Archivist: Hitler's remains burned and dumped in river

Its a shame all this didn't occur in in 1938 rather than the 1970. A lot of lives would have been saved.

I disagree the world needed Hitler, Hitler showed the world what racism could do. It was better it happened back then instead of now.

I think humanity would have figuered it out without 50 million dead. And either way, 1938 would have been too late. He was almost killed in WW1, that would have been the better time before he would have time to enter politics in Germany.

You give far to much credit to humanity. I am sure if Hitler had never killed all those people there would be no laws against racism. Humans figure things out AFTER they happen. We do something and then go "Oh shit bad idea."

Besides WWII had to happen, it changed the way the world deals with the aftermath of a war, it changed the way the world did everything. If it wasn't Hitler it would have been someone else, someone else who could of had a far more powerful weapon.

I disagree the world needed Hitler, Hitler showed the world what racism could do. It was better it happened back then instead of now.

Because bloodshed and genocide were his great lesson for the World (is that better, the West?)? Please. The Great War was only 15 years prior and it was based on some pretty ugly post-Enlightenment ideologies too. Hitler, at best, was perhaps, the culmination of the last European Civil War.

I don't think it was a European civil war. Other than skin colour and selective ideologies many Europeans don't share that much in common, at least not historically. You can't compare a Brit to a Russian or a Turk for example.

WW2 was a culmination of European ideology of superiority.

Many ignorant of European affairs still say "Hitler made Germany racist", but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Hitler was a product of European "enlightenment" and what he did was done before hundreds, perhaps thousands of times over but far less effectively.

It was, and historians, years from now, may (this is pure speculation) include it in a general series of events that stem back to the Thirty Years War.

Actually, the Europeans of these conflicts shared a litany of common traits - history, Christianity, Greco-Roman culture, the Renaissance (from humanism to individualism), the Reformation (that brought political science), the Scientific Revolution, politics (from feudalism to nation-states) and the Enlightenment (which, in itself, was a primary intellectual motivator for conflicts).

As a culture, the West and Europeans share far more than you think.




WWII was also unfinished business of the perversion of the Enlightenment, unfulfilled nationalism and chaotic political realities and economics.




I agree - many people are indeed grossly ignorant of the contemporary cultural/political realities of Germany



Well...his "ideology" was certainly an unfortunate perversion of the Enlightenment (and his contemporary milieu), but his actions (genocide, totalitarianism infused race-based politics) were products of the 20th century.

That would make sense. They are connected conflicts, but are far bigger than just WW1 and WW2. There was the Spanish civil war, Russian revolution, the beginning of major colonial displeasure with European rule and so on.



It is true. But sharing regional ideas is not out of the ordinary. Us and our Southern neighbours share many of the same similarities due to the cross pollination of political and selective ideological ideas. We are still not 1 country and we have massive differences deep down.



That is also true.



I would have to disagree. It was a genocide because of his technical ability to to carry it out. I am sure if King Leopold II could exterminate all of Congolesians he would. I am sure medieval kings would also love exterminate undesirable sections of their society. Pogroms against jews date back to the old Israeli state and the torching of Solomon's 2nd temple.

Genocide is no 20th century concept. Portuguese settlers in Brazil brutally exterminated natives, the Romans exterminated Carthaginians and Isralis and the Turks didn't flinch as they laid the sword down on innocent East European Slavic peoples.

Technological know-how was the only thing that separated mass scale genocide (the holocaust) versus the razing of Thebes by Alexander or the destruction of Carthage by the Romans.

And that's why formal UN definitions of genocide include the "systemic" element as a characteristic. This glaring 20th century element did indeed allow the machination possible for mass killing against identified groups.

There's a marked difference between murders, mass-killings, brutal oppression and genocide. Hence the later getting a specific definition.



Actually, it is (unless one reverts to historical revisionism and alters the definition to fit the event). All scholarly consensus - working off of the CPPCG - classifies genocides as a 20th century (and 21st) phenomena. Not only do the actions must meet the CPPCG criteria but a stage-based progression is noted and the "polarization" stage is impossible prior to the 20th century as mass-media broadcasting is rather difficult to acheive.



No...intellectual hallmarks were in place well after Greco-Roman times that made genocide an ethical issue.