Adolf Hitler and the Ballad of Judas Priest

April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler is found dead in his study, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His war of aggression, while not formally ending for another four months (As the Japanese resisted surrender until the advent of the atomic bomb, where the Axis surrendered within a week of Hitler’s death) had essentially come to a close. His coalition was defeated on all fronts, after having sowed immense destruction across the largest collective battlefield the world had ever seen.

Yet in spite of the innumerable deaths and atrocities attributed to Hitler’s actions, the war served to unite an immense number of countries for a common goal, while similarly providing a framework of interdependence for years to come. Among the victories achieved post-WWII are the forming of Israel as a nation, the economic and military ties between America and Japan, the end of American isolationism (which proved a mixed blessing at times), the effective foundation of the European Union, the formalization of international rules and regulations governing warfare, and countless smaller items. As the world had already suffered a global conflict in recent memory, yet did not enact any of these benefits, it is logical to state that without the advent of the Second World War, they would not have happened.

Now, this is not to say that such occurrences could not happen, or that Hitler’s war was overall beneficial rather than detrimental. It is difficult to argue that the death of seventy-two million individuals equals the aforementioned benefit; however, it is a simple fact that the war did happen, the deaths did occur, and that a benefit – however inconsequential in comparison – was gained. Though the Nazi doctors performed horrible experiments on unwilling captives, they advanced modern medical science rapidly; that knowledge, while deplored from the method used to gain it, is still used today, and founded similar advancements.

Switching topics shortly, observe the phenomenon of Judas Priest – the epitome of Christian evil within man, a curse used to this day in all manner of foul ways. Judas Iscariot was purportedly one of Christ’s twelve disciples; there is nothing to state that this is true or fiction, yet the story is so pervasive in western culture that its truth is irrelevant for the example it provides. For the majority of American religious individuals, Judas was the man who betrayed the Savior for a handful of coin, to later commit suicide in regret. A classic example of a man doing a horrible act, similar to Hitler’s war of aggression.

However, when we look upon the larger scale of Christian ideology, it is apparent that Christ had to die in order to ‘save’ mankind. His death was part of a grand scheme concocted beyond this earthly realm, a plan that would ultimately benefit everyone, despite the personal loss suffered by Christ himself. In this sense, Christ had to die, and the instruments of his death were vital assets to the grand scheme. Therefore, Judas Iscariot was one of the foremost proponents of the crucifixion and therefore the salvation of all humans. Why, then, is Judas so reviled in society?

Throughout the world at large and America in particular, there is a strong desire to vilify the perceived negatives of an individual or collective, even to the point of diminishing or ignoring the gains reaped from their actions. As they say, ‘the good that men do is often turned with their bones; yet the evil that men do lives on.’ Is this simply a morbid attraction towards the deviant? Is it an overwhelming desire to prevent a recurrence of negativities, even when this suppression of ‘evil’ bleeds across to the suppression of the beneficial?

Returning once more to the example of Hitler, it is apparent to anyone of passable intellect that Hitler was a genius. His charisma and rhetoric won him a nation, while his oratory skills and overall political knowledge allowed him to maintain office and embark upon the single greatest (in terms of scale) undertaking the world had yet seen. Had he focused his talents upon peace through nonviolence, rather than peace through fascist domination of the ‘pure’ race, it is entirely conceivable that he would have succeeded where so many others have failed. Yet in a way, his war of aggression led to a fraction of that unity, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Great deeds are often won through terrible acts. Yet the only perception of immorality resides within the forcing of another to be part to such acts, rather than the acts themselves. Of course, there will always be fanatics that deplore the actions purely for their own sake, without regard toward the willingness of the participants and the potential gains to be had. But that aside, what self-proclaimed humanist would truly object to a subject willfully and knowingly undergoing torture for the sake of advancing medical science?

There is an age-old debate of means versus ends. Now, the issue from this stems from the fact that until the ends are achieved, one cannot know if they will justify the means used to reach them. However, as it is commonly held that hindsight is 20/20, one may reasonably validate a past experiment to determine if the ends truly did justify the means. In the case of WWII, the results of this validation are conflicting by nature. For one, there is no realistic way to validate the death toll, unless the observer is a nihilist – or another comparable philosophy – and does not see a negative aspect to large-scale annihilation of humans.

However, if one can accept that the past is irreversible, it is reasonable to analyze the benefits gained from the past event with a neutral mind. As mentioned previously, the medical advances and national interdependence of the involved parties proved a distinct benefit for the extent of human history from that point forward. The war does not have to be glorified or even praised, yet it is Victor’s Delusion to vilify every aspect of it to the point of ignoring the resulting benefits. To even suggest that Hitler accomplished direct and indirect benefits to humanity is to incur the wrath of nearly everyone in earshot; such claims would result in the label of Nazi for the one who espoused them.

In the modern world of forced tolerance and vain ‘social awareness’, it is simply astounding to see the overt stigmatizing of any perceived negatives, provided they fall within the schemata of a common enemy. As history is written by the victor, this should not be a surprise to find the demonization of an adversary, yet it is disheartening to see the benefits and gains ignored or dismissed due to simple association. If we cannot dismiss the irrelevancies of ‘evil’ from the pursuit of human betterment, we will fail to progress as a race, until stagnation and decay has eroded every hope of evolution.