Was Hitler a coward?

[Lonewulf]

Which is, IMHO, a form of cowardice. Let me explain: the actual roots of the problems, of having lost WW1, of having suffered the consequences for that, of being in economic trouble, lay, in the end, with the German people themselves... for having tolerate their imperial moron Wilhelm II for so long, if nothing else. Telling people, "look, it was your own fault, so stop whining, and ****ing change they way you act" might have been necessary to actually achieve sustainable long-term change, but it would have made the one who did it extremely unpopular with all those good, righteous patriots all over the country. So, going the easy (and popular) way of blaming the jews was, among other things, extreme political cowardice.

I dunno, maybe.

It just seems like people are working hard to define cowardice in a way that it can apply.

I mean, if they aren't talking about attacking the Russians, then they're quoting some quote from from ancient chinese philosopher who seems to be claiming cowardice in a whole 'nother way. If you can't do it one way, work it in another I guess.

But it's to be expected. People hate Hitler, because he was a monster. But that doesn't make every negative claim against him true.

 

[bigred]

Never underestimate the power of PC. Talk about a monster.

 

[danielk]

Germany was already destroyed post-WWI, he helped make it a superpower in a little time period.

Germany may have been weakened, but it already was the biggest player on continental Europe. Population density trumps in the industrial age. Ironically, Hitler's philosophy aimed at exactly the opposite: more land to spread the German people on. He actually failed to see what should have been a pointy bar sticking in his eye, given his intent to become leader of a powerful state. Also note how Hitler emigrated from Austria to Germany. In a way, it was the country which he be believed to be strong enough to support his aims.

You also conveniently omitted the fact that the "superpower" ended in ruins after a mere twelve years. And that wasn't just due to bad luck, you know. Hitler certainly had some talent, otherwise he would hardly have been able to reach the position he did, and hold it firmly for twelve years. He wasn't, however, a great statesman. My guess is that, if it hadn't been for the East/West conflict, Germany's recovery and integration within Europe (be it the EC or the COMECON) wouldn't have went nearly as well. We got incredibly lucky, really, especially in comparison with the aftermath of WW I.

It's a bit like saying a rookie racing car pilot is the greatest pilot of all time because he was the only one to ever reach 500 km/h while driving through a sharp bend. And then crashed into the stands, killing himself and twenty others instantly, with 200 more trampled to death due to the mass panic that ensued when the stands caught fire.

Stop looking at this issue like ''omg hitler killed jews etc everything he did was bad'', look at it objectively. He was a great leader for Germany, whether you personally do not agree with his ideas is another matter.

See above. You must have a funny definition of "great". Mine includes results, and mean as I am I'll even demand positive results. And I usually don't hand out As for effort to wannabe statesmen.

Also, to the person saying he was weak minded...he had more willpower than you will ever have, he not only led an entire country out of a gigantic depression, but also gave the world a run for its money.

Yup. He was good at that what he did. Or rather, better than his opponents at the time. He was able to play his games with England and France for quite a while. Unfortunately for him, his opponents caught on. It's hard not to wake up when your neighbor finally fires the first shot.

I personally do not agree with his beliefs although i am tired of all the pro-jewish pity me media coverage and the forcing of pro-zionist literature such as Night(which has no place even being called literature) upon students.

I like how the "anti-zionist" facade comes down so quickly every time... Heck this time even in advance of the actual use of the word "zionist"! Must be a new record.

Get an education. You think you got it all figured it out, because you know some people who's view of Hitler is based more on emotion than reason. But you shouldn't only attend the 101 lessons.

For a short but nonetheless excellent introduction which doesn't evade the discussion of Hitler's strengths -- far from it --, try Sebastian Haffner's "Anmerkungen zu Hitler". I'd be surprised if there were no English translation. It's one of the older books on the subject, very concise and written with a conservative mindset, but if anything that only makes it more scathing.

ETA: The Meaning of Hitler, 1983. Translation by Ewald Osers. ISBN 0674557751.

 

[RobRoy]

From Webster's:
1. A person who shows fear or timidity.
2. English dramatist and actor and composer noted for his witty and sophisticated comedies (1899-1973).

Now, I think we can safely say that Hitler does not fit the second definition at all. As for the first, we must prove that Hitler showed timidity or fear. I believe we would be hard-pressed to prove either. Propoganda certainly would not reflect the Fuhrer as timid or showing fear at any time, say after the July 20 Plot. His WWI war record also does not reflect timidity or fear, and his action during WWII, while repugnant, foolish, egotistical or what have you, were certainly not those of a man who was timid. As much as I would like to think of him as a visibily evil man who would cower if confronted, this does not appear to be the case. Cowardess or courage does not make a man good, nor does it make him evil. It is simply one aspect of the whole to be taken into consideration.

