I was making my post not under the assumption that one was more or less evil than the other, but that they were very different in type. And just because Hitler was evil doesn't mean Germany didn't get a raw deal in the Treaty of Versailles (treaty that ended WWI). Annexing Austria and the Sudetenland did have a small element of legitimacy, (ethically, not legally). (I also mean this in the abstract sense, divorced of what Hitlers plans were for German held territory.)
I think that goes without saying. But the fact is that Hitler was aiming for an elimination of a percentage of the total population (including complete genocide of certain demographics) and control the other. Kefka was going for the whole thing. I can understand if one considers these both as being equally evil, but they are very much different in type of evil.Quote:
Hitler wanted to rule the world and shape it in his views.
Quote:
And, you know, kill millions of people in the process.
My case mainly revolves around the fact that Hitler (as best we can guess) was aiming for a German empire that was strong, prosperous, and free of any minority he didn't approve of. Kefka was aiming for a completely dead and destroyed world with no life remaining. Those are vastly different outcomes.Quote:
Genocide of a few races and genocide of the entire human race aren't really all that far apart. Certainly close enough for one to serve as an adequate metaphor for the other.
