13 replies to this topic

[Catman]

I know from the title, this sounds really bad, because you only look at hitler=guy who killed lots of people. But really, was Hitler a bad thing? I don't really know anymore. It seems that Germany, after WWI was really pissed off at the rest of Europe, putting it bluntly. Germans, being the brilliant engeneers and strong minded patriots they were would inevitably have have re-risen to power to threaten the world once more. It seems that during the key parts of WWII Hitler failed his country. He made some pretty crappy descisions about what to do with his armed forces, that seem to have sealed his, and Germany's fate. Had hitler not have made his bad descisions, or not existed in the first place, what else would have happened? The creators of the Red Alert series seem to think that Germany would not have done anything, and that Soviet Russia would have threatened the free world. Either way, it seems that with Hitler in power, An even larger war might have been avoided. I'm not sure if this is at all plausable, or even possible, so that's why I'm here. I want to see what you all think about this because my history of the complicated relations of the world leading up to WWII is a little rusty.

[duke_Qa]

many say that soviet saved the allies from total defeat by keeping the majority of the german army busy. then again it was germany's plans to expand in that direction, but if they didnt do that, they probably would have gone other places. if we had the airplanes we had today, then i bet they would have focused more on africa/america than soviet, and that would have been troublesome as there was not really any armies to stop them there.

so you can flip the coin and say that if it wasnt for the germans attacking Soviet, they might have used their army to move into the west, but i'm not sure of how interested Stalin would have been about that, i'm not too familiar with soviets dreams about world domination through occupation. they were more into "world domination" through communism, which didnt need to be as violent, but still not peaceful.

[nipthecat]

________

Not only the person, they may change but the idea behind Hitler is the most disgusting thing that happened. The belief of pure race ideology together with lacking self esteem and an (Catmans term) overall pissed off feeling that lead to WWII and the Holocaust.

Back in history in early 20th century the germans missed their place at the sun, they wanted to become a noticable empire but lacked size (no colonies around the globe), no strength of any kind thereby a lack of self esteem. One more thing that led to Hitler was called the Dolchstoßlegende. Stab-in-the-back legend, a term first used in Daily News articles by Sir Frederick Maurice in 1918. Undefeated on battlefield and stabbed in the back by the so-called german Novemberrevolution of 1918 goes the conspiracy theory and was used by german nationalists and national-socialists, by the whole german rightwing. Thus the germans seen the ceasefire and Versailles peace treaty of 1918 as an act of betrayal. The following Weimarer Republik was affectionate hated by the germans, they simply didn't like the idea of democracy so this was just another step towards Hitler. Not to mention the economical situation in the 1920's and 1930's in Germany.

If Hitler hadn't existed in the first place another radical leader had taken his position. Simply Germany was rascist, radical and undemocratic at that time. No chance for peace. Anyhow a war with Soviet Union was inevitable, germans seen the soviets as Bolsheviks and as Untermenschen (subhuman brute) according to their race ideology and together with the plan of a German Empire they needed space in the eastern hemisphere. Last but not least Russia was Hitlers personal archenemy as quoted many times in Mein Kampf and official. With democratic elections on 30th Jan, 1933 (NSDAP 43.9%, German Nationalists 8%) Hitler got and has taken his chance and the world lost.

Germans, being the brilliant engineers had set up the biggest mechanized massmurder in history. With or without Hitler.

Edited by nipthecat, 02 August 2006 - 12:22 AM.

[MSpencer]

Hitler, in my opinion, was the main figurehead behind the instrument of terror that was the Nazi Regime. He was no worse than Goebbels, he stood up there, made stunning speeches, organized events, and put people in positions of power, and then sat along and watched the country run itself. It's wrong to blame all of the genocide on Hitler alone. One has to take into account the levels of the Nazi government, especially the autonomy of the Schutzstaffel, in assigning blame, and realize that while Hitler was the convenient figurehead to blame, you had a lot of people working behind the scenes who ultimately decided whether or not to go through with a full on genocide.
In my opinion, Hitler, compared to other possible radical leaders such as Heydrich or Goering, was a "wonderful" choice in a garden of black roses. One has to realize that what could have happened could have been much, much worse than anyone could imagine.

Also, my opinion of Hitler is much the same of a seven year old. I am convinced he was suffering from some sort of trauma, causing him to have the same emotions as a child in many cases.

Just a rundown of quick other choices:
Heydrich - Party exterminates communists beginning in 1934, moves on to Poland and then Soviet Union. Limited involvement of France and Britain, invasion of Poland would probably be under same kind of pretext as Czechoslovakia. Main enemy becomes Bolshevism, probably a massive victory during 1939 when the Red Army is reeling from the purges.

Goebbels - Possibly the same path as Hitler, but would definitely run the government more efficiently (Doing away with that buffoon Bormann who possibly won the Allies the war).

Rosenberg - Now this one is scary. Holocaust begins in 1934, no war, or if there is one, is solely directed against Soviet Union through a puppet Polish regime or conquered Poland. Allies will probably never intervene unless they find out about genocide... which they probably won't with the SS working overtime for five years or so...

The possibilities are really endless... Bormann, Ley, and Todt are other possibilities towards the end of the war if Hitler died, Goering could have been the Fuehrer, so could Roehm if the Night of the Long Knives never happened and the SA overtook the SS, and eventually Hitler, as he had originally feared (And as Roehm was plotting, according to Goering, Himmler, and Goebbels).

Edited by MSpencer, 02 August 2006 - 05:57 AM.

[Blodo]

Bear in mind: the Allies made a lot of promises to Poland regarding german invasion, but they would certainly not attack Germany even after Poland was taken (as seen in history), clinging to the failed idea that a world war can be averted. Declaring war and attacking are two different things, and they only declared war because they knew they would be the next target. Or Russia. One of the two.

