That a HuffPo article written by a “progressive” from Hollywood would state as fact that the attempted genocide of the Jews, as well as Stalin and Mao’s atrocities, were the products of men who “meant well” is hardly as shocking as some on the right would have you believe. “Progressives” in this country have championed “well meaning” despotism since before there even was a Hitler. So this bit of Hitler apologia came as no surprise to me:
You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of “I’m so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends’ good?”
What exactly could you argue there? Is the point that if Hitler “meant well” he’s a better person than someone who you think selfish or greedy. Is this what anti-Bush rhetoric has devolved to? Are we to now be bombarded with “Hitler wasn’t so bad” nonsense combined with a caricature of Bush as combination anti-Christ/Dracula/rich guy from Monopoly?
And does the author, Peter Mehlman, really believe Hitler had good intentions? I’ll assume he’s never read Mein Kampf. Stalin, Hitler and Mao never meant well, not in the traditional sense anyway. They never wanted to see people happy or safe, they never cared about individual people at all. What they wanted was to fundamentally reform society into a theoretical perfect version that they could control like a queen in an anthill.
Maybe that’s why Mehlman feels he can speak for Hitler’s motives. He shares them.