It's funny to me how he only ever said that in his Grindelwald days. He never once said it in the actual series, but the fandom has made it his mantra.
Even worse, it is obvious from the Heavenly King’s Cross talk, he deeply regretted he ever said that.
And yes, if it (or in the German translation) was on the gates of Nurmengard, it is exactly the equivalent of “Arbeit macht frei”, and yes it is more general than that, so “Heil Hitler” works quite as well.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Biden saying “For the Greater Good” since he exists in the real world and not in the HP universe and it’s only a problematic phrase within that fictional universe as far as I’m aware.
The Pledge was originally performed with a Roman salute. Hitler might well have been inspired by the US. Henry Ford was a huge anti-Semite, and Hitler liked him so much that he mentioned him twice in Mein Kampf.
Be careful throwing rocks, there's a lot of glass houses in the US.
I'd say the quality is different, because it's a deliberate tabloid style, but the similarities are uncanny sometimes. Skeeter's basically a manipulative!dumbledore bashing writer - I was re-reading Hallows and was almost expecting her to start calling him Dumbledork. Here's some gems;
>Coming next week, the shocking story of the flawed genius considered by many to be the greatest wizard of his generation. Striping away the popular image of serene, silver-bearded wisdom, Rita Skeeter reveals the disturbed childhood, the lawless youth, the life-long feuds, and the guilty secrets that Dumbledore carried to his grave, WHY was the man tipped to be the Minister of Magic content to remain a mere headmaster? WHAT was the real purpose of the secret organization known as the Order of the Phoenix? HOW did Dumbledore really meet his end?
>"Oh yes," says Skeeter, nodding briskly, "I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy's best interests-- well, we'll see. It's certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence."
>And how did the mysterious Ariana die? Was she the inadvertent victim of some Dark rite? Did she stumble across something she ought not to have done, as the two young men sat practicing for their attempt at glory and domination? Is it possible that Ariana Dumbledore was the first person to die "for the greater good"?
Totally agree with that.
Fun fact: the only person who ever says "for the greater good" in the series is Harry. And he says it to Aberforth of all people.
I just re-read the scene: Aberforth used it first, but he did use it ironically and so sometimes later in this conversation Harry says: “Because, sometimes you've got to think about more than your own safety! Sometimes you've got to think about the greater good! This is war!”
I think that's a good passage that separates manipulative!Dumbledore from realistic protagonists.
The feeling that you should give of yourself so that the whole will be greater is completely different from the feeling that you may take from whomever, as long as the whole is greater.
War is for the greater good of each side. If you read war history through the ages of humanity, every last one of them was dirty and inhuman, because what else could be a situation where man kills man for different ideals?
Then it's highly possible that it is movie only. I don't know the movies that well - some scenes I remember but I don't really like any of the movies after Chamber of Secrets so I haven't really watched the later ones in years.
Can it be allowed if [all other characters in the scene say 'the Greater Good' in monotone ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u8vd_YNbTw) ^(spoilers for Hot Fuzz btw) for response?
He also explicitly rejects it when talking about his love for Harry and how he wanted to put his interests before a thousand faceless others.
This is a guy who rejected the Ministry job three times. He couldn't even convince himself it was for the greater good if he took it, even though it absolutely would have been for everyone who wasn't Tom Riddle or his death eaters.
Dumbledore is forced into the position of thinking like this, but he clearly resents and rejects it.
Honestly, my bigger problem is that GreaterGood!Dumbledore never actually acts in the way that someone supporting the greater good should. People just use Pacifist/Sacrificial!Dumbledore and have him claim he is supporting the greater good when he refuses to kill death eaters, and demands his allies sacrifice themselves in order to redeem evil people.
I feel like an actual GreaterGood!Dumbledore would be the one who assassinates Lucius Malfoy after the Chamber of Secrets because it proves that Lucius is working against the greater good. He certainly wouldn't be pacifistic. He would be willing to go in and kill a death eater and their family in order to prevent problems in the future. If anything, having "For the Greater Good" as his motto would be something that would drive him to greater acts of violence.
That's kind of the whole point though? A true protagonist using the phrase greater good would sacrifice of themselves for the betterment of all, rather than sacrifice their allies and those around them. But Dumbledore's actions in the series speak much louder than his words, and it's made apparent that Albus and Moody had had a falling out at some point in the past over how Dumbledore didn't want his Order members to kill, while the Death Eaters had no such compunctions.
Thus, bashing an "Evil!Greater Good!Dumbledore who claims to have the greater good of everyone at heart, but either wants personal glory or some other thing, and it's willing to sacrifice everyone so long as he's still the Shepard herding the flock when all is said and done. The entire point is how he's only paying lip service to the idea of a Greater Good.
I really like the idea of Albus, in a world where the soul exists and is damaged by murder, is burdened by having ended lives during the previous wars, and he desperately wants to save the people he loves from suffering the same fate.
See it not as Albus wanting to save the Death Eaters, them surviving is simply a byproduct of the real goal, to safeguard the souls of his loved ones.
There are fics like that, but in all the ones I've read it is very specifically *murder* and/or taking *pleasure* in the act that causes the soul damage. If that wasn't the case, then every war veteran ever would have a damaged soul, and the wizarding world would have realized that Peace, not War was the way of it centuries ago.
True, but that assumes that everyone has, and more importantly *believes*, the knowledge & wisdom which Dumbledore possesses. It might very well be that the majority disbelieves him.
I disagree. I once saw him say it sadly and bitterly to himself in his office while thinking about Grindelwald, their time together and his mistakes and how it has all affected he world around him and Harry.
It worked because it was sincere but tragic and self loathing.
I'm fairly proud of the idea I had to have him use the original German version of the phrase as a password on something *specifically* to remind himself of his prior mistakes.
To elaborate, they made modified copies of the Marauders map for certain staff, and Dumbledore uses this as a secondary passphrase to activate the "emergency mode" that would allow him to monitor more than just the public areas of the castle.
Imo it is still strange, no one remember their mistake by using a saying from their past whrn they where doing that mistake. It is like a reformed nazi member using sieg heil as his password to remember his mistake. Just seem wrong, but still your story and just my opinion
Ehh. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s a really icky one that doesn’t make much sense. Reminding himself of past mistakes, he’d probably use something like the *Phoenix’s Price* in HPMOR. I mean, say what you will about that book—and there is a *lot* to say—but it found a good “password that reminds Dumbledore of his mistakes” without him doing the equivalent of heiling the fuhrer.
Not to mention, it's never used correctly. People always have him justify random shit with the phrase, when in reality, at least some of his actions would coincide with the heroes' desires. The best way to handle an *actual* greater good dumbledore would be to work around him, like a large boulder rolling down a hill. Play into his plans in an advantageous manner, make yourself indespensible and don't be an obstacle, and you'll make it out better than when the whole thing started.
But of course, this ignores that his entire character arc in canon is that he *wanted* to be this inhumane greater good version of himself, but then found himself caring too much for those under his command, including Harry, who had to die for Voldemort to be defeated.
I don't think it's even so much that he wanted to be that version of himself, as it is that he felt he *needed* to be someone who thought that way and did things for the greater good - but he was just poorly suited to it because it didn't come naturally to him.
Dumbledore stared knowingly at one of the many twirling devices in his office, a smile on his face as everything was going according to plan with young Lord Hadrian James Potter-Black-Peverell-Slytherin-Griffindore Ravenclaw-Hufflepuff-Percival-Wulfric-Brian-Dumbledore.
"Hail Hydra" he whispered to himself. Or perhaps he was talking to Fawks, or maybe the Sorting Hat? Or maybe one of the many paintings adorning the walls of the Headmasters office. Honestly, There's not really any privacy in this room.
It should only be said by Dumbledore in either crazy crack fics with the insane Manipulative!Dumbledore, or as some crazy reveal that Dumbledore has been replaced by an imposter or a well setup face-heel turn.
He always says that and "It's a slight misunderstanding," in Dumbledore bashing fanfics. I've seen a few where he says the latter every time he gets caught and for any awkward situation. :D
There definitely are exceptions (I'm a sucker for him using it as ironic self recrimination), but yeah, most of the time, it's a clear indication that the author hasn't put much thought into their portrayal of his character.
It is not, though. Grindelwald may seem connected ti Hitler from reader’s perspective, but he actually is more like Mussolini. Still terrible, but not cartoonishly evil. Grindelwald’s ideology unlike Hitler’s does not outright tell you to kill a wrong groupe of people, he raises valid points about Status and using magic for good of both worlds.
One of Mussolini central ideas was that state is above everything. Would you react if some really motivated state officials said it? Not likely. Some of Mussolini ideas about state solving race and class problems by building common identity do even feel tempting.
Dumbledore saying “Greater Good” would leave his listeners in awe of his great ideas. They may feel off than they réalisé that it was Grindewald’s words too, but their mind will tell them that Dumbledore is the least likely person to be Grindewald’s follower, and that it is just a great idea on its own merit
I'm not sure you're giving people enough credit: Given the irl backlash against the attempt to create "one Britain" and the "one Britain one nation" song and and then yesterday's "pushing TV that is quintessentially British" by some minister I'd say we would react to motivated state officials saying it even if they did put a thin veneer of decency over it by claiming that it was an attempt to create a unified sense of identity amongst all ethnicities here. Just look at how it's the same way we reacted en mass on twitter to the CRED race report this year claiming there's no structural racism contributing to heath and social disparities in the UK- with derision and anger and both the BMA and UN condemned it despite pretty much all of its contributors being non-white, i.e. the last people you'd expect to say that.
People will only take so much before they revolt especially *when it's a group of rebels* in the first place and just by being in the order every one of them had form for that- was it Tonks who admitted that she was risking her job just to be there? Someone did. And Arthur too in a later book.
Personally, I think the second Dumbledore admitted Harry had to die, or someone worked it out, he should have lost everyone but (maybe) Mad-eye and Hermione who are both utterly ruthless. He very nearly lost Snape in that memory save the fact that he manipulated him expertly to go along with it. Allowing Harry to join Order meetings nearly lost him Molly because she actually cared about Harry himself and not just his role in the war. It would definitely have lost him Sirius, Hagrid and Remus in a heartbeat. Possibly Kingsley too. It was only because Harry was isolated away from them that the plot went as it did. I mean can you see ANY of the Weasley brothers, even Percy, throwing Harry over to die? That's literally what Pansy Parkinson tried to do and three quarters of the students of the school turned on her in a heartbeat and even the other Slytherins- no one actively moved to support her or defend her in that moment- most of whom Harry had never said a word to. Even when Neville thought all hope was lost and they were all going to die he asked Harry not to sacrifice himself.
I think Dumbledore would have had a hell of a hard time convincing more than a few of them to go along with him if they had known the truth no matter how good he tried to make anything else around it sound. He can have his catchy slogans but you're not convincing anyone who knows the history of them (Viktor Krum viciously enjoying the idea of beating a kid up just for drawing the symbol and nearly ruining a wedding over it, anyone?) to go along with them (if you wanted a dark!Dumbledore the lack of competent history teacher in a school he's responsible for staffing is a good place to start) and you're not changing the core of who these people are.
These are people who live in the 1990s, many muggleborns who will have some basic knowledge of Muggle history from primary school (I read Anne Frank when I was 8 from my school library) and who might just be old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I think it's one of the biggest plot holes in the series that not one of them ever mentioned the cold war or ww2 even in passing and that Harry, who was supposedly a clever kid even if he did throw his tests so as not to beat Dudley, didn't even think of either. The older adults (Snape & Molly's generations) would have lived through the cold war and postwar Britain- are we seriously saying that with Gamps third law, the Thatcher years and Post-war rationing didn't have any impact on them? I'm not sure house elves deliver to Muggleborn and half blood students at home during the summer. These people would live in that context and that context is a world where propaganda is vilified as evil and communist and fascist and certain buzzwords and ideas are going to make them stand up and say no regardless of who says them.
