Hitler is idolised in India: WTF???

"..books, T-shirts, bags and
key-rings with his photo or name on do sell in
India. And his autobiography, Mein Kampf,
sells the most."
…
Prayag Thakkar, a 19-year-old student in
Gujarat state, is one of them: "I have idolised
Hitler ever since I have had a sense of history.
I admire his leadership qualities and his
discipline." The Holocaust was bad, he says, but that is not
his concern.
…
she would wear
the Hitler T-shirt out of admiration for him. She
calls him "a legend" and tries to put her
admiration for him in perspective: "The killing
of Jews was not good, but everybody has a positive and negative side."

— http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8660064.stm

W. T. F. ????????

Say what you like about his politics, but he was clearly a very powerfull leader.

And how many people in this country wear Che t-shirts or have read his books? Strange how one mans revolutionary is another mans mass murderer.

"Say what you like about his politics, but he was clearly a very powerfull leader."
I fear I have just laughed so hard I fouled myself. 😛

when I was an angry fired up student I used to question the Che T-shirt wearers, about why they were celebrating the instigator of mass murder as if it were some kind of "revoloutionary" activity, most didn't know what I was talking about. now I just tut a bit. But yeah, To be fair, as my politics tutor put it, Hitler pulled a large and varied country out of recession and made them into an international superpower very quickly and very efficiantly. If He'd have won, he'd be a Legend and the whole concentration camp thing would be brushed under the carpet, but he didn't and now we all learn that success has a price, and its down to the leader as to who pays it.

…… and he had a nice side parting. Tidy gent, presentable, not like the riff raff you get these days who don't even own a comb. Say what you like about the extermination of the Jews, at least you could take him home to meet your mother!

"The killing of Jews was not good, but everybody has a positive and negative side."

Yeh, and haven't we all got a "at least the trains ran on time" tattoo ?

We tend to see Hitler as being utterly defined by the holocaust.I'm not making a judgement on that particularly, but we are vigorously reminded of it. That is not an accident, the memory of it is kept front and centre by (amongst others) jewish organisations committed to doing so.

Don't know, but I suspect the consciousness of the holocaust is much, much lower in India. They clearly know about it, but I suspect it isn't seen as the single most vivid event of the 20th century. If that's right, then their perspective is perhaps forgivably similar to that of large numbers of people in Britain and Europe in the 1930s, who admired Hitler's patriotism, drive, oratory, charisma etc etc etc (although most of them were more into Mussolini perhaps.)

I think the attempt to have Hitler without genocide, aggression and barbarism is exceedingly naive and silly viewed from 2010. But his widespread appeal before he got down to the serious business of actually exterminating Europe's jewish population and plunging the entire continent into bloody warfare cannot be denied.

History shows a fascination with evil characters and eventually they become distanced from their reality and take new forms within legend, think of Vlad the Impaler becoming Dracula as an extreme example. Obviously we might imagine that with more advanced forms of documentation, then a more accurate record will be recalled throughout the future but the example above shows that might not be the case.
Hitler was a realatively short time ago in the general scheme of things and I'm sure that time will alter the perception of him as all of the tangible links gradually die away.

But his widespread appeal before he got down to the serious business of actually exterminating Europe's jewish population

And travellers, politic opponents, people with disabilities and so and so.

My 20th century history isn't that strong but iirc, the collapse of the Weimar Republic was almost a foregone conclusion. The Treaty of Versailles was excessively punitive and had more to do with a desire for retribution than a well thought out blueprint for continued peace. Given the slaughter of 1914-18 you can empathise to a degree but by effectively emasculating Germany as an economic power the seeds for future discontent and civil unrest were sown in 1918. All it needed was a strong and charismatic leader to emerge from the chaos of post war politics and Germans would follow. (I think the same could be said for most countries.) Had the communists won then we could have seen Germany develop as a communist state and maybe the outcome would have been just as bloody….just different.

The fact that he was more of a thug than his counterparts and was able to gather other strong people to his cause shows that he was either a wholly charismatic leader or simply that the Germans wanted someone to lead them,… anyone and the consequences could look after themselves.

Should history be rewritten to show him as a strong leader who had an unfortunate character flaw which lead to the holocaust? I don't think so.

Is it realistic for us to expect people in India to empathise with our distaste for him and all he stood for? I think not, but ask them about the Japanese and you might get a different answer.

We tend to see Hitler as being utterly defined by the holocaust.I'm not making a judgement on that particularly, but we are vigorously reminded of it. That is not an accident, the memory of it is kept front and centre by (amongst others) jewish organisations committed to doing so.

"but no, you shag one sheep, and everyone calls you 'Adolf the sheepshagger'…"

nice one konabunny

Slight hijack for context purposes: How does the holocaust which is the most famous genocide rank in terms of numbers killed when compared to others?

Also, would allowing millions of people to die from malaria, AIDS and starvation etc when the technology and medicine is there to mitigate those numbers be classed as genocide? If not, why not?

The modern international law of genocide is contained in Article 6 of the Statute of Rome, of which the full text can be found here

The key words are "with intent to destroy". If you can demonstrate that "allowing millions of people to die from malaria, AIDS and starvation etc" is done "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" then you might be looking at genocide (you'd struggle with "deliberately inflicted" though). Otherwise the situation that you point to is something else. Not a good something, but calling it "genocide" doesn't help.

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Obi_Twa – how do you measure it?

In terms of absolute numbers killed the holocaust ranks lower than Stalin's murders

Rate – deaths per day? Rwanda would probably higher almost all years of the holocaust.

Proportion of the population? Perhaps Cambodia would be higher.

