Muhammed and Adolf Hitler - the 2 most impacting men of all time?

[Spartan JKM]

Hello all. I may be taking a risk with this post, as it may be flimsy, but I'll give it a try. The topic is not pleasant, but fasciantingly powerful (IMHO, of course).

Forgive me as well - many of my posts may read as if many of you don't know what I am writing about; I simply like to deliver information as if I were a teacher of youngsters, and in a nice manner. I also realize this subject goes far beyond even a big book could deliver.

Superfluous to say, many, many great figures (not necessarily noble) have shaped our history, and affected millions of lives (whether good or bad) in the process - Buddha, Aristotle, Augustus, Jesus of Nazareth, Ts'ai Lun (invented paper), Genghis Khan, Johann Gutenberg (invented the printing press; the significant plates), Christopher Columbus, Desiderius Erasmus, Galileo Galilei, Constantine the Great, William the Conqueror, Isaac Newton, James Watt, Charles Darwin, Simon Bolivar, Guglielmo Marconi (invented the radio), Mikhail Gorbachev.......

However, the influence upon human history which was carried into effect by some was somewhat inadvertent (most people who watch their TV sets probably don't know the name of Philo Farnsworth). Without Alexander Graham Bell, the telephone would have been developed (or was it already with Antonio Meucci?), and without the work of Nikola Tesla in electromagnetism etc., many more famous inventors would have not had such a valuable platform to work from, including Marconi and Thomas Edison. Someone else would have expounded the tremendously influential ideas that Charles Darwin theorized had he not come along (actually, one Alfred Wallace was on the same track). The colonies of South America would have won their independence without the central figure who led them to that very liberty from Spain, Simon Bolivar; it might have been Antonio Jose de Sucre, a primary lieutenant of Bolivar's.

But there is nothing to indicate that had Muhammed, the great Prophet of Islam, or the Praised One, or Adolf Hitler, perhaps the most evil man in human history, had not come into being, the immense movements they executed would not have been carried out by another.

I would like to stress that anyone attempting to 'rank' the relative historical influence of individuals is a very subjective process. I simply feel that these two men impacted the peoples of the world, in distinctive ways (long and short term) quite possibly more than any other individual(s).

In the long term, on balance, Muhammed might be the most influential man who has ever lived. He imbued his followers in the early 7th century with an ideal that hasn't missed a beat; the explosion out of the barren Arabian peninsula into a conquest and conversion of half the Mediterranean world is one of the most extraordinary phenomenon in history - and it happened because of the vision of one man.

As for the world in his time, no man has affected the lives of people throughout the world as Hitler did. If any war in history was a just war, from the view of so many different people throughout the world, it was the war, the most catastrophic in our history, to rid our world of this man.

MUHAMMED (570-632 A.D.)

Unlike many of the great figures of history, Muhammed (or Mohammed, Mahomet, and quite of few other names) was born of humble origins in a backward part of the world, in Mecca (southern Arabia) in the year 570 A.D. He was an orphan before he was 10 years old, and 30 years later, there was no indication he was a remarkable person.

Most of the Arabs at this time were pagans, believing in many gods. But Muhammed, who for some time was a merchant, came to believe there was one supreme God who ruled everything. Somewhere along the line, Muhammed became convinced that this one omnipotent God - Allah - spoke to him, and chose him to spread the 'true' faith. The trade filtering through Mecca brought him into contact with with Judaism and Christianity, which certainly influenced his thinking. His vision was was that of the archangel Gabriel, who bade him to go forth and preach. Muhammed began his quest by preaching to his close associates first, and began doing so in public by around 613 A.D. He found more followers to the north in Yathrib (he himself renamed this city Medina), where he fled (the Hegira), than in Mecca, where the authorities saw him as a nuisance and some even plotted to murder him. In Yathrib, he procured an influence so strong amongst his growing followers he became practically an absolute ruler. It was from Medina he built his theocratic state, and from which he ruled his rapidly growing empire. Islam counts its dates from the Hegira, as Anno Domini is from the birth of Christ. From the Muslim calendar, our current year is 1384 A.H. Sorry, did I need to explain that ?

