Thank you Booman. I was beginning to think that perhaps I was the odd-man out on this.
STEVE, I agree with you that the answer is "No." But I think that more than just a simple "No" must be said. As the WWII generation, of which I am a member (born 1932) dies out, and as more books on the life of Hitler are writen, and as the younger generations seek to know about him, there are bound to be questions as to whether there ought not to be a reevaluation of the man and his ideas. There has for years been a neo-Nazi movement. These neo-Nazis obviously believe that Hitler had something to offer. It is necessary, therefore, to be ready to say that Hitler was an indescribably evil man, and that he did not influence the world for good. Younger people will want reasons, not just an authoritarian "No."
BOOMAN, I believe, you are really arguing a different point. It seems to me that you are saying that as an unintended consequence of some of Hitler's actions, some good things have occurred. Well, who could argue that point. That would be true of almost anything that happens. On the other hand, I doubt that you believe that overall, the greater good was served by Hitler's actions.
Or is it possible that you have a philosophy of history wherein you believe that "History" is somehow moved along by purposeful forces? For example, one idea is that God guides history, and that everything that happens is according to His design and purpose. In this case, Hitler may have been his tool to bring about good things on earth by inspiring the "good" to oppose that which was "evil." Or something like that. The Apostle Paul encapsulated one version of this idea in his remark, "All things work together to the good of those who love God." In its ultimate logical extension, this is the "Pollyanna" philosophy that sees good underlying and coming out of everything that happens. Somehow, I doubt that you go this far.
Hazlitt
Explaining why he was "not good for the World in any way", is answering a different question to that asked here.
However I do agree it is important that young people understand why we come to the simple answer, NO.
This is why I find it disturbing when serious works about Hitler are censored by the movie making establishment in Hollywood.
I posted a thread about this some while ago, I would be interested to learn your thoughts, as hardly anyone else has commented!
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1989
It's unfortunate that PC for some people is not necessarily PC for others. If a topic is controversial, it's more the reason that topic should be shared with everybody, and let people come to their own conclusion. That kind of 'censorship' doesn't belong in a democracy. Any subject that advances our knowledge should be shared. What subject under the sun can be too vile, destructive, or unseemly, not to be shared? c.i.
C.I., I'm not sure who you are addressing on the question of P/C. I for one believe in free speech, and that the best antidote to a bad idea is argument against it.
STEVE, I'll look at your other question. I don't know much about that particular incident.
Steve, I didn't know this-thanks for bringing it forward. My guess is not enough time has passed and there are still too many people to remember. I, for one, would like to see all the little triggers that went work and lead to the final product. Of course, I thing we have another in our times - look at Tom DeLay!
As I said before as soon as the name Hitler is invoked, rational discourse goes out of the window. Unfortunately I think this is manipulated by some extremist and militant Jewish/Zionist groups to justify anything the state of Israel does. Its the ultimate trump card to be used against anyone who might call into question the actions of the Jewish state. So I'm not surprised in a way that a film which sheds some light on Hitler's rise to power should be squashed by Hollywood, given the disproportionate Jewish influence in that media.
I have thought quite a while whether or not to post this as some may accuse me of being anti Jewish. But America is the land of free speech is it not? The internet is the medium of free speech, and I am not an anti semite, so...
Steve, politics are politics. Every political sub-entity strives to protect, or at the very least do no harm, to their group. This sometimes is actually the opposite effect. Freedom's guiding principle says that if you bring it into the light of day, truth will be revealed. That doesn't mean you put the schematics of a nuclear triggering device on the Internet-but, to say so and so has a nuclear triggering device is not only acceptable, but required (your entire credibility rides on it).
Freedom is to accept truth and be open to truth. I believe it is 50+ years since WWII, it is time to open the vault(s). I don't believe Hitler did many things that could be thought to be decent. Recent history should not be allowed to be created by neo nazis and other revisionists without full disclaimers and placed in the category with fiction. We even have many history revisionist over the last 26 years who I find intolerable.
