Misunderstood leaders, famous (and infamous) people, etc...

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Name one person, regardless of fame or infamy, that you feel doesn't deserve my modern society's definition of what the person has been historically characterized as.

Erwin Rommel - A good amount of people would just tell us he was a Nazi, however I find his chivalrous methods of warfare, alongside his demeanour to be a great respresentation of a soldier and a general.

Edgar Allan Poe - I do not find his idea's insane. He was a beautiful writer and only someone who has lived a pampered lifestyle, who has never tried to understand another human being in their darkest moments, cannot relate to him. Yes, I know he is revered in this modern day on some level, but I feel this towards a good amount of horror writer's.
Same with Lovecraft and King, though this is more along the line's of a generalization.

Several Pope's within the Past (Crusade Timeframe) - Europe would have fallen if we had not gone to war. The Churches back then led us to the great and glorious efforts that allowed certain goals such as the Reconquista to be workable.

Adolf Hitler. While he did things nearly everyone with a full head of hair considers "evil", a good deal of Germans at the time thought he was a saint. He did what he thought was right and for the best for his people. Whether he took pleasure in it is a matter for the historians, but in my opinion he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

Molikroth:
Adolf Hitler. While he did things nearly everyone with a full head of hair considers "evil", a good deal of Germans at the time thought he was a saint. He did what he thought was right and for the best for his people. Whether he took pleasure in it is a matter for the historians, but in my opinion he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

Uh...

I'm pretty sure the jewish germans didn't.

The Iron Ninja:
I'm pretty sure the jewish germans didn't.

Note that I didn't make an absolute of the statement. Had I said "Germans at the time thought he was a saint", you'd have made a relevant point. As it is however, you need to read things more carefully.

It was more of a "I don't think these guys would agree with you" kind of statement than a "your statistics are wrong" kind of statement.
No matter what spin you want to put on Hitler, the man is quite simply evil.
I don't think anyone misunderstands him, he essentially caused the deaths of about 6 million people. So there is no basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

Forgot to put my one in.

Actually I can't think of one, any leader who has become infamous is infamous for a reason.

The Iron Ninja:
So there is no basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

My basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled is there in my post. He, and many others, thought he was doing what was best for his people. This is an admirable quality in any leader.

Molikroth:

The Iron Ninja:
So there is no basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

My basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled is there in my post. He, and many others, thought he was doing what was best for his people. This is an admirable quality in any leader.

*points to the bits of the post that you removed from the quote*

I'd say 6 million deaths is a pretty good reason to revile someone, even if they were a good leader.

AgentCLXXXIII:
Name one person, regardless of fame or infamy, that you feel doesn't deserve my modern society's definition of what the person has been historically characterized as.

Molikroth:
but in my opinion he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

Already into the old Hitler argument eh, lads!?

Edgar Allan Poe - I do not find his idea's insane. He was a beautiful writer and only someone who has lived a pampered lifestyle, who has never tried to understand another human being in their darkest moments, cannot relate to him. Yes, I know he is revered in this modern day on some level, but I feel this towards a good amount of horror writer's.

*Writers. But yeah, I totally agree.

The Iron Ninja:
No matter what spin you want to put on Hitler, the man is quite simply evil.
I don't think anyone misunderstands him, he essentially caused the deaths of about 6 million people. So there is no basis for saying he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

He was a great leader; evil man that had others commit evil deeds, that takes quite a bit of leadership
(Now I feel we are on the stomping grouds close to Godwin's Law)
Thread; General Patton or Robert E. Lee

Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

@ Above: Yeah, I like to Godwin. The way I see it, if I choose another historical example in debates I'm going to have to provide a bit of background info along with it, or a wikipedia link. By Godwinning, I've established a premise everyone present understands. To varying degrees, to be sure, but everyone is aware of the basics.

Nazi Ideology was based on the enslavement or extermination of lesser races. Jews, Gypsies and Communists were to be wiped out and Slav's made into slaves. He wasn't doing what was best for his people, he was following his race doctrine with a campaign of war, slavery and genocide. Few people trully understand the horrors of Nazi race doctrine.

fluffylandmine:
Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

Don't dis Clinton. Not being American, or alive at the time, I can safely say the following is about informed as a monkey: He is a legend in his own right.

needausername:

fluffylandmine:
Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

Don't dis Clinton. Not being American, or alive at the time, I can safely say the following is about informed as a monkey: He is a legend in his own right.

I just don't think Clinton did his best. Nixon was a bonkers son-of-a-gun but he did some good and was crazy to the best of his ability.

Clinton is my favorite president but he wasn't the best by any means.

fluffylandmine:

needausername:

fluffylandmine:
Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

Don't dis Clinton. Not being American, or alive at the time, I can safely say the following is about informed as a monkey: He is a legend in his own right.

I just don't think Clinton did his best. Nixon was a bonkers son-of-a-gun but he did some good and was crazy to the best of his ability.

Clinton is my favorite president but he wasn't the best by any means.

Yeah but Clinton did what I would have done in his position. Nothing, except screw around.

R Man - "following his race doctrine with a campaign of war, slavery and genocide" isn't mutually exclusive with wanting what's best for your people.

I will point out now that there is a difference between "Sieg heil!" and "Hitler wasn't the mindless monster people make him out to be".

Look, it's very simple:

Name one person, regardless of fame or infamy, that you feel doesn't deserve my modern society's definition of what the person has been historically characterized as.

Modern society's definition of Hitler?
Evil bastard who caused the deaths of millions.

Is this inaccurate?
No.

Whether he was a good leader or not is irrelevant.

Anyway feel free to bicker and argue without me. I'm off.

*Flies off towards a discussion that isn't going to turn into a flaming shit storm*

needausername:

fluffylandmine:

needausername:

fluffylandmine:
Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

Don't dis Clinton. Not being American, or alive at the time, I can safely say the following is about informed as a monkey: He is a legend in his own right.

I just don't think Clinton did his best. Nixon was a bonkers son-of-a-gun but he did some good and was crazy to the best of his ability.

Clinton is my favorite president but he wasn't the best by any means.

Yeah but Clinton did what I would have done in his position. Nothing, except screw around.

Well why do you think he's my favorite? He didn't go crazy with power though, so I'm a little disappointed in him.

fluffylandmine:

needausername:

fluffylandmine:
Nixon. He was crazy, but he did A better job than Clinton.

Don't dis Clinton. Not being American, or alive at the time, I can safely say the following is about informed as a monkey: He is a legend in his own right.

I just don't think Clinton did his best. Nixon was a bonkers son-of-a-gun but he did some good and was crazy to the best of his ability.

Clinton is my favorite president but he wasn't the best by any means.

Clinton was a good president, he had to do a little more than just show up to do the things he did, such as operating with no deficit (not debt) and a few other things, then you look at what Jr has done and Clinton becomes one of the best presidents in comparison

as for Hitler, he was a wholly evil man, however there was a lot of stuff he did to that was good, such as turning around the german economy and creating the greatest hippie symbol and most recognized car ever the volkswagon

the same goes for Mussolini, a lot of Italians respect him and what he did not so much who he was

I see another hitler thread....

bad rider:
I see another hitler thread....

I can see it now "Why all the hate on Hitler?"

Dammit! I promised I wouldn't come back.
Uh... this is just an illusion!
*does neat trick with a bubble machine for ghostly effects*
You saw nothing...

Molikroth:
R Man - "following his race doctrine with a campaign of war, slavery and genocide" isn't mutually exclusive with wanting what's best for your people.

I will point out now that there is a difference between "Sieg heil!" and "Hitler wasn't the mindless monster people make him out to be".

At the expense of millions of lives. Wanting the best for ones people does not justify the extermination of others. And Hilters war brough death and destruction back on Germany. Hitler was also willing to sacrifice millions of his own men without a second though. He would never abandon any of his conquests no matter the cost.

This thread is about opinions. I provided mine. Repeating yours over and over won't make me agree.

Let's move on.

R Man:
Nazi Ideology was based on the enslavement or extermination of lesser races. Jews, Gypsies and Communists were to be wiped out and Slav's made into slaves. He wasn't doing what was best for his people, he was following his race doctrine with a campaign of war, slavery and genocide. Few people trully understand the horrors of Nazi race doctrine.

BIG DISCLAIMER - I DO NOT THINK HE WAS RIGHT, I DO NOT ENDORSE HIM, I DO NOT THINK OF ANY OF THE EXPLOITED RACES AS SUBSERVIENT

From what i understand (not claiming to be an expert) but his basic ideology seems to include ideas like:
Human lives are worth less that the modern opinion
Multiple lives are still worth less than the state
The state is above all
The ends justify the means
None of which are uncommon and he, and assumingly those who followed him, knew he was doing an evil deed but (to reference death note) that society couldnt continue as it was and that the creation of a utopian world starts with 'brushing the errant turds off the otherwise delicious pie' (refers to big disclaimer). Yes he went about it all wrong and yes those people did not deserve to die but his intention seemed to be good in the end and could, in a perfect mathmatical scenario could have paid off in the future somewhere and the german population related to that. - remember, he was only a leader, germans are not mentionably different to us, they wouldnt follow someone completely evil and to assume otherwise is horribly insulting towards them.

Please no flame.

Also, sorry i cant add another leader here, i just felt that needed to be cleared up.

Molikroth:
Adolf Hitler. While he did things nearly everyone with a full head of hair considers "evil", a good deal of Germans at the time thought he was a saint. He did what he thought was right and for the best for his people. Whether he took pleasure in it is a matter for the historians, but in my opinion he doesn't deserve to be reviled.

There is SO much wrong with what you just typed. Hitler was a monster. He wiped out tens of millions of people with his Nazis. He is up there right next to Pol Pot and Stalin. If he is not to be reviled no one deserves to be.

axia777:

He is up there right next to Pol Pot and Stalin.

These were the two I was going to mention. Sure they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but they were good to their mothers, well mannered and above all, good at chess.

I don't believe anyone deserves to be reviled for having an opinion or acting on it. See the thread I'll link below for more details - I don't want to be responsible for further de-railing this one.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.75343?page=4#874921

elgringobandito:

axia777:

He is up there right next to Pol Pot and Stalin.

These were the two I was going to mention. Sure they were responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but they were good to their mothers, well mannered and above all, good at chess.

ROFL.

Molikroth:
I don't believe anyone deserves to be reviled for having an opinion or acting on it. See the thread I'll link below for more details - I don't want to be responsible for further de-railing this one.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.75343?page=4#874921

But they killed tens of millions of humans. They wiped them out. That is not an opinion. That is mass murder. I am done here, if you don't get that you never will.

Stalin. I love studying Stalin. People think of him as insane, and rightly, but there is another element to his character that gets overlooked. Stalin truly had the capacity and presence of mind for serious and realistic introspection, something Hitler could not match. Hitler had ways of justifying all his actions. Stalin didn't bother.

Stalin was a paranoid, genocidal megalomaniac. And he knew it.

It is a fact that National Socialism killed people, yes, but not a fact that killing is inherently "wrong".

In and of itself, morality is relative. National Socialists believed their killing was right, you believe it is wrong. Neither of you is provably correct or incorrect.

Molikroth:
This thread is about opinions.

But your opinion is wrong if you think Hitler as good.

Molikroth:
It is a fact that National Socialism killed people, yes, but not a fact that killing is inherently "wrong".

In and of itself, morality is relative. National Socialists believed their killing was right, you believe it is wrong. Neither of you is provably correct or incorrect.

What you want is a thread about morality, and there are lots of those. You are not wrong, but that is way outside the scope of this thread. You should suspend your disbelief for a moment, because otherwise the premise of the thread is completely undermined.

The Hitler commotion just had to happen...

Just let others opinion's be and stress your own.

Needausername - it's a matter of opinion. For the record however I am entirely neutral in my opinion of the WWII-era Nationalsozialismus and its actions.

Rooster - yeah, my apologies. I linked to another thread where I hope those open-minded individuals interested in further discussion will go; the de-railing of the thread was unintentional. Perhaps a moderator could split the off-topic content to a new thread.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked