# Do you think Hitler thought he was doing good or knew he was doing evil things?



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

The Shark said:


> Fair points.
> 
> It would be cool if you and I were generals, then we could face off
> 
> Unfortunately I have no grasp of battle tactics, only overarching strategies, so you'd probably win!


You're on.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Dante Scioli said:


> You're on.


That's not the same as real life man! :laughing:

Looking at the screenshots, I love how 'Non-Aggression Pact' is listed as one of the options. If I got this game I would abuse the shit out of that button.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

ildiavolo said:


> Why are people obsessed with Hitler's psyche? I'm genuinely curious. I've seen a lot of threads here solely devoted to an analysis of Hitler. I think one of those threads was even stickied. His motivations for doing what he did are obvious and well-documented. Every now and then, someone likes to emerge with a new spin on things. Like taking an old painting and recoloring it.


I quite agree. As I said before, it gives him more respect than he deserves (which is none). And probably outstrips any historical relevancy. 



muslamicinfidel said:


> I think he believed that the end justifies the means. He had a vision, a noble one, and he was willing to do anything to see that vision come to fruition.


A noble one?


----------



## muslamicinfidel (Aug 2, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> I quite agree. As I said before, it gives him more respect than he deserves (which is none). And probably outstrips any historical relevancy.
> 
> 
> 
> A noble one?


Yeah. He wanted his nation to return to it's former glory. The way he executed this was obviously wrong but it is what it is.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

What about Ernst Thalmann who was Hitler's most feared and biggest political rival? One who nearly created a violent revolution to oust him, revered as an anti-fascist icon today by some being one of the first. Stood strongly for his ideals despite enduring horrific torture when he was falsely accused and imprisoned. Still continuing to operate from inside and having influence by having his letters and writing smuggled out despite his political party being banned:






Aside from that what personality would you type Ernst Thalmann as?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Thälmann


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It was once said Mussolini was speaking words he did not believe, Hitler however was a lunatic and believed all of it. He did what he perceived to be in the interest of the good of his people. Many neo-nazis would deny that there was any intent to kill Jews but simply they were all meant to be displaced from German society. There is no doubt that he thought he was on a moral quest for his people. Other people, it apparently did not matter, they were weak and expendable, they were an intrusion to his paradise of supremacy.


Neo-Nazis have lately been developing their propaganda and deceptive tactics. Remember this quote from Hitler, it pretty much should have already warned all of us about holocaust denial: *"It is not truth that matters, but victory."* ~Adolf Hitler

He imprisoned his biggest political rival who nearly made a violent overthrow to oust him by using deception.


----------



## InfiniteBliss (Aug 1, 2013)

Osama Bin Laden believed he was doing good as well


----------



## Maedalaane (Jan 20, 2015)

I think he thought he was doing good, but what I _know_ is that it's mighty fishy that Anne Frank's diary was written with a ballpoint pen when the patent for those pens didn't exist at that point in time.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Killionaire said:


> Yes Hitler was trying to save Germany from Jews because Jews were trying to communize and enslave Germany just like they did to Russia. The Jewish bolsheviks were the ones who communized Russia, killed 50 million innocent Russians, and tortured and enslaved Russians. Jewish bankers paid 1 billion dollars to finance the revolution in Russia. So hell yes he was trying to save his own people from the same thing happening to them. There was already a jewish-led communist revolution in between WW1 and WW2 in Germany, which the freikorps (free soldiers) were able to put down. Rosa Luxemberg was one of the main jewish-communist leaders and she was killed for trying to communize Germany. You also have to remember that Germany was very afraid of the huge Soviet Union coming over and waging war against western Europe to communize it. Remember it WAS the official outspoken communist goal to communize the entire world.
> 
> There wasn't any jewish holocaust. It's a lie. They were just put in concentration camps and some of them died of diseases. The largest number of jews who died in WW2 were soldiers in armies that fought against Germany. If Hitler wanted to kill all the jews then why did he allow so many of them to escape from Germany? There are many videos on Youtube proving the holocaust is a lie.
> 
> Learn about real history instead of just watching propaganda and lies on TV.


