When you are winning you are a GENIUS when you are losing then you are NUTS

Excuse my French but this is Bollocks.
Lets analyse this a little closer.
1) He led German into a deliberately planned war without putting the countrys economy onto a war footing.

2) His policies led to the murder of hundreds of thousands to millions of German Jews at a time when his nation needed skilled workers and soldiers.

3) His policies toward conquered populations that should have seen Germany as liberators (Ukrainians for example) drove them to form huge partisan armies that tied up much needed front line troops and actually prefer Stalin a complete psychotic nutter.

Seriously how can anyone see this man as a genius?

Right on all accounts, if not in detail:

Originally Posted by MontyB

Excuse my French but this is Bollocks.
Lets analyse this a little closer.
1) He led German into a deliberately planned war without putting the countrys economy onto a war footing.

And he never knew the importance of doing that.

Originally Posted by MontyB

2) His policies led to the murder of hundreds of thousands to millions of German Jews at a time when his nation needed skilled workers and soldiers.

4 Million (in Germany, 6M total), to be precise.

Originally Posted by MontyB

3) His policies toward conquered populations that should have seen Germany as liberators (Ukrainians for example) drove them to form huge partisan armies that tied up much needed front line troops and actually prefer Stalin a complete psychotic nutter.

Seriously how can anyone see this man as a genius?

Indeed.

We were lucky he committed all those errors, else half of the world would now speak "Deutsch" and greet each other "Sieg Heil!"...

Rattler

God only knows just where his lunatic policies would have taken Europe had he not been straight-jacketed by Churchill and his allies. Not only a lunatic but a big-time loser. His country lost everything, including their self-respect - 1s -9d packet of 50 fags was the price . I know I was there.

Germany has my respect for the recovery of its sanity.

The question isn't whether or not he was mad or brilliant, but whether or not, he was a psychopath. Clearly, he was brilliant enough to get people to kill (and to be killed) for him. Let's not mention the fact that he took a backward nation and turned it into a superpower. The question is whether or not, he reveled in it or thought it was just a means to an end. That's the scary part.

Neither fully insane neither a complete genius. He was above average in intelligence at the least , but believed in a very stupid ideology and made very stupid mistakes. He was not a complete idiot , but the whole package of Hitler as a leader was a negative one.

If he would take a big part of the "credit" for the expansion of Germany (having to do both with politics and war) he should also take "credit" for the disastrous operation Barbarossa.

He should also take "credit" for consolidating his rule , outsmarting all of his opponents. And also for abolishing freedoms and apointing corrupt officers to positions of power , with not efficiency as criteria.

The creation of several private nazi private goverments on his watch, the genocides , the fact that he forced a whole nation to become nazis and obey him , even when their patriotic sensibilities told otherwise , and his imperialist behavior was also a side of him , for which he must take "credit".

Also for the results of his cruel sadism policies on the people he considered as inferior.

The corrupt nazi state even if Hitler's plan were a success would be an abomination that thankfully i doubt it would surive for a lot. (civil war maybe.) Or maybe it would not have functioned like a proper state.

Other elements of him is the fact that he seemed to like the usage of new technologies and he did support german workers atleast in theory.

Hitler is the whole package and it is important to judge him by that and not just one of his unique qualities.

Incidentally , the existance of Metaxas made me think something about Hitler. Off topic maybe.

Metaxas was a leader who was voted into power , then he created his own dictatorship in Greece after a period of both other coups and uncertainty. From 36 until 1940 he reorganized the military , and greatlly improved it'f efficiency and also created the metaxas line. He was expecting an attack from the Italians , or Bulgarians , Germans and he knew he should organise the military.

He did advocate worker rights as well maybe to appease the people. (8 hour work and social security was created on his watch.)

The biggest difference between the two is a) metaxas didn't do a genocide. B) he joined the allies out of geopolitical necessity long before the Italians asked him to let their army pass over as much of greek territory as they would like when he refuced.

Even though he was a dictator his contributions are mostly seen as positive.

My assessment is that short lived dictators that care for the geopolitical interests of their not able to be imperialist country , at the short term could be seen as a positive influence.

If not a what if Hitler example , one could use a what if Stalin example. (what if he was killed during WW2).

other elements includes not being a mega revolutionary wanabe , having a long history already established , and not been particularly fond of mass exterminations of political enemies.

Out of all dictators of the period it seems that Metaxas was the mildest and the one who died soonest.

But i also think that if one analyzes the character of each dictator , including Hitler , one could see that even if the situation was different he may have avoided his other crimes but i do see him killing the jews eventually and attempting imperialism when he is able to do so.

Hitler brought his country together like never before, the people followed and fought for him right up to the last gasps of the War. I think the one thing that broke their spirit in the finish was when many of them were marched around the death camps and saw what was done in their name.
Putting the country on a war footing, well didn't have to as he put all the countries that he over run onto a war footing on behalf Germany. Germany also used millions of Russian POW as slave labour and also many of the men from the countries that Germany over ran were called up as direct labour and forced to work in factories all over the place. The numbers ran into millions of people that were used this way leaving Germany looking quite untouched by many aspects of the war.

Like many people, he had some good ideas, and some bloody horrible ideas. His biggest problem was, that he couldn't tell the difference.

Theres a fine line between Genius and insanity
A genius would bring his country together like never before, an Insane man would lat his hate consume him.
Therefore I think Hitler started out as a genius, but at the same time was being consumed by his hate, driving him insane.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Like many people, he had some good ideas, and some bloody horrible ideas. His biggest problem was, that he couldn't tell the difference.

I'd say he had no good ideas, but had a considerable amount of luck which ran out in 1942. Before then, he was able to take advantage of errors (both military and political made by others). This led him to make the same mistake Napoleon made 130 years earlier. The inshakeable faith in his own star. The problem was that Napoleon Star's was based on his real military and political ability, while Hitler's star was luck that he misinterpreted for ability. This is why Napoleon lasted much longer than Hitler did, although he ended up in the same way.