich.

Who could anticipate the German invasion of Poland and the breakout of WW2 in AD 1938 ?
Who could expect that Hitler forged the "non-aggressive pact" with Soviet that gave him immesurable advantage that offset the "huge counterbalance" to Hitler's growing ambition in territorial expansion in AD 1938?

The question of whether adopting appeasement or hardline approach is just like what should Hitler choose between Kiev and Moscow in AD 1941 Operation Barbarossa. There're no "certainly better solution" unless you're the God !