On balance, Oliver Stone is right in this case.
Hitler was a very evil man, and any redeeming qualities he may have had (he had some) are overshadowed by the abject evil that he did. However, it is dangerously simplistic to view him only thru this “evil” lens — even tho’ it is really tempting to.
Those who do evaluate the Hitlers-of-this-world thru only their “evil” lens fall into the trap of electing someone like Hitler who is good at promoting his redeeming qualities and even better at hiding his evil ones.
(I wonder if that sounds like anyone we know?)
I’m happy to defend this position with reasoned debate.
My great uncle who was in Patton’s 3rd Army and helped liberate Buchenwald would have a different view than yours
In your opinion, what were his redeeming values and how are you defining redeeming?
I wonder if Stone would be willing to call Nixon an easy scapegoat?
Yes, you can always qualify some actions as being “good” that even evil people do, but their worldview is still evil, and, the action—though on the outside it may appear to be good—can not be because of the encompassing evil soul of the person doing the action.
I do not think any of Hitler’s actions (although appearing good—like kindness to animals) could be classified as anything but being entirely motivated by selfishness and sickness. He was an extremely sick, perverted person judging by the books I have read about him. His soul was very twisted and he was a man of extreme anger.
I do think it is God’s place to judge the soul and Stone should not pretend that someone who did such atrocities could do anything classified as good. Such evil only elicits deeds that are done for evil or twisted purposes—even if they look good to outside observers.