6 ms·

Dude. The guy lost. You don't have to propagandize against him now. Let it rest.

jbob2000 11y ago
I thought it had a huge slant as well. I get it, the Nazi's did cruel things, but I'm a little leery of articles like this that are so demonizing. Can't we just talk about them as a facet of history?
- sageabilly 11y ago
  It is a facet of history. It's a new fact about one of the most reviled and studied individuals in human history and it places his words and deeds in a new light. It is new information about not only Hitler but the entire Third Reich including everyone from the top down to the troops and as such means that historians might need to reframe everything that's been written about the time period up to this point. Also yes, articles about Nazis tend to have a demonizing slant, for as yet unknown reasons.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The problem with demonizing Nazis is that it makes them seem uniquely evil. But they're not unique. There have been many genocides since the holocaust. And while what they did was certainly evil many of the individuals involved were just regular people.
    - mtdewcmu 11y ago
      My major problem with demonizing Nazis is that it's trite.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      There was an interesting question posed to the straight dope, "before World War II, who occupied the rhetorical role that Hitler occupies today?" (that is, the embodiment of evil on earth). Asking this question is pretty insightful; it becomes clear that Hitler fills the role now more because we need to have somebody in there than because his life was so shocking that everyone's perspective was changed forever after it happened. The answer to the question is also interesting, but a little less so -- at least for the US, it was a biblical reference, "Pharaoh".
    - pvaldes 11y ago
      > The problem with demonizing Nazis is that it makes them seem uniquely evil. "In the air strike, witnesses said patients were burned alive in the crowded hospital of medecins sans frontieres. Among the dead were three children being treated". War crime, last week. Almost 200 patients and employees in the hospital. To talk about how crazy was Hitler this week seems really convenient. Very pleasant and distracting exercise of history. source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKCN0RW0HC20151005 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-afghanistan-att...
- dj_axl 11y ago
  > I'm a little leery of articles like this that are so demonizing Particularly when the article avoids comparison to either modern military drug usage, or allied military drug disbursement at the time. "British troops used 72 million amphetamine tablets in the second world war and the RAF used so many that "Methedrine won the Battle of Britain" according to one report." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alertness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alertness
CPLX 11y ago
> You don't have to propagandize against him now. But I mean the guy is, literally, Hitler.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Okay I laughed at this more than I should, but a hat tip for employing "literally" in a cromulent fashion.

jbob2000 11y ago

I thought it had a huge slant as well. I get it, the Nazi's did cruel things, but I'm a little leery of articles like this that are so demonizing. Can't we just talk about them as a facet of history?

sageabilly 11y ago
It is a facet of history. It's a new fact about one of the most reviled and studied individuals in human history and it places his words and deeds in a new light. It is new information about not only Hitler but the entire Third Reich including everyone from the top down to the troops and as such means that historians might need to reframe everything that's been written about the time period up to this point. Also yes, articles about Nazis tend to have a demonizing slant, for as yet unknown reasons.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The problem with demonizing Nazis is that it makes them seem uniquely evil. But they're not unique. There have been many genocides since the holocaust. And while what they did was certainly evil many of the individuals involved were just regular people.
  - mtdewcmu 11y ago
    My major problem with demonizing Nazis is that it's trite.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    There was an interesting question posed to the straight dope, "before World War II, who occupied the rhetorical role that Hitler occupies today?" (that is, the embodiment of evil on earth). Asking this question is pretty insightful; it becomes clear that Hitler fills the role now more because we need to have somebody in there than because his life was so shocking that everyone's perspective was changed forever after it happened. The answer to the question is also interesting, but a little less so -- at least for the US, it was a biblical reference, "Pharaoh".
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    > The problem with demonizing Nazis is that it makes them seem uniquely evil. "In the air strike, witnesses said patients were burned alive in the crowded hospital of medecins sans frontieres. Among the dead were three children being treated". War crime, last week. Almost 200 patients and employees in the hospital. To talk about how crazy was Hitler this week seems really convenient. Very pleasant and distracting exercise of history. source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-afghanistan-attack-idUSKCN0RW0HC20151005 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-afghanistan-att...
dj_axl 11y ago
> I'm a little leery of articles like this that are so demonizing Particularly when the article avoids comparison to either modern military drug usage, or allied military drug disbursement at the time. "British troops used 72 million amphetamine tablets in the second world war and the RAF used so many that "Methedrine won the Battle of Britain" according to one report." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alertness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alertness

CPLX 11y ago

> You don't have to propagandize against him now. But I mean the guy is, literally, Hitler.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Okay I laughed at this more than I should, but a hat tip for employing "literally" in a cromulent fashion.