By 630 A.D., after a series of battles, most notably Badr, in which he led his followers against Mecca, Muhammed effectively ruled practically all of Arabia. The remaining few years of his life were committed to the swift conversion of the outlying Bedouin tribes to the new faith. Muhammed died in 632 A.D., but nothing - absolutley nothing - died with him, in terms of the fervent belief layed down by his vision. Unified for the first time in their history, the hitherto fractured tribesmen of Arabia, who never lacked ferocity as warriors, embarked on one of the most astonishing conquests in human history. They enjoyed no advantages in technology, arms, or numbers against the Sassanids and Byzantines they would thoroughly subsequently defeat. Much credit must go to Umar ibn al-Khattab, who prevented a power struggle upon Muhammed's death by supporting rather than opposing the candidacy of Abu Bakr, the father-in-law of the Prophet (Muhammed died without naming a successor). Abu Bakr died after only two years as the first Caliph, and he did provide for a successor, that being Umar. Upon his death, he named a committee of several important men to choose his successor, thus again avoiding a power struggle - just the sort of thing that causes an empire to crumble (a la Alexander). The decade of Umar's caliphate witnessed the most substantial conquests of the Arabs.

Sorry, I am deviating. The cradles of civilization, the Euphrates lands and Egypt, have remained Muslim, as has the entire northern shore of Africa. The depth and scope of Muhammed's influence can be gauged by the fact that teh new faith spread far beyond the borders of the first conquests. They were booted out of Spain, and stopped at Constantinople, but the gains throughout the centuries far outweighed the losses. From Africa to Central Asia, to Pakistan through northern India, and to Indonesia, Islam has been a unifying element for tens of millions of people, and these adherents, in both quantity and feeling, have not mitigated whatsoever. Of course, not everything has been smooth.

There may be approx. 1.6 times (?) as many Christians as Muslims in the world today, but Muhammed played a much more valuable role in the development of Islam than Jesus of Nazareth did in the expansion of Christianity (I realize I may be opening a can of worms with that proclamation!). Few people would seemingly question Jesus of Nazareth not being the most impacting individual in human history, but as an individual, he did not single-handedly develop (a little different from founding) Christianity as Muhammed did Islam. Many people vastly underestimate the invaluable contributions of Saul (later St. Paul), Constantine the Great, and St. Augustine of Hippo when it comes to the spread of the Christian doctrine. Now, again, I realize this may be a can of worms I am opening, but I am thinking in terms of 'objective ' history. OK?

Moreover, Muhammed formulated (or transmitted) the divine, ethical, and moral principles of Islam, with the scriptures all being expressed in the Koran (Quran). The extent of influence this has permeated down the timelines is colossal.

Perhaps most importantly, in judging his vast influence, Muhammed was a secular as well as a religious leader. I find this fascinating, given the deep, godly feelings of devout Muslims. But the Prophet wasn't exclusively about religion; he was the catalyst of the great Arab conquests, which makes him a prominent political driving force of history. No other conquest has proved as permanent, and as unifying, as that of the Arabs. Because he was diverse does not automatically make him possibly history's giant, in terms of influence. It was his direct spearheading of the Arab conquests, which had enormous political impact on the Mediterranean World, whcih makes his diverse influence unique. Division did occur amid Arabic history, evidenced by the split into the Sunni and Sh'ites about a decade after the death of Muhammed, but never has the Arab world become substantially disparate. Arabic language and cultural values has prevented any substantial disunity in the Arab world primarily because the Koran is well-centralized.

Muhammed (or Mahomet or Mohammed), greatly raised the spiritual and moral degree of a people compelled into backwardness by the heat and foodless wastes of their lands. He succeeded as brilliantly as any other reformer; perhaps no man has so fully realized his visionary dream. When he began his quest, Arabia was a desert of wandering tribes; when he passed on it was a nation. To this very day, Islam remains a virile force throughout at least 1/3 the world. Everyday life pretty much falls under both religion and secularism, and Muhammed's combined influence in both branches might render him the most impacting figure in history. Remember, Muslim civilization was probably more advanced during a certain period (eg, the Crusades) than a somewhat backward Christian Europe. The Mongols aided with the trade routes. Whoops...don't go there!


ADOLF HITLER (1889-1945 A.D.)

Unlike Muhammed, the incredible, abhorrent movement that Adolf Hitler perpetrated died with him. National Socialism had no significant leader before him and not one after him. The indelible stamp he has left on the generations after WWII aside, including our own, the effects of Hitler's actions carry little weight. But no man in history has impacted the world of his own generation as he did. Let's face it - he single-handedly caused the most destructive war in history (even without the Pacific theater), one that would result in the deaths of some 35 million people, not counting the theater in the Pacific, which he still affetced by signing an agreement with Japan, which influenced their militant decisions.

Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau, Austria, in 1889. Similarly with the situation with Muhammed before he undertook his great cause, nothing was evident about him that indicated a man capable of enormous things, in any form. He was an outsider in every possible way. Not a German but an Austrian, a failure in school in Vienna, his artistic aspirations punctured because he simply wasn't good enough, aimless and peniless at 30 years old, and no political connections. How this man got a hold of a nation and caused the powerful events in Europe, and beyond, in the late 1920s to the mid 1940s is an aberration of history. But he would find his niche in Munich on the outbreak of WW1.

The experiences of the young Adolf, full of discontent, in Vienna were later put to use, though. Amid his attention to the activities of the Pan-German Nationalists and Christian Socialists etc., the young Adolf was greatly affected by two men: Georg von Schoenerer, the founder of the Pan-German Nationalist Party, and Karl Lueger, leader of the Christian Social Party. Basically, Schoenerer advocated a program of violent nationalism, based on anti-Semitism and anti-socialism, and Lueger had a talent for winning support of the masses. As we know, these two elements Hitler would greatly embrace and implement.

Furious over Germany's defeat in WW1, in which he, along with many others, felt 'stabbed in the back', he Hitler assigned a job in the Press and News Bureau of the Political Department of the Army's district command in Munich. One day, he intervened at lecture in which someone spoke well of the Jewish people. His anti-Semitic harangue apparently impressed and pleased his superiors; they appointed him a Bildungsoffizier (educational officer), whose main task was to combat 'dangerous' ideas, such as pacifism, socialism, and democracy; the army had taken a conception of what threatened a concept they had sworn to serve. Adolf Hitler had found another calling.

He joined a little-known right-wing party in Munich, known as the German Workers' Party after receiving orders from the Political Department to sound this tiny party. It was run by one Anton Drexler, who may be said to be the actual founder of National Socialism. Hitler wasn't impressed at first, but, specifics aside, revised things and became the leader, changing its name to the NSDAP - National Socialist German Workers' Party in April 1920. Hilter's organization was based on turning already tough roughnecks into 'strong-arm squads' , known as Ordnertruppe.

Under Hitler's leadership, the Nazis rapidly grew, but he failed in an attempted coup d'etat in 1923. It was in jail where Hilter wrote his ideas with Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Except for the Bible, no other book sold as well during the Nazi regime; he was a millionaire by the time he took complete control in 1933.

By the late 1920s, the Nazi party was still not very significant, but with the advent of the Great Depression, much disaffection spread among the public with the established German political parties. Hitler convinced the people he could rescue them from its disastrous predicament. They complierd, and Hitler was chancellor of Germany in 1933, Fuehrer a year later with the death of Paul von Hindenburg. He proclaimed,

"The German form of life is definitely determined for the next 1,000 years. The Age of Nerves of the 19th century has found its close with us. There will be no other revolution in Germany for the next 1,000 years!

Hitler's proclamation was off by 988 years.

Forgive me, I'm probably going on too much, but Hitler did gain the genuine support of many Germans, as he did reduce unemployment and generate a sound economic recovery for the country. In the late 1930s, he shrewdly manipulated events that set Germany on a path of bloodless (not heartless) conquest that led to WWII.

By 1938, Germany was the most miltant and powerful country, perhaps, in the world, and WWII took place betweem 1939-1945. By early 1943, the war had inexorably gone agianst Hitler, as he simply overextended himself.

He committed suicide in Berlin in may, 1945, as the Soviets closed in. He had springboarded a policy of genocide upon his 'enemies' that has no parallel in history. The staggering number of millions who were murdered died within an efficiently run organization of death camps like a succeeding business enterprise. These acts were not spontaneous, not carried out amid the heat of battle. So intent upon this horrific program that even late in the war, when Germany's supply of fuel for military use was quickly becoming scarce, the cattle cars kept rolloing along in their mission - a mission which served no military function.

