1
   

was Hitler good for germany?

 
 
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:41 pm
do you guys think Hitler was a good leader for Germany?in terms of getting them back into a first worls country after so many years of depression, bringing up ther morale, and any other issues you can think of. i have heard many people say that he was however, i disagree with them on many levels what do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 15,124 • Replies: 91
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Apr, 2005 01:47 pm
A leader is judged by how he moves a country towards the desired goals of its citizens.

If WWII Germany's goal was to perform genocide all over Europe and bring themselves to an eventual bloody collapse then I suppose Hitler was a fabulously successful leader.
0 Replies
 
Duke of Lancaster
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2005 05:23 pm
I think he was a good leader. :wink:
He was such a powerful speaker, wouldn't you concur?
0 Replies
 
Raelian1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 12:27 am
Hitler and Bush. Not good for anyone.
A good leader does not commit genocide. He certainly wasn't good for the German Jews. Unfortunately, he was not put on trial for his crimes against humanity, but his day of judgment will eventually come. By the way, George W. Bush is using similar tactics to invade Iraq. Another one who should be put on trial for his crimes against humanity.
0 Replies
 
Discreet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 12:33 am
can i vote on more then one answer? :wink:
0 Replies
 
DestinyX
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:25 am
If he had have the war won, then he is, but he lost, thus, he isn't.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:28 am
Of course he wasn't, what a foolish question. Every social program of the Nazis, every public works program, all the soup lines--all of it, Hitler ripped off someone else. That idiot child had one original thought in his entire life--that Germany could conquer Russia and annex the Ukraine. That bit of murderous psychotic fantasy cost Germany the lives of eight million of her people.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:30 am
I was uncertain how to vote, with that many choices, so i closed my eyes and left-clicked. As of my vote, the voting is evenly split between the five choices.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:33 am
Hitler was good for Germany the same way the plague was good for 14th century Europe.
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:40 am
take this into consideration:
germany before WWII was in a depression at the same time as the US (actually germany's was several times worse). hitler and roosevelt (both newly elected leaders within a matter of months from eachother) had to deal with these somehow. however, germany pulled out of their depression years before the US did. (this is of course because of hitler's warmongering). still, you have to admit, evil or not, that the man knew how to run a country.
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 08:48 am
i guess however if the question is whether or not he was really good for germany, that would have to be an obvious no.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 09:07 am
lovesong

He knew how to run a country? Are you serious.
Committing genocide is the way to run a country? Invading your neighbors and committing atrocities is a way to run a country? Burning books is a way to run a country? Killing and imprisoning the opposition is the way to run a country? Killing the mentally ill is a way to run a country? Need I continue?
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 09:40 am
i think you misunderstand me. i dont CONDONE his actions in the least. i dont think that anything he did was right or positive. im just saying that he knew what he wanted (however horrific and disgusting) and he knew how to get it done. he had control of a lot of people. what i would really be asking everyone was whether he ws a "leader" or not. it is hard for me to believe that people, especially so many, could want to end so many lives. i think that in order to be a "leader" you must have followers who believe in you. but the people of germany seemed more like hypnotized captives. but i wasnt there. there are some pretty sick people in this world.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 09:50 am
Hitler fed upon peoples fears, prejudices, the German feeling of being a superior race and above all the economic conditions of the great depression. Give a starving man a piece of bread and he will follow you anywhere.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 09:59 am
lovesong wrote:
take this into consideration:
germany before WWII was in a depression at the same time as the US (actually germany's was several times worse). hitler and roosevelt (both newly elected leaders within a matter of months from eachother) had to deal with these somehow. however, germany pulled out of their depression years before the US did. (this is of course because of hitler's warmongering). still, you have to admit, evil or not, that the man knew how to run a country.


You should look at my post above. The soup lines, the public works projects, the social welfare agencies--every bit of it was someone else's idea, not Hitler's. In particular, Ernst Rohm and his Brown Shirts instituted these programs while Hitler was sitting in prison writing his fantasy book about Germany's destiny. The economic programs which got Germany back on its feet (and it was never in an economic depression--let alone one worse than the United States) were instituted by the Weimar Republic, and Hitler took credit when the good results began to be felt in the 1930's.

