Sorry Tranquilis, but I still disagree. I sure did misunderstand your first post about his physical courage to be an overall statement of character, but I am also more than aware of his military career and his achievements during WWI. It doesn’t make him outstanding, he’s one of millions that went through all that and survived. Granted his was a forward position of great exposure, so you might have to pull it down to tens of thousands, but there is still nothing outstanding regarding his wartime doings - not more so than all the numerous others that were stuck in that hellhole of all hellholes in similar roles. The Iron Cross, although an honorable award at the time was handed out fairly liberally in those days. (I’ll cite exact figures later if you like, but I am in from golf and out for drinks in seconds and composing on the fly here).
Beyond all that there is a good case made many times for his being suicidal (beyond the obvious end he chose) and this could be applied to his abandonment at putting himself at risk. Being suicidal is hardly an admirable trait, but it fits pretty well with the overall nihilist label.
However, I do agree that he had better just stayed in the army, problem there though would be that the gas attack that sent him back from the front in 18 also ruined his vision. The man had glasses like coke bottle bottoms, although he stricty forbade one single picture to be taken of him in them. His optometrist report shows that at times he had less than 50% vision, this might explain the empty almost lost stare he sometimes has on film snippets.
With half a foot out the door I remembered that I forgot to mention that the second Iron Cross was awarded post his being wounded in the previously mentioned gas attack, which was more or less standard procedure for wounded soldiers of the standing army who had served that long through the war.
And now I truly must depart to seek out my cocktail party…
On 1) He had stomach problems. He ate a lot of mush so his vegetarianism was medical not moral. Also one has to believe that eating animals is immoral for that to matter one way or another.
On 2) He was a non-smoker. This again isn’t moral, it’s a health issue. Same for not wanting to be around smoke.
On 3) Yes. He also didn’t wear white patent leather shoes with matching betl and golf pants. You hit the nail on the head with #3.
The gas attack happened better than two months after Hitler was awarded the second Iron Cross, First Class (which was an award for gallantry, not a German equivalent to the purple heart, despite some ‘award inflation’ during the war).
Now, saying that he was one of ‘ten thousand’ in no way means that he wasn’t courageous, it means that there were lots of courageous soldiers. Which happens to be the true case. Just because there are others as, or more, courageous, in no way means that Adolph was not courageous.
I have no evidence that he remained courageous, but for a period of years in his youth, he demonstrated courage in service to his country. This in no way reduces his barbarity later in life, similar to what we can see in a latter-day semi-parallel, Tim McVeigh.
This all simply shows that few men are completely devoid of virtue, even the most evil. Beware being blinded by virtue. I’m tired of hearing “It couldn’t be him. He was always so nice…” Evil people can be nice, pretty, courageous, witty, compasionate, and charitable, when they choose. It doesn’t make them any less evil.
Tranquilis is still arguing as if I disagree with this, which I do not. I’ll repeat my point. In the specific case Hitler I cannot find any redeeming qualities, no matter how hard I look. That still doesn’t mean that someone who possesses redeeming qualities would not be capable of similar evil. It just means what it means; he was and remains an enigma in as much as his life seems awfully empty and devoid of anything except his adopted cause. As for Hitler’s social talents the people who met him generally walked away with a positive impression as far as I have read and heard, but most also said that they felt strangely disappointed when meeting him after having first heard him give speech, as if he couldn’t live up to himself. It’s quite common for people to react that way with famous actors as well… reality bites.
Re my fast flung post on the Iron Cross I stand corrected.
Not that it’s important since H himself had a rather strange definition of what a country is, but technically he did not fight for his country, him being an Austrian fighting for Bavaria and the Reich and what not. Then again he renounced his citizenship and became Bavarian/German so I guess you could say that it was his country. Incidentally one of the few things I agree with him on, renouncing citizenship that is.
Nicky makes a very good point, and that is the problem in general with master Adolf, his very few admirable qualities are indeed morally neutral.