NationStates Jolt Archive

Hitler was a Nazi “Extremist”. Eichmann was a Nazi “Moderate”. Now are we better off with an “Extremist” who rants incoherently and lets everyone know exactly how he feels, making horrible decisions that are easily undermined and ultimately ineffective, or A “moderate” who keeps his feelings toned down and works quietly towards his goals, supporting the deadly infrastructure of his system while saying all the right things politically?

Would you rather wage a war against a psychotic but obvious madman or a man who is just as rational as he is dangerous?

I'm guessing the moderate is worse because (s)he usually makes changes more slowly and their ideas are more likely to be accepted.

how did you decide to define hitler as the extremist and eichmann as the moderate? what made each man each thing in your opinion?

One was loud, ranting and raving in public, never listening, He always strode by absolutes without balancing them against practicality, “Where the German Soldiers sets foot, there he stays”.

This sounds extreme to me. He was also impatient, wanting everything and wanting it now. No need to wait for warmer weather before charging Moscow.

The other, he was more than happy to work slowly, keeping quiet, listening and taking his time. He did not rant in public, he even claimed some of his best friends were Jews and he listened. he listened very well, he learned about Jews, he learned Hebrew and Yiddish, he learned Jewish laws and got to know many Jewish leaders personally, then he gradually, quietly, turned Jewish institutions in to tools of the state, using them to build records identifying all Jews, disarming those Jews, one step at a time removing them from professions and gradually weaning their property and finally rights from them. His approach was quiet, moderated, not at all extreme, but gradually allowed its damage to accumulate. He never killed a Jew personally, but he calmly and rationally designed the system that did, with utter indifference.