How Does the Left Know Hitler Was Bad??

[Bonnie]

How does the Left know that Hitler is bad?
February 16th, 2005


Recently, a high school student, seventeen-year-old Jeffrey Eden of Charlestown, R.I, Rhode Island won a prominent award, the “Silver Key,” by constructing a diorama comparing President Bush and Adolf Hitler: ''Bush/Hitler and How History Repeats Itself.''

This raises a question for the left: on what basis do you judge that Hitler was bad?

After all, the left does not believe in Judeo-Christian morality, but rather embraces moral relativism. Moral relativism is a philosophy that holds there are no fixed values, that all value judgments on behavior have to be considered within the context of the culture of the times and the society in which they occur. No absolutes for them, as they ridicule George Bush and Ronald Reagan for using the simplistic and embarrassing term "evil" to describe foes.


Jack Kemp
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4262

 

[CivilLiberty]

"Triumph of the Will" won several awards in France before the war. Leni *was* a ground breaking filmmaker. Her film "Olympiad" is breathtaking.

You can easily make the case that Stalin (who is actually credited with 20 million dead, not 11), Pol Pot, and Mau are all "bad/evil". But they were not brought to justice - in other words, they were successful.

While Hitler killed more than some of those mentioned above (over 13 million total) Hitler ultimately failed, and the survivors were able to use his reign of terror as the substance for their own propaganda campaign, which ultimately elevated Hitler to the spotlight and into the collective mindset. This is why he is used for so many comparisons.

What's most interesting is that if Hitler were more moderate about his expansionist policies, he would have no doubt been completely successful. He took a bankrupt nation and made it a world power in a few years. But the high cost of expansionism (coupled with his mounting insanity) led to the spectacular collapse.

The repercussions of the collapse has allowed for the vilification which none off the other world tyrants have experienced.

Andy

 

[Avatar4321]

interesting topic. i never really thought about it that way

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Triumph of the Will" won several awards in France before the war. Leni *was* a ground breaking filmmaker. Her film "Olympiad" is breathtaking.

You can easily make the case that Stalin (who is actually credited with 20 million dead, not 11), Pol Pot, and Mau are all "bad/evil". But they were not brought to justice - in other words, they were successful.

While Hitler killed more than some of those mentioned above (over 13 million total) Hitler ultimately failed, and the survivors were able to use his reign of terror as the substance for their own propaganda campaign, which ultimately elevated Hitler to the spotlight and into the collective mindset. This is why he is used for so many comparisons.

What's most interesting is that if Hitler were more moderate about his expansionist policies, he would have no doubt been completely successful. He took a bankrupt nation and made it a world power in a few years. But the high cost of expansionism (coupled with his mounting insanity) led to the spectacular collapse.

The repercussions of the collapse has allowed for the vilification which none off the other world tyrants have experienced.

Andy

Utter b.s. The real reason for the disparity in villification is that academic libs and journalists love communism. And don't forget the jew lobby.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hold on a second. I need to make another comment here. Civil is saying that Hitler is villified and Stalin is not because Hitler was unsuccesful as a dictator and Stalin was more successful as a dictator. So when people villify hitler, they're villifying his ineffectiveness and not his intentions? If you believe this civil, you are utterly retarded.

 

[freeandfun1]

So when people villify hitler, they're villifying his ineffectiveness and not his intentions? If you believe this civil, you are utterly retarded.

I understand his point. If he had been successful, many would have called him a genius. I totally understand what he is saying. Mao is considered a hero by many socialist leftists. They ignore his cultural revolution, etc. because he was successful at installing communism in China.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I understand his point. If he had been successful, many would have called him a genius. I totally understand what he is saying. Mao is considered a hero by many socialist leftists. They ignore his cultural revolution, etc. because he was successful at installing communism in China.

Mao and Stalin are considered monsters by normal thinking people, not geniuses. Hitler is elevated in history as "the worst dictator" because his victim group was based on race, not income, like the communists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think the point has been made. The left villifies Hitler because of his ineffectiveness. That's not a morally based position.

 

[CivilLiberty]

And don't forget the jew lobby.

Dude. What do you *think* I meant when I said:


"and the survivors were able to use his reign of terror as the substance for their own propaganda campaign,"


Hmmmm?



Andy

 

[freeandfun1]

Mao and Stalin are considered monsters by normal thinking people, not geniuses. Hitler is elevated in history as "the worst dictator" because his victim group was based on race, not income, like the communists.

The key component of your statement is "normal thinking". There are many on the left that love Stalin and Mao and both of them also killed based on race, it is just isn't as well known. Also, look at Europe (heck, the world) today and how many consider the Jews the cause of all the world's problems. If Hitler had been succesful, there never would have been an Israel and therefore, many would assume that what is happening now in the ME would not be going on. In reality, it would though, because with the Jews gone, the Islamofacists would just have turned their attention more ardently on Christians.

The point (and I think you are letting your contempt for CL to get in the way of you seeing something I would think you would agree with) is that successful dictators are held in higher regard by the left than dictators that fail.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Hold on a second. I need to make another comment here. Civil is saying that Hitler is villified and Stalin is not because Hitler was unsuccesful as a dictator and Stalin was more successful as a dictator. So when people villify hitler, they're villifying his ineffectiveness and not his intentions? If you believe this civil, you are utterly retarded.

That's not at all what I said, and I don't know how you can come away thinking that.

A

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The key component of your statement is "normal thinking". There are many on the left that love Stalin and Mao and both of them also killed based on race, it is just isn't as well known. Also, look at Europe (heck, the world) today and how many consider the Jews the cause of all the world's problems. If Hitler had been succesful, there never would have been an Israel and therefore, many would assume that what is happening now in the ME would not be going on. In reality, it would though, because with the Jews gone, the Islamofacists would just have turned their attention more ardently on Christians.

The point (and I think you are letting your contempt for CL to get in the way of you seeing something I would think you would agree with) is that successful dictators are held in higher regard by the left than dictators that fail.

And that has nothing to do with morality. SO civil really did nothing to show the left has a moral compass at all.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I understand his point. If he had been successful, many would have called him a genius. I totally understand what he is saying. Mao is considered a hero by many socialist leftists. They ignore his cultural revolution, etc. because he was successful at installing communism in China.

Yes, exactly what I meant.


Thanks



A

 

[freeandfun1]

And that has nothing to do with morality. SO civil really did nothing to show the left has a moral compass at all.

When has morality ever had anything to do with the decisions of those on the left?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Mao and Stalin are considered monsters by normal thinking people, not geniuses. Hitler is elevated in history as "the worst dictator" because his victim group was based on race, not income, like the communists.

Stalin's "cleansing" was based on RACE/ethnicity, or politics, just like Hitler.

A

 

[Bonnie]

The key component of your statement is "normal thinking". There are many on the left that love Stalin and Mao and both of them also killed based on race, it is just isn't as well known. Also, look at Europe (heck, the world) today and how many consider the Jews the cause of all the world's problems. If Hitler had been succesful, there never would have been an Israel and therefore, many would assume that what is happening now in the ME would not be going on. In reality, it would though, because with the Jews gone, the Islamofacists would just have turned their attention more ardently on Christians.

The point (and I think you are letting your contempt for CL to get in the way of you seeing something I would think you would agree with) is that successful dictators are held in higher regard by the left than dictators that fail.

So to sum up "success is measured in policy achievements as opposed to body counts. Am I understading you correctly?

 

[CivilLiberty]

And that has nothing to do with morality. SO civil really did nothing to show the left has a moral compass at all.

DUDE. I'm not left, and I am not defending the left, nor their "moral compass" or lack thereof.

The point I was making is defining *why* Hitler is so often used instead of *other* dictators and mass murderers.

Among other things, as a writer, you want to make analogies to things that are already collectively understood. Hitler/Nazi are so well understood, it's a very easy, and "politically correct" target. Pol Pot's reign is NOT well understood. In fact, if you mention Pol Pot, most people will assume you're talking about some kind of asian cooking pan, like a WOK.



A

 

[freeandfun1]

So to sum up "success is measured in policy achievements as opposed to body counts. Am I understading you correctly?

By many on the left? Yes. By me? No.

 

[Said1]

So to sum up "success is measured in policy achievements as opposed to body counts. Am I understading you correctly?

In a sense yes. I think Chavez probably has lots of leftist support, and he is a budding tyrant.

 

[Bonnie]

In a sense yes. I think Chavez probably has lots of leftist support, and he is a budding tyrant.

Well true, look as Castro, the left considers him a success even though no one has a car newer than the 1950s, and last I heard his own daughter fears for her life.