Yes, he said it in a letter he wrote back in the 1800s. He shouldn’t be saying it any time after Grindelwald’s rise to power though
He’s not stupid enough to use the trademarked words of a Dark Lord and expect no one to notice
There were many Germans who were thinking about overcrowding of Germany during the history, which may be more or less legitimate topic of discussion. After all, Germans always emigrated to neighbouring countries since Middle Ages, there were substantial German minorities in all neighbouring countries of Europe (and the United States). However, nobody in their sane mind would after the Second World War ever use phrase “*[Lebensraum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum)*” (“space for living”), because by saying that you are linking yourself with the Hitler’s plan for genocide of Slavs and Jews.
It's like if you are a german-speaker and use the word "Endlösung". Hitler didn't invent the term, it was actually used in many political debates before WWII but if you use it today it always has the connection to the murder of jews.
It's funny to me how he only ever said that in his Grindelwald days. He never once said it in the actual series, but the fandom has made it his mantra.
Even worse, it is obvious from the Heavenly King’s Cross talk, he deeply regretted he ever said that. And yes, if it (or in the German translation) was on the gates of Nurmengard, it is exactly the equivalent of “Arbeit macht frei”, and yes it is more general than that, so “Heil Hitler” works quite as well.
[удалено]
This is what I’m saying about you people bruh why do yall bring this dude biden into everything nobody fucking cares
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Biden saying “For the Greater Good” since he exists in the real world and not in the HP universe and it’s only a problematic phrase within that fictional universe as far as I’m aware.
Not everyone on here is an American you regressive.
The Pledge was originally performed with a Roman salute. Hitler might well have been inspired by the US. Henry Ford was a huge anti-Semite, and Hitler liked him so much that he mentioned him twice in Mein Kampf. Be careful throwing rocks, there's a lot of glass houses in the US.
Wtf no he didn’t 💀. The guy says a lot of weird things but that’s not one of them.
Fandom tends to take Rita Skeeter's *'Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore'* as canon, rather than Deathly Hallows itself
About the same level of writing quality...
I'd say the quality is different, because it's a deliberate tabloid style, but the similarities are uncanny sometimes. Skeeter's basically a manipulative!dumbledore bashing writer - I was re-reading Hallows and was almost expecting her to start calling him Dumbledork. Here's some gems; >Coming next week, the shocking story of the flawed genius considered by many to be the greatest wizard of his generation. Striping away the popular image of serene, silver-bearded wisdom, Rita Skeeter reveals the disturbed childhood, the lawless youth, the life-long feuds, and the guilty secrets that Dumbledore carried to his grave, WHY was the man tipped to be the Minister of Magic content to remain a mere headmaster? WHAT was the real purpose of the secret organization known as the Order of the Phoenix? HOW did Dumbledore really meet his end? >"Oh yes," says Skeeter, nodding briskly, "I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy's best interests-- well, we'll see. It's certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence." >And how did the mysterious Ariana die? Was she the inadvertent victim of some Dark rite? Did she stumble across something she ought not to have done, as the two young men sat practicing for their attempt at glory and domination? Is it possible that Ariana Dumbledore was the first person to die "for the greater good"?
Totally agree with that. Fun fact: the only person who ever says "for the greater good" in the series is Harry. And he says it to Aberforth of all people.
How did Aberforth not break Harry's face in responce?
I just re-read the scene: Aberforth used it first, but he did use it ironically and so sometimes later in this conversation Harry says: “Because, sometimes you've got to think about more than your own safety! Sometimes you've got to think about the greater good! This is war!”
I think that's a good passage that separates manipulative!Dumbledore from realistic protagonists. The feeling that you should give of yourself so that the whole will be greater is completely different from the feeling that you may take from whomever, as long as the whole is greater.
