| I don't think anyone disputes that. However, I think there's a difference between sympathy, empathy, and understanding. I apologize in advance; the rest of this comment will be a bit long-winded (rambly?), but it's hard to make cultural points concisely: One of the reactions after World War II was "Never Forget," and we built a whole infrastructure to understand how what happened came to pass. People study many of the most murderous madmen of history, because it's important to understand. Any serious study will be complex. Germany went from being basically a ruined nation to an economic, military, and industrial superpower in a short amount of time. Hitler did many things to come to power which were effective. The old saying "Mussolini made the trains run on time" isn't quite true, but if he had, any study would show how he did it. Those are important problems to study. I'll take the Mussolini example, since it's not quite true. Compare two universes: 1) Only Mussolini could make the trains run on time 2) Anyone could make the trains run on time Which one is more likely to lead to another Mussolini? This may sound crass in American culture -- there is a tendency to equate any discussion of Hitler with hate -- but I come from a culture which took a different (and I think more effective) stance. We look at what happened, and try to understand, without glorification or downplaying of the problems. The most difficult lies are those which mix fact with fiction, and it's actually important to tease the two apart. If we all acknowledge the facts, the next madman can't use them to support a fiction. |