Benevolent heavily implies the influence has to be good. Unless it's the thought that counts, in which case... Hitler still doesn't fit the description.

Hitler simply cannot be considered benevolent. It doesn't matter at all how he was to his followers, whether he treated his grandparents nicely, how he was to little children, whether he was a nice boss, whatever. All of this doesn't matter at all when you simply consider that he, fully knowingly, committed the Holocaust. He knew exactly what was going on and he fully endorsed it. Saying that Hitler could be considered benevolent is like saying that someone who murders innocent people out of sheer lust for killing, but who goes to church every sunday, will be able to go to heaven.

Benevolent (adj): 1. Characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings 2. desiring to help others; charitable 3. intended for benefits rather than profit. So....no Hitler doesn't count.

Yet a lot of commenters here don't get it, either.

Yes. Let us completely annihilate the student's creativity and amount of choice by giving them an approved list of people they're allowed to write about, just in case they're not able to read or at least google a word they don't understand.

Did you even read the previous comments on this FML? You know, the ones where it was explained over and over again that 'benevolent' indeed DOES imply their influence has to be good?

I would actually argue contrary to you guy's points and say that the influence Hitler had on the world was a beneficial one, but that his actions were absolutely horrible. There are a couple of reasons why I take this position: a) The actions committed under Hitler's commands are still considered one of the worst things in human history. We have a clear and distinctive picture of what will be the lowest point we can reach. Because we know of this, we can actively strive to avoid it, instead of having to move around without knowing whether we've reached the lower bar yet or not. b) The Holocaust has caused a massive reevaluation of religious beliefs and dogma in the entire world and has dealt a giant blow to anti-semitic views held by people. After having suffered from the Egyptians, during the Middle Ages and then through the Rise of the Third Reich, the Jews were finally able to "catch a break". The cost of this was massive, but still: The Holocaust has done much to change the amount of religious conflict in the world. c) This is perhaps the most important aspect: The second World War has caused a fear of large-scale wars in humanity. This was unprecedented in human history! Never before has there been a point where all major countries were afraid of going to war with one another. If it hadn't been for the horrors of WW2, the Cold War probably would've erupted into open conflict. Or any other major war for that matter. The biggest achievement to take from this is the one about nuclear weaponry. Thanks to WW2, there have only ever been 2 nuclear bombs used in combat. This number could've very well been in the dozens or even hundreds. Arguably, the cost of all this was waaay too high. Still, at least when it comes to the influence that Hitler's life and work had on the mindset of humanity, I believe it was, in the end, beneficial. ["Beneficial" the same way that an Alien invasion threatening Earth would unite all humans and thus could be considered "beneficial".]

No. He wasn't a good anything. He was a powerful leader and a convincing speaker. But good he was not.

"Benevolent". That's the most important thing here. Otherwise someone could, in a scenario where fictional characters would be allowed, just bring up Satan, because Satan has forced people to follow morals and what-have-you in order to not land in hell, thus having a positive influence on the world.

"Benevolent Leader", so there was a problem with writing about Hitler. He wasn't in anyway benevolent. He may have influenced the world but he wasn't a good man, or a kind gentle leader and thus NOT benevolent.