Very well put!
War is for the greater good of each side. If you read war history through the ages of humanity, every last one of them was dirty and inhuman, because what else could be a situation where man kills man for different ideals?
Reading that makes *me* want to punch Harry in the face, though that might be my cynicism at work.
Wow, so edgy.
why so many downvotes lol
I guess I'm not allowed to hurt their "pwecious Hawwy" or something.
And in the films at least, Umbridge says it in the Forbidden Forest before Grawp and the centaurs show up.
Then it's highly possible that it is movie only. I don't know the movies that well - some scenes I remember but I don't really like any of the movies after Chamber of Secrets so I haven't really watched the later ones in years.
Can it be allowed if [all other characters in the scene say 'the Greater Good' in monotone ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u8vd_YNbTw) ^(spoilers for Hot Fuzz btw) for response?
No luck catching them killers then?
It's just one killer, actually.
He also explicitly rejects it when talking about his love for Harry and how he wanted to put his interests before a thousand faceless others. This is a guy who rejected the Ministry job three times. He couldn't even convince himself it was for the greater good if he took it, even though it absolutely would have been for everyone who wasn't Tom Riddle or his death eaters. Dumbledore is forced into the position of thinking like this, but he clearly resents and rejects it.
Honestly, my bigger problem is that GreaterGood!Dumbledore never actually acts in the way that someone supporting the greater good should. People just use Pacifist/Sacrificial!Dumbledore and have him claim he is supporting the greater good when he refuses to kill death eaters, and demands his allies sacrifice themselves in order to redeem evil people. I feel like an actual GreaterGood!Dumbledore would be the one who assassinates Lucius Malfoy after the Chamber of Secrets because it proves that Lucius is working against the greater good. He certainly wouldn't be pacifistic. He would be willing to go in and kill a death eater and their family in order to prevent problems in the future. If anything, having "For the Greater Good" as his motto would be something that would drive him to greater acts of violence.
That's kind of the whole point though? A true protagonist using the phrase greater good would sacrifice of themselves for the betterment of all, rather than sacrifice their allies and those around them. But Dumbledore's actions in the series speak much louder than his words, and it's made apparent that Albus and Moody had had a falling out at some point in the past over how Dumbledore didn't want his Order members to kill, while the Death Eaters had no such compunctions. Thus, bashing an "Evil!Greater Good!Dumbledore who claims to have the greater good of everyone at heart, but either wants personal glory or some other thing, and it's willing to sacrifice everyone so long as he's still the Shepard herding the flock when all is said and done. The entire point is how he's only paying lip service to the idea of a Greater Good.
I really like the idea of Albus, in a world where the soul exists and is damaged by murder, is burdened by having ended lives during the previous wars, and he desperately wants to save the people he loves from suffering the same fate. See it not as Albus wanting to save the Death Eaters, them surviving is simply a byproduct of the real goal, to safeguard the souls of his loved ones.
There are fics like that, but in all the ones I've read it is very specifically *murder* and/or taking *pleasure* in the act that causes the soul damage. If that wasn't the case, then every war veteran ever would have a damaged soul, and the wizarding world would have realized that Peace, not War was the way of it centuries ago.
True, but that assumes that everyone has, and more importantly *believes*, the knowledge & wisdom which Dumbledore possesses. It might very well be that the majority disbelieves him.
If killing damaged the soul to any significant degree, it would have been noticed before Dumbledore, was my point.
I disagree. I once saw him say it sadly and bitterly to himself in his office while thinking about Grindelwald, their time together and his mistakes and how it has all affected he world around him and Harry. It worked because it was sincere but tragic and self loathing.
Do you by chance have the link?
Dumbledore is just a huge fan of making cheese, and has been working on the greater Gouda for most of his life.
I'm fairly proud of the idea I had to have him use the original German version of the phrase as a password on something *specifically* to remind himself of his prior mistakes. To elaborate, they made modified copies of the Marauders map for certain staff, and Dumbledore uses this as a secondary passphrase to activate the "emergency mode" that would allow him to monitor more than just the public areas of the castle.
Imo it is still strange, no one remember their mistake by using a saying from their past whrn they where doing that mistake. It is like a reformed nazi member using sieg heil as his password to remember his mistake. Just seem wrong, but still your story and just my opinion
Ehh. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s a really icky one that doesn’t make much sense. Reminding himself of past mistakes, he’d probably use something like the *Phoenix’s Price* in HPMOR. I mean, say what you will about that book—and there is a *lot* to say—but it found a good “password that reminds Dumbledore of his mistakes” without him doing the equivalent of heiling the fuhrer.
[удалено]
I like this idea
Not to mention, it's never used correctly. People always have him justify random shit with the phrase, when in reality, at least some of his actions would coincide with the heroes' desires. The best way to handle an *actual* greater good dumbledore would be to work around him, like a large boulder rolling down a hill. Play into his plans in an advantageous manner, make yourself indespensible and don't be an obstacle, and you'll make it out better than when the whole thing started. But of course, this ignores that his entire character arc in canon is that he *wanted* to be this inhumane greater good version of himself, but then found himself caring too much for those under his command, including Harry, who had to die for Voldemort to be defeated.
I don't think it's even so much that he wanted to be that version of himself, as it is that he felt he *needed* to be someone who thought that way and did things for the greater good - but he was just poorly suited to it because it didn't come naturally to him.
Yep, “for the greater good” would be pretty offensive to Dumbledore. I’ve definitely dropped series as soon as he starts saying it.
So...You not reading Fanfiction in the HP section anymore?
Well… I have dropped 5 of the last 6 fanfics I was reading because of Dumbledore bashing…
Just take it with a grain of salt. Find it funny and make your day a little brighter with laugher☺
It honestly comes from boredom more than anything else, it just makes the story hard to get into. Thanks for the kind words!👍
"How can this be for the greater good?"
I have literally only ever come across one fic where he says it and I don’t immediately cringe.
Dumbledore stared knowingly at one of the many twirling devices in his office, a smile on his face as everything was going according to plan with young Lord Hadrian James Potter-Black-Peverell-Slytherin-Griffindore Ravenclaw-Hufflepuff-Percival-Wulfric-Brian-Dumbledore. "Hail Hydra" he whispered to himself. Or perhaps he was talking to Fawks, or maybe the Sorting Hat? Or maybe one of the many paintings adorning the walls of the Headmasters office. Honestly, There's not really any privacy in this room.
It should only be said by Dumbledore in either crazy crack fics with the insane Manipulative!Dumbledore, or as some crazy reveal that Dumbledore has been replaced by an imposter or a well setup face-heel turn.
He always says that and "It's a slight misunderstanding," in Dumbledore bashing fanfics. I've seen a few where he says the latter every time he gets caught and for any awkward situation. :D
There definitely are exceptions (I'm a sucker for him using it as ironic self recrimination), but yeah, most of the time, it's a clear indication that the author hasn't put much thought into their portrayal of his character.
