Was Hitler good for the World in any way?

no but ns member are fanatical

First, although it's getting tedious to repeat this--the topic is whether nor not Hitler were goof for the world in any way. It is not whether nor not anyone thought so.

You just make one unsubstantiated global claim after the other. You are also appallingly ignorant of history. When Hitler ran for President against Hindenburg, he got trounced, and he polled 35% of the vote. In subsequent Reichstag elections, the NSDAP polled 35% of the vote. After the Reichstag fire, left-wing parties were banned, but the NSDAP still only polled 45% of the vote in a rigged election. Hitler therefore got together a coalition of the NSDAP, the DVP and the Zentrum, and passed the Enabling Act. One of his first measures thereafter was to ban all other political parties. Anyone who was a career politician or a career bureaucrat had to join the party to keep his job. So your global claims are dim-witted bullsh*t. Do you allege the postmaster in Schweifurt was a fanatical Nazi? Do you allege that all the employees of the Deutsche Reichsbahn were fanatical Nazis. Your logic sucks.

wikipedia, Deutsches Historisches Museum, Gesetze im Internet, Bundestag, Bundesrat, Bundesregierung, usw usw usw

Is That So?

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbors as one living a pure life.

A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child.

This made her parents very angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.

In great anger the parents went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he would say.

After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbors and everything else the little one needed.

A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth - that the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fishmarket.

The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask his forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back again.

Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that so?"

Which has absolutely nothing to do with either the topic nor the interior discussion we have been having. That seems to be your particular talent.

void123 doesn't only have any talent or skill, but is a champion at diversions and non-related issues.

yes it does

is that so

i reiterate to some will say yes some will say no.

He gave the tea party someone to compare Obama to

Nazi Germany
I understand what motivates people to think the world wouldn't be that different and that Hitler was filling a role waiting to happen in Germany, but I think the truth is that those perspectives just miss far too many significant truths about Hitler, Germany, and the state of the world before WWII.

Hitler was absolutely crazy, bigoted, homicidal, warmongering, and all of the other awful things we could say about him. But that should not lead anyone to make the very dangerous error of saying he was unimportant or not that smart or otherwise underestimate him or what he did. I think people often feel uncomfortable admitting to the strengths of people/leaders who are otherwise terrible human beings who did horrible things. But that makes us likely to miss when other similar situations arise, and underestimating Hitler was the single biggest mistake the world made in those days.

Hitler's single strongest attribute was an uncanny ability to judge other people's reactions and motivations. Yes, there were glaring exceptions where he sized up someone or some nation very wrong, but the truth is that usually he could tell when to take a gamble because of the likelihood of reaction or inaction by other people, and he could assess global mood and international alliances quite accurately when it came down to the final question of what people/nations would or would not do.

He had speaking ability that was very unique to Germany and to the particulars of time and place in history. He knew what people wanted to hear, could say it exactly the way they wanted to hear it, and convince them that nobody else but him could deliver what was wanted and -- more importantly -- what was needed. There were few orators at the time who matched Hitler's capacity to take in an audience, because few other people knew their audience so well as Hitler knew his.

It's also a huge mistake to think Hitler's military choices were so flawed as is often claimed. Hitler knew how to pick people and pick different ideas -- his own or those of other people around him -- and combine them into the most effective plans. In some cases it seems obvious in hindsight that this or that choice, program, or action would be the most effective, but at the time in the context of world events many of those choices and combinations were not so obvious and were in fact contrary to what the vast majority of experts and professionals believed/expected/etc.

Consider what is largely considered Hitler's first major mistake -- invading Russia. The reality is, Hitler delayed the invasion of Russia in order to settle accounts in Yugoslavia after a coup there overthrew a Nazi-sympathizing government (or rather, a brow-beaten government I suppose, if one wanted to give them any benefit of the doubt, I guess). Whatever one might think about why the Nazis needed to reinstate a pro-Nazi government there, the fact is the delay in the invasion of Russia led to the onset of winter before Nazi troops could secure their place in Moscow. Russia was so surprised and overwhelmed by the initial Nazi advance that Nazi forces did reach the Moscow fringes, and could've probably pushed on and taken it with ease if not for the winter weather. The five weeks lost due to postponing the invasion of Russia in order to attack Yugoslavia made a big difference, and the industrial areas that Russia held onto were key to their ability to continue fighting against Germany and turning back the invasion. It's of course impossible to know for sure how things would've turned out, but it's surely undeniable that Germany would've taken Moscow with overwhelming force and secured major industrial resources from Soviet hands, and the fall of the capital plus the time for Germany to bring up rear troops and supplies would've made for a very different situation.

