Tue 26 Nov, 2002 04:55 pm
This question came to me after reading this
(7th paragraph) and I have yet to make up my mind about this.
Let me know what you think. Of course, this is in NO way a justification of anything Hitler did. I am just wondering if his evil could have left a positive legacy.
The Voltswagen and the Autobahn. That's about it. The architecture of the era was sterile and cold classicism, he had no idea how to handle the industrialist who were making money on the war, he certainly added nothing of any consequence to the art world (his drawings in the early effort of being an artist are also sterile and meaningless)...I could go on and on. There's a reason why he is considered such a monster -- he has virtually no other facets to his personality except the meglomaniacal desire to conquer the world. A one-trick-pony if there ever was one.
But has his monstrosity wrought any positive change? I'm not looking for good things about him but rather good things that came about due to him.
In pure sense, if Hitler hadn't spent his time on earth, what might it be like? Kinda like, don't wish for it-it might not be what you think!
In the distilled sense, no, there is no redeeming social value. Eva Braun certainly had her problems, don't you think?
Maybe Hitler's exhibition of the ultimate of evil showed the world the level of horror and degradation of which man is capable. The problem is, there are people who have not learned the lesson, and risen above it.
A damn pity wallpapering in those days didn't pay more than a measly 4-billion Reichmarks per hour, roughly a nickel.
If Hitler had not been born -or if he had died of influenza, say, at age 28-, things might have gone a little different, but not much.
The rise of authoritarian State regimes in Italy and Germany was a result of a series of historical events that arose from the fact that both countries unifies relatively late, and -together with Japan- arrived relatively late (to England, France and the US) to industrialism.
These countries had to burn stages in order to become competitive in the world, so they developed, since the 19th Century, a more interventionist State and industrial-financial oligopolies. Liberalism -in the European sense of the word- hardly took root, and the Socialist movement was strong and rowdy.
Fascism, and then Nazism, were a political response to both the need of keeping the stage-burning scheme in economic development and the need to vertically control the weary masses.
In that sense, I think German industrialists and financiers would have backed any type of Fascistic movement to prevent social unrest and "chaos". Had it not been Hitler at the helm, it would have been another person.
The thing to ask is whether such a movement would have created the monstruosities deviced by Nazism. One would think it would be "logical" to blame and hasle Jews and other minorities as scapegoats. But there's a big step from that to the Concentration Camps and the Holocaust.
As for the original question, I honestly don't know. The level of cruel madness of the Third Reich may teach us about how far down mankind can go. But it can also give us an alibi: "we'll never be that bad".
I was speaking of any core of any accomplishment that may have had any positive effect in the future. Based on what I had said, that there is nothing to be found in his existance that has resulted in any posivitve effect is still true for me. More build up of a military machine? Not really a positive effect. The end of our isolationism? That was inevitable with or without a war. We'd still have fallen into a Cold War with the communist countries as they had the same idea of "we will bury you." No, no positive effect, just a lot or really bad memories.
Living here in Germany and knowing a bit of history, I can't see any good things to/about him. (Even the Volkswagen and the Autobahn would have been develloped/constructed without him, btw.)
I think, fbaezer got the right direction and an answer, which is much better than I could write.
The fundamental seed for Hittler and the rise of the Nazi party were laid down during the nationalism during the Kaiserreich (emperors time). It was then that people were finding a political identity within identified bounderies.
The weak democracy during the Weimar time, a right wing liberalism, a weak socialism, the fear of communism and a conservative leading majority - any charismatic could have done what Hitler did.
No, to answer the question, I can't see one point, Hitler did that was of any good to us.
Do (lst) World War Reparations have any bearing on what Ash and others above have said. I mean are we entering the metaphysical of 'What If'. Could there have an alternative scenario to Hitler that was the same or worse that what was experienced by Europeans between l933 and l945?
But to get back to reality. As I understand it the Treaty of Versailles imposed reparations on the German economy that was crippling in the short-term and might not have been paid off to the Allies until the l980s/90s. Which would have been worse, the penury of the German people for decades or what actually occurred?
Walter has pointed this out, but Hitler don't get no credit for the Volkswagen--his buddy, Porsche ripped off the Czechs for that one . . .
Craven, It's impossible to prove a negative into a positive. However, with some creative thinking, some may be able to scratch the surface. Looking at the BIG and the small, Hitler was a human monster. What more can be said? c.i.
It's hard to imagine an alternative which would have been worse (unless it had been another Hitler who'd managed to win). And the "he-showed-us-how-bad-we-can-be" argument falls apart a bit, too. Even without him, we'd still have had Stalin and Pol Pot in the past century (and the Ceausescus, and so forth).
Don't hold back, Boss, tell us how you really feel . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Ol Steve just gabs away doesn't he?
......I'm not sure, but didn't the whole war effort sorta' pull the world out of the depression? I believe somewhere there's a valid yes to the topic question, because of that opposite reaction theory.
Booman, think maybe that's what Bush is trying to do? Ah, the ulterior motives of these unPresidents!
Booman, I have been known to string a few words together, but to this question, I think my first answer is sufficient!
The war didn't pull us out of economic depression, the peace which followed did it. When Eisenhower took office, there was a railway strike, a coal mine strike, and the President felt it necessary to impose food price controls. A lot of greedy shits in the American Legion were snapping up available real estate just before the end of the war, and holding out to get rich on the housing market. When Marshall took over the Veterans Administration, the returning soldiers, sailors and marines finally had a friend in the right place, and new housing started to go up--it was badly needed. The boom in the housing industry eventually ended America's economic slump, many years after the war ended. Money spent on wars is just pissed down a bottomless hole.