Was Hitler a coward?

[Radrook]

Since the OP never defined "coward", every attempt to answer the question is only adding fuel to the poster's egos (including my own).
Was George Washington very tall? Without outlining what "very tall" means, I am merely baiting folks into responding to a loaded question, and then jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along. I know that even though Washington is not the infuriating figure that Hitler is, my question about Washington's relative height would no doubt have devolved into a frenzy of slave-ownership questions and military questions, as well as well argued statements about nutrition among the classes during Colonial times. My point is that the OP is not answerable without inviting further baiting. This thread was not started as an attempt to hold a discussion, rather it was conceived as an attempt to provoke a fight. Let's all just leave it and get on with the drinking and whoring.

Oh, just me?

Finally some sanity amidst the bedlam. No agreed upon definition, no real discussion of a SINGLE issue but merely a barrage of opinions tossed back and forth under the illusion that everyone is discussing the same thing. It's called equivocation and anyone with a basic knowledge of cogent reasoning is familiar with it and avoids it like a plague since it is a time-wasting futile activity. Of course if you bring it up you run the risk of being called sophomoric. But it's worth the risk.


Actually, when a person refuses to define his term when requested to do so, it is an indication that he or she really isn't interested in discussion but in merely baiting in order to shoot down every answer. This of course is done tongue in cheek and creates the illusion that the baiter knows the true definition of the concept involved. Ask the baiter to provide a definition and panic sets in because his cover is blown, So what does the baiter do? Why. ad hominem, of course. The cloudier the issue the less explanation he has to do ad infinitum.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Jref

No agreed upon definition, no real discussion of a SINGLE issue but merely a barrage of opinions tossed back and forth under the illusion that everyone is discussing the same thing.

Like ships passing by in the dark.

It's a common phenomenon in INTERNET 'discussions'.
In some places more then others.

 

[Metullus]

Suicide can mean different things to different people in different circumstances. After promising the thousand year Reich, then massacreing his own armies in pointless battles and sending children to die rather than face up to the fact that he had screwed up, Hitler was a coward. A clean bullet to the head was much easier to face than what he sent his own people to face.

If Hitler's motive in committing suicide was merely to avoid taking responsibility for his actions I would tend to agree with you. Statements from most of the people who were in the bunker with him and who survived the war tell a different story: that Hitler stated that he would take a weapon and die fighting in the streets except for the possibility that he would be wounded and taken alive and become a war trophy for Stalin. It was for that reason he killed himself and ordered the destruction of his body.

What interests me is that I have found no indication that the witnesses to Hitler's statements in this regard doubted his sincerity, whether they worshiped him or thought him a fool.

 

[Metullus]

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.

Does this not assume that Hitler was railing at Jews not because he in fact believed in their inferiority but merely out of political expediency? If he was just riding the tide of a popular anti-semitism I might well agree with you here, but I do not believe that to be the case. If the extreme anti-semitic beliefs expressed in his writings, in his speeches, and in his policies were indeed his own (as I believe them to be), then I do not think that his adherence to them can be called cowardice. Evil, despicable, unforgivable, base, even demonic, but not cowardly.

Well, Hitler *thought* Russia would be easy pickings, and he wasn´t alone in that... after all, they "knew" that communists can´t do anything effectively, and they "knew" that Slavs were less than human, so how could they have expected the Soviet Union to resist conquest by the "master race"? Hitler, and many of his followers, expected the war in the East to be over before Christmas (1941, that is).

Interestingly, Alan Clark in his (IMHO) excellent book Barbarossa, The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45, suggests that the failure of the Germans to put Stalin out of the war in the summer and fall of 1941 had more to do with the failure of senior field commanders to understand and pursue Hitler's strategy than in a faulty strategic vision on the part of Hitler.