The lesson there is, it's very possible that Germany could've and maybe would've beaten the Soviets if the invasion had not been delayed, and that Eastern Soviet states might've turned against Stalin and his remaining forces during winter months if Germany victory to the West seemed overwhelming and Japan's "wait and see" policy had given way to finally taking action when Russia was so weakened. I personally doubt Russia could've withstood that situation for long, and they probably would've lost additional important regions for oil and supply-lines.

And the result of that situation would've been Hitler having yet again proven that everybody else underestimated his plans and goals, and I have great difficulty imagining any scenario where the U.S. and the U.K. alone could've put enough pressure on Germany to defeat them. It was the Soviets more than anyone else who defeated Nazi Germany, a hard truth that many folks won't want to hear but which is undeniable when we consider all of the facts. If by the end of 1941 Germany controlled all of Europe plus Russian territory to Moscow and the oil fields and industrial sites, while Japan prepared to invade in the far-East, what plans would the U.S. and U.K. have made? Look at their ultimate invasion of Nazi-occupied lands, and ask yourself how far they would really have gotten against a Germany facing only one front and a Germany not having lost vast resources and troops to the advancing Soviet armies for years. The landings by the U.S. forces almost failed, and the U.S. in fact knew how risky it was even with Germany losing the war already to Russia. Divided, weakened, poorly supplied and stretched thin German forces STILL held the allies off in the West pretty effectively when you consider the full situation in Germany. The U.S. didn't even make it to Berlin, and the Nazis had a few successful counter-attacks that gave the U.S. some initial fearful moments.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because Hitler was a fanatical homicidal evil lunatic, that he can therefore be dismissed as largely unimportant or unintelligent and ineffective. Whatever else he was, he was not stupid nor lacking in extreme insight and intellect in the things that mattered most to assuming power in Germany and then waging war against a weary, reluctant world that kept underestimating him exactly as he knew they would.

If Hitler had died in a car accident or had been accepted to art school or any other fate drawing him out of politics, the Nazi party would've remained a small, back-room organization full of people incapable of taking it to the next stage as a growing political movement. There was nobody besides Hitler really trying to organize the vast chaotic array of forces and widely different groups of supporters -- there were communists, socialists, anarchists, AND far-right authoritarians and statists and nationalists and mainstream business professionals -- necessary to attract and organize the forces in the streets, the forces in unions, the forces in the media, and the forces with financial capital into a single entity.

And crucial to understanding what the Nazi Party really was and what it really did, is recognizing that it ultimately was an entity formed to serve as a tool -- a tool to bring Hitler to power and let him do whatever he wanted. It wasn't some sort of political ideology and force that could be remotely said to exist apart from its singular purpose of helping Hitler gain more power for himself. It wasn't a tool already existing and lying there waiting for just anyone to pick it up, in other words. The Nazi Party became what it was only through Hitler's actions to take a simple set of founding ideas from that early back-room group, and change them and add to them and make them a movement representing his own mind and person, and the party in turn was forced -- forced by Hitler himself and his status as already dominating the party and everyone in it -- to embrace Hitler as the personification of itself (because it had literally been formed and evolved for that very role, of course).

If you remove Hitler from that equation, there is simply nothing and nobody else to plug into the equation to make those same things come to exist. It may be technically possible that some other person was out there who was just like Hitler and could've and would've stepped in through a series of amazing unlikely coincidences to encounter those different people and ideas and combine them all together at exactly the right times and then take advantage of the same situations to the same degree of effect, but I seriously doubt it.

