My point is that Hitler's actions as Fuhrer outweigh those of his well-intended youth, and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable--the same with most if not all autobiographies of politicians.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable
But does that make anything he said wrong? Were any of the problems he was decrying complete falsehoods conjured from literal nothing? If so, were all of the Germans who came to follow him also just that stupid they believed outright lies based on nothing?
Or do you think journalists actually are people deserving of human rights? Because that's a bold position to take.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
Because your inability to see people saying "he said some stuff that I kinda get" without going screaming about how evil he is is the exact same as a TDS screaming about DRUMPH BAD. The kind of people who'd say Haiti isn't a shithole because he said it was, just because ORANGE BAD.
And because the guy you replied to outright said people's response to Trump is what made him reconsider Hitler, due to the similarities in the narratives surrounding them and people's emotional crying about them.
I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
And WW II ended nearly 80 years ago. I can see now, in real time, Trump being unfairly criticized, in fact persecuted, for all sorts of stupid reasons. My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history, mainly Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
"Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
Literally no one is saying that. People are saying they get what he is saying, and that he spoke some truth. An evil man can still be on point about some shit, that doesn't mean you like him.
My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history
And people are saying they don't trust how history was written, some because they are seeing history written in real time about Trump and how inaccurate it is. If you think Trump won't be written about as a racist insurrectionist who almost destroyed America and that will be taught in history classes, then you are naive.
The "victors" who wrote the history have made themselves untrustable to a lot of people by painting everything in extremes and hyperbole, while also being assholes, so its only natural that people would go back and be shocked to find history isn't quite so black and white and is even relatable.
Because Trump has been painted as the second Hitler and everything about him is maligned. His policies, his tweets, his haircut, how he eats his steak, his businesses, his kids, etc. He is probably the most maligned person in history behind Hitler and Jesus. So it's an apt case study comparison.
Hitler was trying to breath new life into his people. He sincerely loved the German people and wanted them to prosper and reclaim their old glory. I actually find that very admirable. And as someone who frankly doesnt dismiss the notion of Jews at the time trying to bastardize Germany, I can at least sympathize with what he intended to do. Jews do it in the US currently, to this very day. Is it a stretch to suggest they did the same thing in 1930s Germany?
My point is that Hitler's actions as Fuhrer outweigh those of his well-intended youth, and that his purpose in writing his autobiography was to present an image to the public that they would find favorable--the same with most if not all autobiographies of politicians.
What does Trump or my opinion of him have to do with any of this?
But does that make anything he said wrong? Were any of the problems he was decrying complete falsehoods conjured from literal nothing? If so, were all of the Germans who came to follow him also just that stupid they believed outright lies based on nothing?
Or do you think journalists actually are people deserving of human rights? Because that's a bold position to take.
Because your inability to see people saying "he said some stuff that I kinda get" without going screaming about how evil he is is the exact same as a TDS screaming about DRUMPH BAD. The kind of people who'd say Haiti isn't a shithole because he said it was, just because ORANGE BAD.
And because the guy you replied to outright said people's response to Trump is what made him reconsider Hitler, due to the similarities in the narratives surrounding them and people's emotional crying about them.
I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, he was just misunderstood."
And WW II ended nearly 80 years ago. I can see now, in real time, Trump being unfairly criticized, in fact persecuted, for all sorts of stupid reasons. My opinions of Adolph Hitler rely on what I have read in history, mainly Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
Literally no one is saying that. People are saying they get what he is saying, and that he spoke some truth. An evil man can still be on point about some shit, that doesn't mean you like him.
And people are saying they don't trust how history was written, some because they are seeing history written in real time about Trump and how inaccurate it is. If you think Trump won't be written about as a racist insurrectionist who almost destroyed America and that will be taught in history classes, then you are naive.
The "victors" who wrote the history have made themselves untrustable to a lot of people by painting everything in extremes and hyperbole, while also being assholes, so its only natural that people would go back and be shocked to find history isn't quite so black and white and is even relatable.
Because Trump has been painted as the second Hitler and everything about him is maligned. His policies, his tweets, his haircut, how he eats his steak, his businesses, his kids, etc. He is probably the most maligned person in history behind Hitler and Jesus. So it's an apt case study comparison.
But Trump has not begun a world war or given orders to exterminate entire populations of the country.
Trump is unfairly criticized; comparing him to Hitler is idiotic and simple-minded. In what ways has Hitler been unfairly criticized?
Hitler was trying to breath new life into his people. He sincerely loved the German people and wanted them to prosper and reclaim their old glory. I actually find that very admirable. And as someone who frankly doesnt dismiss the notion of Jews at the time trying to bastardize Germany, I can at least sympathize with what he intended to do. Jews do it in the US currently, to this very day. Is it a stretch to suggest they did the same thing in 1930s Germany?