Why is Hitler considered the ultimate evil, when we did just as bad to Natives?

Current Events

Page of 3
Current Events » Why is Hitler considered the ultimate evil, when we did just as bad to Natives?
Mibahlzitch posted...
I certainly didn't, I wasnt alive then. But you're right that the US government should be called out for its history. It's not spoken of enough and there should be considerable reperations including return of territory.

Our current government feels differently, erasing all knowledge on the horrible things out ancestors have done
"I dreamt I was a moron."
Charged151 posted...
I also thought it was informative as well. Only thing missing was what a lot of the other colonizing European powers were committing atrocities that were also a source of inspiration for future Nazi "acts". The Boer concentration camps used by Britain in the Second Boer War seem to come up a lot in sources that discuss the subject.
I'll admit I focused on the American part of the Allied system because that's the part i know the best. I'm vaguely aware the other allies had plenty of atrocities of their own, but I cannot speak to them as confidently as I can the American side. I'd be happy for additional info though.
She / Her
Others don't get to dictate what's normal and what isn't. It's something we decide for ourselves.
Aside from the scale the timeframe he managed to kill so many Jews and in the fashion he did probably was above most others in human history.

His wars and theorist for conquest are secondary usually. He also gained nothing from it. Not land or resources which only made the crime worse to many.

As those are usually the underlying reasons behind a good number of TCs aforementioned acts. Even if they aren't ever explicitly stated. Even today we still make up BS noble reasons to invade pillage and squat on others land for their resources generally.
3DS FC:3368-5403-9633 Name: Kaizer
PSN: Blackkaizer
The ethnic cleansing of the Natives took decades to do so, and it was enacted by multiple countries. The Holocaust only took a few years (and longer for it to be set-up, but even with that it took far less time for it to happen) and was done so by 1 country.

That plus the fact the Holocaust happened closer to our time (to the point where you still have some people that were alive during that time) makes it stick out more.
HighSeraph posted...
Some reason you feel the need to defend Hitler's honor TC?
Why in the fucking world would you say that?
[Feminist][CisGender][Straight Supporter][Non-Binary]
I'm not Ashamed to Dress 'like a Woman' because I don't think it's Shameful to be a Woman. ~Iggy Pop~
Tanthalas posted...
The religion wars of Europe also werent purely about religion and a lot of them had political motives.
That's the whole point. They were ALL political -- just like the Nazis.
[Feminist][CisGender][Straight Supporter][Non-Binary]
I'm not Ashamed to Dress 'like a Woman' because I don't think it's Shameful to be a Woman. ~Iggy Pop~
Pol Pot was worse than Hitler.
If you're gonna hate on a game, make sure you played a good chuck of it first.
Uta posted...
I'll admit I focused on the American part of the Allied system because that's the part i know the best. I'm vaguely aware the other allies had plenty of atrocities of their own, but I cannot speak to them as confidently as I can the American side. I'd be happy for additional info though.
That's fair. Jim Crow and Segregation (America's sins) should be brought up in this context as they were discussed in "fascist circles". Usually though, when discussing what was a prelude/inspiration to Nazi war crimes, usually the focus is on Europe itself though.

And in that context, I first read about the Boer concentration camps as ancillary to the usual focus of atrocities in Africa, which tends to be on the Congo Free State under King Leopold II of Belgium from 1885 to 1908. The atrocities rightfully got brought up and the international outcry around the annihilation of the natives (numbers are all over the place, with estimates ranging from 1.5 million to 13 million people) eventually forced King Leopold II of Belgium to relinquish control of the Congo Free State to the Belgian government in 1908 (things only got better in "relative" terms mind you). But again, King Leopold II of Belgium was FAR from the only person involved in the colonialization of Africa, and he was actually rather "late to the game". The UK, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain (and the Ottomans for what its worth) all were involved in colonialization to some capacity which obviously involved atrocities, but none of them got quite the stigma that Belgium seemed to get (and that was mostly when King Leopold II owned it more personally vs when Belgium was given it later on).