I think comitting holcaust and genocide is slightly more than a charachter flaw. It is true he united Germany,build a great economy, united the people etc but he was always violent/fascist/anti democratic from the start to his enemies and anyone he percieved as a threat. Attempted coup in Bavaria,Night of the Long Knives, reichstag fire and subsequent reaction/restriction of other communist leaders.
It is reasonable, in the sense you could right an essay on the subject, to suggest that not all he did was bad and that he had some strengths. However no charachter strength or charisma should enable anyone to ignore the character flaws of mass murder/war /genocide. Evil is an emotive term but he wears it well IMHO

Obi
1. I dont have a league table but can we not just say all genocide is bad or is it relative for you?
2. The difference with malaria is we are guilty by inaction. If we were giving them the disease by injection then it would be genocide.
It is likely history will judge us badly for this.

I'm struggling to believe what I'm seeing here – 'the holocaust was bad, but Hitler shouldn't be defined by that alone?' What should he be defined by? – 20-odd million dead Russians? A brutal police state? The destruction of his own country? Sending 14 year olds to their certain death against Russian tanks? Or maybe his nice watercolours or his vegetarianism perhaps?

failedengineer – he wasnt a vegetarian. He was, however, a c**t, and that's really what we should be thinking of, isnt it?

My wife, who has a german degree and still is involved in german teaching, always says that Hitler was a good & convincing orator before he lost the plot, and put a convincing case across to a nation that was still suffering after loosing the first world war.
He didn't remain sane, and with hindsight the entire world knows what a maniac he was to become, but to the 100,000 odd people he would speak to in some of the rallies he was an alternative to the more mainstream german politicians at the time.

I am not sticking up for Hitler here, merely pointing out that there are many far worse genocides that have taken place and that some have been carried out by the british.

I'm struggling to believe what I'm seeing here

What we're trying to do is to understand why he is apparently popular with Indian teenagers. And we're trying to find an explanation which doesn't involve assuming those Indian teenagers to be either evil or retarded. No-one is sticking up for Hitler (I think we all agree with mitch on the point), just seeking some understanding of how someone from the far side of the world might be a fan of his 50-odd years after his death.

merely pointing out that there are many far worse genocides that have taken place and that some have been carried out by the british

I'm intrigued. Tell me more.

trailmonkey – Member

merely pointing out that there are many far worse genocides that have taken place and that some have been carried out by the british

I'm intrigued. Tell me more.

The Boer war. Nazi Germany didn't invent concentration camps, the British did.

The first time I went to India, I remember being somewhat disturbed by seeing swastikas around the place (on temple walls, advertising hoardings, and perhaps most memorably, painted on an elephants arse). It wasnt until someone pointed out to me that it was a hindu (I think) symbol, and that Hitler's chums had reversed it for their use, that I began to get my head around it.

The importance in considering Hitler's strengths is that without them he couldn't have done what he did. Without compelling leadership qualities, political craft and charisma he couldn't have achieved a position where he could instigate war, genocide and the rest. Instead he'd just be some nutter in an alleyway kicking cats, or in this day and age – spamming the comments sections of the Daily Mail online.

The Boer war. Nazi Germany didn't invent concentration camps, the British did.

The Boer war was a worse case of genocide than the holocaust ? Not sure that the Boer war was a case of genocide at all. Not all concentration camps are camps for the systematic killing of people.

seeing swastikas …painted on an elephants arse

Some elephants are closet nazis mind. You get a bunch of indian elephants together when they think no-one's listening and some of the things they say about african elephants are just astonishing.

I bloody knew it! The big trunked fascist t**t!

You get a bunch of indian elephanst together when they think no-one's listening and some of the things they say about african elephants are just astonishing.

No one's told them that their ears are much bigger and they might be able to hear.

'Aryan' in its pre-loony context refers to Iranians, broadly. As we all know a historically large number of Iranians moved towards and into the Subcontinent.

Obviously anyone of this background reading Mein Kampf without realising that the writer was a complete shortarse austrian nutter with chip on his shoulder might be given to think "Master race? Moi? Oh go on then".

Naturally such an individual would have to be mightilly ill-informed and rather hard of thinking, but in the context I feel this can be taken as read.

I am not sticking up for Hitler here, merely pointing out that there are many far worse genocides that have taken place and that some have been carried out by the british.

I have missed your outlandish claims to keep debates rolling along that was good one and some people have bitten well done sir.

Plus – he was a better painter than Winston Churchill.

I've never understood why claiming to be a communist or displaying a hammer & sickle emblem is acceptable, while claiming to be a fascist or displaying a swastika is not.
Does it really make much difference to the people living under either system of government ?

I've never understood how wars can have rules either.
Surely, if you're going to have a war, genocide is the best way to do it.

I still like to believe he was somewhat lacking in the full complement of testicles department, but alas, it appears that that wasnt true either.

The Boer war. Nazi Germany didn't invent concentration camps, the British did.

What we generally refer to as concentration camps in the German sense were actually extermination camps rather than camps merely designed to be "a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp#Concentration_camps

I still like to believe he was somewhat lacking in the full complement of testicles department, but alas, it appears that that wasnt true either.

That makes sense. I never understood why the other one would be in the Albert Hall anyway.

Yes, but what about poor old Goebbels?

I still like to believe he was somewhat lacking in the full complement of testicles department, but alas, it appears that that wasnt true either.

Really? I was reliably informed that the other is in the Leeds Town Hall.

Quite disappointing that so much of what I learned in school turns out to be misinformation.

Sadly, I have to inform you that the entire song was a tissue of genital based lies. However, I am reliably informed that 'milk milk lemonade' is based entirely on sound scientific fact.