After the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, the German Empire imposed reparation payments on France to the tune of 700,000,000 million gold francs. Bismark and his nasty buddies thought this would cripple France for a generation or more, and reduce them to insignificant poverty. However, the French, with a new Republic in place, bit the bullet and paid up in under three years. The only reason Germany was in a position to do this was on the basis of "we won, you lost, you have to pay up." That war was simple, naked aggression to establish the Germans as the premier military power on the continent.

By contrast, the Paris Peace conference of 1919 imposed reparations on Germany to repay the costs of a war which, if they did not start it, they did nothing to stop, and which they used as an opportunity to attempt to finish what they started with France in 1870. Germany's reparations were calculalted based on the damage they had done--which was considerable, they destroyed a great many places and things in France and Belgium for purely spiteful reasons, they went so far as to flood mine shafts as they were retreating, and blew up factories and warehouses, and even blew up medieval buildings which had been preserved for centuries. The peace conference very appropriately ordered them to pay for the damage they had done. The seizure of German industrial assets in the Rhineland by France did not come close to making up what France had lost--the portion of her territory occupied by Germany during that war had contained 20 per cent of her farm land, 75% of her industry and 90% of her coal mines. A great deal of what Germany did pay (and they paid f*ck-all, less than ten per cent of the reparations were paid) was paid in kind--i.e., they handed out their merchant ships (their own sailors scuttled the Imperial fleet so the Brits could not have it), their railway equipment and supplies, they replaced most of the books in the library at Louvain, which had been wantonly destroyed in 1914 simply for spite--many priceless and irreplaceable books, manuscripts and other documents were lost forever. The Paris Peace conference calculated the amount to be paid by Germany at sixty billion marks--but the actual figure was pared down from a damage estimate of one hundred thirty-two billion gold marks, or about thrity-three billion U.S. dollars. After in-kind payments, the Gemans paid about four billion marks of that amount.

Two great and pernicious historical myths developed after the Great War in Germany. The first was started by Ludendorf before the ink was dry on the November 11th, 1918 armistice, and it claimed that the German Army had never been beaten in the field. That was a flat out lie. The Germans asked for an armistice, because their army was disintegrating under hammer blows from the French, Belgians, English and Americans, and they wanted to prevent an invasion of Germany--they didn't want Germany torn up the way they had torn up Belgium and northern France. The allied governments, under pressure from their voters, sent their soldiers home in the millions--so when trouble flared in the Baltic region, the French very unwisely recruited a German force, the Freikorps, to police the area. It's commanders set themselves up like robber barons from the middle ages, and Germans looked around and said: "See, our army was never defeated." Hitler exploited this lie to the fullest.

The other was the myth of the "Versailles Diktat." The Germans claimed that they were innocently drawn into the war (right, tell me another one), and that they were taking the full blame and paying the full cost. This was based on a clause in the Versailles Treaty in which the Germans were required to admit culpability--and this clause was a legal provision used to justify the payment of reparations, and not, as the German rabble-rousers claimed, a demand that Germany admit to having started the war. An identical clause was put into the Neuilly Treaty which Stamboliski signed for Bulgaria, the Treaty of St. Germain signed by the Austrians and the Trianon Treaty signed by the Hungarians. Of the Central Powers, only Turkey was not brought to the table, because the French idiotically brought a Greek army into Turkey, intending to conquer the country. This set Mustafa Kemal up to defeat the Greeks, drive out the French and the Italians, and declare his own republic. Austria was stripped of so much of its territory and so many of its resources that they were eventually excused reparations payments, after successfully getting a provision that the art treasures in their museums would not be sold to make up the loss. Hungary paid its reparations until the depression, which was very real in eastern Europe, in which the war did not end in 1918 (the Serbs, the Roumanians, the Czechs and the Slovaks all continued to invade parts of the old Austro-Hungarian empire well into the 1920's, and a reborn Poland under Marshall Pilsudski was fighting the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw with French support in 1920). Hungary's reparations were finally rescheduled, with payments to begin in 1944--obviously, those payments were never made. Bulgaria paid its reparations.

