I hate to quote Harry Potter....but this fits.

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things. Terrible, yes! But great!"

The man pulled his country out of a depression, managed to mass murder 6 million jews, and several others, put together one of the best air forces that the world had to date, not to mention THE best orator I have ever heard. He could enchant a crowd.

Yes he did bad things. But that isn't what the question was. He was crazy but almost everyone is a little crazy.

The things he did were terrible, horrible and very much wrong. But the fact he pulled them off. Now that was what made him great and powerful. Scary...but great.

Stalin is responsible for 10 million more deaths than Hitler, and Mao ZeDong killed more than those two combined, Mao is responsible for the deaths of over 75 million people before WWII, during WWII, and after WWII. Yet Mao is never really considered one of the great murderers, why? I think the issue here is who was killed, not how many, much like in the Sudan, Rwanda, and Iraq.

Ah but we can't prove Stalins. It is a guesstimate on exactly how many he ordered to be killed. He was slightly paranoid.

Since he didn't keep records, for some reason Hitler did. My mentor in college was from Russia. He used to tell a story about Stalin and his grandfather.

His grandfather loved Vodka(like all good russians do) and would go to the pub every night after work. One day he was good and drunk and he called Stalin a dirty pig. His grandfather did not come home that night. To this day they have no clue where he was buried.

Now granted my area of speciality was in Russian History and not Chinese. I only took ancient chinese history and not modern. From what I understand there was nothing pragmatic about him. He did kill a lot of his people. But it wasn't like in Germany where you had the everyday man screaming for the blood of Jews, Gays, Gyspies, etc. Mao was a little more sutle. There is also a great number of people in China. So his sphere of influence was a lot greater then that of Western Europe.

Genius, He was able to do things that no one else has ever been able to do. he also had some of the most advanced weapons designed.

Originally Posted by PrincessRed

Since he didn't keep records, for some reason Hitler did.

That was the way the Germans were, they kept very, very detailed records, as far as I know it had been that way ever since the Unification of Germany under Bismark.

Originally Posted by Damien435

I think the issue here is who was killed, not how many, much like in the Sudan, Rwanda, and Iraq.

this, friend, is an excellent point.

While I will agree, to a point. It DOES matter, how many, when the Jewish population was almost wiped out of Western Europe. Not to mention the amount of gypsy, homosexuals, political, and mental and physically handicapped. These people were defective in the eyes of the German government. Therefore wiped out. (a simplified answer to why the final solution was implimented. Of course not the difinative answer but a simpliefied one that works in what I am getting at)

The German's basically got rid of anyone who didn't think, act, or look the way that Hitler wanted. I didn't know the lengths the government went to until I went to the Holocaust museum in DC. Their artifacts are rather disturbing.

An excellent movie, is called the WAVE, a made for TV movie. If you can find it, it shows Hitler's Germany in a little more clear and up-to-date explanation. (to see this movie for FREE- http://www.xenutv.com/cults/wave.htm- you can download it ABC after school special)

In my opinion it wasn't who they came for because in the end almost no one was safe.



First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

~Pastor Martin Niemöller (German Anti-Nazi activist)

There are two ways to look at the "Who was killed argument."

1.) The racist point of view, the Jews were white, the Africans in Rwanda and Sudan are black, of course the UN is not going to do anything.

Or.

2.) The Jews were actively contributing to socierty, commerce, industry, and science. They had/have a lot of influence over the world (Not a conspiracy, but influence, like lobbyists.) where as, to be honest, nobody is really going to miss a couple hundred thousand, or million, african tribesman who are merely simple farmers.

Either way, the fact still stands that the UN has gone to great pains to ignore the situation in Africa, the security council made sure to never say genocide, becuase doing so would mean that the UN was bound by their Charter to step in using force if neccessary.

Note to Mods: I understand if this gets edited, what I proposed is most likely borderline or over the line of appropriate material, true yes, but some things I guess are just to sensitive to be metioned.

Hitler may have very well been a genius at one point early in his rise to power, but later he turned into just a pure madman and a tyrant. In his political meetings before he took power he supported brutality by using the SA as a brute intimidating force(genius or tyrant). Later in his career he wanted the public to believe he changed his tactics to be in support of peace and did not agree with the SA's tactics(a well calculated lie). The night of long knives, he murdered his opposition, anyone who opposed him-executed, the number of people murdered was stagering and was carried out by the SS. This all done in the name of people conspiring against the state. His seizure of full power after the death of the president and his creation of laws to stay in power was criminal. But after all that he still could have done some good and been a true statesmen, but instead he chose to continue the path that the night of long knives started, a ruthless tyrant. As far as military battles sure he won some early battles to far inferior forces, but as the war went on his ideas to divert forces in the middle of a campaign in Russia and then decide to continue back marching to Moscow was that of an idiot(when you have your enemy on the ground you finish him, you don't let him get up). Hitler's idea to make military decisions, umm let's see he was a corporal in ww1, and now a military strategic genius in ww2, umm...no. He had very inteligent generals that should have had more control over their army. Sure you can call him a genius if you agree with a government that based an economy off of slave labour and a war economy. Hitler was a tyrant and came to power that way, do u consider Frank Lucas(NY drug kingpin) a genius or a thug. So why give Hitler thought as to being a genius when like other common thugs he came to power with ruthless tactics and tyranny. Genius no I don't think so, Idiot-yeah deciding to practice genocide instead of just removing a race(Madasgascar may have been impractical but would have still been a better decision), waging a war when urged not to by his generals, to increase effort of eliminating the Jewish race when faced with eminent military defeat, to view himself more inteligent than his experienced generals in war decisions, you be the judge. I'm sure some of the master race Aryan retards will want to disagree with me(just because you read Mein Kamp doesn't make you smart, learn history to smart one)but I don't have an issue with antisemitic views, if Hitler felt strongly that the Jewish race was holding the German people back, he had a right to act but not in the way of extermination, but removal of them to another territory.

there is a fine line between genuis and insanety