15 ms·

I would hate for people to be looking at Hitler in 100 years going: "Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and th

by Macha 6y ago

I would hate for people to be looking at Hitler in 100 years going: "Well he did these horrible things to Jews, but he did revitalize the German economy and the repercussions of his actions led to the european union and european peace eventually. And the 20th century was such a violent time, standards were different, they had two huge global wars. You had Stalin, Mao, countless african warlords, people were used to cruel dictatorships" There are already people today who look at Hitler as a hero. We don't look kindly on these people.

dash2 6y ago
That's fair, but how about Napoleon? He was viewed as a monster at the time, for starting needless wars that killed (only) tens of thousands. Later on people took a more balanced view. So, Hitler's reputation should not be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean nobody should be rehabilitated.
- ianai 6y ago
  Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead, celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people. People worship has too many negatives.
  - dash2 6y ago
    I think taking a balanced view is a good idea. That involves acknowledging that sometimes individual achievements matter. (On Napoleon's legacy, Scott Alexander has a nice post about a famous paper by Acemoglu and Robinson: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-radical-reform https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-ra...)
    - ianai 6y ago
      Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas worth noting.
- sonthonax 6y ago
  And that’s really the right viewpoint: Monster, Antichrist, etc. Much of the goodwill towards Napoleon’s memory is from the nastier factors of the French psyche.
- DenisM 6y ago
  If Napoleon was hated at the time he would not get his 100 days.
sonthonax 6y ago
However, historical relativism really only makes sense when we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding cliched, our political-moral lens was largely crystallised by the French Revolution, where ideas of universal equality really emerged as a political force. We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. Until something like that happens again, we will probably always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman. Also there’s the problem that Hitler didn’t revitalise the economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn’t even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk. Germany’s economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of the 30s looted by Stalin.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a country that exists today (not people, everyone alive then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting responsibility to make things right today. Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no connection to the present is pointless, except when using it as an example. In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.
  - sonthonax 6y ago
    > I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife. You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you. > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans). > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date. Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself. History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.
BaseS4 6y ago
You shouldn't visit India or the Middle East, then. Hitler demonization is mostly a Western fetish.
redis_mlc 6y ago
You don't seem to have much of a grasp on history. Had Hitler stopped after winning the Battle of France, he would be considered a military genius. And Stalin and Mao saved their countries from literal enslavement. Note that the US helped liberate both Russia and China, despite US Marxists/DNC vilifying the US today as "an evil country."

by Macha 6y ago

dash2 6y ago

That's fair, but how about Napoleon? He was viewed as a monster at the time, for starting needless wars that killed (only) tens of thousands. Later on people took a more balanced view. So, Hitler's reputation should not be rehabilitated, but that doesn't mean nobody should be rehabilitated.

ianai 6y ago
Maybe just don't lionize historical figures. Instead, celebrate good ideas with good outcomes, but not people. People worship has too many negatives.
- dash2 6y ago
  I think taking a balanced view is a good idea. That involves acknowledging that sometimes individual achievements matter. (On Napoleon's legacy, Scott Alexander has a nice post about a famous paper by Acemoglu and Robinson: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-radical-reform https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-consequences-of-ra...)
  - ianai 6y ago
    Individual achievements that matter reflect good ideas worth noting.
sonthonax 6y ago
And that’s really the right viewpoint: Monster, Antichrist, etc. Much of the goodwill towards Napoleon’s memory is from the nastier factors of the French psyche.
DenisM 6y ago
If Napoleon was hated at the time he would not get his 100 days.

sonthonax 6y ago

However, historical relativism really only makes sense when we live in a different moral world. At the risk of sounding cliched, our political-moral lens was largely crystallised by the French Revolution, where ideas of universal equality really emerged as a political force. We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. Until something like that happens again, we will probably always look at Hitler as a historical bogeyman. Also there’s the problem that Hitler didn’t revitalise the economy in as much as he gave the industrialists a temporary victory over social democratic labour unions. Germany was an economic juggernaut in the late 19th century; Hitler wasn’t even that important in ending the massive monetary imbalance caused by the treaty of Versailles, that was a process that was happening anyway. What Hitler did do was murder every remaining dissident trade unionist in the name of the Volk. Germany’s economy was going to grow anyway, Hitler just crushed the moderate socialists only to see all the gains of the 30s looted by Stalin.

chmod775 6y ago
> We don’t criticise Julius Caesar for taking Gaulish slaves; but historians absolutely criticise Napoleon for attempting to reimpose slavery in Haiti. I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. The difference you are seeing is assigning blame to a country that exists today (not people, everyone alive then is already dead now), and implying it has a lasting responsibility to make things right today. Being a critic of actions of a nation with no continuity today is completely pointless. You can be against a type of behavior, but criticizing a specific instance of it with no connection to the present is pointless, except when using it as an example. In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date.
- sonthonax 6y ago
  > I suppose criticize here means to declare morally right or wrong? Of course both were wrong. That goes without saying. Not really, morality changes, and slavery was hardly immoral in the 1st century. It was the law, and laws were divine. In fact, the whole idea of personality morality was framed differently, good deeds and moral behaviours weren’t rewarded in the afterlife. You probably couldn’t debate Cesar about the morality of slavery, he simply wouldn’t understand you. > In any case historians should probably avoid dabbling in morality. Like it or not, history is moral. Without the judgments of narratives it is just record keeping. Early history was indistinguishable from the myths that epitomised the morality of societies: most of us are familiar with the Homeric epics, they were taken as historical until the Middle Ages. The British claimed for a long time they were the descendants of Brutus of Troy (and so did the Romans). > It doesn't mesh well with their subject, because morality is subjective and by letting it seep into their work they give their findings an expiration date. Have you read Livy, Gibbon or Carlyle? They’re certainly not current, and all have enormously different moral viewpoints (which all would be objectionable today), but none are ‘expired’. When you read these you get a first hand insight into the moral viewpoints of the historians, which is as important to our civilisation’s development as the past itself. History is as much the study of the past as it is the study of history itself.

BaseS4 6y ago

You shouldn't visit India or the Middle East, then. Hitler demonization is mostly a Western fetish.

redis_mlc 6y ago

You don't seem to have much of a grasp on history. Had Hitler stopped after winning the Battle of France, he would be considered a military genius. And Stalin and Mao saved their countries from literal enslavement. Note that the US helped liberate both Russia and China, despite US Marxists/DNC vilifying the US today as "an evil country."