Hitler (?)

Ollie Garchy

Ollie Garchy

Active member
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.
 
Last edited:
Are you :cen: 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.
 
perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

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?
 
perseus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

perseus said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
My opinion on Hitler

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top