this genius was understood good enough after putting his ideas and thinkings into the practise during his long chancellor term. Consequences: over 50 millions dead! (sorry for my engrish)
In general those who call Hitler "Evil" make it seem like he was not human or beyond comprehension. In doing so, they actually do more harm to educating themselves and the public as to what was wrong with what he did. If he is insane then there is no explanation possible and beyond comprehension. This is false.
The Nazi ideology, and Hitler himself, were not that much different than many racial ideas and people at the time, they simply acted on them in a very deliberate way.
As for Hitler himself, it is clear that he was intelligent and strong minded but also indecisive and lacking patience. His idea of compassion was very Darwinian to say the least and his view of the world was a simplified combination of all the exteme good and bad ideas of the time.
Had Hitler bumped his head and died in March 1939 it is quite possible that he would have been ranked as one of the top statesmen in European History. One must remember that Theodore Roosevelt and Churchill themselves shared many of Hitler's racial views. Had he not excluded the Jews from the German society his reputation would have been even greater at that point in 1939.
Many should educate themselves further:
There is a site: www.hitler.org
It has many of his speeches, writings, ect translated into English and is very worthwhile. It will give you unprecedented understanding of his/Germany's take on social-economic-political events at the time in question.
A 20-something year old homeless man became the single most important figure of modern industrialized Europe in less than 20 years. It wasn't because of sorcery and it wasnt because people believed in the blond/blue eyed stuff.
I would agree with you that Hitler may have had the potential for many great things. It is not enough not to do evil in this world, one must have a will for something. His ideas and methods are considered barbaric now but at least he attempted to accomplish something greater than himself. There have been many worse than he...
you know often that's the problem when it comes down to politics: The good leaders with alot charisma have stupid ideas, or bad ideology as you wish.. However sometimes people have great ideas but they can't bring it in a positive way or they can't push trough, so due to their lack of 'that part of genius that Hitler excessively had' their ideas won't get approved :-)
Ow please. One can not deny he was a charismatic politician and strong-willed leader, but what he did and achieved was something almost inevitable. He thrived on the mistakes made at what he liked to call "Das Diktat von Versailles". Germany was spiraling downwards into a bottemless pit and the german people were frustrated and losing all hope. He abused this to set up a short term war economy to pursue his personal goals. Hardly a visionary.
if he didn't start WWII, be a dictator or kill the jews/other people then he could well have been one of the greater leaders of all time
similar story with Musolini, Churchill thought he was a genius in the 1920's
hitler did some good things that we dont hear about:
- he ran the first stop smoking campaign 50 years before they happened in America
- he built the first motorways/autobahns which the Americans copied
to name 2
because motorways are copied the world over now, the Americians copied them for the exact same reason. That doesn't mean is not a good thing. Think of all the traffic using motorways and what would happen without them.
if u hate russians so much, how can u still live with them together? U must be pretty depressed. Btw, why so much hating on them? The WW2 caused millions on victims on all sides, but u estonians r the only one with such a big hate left there. Is that ur mindset (problems) or what?
i would understand the hating of ur parents, but isnt it pathological that the whole new estonian generation, which didnt really experienced the occupation has still such a big hate on the new russian generation, which kinda condemn the politics of the fathers? Ur making all russians guilty without the exception. Thats just pathetic.
No, the way the Russians here act makes us dislike them. Granted there are some nice people but a lot of them are straight up retards. Also, in my eyes, thanks to their occupation we didn't move anywhere economically and now we are behind rest of Europe.
i dont think russians in estonia ar different from all in the world and make so much shit there. The hate just seems to be already a normality for ur nation. Maybe ur hate and non-acceptability ar the reason for their behaviour, what ever they do. Why there is no such a big hate in the Ost Germany, even if this was occupied too? Btw beeing Russian, i just try to understand ur position. Because from ur logic u have to hate me too :)
I think your argument is problematic for two reasons: Estonia had been under Russian rule since the eighteenth- century when Peter I defeated Sweden in the Great Northern War; and it was because of the same Soviet regimes revolution that you complain about that Estonia gained independence from the Russian Empire in the first place. In summary, you are essentially sentimentalising over an inter-war period in which there was the worst global economic crisis ever.