Hitler was a weird anti-social homeless dude selling mediocre paintings to soap companies in Austria, who rose to power as dictator of Germany and conquered most of Europe and appears to have lost the war largely due to just a very small handful of crucial choices. So to think that happened largely due to forces besides Hitler himself, to the extent it all would've mostly happened anyway and that he was not personally important to what transpired and to his own position of power, doesn't seem realistic at all.

Germany was in a precarious position, with democratic forces jockeying for power against rising socialist and social-democratic forces. The military itself was even experiencing the early stages of the spread of those ideologies and the officers were well aware of the growing threat to their own traditions if the forces of democratic and socialist thought continued to spread. Yes, several conservative ideologies remained and were forging alliances with one another and with the military, but none were that powerful and crucially some of the most violent and widespread growing movements in the streets -- including many of those who joined the Nazis -- were such that they would've surely sided with the socialists rather than any of the conservative or military factions vying for power. Russia was meanwhile obviously supporting the communists, and other outside state actors would've likewise increased their support for different sides as well, if the Nazis hadn't arrived on the scene to take advantage of the situation and combine several different factions under the Nazi banner.

The socialists were very strong, and they along with the democratic forces probably would've won out eventually against the military and conservatives, if they'd not intentionally chosen to let Hitler and the Nazis assume power under the assumption it wouldn't last long and would in fact help get rid of certain other factions the socialists thought were bigger opponents (just one of many examples of early underestimation of Hitler and the Nazis, of course).

Either we'd have had a Germany taken over by the military itself, with all of its actual timidity and preferences to focus on internal control while avoiding provoking neighboring states (especially France and Britain, which the Germany officers really feared a lot -- especially France), or the socialists would've taken control after winning over enough of the military rank and file plus allying with the rampaging ex-soldiers Hitler otherwise won over to his cause. Be it the military or the socialists, though, I suspect neither could've stemmed the economic collapse taking place in Germany nor instilled anything close to the level of control and militancy the Nazis created. So it would've been another failed government, and maybe whichever failed first would've led the other to step in before it likewise failed.

Global economic depression was continuing, while the Soviets instituted plans for letting a lot of their population just starve to death while the government looked to expand westward. Lacking German expansion to the East, Russia probably would've been even more aggressive, the rest of the world would've been busy with their own economic troubles, and Germany's financial woes would've made them incapable of doing much else. Italy was fascist and capitalists were all very enamored of what was happening there, but Italy's military adventurism mostly failed except where the Nazis gave them assistance, so I think the allied nations would've made some deals with Italy to counter Soviet expansion, and that would've led to some sort of soft dictatorship arising again in Germany to protect their own national interests against communist expansion. This, in turn, would've probably meant the allied nations growing closer to Germany. The Spanish Civil War would've seen far more support from the allied nations in light of the focus being on the danger of Soviet expansion instead of Nazi Germany and fascism appearing increasingly hostile to Western democracies.

The result, I bet, would've been a confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe, with France, the UK, Italy, and Spain the major forces while Germany leaned toward the allies but took a cautious approach to avoid provoking the Soviets (since if the Soviets had aggressively expanded into Eastern Europe, Germany was basically the buffer state between Russia and the Western powers). In the U.S., isolationism would've ruled the day after all, until Japan took some action I suppose (the Pacific war might've been inevitable, due to the conflict between Japan's conquests and Western interests in China & Asia). Regardless, the shaky economic and political climate of the era made some war in Europe likely -- and the anti-communist sentiment combined with Soviet expansion, minus the larger imminent danger of German expansion that threatened the interests of both the UK and France, meant the war was probably going to be against Russia.

But I don't think it would have become a World War, and instead would've been mostly in Eastern Europe and ended with some sort of Cold War standoff between Western allies and Russia. It's possible, though, that a weak Germany might've sought an alliance with Russia if Russia made the right deals with them, and so a war could've been avoided for longer. Spain and Italy might've allied against French political power in Europe, the UK would've still felt threatened by both Soviet expansion and the rise of forces on the continent that challenged British power, and in the end the UK, France, and the U.S. could've been forced to choose between either the fascists (Italy and Spain) or the Soviet-German alliance. I think Spain would've remained reluctant to join any side outright, Italy would've followed Spain's lead (Franco being a more cautious ally than Hitler was for Italy), and it could be that France would've felt the fascist states' reluctance over overt military confrontation against the Soviets made it impossible for France to commit to any strong military positioning, either.

