If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Hitler
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
For i long time whenever i hear about what hilter did during the war i am always left feeling that he was a very intelligent man, and if he didnt have the whole raceist/mass murder thing going for him then he would have made a very good leader.
What are your views on this?
What are your views on this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Hate has a power all its own, one which spreads easily in atmospheres of overwhelming discontent such as what prevailed in the death throws of the Weimar Republic (for all its democratic legitimacy) thus allowing not only for the accumulation of hither to fore non-mandated powers, but also the tacit approval of a downtrodden German society eager for a renewed self-image of strength in the world.
Frighteningly enough, precursors exist today for a resurgence of such autocratic overthrows of democratic legitimacy through focussed hatred, and much closer to home for many of us.
Star Wars again...
It leads to the Dark Side...
Essentially the gist of my comment is that Hitler was indeed politically shrewd at the outset of his endeavours to consolidate power to himself given the general unrest in Germany's civil society following from the steady decline and eventual bankruptcy of the Weimar Republic (to which Hitler had actually been democratically elected to start with).
However, his overriding focus of hatred toward minority groups and the application of that hatred through "scapegoating" of that society's ills upon those subgroups was where the whole political nightmare began.
Whatever else I might have said which you didn't understand I will gladly clarify if you point out the confusing bits to me.
Depends.
He started a progress for German society and economy.
On the other hand, what kind of a leader are you when you can't face your own actions and commit suicide when the going gets tough? A leader should ultimately be one which the people can identify with and be proud of. Hitler left a nation in a sinking boat which he'd put to see.
yes i think every1 has at least once been confused by clandestines rhetoric
Depends.
I think there are two different views on Hitler as a leader. The more typical one of him as a strong leader, but there is also evidence to suggest he was a weak leader, put off making decisions, liked to leave things to other people, was lazy, didn't care about details, left the government to run itself on a day to day basis, and basically cared more about his building plans for a new Berlin.
His plans weren't all that well thought out either - for example, his success with the economy was, I daresay, down to luck more than good management. Plans for persecution of the Jews were also fairly inconsistant, with the odd idea and law being put through, but not enforced that much.
IMO, Hitler was far more interested in immediate success than long term security. Maybe this is why he ended up going to war..?
War helps economy. In the way that it creates jobs. Was the same in the states.
Btw, care to clarify the "Plans for persecution of the Jews were also fairly inconsistant, with the odd idea and law being put through, but not enforced that much." bit?
Given that Hitler originally only wanted to expel the Jews from Germany, and ended up with the Holocaust and the whole mass murder thing going on, I'd say the original plans didn't work out exactly.
By that, I was referring mostly to the early policies (1933-34ish), which consisted mostly of one-day boycotts of Jewish businesses, and the odd restriction on employment. The majority of early anti-semitic measures weren't enforced that much, perhaps partly because there were no laws defining what was, and what was not to be considered Jewish.
Also, government persecution was relaxed a great deal in 1936, which doesn't seem all that consistent to me.
You'll have to excuse me if I'm not making much sense. Or, generally talking crap. I'm just going on what I've covered in History lately, and my notes might not be that great.
Actually, I think you're missing the point: Hitler was the ultimate opportunist, a born pragmatist. He knew he couldn't start persecuting the Jews as soon as he came into power - Germany had minimal defences, and something as serious as Jewish genocide would be sure to incur the wrath of a Great Power or two.
His plans - in his head and seen with hindsight, rather than those that he loudly advocated - seem brilliantly drawn up, the steps he took to first take power, then gain the popularity he did, and then systematically conquer Europe (briefly) made absolute sense to the conditions he was working within.
As to Zella's point, yes, he was a brilliant thinker, a shrewd political operator who knew all the right buttons to press for just about everyone. However, as Tal pointed out, he was a shitty leader. A great leader is defined, more or less, by his actions under situations of great duress. Stalin was a great leader, turning the tide of the German advance the way he did. Churchill was a great leader, seeing off the German bombardment as he did. Hitler was a typical politican, brilliant up until the moment it all goes awry.
Interesting question though.
I agree with this point. Surely he wouldn't gain any of the power he had by going full force from the start. Just look at the result of the "bierstuben"-cup.
It's simple logistics really, it' easier to cram out money from your parents little by little, than getting it all in one go
Hitler was a shrewd politician. He was a good economist, and (dare I say it?!) he actually did some fairly left-wing stuff in terms of the economy that was really good for Germany - the autobahns, etc. Many Germans who lived through it say that the Hitler years before the war were the most prosperous of their lives.
But, as Jacq said, he couldn't face the consequences of his own actions. A good leader faces them with his followers. Hitler was cowardly.
Now my German history may be a little hazy but the way I recall it Hitler wasn't the greatest of economists, rather it was his economic policy that started WWII and effectively brought about his downfall.
Germany did benefit under the Nazis as a result of a very good economist who's name escapes me right now (possibly Schliecher??) and could also attribute certain aspects of their initial success in the War to Albert Speer who sorted out the industry.
But it was essentially Hitler's desire for Germany to become economically self sufficient that prompted him to invade Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland for their resources and land. This of course sparked off War in 1939 when Germany still weren't ready to fight a full scale war. This Hitler actually undid much of the economic successes achieved by others through his impatience.
Hjeimlar Schacht (sp?) I believe. Who I think he replaced with Goering, as Schacht wanted to carry on taking things steadily to help re-establish the economy, and Hitler wanted things to happen much more quickly. And Goering was not a much better economist than Hitler himself, if I remember rightly.
I'm probably going to get shot for this but.....
The medical advances that were made by the nazis doing terrible things to the jews have put medicine forwards upto 50 years. What they did was wrong but.......
Bopz
Can you enlighten me Jacq? I don't have enough time to look it up....
I hope this helps (See 1923). If I'm wrong, hopefully Jacqs will correct me.
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/history/1919-24.htm
That's it
Only if the war is being fought a long way away and regular trde patterns are not negatively disrupted too much. (eg the US in WW2)
Economies can achieve higher growth after a war and there is a suggestion it can be benefiicial in terms of renewing damaged infrastructure but overall wars are not good for economies.........
Thank you!!!