Is Hitler comically vilified or do you think he deserves all the shit he gets...

is Hitler comically vilified or do you think he deserves all the shit he gets? I'd say considering the scale of the Holocaust his status in the mainstream is pretty fair. What do you guys think?

Other urls found in this thread:

ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=j4PTf7LgsIE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It wasn't that he was more evil than other dictators in history, but rather that we was a 1st world genocidal dictator in the 1940's. You don't expect that kind of evil in modern times in a 1st world country.

From an actual historical perspective, and as how most historians paint him it's completely fair.
As most historians paint him as a fairly evil person, that destroyed Europe, allowed Communism to take hold in Eastern Europe, and killed millions of both civilians and soldiers.

However, the vilification that he receives form both the left, and far-right "as in how they try to claim the far-left vilifies him" is not deserved.
AKA: How many people try to paint him as the most evil person in history, that is completely undeserved.
He's certainly one of the most evil people ever, but there are plenty of others that were more brutal.

Even some of the nazis were objectively more "evil" than Hitler, as they were far sinister.

I think this is the best answer.

The reason why he's comically vilified is that his targets included Jews and Jews are ubiquitous in media and academia.

This portrayal ironically helps to foster neo-nazism because people start to assume he's being lied about on every single thing he actually did wrong.

Umm, other white nations did similar things around that time and nobody cared.. Please explain that.

>The reason why he's comically vilified is that his targets included Jews and Jews are ubiquitous in media and academia.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. I think it has more to do with the fact that he inflicted such barbarity on a first rate western nation. Kinda like how said. We expect these sorts of things to go on in Africa or Asia but when it's right at our doorstep? And on such a mass and industrialized scale? I think it's only normal people take notice

If you are implying the Holodomor I think it's unfair to say people did not care about it. People cared, it's just that something like a famine doesn't capture the public imagination that something like an Auschwitz would, a literal death factory.

Are you talking about France?

The occupation of France wasn't particularly brutal until it was clear they were going to lose the war.

wtf he had people killed during a war what a monster nobody has ever done it before

>The occupation of France wasn't particularly brutal until it was clear they were going to lose the war.

I'm talking about what he inflicted on Germany itself. Take Aktion T4 for instance or the Concentration Camp within the country. Nobody would expect something so brutal in one of the most industrialized countries in the world

>Killing permanently disabled people
I would support that now desu

Not even joking, eugenics was one of the things Hitler's regime got right/

why wouldn't they expect it, they just had a world war few years before

He actually deserves worse. The Nazis aren't vilified enough. In fact, they turned them into cartoonish silly villains and most people don't even know that much about the real Nazis.

Yea they did but WW1 was for the most part a conflict between militaries. The intentional targeting of civilians during WW2 by the Germans on the scale they did it on was unprecedented in the modern world

I don't like how people seem to know only about the holocaust. I've even seen idiots talking how Hitler is responsible for killing "only" 6 million people.

fucking this

one of the saddest facts about history is that people forget about the 6-8 million slavs that were massacred under nazis.

It's mainly because slavs don't control the media from which most people get their info from.

>eugenics = killing disabled people
We're not a stone age society. Proper eugenics would be a long-term and non-violent process.

Why not accelerate it?

*colonizes half the world, enslaves millions, and genocides an entire continent*

Basic human right?

>enslaves millions, and genocides an entire continent

Come on now that's just hyperbole.

Define for me a "human right"

Yeah, but we generally accept the UK's colonial actions as being on the right side of history, as totally inexcusable as they were contextually.

Because civilization, ethics and human decency, which I think are necessary. What actual benefit would we get from killing the most heavily disabled people now? Is the heavy moral stain worth the infinitesimal economic boost?

Enslaves millions isn't, the genocide of an entire continent was mainly after the majority of it became independent in fairness.

ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

The "rights" listed in the first page can and do conflict with each other.

So if you're asking me if something should be designed in accordance with an inconsistent set of ideas my answer is no.