Hitler will remain infamous as long as recorded history exists; if figures such as Caligula, Vlad the Impaler, and Tomas de Torquemada, whose deeds of cruelty pale in comparison, on a broad scope, with those of Hitler, have remained a stigmatic symbol of evil, it is certainly safe to assume Hitler's reputation as the most evil man ever (for now) is not a t all threatened. As the principal instigator of both WWII and the Holocaust, Hitler's impact upon the world of his time was greater than any other figure in history; the entire movement of the Nazis was dominated by him and him alone, and when he died, the Nazi party died with him. Again, in stark contrast to Muhammed, he had little effect on the future. He failed to accomplish any one of his primary goals, the biggest of which was to eliminate the Jewish people. Well, just 15 years after he obtained absolute control, a Jewish state was created for the first time in 2,000 years. He also wanted to expunge Communism, but the influnece exerted by the Soviets upon the world expanded significantly after the war. Hitler also detested democracy, but Germany is a thoroughly functioning democratic state today.

The last recorded words of this mad genius were reputedly to have been,

"The efforts and sacrifices of the German people in this war have been so great that I cannot believe that they have been in vain. The aim must still be to win the territory in the East for the German people"

Goodness, a poor Germany (the innocent part) in complete devastation in May 1945 had still not convinced him that the horrible appropriation of the Slavic lands, and murder of millions of their people, at the hands of his armies in the previous years, was a futile Aryan dream.

In the long run, Muhammed has possibly touched as many lives than any other individaul in the world more potently during his reign than any other figure in history (unless one wants to give Jesus of Nazareth most, or even full, credit for Christianity). But there did rise the serious strife between the Sunni and Shiites. The Sunni are the majority, and it seems the split stems from the early days of Islam with arguments over Muhammed's successors as who was rightfully the caliph. But Muhammed still impacted their lives greatly. It's not like anything regarding his significance was questioned.

In the long, long run, perhaps Aristotle could be ranked # 1 - if we must choose one individual as the most influential: his works reach to every branch of the process of thought, amongst other things.

But I guess this may be akin to our much-discussed topic of the # 1 military commander of all time - there is really no such title, even with specific criterions, that can realistically be ascribed to 1 man. But I hope such a thread can induce good discussions.

I Hope I didn't ramble too much. For the life of me, I do not remember from which book - one of those 'Greatest Influential People' types - I read this information that always stayed with me. Anybody know a book which presented Muhammed as the #1 influential person of all time?

I alos realize when discussing the subjectively proposed merits of an 'influential' person of history, there should perhaps be a distinction made between spiritual leaders and scientists etc.; it's a different type of 'influence', if you will.

To put it succinctly: Muhammed in the long run, Hitler in the short term - as far as the incredible magnitude of one impacting our world.

Thanks, Spartan JKM

[HannibalBarca]

I would more agree with Muhammed than Hitler, but for different reasons. Muhammed was important for founding Islam, but more importantly for leading it out of the desert and into the Holy Land and beyond. The prescense of a hostile religion in the Holy Land led to the Crusades, which led to far more rapid diffusion of Muslim technological advances back into Eastern Europe. This hastened diffusion, along with the exotic resources and luxuries from China and the control of the trade of these resources by Muslims ultimately led to Cristopher Colombus' expeditions, which in turn led to widespread colonization of the New World, solidifying a Euro-merican domiance of the world which is only now beginning to ebb.

Hitler was ultimately imprtant in my opinion for bringing about the beginning of declining of Euro-merican dominance due to the weakening of colonial powers, like the UK and France, giving rise to India and other influential Asian and, to a lesser extent, African countries.

That's my take on it anyways.

[motiv-8]

Mohammed didn't lead Islam out of Arabia; he called for expeditions to Syria, but the one he planned personally petered out. It was the Rashidun who did this and contributed the most to Islamic expansion and development. The religion that Mohammed introduced was in essence very connected to Judaism, and it was only through the interpretations and law-giving of his campanions and successors that it became distinct. In Islam there is no distinct singular person or event that contributed to the development of the faith like St. Paul did for Christianity; it was always a community project.

I find Hitler absolutely unimportant in the scope of historical influence aside from helping to spur the Zionist movement into its final phase.

A figure off the of my head that is curiously missing from your list is Martin Luther.

[bogmih]

Hitler important? Sure, many people died because of him, but if you think what events he caused that changed the course of history, you don't have much to choose from. Yes, the European colonial empires colapsed after WW2; but then, is there anybody who belives they could have survived for much longer? Yes, Communism extended temporarily over Eastern Europe; but less than fifty years later, it has collapsed both there and in its original home, the USSR. Yes, he might be responsible for the fast advances seen in rocketry or nuclear physics, but who can rationally argue those advances would not have taken place, if it hadn't been for him?

