Serious question. I know that the education system is under full Marxist control. But I still find it hard to believe that they only know of Hitler as the pinnacle of evil.
shareThey've probably heard of him, mostly in connection with using his name in comparison to Trump. Ask them what decades WWII took place in and they don't have a clue.
share
Exactly. Most liberal millennials know little to nothing about history, except what their revisionist Marxist teachers tell them.
Here's all they know about Hitler: Hitler is generally considered to be evil.
From there, they simply assign the name Hitler to anyone who doesn't agree with their demands for social "reform". In other words, Hitler= bad. Conservatives = bad. Conservatives = Hitler.
I was in that system growing up. Those damned "social studies" teachers were terrible at their job. They made the material so boring and dull that kids only remember the highlights of history and little else, if even that.
shareMovies helped a lot keeping Hitler on top if the dictator chart. There's a few movies with nazis in them released every year. Stalin movies are very few and far apart. I can think of maybe 4 or 5. Other dictators are barely even seen in popular culture.
shareMake Dictator Movies Again!
shareI wonder who runs Hollywood that keeps putting out those kinds of movies, over, and over, and over... and over again.
shareI'm a liberal Millennial.
Of the top of my head:
Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Mao
Napoleon
Nero
King George III
Lenin
Fidel Castro
Ivan the Terrible
Vlad the Impaler
Hernan Cortes
I had very good social studies teachers.
Lol your 'social studies' teacher taught you about a dozen historical figures across many different era's .... Riiight.
shareYou’re probably a rarity.
King George III, if Jeff Bezos was a king it would be him.
Elizabeth Bathery takes the all time creepy evil monarch for me though.
Why is Mao and Fidel Castro on this list? They gave all their people free healthcare opposed to what was prior in the country. Not to mention every citizen got a proper education
shareTell us your reasoning for putting Hitler above Stalin?
shareNo mention of Pol Pot, Idi Amin?
shareI never heard of them so they can't be that bad
sharePol Pot was a political leader whose communist Khmer Rouge government led Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork. One detention center, S-21, was so notorious that only seven of the roughly 20,000 people imprisoned there are known to have survived.
In 1971, General Idi Amin overthrew the elected government of Milton Obote and declared himself president of Uganda, launching a ruthless eight-year regime in which an estimated 300,000 civilians were massacred.
Yeah not too bad....
Did they not tell you about Pol Pot?
shareYou know how to do a Google search for "dictators".
shareThrow Hollyweird into your statement and the answer is still yes.
YES.
Let's make a movie about another bad guy, boss.
Jetson, YOU'RE FIRED.
Why single out liberal millennials? Hitler has always been the choice for ultimate bad guy in films and other media since WW2. It doesn't matter what your political position is, people love to compare people and ideas they disagree with to Hitler and Nazis.
shareBecause liberals are insane.
shareJews are overrepresented in films and other media?
shareI can think of several reasons:
1) Hitler has the distinction of being one of the main instigators of a major World War. I guess you can say Napoleon was like that too, but the Napoleonic Wars were a much long time ago and France was being as much encroached upon as encroaching after the Revolution, while Hitler did most of the of encroaching, with the U.S.S.R. going after some tasty morsels as well (Finland, the Baltic states, eastern Poland). A war between Japan and America or Britain and Italy would less likely have lead to such global and cataclysmic results as war between Germany and everybody did.
2) The way in which Hitler came to power, through the democratic process (the Palpatine/Hitler Model) feels much more relatable and a cautionary tale in Western Europe and America than does the Rise to Power narrative of other dictators. For instance, many dictators come to power after a Revolution or Civil War (Napoleon, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot), while others seize power in an extra-legal way or by force, neither through elections or war/revolution (Mussolini*, Castro, Idi Amin). Others rise to power through a power struggle in a state that is already authoritarian (Stalin, Saddam).
Interestingly enough, Hugo Chavez's rise to power mirrors Hitler' in a few respects, but differs in others. Chavez attempted a coup, failed, was jailed, then won an election upon his release and slowly chipped away at democratic foundations. Analyzing how dictators rise to power is interesting, and some stories are inherently more interesting than others. Leading to:
3) Hitler's Third Reich mastered imagery and propaganda, and Nazi Germany just has more flash and sex appeal than most other dictatorships. Germany was unbelievable advanced in some many areas both scientific and cultural, not to mention the flashy and stylish clothing. The contrast between this and the underlying brutality retains its morbid fascination.
*Mussolini's March on Rome wasn't exactly taking power through normal democratic means.
Interesting analysis. I guess you are NOT a liberal Millennial?
shareNot a Millennial, anyway. Actually, Hitler was more widely taught back in the 80s as well. That hasn't changed much since World War II. Oh, and it helps that America played a big role in World War II. We like to see ourselves as everyone else's savior. "We saved your ass in World War II."
sharethe main difference is media. everybody can watch hitler. the others, not so much.
shareAn election born out of very unusual circumstances. Germany collapsed politically after WWI. Extreme elements were running around Germany and other parts of Europe there afterward promoting near anarchy or complete totalitarianism in many cases. People chalking up WWII and the final solution as the result of "Germans being German" are extremely narrow minded. Extremism can take root in any human society and often did in past eras. The modern recording process was not there to document what took place in past regimes. Should modern Italians be given a pass or held liable for the misdeeds of the Romans? Afterall, a lot of Rome's gains happened as a result of violence.
share