When discussing the "historical order" of atrocities that seemed to be a prelude to what the Nazis later did, this is the usual order that often gets mentioned and what a book I read some time ago going over the Belgium situation alluded to in an ancillary sense.

  1. British Boer concentration camps (Second Boer War; 1899-1902)
  2. Soviet Gulag Archipelago (started under Lenin in ~1918 via forced labor camps, although accelerated greatly under Stalin who came to power in 1924)
  3. Nazi Atrocities (The Holocaust most noticeably, from principally 1941 to 1945)
Other inspirations/preludes can be added if you desire (other European attrocities in Africa, although I'm less aware of their details). Just tying it back to the Nuremberg trials though, neither the British or the Soviets got the same level of scorn the Nazis would got and weren't subjected to any trials either.

And lastly regarding the British Boer concentration camps, they were part of a strategy to undermine Boer guerrilla warfare by separating combatants from civilian support (not an intended extermination). Initially intended as refugee camps for displaced families, the policy evolved into a system of forced internment camps following the implementation of a scorched-earth policy. Keep in mind though, the Boers were descendants of Dutch-speaking settlers in Southern Africa (they were white). They were the initial focus of the camps, but eventually additional camps were set up for actual black africans who had nothing to do with the Boers' guerrilla warfare (and somehow only 45 camps were built for Boer internees yet 64 camps were built for Black Africans). This is just another senseless and cruel part of it.
I'm...the...master...of...ellipses...
lydiaquayle posted...
That's the whole point. They were ALL political -- just like the Nazis.
Yeah, but the Nazis were one group. The European Religion Wars had several different protagonists, they weren't all incited by the Catholic Church.
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage".
EbonTitanium posted...
Pol Pot was worse than Hitler.
In terms of total population, his policies ended up killing ~25% of his own people all to forcefully bring about an agrarian socialist society. To fulfill its goals, the Khmer Rouge emptied the cities and marched Cambodians to labor camps in the countryside, where mass executions, forced labor, physical abuse, torture, malnutrition, and disease were rampant. And anyone who was "middle class" was a target for extermination, with teachers being one group that suffered hugely. In that way, I get where you are coming from with this statement.
I'm...the...master...of...ellipses...
Charged151 posted...
In terms of total population, his policies ended up killing ~25% of his own people all to forcefully bring about an agrarian socialist society. And anyone who was "middle class" was a target for extermination, with teachers being one group that suffered hugely. In that way, I get where you are coming from with this statement.
I'd like to say that Dracula (the person) was worse than Pol Pot.
--I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah--
nocturnal_traveler posted...
I'd like to say that Dracula (the person) was worse than Pol Pot.
You mean the real life Dracula, Vlad the Impaler (Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia)? At least some of what he did got embelished, but he reportedly impaled tens of thousands of people. Not just his enemies from foreign countries mind you, but regular criminals and political rivals as well. Again though, how much of this is true is hard to quantify.

He doesn't seem to compare to anyone else mentioned in this topic though. In fact, he is known for his fierce resistance against the Ottoman Empire which made him a folk hero in Romania/Christian circles, although in other parts of Europe (mostly countries west of Romania), he is more infamous for his cruelty.
I'm...the...master...of...ellipses...
Charged151 posted...
You mean the real life Dracula, Vlad the Impaler (Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia)? At least some of what he did got embelished, but he reportedly impaled tens of thousands of people. Not just his enemies from foreign countries mind you, but regular criminals and political rivals as well. Again though, how much of this is true is hard to quantify.

He doesn't seem to compare to anyone else mentioned in this topic though. In fact, he is known for his fierce resistance against the Ottoman Empire which made him a folk hero in Romania/Christian circles, although in other parts of Europe (mostly countries west of Romania), he is more infamous for his cruelty.
I wonder how much was embellished? And what inspired Bram Stoker to make him of all people the Vampire poster boy? Elizabeth Bathory was much more vampiric.
--I understand your opinion. I just don't care about it. ~Jedah--
Current Events » Why is Hitler considered the ultimate evil, when we did just as bad to Natives?
Page of 3