 

[a_unique_person]

He also apparently refused to flee Berlin, despite the urgings of many of his inner circle, as the Allies were closing in. Not a coward, I would say.

I think he was too much of a coward to face up to failure, similar to Howard's refusal to resign and let someone else lead the party.

He was also a coward in that he was quite happy to send young teenagers on suicidal attacks in the dying years of the war. He was holed up in deep bunkers, but he let numerous young children die for him.

 

[danielk]

I think he was too much of a coward to face up to failure, similar to Howard's refusal to resign and let someone else lead the party.

Uhm, well, that depends very much on your personal view of suicide. I think suicide does indeed require courage -- for instance, I couldn't do it. Also, in the context of Hitler the idea of "resigning" and "letting someone else lead the party" is, uhm, ludicrous. I think he knew long before that he would go down together with his Reich, and so it came to be. The suicide was absolutely in character, and also something he demanded from his subordinates. Hitler was in rage when he received the news that Friedrich Paulus, commander of the 6th army at Stalingrad, hadn't committed suicide. Certainly, Hitler followed through according to his own convictions.

He was also a coward in that he was quite happy to send young teenagers on suicidal attacks in the dying years of the war. He was holed up in deep bunkers, but he let numerous young children die for him.

Uh, well, this is an often expressed sentiment, but let's face it: it's just silly. There may have been a time where state leaders fought themselves along with their soldiers on the battleground. It may have been heroic, but it sure was a lousy strategy to win a war. Let's not use this argument. There's no need to anyway: it isn't as though we're going to run out of reasonable arguments against Hitler anytime soon.

Hitler was someone who didn't care much about the lives of people -- including his own.

 

[Lonewulf]

Uh, well, this is an often expressed sentiment, but let's face it: it's just silly. There may have been a time where state leaders fought themselves along with their soldiers on the battleground. It may have been heroic, but it sure was a lousy strategy to win a war. Let's not use this argument. There's no need to anyway: it isn't as though we're going to run out of reasonable arguments against Hitler anytime soon.

Hitler was someone who didn't care much about the lives of people -- including his own.

I'll have to agree.

If you judge whether someone's a coward or not by their sending young people out to die for them... then you'd also have to judge the U.S. presidents. My grandfather was sent out to war at the age of 16 (I thought he lied about his age... I was wrong; apparently, he skipped two grades in his studies, so he was able to get in early). Meanwhile, Roosevelt was all snug as a bug in the white house. I don't see Roosevelt going out there and holding a gun on the front lines...

 

[Radrook]

Well, Confucius is another person I don't tend to take the word of as gospel.

In order to be productive a discussion of this type requires an initial agreement on a definition of what is being discussed. Otherwise we will be victims of time-wasting equivocation.

Provide evidence that Hitler "knew" what was "right".

I have a better idea. Why not give us YOUR definition of what cowardice is and then we can either agree or disagree and proceed from based on that.

For example? Hitler may have broken many human rights, but only if you accept the Jews as humans (or non-aryans as humans), and there have been many ignoble abuses of human rights in the U.S. Out of curiosity, were the Founding Fathers cowards? Some of them supported slavery, and if that isn't an abuse of human rights, I'm not sure what is. What about the slaughter of Native Americans?

That all depends on what YOU mean by the word "cowards." Since I don't know what your definition is how am I to avoid equivocation? In any case. The morality or immorality of anyt given behavior isn't dependent on whether the perpetrator knows or doesn't know the damage he is causing. Rape is rape regardless of whether the rapist thinks it is his right to rape or not. Actually what you are introducing is the issue of liability or culpability of the person committing the act. But that's a totally different subject.

Human rights violations against people who are unable to resist can be classified as an act of cowardice. That doesn't mean that the people involved can be clasified as cowards under all circumstances. Simply that they committed acts which due to the helplesseness of the victims can be considered acts of cowardice since such abuses would not have been attempted had the victims had the means to resist in at least a manner considered too costly.
But again, this criteria might not jive with your definition which we as yet have to hear. Pray tell.

Rush into combat, some will say it's bravery, some will call it foolhardiness. To me, they aren't too far apart.

Again it all depends on your definition of both which you have not provided yet unless I missed it in one of your previous posts. Did I?

BTW
Quoting a source does not justify concluding that the quoter considers everything the source says as gospel. That's called hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence. It also constitutes strawman.

 

[Lonewulf]

That all depends on what YOU mean by the word "cowards." Since I don't know what your definition is how am I to avoid equivocation?

I was going by your own definition, not mine. You equated breaking human rights with cowardice. I pointed out how that could point towards the founding fathers.

My "definition" does not matter here, as I am using the definition that you are working with. Personally, I have no vested interest in calling anyone a coward, so I do not care to define the word. I'm not claiming anything, so I don't see why I should work for a claim I am not making nor have no desire to make.

