Will people feel the same way about Hitler in 2,000 years?
I would venture to guess yes. There is a lot to talk about when it comes to Hitler. Civil rights can have a field day talking about his views, political scientists have and probably will continue to put him on the same stage as Napoleon, WWII is still one of the hottest topics in america for books and movies. Tactics reasons military commanders will talk about his sucess and his blunders. Fascism will continually have its place in history books, and thouhg he didnt invent it Hitler sure perfected it.
Throuhgout my high school and college career i have spent more time on Napoleon and Hitler than any other significant world dictator. Nobody will be talking about Castro after his death, Hussein will be a footnote for Americas war, Alexander will always be glossed over as a leader that never got to rule the land he conquered. Julius ceasar will be studied for his campaignes but politically Agustus accomplished much more. Stalin, Lennin, Kruschev Mao will be in history books for the death tolls, their failed economic polocies under communism and how in the end capitalism triumphed. How many people remember the other dictators of Rome? or more importantly what exactly did they contribute to history? Nero dancing around his palace singing because he thought the flames that were burning Rome were pretty? Unless you take an Asian history class you wont hear about Khan, even then asian history classes focus on the beurocracy of the Asians not their military exploits.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think in 2,000 years, we'll look at Hitler the same way the world looks at Augustus and others today.
There's 2,000 years of dictators, atrocities, and whatever will happen in that time to take into account. If there's a world government by then, they'll view national history in a much different way. I think it's impossible to assume one way or the other, there's no possibly way to know what will happen. But that's my guess.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course the very real possibility that in 2k years people wont be on earth and then no one will care...
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish we had Asian history classes, I've yet to see one offered near me. Maybe when I'm in college. Sigh.
Caligula has always interested me, in that he proved the social contract right before it was even written; the people knew they had a crazy leader, so they got rid of him. But for long term impact he definately wouldn't win.
If the head of a monarchy can qualify for being a dictator, Philip II of Spain should get a nod. His actions led to the Holy Roman Empire's collapse into a crippled Germany. His fiscal irresponsibility gave France the advantage it needed to become a super power. Not to mention his policies can be largely linked to almost every single Catholic majority nation's current catholocism. Latin America, the Czechs, Poland, Belguim, ect.
I also feel Elizabeth I should get a nod for creating patriotism in England.
The crazed North Korean may prove himself "worthy" to be on this list yet, never know Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I definitely have to second Lyrhawn about Sulla. There's a reason Julius Caesar and Augustus are a lot more well known. Sulla was important, yes, but I don't see how you could put him ahead of either Julius or Augustus. For instance, we don't have a "Sullember". Or maybe, going with a more Latin approach, "Sullaember".
I did like the mention of Cincinattus somewhere in this thread though. I don't think he was the greatest, but he does deserve to be mentioned.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
