Okay, so let's all step back for a second about what this article is saying about India and let's talk about Hitler here. Hitler was a few decades removed from being something that people would consider reasonable. The notion that all Jews should be exterminated or otherwise suppressed is not something that was a unique Hitler invention. Neither were the methods by which the extermination was carried out. What Hitler was, outside of the wars, was the application of an outdated set of morals and values to technology which allowed those morals and values to be carried to their logical end. He is remembered because like Lorenzo di Medici, Hitler existed in a period of time when the new was just intersecting the old. Now, while Lorenzo di Medici was more representative of the humanists and is thus remembered more fondly, they are, if they were to be reduced to bullet points, essentially the same. The reason people admire Hitler, why they say he was efficient, is not because of his actual leadership, which was competent but mostly reliant on rhetoric, but because he represents completion. He took a worldview and went with it as far as technology could take him. People like that, even if the world view is wrong. It is the same drive that will make people turn in to a longer detour rather than wait in heavy traffic; after all, they're moving, right? On a larger scale, disappointment with leadership is because they are not accomplishing anything to carry a worldview in its logical direction, or not carrying it far enough. Barack Obama, for instance, may have done great things in the long run (we don't know that bit yet), but as far as most people, even those on the far left are concerned, he did not carry the Democratic worldview far enough. Healthcare is not universal, wars are still going on, education doesn't have a higher priority, none of those things are accomplished to the extent that the worldview demands. Now, not everyone expects leadership to be advancing a single worldview as far as possible at all times; this is usually viewed as undesirable because the changes can be so drastic that even those in support of it can feel a bit rushed. But when you have a social climate in which poverty, inefficiency, and weakness are generally considered the norm, then people want a Hitler. People want that drastic advancement in worldview. Its not a moral decline. I am guessing the 17% who want a HItler-like ruler are not saying that people should be butchered in the millions. What they want is to feel like movement in a direction is occurring, and if a few hundred thousand Indian Muslims die along the way, well, who are we to argue with progress? Now of course, my argument might be total shit. Its a method of viewing history that I've been working on, so discredit it or credit it at your will. I'm also exhausted from work so if I misspelled things you can fuck right off. Or bring me a beer.
I think to using Hitler as a symbol of a effective leader (something we both admit he was not) and divorcing him from his integral attributes of mass murderer and racial scapegoat-er shows a huge amount of cultural naivety on the part of many sub-continentals. It also seems to me that Hitler adoration and BJP associations correlate quite strongly and that perhaps like attracts like.
Actually, I do not think Hitler was an ineffective leader - I am rather neutral on the subject. He had positive qualities in terms of leadership; he was able to inspire people to action and very effectively organized structures for children to participate in. His economic policies were better than those under the government before him, and ultimately Hitler did bring Germany out of a horrific economic crisis. The ineffective sides do not far outweigh his effectiveness in certain areas, though. As a military leader he was abysmal, and as time passed he listened less and less to advisers who were clearly much smarter than he was. His long-term economic policy was questionable; it relied far too much on conquest and not internal improvement, and his unwillingness to support promising new technology is precisely why Germany lost the war (Germany could have realistically had a Jet Fighter by 1941, but Hitler wasn't impressed and wanted it to be a ground-attack plane.) He concentrated too much effort in to super weapons and was not very realistic; by the end of his regime Hitler was taking his own rhetoric far too seriously. This is speaking separately from his morals, and simply examining Hitler as a leader. One does not rise to a position of power without at least some credit, and I think the portrayal of Hitler as ineffective and crazy is very detrimental to understanding him and his rise to power. Its very easy to look at someone you think is crazy and go "ha, I would never fall for that," all the while falling for very similar rhetoric from current politicians. The reason you need to have Hitler separated from the Holocaust when speaking about his leadership qualities is because people tend to have a hard time getting passed the Holocaust bit. While this is understandable, it doesn't add anything to historical discussions. Yes its a horrific event, but this has been established numerous times and saying how terrible he was from a moral point of view blurs the rest of the pictures. Regarding his admiration in the subcontinents, I don't think I can really comment on whether or not they are any more naive of our culture than we are of theirs. Hating Hitler is a Western view, and for good reason; he was the catalyst of the single most devastating war in human history and committed atrocities exceeded only by two other human beings (Stalin and Mao). But we come from a relatively sparsely populated part of the globe that places large value on human life. We do not value cultural unity as much as other groups around the world might, because the West hasn't really been subject to colonialism. I can't say for certain, but I do not think its unreasonable that groups in India might value culture unity, i.e. an India for Hindus and kill the Muslims because they had been a colony of a totally different culture for so long. The national pride which says "we want to be free of colonialism" can very quickly turn to "we want to be free of this group which is different than we are." But again, I am being purely hypothetical; I do not know India enough as a country to make a concrete statement on it.
