7 Answers | Add Yours
There's really no way to argue that Hitler was good for anyone, but arguing that he was evil vastly oversimplifies it. Did he do horrible, inconceiveable things that brought misery and death to tens of millions of people? Absolutely. But he wasn't born sociopath, no one is. Society and experience produced him, molded and warped him into the maniacal killer he was. You'll never catch me defending Adolf Hitler or being his apologist, but it isn't as simple as good or evil. Almost nothing is.
I completely agree with the previous response. It is too easy to just dismiss Hitler as evil or insane, because it allows us to ignore his popularity and his ability to marshal enormous support for his schemes. Hitler tapped into very deep beliefs of large sections of European society, and he skillfully exploited old hatreds for his own purposes. Hitler's actions were clearly evil, but what makes his rise to power all the more disturbing was that he was not an aberration but the product of the turbulent times in which he lived.
Was it Hitler's fault that Germany lost WWII? In a way yes. It was his fault they got into WWII in the first place. It was also his fault they invaded the USSR and declared war on the US. These are the things that lost them the war and so in that sense it was his fault.
And I concur with the others who say that it is completely impossible to argue that he was in any way a good person. He may have been good at accomplishing certain things, but he was not a good person.
It might be safe to say that Hitler accomplished some good things for Germany, but at a terrible price that no one would willingly pay. He was responsible for the autobahn, the Volkswagen, and saw many Germans own homes for the first time. Even so, this only illustrates the comments made above that Hitler was a very complicated person, and it is not as simple as all bad or all good. Unquestionably, he was a monster whose ill effects vastly exceeded the small good that might have been accomplished.
I can not find any way to reconcile myself to saying Hitler was good. I could agree that as a result of his actions some positive things happened (as mentioned above), but I just can't call him good. I think once you cross the genocide threshold "good" is in your rear mirror permanently.
Hitler was evil. He is responsible for killing many people. Hitler was good at gaining followers, but his plan was as evil as he was. No doubt, he destroyed millions of Jews. There was nothing good about him.
I think Hitler believed he was doing good things for Germany. He truly felt that he was creating a better place. In reality, he made things far worse than better. Many of his grand projects were never finished. Germany was left with the cost of a war and vast devastation rather than a shinning new capital and grand new place in the world. Hitler was very charismatic and he made the people believe that he was doing good things. Of course, we don't consider his actions good anymore. I think to say he was purely evil is too easy. It misses the finer points and brings a false sense of simplicity to the situation.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes