How Much Tolerance Should We Have for Hitler?

I read that off of a biography, but IF the people in Germany did hate the Jews, and he was influenced by them at some point in his life, then wouldn't that affect his actions?

You read what in a biography

That Hitler wasn't born in Germany. Do you know if there was something in his childhood that caused him to develop a bias against the Jews? I also read somewhere that he was influenced by someone's written work, which also claimed that the Aryan race was the only pure race, and a few other things to boot.

Sorry, but either it is really a rotten book you were reading or you playing here some sort of foul play: Hitler definately didn't enter Germany before he was 24 years old: only in 1913 Hitler moved to Munich.

Lucifer

Try to get a library card and then read some books there.

Walter, I think he just said that he had already read in a biography that Hitler was not born in Germany, but was wondering whether the German hate of Jews might not have influenced him anyway.

If we sidestep the factual flaw (what, since Hitler didnt actually grow up in Germany), there's a valid enough point in there I'd say. I mean, anti-semitism was widespread in Austria, Germany, across Europe, so obviously he didn't develop his own in isolation, even if he took it to new levels of perversion.

I must admit that, while I voted "mindless pyscho, doesn't deserve to live" in the poll, the cynic in me had almost opted for "It was common for people in Germany at that time to hate the Jews. He just had good public speaking skills" ...

That's what I was getting at. If he was influenced by the society that hates Jews, then it would be considered a norm in that society to do so, but if he were to be in a society that did not hate Jews, then what would happen?

In 1096 knights of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of anti-Semitic violence in France and the Holy Roman Empire, thus doing a kind of "re-start" of anti-semitic attacks, which origianally started in the Hellenistic Age.
Notable are the most famous example of accusations re blood libel by William of Norwich in England.
This was continued with the forced expulsion of Jews from several countries and regions, including England (1290), France (14th century), Germany (1350's), Portugal (1496), Provence (1512), and the Papal States (1569).

And so on ...

An e-resource says Hitler's anti-semitism could have been influenced by that of Karl Lueger.

Perhaps his anti-semtism was influenced by that of Karl Lueger.


[However, Lueger himself was not an anti-Semite and regarded German nationalism with skeptical antipathy. (On the other hand, Lueger did not hesitate to exploit the prevalent anti-Semitic and nationalistic currents in Vienna for his own demagogic purposes.)]


What's your point?

(I wonder, if your "e-source" ever read John Boyer, K. L. and the Viennese Jews, in: Leo Baeck Yearbook 1980 or the same, Political Radicalism in late Imperial Vienna, 1980)

If that were true, then do we know if Hitler's anti-semitism was influenced by someone, or society, or some other external sources, or if his anti-semitism came from his individual self? Did he just wake up and decide that he hated Jews for whatever reason, or did someone tell him about it, or did he read about it?

Is that really an either/or question?

It seems obvious enough to me that he lent (probably both consciously and unconsciously) expansive elements of his anti-semitism (both his ideology and instinctive sentiment) from the long tradition of anti-semitism that had come in waves throughout European history.

It also seems obvious enough to me that he took his anti-semitic sentiments to a maniacal level that suggests some deeply personal disorders; and his anti-semitic ideology to a fanatic and systematic level and political practice that was never before experienced, even with all that tradition.

So Hitler is at once an exponent of a longer tradition of (Central-)European anti-semitism and a unique individual force, which blended whatever traditions were there with something quite of his own making, borne of his own sick mind, into a hateful regime that could, furthermore, thrive specifically thanks to the political and economic conditions of the day.

Its all there. The power of personality, a newly transformed ideology, a long-standing cultural tradition and an acute current socio-economic crisis. Only the coinciding and mixing of all those elements can explain who Hitler was and how he became an allpowerful dictator, instead of just languishing on as the homeless Viennese bum he once was. No sense in trying to reduce the Hitler phenomenon to any specific one of those elements, to try to isolate the one right answer. The larger a phenomenon looms, the less likely it is to have just the one "parent".

So he had a mental disorder? Do we blame him for that, or is it only right to condemn him because of the potential harm he could do to people and society?

Oh I dont know that specifically, thats why I chose my words like I did: ".. that suggests some deeply personal disorders".


I'd say we condemn/blame him for the harm he actually did to people and society. Mental or environment issues may explain things, but they dont necessarily absolve anything.

Well, if we were to consider if he had a mental disorder, then I want to know what people think of that--I mean is it his fault he had a mental disorder? Is it your fault that you have Parkinson's? Is it your fault you get laughed at because you have Down Syndrome? Is it your fault that you can't run and play like the other children can?

I should also add that many of my mentors were certain that Hitler had psychological problems.

The disorder would not be his fault; the mass murder is. No mental disorder necessarily dooms you to commit crimes (let alone systematic mass murder.)

Guess thats why with criminals who have psychiatric problems, those are taken into account in the verdict and its conditions (treatment instead of/in addition to jailtime), but are never taken to actually absolve them of the crime itself.

Do you mean it's because psychopaths don't feel guilt so they can't amend for their crimes?

No - I just don't see how whether he was a psychopath or not, had a mental disorder or not, affects whether or not we can "blame him" for what he did. His crimes against humanity will remain exactly that regardless. But perhaps I'm not quite clear on what your point is.

If a psychopath kills someone, should you blame them, even though they're not aware of it? Psychopaths do not have a consciousness, and cannot feel guilt.