if hitler were more liberal, would this have lessened or increased the atrocities he allegedly commited?

Answer 1

If I read your question correctly, you are asking if history would view Hilter's actions more favorably had he been more liberal?

That's so improbable as to be ludicrous. You don't deliberately set out to kill six million people because of hatred, and not get accused of committing atrocities. Period.

Also, I'm not aware of any alleged atrocities... I believe they are historical facts.

Answer 2

This is a good question in that it makes us examine what liberal and conservative actually mean. Since we are dealing with an emotionally charged issue, Hitler, then some background is needed. A rational government needs both conservatism and liberalism. For example, President Ronald Reagan was conservative in checking government's expansion, and defending America against the then dangerous threat of Communism. But liberal in allowing what then seemed like large deficits (these really were not a problem, and helped to end the Cold War).

Now we can get into Hitler's Nazisim. Keep in mind the liberal argues change for the sake of change, and has less respect for precedent than does the conservative. Edmund Burke is perhaps the best spokesman for real conservatism. This English philosopher predicted the chaos and mayhem of The French Revolution. Burke was a pragamatist, who recognized government should preserve what has maintained peace and order. Hitler was a radical. Keep in mind also what NAZI stands for: National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was a radical concept that Germany should expand and take over the world; it was a radical concept that Jews should be exterminated. Government that has restraint, such as the relatively conservative, U.S. Constitution, does not allow government officials to act rashly and unaccountably. I must say at this point Bush has repeatedly violated the Constitution, such as Article I and Sect. 8 of the document; he is no conservative in my mind. He has disobeyed the judgment of much more knowledgeable generals. It is not commonly known, but a fact that much of Germany's military high command intensely disliked Hitler. They believed he made many reckless decisions, needless gambles, and lacked an overall understanding of military principles and warfare. This is covered in an excellent book, "The German Generals Talk." In addition, it is the conservative who would be more apt to defer to those with greater knowledge and experience based on logic and fact. The liberal in contrast is amendable to his personal view of justice; intuiton, and engage in unproven or well supported experimentation (W. Bush and Iraq and its endless errors show to me errant liberalism, not sound conservatism).

In summary, I must conclude if Hitler had been more liberal he would have committed even more atrocities (no allegedly is needed). On the same basis, if Stalin had been less radical and liberal, he would have committed fewer atrocities. If Napoleon had been more conservative and restrained, there would have been less atrocities.

In closing, true conservatism puts a value on the restraint of power that liberalism does not. President Dwight D. Eisenhower believed in the resraint of power, and there were no atrocities when he held office. In contrast, Hitler was no conservative, and his atrocities were infinite.

Answer 3

If Hitler were more liberal, he would have been more tolerant and accepting of other people, thus not wanting to exterminate them...

Fascism is ultra-conservatism... so by loosening up a little, perhaps forgiving the Jews, a liberal Hitler would have been one of the greatest politicians of all time. He understood how to lead people and was a very beloved man. He very easily could have brought Germany out of WWI without leading them down a path of destruction.

Good question.

Answer 4

The most dominant feature of Hitler was virulent anti-Semitism, which I don't think you can put a more liberal spin on. I'd say the same amount of atrocities.

Answer 5

Liberal in what regard? This question makes no sense. You can't use a modern American political label and compare a German political party with it. Do you mean if Hitler was a liberal Nazi? A liberal German? A liberal what?

Explain your question better if you want a better response.

Answer 6

I think this is question pretty much answers itself. Anyone holding more liberal views would be unlikely to purse a racist, genocidal, and openly aggresive set of policies.

Answer 7

If he were more liberal he would have been more accepting of different kinds of people, and likely less keen on gassing millions of them to death.

Answer 8

I don't know that it would have had much effect. You can be equally fascist regardless of your political leanings.

Plus he was insane.

Answer 9

lessened.