Clark argues that Barbarossa as initially conceived by Hitler was a plan to seek out and destroy Red Army assets in the field, it was not intended as a rush to conquer "places on the map". Clark suggests that after the initial rush to the Stalin Line field commanders started looking to the conquest of territory and prestige targets (Leningrad, Moscow, Kiev) to the detriment of the original strategy (which was to destroy the Red Army.) It was this inconsistency between the original strategic vision and the desire of some of the commanders in the field to pursue their own mid-term military goals that resulted in the overextension of German forces in the late fall of 1941 and thus the ultimate failure of Barbarossa.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Who Is This Man?

Does this not assume that Hitler was railing at Jews not because he in fact believed in their inferiority but merely out of political expediency? If he was just riding the tide of a popular anti-semitism I might well agree with you here, but I do not believe that to be the case. If the extreme anti-semitic beliefs expressed in his writings, in his speeches, and in his policies were indeed his own (as I believe them to be), then I do not think that his adherence to them can be called cowardice. Evil, despicable, unforgivable, base, even demonic, but not cowardly.

Both seem to be true.
IIRC, Hitler is quoted in the Bormann Papers as stating that picking on the Jews was just politics.
A convenient focus for the publics feelings of resentment.
As far as the art of politics was concert AH was very skillful and rational.
At the same time he was undeniably a pathological anti-Semite.

He was a barrel of contradictions, like most humans.

The most horrible thing is that he was human.
Not a freak of nature, or an accident of history.
More then anything else the Third Reich has demonstrated that there must be a monster lurking inside all of us.

Trying to analyse Hitler's psyche has been the hobby of most of the students of that period for more then 60 years.
And the jury is still out.

WWIW, Hitler certainly thought of himself as a hero, in the Wagnerian mold.

 

[Metullus]

Both seem to be true.
IIRC, Hitler is quoted in the Bormann Papers as stating that picking on the Jews was just politics.
A convenient focus for the publics feelings of resentment.
As far as the art of politics was concert AH was very skillful and rational.
At the same time he was undeniably a pathological anti-Semite.

He was a barrel of contradictions, like most humans.

The most horrible thing is that he was human.
Not a freak of nature, or an accident of history.
More then anything else the Third Reich has demonstrated that there must be a monster lurking inside all of us.

Trying to analyse Hitler's psyche has been the hobby of most of the students of that period for more then 60 years.
And the jury is still out.

WWIW, Hitler certainly thought of himself as a hero, in the Wagnerian mold.

By 1938 - 1939 any domestic political benefit accruing to the Nazi regime as a result of the Nuremberg Laws and anti-semitic policies was likely minimal - indeed, I would argued that the continued persecution of Jews during the war years did nothing to benefit Hitler domestically and much to undermine his war effort. That his regime not only continued radical anti-semitic policies but also put into practice the worst of the Holocaust during the war years suggests to me that something more than cynical political opportunism was at play.

 

[a_unique_person]

If Hitler's motive in committing suicide was merely to avoid taking responsibility for his actions I would tend to agree with you. Statements from most of the people who were in the bunker with him and who survived the war tell a different story: that Hitler stated that he would take a weapon and die fighting in the streets except for the possibility that he would be wounded and taken alive and become a war trophy for Stalin. It was for that reason he killed himself and ordered the destruction of his body.

What interests me is that I have found no indication that the witnesses to Hitler's statements in this regard doubted his sincerity, whether they worshiped him or thought him a fool.

That was only because to the end he was so self deluded he thought he could still win the war, moving imaginary armies around maps. That was his cowardice, to not face up to his failure to the German nation and it's people. He should have stood up much earlier and told them to lay down their arms and surrender.

 

[Lonewulf]

Finally some sanity amidst the bedlam.

Ah, so now I'm insane. Ad Hominem attack #2.

No agreed upon definition, no real discussion of a SINGLE issue but merely a barrage of opinions tossed back and forth under the illusion that everyone is discussing the same thing. It's called equivocation and anyone with a basic knowledge of cogent reasoning is familiar with it and avoids it like a plague since it is a time-wasting futile activity. Of course if you bring it up you run the risk of being called sophomoric. But it's worth the risk.

I'm just not sure where I'm equivocating. I challenged you to quote me a single time, but you refused to do so. I do not see where I was equivocating anything. You defined cowardice, and I demonstrated how your definition could apply to other conditions. That you do not want to accept this is rather humorous.

Actually, when a person refuses to define his term when requested to do so, it is an indication that he or she really isn't interested in discussion but in merely baiting in order to shoot down every answer.

Or it's a sign that the person really isn't interested in accusing others of the word in question? Why should I define cowardice if I'm not accusing anyone of it?

You make the claim, you make the definition. I do not understand why it is necessary for me to do the defining for you. Lazy much?

This of course is done tongue in cheek...

Evidence?

Ask the baiter to provide a definition and panic sets in because his cover is blown,

What? "Panic"? "Cover is blown"? Heh. You, my friend, have a lot to learn about me.

Also, evidence? Or are you merely speculating?

So what does the baiter do? Why. ad hominem, of course. The cloudier the issue the less explanation he has to do ad infinitum.

Ah, yes. And calling other people "idiots" is just fine, right?

There's another kind of baiter out there, one that fits you just fine. You see, this is what that baiter does.

At first, they make a claim. Then, when challenged on their claim, they throw out chaff. For instance, they try to get others to define words for them, to try to bait them into an argument. If the other person does not do so, then they claim victory even though they themselves have yet been able to do any defining themselves. Also, they are the types to ignore 99% of a post, focus on 1% that's just a bit cheeky, and then they whine and whine and whine about being persecuted, attacked, and "Ad Hominemed" (even though they are misusing the term "Ad Hominem", go figure. Most of them don't actually understand logical fallacies, so they fling them around non-stop). This is done when they panic, and they yell and scream about how someone doesn't have a real point, and that they can be defeated so easily but just aren't worth your time (for whatever reason). But then the baiter spends so much time whining about the other person and how they're out to get you, that it makes people wonder just where all that time is being spent...

Oh, and as much as they whine about "ad hominems", equating any cheeky comment with a logical fallacy (and ignoring people when it's pointed out how they're wrong -- but baiters always do that, don't they?), they don't mind throwing them out on their own. They throw out terms like "idiot", and then whine when such a term is used against them. Which, of course, demonstrates how little they're worth actually conversing with. And if someone dares to not except every single claim about a person, then suddenly that person is a "hero"... very common baiting tactic, and a good way to get people pissed off. It's also a logical fallacy. Just because someone defends someone, doesn't mean that they love that person or that person is a hero to them.

I think I got your number here.

 

[Metullus]

That was only because to the end he was so self deluded he thought he could still win the war, moving imaginary armies around maps. That was his cowardice, to not face up to his failure to the German nation and it's people. He should have stood up much earlier and told them to lay down their arms and surrender.

He was deluded and he likely was convinced until very near the end that victory was still possible. If we accept that he was convinced of the possibility of turning things around even through April 1945 (a premise to which I tend to adhere - that is that Hitler thought there was still a chance) his reluctance to surrender is understandable - one does not generally surrender when there is hope of victory. If there were cowards in the bunker, and IMO there were more than a few, they were the men in the inner circle who knew the reality of the situation and took no action to stop the destruction.

 

[a_unique_person]

He was deluded and he likely was convinced until very near the end that victory was still possible. If we accept that he was convinced of the possibility of turning things around even through April 1945 (a premise to which I tend to adhere - that is that Hitler thought there was still a chance) his reluctance to surrender is understandable - one does not generally surrender when there is hope of victory. If there were cowards in the bunker, and IMO there were more than a few, they were the men in the inner circle who knew the reality of the situation and took no action to stop the destruction.

Hitler had surrounded himself with yes men. The guys with any courage were pretty well gone with the assasination attempt.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hitler had surrounded himself with yes men. The guys with any courage were pretty well gone with the assasination attempt.

Yeap.

 

[Radrook]

Like ships passing by in the dark.

It's a common phenomenon in INTERNET 'discussions'.
In some places more then others.

I agree based on my own experience. But one does have a certain reasonable expectation that a person who is seeking discussion in order to shed more light on a subject would cooperate in minimizing the phenomenon and not try to perpetuate the misunderstandings by refusing to clearly define his terms. A person doing that casts doubt on his sincerity and comes across as merely seeking ego self gratification via systematically and mindlessly shooting down all opinions based on an undefined term. Which of course is unfair to those giving their opinions since they are not aware which criteria or criterion is being used to disqualify their opinions. That's why I respectfully requested a definition as I clearly explained in my post to Lonewolf who was in the process of requesting opinions, disqualifying them, while keeping his particular definition a secret.

BTW

Actually, when we are unaware of what the criteria being used is, we are unlable to tell whether or not the person is or isn't indeed abiding by his or her own standards. This isn't so far fetched since it regularly happens in statements concerning our governments' foreign policies.

 

[Lonewulf]

Which of course is unfair to those giving their opinions since they are not aware which criteria or criterion is being used to disqualify their opinions.

Only if you're incapable of realizing that it's the same logic you're using that's being used, and not an "invisible definition".

 

[Morrigan]

I thought he was going on your ignore list.

 

[Morrigan]

Was Hitler a coward? Unfortunately no. If he had been then maybe the world would have been spared the horrors of the Second World War.

Painting a caricature of an evil, weak, cowardly monster does not agree with the facts and places us in more danger of allowing his like again than acknowledging that he did have noble qualities like courage.

The reason scumbags like Hitler are so dangerous, and so frightening, is the very fact that they combine a multitude of qualities and are not comic book super villains.

As well as being courageous, he was also good with children and a flirt with a keen sense of humour. He didn't eat meat and didn't smoke.

That doesn't change anything about what he did and why though. You don't somehow become a Hitler fan boy by acknowledging this.

What you acknowledge is that, unfortunately, Hitler was just another human being.

You can't understand him or avoid his like again by pretending he was just a real life version of Dr Evil.

Great post, sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Lonewulf]

I thought he was going on your ignore list.

It's probably best to do that. But I forgot to put him on my ignore list (I mentioned that, I thought... oh well, no one ever seems to read what I say, so I've stopped caring), and his next post inspired me to think that if I could explain in small words, he might understand.

But you're right, I should just do it and be done with it. It's obvious nothing of importance will come from someone like him anyways.

 

[Radrook]

The mistake is to classify a person as cowardly or brave without taking the exceptions or perhaps the predominant character traits into consideration. As humans we tend to be unpredictable and to vary in our responses to challenges or when in the face of danger. True, Hitler was brave in certain respects, yet, he was cowardly in other respects. Which of course is true of most of us. Which of these two characteristics predominated seems to be open to interpretation. Agreement on definition of terms reduces and sometimes totally eliminates the personal interpretation option.


Importance Of Socratic Definition
http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/c/cohen/phil320/socdef.htm

 

[danielk]

Again, Radrook, this wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question:

Radrook, I'm still wondering who exactly you think defended the "Hitler was a coward" thing on grounds of PCness. Care to elaborate? Because I'm confused.

I suspect Radrook has me on ignore, could someone quote me please? It seems we're talking past each other.

ETA: Thanks, Oliver.

 

[Oliver]

Radrook, I'm still wondering who exactly you think defended the "Hitler was a coward" thing on grounds of PCness. Care to elaborate? Because I'm confused.

Again, Radrook, this wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question:

I suspect Radrook has me on ignore, could someone quote me please? It's seems we're talking past each other.

Quoted for Radrook.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by danielk
Radrook, I'm still wondering who exactly you think defended the "Hitler was a coward" thing on grounds of PCness. Care to elaborate? Because I'm confused.

My comment about the PC was based on my misunderstanding of it as and abreviation for personal computer. If there is someone here being guided in his or her views concerning Hitler by a political-correctness agenda I am not aware of it.