If you aren't mean spirited, hateful and is absolutely true, then it is proper. If its on the edge, this is where debate exists -IMHO!
Hazlitt,
..."unintended consequence" is the key phrase.
STEVE, I read your question about the Hitler documentary, and also Lightwizard's link to the Observer article. I see what C.I.s P/C comment was about. I have to say that I know nothing about this particular project or about the various people involved in it, so it is hard for me to comment on the specifics.
In general, I'd say that the more light that is shed on any topic, the better are our chances of understanding what went on. We all recently saw pictures in magazines of at least one painting done by Hitler. I for one was surprised at how accomplished he was. Seeing this makes him seem less like the fumbling paper hanger portrayed by Charlie Chaplin. An image that amused us all at the time of the war and that still sticks in my mind as testimony to Hitler's basic idiocy. It was a pretty effective movie.
Once we start seeing films like the one you are talking about here, there will be everything from serious documentaries to sleazy exploitation material and all shades in between. But it would be good for Hitler to be seen as human instead of as a Satanic figure. As a Satanic figure, he seems almost like someone from another planet. As a Human being with a developmental history, we can see him as an example of what each of us is potentially capable of.
I don't know why that film wasn't made. Did someone squelch it? Did the backers decide it wouldn't make money? It would be interesting to know the full nature of the film, and just what happened.
BOOMAN, I get your meaning.
Hazlett, There was an interesting experiment done at Stanford University about ten years ago on how 'normal' people can become the supporters of a Hitler, and do untold vicious things against their captors. In this experiment, they applied electrical shock to another student in the experiment just from being told they must follow all instructions. When they were told to increase the voltage, they followed that instruction, even though the other student was screaming in pain. What that experiment proved was that almost anybody is prone to follow instructions, no matter how cruel, if you are considered to be in the "superior" position of control. c.i.
Asherman, thank you for the clarification of your position. It would seem that you agree with Booman that good social reform such as the civil rights movement came about at least in part as an unintended consequence of the Nazi era. No argument from me ( unless you are saying that it is therefore a good thing that the Nazis came along and thus benefited the entire world).
Thanks also for your analysis of racism and chauvinism and the parallel development of the enlightenment.
C.I., I recall reading about that but had forgotten it. Yes, there is probably a monster hiding inside all of us.
I am surprised and really rather relieved that no one has (yet) come down on me like a ton of bricks for my comments yesterday. I stick by what I said. I do think some people find it useful to leave Hitler in the "unfathomable evil monster" category and leave it at that. It suits their present day actions.
I love it when communication happens.
Although this is in NO way a justification
of what Hitler did, it IS a profound truth
about mankind that ought to be seen &
recognized, before we go and kill
each other off altogether.
Since Vietnam - I would imagine
there are more female voters than
male voters in the USA. Perhaps
if we allowed the "GIRLS" to have
a shot at things, they may turn out
just a little less gruesome & ugly.
I can picture Hilary in office.
But she really has to ditch the
sex crazed husband. What a dilemma.
But, see how they so balance each
other out - almost like
"ballet dancers"
I'm not sure I can picture "ballet dancers" for the Clintons. It's more like rabbit and hare. c.i.
I suppose he taught us not to give one person too much power.
WWII inspired by Hitler increased degree of American involvement in the Eastern Hemisphere, this may be the only positive result of his ruling.
And technological achievements of the Nazi Germany cannot be reduced to Autobahns and Volkswagen. There were certain developments made in the Nazi Germany that had strong influence on the post-war science and technology: discovery of the possibility of chain reaction by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann in 1939, development of the jet propulsion air plane by Messerschmidt (the famous Me262 fighter), invention of short/medium range ballistic missiles by Werner von Braun (V-1 and V-2), development of the portable anti-tank rockets launcher Panzerfaust (see
Faustpatrone) -- all this surely had positive influence on the post-war technological progress.
