At the risk of sounding like an anti-semite. Was Hitler really that bad of a guy?
We’ve all heard the stories about concentration camps and mass murders, which are attributed to Hitler’s hatred and bigotry, but could Hitler of been a victim of his envirornment? Shouldn’t we try to avoid demonizing Hitler and really take a look at all the factors that went into his decisions in context?
In “War and Peace”, Tolstoy reveals his theory of history and goes to great lengths to show that Napoleon had no greater of an influence over France’s Empire than anyone else in the entire movement. There were millions of people involved from the homefront to the battle field that seem to play a lesser role than the emperor, but who in Tolstoy’s opinion were just as important to the overall movement as Napoleon himself.
Obviously Napoleon’s role was more notable and well known than any of the other player’s, but he was only at the top because the movement needed him there. A million different circumstances went into his takeover, and Napoleon happened to be at the right time and place for all of them. In other words, he did not independently rise to power and propell the movement, but instead he rose to power because the movement required it of him. The same is true of eveyone else in the movement. They were only in the positions they occupied because they alone were best suited to fill that role. Napolean had the history and background to make him the perfect emperor for the time and place.
Could not the same thing be said about Hitler? There is no doubt that there was evil at the heart of the movement, but should Hitler really be made the scapegoat for what millions of people had a hand in?
I’d love to hear what other people think of this, so don’t be afraid to speak your mind.