An anti-semitic liar I see (and possible a nazi). Stop reading and listening to propaganda and do your own research and think for yourself, practice what you preach. Also communists and nazis worked together for a while during ww2. It was also a nazi goal to nazify the world.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Fenrisulfr said:


> What is good? What is evil? We define these two conceptions by their reflections to our society. What is the difference between murder and killing somebody at war? Why the murder seen as something horrid and evil, while the other one mostly seen as something honourable? Aren't the two are same? Now this is the Achilles' heel of justice. Whatever you do, if you can make it seem as something beneficial to the society it will no longer be seen as something evil.
> 
> Now, if we come to your question. Yes, Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin or any person who once did something 'evil' probably thought that they are doing the right thing. Just think with his point of view. Think about the state of Germany after World War I. People were living in hard times and they were asking themselves what or who caused their current situation.
> 
> “The world is always a democracy in times of flux, and the man with the best voice will win.”


Good and evil aren't societal, that's been disproven again and again, get with the program please.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Like every individual (except some seriously mentally ill ones) he was aware he was doing objectively evil things, but like every individual he had his reasons to explain it as necessary or acceptable. For him jews were evil and dangerous so it makes sense to kill them right ? We see that kind of mentally to this day: murderers should be executed, terrorists (and the unfortunate innocents nearby) should be bombed; persons of certain creeds, opinions, sexual orientation, or just seemingly weird, queer or whatever should be "indoctrinated" into prim and proper kinds of human being that reflect the consensual way of thinking.

Good or evil doesn't matter because people are aware of how unyielding reality is, and to attain certain outcomes you need to make concessions to your ethics. It is as much commonly known that the more ruthless you are and the more effective you become at realizing your objectives. But there are consequences to such savagery, you might make it okay to yourself to be evil, you might convince yourself that you are doing "good" in a roundabout way, but the effects you have on others and your environment are real and very grim indeed.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

Hitler thought he was the bee's knees.

...but know he's dead.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

One of the several books I'm reading on and off again in fragments (the only way I read these days) is a biography of Hitler. From what I have read of it, there is no doubt in my mind that he thought he was doing right. What I find tragic about the whole thing is that in his youth he was a highly intelligent, creative, passionate visionary, and he had enormous potential to do good for the world. Yet he used that potential to do the opposite, all the while never realizing it. Hitler's fucked up-ness largely stemmed from his childhood abuse at the hands of his fiercely authoritarian father. This upbringing combined with his experiences as a vagrant in Vienna and his service in WW1, both of which led to his right-wing radicalization and antisemitism, created the monster. But he was hardly the only one in Germany at the time who held such views and had such a strict childhood. It was his exceptional intelligence and his serious, intense, ferociously determined personality that allowed him to go as far as he did. So anyone who tells you that if it wasn't Hitler it would have been someone else, like he was an unexceptional and easily replacable figure in history, is full of it. And so is anyone who says he was just some kind of ridiculously evil maniac, like some kind of saturday morning cartoon villain. He was all too human, and that's the scariest part that we don't like to confront.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

Faey said:


> I think he thought he was doing good, but what I _know_ is that it's mighty fishy that Anne Frank's diary was written with a ballpoint pen when the patent for those pens didn't exist at that point in time.


Refer to question 4:

http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.pdf

And please, never again pay any attention to the claims of holocaust deniers. Literally every single one of them is either a neo-Nazi or an idiot who has been played by neo-Nazis.


----------



## Maedalaane (Jan 20, 2015)

ENTPness said:


> Refer to question 4:
> 
> http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.pdf
> 
> And please, never again pay any attention to the claims of holocaust deniers. Literally every single one of them is either a neo-Nazi or an idiot who has been played by neo-Nazis.


_Of course_ you'll have that view if you cite the very organization in question. It's tantamount to asking a thief if he stole something - of course they'll say no. Going directly to the accused to ask them about an accusation against them. Doesn't mean they'll inherently lie, especially if they have nothing to hide, but it's the *principle* of that act rather than the scenario.

An effective reprimanding would have been, _at the very least_, a link to a study by a third party.


----------



## Fenrisulfr (Jun 24, 2015)

SuperDevastation said:


> Good and evil aren't societal, that's been disproven again and again, get with the program please.


That wasn't what I meant. But I understand that one can has that kind of misunderstanding if he believes that humans are free of their own instincts in decision-making.


----------



## WorldzMine (Sep 9, 2014)

Hitler and the Nazi's were the ultimate product of the bad philosophies that have moved the world for the last ~150 years (and essentially since Plato) and where we are headed again if things don't improve. They were Nihilists/Relativists/Subjectivists in the truest meanings of these concepts and all that implied. They had no concept of the good so the question is moot.

The following is a short introduction to why.



> Fascism/Nazism
> 
> 
> The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.
> ...





> If the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty, then Nazism in politics was a form of statism. In principle, it did not represent a new approach to government; it was a continuation of the political absolutism—the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies—which has characterized most of human history.
> 
> In degree, however, the total state does differ from its predecessors: it represents statism pressed to its limits, in theory and in practice, devouring the last remnants of the individual. Although previous dictators (and many today, e.g., in Latin America) often preached the unlimited power of the state, they were on the whole unable to enforce such power. As a rule, citizens of such countries had a kind of partial “freedom,” not a freedom-on-principle, but at least a freedom-by-default.
> 
> ...





> Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation’s economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property—so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.
> 
> If “ownership” means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.
> 
> ...





> It took centuries and a brain-stopping chain of falsehoods to bring a whole people to the state of Hitler-worship. Modern German culture, including its Nazi climax, is the result of a complex development in the history of philosophy, involving dozens of figures stretching back to the beginnings of Western thought. The same figures helped to shape every Western nation; but in other countries, to varying extents, the results were mixed, because there was also an opposite influence or antidote at work. In Germany, by the turn of our century, the cultural atmosphere was unmixed; the traces of the antidote had long since disappeared, and the intellectual establishment was monolithic.
> 
> If we view the West’s philosophic development in terms of essentials, three fateful turning points stand out, three major philosophers who, above all others, are responsible for generating the disease of collectivism and transmitting it to the dictators of our century.
> 
> ...





> No weird cultural aberration produced Nazism. No intellectual lunatic fringe miraculously overwhelmed a civilized country. It is modern philosophy—not some peripheral aspect of it, but the most central of its mainstreams—which turned the Germans into a nation of killers.
> 
> The land of poets and philosophers was brought down by its poets and philosophers.
> 
> ...





> I have stated repeatedly that the trend in this country is toward a fascist system with communist slogans. But what all of today’s pressure groups are busy evading is the fact that neither business nor labor nor anyone else, except the ruling clique, gains anything under fascism or communism or any form of statism—that all become victims of an impartial, egalitarian destruction.
> 
> “The Moratorium on Brains,”
> The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 3, 3





> Good, the
> 
> 
> All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.
> ...





> For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
> 
> Galt’s Speech,
> For the New Intellectual, 120





> There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.
> 
> The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Pippi (Dec 24, 2016)

He knew he was doing evil shit.


----------



## Sayyida (Dec 13, 2018)

I'm not a WWII expert from what I've seen and read over the years I think Hitler believed he was doing the right thing in a big picture the ends justifies the means way. Some of the people under Hitler, high ranking SS members, were more traditionally evil and sadistic, like Mengele.


----------



## ENIGMA2019 (Jun 1, 2015)

He had issues and was CRANKED up on a concoction of drugs that was portrayed as something else.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Occultists like Hitler (and to a lesser extent, Charles Manson) always justify evil in the name of some ideological "greater good." To them, good and evil are relative. They're more concerned with order and chaos. When occultists utilize chaos, it's always as a means to an end, never an end unto itself. Their goal is always to establish and maintain their vision of utopian "order" and Hitler was no exception. Yes, in his mind, he was a harbinger of "utopia" (which looks like "dystopia" to us non-occultists). If _that's_ "order," I'd rather have chaos.


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

Gloria Germanica said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 
> In Hitler's case, it was justified, because he was a good guy. He tried to solve problems we're still dealing with today. He just didn't get enough time.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

I think everyone has to deal with that notion at some point or another - Realizing that most people think what they do is good, and the more certain they are the more likely they are to do harm in its name, and recognizing that if everyone else can justify themselves no matter how horrible what they are doing is, and thus acknowledge the need to always question your own justifications and find a merit to them beyond what feels right to you. It's a critical step in anyone's basic ethical development. 

...Kind of wish the poll would have worked.


----------



## ShashaCruz (Jul 20, 2018)

him think he is perfect same as most warmongers


----------