The creation of Israel is the only event which - ironically - might be attributed to Hitler, but even there the process was already well under way and it's possible a Jewish state could have formed even without the impetus offered by WW2. Even so, this is a major event for the Jews, but not for the rest of the world.

By comparison, Mohammed (or rather his succesors) permanently split the Mediteranean world into two opposing factions, the Christians and the Moslems, thus preventing any future reunification of the Roman Empire and being essentially responsible for the survival of the barbarian states in Western Europe. This event decisevily shaped the future make-up of Europe and, due to Europe's influence, the present make-up of the world.

The two are simply not in the same league.

[Anarhco Liberal]

I think that the two most influential people are Jesus, and Muhammad.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by bogmih

The creation of Israel is the only event which - ironically - might be attributed to Hitler, but even there the process was already well under way and it's possible a Jewish state could have formed even without the impetus offered by WW2.

The idea that the creation of the state of Israel would have been less likely with six million more Jews alive as potential citizens strikes me as rather silly. The exact way and timing in which it came to be established would have been different, but that's all.

[w_mullender]

Originally Posted by bogmih

Hitler important? Sure, many people died because of him, but if you think what events he caused that changed the course of history, you don't have much to choose from. Yes, the European colonial empires colapsed after WW2; but then, is there anybody who belives they could have survived for much longer? Yes, Communism extended temporarily over Eastern Europe; but less than fifty years later, it has collapsed both there and in its original home, the USSR. Yes, he might be responsible for the fast advances seen in rocketry or nuclear physics, but who can rationally argue those advances would not have taken place, if it hadn't been for him?

The creation of Israel is the only event which - ironically - might be attributed to Hitler, but even there the process was already well under way and it's possible a Jewish state could have formed even without the impetus offered by WW2. Even so, this is a major event for the Jews, but not for the rest of the world.

If you can explain how anything remotely similar to the Nazi party and dictatorship (not to mention a personal cult) could take complete charge of a country, without a Charlie Chaplin wannabe you may have a point. (I assume you consider WW2 a major turning point in history as well)

[bogmih]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

The idea that the creation of the state of Israel would have been less likely with six million more Jews alive as potential citizens strikes me as rather silly. The exact way and timing in which it came to be established would have been different, but that's all.

Please note the italics in might. Without Hitler, Zionist support among the significant powers would be much lower, but, of course, the potential number of Israeli colonists (and support for Zionism from within the Jewish comunity) increases significantly. We thus have two important changes from our timeline, one favouring the apparition of a Jewish state in Palestine, and the other one against it. Which change would have been more important in this alternate reality? That's up for debate (but probably in a different thread). Personally, I'm undecided.

[EvilSanta]

I can agree with Mohammed but not so much on Hitler. Sure, his actions changed the world. A lot. But nah, I wouldnt rank him 2nd most influencial. 1st in evilness, for sure.

[bogmih]

Originally Posted by w_mullender

If you can explain how anything remotely similar to the Nazi party and dictatorship (not to mention a personal cult) could take complete charge of a country, without a Charlie Chaplin wannabe you may have a point. (I assume you consider WW2 a major turning point in history as well)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That Hitler was one of the two most impacting men in history?

WW2 was very important for the people living through it. But the Mfecane wars were very important for the people living through them, too. Is the world 200 years after the Mfecane wars significantly different because of them? No. Will the world be significantly different 200 years after WW2 because of WW2? I think not, and I've explained in my post why not. Hell, we're barely two generations away and it's effects are hardly felt anymore. That's why Hitler does not deserve to placed alongside Mohammed. His long term influence is not that great, really.

[w_mullender]

Originally Posted by bogmih

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That Hitler was one of the two most impacting men in history?

WW2 was very important for the people living through it. But the Mfecane wars were very important for the people living through them, too. Is the world 200 years after the Mfecane wars significantly different because of them? No. Will the world be significantly different 200 years after WW2 because of WW2? I think not, and I've explained in my post why not. Hell, we're barely two generations away and it's effects are hardly felt anymore. That's why Hitler does not deserve to placed alongside Mohammed. His long term influence is not that great, really.

I quite disagree. The effects of WW2 are still felt today. We have an EU, NATO, UN. We have a common view in Europe that democracy is quite preferable to dictatorships. Moreover the establishment of countries and their political alignment afterwards are greatly impacted by WW2 as well. Just consider countries such as Germany, China, Japan and how they would have looked nowadays without a war.

