Is it a coincidence that Hitler is the primary political figure in the history of one of the most economically and socially developed countries in the World while Ghandi is the primary political figure in the history of one of the most backward ?

I've always been fascinated by Hitler's influence. There are obviously moral issues that come up when you think of Hitler and I certainly don't intend to glorify him (nor offend anyone).

When you look at how deeply he impacted the political landscape of the World you have to appreciate that if anything his existence will likely never be forgotten.

Ghandi on the other hand is admirable. His concepts of peace , self autonomy and discovery, truth and non-violence and welfare for all are probably the most idealistic and commendable amalgamation of ideas any political or popular movement has been run on. What's more I actually think he genuinely believed in them.

But why is it that in the post-independence era of India these ideas have been forgotten?. India remains underdeveloped, highly stratified and while it's marketed as a secular state, religion still wields power over it's people and is manipulated to oppress.

Meanwhile Germany, where Hitler successfully imposed a similarly oppressive system (I read he actually drew from the caste system in his marginalization of the Jews by perpetuating the steroreotype of Jews as morally and physically unclean), is virtually the most protective state of it's size of basic human rights.

Is it that Hitler was so terrible that he shocked Germany into accelerated development? Is it that Ghandi's amalgamation of religon philosophy and politics stunted the growth of the growing Intellegenstia in India which had provoked original independence movements? Or is it simply one huge coincidence?

Germany was already very developed when Hitler came in power, while India was an agricultural society when Ghandi appeared.
Nothing to do with both figures. Coincidence.

Where do you live Le Samourai, in India?

I've heard that many indian people admire Hitler (not necessarily because of his genocides and wars but because of his "strengt" and "determination"), which I think it's quite disgusting tbh, and your post has some of it.

free_cat is spot on; Germany already had a strong infrastructure before Hitler, it's social policies were already the most advanced in the world ever since Bismarck, and the German states, especially Prussia, have a centuries-old tradition of tolerance, that's why the rise of Prussia was partially fuelled by the influx of French Huguenots and Jews from all over Europe.

German philosophers were pondering the questions of morality and ethics long before Hitler shocked the populace into rejecting fascism, and Martin Luther even made Christianity a Religion capable of tolerance, with what is basically the founding moment of all protestant churches through his Thesis, while Catholicism became the basis for Italian, Spanish, and German fascism, and the Eastern Orthodoxy keeps backing Russian authoriatanism to this day.

So I think there's many factors. You're not entirely wrong, either. Pointing to Hitler and saying "the Nazis" did it is a great way to get German politicians to move to the left of the spectrum.

That's why it's harder for the cops to get a wire tap than it is in the US of A here, it's harder to spy on your internet connection and email, there is a basic right to "human dignity" etc. etc., so in a way, Hitler did "help", but he wasn't the basis for either the industrial-scientifical development, nor the human rights.

In fact I'd argue, that Germany would be ahead of the USA in terms of technology up to this day, if Hitler hadn't happened. Considering German Jews invented most of what is modern physics, aviation, and radio, microwave, and TV technology. IIRC they came up with TV, rocket propulsion, jet engines, and the nuke within 10 years.

Half of what NASA did they looted from German military installations after the war.

So in conclusion: f*ck Hitler!

Gandhi's politics was never implemented in India as Nehru and Gandhi were polar opposites in that regard.

Nehru was extremely famous in India for his personality and i think us Indians always had this ruler worship type of syndrome and we collectively chose Nehru to implement his faulty statist and socialist policies which was put on overdrive by his daughter.

There were always opponents to Nehru's politics and proponents of Gandhi's philosophy. But the ruler-worship syndrome that i was talking about earlier resulted in Nehru and his daughter remaining in power for a long time and these opponents could never come into power and implement Gandhi's politics.

And Free_cat, you are right to a certain extent. Some Indians do admire Hitler but that is the direct result of the state of the society currently where several Indians are handily being exploited by the government (most of which comprise of criminals) and corrupt officials. Some of the Indians yearn for a hitler type of personality to restore their rights in the country.

Well, it's a very wrong yearning then, because a "hitler type of personality" wouldn't restore rights to anyone, rather take rights away.

And had there been any indians in Europe during WWII, they would have been taken to concentration camps together with jews, gipsies, gays and comunists.

Can't understand the admiration to be honest.

free_cat wrote:
Where do you live Le Samourai, in India?

I've heard that many indian people admire Hitler (not necessarily because of his genocides and wars but because of his "strength" and "determination"), which I think it's quite disgusting tbh, and your post has some of it.

Nah, I don't live in India.

I wouldn't necessarily say I admire him either, admiration invokes a sense of approval that I don't have, but as I said I am fascinated by his influence and do think it would be very difficult for someone with more desirable qualities to replicate it.

@Kiranar.

I always thought Ghandi and Nehru were on the same page, at least from studying the Independence movement?

@ Viva: Prussia, or Frankfurt?

RedOranje wrote:@ Viva: Prussia, or Frankfurt?

Both have a long history of tolerance, but Prussia was the German kingdom that used the influx of religiously persecuted immigrants to a great extent to ascend to be the most powerful within the German Empire.

Or what did you mean?

Thought the article was posted as a Topic Title for a sec

VivaStPauli wrote:

RedOranje wrote:@ Viva: Prussia, or Frankfurt?

Both have a long history of tolerance, but Prussia was the German kingdom that used the influx of religiously persecuted immigrants to a great extent to ascend to be the most powerful within the German Empire.

Or what did you mean?

Was just wondering which had the greater liberal influence on the eventual German state overall.

I'd give you a valuable advice Ragbir, go to library and study a book about basics of logic. If you fail to find one I'll give one online. This way you won't come to overstretched conclusions out of nowhere

RedOranje wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

RedOranje wrote:@ Viva: Prussia, or Frankfurt?

Both have a long history of tolerance, but Prussia was the German kingdom that used the influx of religiously persecuted immigrants to a great extent to ascend to be the most powerful within the German Empire.

Or what did you mean?

Was just wondering which had the greater liberal influence on the eventual German state overall.

I would probably say Prussia did more for the unity, Frankfurt did more for the liberty of the German nation.

Le Samourai wrote:

@Kiranar.

I always thought Ghandi and Nehru were on the same page, at least from studying the Independence movement?

Not really. While it is true that Nehru and Gandhi had the same ideas about social liberty, they were polar opposites when it came to the role of the state.

Gandhi was about self autonomy and self reliance in all areas of life while Nehru established a strong state which crowded out private enterprise almost effectively. I cannot say whether Gandhi's politics would have led India to a better state for its people, but i do know that Nehru failed in his vision and is one of the prime reasons for the current state of the country.

First The problems in Germany cant be compared to the ones in India, India's problems are multi-faceted ,numerous and very complicated influenced by religion,caste, race ,gender blah blah blah, because of the diversity that isnt present elsewhere. Also India really isnt that backward , after China it had the second fastest developing economy i believe and the base is not insignificant either given that we have a huge GDP, also militarily and politically it is a very powerful country . When you are talking about a nation like this , where people are so different in so many ways polarisation in some form is bound to happen .Religion does wield power leading to undesirable situations at times as does caste, gender etc but then to some extent that cannot be helped, however more or less such situations do get controlled and attempts are made to respect secularity , i think even striving for something like that despite being in a Hindu majority nation is admirable given the way nations are polarised around one religion nowadays .

Also Nehru's policies were socialist and not the best for our country as it delayed liberalisation till the 90s but they were also important in the context of the socio economic scenario after independence when it was felt that we needed to develop indian industries since the british raj had impoverished them .

I've heard that many indian people admire Hitler (not necessarily because of his genocides and wars but because of his "strengt" and "determination"), which I think it's quite disgusting tbh, and your post has some of it.

U have to remember that Hitler helped one part of our freedom struggle to some extent and his holocoust is not widely known in India unfortunately.So its natural and understandable that he has admirers in India even if its disgusting.

We loved the Japanese despite their stance during WW2 because they were willing to aid arms to our freedom struggle, until war beckoned on their own doorstep. You cannot expect everyone to share every viewpoint of yours.

And people, it's GANDHI. Not GHANDI. Please.

free_cat wrote:Germany was already very developed when Hitler came in power, while India was an agricultural society when Ghandi appeared.
Nothing to do with both figures. Coincidence.

Where do you live Le Samourai, in India?

I've heard that many indian people admire Hitler (not necessarily because of his genocides and wars but because of his "strengt" and "determination"), which I think it's quite disgusting tbh, and your post has some of it.

True that, but do remember that it was Hitler that got Germany out of the hyperinflation at the time(*hyperinflation in Germany - In December 1923 the exchange rate was 4,200,000,000,000 Marks to 1 US dollar).

Hitler's politics got Germany back on track of being an economic and politic force again. You guys say that it was the "German Jews invented most of what is modern physics, aviation, and radio, microwave, and TV technology" but it was Hitler that put everything in motion. Take Albania for instance(my country) we have great national resources, our entire west borer is the sea(recently was voted as the top 20 places to visit in 2013), the history, tradition and culture are there since the first civilization, the nation is full of castles and old cities that date from the ancient times. Yet our economy is bad, the living standard is very very bad, the problem is that our political leaders and their way of managing this country.

The bad side of Hitler that makes him the figure that it is today is that maybe he was blinded by power or tried to prove to the world something.

If we put aside the genocides and war crimes, Hitler would stand as one of the greatest economic and politic mastermind.

Lol, no. More on that tomorrow.

StrugaRock wrote:but do remember that it was Hitler that got Germany out of the hyperinflation at the time(*hyperinflation in Germany - In December 1923 the exchange rate was 4,200,000,000,000 Marks to 1 US dollar).

This is true, you will also note 1923 as the date of two things:
1) The end of German hyperinflation
2) 10 years before the rise of Hitler

The hyperinflation was the result of Germany trying to pay off it's debts from WWI, so they could focus their economy on paying the reparations, as well as national recovery.

Hitlers "only", albeit massive, economic problem he dealt with was the massive unemployment in the wake of the Great Depression, which he achieved by borrowing massively.

Hitler's politics got Germany back on track of being an economic and politic force again.

He did basically two things to make Germany a sound economy:
1) borrow like mad to employ basically everyone unemployed by the state, to build either weapons, or infrastructure to better move around the weapons.
2) Steal from minorities and neighbors; also slavery.

Both of those things are retarded in the long term, his monetary strategy was "borrow like mad, and before hyperinflation can hit, start a massive war and conquer half your credit, and pay off the other half with the shit you stole".
Hitlers economic recovery was never gonna work without starting a massive war.

You guys say that it was the "German Jews invented most of what is modern physics, aviation, and radio, microwave, and TV technology" but it was Hitler that put everything in motion.

How did he start anything? The guy was in power for 12 years. And like the Chaplin-moustached retard he was, he propagated the idea that there was an "aryan" kind of physics, as well as a "jewish" kind of physics.
Hint: what they called "jewish physics", we today call "physics", so this will give you a clue as to which kind proved to be actually right.

The brain-drain set in immediatly after he took over power, because of his anti-intellectual and anti-jewish mindset (and that of his party, of course, he wasn't alone) - sure, they still managed the V2 rocket, and thusly all modern aviation, such as rocket- and jet engines, but they based that off earlier work as well, they didn't start from scratch.

So yeah, Hitler threw mad money at mad scientists, but the best ones had already fled the country.

Germany is a country with about a 4000 year history, 1600 years of properly written history at least. You don't start shit in 12 years, except maybe a My Little Pony fanclub.

Take Albania for instance(my country) we have great national resources, our entire west borer is the sea(recently was voted as the top 20 places to visit in 2013), the history, tradition and culture are there since the first civilization, the nation is full of castles and old cities that date from the ancient times. Yet our economy is bad, the living standard is very very bad, the problem is that our political leaders and their way of managing this country.

That might have something to do with being an isiolationist dictatorship from basically the early '50s to 1990 - and being an occupyed country before that. Even when Germany were a crazy dictatorship, they weren't isolationists, they still traded.
Albania was isolationist, first having basically ties only to the Soviet Union, and later Communist China.

The bad side of Hitler that makes him the figure that it is today is that maybe he was blinded by power or tried to prove to the world something.

MAYBE?
The little fella basically instantly made Germany a dictatorship when he got elected, and basically got elected by killing and intimidating his opposition. He didn't get blinded by power, he replaced his eyes with brass balls.

If we put aside the genocides and war crimes, Hitler would stand as one of the greatest economic and politic mastermind.

Again: No.
If we took aside the genocides and war crimes, Germany would've had another hyperinflation, because the Genocide and war crimes paid for Germanys economy.

The title for this thread needs to be shortened. Suggestions?

"Is it a coincidence that Hitler is the primary political figure in the history of one of the most economically and socially developed countries in the World while Gandhi is the primary political figure in the history of one of the most backward?"

====> Ethical-Economical Musings (possibly somewhat controversial)

(If you change it, don't forget to add the original title as first paragraph in the first post)

Viva guess my professor and the book he gave us were a bit wrong.

All I'm saying is not that Hitler is a good man, but sure he was powerful. That's why he has his place on the history of politics and economy. Also a man fighting against the World in three fronts sure makes him even more powerful and if he only listened to his commanders like Rommel(and had more men like him for that matter) he could've won it all(which IMO would've been a bad thing since we could've seen the third world war already).

Something that I admire in Germans is that they are hard working people, no matter how bad their condition will be, they will always hit the top in no time, the history, the culture and their formidable industry sure helps them a lot.