In 1000 years Adolf Hitler will be remembered as...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Option one: one of the greatest mass murderers and war criminals in history.

Option two: a funny old dude ranting about various topics in some dead language, but we can still read subtitles.

[Sir Mohamed]

Option 1 (sane/normal). But I doubt mankind will be around in 1000 years anymore.

[The Mikado]

Neither: a failed conqueror/empire-builder, a la Napoleon, with some mass murder stories thrown in, but the actual passion about him will be gone.

See: Tamerlane or Genghis Khan. When people mention the Holocaust, the response will be "it was a different era, everyone was brutal, people didn't know any better. People were just barbarous savages back then."

[Lumine]

Neither: a failed conqueror/empire-builder, a la Napoleon, with some mass murder stories thrown in, but the actual passion about him will be gone.

See: Tamerlane or Genghis Khan. When people mention the Holocaust, the response will be "it was a different era, everyone was brutal, people didn't know any better. People were just barbarous savages back then."

This. By all rights we ought to remember Genghis and Tamerlane as utter monsters by modern standards, but we don't. Atrocities are forgotten in time with surprising ease, or downplayed as history marches on. I wouldn't be surprised if in a thousand years Hitler was seen indeed as just one of many bloodthirsty dictators.

After all, you don't hear people complain about the fact Julius Caesar committed something very close to what we consider genocide in Gaul, do you?

[The Ex-Factor]

To play devil's advocate, the depth of Hitler's carnage was far more extensively documented than anyone before him. Videos, pictures, and memorials of the Holocaust will continue to exist and are more instinctively repulsive than some detached, abstract primary source writings of how horrible the barbaric Mongols of Genghis Khan were. There will still be footage of people like FDR, Churchill, Stalin all denouncing Hitler and proving that even for the barbaric time of 1945 people in that time still considered Hitler abhorrent.

It's also possible that World War II is still the deadliest conflict in human history 1000 years from now, which would also keep the significance of Hitler's actions in historical memory.

[(no subject)]

Hitler himself said "Who now remembers the Armenians?". Once the last living link to the Holocaust is gone, things will inevitably change.

Of course even with living links to atrocities, people can ignore them if it's politically expedient to do some. One thing that makes me angry is the way the Japanese and their allies in the Western left complain about the atom bomb as if that somehow excuses the atrocities of Imperial Japan.

[bore]

We should remember that the movements of history aren't all one way. There are plenty of examples of people who have become more controversial in public memory recent years, for instance Christopher Columbus. Also Hitler was, all in all, rubbish, he was a pretty poor general who got lucky for a year or so and Mein Kampf is as well as being one of the worst books ever written, also one of the worse written. Leaving aside morality, in terms of sheer competence there is no comparison to people like Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon. If you're looking for the 20th Century Caesar or Alexander the Great I think you'd be better off with someone like Lenin.

The important thing when it comes to moral judgements on history, though, is that it isn't based on how long ago it was, but how recognisable the moral universe is to the historians. We can see this by the degree of judgement passed in the west on the Romans, and especially the Romans and their relationship with Christianity and Judaism, compared to the activities of, say, Chinese  and north american empires at the same time. This is because our current morality is largely based on Christianity and Greek philosophy. Similarly you are far more likely to see judgement of Medieval monarchs than of Genghis Khan, because the former were Christians and thus at least in outline understandable to us, the latter was not. We basically inhabit the same moral universe that the people of the 1940s did, so Hitler is an even starker case. As long as this remains the case, there will be people lining up to condemn him.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's difficult to say without knowing what sort of events happen in the interlude. For example, if nuclear war breaks out in the 21st century, then the Hitler would be seen in a very different light than if, I dunno, we all spend the next five hundred years singing kumbya. A lot of people view history as part of a narrative, so Hitler's place in history will be further contextualised further down the timeline.

[Flyersfan232]

irony is hitler would fear option 2 more then option 1.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without some sort of world-wide catastrophe, it's hard to imagine Option 2 being possible. Even with only the wide available of standard written materials, the major European languages changed little between 1600 and 1900.  Audio and video recordings do even more to reinforce a language standard. Granted, Hitler will likely be seen as speaking a funny antique dialect of German (or maybe High German if Low German and High German are considered different languages by their speakers by then.)

[Frodo]

In much the same way Ivan the Terrible, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Timur/Tamerlane are remembered.  

Oh, and let's not forget Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Option 1

[136or142]

Slightly worse than Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Slightly worse than Trump.

[President Johnson]

What he was: A POS and the most evil figure in history.

If humans still exist in 1000 years...

[Santander]

The German Trump

[Middle-aged Europe]

Depends... as I understand it, Hitler evokes a relatively positive image in India up to this day. This is also the case in some other parts of the world. So what happens if India becomes the world's sole superpower by the end of the 21st century?

Maybe in the 31st century Adolf Hitler (then pronounced "Eydolph Hytler") is primarly seen as the driving force in bringing down the remaining Western colonial empires and the racial and political opression it entailed. The fact that he was the worst of all racists himself perhaps ends up as a mere political footnote (he was ultimately unsuccessful in his racism after all) in the same mold as George Washington's slaveholder status or the fact that FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Depends... as I understand it, Hitler evokes a relatively positive image in India up to this day. This is also the case in some other parts of the world. So what happens if India becomes the world's sole superpower by the end of the 21st century?

Maybe in the 31st century Adolf Hitler (then pronounced "Eydolph Hytler") is primarly seen as the driving force in bringing down the remaining Western colonial empires and the racial and political opression it entailed. The fact that he was the worst of all racists himself perhaps ends up as a mere political footnote (he was ultimately unsuccessful in his racism after all) in the same mold as George Washington's slaveholder status or the fact that FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps.

Let's not forget the anti-imperial contributions of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Truly terrifying. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Depends... as I understand it, Hitler evokes a relatively positive image in India up to this day. This is also the case in some other parts of the world. So what happens if India becomes the world's sole superpower by the end of the 21st century?

India has really weird history with Hitler

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I think there's some merit to what Old Europe is describing, but I think it would probably take the form of seeing Hitler sort of like we see Attila, Alaric, and other barbarian leaders of the Migration Period, rather than seeing him outright positively, since I think intense emotional antipathy towards the British and French colonial empires will probably also have faded in a thousand years.

This is more or less how Hitler is seen by the characters in Frank Herbert's Dune books--bad dude, killed a bunch of people (especially by the standards of his age), not someone who inspires violent emotional reactions except among descendants of the specific groups he targeted.

[Seven_Costanza]

Off the top of your head, does anybody remember a single person who was alive in 1019?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Off the top of your head, does anybody remember a single person who was alive in 1019?

Macbeth

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Off the top of your head, does anybody remember a single person who was alive in 1019?

Canute, Basil II the Bulgar Slayer, and Saint Henry II the Exuberant.

Granted I have more than a passing interest in history, but I think a fair number here would know of Canute tho they might not know exactly when he lived.

So while I think anyone with even minimal historical knowledge will have some knowledge of who Hitler was and that he was a German bad guy, I don't expect them to all know he died in 1945. Heck, since copies of the National Enquirer surviving the EMP War could be the major source of historical knowledge by 3019, maybe they'll think he was finally defeated in the 1970s by King Elvis of Egypt when Memphis conquered Berlin. But regardless of how well history has been preserved, I think the core knowledge will still be there.

[Beet]

Lol no ones going to remember a "war" that killed a measly 55 million compared to the hundreds of millions/billions that will be killed in the next couple centuries. Atlasians didn't miss the party, rest easy

[The Mikado]

Off the top of your head, does anybody remember a single person who was alive in 1019?

People from different places remember different things. Plenty of Hungarians would remember King-Saint Stephen, the man who converted Hungary to Catholicism, because stuff's named after him all over the place over there.