jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (17 posts)

I'd like feedback on my article: Hitler: The Good and the Bad

  1. Sudhir Devapalan profile image86
    Sudhir Devapalanposted 6 days ago

    Hi Hubbers,

    I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my article Hitler: The Good and the Bad. What can I do to improve? Thanks!

    1. theraggededge profile image99
      theraggededgeposted 6 days agoin reply to this

      big_smile big_smile big_smile

      It's a tribute to Hitler. There are hardly any negatives and you attribute most of those to other people. You do realise that he would have wiped your countrymen off the planet if he were able to?

      1. NateB11 profile image94
        NateB11posted 5 days agoin reply to this

        Well, Churchill did a pretty good job of victimizing and brutalizing India, so this might explain why Hitler is not seen as the ultimate villain to the Third World.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 36141.html

  2. Rupert Taylor profile image99
    Rupert Taylorposted 6 days ago

    Where to begin? Where to begin?

    Technically, your images need to be credited and free of copyright restrictions.

    There are also several grammar issues.

    Overwhelming that is the whole thrust of the piece. The man was responsible for the deaths of between 55 million and 80 million people; more than six million murdered in his personally ordered killing factories. For me, any attempt to polish his image as a patriot who only tried to do the best for his country is an obscenity. I'll leave it at that.

  3. FatFreddysCat profile image99
    FatFreddysCatposted 6 days ago

    Anything using the words "Hitler" and "Good" in conjunction with each other is probably not going to pass muster.

  4. Rochelle Frank profile image96
    Rochelle Frankposted 6 days ago

    In another hub you compared Trump to Hitler. Is that a good or a bad thing?

    1. Sudhir Devapalan profile image86
      Sudhir Devapalanposted 5 days agoin reply to this

      Like I said. Antisemitism aside, Hitler was a savior to the German people with his radical changes and reforms. However, his actions were not well received by other countries. The same can be said for Trump.

  5. RTalloni profile image90
    RTalloniposted 6 days ago

    Though one hardly knows where to begin with such a post, your comment "no vices" rings in my head. Um,...?  Murderousness is a rather large a vice.  Making other murderers your friends is a vice.

    Being a good orator, being able to make persuasive arguments is not a positive quality.  How a person uses that ability makes the skill either positive or negative. 

    He did not love Germany, he loved himself and used the people of Germany for his own purposes. Some of those people joined him eagerly, some were forced to be a part of that nation's sad tragedy of their times because doing otherwise would mean they would be killed by their government.

    There is so much wrong with this post that it boggles the mind.  I'm done with it.

  6. Sudhir Devapalan profile image86
    Sudhir Devapalanposted 6 days ago

    I have not stated that he is a good person. I merely mentioned some of his positive qualities. The economy of Germany did boom under his rule. As for killing millions of innocent  people I have no right to justify that and I have not. But the same can be said for other countries. Colonial countries like Britain, France, Dutch, etc fed off the livelihood of the countries they occupied and I can name of number of instances in which they too murdered innocents in cold blood. America dropped the atom bomb on one of the most populated cities in Japan for the purpose of maximum destruction. And Stalin himself murdered millions to rival Hitler himself. However he was part of the allies. I merely wanted to point out that the war was not fought for anything holy but merely for survival. I did not praise Hitler as a Saint but just cleaned up the facts which were manipulated by the Victors.

    As for the article itself. I'm guessing that the content itself would not be acceptable to many. If that's the case I will have to scrap this and rewrite it in a fashion which is more acceptable. I hope you can view that when I'm done.

    1. NateB11 profile image94
      NateB11posted 5 days agoin reply to this

      I love that you said all of that. They needed to hear it. People get pretty self righteous about Hitler, not even slightly acknowledging the atrocities committed by their own countries and others that are supposed to have been the good guys.

      Personally, I'd like to see more unbiased work on Hitler. It is true that the victors spout a lot of propaganda and so you often don't get the full story. Just because someone wants to present the full story doesn't mean they are trying to justify Hitler's actions.

      As far as what colonial powers did in developing countries, you might be familiar with this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 36141.html

      1. Sudhir Devapalan profile image86
        Sudhir Devapalanposted 5 days agoin reply to this

        Very true. The amount of bloodshed caused by the so called liberators of the world is not know. The way we are taught about history is very much biased as you mentioned.

      2. NateB11 profile image94
        NateB11posted 5 days agoin reply to this
  7. Rupert Taylor profile image99
    Rupert Taylorposted 5 days ago

    You are scattering false equivalences to support your argument. The same cannot be said about Trump; despite his multiple and obvious deficiencies he has not industrialized the attempted slaughter of an entire race of people. Neither did colonial administrators, also guilty of numerous barbarities, rival the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and others. Heinous crimes have been committed by many others throughout history; they have no relevance to your thesis.

    Your contention is that Hitler had redeeming qualities that ought to be acknowledged. The objective balance sheet says his vile actions eclipsed his fondness of dogs and children. He was not a saviour of the German people. He caused millions of them to die and their cities to be destroyed. If you want to look for saviours I'd suggest George Marshall, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, and Angela Merkel as candidates.

    Please don't rewrite this piece. Please leave the subject alone and move on to something else.

    1. Sudhir Devapalan profile image86
      Sudhir Devapalanposted 5 days agoin reply to this

      Well that's your opinion. I say that the acts committed by colonial rulers are equal in magnitude to the acts committed by dictators. Once again I do not want to justify the killings. Just provide a different view on the subject.

  8. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 5 days ago

    Yes other people have commuted genocide, that is not a good reason to post a fluff piece on Hitler.

    1. greenmind profile image97
      greenmindposted 5 days agoin reply to this

      Next in the series: "Smallpox: the Good and the Bad"