Hitler's rate of atrocity is rivaled only by Pol Pot. Mao and Stalin had years to spread theirs over. I am fairly convinced of Hitlers general incompetence his rise to power was largely accidental (part of an anti-communist collation government cemented by war). The efficiency of fascism is over-estimated. So my point is really that the desis that like Hitler like him because they like the genocidal bit not just the patriotism.
Mao also killed 73 million people. Regardless, I remain unconvinced of Hitler's incompetence as a short-term leader. There is no debate that Hitler was a very poor long term leader, and if he had not been ousted from power he would have been horribly devastating for germany. But saying that he is incompetent or that his rise to power is accidental is not a solid approach to the subject. First and foremost, no rise to power is accidental. In historical terms, accidental is generally going to be taken as without cause. Even in the classical definition, it doesn't make sense - the reason for his rise was an anti-communist mentality and desire for change. When you say that Hitler was generally incompetent, you do need to cite broader trends. There is evidence to support that position but I can bring no challenge to the evidence if there is no evidence presented. And yes, I do tink that the groups who support Hitler are probably very racist.
an assertion not based on a feeling? I assert that most things in history are accidents given meaning post hoc. (historians need jobs.) The Myth of the Kampfzeit is propagandist nonsense Hitler stumbled into power just like he sleepwalked through the rest of his life. Fascist movements were rampant throughout the world. Fascism requires the myth of the great man the nebish Adolph was the head of the local movement ... pow he is a great leader? Just like Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, Churchill and the rest of them, the great man is just a totem and actually does not require, greatness or any discernible skill, to be worshiped.
We are dealing with myth here Fascism is an aesthetic movement more than a political system you just have to pretend to be powerful and folks believe you.
It the the government of the swindle. but don't take my word for it take Dolphy's
First and foremost, no rise to power is accidental.
I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker.
Adolf Hitler
People do not generally stumble through politics. Technology is a slightly different story; discoveries have been made accidentally, but politics is not technology. It is the difference between activities governed by mental laws versus physical laws. Technology is influenced by physical laws; air pressure, for instance, was only investigated because pumps in Europe originally couldn't lift water beyond 37 feet per pump. This lead to a wide range of technologies, but there was a set rule of physics for the technology to develop from. Politics is different; politics has no rules to abide by except for that which it creates, and to a degree human nature. Neither of these things are solid. Saying that something is accidental, putting it all on chance, is just not how something entirely mental works. History is neither accidental nor does it happen by design. There are very few times when grandiose conspiracies exist to create the world in a set image, but just because something is not designed does not make it happenstance. Hitler's rise to power was not chance, it was the culmination of a vast web of events we BARELY understand, and its one of the most studied segments of history. You need to figure out why an event happened, not just that it did happen, and that is the crux of history. What, where, and when an event happened, or whether or not that event was right is mostly irrelevant; what's important is understanding why. The reasons are not as simple as "the people were tricked." Yes, they were, but why? How did they not see through it? How did Hitler rise in his local group? How did Germany recover, and was that recovery something people would have noticed? People are actually a very keen organism, and humans pick up on bullshit pretty fast. Now while you can bully people in to silence, you can't do so to the majority of the population, and Hitler was popular. So there has to be a reason for it, because people behave according to information processed through their personal values. Even if his popularity wasn't universal, it was able to pull a country through war and keep a very powerful army from revolting and killing him. Also, Hitler wasn't exactly the best source of information about himself.I assert most things in history are accidents given meaning post hoc.
Let A = your post
I believe -A I believe people only stumble through politics. (politic science is an oxymoron). I think history is just one thing after another and that most historiographies are bullshit especially great man theory. I don't believe in any conspiracies. Why does one need to know why a thing happened? Mr. Applegate said how is much more interesting. Humans in my opinion are bullshit believing machines more Americans believe in Angels than climate change or evolution. Occam's razor tells me the answer to all your questions is folks are dumb and you can control them by lying to them.
http://www.pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/many-ame... This was Adolph's opinion as well if he can be trusted.