Human perceptions of individuals are usually “monochromatic”; in other words, it is a human nature to view the individual in question as “either or”. Either a hero or a villain that is. Few can see and understand the complexity of any prominent individual (i.e. a politician, a military leader, a statesman, etc.) who are rarely, if ever, “black” or “white”. In reality, they are usually both – black-and-white.
Adolf Hitler was not only a perfect example of this dualism of sorts, but a radically extreme at that. Although he is almost universally perceived as a “pure villain” (a “pure Evil” even), in reality he was both a hero and a villain. Actually, both The Hero and The Villain, to be precise.
And not just The Hero, but the most valuable Hero in the history of the Catholic Church (which he was a member of and never left, unlike many of his subordinates); the whole Christian Church; the Christian Civilization; the Western Civilization (by that time it was already a somewhat different entity) and the whole humankind (i.e. the human civilization).
For a very simple reason – Adolf Hitler was the only leader in human history that fought and won a genuinely existential war and saved “all of the above” from being destroyed and transformed into a genuine Hell on Earth. No other political or military leader in human history accomplished anything of an even remotely similar magnitude and value to the humankind.
However, Adolf Hitler was also The Villain – possibly the worst mass murderer in human history (although Stalin, Mao and especially Pol Pot – or even Tamerlane – would most likely disagree). Which is not a surprise at all – with the magnitude and power of his personality he should have been expected to be highly accomplished in “both departments”.
The fundamental question then is: was Adolf Hitler “net positive” or “net negative”? In other words, was he more The Hero than The Villain or the other way around? Did he bring more good (benefit) than harm to “all of the above” or the other way around?
The answer to this fundamental question is obvious – and the “mainstream historians” (which in this respect are, alas, more like propaganda workers) will not like it one bit.
Adolf Hitler was “net positive”. Period. Cut and dry, plain and simple, loud and clear. Thus he was much, much more The Hero than The Villain. True, he murdered millions (his Führerstaat was based on the omnipresent Führerprinzip which meant that Der Führer was ultimately responsible for all crimes and atrocities committed by his subordinates), no doubt about that.
However, he also saved “all of the above” (including the whole human civilization) from being completely destroyed and transformed into a very literal Hell on Earth. And the whole human civilization is obviously far, far more valuable than all victims of Nazi crimes combined. Sorry, folks, but it is just a pure arithmetic. It is a cruel fact, but an undeniable fact nevertheless.
Does it mean that we now should erect monuments to Adolf Hitler all over the world? Not at all – we do not do that to mass murderers. It only means that we must see Adolf Hitler for who he was – The Hero, The Villain and a very much “net positive”.
Oh, one more thing. Hitler II and III make him a textbook “national-sociopath”. I will cover these characters in one of the next sections of this chapter.
These three personalities of Adolf Hitler and his dual nature of being a national-sociopath pretty much create the foundation for this book. Each chapter will present and analyze Hitler’s personality, his decisions and actions, his relationships or a certain aspect/are of this life from the perspective of his three personality and his dual nature.