I can't really understand what you on about
But we got independent thanks to WW1
Also we had really bright years during the two wars.
Also according to the deal made during WW2 Soviets should've gone back to their original borders, pre-war borders. Needless to say they ignored it.
Estonia did not gain independence because of the first world war, but because of the Russian revolution which significantly weakened the Soviet Union's ability to retain and recapture its former Baltic territories. Likewise, Estonia did not have 'really bright years during the two wars'. To suggest otherwise is utter nonsense; there was political unrest caused by the global economic crisis. The point, then, is that the Russian Empire had ruled over Estonia for over 300 years (1710-1918), and then reclaimed it after the second world war (1944-1991); do you not see a connection between Estonian independence and the decentralization of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union? Estonian independence is a fallacy, and this was what rize's was pointing towards; Estonia is not special and it has a chip on its shoulder regarding Russian rule, but the reality is that “Estonia” has not been “independent” since the Middle Ages.
Estonia bloomed during the 20s compared to other countries like that ( Slovenia, Slovakkia etc). And we fought our freedom after WW1.
You come here, thinking you know history. Your knowledge is like any other western european : small country, who gives a shit, bigger country owns it anyways.
To summarise your comment, I am from the west and stereotype small eastern-European countries, right?. First of all, I did not suggest Estonia did not fight for its freedom during the inter-war period, but to suggest that Estonia boomed in the 1920s is nonsense; the fact you had to draw a comparison to Slovenia and Slovakia shows you have an ideological interest, not a historical one. Second of all, the UK is a small country and its relationship to western Europe is problematic so I am not entirely sure how that influences my comment at all. However, the fact stands, Estonian independence is a fallacy.
You have deliberately misread my comment. I did not say the Soviets did not occupy Estonia; the problem is how can the Soviets occupy a state that was, ignoring the very recent past, theirs for the last three hundred years?
What a stupid analogy; at no point has the US colonised the UK. Nevertheless, at no point did I suggest what Russia did was okay, but that does not mean what they did do should be ignored because some Estonian teenager happens to dislike Russia. I do not get why you fail to understand Russia's point of view: they wanted to reintegrate a piece of land into their union which had been part of the Russian empire for the previous 300 hundred years. In the broader context of post world war two politics in Europe, the division of Germany is far, far more significant than the perceived freedom of a small Baltic state which had been under Russian rule for.... Oh, never mind.
Because the retards wont leave. They are saying that Estonia sucks hard, but if you ask them why dont you go to your Mother-Russia, they just say it's even shitier there :D
germans also killed themselves? Both hitler and Stalin are warcriminals. They didn't talk about Stalin in a bad way because Western Europe needed that alliance
even though he had a bad reason he did good with it. germanys economy was down and lots of people were jobless.. he gave them work ( ofc with preparations for war with the autobahn,railway system and steel production) but with this he gave them a better life.
i dont want to defend him but at the beginning he was kinda good leader and then he showed his true plans and crazy mind.
Your point is invalid since what ethr was trying to point is that Hitler actually did good stuff, and as far as I know having ways to transport stuff faster is a great idea!
HOWEVER Hitler ABUSED that GREAT idea by using the road (in a bad way - for his tanks)
So at first he did a good thing but he abused it, used it to achieve bad stuff..
And yes I know you will say he will probably have planned to build it to'abuse' it but then again it was a great idea..
Also Hitler managed to cure Germany from the economic crisis they were in, yet again after that he went the wrong way
So Hitler was actually a very promising leader but once he gained the trust of the people and the necessary support he started his war which made his image go all the way down...
He wasnt a vegetarian. you heard it here 2nd. on QI first.
blue eyes/blond hair ideology when he himself has brown hair and brown eyes. makes sense :s.
u think Hitler was sane? what u probably dont know is that 10,000s of germans were sent into the concentration camps aswell who didnt fit his ideal. So if you were disabled/gay/bisexual you were killed.
Concentration camps were invented by the British and copied by the Germans.
The war itself was a big mistake indeed, but any war is a mistake imo ;)
But what I wanted to say is that Hitler was a very talented leader (if you can get so many people to follow your ideals, you are a great leader, he just had great methods (yes other than fear) of gathering support (his voice was one of them)
And He has done good things for Germany aswell but because he has done SO MUCH wrong to the rest of the world people forget about the good things he has done (how little they may be in comparison to all the good)
Yet again you give me more proof of how little you know...
The reason why Hitler was elected in the first place was because he was the one who solved the crisis they were in and that was before he blamed the jews..
If you would have some(how little even)knowledge about politics you would know Hitler would ve never dared to try and force the policy (anti-jews) without earning the respect and the trust of the PEOPLE. A leader can not function without any followers (aka the people). So first he had to gain the respect and then he could SLOWLY start adding up his wicked ideas..
You see, reviving your economy this way is good for a short distance, because soon the economy would have to expand (and that indeed happend :>), cause otherwise it would stifle.
Well I'm not the only one who sees BE as an insult, if you know something about our country you would know our government has fallen for the 3th time in a row, they are on a death spree:p)
i would have won WW2 he just sucked hard :<
no for real he was a great leader but it was too much for him i suppose and so he made wrong decisions at the wrong time and lost im sure he could have won ww2 izi if he didnt make the russians his enemy's so soon :o
He was neither a good leader nor a misunderstood genius; his rise to power was circumstantial and in no justifies the first suggestion, and Nazi ideologies were incredibly disappointing from a country which had produced Kant, Hegel, Frege and Nietzsche. The only thing Hitler can be applauded for is his conviction.
Get the people at his side? That was like very very easy, because they lost WOI and had to pay millions of dept to France, Belgium,.... Germany was in deeeeeeep shit. They were sick of it ofc -> Persons like Hitler took advantage of that
The way he abused to circumstances to rise to power were quite smart you gotta admit.
And yeah, he was a sucky general and bad at being a leader, but he did got his people behind him thanks to his charisma and the way he could word things.
yes but they were "mobbed" from any social positions before the war. and how many of them emigrated? just to name Nuremberg Laws as an example as highly anti-jew (and not only jew) policy.
That's nonsense. There's stuff in Belgium of which foreigners know more. It depends on your level of interest tbh.
Not to mention, a lot of this is a personal view on the given facts. Therefore, there is no real arguing whether it's wrong or right. Everyone knows the facts and everyone has a different idea about them.
this genius was understood good enough after putting his ideas and thinkings into the practise during his long chancellor term. Consequences: over 50 millions dead! (sorry for my engrish)
The Nazi ideology, and Hitler himself, were not that much different than many racial ideas and people at the time, they simply acted on them in a very deliberate way.
As for Hitler himself, it is clear that he was intelligent and strong minded but also indecisive and lacking patience. His idea of compassion was very Darwinian to say the least and his view of the world was a simplified combination of all the exteme good and bad ideas of the time.
Had Hitler bumped his head and died in March 1939 it is quite possible that he would have been ranked as one of the top statesmen in European History. One must remember that Theodore Roosevelt and Churchill themselves shared many of Hitler's racial views. Had he not excluded the Jews from the German society his reputation would have been even greater at that point in 1939.
Many should educate themselves further:
There is a site:
www.hitler.org
It has many of his speeches, writings, ect translated into English and is very worthwhile. It will give you unprecedented understanding of his/Germany's take on social-economic-political events at the time in question.
A 20-something year old homeless man became the single most important figure of modern industrialized Europe in less than 20 years. It wasn't because of sorcery and it wasnt because people believed in the blond/blue eyed stuff.
I would agree with you that Hitler may have had the potential for many great things. It is not enough not to do evil in this world, one must have a will for something. His ideas and methods are considered barbaric now but at least he attempted to accomplish something greater than himself. There have been many worse than he...
Quite obvious because he didn't say anything about his view on Hitler. ;o
but still his ideology was so retarded....
I wonder if the guy you're citing actually meant Theodore or Franklin Delano...
if he didn't start WWII, be a dictator or kill the jews/other people then he could well have been one of the greater leaders of all time
similar story with Musolini, Churchill thought he was a genius in the 1920's
hitler did some good things that we dont hear about:
- he ran the first stop smoking campaign 50 years before they happened in America
- he built the first motorways/autobahns which the Americans copied
to name 2
But we got independent thanks to WW1
Also we had really bright years during the two wars.
Also according to the deal made during WW2 Soviets should've gone back to their original borders, pre-war borders. Needless to say they ignored it.
What is there to get?
You come here, thinking you know history. Your knowledge is like any other western european : small country, who gives a shit, bigger country owns it anyways.
Tommorrow USA will drop a nuclear bomb on Uk and will tell than from now on, UK is part of USA. Great logic you go there, MATE
Like the guy
Who says I am not under the special protection of God? - Adolf Hitler
Contemplate that on the question earlier posed to you.
i dont want to defend him but at the beginning he was kinda good leader and then he showed his true plans and crazy mind.
HOWEVER Hitler ABUSED that GREAT idea by using the road (in a bad way - for his tanks)
So at first he did a good thing but he abused it, used it to achieve bad stuff..
And yes I know you will say he will probably have planned to build it to'abuse' it but then again it was a great idea..
Also Hitler managed to cure Germany from the economic crisis they were in, yet again after that he went the wrong way
So Hitler was actually a very promising leader but once he gained the trust of the people and the necessary support he started his war which made his image go all the way down...
blue eyes/blond hair ideology when he himself has brown hair and brown eyes. makes sense :s.
u think Hitler was sane? what u probably dont know is that 10,000s of germans were sent into the concentration camps aswell who didnt fit his ideal. So if you were disabled/gay/bisexual you were killed.
Concentration camps were invented by the British and copied by the Germans.
But what I wanted to say is that Hitler was a very talented leader (if you can get so many people to follow your ideals, you are a great leader, he just had great methods (yes other than fear) of gathering support (his voice was one of them)
And He has done good things for Germany aswell but because he has done SO MUCH wrong to the rest of the world people forget about the good things he has done (how little they may be in comparison to all the good)
just my 2 cents ;)
The reason why Hitler was elected in the first place was because he was the one who solved the crisis they were in and that was before he blamed the jews..
If you would have some(how little even)knowledge about politics you would know Hitler would ve never dared to try and force the policy (anti-jews) without earning the respect and the trust of the PEOPLE. A leader can not function without any followers (aka the people). So first he had to gain the respect and then he could SLOWLY start adding up his wicked ideas..
Thx anyway
he also fucked up the invasion of Russia, and didn't support Rommel enough in Africa (could've pushed allies out '41 -.- )
Should've let the planning to his generals.
also evil etc.
no for real he was a great leader but it was too much for him i suppose and so he made wrong decisions at the wrong time and lost im sure he could have won ww2 izi if he didnt make the russians his enemy's so soon :o
He could have been a great leader.
And yeah, he was a sucky general and bad at being a leader, but he did got his people behind him thanks to his charisma and the way he could word things.
He'd make a good spokesman, but that's about it.
:D
You are speaking true words though.
Not to mention, a lot of this is a personal view on the given facts. Therefore, there is no real arguing whether it's wrong or right. Everyone knows the facts and everyone has a different idea about them.