The morality or immorality of anyt given behavior isn't dependent on whether the perpetrator knows or doesn't know the damage he is causing. Rape is rape regardless of whether the rapist thinks it is his right to rape or not.

Thus, slavery is slavery regardless of whether the slaver thinks it is his right to enslave or not. Therefore, if breaking human rights is cowardly, then those that owned slaves were cowards. Thus, by that definition, the founding fathers are cowards.

Human rights violations against people who are unable to resist can be classified as an act of cowardice.

Thus, slavery is an act of cowardice.

That doesn't mean that the people involved can be clasified as cowards under all circumstances.

Under what circumstances can you classify them or not?

Simply that they committed acts which due to the helplesseness of the victims can be considered acts of cowardice since such abuses would not have been attempted had the victims had the means to resist in at least a manner considered too costly.

That... applies to almost any human rights abuse, though. Actually, that applies to any action at all. Consider the bolded. Can you tell me any action, at all, that would be carried out of it was considered "too costly"? If it's too costly, it's too costly... period. If it's an acceptable cost, then therefore it isn't too costly.

But again, this criteria might not jive with your definition which we as yet have to hear. Pray tell.

I'm confused.

Was it not your personal claim that Hitler was a coward, not mine? I have no definition, because I have no claim. Perhaps you should go back and read this conversation from the beginning, so you comprehend that?

Again it all depends on your definition of both which you have not provided yet unless I missed it in one of your previous posts. Did I?

You did. Foolhardiness is when someone commits an action that is seen as unnecessarily brave, to the point of foolishness. Such a perception is relative.

BTW
Quoting a source does not justify concluding that the quoter considers everything the source says as gospel. That's called hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence. It also constitutes strawman.

It's also a strawman to claim that I was claiming that, if I was not. Nice try, though, but you're really reaching here... desperate to show I'm wrong, aren't you?

No, I was responding to the way you quoted a site which quoted some ancient philosopher, and then essentially said, "There, you're wrong."

I'll quote here:

BTW
Foolhardiness and bravery aren't synonymous. One is a vice the other a virtue.

http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html

Essentially, I translate this as:

"By the way, you're wrong. One is one thing, the other thing is another. Here's a quoted site that shows what Aristotle thought. Therefore, I'm right."

Sorry, but that can only work if I accept what Aristotle thought as 100% accurate and not worth questioning. I.E., that would only work if I took Aristotle's word as gospel. I do not. That is why I pointed it out.

Please quote where I said, and I quote you,

the quoter considers everything the source says as gospel

Or else please retract your false statement.




Man, it's hilarious to see the guys that just get out of Philosophy 101 and think that they know everything. It's really fun.

 

[Ocelot]

I personally do not agree with his beliefs

We call that kind of thinking Neonazi in Germany.

Really. I thought you had to agree with nazi beliefs to be a neo nazi. But what do I know.

 

[Ocelot]

I can live with cowards. The question of whether a twice decorated war hero, who went on to commit genocide, can be considered a coward is of little relevance to me. Thank goodness, because if I did care, I might find one positive thing to say about Hitler and then who knows what people might think of me?

I think the important question is was he a spammer?

I can't abide spammers. Their inbox clogging activities, the liberties they take with my identity, the bot nets of zombie pcs they run straining at all kinds of IT resources from bandwidth to memory - thus contributing to the greenhouse effect and the imminent destruction of human society and the deaths of billions. Flogging's too good for them.

Hitler may have died long before the internet or e-mail was even conceived but woe betide anyone who suggests that he wasn't a spammer. How could you dare to find a negative trait and not apply it to the devil incarnate.

 

[Radrook]

snip snip snip

Man, it's hilarious to see the guys that just get out of Philosophy 101 and think that they know everything. It's really fun.

So it's ridicule via ad hominem. Which simply means you don't have a leg to stand on. As far as knowing everything due to taking a basic course in philosophy, maybe-just maybe you are describing your own attitude and your own meager education which becomes more and more evident as you continue to post illogical imbecility's.


My mistake, however. Emotionally loaded subjects such as this attract the irrational and dealing with irrationality is time-wasting. So thanx for taking off the mask and revealing what your real modus operandi is. This way I can avoid you and your posts like I would a plague.

BTW

I could easily logically refute all your claims. But that would only engender more of your unsolicited drivel so Ill pass on that.

 

[Radrook]

....How could you dare to find a negative trait and not apply it to the devil incarnate.

Good point. There is something which causes a feeling of uneasiness in discussing this
fiend and in trying to reason with anyone capable of fanatically defending such a fiend.

 

[danielk]

I could easily logically refute all your claims.

Care to show?

 

[bigred]

Emotionally loaded subjects such as this attract the irrational

That's probably the one thing all can agree on

 

[Lonewulf]

Snip snip snip

Don't have anything to say, Radrook? What's that? Want to go on my ignore list? Okay!

