I am now of the opinion that in principle, Operation Barbarossa was sound.

What from a moral, legal or military point of view? I was assuming we were taking of the former two, since the question relates to whether Hilter was so bad, not whether he was competent.

There is some evidence that Stalin was planning an attack of his own

I very much doubt if Russia would have attacked Germany after the Finnish fiasco and the resounding German victory in the west. Wasn't Stalin scared s*** of them, refusing to mobilize, despite Ultra reports and defectors indicating an attack was imminent, in case it caused Hitler to react?

Originally Posted by perseus

What from a moral, legal or military point of view? I was assuming we were taking of the former two, since the question relates to whether Hilter was so bad, not whether he was competent.

Well from a military viewpoint of course, as technically there can be nothing moral or legal about invading another country. I addressed the military aspect as you brought it up - I know it's a little off-topic.

Originally Posted by perseus

I very much doubt if Russia would have attacked Germany after the Finnish fiasco and the resounding German victory in the west. Wasn't Stalin scared s*** of them, refusing to mobilize, despite Ultra reports and defectors indicating an attack was imminent, in case it caused Hitler to react?

The way I see it is that Stalin did not want war in 1941, as even he was realistic and pragmatic enough to realise that his armed forces weren't ready. After the Winter War fiasco and the purges of 1938 the Red Army was not ready for any fight with Germany and Stalin in no way wanted to provoke Hitler. So yes, he was ****-scared of starting anything in 1941.

However, make no bones about it, Stalin wanted to paint Europe red and ultimately he'd have to deal with Nazi Germany, if only for the realization that Hitler would not sit back forever and do nothing about the huge power sitting on his doorstep. The Soviets knew they had better tanks (as the visit to German tank schools in early 1941 had shown them) but they had to organize and train their tank crews and ensure the replacement of obsolete tanks with the new T-34s coming into service. The Red Army's armoured forces were in the process of reorganising into 31 giant tank divisions when the Germans invaded. However, they weren't ready even if the element of surprise hadn't overwhelmed them.

Germany could never have absorbed an attack by the Soviet Union and counterattacked, they simply did not have the manpower, equipment, or geography, plus winters in Germany are not as severe as those in Russia, which was what ultimately stopped the Germans in 1941. The Eastern Front was a war of attrition and the larger, more populous nation will always win that kind of war.

As for why Hitler is a villian and Alexander remembered as a great conqueror, that's simple, times have changed. Back in the days of Alexander many of his actions were simply the norms of the day, you fought to win, conquered peoples had no rights, everyone played by the same rules. However the rules changed between Alexander's reign and Hitler's rise to power, killing 12 million people just wasn't acceptable in the 20th century.

12 Million? I expect that number is too high for the Holocost so im guessing your including the Serb Nazi killings, P.O.W.'s, Slavs, etc.

Hitler killed more than just Jews during WWII. Poles and Russians were also big on his list.

Slavs = Poles & Russians

If you look at his intention, you can see to him he did just we he had to do to get power, and for him to get it, he thought he had to kill. I mean he must have had some personal reason as to why he picked the Jews, and other "inferior" races. But he convinced so many people about what he was doing was right, so he must have thought so too, look at what he said: "Who says I am not under the special protection of God?" -Adolf
Look at what's happening in Darfur, and Africa in general, I think this is worse than what Hitler did, because they are killing just because they hate. I think that what Hitler did was wrong, but i think his intention to get power is perfectly reasonable.

Erased by Ollie Garchy...the censorship of myself is one form that I agree with.

I think the reason why Hitler is seen in the West as synonymous with evil can be summed up as follows:

1. He lost the war/is seen as a failure, thus supporting the axoim that the victors rewrite history. This explains why Stalin is seen in a slightly better light, although in reality Stalin killed more people and for purely personal reasons. He wanted to get/stay ahead and anyone in his way was bumped off. Hitler also 'got rid' of opposition but his motive was for nationalistic rather than personal reasons.
2. The way in which the extermination of human beings was part of an emotionless, state policy I think touches a nerve in many, many people. It's the fact that the Nazis could casually deem other humans as sub-human and because of this deny them basic human rights and treat them as animals. Of course, Nazi Germany was not the first regime to adopt this attitude.
3. The events of WW2 were more heavily documented than any other war before. In this respect Hitler was unlucky. There are many nations in history beforehand who committed acts on the scale and beyond of anything the Nazi's ever did. The numbers may be lower but that's simply because human populations were far lower. The leading European nations basically made slaves of any nation seen as inferior, mainly Africans. The Spanish Conquistadors butchered the Aztecs in their thousands and European settlers in North America/Australia and New Zealand drove out the indigenous populations in often barbaric fashion. It can be argued that the 'Americans' successfully created lebensraum through ethnic cleansing long before the Nazi's ever attempted it.

In a 'positive' light Hitler is often seen as a great conqueror on the scale of a Caesar or Napoleon, which is a favourable comparision. For example when talking about Russia it is often stated that it was this vast, desolate wasteland that laid ruin to the great armies of Napoleon and Hitler. For this reason he's admired by many people. If it's any comfort Hitler will be remembered as one of the most iconic figures in human history. It's a heck of a lot better than 99.9999..% of us will ever achieve, even if much of it is for the wrong reasons.

I don't like it when people call Hitler a "great conqueror" and compare him to Napolean and Alexander for the simple reason that Hitler didn't lead any armies. Alexander and Napolean were both right in the heat of the fighting, making decisions in the field, Hitler was back in Berlin. Hitler wasn't a great conqueror, he just had an excellent General Staff under him.