[skitchy]

Well some great points on the subject, and for once i've read all of the posts...But I'm gonna take the topic title literally, and actually talk about hitler being good or bad...

First off, Hitler was as fairly good leader before the war, I'm sure we all agree on that, he got germany back on track after probllems like the great depression or the wall street crash, he gave the people jobs again, he made germany strong again and gave it back its national pride...the list goes on..Had he been "Normal" so to speak..never started invading places, never essentially started WW2 and tried to commit genocide, I think he would still be remembered in the history books, not as a war hungry psychopath, but as a great leader who sorted out all the problems of his country.
I don't think the Nazi party were actually a bad thing for germany before the war, they gave people hope and pride, the people looked to the SA as law and order on the streets, their protecters from a communist revolution.

However, we all know hitler's bad points, so i'm not gonna go into them in too much detail. He tried to commit genocide, promoted "Racial Purity", started WW2 etc etc..the list goes on.

So it's kind of difficult to say hitler was good or bad, it really depends on the context it's in, depends on the topic in hand...when you think of it like this, the way this topic is...It's too difficult to say that hitler was 100% evil..because he wasn't, but at the same time we all know he wasn't the all round good guy..

And my post has solved nothing, but it has got a few points across...I think i might adapt that into an essay in history sometime. lol

Oh and blodo I'm soooo stealing your fight club sig

Edited by skitchy, 02 August 2006 - 10:20 AM.

[nipthecat]

...Hitler was as fairly good leader before the war, I'm sure we all agree on that,...

No.

I don't think the Nazi party were actually a bad thing for germany before the war, they gave people hope and pride, the people looked to the SA as law and order on the streets, their protecters from a communist revolution.

The SA was the paramilitary devision of the NSDAP and celebrated their reign of terror (incl. murder) on the streets long before 1933. Summit was reached at the so-called Altona Bloody Sunday (Altonaer Blutsonntag) short before elections on 31st July, 1932 when SA marched through a communist stronghold in Altona district of Hamburg. 18 people were killed by shootings that lasted for many hours. In total about 300 people died of SA terror the weeks before the '32 elections. In early 1933 the SA established the first concentration camps in Dachau near Munich and Oranienburg near Berlin. Nothing I would call hope and pride.

[skitchy]

Well you obviously know more about the topic than me, i'm just reguritating what i was taught in history class

[MSpencer]

The Communists were really no better, though. To properly examine the Nazi Party before 1934, you do have to look at the other factions. The Weimar Government couldn't do anything for the people, they were either going to look to communism or fascism. Well guess what, the fascists ignited that Prussian sentiment to go conquer people, and they had better propaganda. Both sides were nearly equally bad. The best example is the death of Horst Wessel (A name which was blown way out of proportion), he was shot in the head by German communist militiamen (Just like the SA, note) for which the SA then went on the blitz to avenge him. Later, he got the whole Nazi party official anthem written about him.

Was Hitler a good leader? No. He just made deals with Satan (IG Farben, Krupp, Porsche), and got a lot of money so that Germany would not instantly go down the tubes, something he used to finance his personal ventures in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Russia. If someone else had come into power, it is likely that they might have done something differently, perhaps inching Germany out of the depression by another means, or perhaps dropping them into it more deeply. You can never really know what would have happened, but I can tell you this, if Hitler did not come to power and another Nazi did, there is a decent chance that Germany would never have gone anywhere until much later, meaning the holocaust... well you do the math.

[Blodo]

Well you obviously know more about the topic than me, i'm just reguritating what i was taught in history class

You were taught that Hitler was a good leader in History class? Which country do you live in?

[McKnight]

As far as i know, you can get a hungry people to do anything. Hitler saw this opportunity and made the german people do what he wanted in order to fulfil his own dreams.
As for the part where you said that the german people didnt want democracy was wrong. Hitler got rid off the resistance in parliament.

Wars have both pros and cons. The pros are that technology develop rapidly, radar was invented, aircrafts were improved, rockets were developed.
Cons are the extreme human casualties.

[Pyth]

Could advancement not come faster through peaceful competition? And I don't mean COld War, I mean, "Hey France, this is England, want to race to be the first one to get nuclear fusion?"

Now, it won't go at the same rate as war, but nobody dies because of tank shells.

Edited by Pyth, 13 August 2006 - 12:43 AM.

[Blodo]

No, exactly for the same reason why capitalism isn't the paradise it was supposed to be.

[MSpencer]

Or the reason why communism has killed everyone who doesn't blindly support the great leader.

Fascism in Germany wasn't a real surprise. Versailles was another kick in the teeth for a proud nation forced into fighting a war by the overly proud Austro-Hungarians and the inept Russians with their ridiculous imperialist views of Pan-Slavism. We forced them to cede ridiculous amounts of territory, all of their colonies in the Pacific and in Africa, and we divided up land without taking into account ethnic majorities (Such as Sudetenland, Danzig, Schleswig-Holstein), and then furthermore created countries out of groups that hated each other (Yugoslavia). War reparations were ridiculous, Germany couldn't pay during the middle of a huge depression. 1 USD was worth something crazy like 100,000,000 Reichsmarks by 1931 (And the US was in the depression too!), and France was more than happy to seize the Ruhr and FORCE them to make payments at gunpoint. With all the pushing around and the horrible conditions, it really is no doubt that democracy under the inefficient Weimar Republic never stood a chance. They ran a beaten, humiliated country which had always before appealed to patriotism for "Kaiser und Vaterland", and their system of government invited dead ends in legislation, causing legal deadlocks which would essentially stop any change from occuring. It really isn't surprising that they were fed up with the crap...