Was Hitler a coward?

Before I answer the question, please define "Coward".

Hitler attacked Polish and later, attacked Russia. He considered himself practically invincible... stupidity and bravery often seem intertwined. In this case, I'd call it more stupidity, but not cowardice.

Was it cowardice to send people to gas chambers? No. But it was evil.

Are we talking physical courage? From what people say here, there is evidence that he was recognized for having physical courage. He did, after all, serve in WWI, and he didn't seem eager to run out of it.

In short, how are we defining cowardice here? Command decisions, physical bravery, or just "He Was Bad so He Was A Coward"?

And as for the Hitler's last days, he and all he knew were about to be captured by the Russians. The Russians were not known for playing nice. They were also known for having a very very powerful hatred for Hitler and the Nazis. I'd think that anyone put into that position would find themselves breaking mentally. Not to mention that he was also under the influence of major uses of dextroamphetamines and similar drugs for so long.
 
Last edited:
Zenskeptical said:
I never once said there was a kind of conspiracy, don't be ignorant and say that there isn't much Pro-Jewish propoganda out there, people looking to bank in on the holocaust, It's evident everywhere.

Again, I stand by the fact that Hitler was great because he helped Germany become a super-power and an incredible economic power after the terrible reperstions they were forced to pay in WW1, without a strong leader like Hitler, i doubt they would have came out of their debt in the time they did. I do not think he needed to massacure an entire race to achieve this and i think it was a terrible thing but imo great is not moral based, just objective achievement based.
Click to expand...

What is a "reperstion"?
 
Zenskeptical said:
I never once said there was a kind of conspiracy, don't be ignorant and say that there isn't much Pro-Jewish propoganda out there, people looking to bank in on the holocaust, It's evident everywhere.

Again, I stand by the fact that Hitler was great because he helped Germany become a super-power and an incredible economic power after the terrible reperstions they were forced to pay in WW1, without a strong leader like Hitler, i doubt they would have came out of their debt in the time they did. I do not think he needed to massacure an entire race to achieve this and i think it was a terrible thing but imo great is not moral based, just objective achievement based.
Click to expand...

I don´t care if Hitler made Germany a super-power and helped them come out of their debt. I literally don´t give a wet fart about it, because he did it for one reason only: so that Germany was in a shape that allowed it to act out his insane, megalomanic, genocidal delusions of conquest.

So, you don´t think he needed to massacre an entire race. The bad thing is, he did. Destroying the jews was integral to his plans and his "greatness". Allowing Germany to be destroyed, when it became obvious even to his warped mind that he could not win, was also integral to his "greatness".

There is nothing positive at all to being the greatest madman of all times.
 
Chaos said:
So, you don´t think he needed to massacre an entire race. The bad thing is, he did. Destroying the jews was integral to his plans and his "greatness".
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much true. Wipe out the undesirables (it wasn't just Jews that died; remember, there were 5 million *others*, and 6 million Jews. That's a big number, and shouldn't go unstated), and you make the country better. To his mind, Jews put all the negatives in society; and in the common German conscious, the undesirables were blamed for Germany's failure during World War 1 (the whole "stabbed in the back" thing).

I think he said that Jews were nothing more than cold calculators, pretty much devoid of souls, and were incapable of truly contributing to society -- in art, in song, or in anything else. In short, a whole heap of utter garbage that he based his entire platform on, from beginning to end.

Radrook said:
There is somehow something cowardly about attacking those whom one considers unable to defend themselves effectively.
Click to expand...
Sure, Russia didn't defend themselves effectively at all... o.O

Once again, define "cowardice" here. I want a clear-cut definition before I continue.

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

http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html
Click to expand...

Well, you quoted a link at me, so therefore I must be wrong, huh?

Aristotle's cool and all that, but I don't accept everything he says as gospel. I'd also say that one man's courage is another man's foolhardiness. You'd be hard-set to prove me wrong, but go ahead if you want to attempt to.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
I have to disagree.

Hitler was elected based on the belief that he's a leader
and a strong person to lead Germany out of an economical
depression, IN CONTRAST TO ELECTING A COWARD.

So the Coward-question makes sense to me. Interested
Skeptics should explore this - even if you dislike the topic.

And it's not my favorite Issue either.

Anyway: My point is that Hitler was a coward.




Blaming others is cowardice without facts. You disagree?
Click to expand...
There was a problem with this logic. Hitler wasn't elected to power... Hell if we really want to be correct Germany was a dictatorship before he came to power. He just took over the dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
IHitler was elected based on the belief that he's a leader and a strong person to lead Germany out of an economical depression, IN CONTRAST TO ELECTING A COWARD.

