Hitler: Insane Or Genius?

[senojekips]

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.

For a man who allegedly had no good ideas, it seems odd to me that for a man who is so despised, he is still credited with having got Germany on it's feet, something that no one else had managed to do.

His ideas were often grandiose and in the mind of economists of the time, unworkable, but they did work, and he had too many of them to be just a "flash in the pan".

Today we still see some of his policies attempting to be implemented by governments around the world when their economies are weak and unemployment is high. Work for the dole schemes, talk of conscription of the unemployed, large government infrastructure works being undertaken, development of the military industrial complex and the continual engagement of that military in small wars. (Don't look too closely at the present small wars about you, as it's not hard to see some amazing similarities);-)

I'm going to get it in the neck here, and no doubt be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but it does need to be said. It is perhaps only coincidence that all of our current problems started when there was a terrific reduction in in the economies of the West, with the ending of the Cold war. I feel that much of this was due to the implementation of "Hitlerian" policies to save the economy. It's just a thought???

But of course no one is quite so bold as to develop these policies to the point that Hitler did, as in our "enlightened" times, the public would not stand for such things as large scale enforced conscription of the unemployed into labour corps, and consequently they never work as well. the success of these schemes lay in their scale.

There are certainly similarities between Hitler and Napoleon, they were both personallity cultists and a lot more, but never having been a follower of Napoleon I won't attempt to go into it.

 

[mmarsh]

For a man who allegedly had no good ideas, it seems odd to me that for a man who is so despised, he is still credited with having got Germany on it's feet, something that no one else had managed to do.

His ideas were often grandiose and in the mind of economists of the time, unworkable, but they did work, and he had too many of them to be just a "flash in the pan".

Today we still see some of his policies attempting to be implemented by governments around the world when their economies are weak and unemployment is high. Work for the dole schemes, talk of conscription of the unemployed, large government infrastructure works being undertaken, development of the military industrial complex and the continual engagement of that military in small wars. (Don't look too closely at the present small wars about you, as it's not hard to see some amazing similarities);-)

I'm going to get it in the neck here, and no doubt be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but it does need to be said. It is perhaps only coincidence that all of our current problems started when there was a terrific reduction in in the economies of the West, with the ending of the Cold war. I feel that much of this was due to the implementation of "Hitlerian" policies to save the economy. It's just a thought???

But of course no one is quite so bold as to develop these policies to the point that Hitler did, as in our "enlightened" times, the public would not stand for such things as large scale enforced conscription of the unemployed into labour corps, and consequently they never work as well. the success of these schemes lay in their scale.

There are certainly similarities between Hitler and Napoleon, they were both personallity cultists and a lot more, but never having been a follower of Napoleon I won't attempt to go into it.

The Idea that Hitler got Germany back on its feet is the a myth that the Nazis promoted. The fact is The Weimar Republic only had two Prime Ministers a old Fossil (Hinderberg) and a incompetant bureaucrat (Von Papen) furthermore it only lived 13 years and was basicially designed from th e outset to fail by the military authorities at the end of WWI. There is nothing to suggest that Hitler alone ended germanys problems, I have seen economic data that suggested that Germanys economic woes were beginning to Stablize just before Hitler took power. I think Hitler merely took credit for the timing of what was already a forgone conclusion.

Overall, Hitler didnt get Germany back on its feet, he utterly destroyed it. The Weimar Republic in the 1920s suffered one of the worst recessions in history (brought on by Hitlers predecessors). But in 1945 Hitler's Germany was reduced to a blackened smoldering hole, under a complete foreign military occupation -a far worse situation than it was in before.

 

[senojekips]

The Idea that Hitler got Germany back on its feet is the a myth that the Nazis promoted. The fact is The Weimar Republic only had two Prime Ministers a old Fossil (Hinderberg) and a incompetant bureaucrat (Von Papen) furthermore it only lived 13 years and was basicially designed from th e outset to fail by the military authorities at the end of WWI. There is nothing to suggest that Hitler alone ended germanys problems, I have seen economic data that suggested that Germanys economic woes were beginning to Stablize just before Hitler took power. I think Hitler merely took credit for the timing of what was already a forgone conclusion.

