Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd
In an attempt to defend Obama from Bush's appeasement speech, this editor from the Seatte Times does what any good supporter would do...
Defend Hitler... 
So you see all of you stupid people not intelligent enough to be an editor?...You're not understanding that, at the time, Hitler was just trying to get back land that was supposed to be his anyway...What a guy!...  |
I understand this person's reference from an historical standpoint. But he summed it up himself in so many words.
The 1930's were not the 2000's. You can't compare either way. Too much has happened. The dynamics have changed. Even if this was the same country we fought in the thirties, there's a lot of water gone under that old bridge. And the bridge may not even be there any longer.
Case in point, Julius Caesar penned a wonderful revue of an area around the neighborhood of Portugal. Certainly Rome should trade and exchange ideas with this learned and richly attired society!
Many years later a young soldier who grew up reading Caesar's memoirs, was stationed in the same land. Caused by war, famine, or a change in the shoreline and climate, the place had changed. Its only human population - little better than cavemen!
We must look at history, sure. I am an advocate of that. But in a loose and general way. Too much individual history goes into each generation to make policy or criticize it based on anything but the fluid present.
And to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt is doubly the same as giving Nero the same benefit. Of all the biographies and hopeful early days in either's background, the most sensitive historian still rightly names them monster.