A very bad take on Nietschze and Darwin. And an impractical version of Machiavelli. Hardly devious enough. Oh, I think quite a few people understood and understand the most important points about the man. He had some minor complexity when he was still trying to be an artist. That endeavor cut off he became rather simple. In fact his downfall and the utter devastation of Germany can be seen as a great case study in why simple approaches to problem solving can be disastrous.
It is doubtful that being accepted int art programs or schools would have been enough to stave of the extreme narcissistic delusions. Art being merely a sideline, he took quite well to public speaking and politics. Fate? perhaps but all it takes is one whack job to do serious damage. "His philosophy seems to be a mixture of Neitzsche , Machiavelli and Darwin. Probably all misunderstood by him." yes. a victim of his own addled mind.
I have no idea how much or if it would have helped others much or not if he'd been accepted. But many (many!) artists have extreme narcissistic delusions - in fact they may even help some of the get famous. He might have ended up that raging asshole Hitler who thinks Picasso (etc.) is overrated and that he is not being paid his due as the genius he is. IOW a lot of people might have been spared the direct effects of his delusions. Or perhaps he would have painted for a while longer if he'd been accepted in the program, decided to deal with the 'Jew Problem' and Germany and not much would be different.
you may be right. did you see the movie with John Cusack dealing specifically with this? it was very good. Saw it a few years ago and I cant remember the name. Good late night movie.
If you had these drawings done by an architect for a planned project, you'd be very pleased with them. He'd have made a good living at it. He wanted to be a great artist however. He wasn't.
All of you guys are just oversimplifiying and hating on him He may have done bad things, but he did them with good intentions; he did them for his people. He genuinly cared about his people and about Germany. He had a goal, a cause, and he had a really hard life. I pity him.
He cared about his idea of his people. He was isolated in his dream of the world. His life was vastly easier than most of the Jews who ended up in the camps and his life was much easier than many people who do not go on to kill millions.
Is this some kind of joke? The guy was solely responsible for WW2. Simply having an idea like that is enough to label someone psychotic.
You don't know your history very well, do you? There was no sole cause of the Second World War - the origins can be traced all the way back into the 1800s. The opening-up of Japan, imperialism, nationalism, the Franco-Prussian War, the unification of Germany, the emergence of America as a world power, the arms race, Kaiser Wilhelm's reign over Germany, the militarization of Japan, the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles, the unification of China, the Great Depresson, the Chinese Civil War, the rise of fascism in Italy, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, Hitler's appointment to the German Chancellorship, the militarization of the Rhineland, the Japanse invasion of China, the Munich Conferene and appeasement... and thats not even close to being all of the causes. Like I said, no single person or event can be blamed for World War II.
What I find interesting is the fact that so few people bring up the fact that one man can not kill, or even control, millions. As "evil" as Hitler may have been, he had millions of people who believed what he had to say and agreed with him - in quite a few different countries (including the US and UK). I don't think he was the megalomaniacal, insane madman people make him out to be. I wouldn't go as far as calling him a scapegoat, but he was a man figting for what he believed in, and figthing for his people and country, as he saw was the best way, and he had quite the following as a result. While the Holocaust was, in no small way, an absolute atrocity, and I would never defend such actions, Hitler was just an ambitious man who came to and remained in power because people wanted him there.
Tim, none of that matters. Even today there are conflicts all over the world. You are creating scenario's and speculating. The simple fact remains: No Hitler, no world war two.
Let me ask you one simple question. Forget the question. Here is a statement. Hitler deceived himself first, then he managed to deceive an isolated and relatively simple people. Not that the Germans were inherently simple people but given the time and the fact that the time was right due to constant manipulation and most of the population was really just abused and isolated. The moment his intentions spread beyond those borders his days were numbered. But he managed to leave an incredible amount of damage in his wake. It is mass deception and this is done over and over and still to this day one person can make people believe the most bizarre things. Maybe i am wrong but these are all common methods of cult leaders.
Not only were the German people no more or less sophisticated as the rest of the modern world, his ideas had wide and far reaching appeal to some countries that were willingly German allies - as I said, he also found a lot of support in the US and UK. He could not have done what he did without the support of millions. If it weren't for the war breaking out, and the atrocities coming to light, his appeal would have certainly spread wider. People didn't think he was a scary madman in the beginning, they thought he was a passionate leader, and some disagreed with his political position, sure - but many agreed with him as well. People loved Ted Bundy too, until they found out he was a serial killer.
Actually, that might not be true since the Communist Soviet Union had their eyes on Norway and Poland before WW2 broke out. If Hitler didn't start it, it's possible the Soviets may have a little later down the road.
You could have said that about a lot of things. No expansionist Japanese mindset, no World War II. See, when the Japanese invaded Manchuria, everyone was expecting the League of Nations to do something about it. The League had previously never been tested. And as it turned out, it didnt do anything at all. Hitler would never have attemped to retake Germany's lost lands. He was egged on by the aggression of the Japanese. So no imperial Japan, no World War II. Or even, no Treaty of Versailles, no World War II. Because if the Treaty hadnt happened, then Germany wouldnt have been so bitter about their defeat, and their economy wouldnt have sucked as badly, and their country wouldnt have been given away to other people.