Overall, Hitler didnt get Germany back on its feet, he utterly destroyed it. The Weimar Republic in the 1920s suffered one of the worst recessions in history (brought on by Hitlers predecessors). But in 1945 Hitler's Germany was reduced to a blackened smoldering hole, under a complete foreign military occupation -a far worse situation than it was in before.

We are all geniuses in hindsight, but it really has no place in evaluating how he rose to power in the the pre war record. Whatever he did certainly had the majority of the German people fooled, fooled back into work and a reasonable degree of prosperity after having lived through catastrophic recession and unemployment, and to deny his part in that rise is somewhat less than realistic.

I find your knee jerk reaction that Hitler had, "No good ideas" as being simplistic in the extreme. No one, no matter how monstrous has "No good ideas" at all. Nor do they rise to rule a country of 60 million+ persons. (1939)

 

[Yin717]

Well it he was defenatley a cruel madman but you have to hand it to him, he was a very clever man. Once he saw that the Munich Putsch had failed he realised he could only get his dream through the government and boy did he get there cleverly. He was also clever to appoint the right people to the right job.

 

[Riddell10]

what kind of moron declares war on russia and britain and USA all at the same time, think about that for a second.
He basically asked the only 3 nations that could put up a fight one on one and asked all of them to fight him 3 v 1. Causing him to be extremely outnumbered, and basically forced the germans on the defencive

 

[Yin717]

Well.......

He never actually wanted to go to war with britain, they declared war on him. he also thought they wouldn't have the guts.

Russia was a risk he had to take. he invaded Russia so as to get fuel for his tanks. Sadly it was risk that didn't work out.

America was only brought into the war by the Japanese. I personally don't think Hitler wanted to bring them in.

 

[Guaporense]

For a man who allegedly had no good ideas, it seems odd to me that for a man who is so despised, he is still credited with having got Germany on it's feet, something that no one else had managed to do.

No one else had the opportunity to do it.

Anyway, Germany in 1928 was fine, having recovered from the hyper inflation of 1923. Them came the depression, and madmen came to power in several governments, like Hitler and Roosevelt.

His ideas were often grandiose and in the mind of economists of the time, unworkable, but they did work, and he had too many of them to be just a "flash in the pan". Today we still see some of his policies attempting to be implemented by governments around the world when their economies are weak and unemployment is high. Work for the dole schemes, talk of conscription of the unemployed, large government infrastructure works being undertaken, development of the military industrial complex and the continual engagement of that military in small wars. (Don't look too closely at the present small wars about you, as it's not hard to see some amazing similarities);-)

Well, that's staple populist politics for you. Note that in the US Roosevelt was doing the same things, and in several others countries too.

That is completely standard and nothing innovative.

I'm going to get it in the neck here, and no doubt be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but it does need to be said. It is perhaps only coincidence that all of our current problems started when there was a terrific reduction in in the economies of the West, with the ending of the Cold war. I feel that much of this was due to the implementation of "Hitlerian" policies to save the economy. It's just a thought???

Every good economist knows that wars are always bad for the economy. These wars have no rational justification as economic policies.

 

[Guaporense]

Well....... He never actually wanted to go to war with britain, they declared war on him. he also thought they wouldn't have the guts. Russia was a risk he had to take. he invaded Russia so as to get fuel for his tanks. Sadly it was risk that didn't work out. America was only brought into the war by the Japanese. I personally don't think Hitler wanted to bring them in.

However, the actions taken by him against Britain were sure to not cause peace: He was bombing the country, killing tens of thousands of civilians, plus destroying millions of tons of their merchant fleet.

Instead, after the Battle of France they should have never tried to attack the British in any way. That way their will to fight against a "enemy" that doesn't want to attack them would be weaker than historically. Also, their peace offers would appear credible.

 

[Yin717]

However, the actions taken by him against Britain were sure to not cause peace: He was bombing the country, killing tens of thousands of civilians, plus destroying millions of tons of their merchant fleet.

Instead, after the Battle of France they should have never tried to attack the British in any way. That way their will to fight against a "enemy" that doesn't want to attack them would be weaker than historically. Also, their peace offers would appear credible.

What are you talking about? He was already at war with them during the Battle of France. Britain declared war in 1939 when he invaded Poland and they sent troops to France to stop him failed. Then Germany tried to take Britain but failed due to the Battle of Britain and so tried to weaken them instead.