Jews in Germany and elsewhere (including Canada) are outraged by comments made by the boss of Formula 1 racing, Britisher Bernard Ecclestone, 78.
Ecclestone said this a few days before a major Formula 1 race to be held in Germany: “In a lot of ways, terrible to say this I suppose, but apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not, he was, in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done.”
When a storm of criticism broke over his head (including demands that he resign as car-racing boss) Ecclestone tried to explain his remarks this way: “Between ‘32 and ‘38 he took a Country that was bankrupt and made it a reasonably strong power in Europe, but after that the guy is obviously a lunatic.”
Is it wrong to praise Hitler even for the good things he did?”
I rtemembert my father used to prtaise Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
Would we not be suppressing or distorting history to maintain that Hitler did no good?
What do you think>
I think what can be said is that the horrors he perpetrated far outweigh any good he may have done. What good was ultimately created by bringing a country from bankruptcy to riches when the riches were used to implement a genocide? And then there’s the issue of all the riches that were stolen from the Jews who were taken to their death and from their places of worship.
Even a broken clock tells the time correctly twice a day, but it is still a broken clock. I agree with Cate.
This is a question of, “Does the end justify the means?” And that means it’s a loaded question. And no matter which way you answer it, someone is gonna thump on you for it.
A lot of what medical science knows today about genetics and blood comes directly from Mengele’s experiments. Your doctor won’t tell you that; he may not even know it himself. Does that make Mengele a good guy? Absolutely not! But do we throw away information that can save lives because he was a monster?
Henry Ford was an anti-semetic racist. Does that make every driver of one of his vehicles a racist and an anti-semite?
Learn to sift and separate the good from the bad. The fact is that Hitler did lift Germany out of bankruptcy. Deal with it.
I’ve never been there, but from photographs I see of present-day China, images of Mao are everywhere and still celebrated. This despite the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of over 80 million Chinese peasants and the suffering of countless millions more.
I’m sure Mao did some good, although I have no idea what it could possibly be. What the sovereign people of China decide to do with his memory and image is their business.
However, I’d like that statue of Mao’s miserable running dog lackey, Norman Bethune, that sits on de Maisonneuve West near Guy be thrown on a garbage heap. So I can see where those who criticize Ecclestone are coming from.
Tony,
I don’t understand why you are so down on Bethune. Many in this country and elsewhere cpmsoder Bethune a seciu;ar saint for his humanitarian work in China.
Neil, I understand exactly why Tony doesn’t like Bethune. The man may have been a hero to millions of people in other countries, but he was a burr under everyone’s saddle blanket at home. He was one of those proselytizers who — once he decided to hit you up for funds — would not leave you alone until you gave him money. Lots of it. He insisted that his cause had to be your cause, too.
In my opinion to ask the question is an insult to the memory of even one person who died in Hitler’s camps. The only purpose in asking it would be to try to establish whether the good outwieghed the bad in anyone’s life. In the case of Adolf Hitler I would have thought that question had long since been answered – unless of course your name is Bishop Williamson.
Celebrating Bethune for his humanitarian work without counterweighing it with the bad he did by supporting the communists and promoting genocide is, as Paul Geraghty suggests for Hitler, an insult to those who died as a result of the bad works he promoted.
Hitler is in a class by himself and I do agree that the damages he caused are beyond anything tolerable and far outweighs whatever “good” he may have done. History will probably establish that all the while he was not building up Germany for the Germans but to become the instrument of his megalomania that ultimately destroyed all he had built…and himself.
Paul Geraghty, it might very well be that the only reason you would have to ask such a question is to try to put your thumb on the scales, but you don’t get to assign your motives to anyone else, and I’ll thank you to stop trying.
Aren’t you assigning motives to Paul Geraghty, Chimera? Just take a deep breath and think about what he wrote. Hitler has, in most people’s minds, a rather negative reputation in history. As a dear nun once told us teenagers, you can say something good about everyone, even the devil. The devil, she reminded us, is quite persistent. To make a statement praising Hitler’s ability to bring his country out of bankruptcy and make of it a reasonably strong power in Europe may have a measure of truth to it, but it seems to denigrate his stronger impact on world history — the invasion of other countries, the genocide, the cruelty of those Arbeitslager. Ecclestone seems to say that Hitler just had his lunatic moments, but was a brilliant economist. It is hard to compare economic prosperity to racial genocide on the same scale.
“Aren’t you assigning motives to Paul Geraghty, Chimera?”
No.
And where did you see me praise Hitler?
Is there something I am missing here. The question is not whether the monstrous evil that Hitler did outweighs the good. If course it does. The question is whether the good that Hitler did should be excised from the historical record. Of course it shouldn’t
Once a Jesuit, forever a Jesuit. The “distinguo” theory here is evident. Yes Hitler took Germany out of bankruptcy only to better destroy everything around it and ultimately he succeeded only in destroying germany. Have we not learned that a seemingly good deed done with evil intention is also evil? Hitler’s aim was to establish the Third Reich’ s domination and create a super race for the next 1000 years and eliminate all lesser beings. A nice program that needed a powerfull and well disciplined germany to realize. All his “good deeds” had this goal in mind and nothing else. That is what history will register, he was a robot maker, nothing else and he should have kept painting houses as Adolph Schicklgruber.
I just realized that I probably owe Barbara an apology. Barb, I thought when you said, “To make a statement praising Hitler’s ability…” that you were talking about what I said about him. Re-reading it just now, I think you might have been referring to what Ecclestone is reported to have said.
Mind you, I didn’t take Ecclestone’s comments the same way most other people seem to have done, either.
“Have we not learned that a seemingly good deed done with evil intention is also evil?”
Ah…interesting question, Paul. An even further question might be, Was the intention evil? We don’t know that, and we will likely never know that for sure, because all explorations into a forensic psychological autopsy on how Hitler’s mind worked has been throughly discouraged and shouted down.
“The question is whether the good that Hitler did should be excised from the historical record. Of course it shouldn’t.”
I absolutely agree. Trouble is, most people do not have the capacity to separate their emotional reactions to what they perceive as “evil” from the bare, dispassionate facts. It’s one of humanity’s greatest failings.
I obviously – unintentionally – hit a nerve with Chimera but I can honestly say I don’t understand what he is accusing me of.
Paul Geraghty, I was not accusing you of anything, simply objecting to the way you assigned motives for asking the question without even asking if there might be alternative motives.
I suggested a purpose in asking the question. I assigned no motives.
You did not “suggest.” You stated.
Purpose or motive — and the difference is?
The difference can be considerable.
Yes it can be and usually is considerable. That’s why English common law, for example, considers both in the evaluation of whether a person’s act fits the mens rea (guilty mind) requirements of relevant crime(s). On the one hand, there’s the purpose or end-goal of any given act. Then there’s the motive(s) for that end-goal. Two very different things!
“The difference can be considerable.”
Can be. But is it?
“Two very different things!”
Not always. And what I want is for him to nail it down with specifics.
first i want to say hitler wasnt a bad guy he was peer pressured into most things and yes the good does outweigh the bad where would germany be rite now if it wasnt for him he stopped the jews gotrid of the gypsys in my books he was a hero an a military genius and did the world a favour yh he did some bad stuff but all in the name of good and as for the perfect race everyone wants one his idea was the best why cnt we have a world with no drugs not as much alcohol