Only the Germans, whose whopping reparations bill was a direct result of their willful destruction, whined about the payments, and then did not pay up. Part of the Versailles Diktat myth is that reparations payments caused an economic depression in Germany. Since they didn't pay the reparations, apart from some in-kind transfers and some cash grudgingly handed over late, that's pretty hard to swallow. There was a full-blown economic depression in North America, for very complex reasons beginning with the agricultural boom in Canada and America immediately after the war when Europe could not feed itself, and brought to disasterous climax by unregulated investment sharks on Wall Street. Recession would be a better word for the economic situation in Europe, and Germany was coming out of that long before the little corporal became Chancellor. Austria skated because they had lost almost everything but the core homeland, and you can't get blood from a turnip--as one of the members of the Peace Conference pointed out, its rather much to expect a man to pay debts when he is so poor you are obliged to feed him. Hungary tried to pay up, but failed. Bulgaria paid up. Turkey skated because of idiotic fantasies acted upon by the Italians and the French.

Most of this whole nonsense was the result of a book by John Maynard Keynes published immediately after the Peace Conference, entitled The Economic Consequences of the Peace, first published in December, 1919, and never out of print since that time. Keynes was a young and brilliant mathmetician who had a minor role in the English delegation. He discussed reparations with Herbert Hoover, and then announced to Lloyd George that he (Keynes) knew exactly how much Germany should pay and how it should be scheduled. When George rightfully ignored the young, vain fool, and thanks to Keynes' ego-centric and adolescent personality, he went to off to sulk and then wrote his book. Had the Germans actually paid the reparations imposed on them, his thesis might have been correct--but they didn't and it wasn't. He also publicly sneered at the reparations clause, ignoring that it was a part of all the treaties at the conference. As Clemenceau justifiably pointed out, Germany had accepted its defeat, its aggression and its responsibility when it sued for an armistice in November, 1918, and: "It is too late to deny them today."

Crying about the hard luck and harsh terms suffered by the Germans ignores both the great destruction they wrought, and the apocalyptic nature of the situation in Europe in 1919--everybody had it rough, and millions of Europeans had it a lot worse than the Germans. Without offering any personal insult or criticism to Lovesong, who i suspect repeats simply what he/she has heard or read, i am heartily sick and tired of the German apologists and the constant refrain that the Versailles Treaty created Hitler and the Nazis--that's a line of crap.

For self-delusional, self-pitying fantasies, you can't beat the "we were never defeated" and the "Versailles Diktat" myths. If you would like to learn more of this passage in history, i recommend to you Paris, 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, Margaret MacMillan, Pacemakers, London, 2001. Miss MacMillan is a graduate of Oxford, a provost of Trinity College, and professor of history at the University of Toronto. My grateful thanks to my Sweetiepie for giving me this book at Christmas--it has tied up so many of the loose ends for me.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 10:37 am
Aside from looking at the historic aspects of WWII and Hitler,
there is a good book written that's called "Stones from the River" (Ursula Hegi) that tells the story of how the German
people had to cope with Hitler, his Nazi party and the aftermath.

What's described in this book correlates with the horrific
memories my grandmother used to tell us about. My mother
was a child during WWII, but to this day she has nightmares
of sirens warning of airstrikes, and bombed out houses.

Hitler was not good for Germany, for Europe or the entire
world for that matter. He was a sick individual taking his
revenge for the Jews, or anyone else who wasn't
following his collision course to such unspeakable atrocities
that hopefully never will repeat itself in history.
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 11:09 am
i dont think that i should be labeled anything near to an "apologist". again, i dont think you guys actually understand what i was saying, being as nobody replied to my main point that even though he was an evil person and everything he did was awful, he was no less skilled at being evil. i was just trying to present another point of view. however, thanks to setanta's history lesson, it seems this point of view is quite skewed anyway. i was unaware of many of the things you brought up, setanta and i would like to thank you for the corrections. i would like to know more about the state of europ around that time- you said many countries were in a depression? i heard from many sources that germany's depression was much worse than that of the US, but please explain more. i apologize for putting any information out there that is incorrect!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 11:11 am
I was careful to note that i was not criticizing you personally--i didn't describe you as an apologist.
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 11:12 am
i felt you were insinuating it, but if not then ok...
0 Replies
 
lovesong
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2005 11:14 am
was it just that my high school was that crappy, or did no one learn about this stuff in any detail?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » was Hitler good for germany?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 01:18:47