As much as it pains me to say it, the only person in this photo that is not a rapist, known and admitted child murderer and or a terrorist that has a history of abuse of women is the funny mustache man. His crimes are of a different sort, worse even, but not those specific ones.
Swell list you put together there man. /s
Edit: added the /s.
He didn't kill them (or anyone - there is no evidence that he killed anyone himself) with his own hands though, the others did things with their own hands
Which is the key difference in the question. He created and cultivated a monstrous system, but he wasn't much of a monster at home to his immediate environment, especially not towards children. Which makes him a better babysitter than the other three.
Hitler absolutely did have a history of terrorism, even prior to the war. He almost certainly abused his niece, who was one of at least four women in his life to commit/attempt suicide, which I feel speaks to his treatment of women - explicitly abusive at worst, coercive and manipulative at best.
A messenger is just someone who carries the message. Hitler was not the messenger. He was responsible for mass murder.
You are mistaking the concept of a "personally murdering" someone with the concept of " murdering someone with their own hands". A man who hires someone to kill their wife is considered a murderer, even though they didn't do it with their own hands.
Hitler
was a mass murderer. He gave the direct orders, set the policies, and created the bureaucratic systems for mass murder.
No he was literally a messenger. That was his role during WW1. He ran carrying letters to relay orders and information where telegraphs and phones where unavailable.
You've fallen into the same retard trap as the person you've waded in to defend.
They're not defending Hitler. They're pointing out a fact. Hitler did not kill anyone personally during either world war, or at least not that we know of.
Can you quote the comment that is defending him please? I haven't seen anyone say he is a good person or anything even close to it - he was one of the worst in history. But I assume you have, hence my question.
Messengers still occasionally became involved in battle, and Hitler certainly was as he received medals for helping during. Suggesting he never killed anyone is speculative at best, as is saying he directly killed anyone. We just don't know.
By Hitler's own account, he carried a pistol and used it during battle to have a pinned group of enemy soldiers surrendered and marched to the Germans. He claims he stumbled upon them during his duties of delivering a message.
Simply being a messenger doesn't get you two Iron Crosses, and certainly not first class.
Bit of a semantic point to make, as you clearly knew I meant the latter.
Hilarious semantics, considering in another comment chain, you didn't recognise his WWI duties and assumed "messenger" related to his political governance and genocidal campaign.
Edit: Blocking me over this exchange is pathetic mate, especially considering we're both saying the same thing, and you just want a word changed.
It's not just a semantic point. You stated that It is not known if he directly killed anyone. It is well documented that he directly ordered people to be killed, and set up the infrastructure for them to be killed.
I know that what you meant to say is that it is not known if he personally killed anyone with his own hands.
It's important to make the distinction, because there are plenty of people saying that he's not responsible for any murder whatsoever.
You said it's not semantics, then clearly outlined that it is semantics, because the message and context was clear for anyone to read whether that term is changed or not.
If we want to be extremely semantic-driven, which clearly you do, then there is no definition for what "directly killed" actually means, and the term deeply relies on the context surrounding it.
Edit: Blocking me over this exchange is pathetic mate, especially considering we're both saying the same thing, and you just want a word changed.
As per historical sources, that was not the case. She was not allowed to move to a different country for the sake of a man, not kept indoors at all time as you are portraying it. There is something to be said about mental abuse and gun safety but given that she was an adult when she moved in and when she killed herself.
You're portraying this as Hitler simply limiting her to the confines of a whole, sprawling country. This is more ahistorical than the point you're claiming to refute. He kept her very close, otherwise she wouldn't have been in the vicinity to begin an affair with Hitler's chauffeur, which is a very proximal job, obviously.
Don't explain someone else's words, as reign of the country is clearly different to keeping family close, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to butt in.
•
u/Ok_Commission1579 1d ago