Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Well, let's, for a minute. Do you think there's a morally relevant difference between the views actions of someone like Hitler - which were more or less universally thought to be monstrous at the time he executed them - and the views of someone like MacDonald, who was more or less a product of his time? Should history have more sympathy for the latter sort of person (which I guess probably describes most major historical figures)?
|
Just on this note, the bolded is not true. By some, sure, but the atmosphere of hatred towards Jewish people was fairly universal itself, and not only were the actions of Hitler supported by the German people at the time, they were supported by other European and Eastern powers.
The Holocaust itself was not even fully realised or documented until years after it happened. Until relatively recently, there were ongoing debates on whether it even happened.
I don’t think history should be sympathetic, it should be based on the facts as we know them. No, Hitler is not a good comparable, but “He wasn’t as bad as Hitler” is not a good reason to excuse what we come to learn are atrocities years after they occur.
There are many things don’t with the best intentions that are black marks on our world society. “They meant well” is no excuse.