[Sarmatia1871]

I would say that Lenin would be far more influential than Hitler, although whether either of these qualify as the second most influential person ever is more disputable. The appearence of the Soviet Union, in which Lenin was instrumental, totally changed the complexion of global politics and essentially set the tone for the whole of the 20th century - including helping to create some of the conditions to enable the growth and spread of Fascism and establishing a new social order in Eastern and Central Europe after the Second World War.

And unlike Hitler - whose activities were principally limited to Europe - this had a global impact, as regimes and movements on the Leninist model spring up throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America. And the recent collapse of these systems (probably the reason why he's been neglected) has again shifted and conditioned the nature of global geopolitics.

[Emperor of Europe]

I can't see why Hitler should be on the list. Sure, WW2 had a tremendous impact in the last century, but so did the Napoleonic Wars or the conquests of Dhengis Khan. As much as we like to see our present time as the most important, Hitler and WW2 was nothing but a ripple in the fabric of history.

Instead I'd like to nominate the Hongxi Emperor. Had it not been for him, China wouldn't have closed itself to outsiders and focused on interior matters. With China that's expansionistic in a post-Columbian European way, the world today would be unrecognizable.

rgds/EoE

[Registered]

Originally Posted by Emperor of Europe

Instead I'd like to nominate the Hongxi Emperor. Had it not been for him, China wouldn't have closed itself to outsiders and focused on interior matters. With China that's expansionistic in a post-Columbian European way, the world today would be unrecognizable.

Hardly, the huge statefunded overseas expeditions of the early 15th century are an abberation in Chinese history. Stopping them was just a return to the satus quo. THey did not end immediately end with Hongxi BtW, his successor launched one more expedition. ANd while China became extremely closed up after that, that situation did not last, Chinese merchants continued to trade overseas.


EDIT: Closer to the subject at hand. Why are we looking at Hitler as instrumental for WWII? Instrumental for the Holocaust perhaps. But the Weimar republic was an unstable construct, Germany was smarting from Versaille, another dictator then Hitler could have taken the reins and unleashed war on the continent.

[bogmih]

Originally Posted by w_mullender

I quite disagree. The effects of WW2 are still felt today. We have an EU, NATO, UN. We have a common view in Europe that democracy is quite preferable to dictatorships. Moreover the establishment of countries and their political alignment afterwards are greatly impacted by WW2 as well. Just consider countries such as Germany, China, Japan and how they would have looked nowadays without a war.

Come on! Do you want me to believe that, for example, the apparition of a "common view in Europe that democracy is quite preferable to dictatorships" depended on Hitler? That would have happened anyway. There were also talks about a closer integration between the European countries even before WW2. There was the League of Nations. Only NATO owes its apparition to Hitler (indirectly), and after the collapse of Communism its purpose has been put under scrutiny. And really, what is its impact on our lives? Norway is part of NATO. Sweden isn't. How is the life of a Swede different because of that?

The only longlasting effects of WW2 will be the border changes - which I qualify as minor and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. And before you remind me of Germany again, I'm writing this from a country which has herself lost a fifth of its teritory as a consequence of that war and has only half the standard of living of Greece or Portugal, despite being as prosperous or even more proseprous 70 years ago. As important as these factors might be for me personally, the world would not be a fundamentally different place if Romania suddenly became prosperous and increased its area by 60 000 Km2.

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion on how important a certain event was. That's nitpicking and also dificult to asses while people are still emotional about what happened. But I think it's fairly clear that the impact Hitler had and will have on our world is not big enough to justify such a high place for him. If he had won the war, things could have been different. But he lost, and most of what he attempted to achieve was undone. If you allow me to make a comparison - he's not like Mohammed, he's like Heraclius. Strictly from the point of view of his actual influence compared to his potential inflence, of course. Or better, let's put it this way - he's like a Mohammed whose succesors would be defeated by the Persians and Byzantines.

[Karl Martell]

Originally Posted by Spartan JKM

Hello all. I may be taking a risk with this post, as it may be flimsy, but I'll give it a try.
.........
I Hope I didn't ramble too much.
.....

Actually that was a lot of rambling. Is it necessary to write pages on pages about who Adolf Hitler was?? We all know who he was. Are you maybe a bit bored?

As for their impact... let's just say I don't agree with your assessment of Hitler. And I think it's outrageous that you put the petty nihilist Hitler into the same sentence as the religion-founder Mohammed.

