I might have hooted too much glue in my time, but I want to know what Hilter (read Nazi Germany) did that was sooooooo bad. How about some stats? Some concrete stuff might be nice. How about putting Hitler in relation to others...like Stalin, Roosevelt or Churchill? It seems pointless comparing Hitler to Jesus.

Are you serious? Please for the love of god don't tell you me are looking for information exonerating Hitler for all his evils. Well, there could be the part where he killed 12 million people, or it could be that he tried to entirely eliminate a race of people, or perhaps it is because he invaded all of his neighbors. It's really hard to choose just one reason. As for how he was compared to Stalin? It's like looking in a mirror except Stalin tried to kill everyone with no rationale behind it, Hitler at least explained his actions. Compared to Roosevelt and Churchill, they were pretty much polar opposites in everything, even in their personal lives, Roosevelt and Churchill were alcoholics, Hitler never drank. What's that say about the "evils" of alcohol?

He had some really great ideas on pulling Germany out of the severe recession they were suffering mainly due to WWI and the Versailles Treaty. This made him very popular with the people, from there on in it all seems to have gone down hill.

Hitler's rise to power and Germany's economic recovery were made possible by Hitler playing on the anti-semitism that was rampant in Europe at the time. He could get the Germans to make sacrifice for the good of the Fatherland if they were convinced by their government that there was a hidden enemy amongst themselves that needed to be removed.

Yeah, I think that poor old Adolph's story has been done to death and most people today have made up their mind about him.

He may have had good points, but they were somewhat overshadowed by the crimes committed in his name during WWII. The fact that he adored his Mutti and liked dogs can hardly be seen as mitigating evidence.

I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in his life that has been overlooked or poorly represented. The rest is up to the individual.

The great historian AJP Taylor said that as an international statesman he was not all that bad. This statement was driven by his view that all the other leaders were up to much the same thing. For example Churchill's attitude to India. Of course several other countries helped Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia. He seemed to also think that Prussian Generals were behind the invasion of Poland, and he initially had little interest.

The main difference is I suppose is that he supported systematic mass extermination, unless you are of the view that he knew little. However even this doesn't place him any worse off than Stalin.

It is interesting why we view Hitler as a tyrant and Alexander the Great as a Hero, didn't the latter have a whole city crucified? I suppose the passage of time and the victors allow people to judge differently.

Perhaps the main military criticism of Hitler was the blatant way he tore up the Nazi Soviet pact and attacked the Soviet Union. Even Stalin didn't expect this and he must have understood the evil mind.

Originally Posted by perseus

The great historian AJP Taylor said that as an international statesman he was not all that bad. This statement was driven by his view that all the other leaders were up to much the same thing. For example Churchill's attitude to India. Of course several other countries helped Germany to dismember Czechoslovakia. He seemed to also think that Prussian Generals were behind the invasion of Poland, and he initially had little interest.

The main difference is I suppose is that he supported systematic mass extermination, unless you are of the view that he knew little. However even this doesn't place him any worse off than Stalin.

It is interesting why we view Hitler as a tyrant and Alexander the Great as a Hero, didn't the latter have a whole city crucified? I suppose the passage of time and the victors allow people to judge differently.

Perhaps the main military criticism of Hitler was the blatant way he tore up the Nazi Soviet pact and attacked the Soviet Union. Even Stalin didn't expect this and he must have understood the evil mind.

Actually I don't think people view Alexander as a hero. A conqueror, and military genius yes, but not a hero. I certainly don't think the Persians view him as a hero. They might admire is accomplishments just as I might admire Rommels actions in North Africa, doesn't mean I admire the person or his overall goals.

I think Alexander is hailed and Hitler is the villian is because history is written by the victors. (Also the fact that Alexanders Battles are much less documented than Hitler). Had the Germans won WWII would we have mourned the murder of the 6 Million Jews? I do not know. I'm glad I don't.

Also Alexander was a military tactician, who lead his own troops. Hitler was a politician who had others do his dirty work. Both were clever men , but Alexander had diplomatically and military skills, I am convinced that Hitler was more lucky than skillful.

If you ever have any doubts about whether Hitler was a sweetheart or not, visit a holocaust museum, the NAZIs loved films and recordkeeping.

Originally Posted by perseus

The main difference is I suppose is that he supported systematic mass extermination, unless you are of the view that he knew little. However even this doesn't place him any worse off than Stalin.

If we approach systematic mass extermination from Hitler's perspective, then it was simply the business at hand of carrying out intended foreign policy, in this case clearing living space for German expansion. If we submit to his view of the Slavic peoples then it isn't viewed as a holocaust. However, it's a pretty big 'if' of course. German, English, Dutch, French settlers (amongst others) moved to a land where they gradually displaced the indigenous peoples by force, both directly and indirectly. What they did was essentially what Hitler did to the peoples of Poland, the Ukraine etc. The major difference was the scale that Hitler carried things out on and that it was German foreign policy. However, it was pretty much the same actions with the same results.

Originally Posted by perseus

It is interesting why we view Hitler as a tyrant and Alexander the Great as a Hero, didn't the latter have a whole city crucified? I suppose the passage of time and the victors allow people to judge differently.

I don't know about Alexander but I do know that Ghengis Khan would burn to the ground (and kill every living thing within) any cities that did not surrender to him. Quite often cities refused to surrender, at least initially. Clearly, these are war crimes on a massive scale yet because this happened some 800 years ago Khan is not viewed with such distaste as Hitler. I wonder if in 800 years time the passage of time will merely mention Hitler as a great and bloodthirsty conqueror like the great Khans and not as an inhuman monster.

Originally Posted by perseus

Perhaps the main military criticism of Hitler was the blatant way he tore up the Nazi Soviet pact and attacked the Soviet Union. Even Stalin didn't expect this and he must have understood the evil mind.

I am now of the opinion that in principle, Operation Barbarossa was sound. There is some evidence that Stalin was planning an attack of his own, just not in 1941. The Soviet tank armies were going through massive reorganisation in 1941 and some speculate that Stalin planned to make war on Hitler in 1942. Hitler's own planners had advised that German superiority in tactics and in some areas of equipment would disappear by mid 1943. Thus an attack in 1941 when the German armies still had momentum and tactical superiority makes some sense. Where it fell down was in its 6 week delay, its faulty planning regarding the Soviet armies and terrain and Hitler's indecision regarding objectives, e.g. switching the German schwerpunkt from Moscow to Kiev in August 1941.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I don't know about Alexander but I do know that Ghengis Khan would burn to the ground (and kill every living thing within) any cities that did not surrender to him. Quite often cities refused to surrender, at least initially. Clearly, these are war crimes on a massive scale yet because this happened some 800 years ago Khan is not viewed with such distaste as Hitler. I wonder if in 800 years time the passage of time will merely mention Hitler as a great and bloodthirsty conqueror like the great Khans and not as an inhuman monster.

I am not sure he will have the same long term appeal as Alexander, Khan or even Atilla because they died at the height of their power Hitler died as the result of his failure basically they left something other than death and destruction even if their actions were predominantly brutal tyranny.

I am now of the opinion that in principle, Operation Barbarossa was sound. There is some evidence that Stalin was planning an attack of his own, just not in 1941. The Soviet tank armies were going through massive reorganisation in 1941 and some speculate that Stalin planned to make war on Hitler in 1942. Hitler's own planners had advised that German superiority in tactics and in some areas of equipment would disappear by mid 1943. Thus an attack in 1941 when the German armies still had momentum and tactical superiority makes some sense. Where it fell down was in its 6 week delay, its faulty planning regarding the Soviet armies and terrain and Hitler's indecision regarding objectives, e.g. switching the German schwerpunkt from Moscow to Kiev in August 1941.

I have long been a believer that the failure of the German army in both Russia and North Africa was primarily due to Italian incompetence.
However I wonder Germany had waited for the Russians to attack would it have worked in their favour, could they have weathered an attack in 1943 and then gone on the offensive with greater success against a weakened Russian military.
Lets face it the Red army was not a good offensive force they had pretty much been defeated by both Poland and Finland in previous years and their success against the German army only started to come once German units were significantly weakened by attrition.