Care to show?

Don't you know? He refuted my entire post by showing a supposed ad hominem.

Case closed. I obviously had no good points. Except for, y'know, the entire post, but he conveniently snipped that away.

I call troll.

 

[Radrook]

Never underestimate the power of PC. Talk about a monster.

Well, that's another point we agree on. People judge us by what we say on the net and if it is monstrous then we will be viewed as monstrous.


BTW

Part of the problem in making headway in this type of subject is premise-recognition-inability which leads to denial. Once premise denial begins further productive discussion becomes exceedingly difficult if not totally useless. One thing I like about Socrates is that he always defined his terms. Once definition was established then, and only then did he proceed to consider the issues. If there is no agreement on definition of what is being discussed, then the participants speak past one another. Essentially, each is speaking about different things based on personal opinion. That's why I requested that Lonewulf give his definition of what cowardice is. I suggest that those who will continue this discussion require that he do so instead of his requiring definitions from others in order to shoot them down because they do not jive with his.

 

[bruto]

I almost agree with Radrook here. That is, I think if it were really important to determine whether Hitler was a coward, then it would be important to be sure what we mean by the term, and to be very sure that our hatred of Hitler does not lead us to bend the term to fit.

As it is, though, I wonder why bother. We know pretty well what Hitler did, and what evil ensued. Would Hitler be more or less monstrous if we resolve this question? I think we're always tempted to try to distance ourselves from someone like this, and hope we can find a way to attribute no virtues at all to him. If only we could prove he was a reptoid, or something bizarrely non-human, we could relax. He's not one of us. But if we're honest about how evil happens, and about the potential for it in all of humanity, we might do better to acknowledge that even a Hitler can have qualities that by themselves would be admirable.

 

[bigred]

As it is, though, I wonder why bother.

Off the top I would say:

- general intresest in Hitler, cowardice on the whole, both, (etc)
- simple curiousity
- boredom
- because this is a message board where people discuss all kinds of topics just for the heck of it

even a Hitler can have qualities that by themselves would be admirable.

Exactly. It doesn't diminish his evil deeds one iota.

 

[Lonewulf]

Did Radrook just say that I'm arguing with him based on "my" definition of Cowardice?

Huh. I could've sworn I JUST SAID, in the post that he conveniently snipped away, that they was dealing primarily and only with his personal definition of cowardice. I brought no other definitions in at all. Weird. I didn't argue from any definition of cowardice at all. Radrook, care to quote where I argued from any definition of cowardice? You were the one that claimed it had to do with breaking human rights; I demonstrated how those claims of cowardice can apply to others. That's not my "personal" definition, genius, that's your definition. Do I need to spell it out? Make a flow chart? Put it in little block letters? Make "Reader Rabbit's Guide to Understanding Arguments"?

Since you've either chosen to ignore my post, that tells me you have so poor reading comprehension as to not be worth anyone's time at all, you're deliberately lying, or... well... you made what is called a "strawman". Which means that, as you said to me:

Which simply means you don't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, I'm glad I forgot to actually put you on my ignore list (I must've been tired or something. Oh well). That was hilarious.

Either way, because

[He doesn't] have a leg to stand on.

, I think I can safely just roll my eyes now.

Oh, and good job picking up Bigred as an ally.

By the way, I greatly look forward to you kicking my ass logically. I can't wait. I've brought front-row tickets and popcorn (extra butter). Not to mention a big-ass cola.

Bring it, logic-slinger. Let's start.

First of all, how am I bringing in my own definition if I use, and only use, the logic of your definition alone? And, if I am using outside logic, can you please quote and explain specifics?

In short, show me exactly where I brought in any personal definition of "coward".

Thank you in advance.

Oh, wait, one other thing:

Just to let you know, since it's obvious that you didn't actually get higher than a C in Philosophy 101: "Ad Hominem" does not deal with direct insults. "Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy where an argument is based entirely on a personal attack. If I said that you were just some 101 Major, and then dismissed your claims, that would be an Ad Hominem. However, if you look at the thread (the stuff you didn't myopically miss with your witty "snip snip snip" comment), you will see 99% argument, 1% insult. That insult does not replace the 99% argument, and in fact was not the basis of any particular logical claim anywhere through the argument. It is not used as the premise for any serious argument throughout the post. If it is not a premise, it is not a fallacy. If it is not used as logic, then it is not used a logical fallacy.

I hope you come away with this with a real understanding of the meaning of "Ad Hominem". Oh, and also: "Strawman" doesn't apply to everytime someone gets what you say wrong. It is possible, that if they truly got your position wrong, that it was not a deliberate attempt at a "strawman", but instead a lack of translation, a communication problem, or similar. Don't be so easy at slinging that term around, either.

I know it's great to score points and demonstrate the size of your e-penis, but don't enter a battle of logic unarmed.