Firstly-
Hitler was nowhere near as much a significant person in history as Mohammed the prophet. Hitler was the central person of the major hickup of the 20th century (totalitarianism and WW2) but he didn't invent national socialism or even the Nazi party. Yes, he was central to it and without it it would all have run a different course, but it's not comparable to the role that Mohammed played for Islam.
Mohammed died over 1300 years ago, yet billions of people call out his name every day. Hitler has been dead for 60 years, and people are already starting to forget him. In a hundred years, he will be as well known as Gustav Adolf, Wallenstein, Xerxes or Jefferson Davis - most people will recognize his name, but they will have to look into a history book to tell what he did or when exactly he lived. What did WW2 really change? It accelerated the decline of some empires - wow, great, empires rise and fall all the time. It caused the division of Europe and the cold war - that lasted not even for 50 years. It caused the death of millions - that's sad but not really all that special.

Secondly-
Even if you take a step back from the persons -Mohammed and Hitler- and look at the historical phenomena that they were part of -the rise of Islam, and that of National Socialism- then it is still obvious that Hitler is a dwarf compared to Mohammed. Islam is a religion that has shaped the world and still shapes it. It was created pretty much ex nihilo (i.e. there was nothing in its place before it) but it transformed the world immeasurably.
Islam is a religion, a system of morals and ethics, a force for good in peoples' lives, it is founded upon a holy book and on the writings of thousands upon thousands of theologists who interpreted it and applied its tenets to all aspects of people's lives.
National Socialism on the other hand is not even worth being compared to Islam. It is a deeply nihilistic world view, cobbled together from maybe half a dozen or a dozen books which make very little sense when taken outside the situation in which they were written. It's not even an ideology in the proper sense - it's a deformity, it is mental excrement. If you wanted to communicate the main points of national socialism you would not even need to read mein kampf or rosenberg's pathetic book. Look at a gorilla standing on top of his dead enemy, beating his own chest and howling out in triumph, and there you have all that national socialism stands for.

Thirdly-
Are you putting Hitler and Mohammed into the same category on purpose??? I can tell you're not trying to be inflammatory towards Muslims, but the head line gets across that way. It's like saying "the two biggest threats to the western world are religious fundamentalism and the intolerance towards gays" which implies that the two are related. Mohammed and Hitler were both conquerors, and let's just say that a lot of people think there wasn't much of a difference between the two, except that one failed and the other did not. By putting the two together people equate them, and that's not what you want, is it?

[ComradeOm]

Originally Posted by Sarmatia1871

I would say that Lenin would be far more influential than Hitler, although whether either of these qualify as the second most influential person ever is more disputable.

I'd go further back, all the way to Karl Marx in fact. Lenin and the USSR are/were merely the most visible product of Marx's teachings. In one way or another the political agenda of the past 150 years has been set and characterised by the international labour movement. Now obviously this would have occurred with or without one journalist living in poverty but the influence of Marx, and Marxism, on this has been huge. Really the rise of fascism can be seen as a mere interruption in the struggle between capital and labour.

Of course I don't believe that any man has changed history so this is all pretty much academic. If Hitler had not been born then the seething cauldron of hate that was inter-war Germany would have given rise to another monster. If there was no Marx then the militant worker ideology that he gave his name to would have still grown in popularity, albeit perhaps in a different shape.

[knott]

Paulus certianly was more important than Jesus at least.

[Cicero's Pen]

my figures....

Homer-

Introduced the heroic ideals that helped to create aristocratic society. Greece and Rome developed in his shadow. No he didn't create this culture, but he is its everlasting symbol.

Plato/Socrates-

Introduced the idea of "knowledge, virtue, wisdom = happiness" A metaphysical notion that has dominated western thought since.

The Jews and Jesus -

Introduced the idea of the inverse of Homer's ideals. The hero being the modest sheep who is passive. Not to say this is negative, in my eyes it is not, aristocratic culture allows much violence in the name of "art." But nothing to me has quite influenced the western world quite like Greece/Rome vs. Christo/Judeaism.

Everyone else just falls into the catagories established by these thinkers.

of course this is from a western prespective......forgive my biase.

[AlenlorDRot]

I'm not sure who they would be, but not Muhammed and Hitler.

I'd put Paul or Constantine ahead of Muhammed. One started Christianity, the other gave it authority. Both of these events were more important historically than anything done by Muhammed.

Hitler as no. 2 is way off. Even in his relative time period I think Marx or Lenin is an obvious choice. Without the threat of communism, the Nazis wouldn't have gotten very far.