Silent Quale
Hell, because of this he was time's man of the year, which is something most people think is just a photoshopped picture.
In 30 to 50 years all of the holocaust survivors will die out and it is my idea that Hitler will take his place alongside other equally radical leaders like Napoleon and Alexander the Great for his actions in helping Germany. Does this make me a bigot that I'm suggesting people will forget about one of the most publicized genocides in human history? Maybe. Then again, there are a hell of a lot of people turning a blind eye to modern slavery and genocide etc...
To my understanding, Hitler wasn't chosen because of his good works for Germany. Time chooses people who "for better or
for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." Certainly Hitler would be recognized more for his bad works in 1938 than for any good he may have done. Look up 1938 and see Hitler's actions in it to decide for yourself.
And the difference between Adolf Hitler and leaders like Alexander the Great or Napoleon is that Alexander and Napoleon had to kill enemy soldiers to take over various countries (not condoning war); Hitler brutally killed, experimented on, and mentally/physically damaged 6,000,000++ people because they were Jewish, Polish, Soviet, Romanian, gypsies, disabled, deformed, a/o disagreed with his opinions.
The fact is, whatever good works Hitler may have done for Germany are vastly overshadowed by his authorization of the torture and murder of 6,000,000+ people throughout Europe. While Hitler may receive a nod in history books (as the Holocaust becomes an older event) for his good works for Germany, I think that his life and political career will always be defined by the Holocaust.
As the winner usually writes the history books, it's probably fair to say, "Well, if Hitler had won, then we'd all be singing praises of how good he was for Germany." But I still think, even if the majority of us thought he was great, that most of us would see his greatest action as the murder of all his opponents and those of "non-Aryan" race. We'd see his "strengthening" (and no, I don't actually think that's what he was doing) of our race as his greatest acheviement, so he'd still be defined by the Holocaust.
Quote:
Oh, and people tend to remember slaughter - see Christopher Columbus.
This is true, but only recently so, I think. Columbus, at least in the U.S., was long acknowledged as the man who discovered America. I don't remember really learning anything about his slaughter of Native American Indians, even though I learned about the Holocaust and Stalin's persecution in the Soviet Union.
Yet just a few weeks ago in my European History class we were discussing Columbus and his impact on the world, and many of us were amazed at the extent of his cruelties. I've noticed that this also seems to come up more than it had before; I think this shows how we're becoming more aware that Columbus did a lot more, and most of it very bad, then finding the Americas. I think it's sad that this is only becoming deemed as important now, and therefore worthy of knowing. It just kinda shows how the winner writes the history book.
100
100
