Since the earliest civilizations, histroy has been written and rewritten by winners , erasing every glorifying incidence by those who lost. Later, justifying each and every deed(winners) either through moral "gown" or "the context of which the action was taken", thus proving it "right ". Is this fair that losers have to be critisied and proved "morally wrong" in most of the cases....
As in case of Hitler, except the Jew killing, it was he who united and strengthened GERMANY which was left devastated after the Treaty of Versallies. But was he ever glorified for his “act”???
3 comments:
Adolf Hitler was the person,who was responsible for the most number of killings in the known history of human civilizations.
Yes,it is true that many military leaders through coups and rebels made their path to rule.But,on this basis Hitler's works can't be justified.
It is also true that Traty of Versallies after the first world war had a serious humiliation on the nationhood of Germany.
But,post-Hitler era were proved much worse than post-versallies treaty era.
It is not always true.Some examples-
1.Shivaji and Auragjeb
2.Rana Pratap and Mann Singh
3.Subhash Chandra Bose and other freedom fighters who enjoyed the status of Ministership
4.JP and Indira
5.Prithvi Raj Chouhan-3 and Jaichand
Please try to understand the differences of glory between each set of people.
Sometimes,people win their battles even after losing it......
I assume you used a pretty much bad example to set your point forth.. in many cases it is common sight to see the fallen ignored despite his actions. However, as cited it does not hold as a universal law, but a more general mode of the happening of events...
Plus, i believe the introduction of Hitler as an example was purely bad reading because however wrong the treaty of Versailles was, it did not justify the consequences Hitler induced on the world...plus his "unification" was ultimately the focal point to Germany being shamed in world history.
Post a Comment