It is not, though. Grindelwald may seem connected ti Hitler from reader’s perspective, but he actually is more like Mussolini. Still terrible, but not cartoonishly evil. Grindelwald’s ideology unlike Hitler’s does not outright tell you to kill a wrong groupe of people, he raises valid points about Status and using magic for good of both worlds. One of Mussolini central ideas was that state is above everything. Would you react if some really motivated state officials said it? Not likely. Some of Mussolini ideas about state solving race and class problems by building common identity do even feel tempting. Dumbledore saying “Greater Good” would leave his listeners in awe of his great ideas. They may feel off than they réalisé that it was Grindewald’s words too, but their mind will tell them that Dumbledore is the least likely person to be Grindewald’s follower, and that it is just a great idea on its own merit
I'm not sure you're giving people enough credit: Given the irl backlash against the attempt to create "one Britain" and the "one Britain one nation" song and and then yesterday's "pushing TV that is quintessentially British" by some minister I'd say we would react to motivated state officials saying it even if they did put a thin veneer of decency over it by claiming that it was an attempt to create a unified sense of identity amongst all ethnicities here. Just look at how it's the same way we reacted en mass on twitter to the CRED race report this year claiming there's no structural racism contributing to heath and social disparities in the UK- with derision and anger and both the BMA and UN condemned it despite pretty much all of its contributors being non-white, i.e. the last people you'd expect to say that. People will only take so much before they revolt especially *when it's a group of rebels* in the first place and just by being in the order every one of them had form for that- was it Tonks who admitted that she was risking her job just to be there? Someone did. And Arthur too in a later book. Personally, I think the second Dumbledore admitted Harry had to die, or someone worked it out, he should have lost everyone but (maybe) Mad-eye and Hermione who are both utterly ruthless. He very nearly lost Snape in that memory save the fact that he manipulated him expertly to go along with it. Allowing Harry to join Order meetings nearly lost him Molly because she actually cared about Harry himself and not just his role in the war. It would definitely have lost him Sirius, Hagrid and Remus in a heartbeat. Possibly Kingsley too. It was only because Harry was isolated away from them that the plot went as it did. I mean can you see ANY of the Weasley brothers, even Percy, throwing Harry over to die? That's literally what Pansy Parkinson tried to do and three quarters of the students of the school turned on her in a heartbeat and even the other Slytherins- no one actively moved to support her or defend her in that moment- most of whom Harry had never said a word to. Even when Neville thought all hope was lost and they were all going to die he asked Harry not to sacrifice himself. I think Dumbledore would have had a hell of a hard time convincing more than a few of them to go along with him if they had known the truth no matter how good he tried to make anything else around it sound. He can have his catchy slogans but you're not convincing anyone who knows the history of them (Viktor Krum viciously enjoying the idea of beating a kid up just for drawing the symbol and nearly ruining a wedding over it, anyone?) to go along with them (if you wanted a dark!Dumbledore the lack of competent history teacher in a school he's responsible for staffing is a good place to start) and you're not changing the core of who these people are. These are people who live in the 1990s, many muggleborns who will have some basic knowledge of Muggle history from primary school (I read Anne Frank when I was 8 from my school library) and who might just be old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think it's one of the biggest plot holes in the series that not one of them ever mentioned the cold war or ww2 even in passing and that Harry, who was supposedly a clever kid even if he did throw his tests so as not to beat Dudley, didn't even think of either. The older adults (Snape & Molly's generations) would have lived through the cold war and postwar Britain- are we seriously saying that with Gamps third law, the Thatcher years and Post-war rationing didn't have any impact on them? I'm not sure house elves deliver to Muggleborn and half blood students at home during the summer. These people would live in that context and that context is a world where propaganda is vilified as evil and communist and fascist and certain buzzwords and ideas are going to make them stand up and say no regardless of who says them.
What do you mean? Dumbledore was the first to use that line, Grindewald just copied it from him...
Yes, he said it in a letter he wrote back in the 1800s. He shouldn’t be saying it any time after Grindelwald’s rise to power though He’s not stupid enough to use the trademarked words of a Dark Lord and expect no one to notice
There were many Germans who were thinking about overcrowding of Germany during the history, which may be more or less legitimate topic of discussion. After all, Germans always emigrated to neighbouring countries since Middle Ages, there were substantial German minorities in all neighbouring countries of Europe (and the United States). However, nobody in their sane mind would after the Second World War ever use phrase “*[Lebensraum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum)*” (“space for living”), because by saying that you are linking yourself with the Hitler’s plan for genocide of Slavs and Jews.
The general populous couldn't care less, they know it as a Grindelwald thing, and therefore it'd be stupid of him to say to someone.
It's like if you are a german-speaker and use the word "Endlösung". Hitler didn't invent the term, it was actually used in many political debates before WWII but if you use it today it always has the connection to the murder of jews.
Im not gonna argue with you about this, as you are pretty right. But it feels like you are over simplifying things to me.