So the Coward-question makes sense to me. Interested Skeptics should explore this - even if you dislike the topic.
Click to expand...


Hitler was elected based on the belief that he's a leader and a strong person to lead Germany out of an economical (?) depression, IN CONTRAST TO ELECTING A PEDOPHILE.

So the Pedophile-question makes sense to me. Interested Skeptics should explore this - even if you dislike the topic.
 
Radrook said:
There is somehow something cowardly about attacking those whom one considers unable to defend themselves effectively.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about us attacking Hitler in this thread or Hitler attacking people who couldn't fight back?
 
gtc said:
Are you talking about us attacking Hitler in this thread or Hitler attacking people who couldn't fight back?
Click to expand...

I believe Hitler attacking people.

I guess that he has a point, but no commander worth his salt will attack a force at it's strongest. That would be foolhardiness, not courage.

The fact is, Hitler was fighting on several several fronts. Attacking Russia just opened up a new front, which either meant he was foolhardy, or off (or on) his meds.

And I would not equate foolhardiness with "cowardice", personally. But I'm still waiting for a good definition of "cowardice". So far it seems to be, "People I Don't Like", and "Attacking Someone At Their Weakest".
 
Last edited:
gtc said:
Are you talking about us attacking Hitler in this thread or Hitler attacking people who couldn't fight back?
Click to expand...


I was primarily thinking about aggression against unarmed civilians via racist legislation in order to violate their human rights. But it also covers attacking nations known to be militarily unprepared. Would we say that Mike Tyson fighting a lightweight takes bravery or is evidence of his being brave? Can we honestly say that Hitler's declaration of war against the USA was an act of bravery-or was it foolhardiness or rashness instead?
 
Lonewulf said:
I believe Hitler attacking people.

I guess that he has a point, but no commander worth his salt will attack a force at it's strongest. That would be foolhardiness, not courage.

The fact is, Hitler was fighting on several several fronts. Attacking Russia just opened up a new front, which either meant he was foolhardy, or off (or on) his meds.

And I would not equate foolhardiness with "cowardice", personally. But I'm still waiting for a good definition of "cowardice". So far it seems to be, "People I Don't Like", and "Attacking Someone At Their Weakest".
Click to expand...



Well here is one definition:

“To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice”
Confucius

Another definition is ignoble fear. Which demands a definition of what is noble. Which brings up the issue of cultural relativism. Which in turn necessitates a referece to the existence of universally-accepted human rights.


BTW
The danger is in equating foolhardiness with bravery.
 
Was Hitler a coward?

I’d say no, based mostly on his WWI record that . By all accounts I have read his record is accurate and not propaganda.

His only real talent was as a motivator and politician extraordinaire

His military blunders are too lengthy to list without derailing that thread.

But a coward? I don’t think so.
 
MaGZ said:
The fact is if Hitler did not target the Jews you would not care.
Click to expand...

That comment is the product of a particularly ugly world view. You know only one thing about me (but of course that's all that matters) - that I'm Jewish by birth, and have no idea as to whether I have empathy or sympathy with any of the other victims of the master race.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Well here is one definition:

“To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice”
Confucius
Click to expand...
Well, Confucius is another person I don't tend to take the word of as gospel.

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

Another definition is ignoble fear. Which demands a definition of what is noble. Which brings up the issue of cultural relativism.
Click to expand...
Now you're gettin' it.

Which in turn necessitates a referece to the existence of universally-accepted human rights.
Click to expand...
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?

BTW
The danger is in equating foolhardiness with bravery.
Click to expand...
Rush into combat, some will say it's bravery, some will call it foolhardiness. To me, they aren't too far apart.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
Yeah, that's pretty much true. Wipe out the undesirables (it wasn't just Jews that died; remember, there were 5 million *others*, and 6 million Jews. That's a big number, and shouldn't go unstated), and you make the country better. To his mind, Jews put all the negatives in society; and in the common German conscious, the undesirables were blamed for Germany's failure during World War 1 (the whole "stabbed in the back" thing).

I think he said that Jews were nothing more than cold calculators, pretty much devoid of souls, and were incapable of truly contributing to society -- in art, in song, or in anything else. In short, a whole heap of utter garbage that he based his entire platform on, from beginning to end.
Click to expand...

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.

Sure, Russia didn't defend themselves effectively at all... o.O
Click to expand...

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).
 
Don't really know never met him in person al-ah-vy, but I did read in some history book that he timed his most important battles according to astrological events. a more interesting question about him "was Hitler a woo hoo"?
 
Jimmy Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom