History says Hitler killed millions of innocent people, yet there's no solid evidence he even killed one person! The Nazis (military) did the killing in the name of Hitler. Actually killing someone or having soeone else do it, are two different issues. Its like the old saying, "if you want a fresh apple, don't get it from the bottom of the bushel, get it off the tree!" No offense to anyone on this killing issue, its just a question that needs to be addressed.
2006-09-20 19:07:09 · 33 answers · asked by ZORRO 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Some people don't realize that Hitler had a double towards the end of the war so he could escape. Its been proven that the dental work of the so-called remains they found were not those of Hitler. That person had perfect teeth, Hitler had serious dental work done several times.
2006-09-20 19:15:42 · update #1
The only person Hitler killed was himself during the 2nd world war.
2006-09-20 19:11:04 · answer #1 · answered by tunisianboy46 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There was something I saw a while back about a rumour that he was having an affair with a cousin or a niece while he was still chancellor, it had to end as the scandal would have stopped his chances of becoming Fuhrer, she was found in her apartment with a bullet in her from his gun, and she had been writing a letter and it stopped mid sentence. The police at the time swept it under the carpet and it was claimed suicide, pretty sure he killed Eva Braun when in the bunker commiting suicide, and people seem to forget that he was a soldier in the first world war. Not the greatest of role models for anybody out there, yet there are some racists and bigots on here that may have been taking tips.
2006-09-20 20:28:37 · answer #2 · answered by Dumbledore 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if a don in the mafia tells a hitman to kill someone, the Don can still be charged for murder. Hitler may not have personally killed anyone, but he supervised and organized the whole ordeal. just because he didn't pull the trigger, doesn't mean he isn't guilty. He organized very powerful propaganda. He went to visit the killing fields once, and some brain bits and blood splattered him. it was after that that he said he wanted to make it more technological and efficient. In truth few germans actually "killed anyone" the jews cleaned and ran the concentration camps, forced to poor the cyanide into the showers under the point of a gun. I'm sure plenty of them said no, in which case they were shot, and other people were brought in to do the job.
In a historical context, a leader takes responsibility for what happens under his rule. As Roosevelt is given credit for ending the depression, even though he wasn't even able to walk. So as the whole thing was his grand scheme, orchastrated with his authorization, supervision and coordination, he is responsible. Thats why its said that he killed.
2006-09-20 19:29:13 · answer #3 · answered by Chit P 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The NAZI party was a creation by Hitler. So were the youth wing of the same party. The SS in the military was again his creation. His vision of creating a Pure Human race in Germany was his vision.
The question is irrelevant because even if he wanted to, physically he could not have killed so many people.
What is abhorrent that he created a fantastic organisation to do so. We understand that a very effective system was in place at the extermination camps which determined the priority of these killings.
I wish he had used his intellectual prowess for the benefit of mankind.
2006-09-20 19:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by arindam80 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Adolf Hitler was involved in WWI, so chances are he did personally kill at least 1 person.
As for the WWII, it is without question that it was the military who did most of the killing; I am not sure Adolf Hitler himself physically killed anyone; however his words, actions and later commands drove people to kill each other.
I think that when you say 'History says Hitler killed millions' you should not see it as 'killed millions personally' but rather caused the death of 'millions'.
It's not like people killing others in the name of some God who isn't here to stop the killers or disown them... Hitler was in command, and could have issued orders to stop the killings if he wanted to.
2006-09-20 19:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did he personally kill? Well, that remains to be seen... he was a corporal in WW 1, so possibly he had already done some killing then. As for personally killing during WW 2, I don't know, although I'm pretty sure he has, together with his wife) killed his children, and afterwards commited suicide. (note: I just read that you claim it has been proven that it was not Hitler's remains that were found, where did you find this proof?)
As for killing millions of innocent people, he may not have done that personally, but he did give the orders and also instigated the hatred in his campaigns before WW 2 started, so he was definitely responsible.
2006-09-20 19:17:44 · answer #6 · answered by Walter W. Krijthe 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Was it you who recently said that Bush or Blair was responsible for terrorism? If it wasn't I apologise.
However it is an example to use to illustrate what a lot of sheep we are.
It is no wonder a group or a single person can move us to where they want us to mentally be, and take our eyes away from that they don't want us to notice while its happening.
A recent example of this sort of thing could be the day when the U.S.A.'s President opened a junior school's day at 9.am in the South as 9-11 was occurring in the North?
Such high office at that low level and at that time is out of character.
So if Hitler is now being promoted morally what are we doing running down Bush and Blair?
They haven't down a thing except brush their teeth and presented themselves?
So stop running hares when today's problems require resolving.
Concentrate on today's problems not someones take on history.
2006-09-20 20:10:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm being honest with you, about this issue. Alot of dictators, etc use that precise argument "I didn't personally kill that person therefore I am not guilty of murder." First of all incitement to murder is as big a crime as murder, because the ideology is there and without that incitement the murder would never have occured. So, to imply that Hitler is somehow 'less guilty' because he incited rather than committed murder is ridiculous. So, whilst it's good you can look at an issue and try and understand it from someone else's perspective there is no getting away Hitler has the responsibility for the death of millions on his hands and there is no getting away from it.
2006-09-20 19:13:23 · answer #8 · answered by waggy 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you have a gun and shoot someone with it, you didn't kill them, the gun did. You were standing some distance away so you are not to blame, is that what you are suggesting. Of course you killed them, you decided to make them die and you took the necessary steps to implement the decision.
The man at the top of the command line is entriely responsible because he is acting from choice. The soldier is usually acting on self preservation, if he doesn't follow orders he is likely to find himself being killed by his own leaders.
If you are trying to say Hitler didn't know what was going on you must never have heard or read his speeches.
2006-09-20 20:04:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "doppleganger" theory is just another theory thrown around to fascinate people such as yourself. Whilst it is not unknown that people in power sometimes used body doubles, it is not proven that Hitler did.
You should watch the movie "Downfall" - a great movie about the fall of Berlin - you would probably get a lot out of it if you are interested in the subject
2006-09-20 19:31:16 · answer #10 · answered by LadyRebecca 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