The relatives of the disabled people have their lives overburdened with the maintenance of them.

If you believe in the progression of humanity as a whole, outlawing slavery when it did and hunting down slave ships while slavery continued to be a roaring trade in the east and America is commendable. They didn't need a war to force them to stop killing and enslaving, they decided on it themselves.

so just abort the disabled before theyre born then

He pooped his pants

This is often wrong in first world countries where medical facilities operate said maintance.

That's not really a refutation if the claim made, though. It's a subjective claim that something else is "commendable".

But an objective fact that Britain didn't need a war to stop forcing innocent people to pick cotton, or putting people in ovens.

So instead of burdening a select group of people, burden everyone instead - what an excellent and moral system.

That's not even true though, disabled people live with their families who provide most of the direct care. Middle class people can hire nurses for the dirty stuff like cleaning up shit. But medication, scheduling appointments, driving, feeding, clothing, etc all falls on the relatives in Western countries.

The family doesn't get any joy from it. They're just a burden.

youtube.com/watch?v=j4PTf7LgsIE

WWII wasn't fought to stop putting people in ovens

You're right, I conflated the elderly with the disabled in general, who often are in the care of their own families. But still, what would be the point of killing them? Let's say your dream comes true and every disabled person is murdered. What then? How would the world become better short-term?

Big part of it is the fact that he lost WW2
Everyone hates a loser

>be america
>outlaw slavery because it's morally wrong even if you have to go to war with your own people for it
>be britain
>wait a hundred years until after the slave trade stops being profitable to make sure you've squeezed as much money as possible from it before outlawing it

He didn't lose he came in second.

>Good cheery pick. I'm sure you're the model for the ubermensche right? I love Western civilization, how everybody judges you based on superficial garbage like eye color or what boxes you tick on a census. Who needs God when you abort babies like in Godless Iceland?
1. I don't have to be perfect to advocate this.
2. I didn't mention anything superficial.
3. These people do exist and do nothing but burden everyone around them

>You're right, I conflated the elderly with the disabled in general, who often are in the care of their own families. But still, what would be the point of killing them? Let's say your dream comes true and every disabled person is murdered. What then? How would the world become better short-term?
Nobody would have to wait on them hand and foot to get absolutely nothing in return but hardship, stress, debt, and disgust
>Do basic research
On what? I live next to a home where the wealthy families of medically stable near vegetables dump them. They come by once a month to push them in a wheelchair around the block and then leave after 20 min. They're not living meaningful or fulfilled lives.

Hitler was a sensible person, Vegan. Environmentalist, Anti-Capitalist. He didn't oversee all the bad things the other Nazis did. It's obviously he was just a regular person with strong morals and goals.

Seeing him is as the ultimate evil is just part of the American Foundation myth, since he's the opposite of the Anglo-American globalist project .

Define disabled. What is now a disability can become just a minor disadvantage in the near future, and just an incinvinience after that. For example, would you kill a short-sighted person or a guy with ear damage to preserve the species? No, because those things aren't a problem anymore; you just buy glasses, an audiophone, or get operated (In some countries is even state payed)

>Germany after WW1 was first world
HAHHAHAHA. The dumb dichotomy didn't even exist until after WW2, but even if it did German wouldn't have been "1st world"

Depends on which fighter you ask, but it did take a war to stop them doing it.

But the emancipation proclamation happened two years after the start of the civil war. And if slaves weren't profitable that far back, why was the south still buying them?

Is this what Americans actually believe? Good fucking grief.

You see user, the issue here is that Germany tried to do what Britain, France and Spain did to non-European to other Europeans. I don't care what you think about colonialism but that was a huge fucking no-no, only Germany was autistic enough to take over other European nations (outside of Russian with Poland and Finland)

NOBODY should be comically vilified because it's not accurate historical analysis

So long as you view him as a human being you can view his actions and motivations however you like, within reason