I know. It's really funny how people seem to have a knowledge of history that begins solely with the colonization of the new world. They have zero recollection of the horrors of past civilizations. As if, somehow, the founders of the USA, are responsible for all evils in the world and everyone else was just getting along and hugging up until 1776.

And I recommend those people ask for a refund from their history teachers, because anyone who tells you history is black-and-white, good-and-evil, is selling you something. Humanity is one long stream of moral ambiguity. Any moral lessons derived from it are done by omitting contradictory evidence. A simple cruise through a Wikipedia article offers plenty of moral ambiguity--and that should be the minimum starting point for considering yourself knowledgeable in a subject.

Even the archtype of evil himself, Hitler, (and likewise Stalin with Russia) still managed to re-vitalize broken countries into industrial titans that we still benefit from today. Russia was literally a pre-industrial society before WW2. And it's interesting how people who believe in rigid good-guys/bad-guys have no problem driving a VW Beetle, or a Mitsubishi--they made the Kamakazi Zeros, by the way. And both companies benefited from slave labor. It's not even hidden knowledge:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/07/world/volkswagen-s-history...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/mitsubishi...

I can't believe you are getting downvoted for this.

Surely people on HN care more about real facts, right?

I think it is a reflection of the zeitgeist - things are once again either only good, or only bad. There is no space for bad people to also have done some good things, and vice versa.

Honestly, after a couple years here, it doesn't surprise me anymore.

Those real facts were mixed with opinions e.g. "As if, somehow, the founders of the USA, are responsible for all evils in the world"

And why all the downvotes?

GM and Ford were also pretty deeply involved with Nazi Germany. Finding a car company with a clean record and a long history is surprisingly hard.

If I remember right, Hitler left Germany pretty broken.

Look at the German economy before WW2, and after WW2. Then you will get your answer.

But like the parent poster said, some people can only think black and white.

Talk of thinking in black and white! So when you say "after WW2", do you mean the shattered, occupied Germany of early 1945, or the revitalized Germany of later years, after Europe and the US - and, to a lesser but still real extent, the Soviet Union - rebuilt it?

Yes, Hitler and his mad, failed quest for power ruined Germany. I don't know if maybe you've never seen them, but the Bundesarchiv has some pictures which seem pretty starkly clear on that score. And then more or less everyone else in the Northern Hemisphere provided the resources and a lot of the labor to unruin Germany, because everyone still remembered what happened the last time they'd had to deal with a ruined postwar Germany, and after what had come out of it that time, no one wanted to find out what would come out of it this one.

To add to what my sibling says: when you say "before WW2", do you mean the shattered, financially devastated Germany under the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and the global Depression of 1929, or the industrialized welfare state of 1880-1910?

The brokenness of Germany was not Hitler's doing; rather, its brokenness is what gave Hitler his platform.

"Don't be snarky." Go somewhere else if you want to talk with that tone, thanks.

There is no new thing under the sun, so to speak.