Hitler - Weak dictator, or master of the Third Reich?

Icaras- Welcome to A2K!

Although the majority of our members are American, we have members from all over the world, including Great Britain and Australia.

yellow!

a nice warm welcome from tampa bay, how cool is that!enough to cheer me up on a cold and wet night in England!

This'll warm you up. It is now a balmy 78 degrees, (F).

Welcome - you might perhaps get some ideas here:

Teacher criticized for Hitler 'pros and cons' assignment

And here's the standard chilly New York welcome.

"Hey, pal, welcome! Now, get the hell outta my way!!! What are you, some kind o' moron or something??!!

welcome, icaras ! i'm a canadian who floated across the pond from germany in 1956. i guess i had some "wanderlust" and having just gotten married, my wife agreed that we should give canada a try - and here we 48 years later; we sure never regretted it. i think it would be pretty difficult to sum up "hitler" as either weak or being a master in a few sentences. even historians seem to have somewhat different opinions. certainly, the period after the first worldwar allowed hitler/his followers/his ideas to gain a foothold in germany and - to a lesser extent - in other countries. i think some extensive reading and discussions with others is necessary to be able to come up with some ideas about hitler. you might want to read the biography by albert speer, one of his followers to get some understanding; also reading about british politics during the 1920's / 1930's (mosley's blackshirts) should be of some help. if you are interested to carry this further, pose some specific questions and you will probably get quite a few replies. i don't think you'll be able to get a simple answer, though. hbg

Hi Icarus,

Hitler was certainly strong-willed; that is, he could not be dissuaded from an opinion once he formed one. His brow-beating tirades of his generals serve as an example. How he annexed Czechoslovakia could be considered another, daring to risk war to recover his "beloved" Sudetenland.

But he was a man of his times, simply pandering to the vulgar sentiments of a defeated but proud people. His message was simple, something all strong leaders share in common. That it was wrong makes me lean toward him being a master politician, but a weak individual.

regards

Re: Hitler - Weak dictator, or master of the Third Reich?

when he joined N.S.D.A.P (in that time only A.P) he was 6th member. He was master and great leader, and there is no doubt!

Greetings from a fellow Englander !

I've argued elsewhere that it is perfectly feasible to assume that "some other dictator" could have arisen in Germany after WW1. The scapegoating of Jews for Germany's ignominious defeat was rife, and any similar fanatical orator might have been adopted. As for "weak/strong" analyses it is certainly the case that Hitler was abysmally lazy and delegated most of the work to ambitious acolytes who fought with each other for his approval. Who knows what would have happened had he constrained such chaos which by default allowed him to "divide and rule".

Re: Hitler - Weak dictator, or master of the Third Reich?


The abbreviation was DAP = Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, which actually started after publishing its "Trautenauer Programm" in 1904. Here, Hitler was member No. 55. - although the number on the party ID-card says 555

(It was just a very small party, closely connected to the 'Thule Organisation'.)


He was NSDAP-member No. 1 - I posted the original document on a thread, you joint as well (actually, you posted shortly after I posted that digitized document there).HERE

Hitler - weak or master
When you answer coursework questions you must look at both points of view. For example you could start the first paragraph with 'on the one hand...' and mention that Hitler was a master because of his ability to control the S.A. etc. When you have said all you can on how he was a master you then begin a new paragraph with 'on the other hand...' and mention how he was weak because without the S.A he wouldn't have been able to bully his opposition out of the elections etc. Hope this is somehow helpful.

If it really has been a coursework, wales_rules, rosoner should have done it since some months by now :wink:

And welcome to A2K!

There are many debates on this. Number one, Hitler was a weak dictator in a way that his war tatics failed. Yes, he did conquer many parts of Europe and did he help German's finicial problems. But remember, it wasn't just Hitler who helped out. On the flipside of the coin he could be looked at as a master. His points of view were very very off line. But, his speeches and the way he spoke about his ideas made him a dictator. The way he persuaded people into following his ideas is what made him a "master". Thats why there are some people who follow his ideas today. His idea's obviously failed.

Hitler was a weak dictator in a certain aspect of the war, but in the rest he was very clever.

Ok well Im going to post what I know on the subject. It just so happens that Im studying Hitler and Nazi Germay in college right now.

When I answer a source or an essay question such as this, I think it's alright to not come to a complete conclusion and say that he had elements of both weak and strong.

But after saying that in my opinion, the weak outweighs the strong. Hitler created mass confusion in government because of his lazy attitude towards work. He also distanced himself from politics which on one hand meant that he created a messianic position for himself, (the majority of the German people liked Hitler but disliked the Nazi Party). But on the other hand this meant that the 'mini-Fuhrers' such as Goering and Himmler could climb up the ranks, acquiring more political power for themselves. To look into this more indepthly, Hitler's lazy and care-free attitude meant that he was happy as long as everyone was working towards his will. So Goering and Himmler could acquire these positions as long as they could prove that it was what Hitler wanted.

You could also argue that Hitler's weakness also links in with cummulative radicalisation because all the afore mentioned^^ meant that Hitler wasn't present at all important Nazi meetings and a Nazi party member could get away with practically anything as long as they could prove that it was what Hitler would want. A good example of cummulative radicalisation is the death camps. The decision to build death camps was made without Hitler, by SA and mostly SS members. I believe that this shows weakness because Hitler created confusion in government, allowed Nazi members to gain more power, and it just wasn't possible for him to keep an eye on everything that was happening around him.


btw that was all my own knowledge.

...and I suggest you hit the books again, Matt.

Here is some good reading for you
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler.html

The so-called 'death camps' were killing centers exclusively as places of secret and instant death, designed by Himmler. (Chelmno was the pilot project, 1941.)

Hitler gave the verbal order for the Final Solution in 1941 - "Operation Reinhard" reported only and directly to the office of the Fuhrer (Reich Chancellery Office/'Reichskanzleramt'').

(And when you finished CL's advice, here's something more to read)

You know you are right. I am what you call a re-formed White Nationalist. Although I am still trying to sway from that ideaology I agree that Hitler was a man of his time.