Britain seemed to prefer seeking a way to contain threats without expending any significant force or effort, and didn't want war. So ultimately, I think the tipping point would've been Germany's internal conditions deteriorating as the financial crises worsened in the late-1930s, to the point the Soviets intervened to help "stabilize" Germany in the early-1940s. That move would've been too much for the other states to ignore, giving Russia too much dominance over Europe, and so Stalin would take on the status as the major villain of the day. Spain would surely recognize the growing danger of Russia financing and arming new civil war, Italy would be in a dangerous position and would follow Spain's lead again, and those two fascist states would probably feel obliged to ally with France and the UK, while the U.S. agreed to send large amounts of supplies to counter the threat of communism.

Direct U.S. military action would probably be limited to the Pacific field against Japan. The UK, France, Spain, and Italy would actually have significant dominance of sea and air against Russia, and the combined land forces would likewise be significant. But the Soviets inevitably have huge numbers, although the winter works against them the same as it worked against an invading army trying to get supplies and troops into Russia.

Faced with such large Soviet forces (the extent of which would be much clearer in this scenario with Soviet armies spread across Europe), there is a very real chance the allies would've used chemical weapons on a large scale -- the UK in fact planned just that against the Nazis, had Germany invaded Britain. Meanwhile, the U.S. focusing all of their own forces in the Pacific would've probably done pretty well a lot faster against Japan, and could've provided a lot more support in China as well.

But who would've got the Bomb first? Lacking the earlier animosity toward Nazism and the more overt anti-Semitic laws that drove so many Jewish scientists and intellectuals away from Germany, would the U.S. have set out on a project to build an Atomic Bomb? Or would the Soviets have gotten wise to that prospect earlier and ahead of the West, and beat us to the punch? This question is important, obviously, and likely defines the true answer to what our world would look like today in this sort of alternate scenario. Without considering Atomic Bombs, the war in Europe would probably have ended with the Soviets being driven back out of Germany into Eastern Europe, but then a stalemate settling in until the U.S. brought troops and supplies over to Europe later in the war. The Atomic Bomb would determine which side lost after that point, because either the allies nuke Moscow and use Atomic Bombs to cut through massive Soviet lines to allow allied troops to march into Russia, or Stalin gets the Bomb first and builds several of them before unleashing them against Western Europe.

Either of those outcomes completely changes the shape of Europe and the world. In one scenario, there is no more Soviet Union and thus no Cold War as we knew it, and instead fascism survives in Europe and maybe even slowly spreads into Germany in the aftermath of the war while Russia is occupied (in the states closer to Europe) by allied forces. This could set up an eventual Cold War between the rest of Europe and the fascist states, obviously, which would be extremely different from the Cold War against Russia.

Or in another scenario, Western Europe is devastated by atomic warfare, the Soviets win but leave a large portion of Europe irradiated, and the U.S. eventually develops our own nuclear weapons but the ensuing Cold War is against a U.S.S.R. that dominates Europe without any NATO or other U.S. allies to side against them. Soviet expansion into the Middle East, Africa perhaps, and eventually Latin America seems inevitable in that situation, and I bet the threat of nuclear war is much worse, since the U.S. is isolated and the Soviets feel much stronger.

No one is necessarily saying that he was unimportant, so you've started by setting up a straw man. The topic of the thread is whether or not he was good for the world. Your remarks don't address that. More than that, what strengths do you allege Hitler possessed? He was an accomplished gutter politician, and nicely weighed up Chamberlain' s lack of spine--but he was no kind of military thinker, and he was more of a disaster for the Germans than for anyone else.

I'm not going to address your long post point by point--it has all been addressed before in this and other Hitler threads at this site. I'll address one example to stand for them all. You point to the coup in Yugoslavia and basically claim that the delay in the invasion of the Soviet Union doomed the German effort because they did not take Moscow before winter set it. But that is a rather shallow way of looking at it, and begs the question of Hitler's competence. What kind of fool invades Russia without preparing for the Russian winter? Oh yeah, fools like Charles XII of Sweden and Napoleon.

More than that, you ignore other events which impinged on a global conflict, as though these events took place in a vacuum, in which Germany and her allies were pitted against the Soviet Union, and in which nothing else mattered. In April, 1941, the Japanese signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Zhukov had already begun sending troops back from the far east to European Russia when the Germans invaded. Most of that was done over the single line of the Trans Siberian Railway, so it was necessarily a slow process. All an earlier invasion probably would have done would have been to spur Zhukov to move faster to send troops back to Moscow. Eventually, 40 divisions were transferred were transferred from the far east. Some people allege that the Japanese considered breaking the agreement upon Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, but decided instead to pursue their plans in southeast Asia. That's a shallow view, too. Japan really had no choice but to invade southeast Asia. They had been at war with China since 1937, and their resources were not only limited, but quickly running out. Japan needed the petroleum and strategic metals which were to be found in Malaya, Borneo and the Netherlands East Indies. They didn't really give a rat's ass about Hitler and the Soviet Union. They had other fish to fry.

Hitler's ally Italy had been disastrously attacked by the British in Africa. Rommel had been sent to north Africa to bolster their armies there, a necessary concomitant to Hitler's demand that Italy participate in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Italy's original expeditionary force in Russia consisted of two motorized division and a cavalry (light armor) division--about 50,000 men, not including logistical support troops. This was more armor than Italy had committed to Africa. Eventually, the Italian Army in Russia would grow to ten divisions. Hitler could hardly expect the Italians to provide hundreds of thousands of troops to Russian (which is what it takes to provide and support ten divisions), and then refuse to help in Africa. Of course, as was so often the case with Hitler, his reach exceeded his grasp. He now developed dreams of cutting the Suez Canal and seizing the petroleum resources of the middle east. That's because, long before the invasion of the Soviet Union, and even before the coup in Yugoslavia, Rommel had launched the 5th Light Division (later to become the 21st Panzer) and the Italian 4th division at the British in Libya, an attack which took him to the western desert of Egypt. The Diggers in Tobruk held on, though, and the British push the DAK back. The Germans were by then irrevocably committed in Africa. Arab nationalists in what we call Iraq pledged their undying support of Hitler, a pledge which was not worth the paper it was written on. They hated the British and wanted them out. But it nicely fed Hitler's delusions. After the Americans invaded French North Africa in 1942, he sent even more forces to Africa. In The Rommel Papers, Rommel describes Tunisia as the largest self-supporting prisoner of war camp in history.

There is even more that i could write, but you should see now why i don't intend to respond to your entire post. You have obviously done some reading, but you need to do a great deal more. You also need to judge the value of what your read, by comparing one account to another, and comparing every author's claims against the reality of what actually transpired. Good luck in your studies.

Destructible behaviour is always educative. It sets a concrete, tangible, visible, example on what to avoid. Nothing exists for no reason. Even the 3% psychopaths serve the purpose of keeping society at large alert and ready in its toes. Perfect worlds nulify Darwinism and stall development.

I believe history can repeat itself. It's been proven by research done at Stanford and Yale on how 'normal, intelligent, students' can resort to torture in the right circumstances. It's downright scary.

It can and it will but for a while these examples of sociopaths create some social self defense mechanism. Just like bacteria and antibiotics the war is never over. Newer forms of totalitarism and social control emerge and eventually healthy societies adapt and fight back. Its a never ending cycle.

the only positive legacy nazism left us is the revelation of the amount of monsters we have dwelling among us that need just somebody to hail them to reveal themselves in all their terrible splendor... the terrifying truth of how cruel any anonymous individual can be if given the slightest amount of power and the confirmation of the saying "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing".....
and considering the radical and hater candidates for the government gaining power in different countries all over the world, it seems that even can be considered as something positive as a legacy

I've mentioned this before, but Stanford and Yale did some research, and they both found that people with above average intelligence can become monsters with the right kind of leadership. Human history has proven this theory many times over.

Do you think that research Wasknown or had the same impact as hitler's actos?
The world in your question is the clue Here: that research was not worldwidely know

The research was done long after WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo