Was Hitler a weak or strong dictator? Did he do any good?

did he do only bad? was the guy pure evil?

i mean, to look at those years - mainly 39-45 - you'd say yes, pure evil.
he attempted to create a pure ayran race, wiping out the bolsheviks, jews, tramps, gypsises, disabled people [by telling them they were "helping them" by letting them die peacefully] and so on.
he paid women to stay at home, and gave them medals for having as many children as possible, instead of going to work and having their independence.
he took away all trade unions, therefore meaning the men could be worked for as long as they were asked, for as little pay..and they had to take that job, there was no question of rejecting it.
all non-nazi books were gone in the burning of the books
non nazi films were gotten rid of
the gestapo could just burst into anyone's house, arrest them, interview them and end up throwing them into a concentration camp for a few months even if they made a slightly negative comment about hitler
the holocaust alone would make you think "how the hell can there be any good in him"
the list is endless

however, you cannot deny the fact that hitler DID significantly reduce the unemployment rate. whether or not you think this was entirely correct i want you to debate...what i mean is, he took women out of jobs, therefore freeing up more spaces for men to work, so therefore unemployment rate would decrease, bearing in mind women would not be classed as unemployed. also as ww2 came about, even more jobs were freed so again it went down. so would this be a good thing or a bad thing?
as winston churchill said "there are lies...there are damned lied...and then there are statistics"
your choice

he also managed to get out of that well known circle of the great depression, caused mainly by the treaty of versailles, which hitler succeeded in getting rid of.
also, in my humble opinion :], germany was in need of just one leader. the weimar republic seemed weak and divided, due to the proportional representation system...sure it may be a sweet idea, but in practice is it EVER going to work??? but hitler took the whole leader thing just aBIT too far, an understatement :], eventually managing to control EVERYTHING..every little thing ended up with hitler, due to his inner circle and the like. hitler WAS germany, and germany WAS hitler basically

so yes..hitler did create more jobs
but mainly by forcing others out of their jobs and/or sending them off to war
yes he got out the great depression. by getting rid of the treaty of versailles. which, if it had been kept, may very well have prevented ww2.

in his private life, however, he appeared a very very different man [i think it was goebells or goering who sent him mickey mouse films!!..which he enjoyed a lot ] he loved kids, although didn't want any of his own, afraid he may concieve non aryan children [ya rly], and he was really really really sweet with kids. he was also lovely to his mistress, eva braun [sp?] and to his close friends. it's kinda disturbing actually, seeing this side of hitler. like..it just makes him seem human. sounds weird but yeah.

but was he a strong dictator or not?

he created lots of confusion in the reichstag, giving people the same jobs as other people and so on and so forth. was this deliberate do you think? so that others would end up just thinking "oh hitler knows what he's doing" or god knows whatever else.
he was also wicked at giving speechs, using foul language and emotive language, and stirring hatred and the like, he really roused his crowds

i personally think he was a strong leader, mainly because of the fact that he COULD engage a crowd. the mere fact that he ended up with the all those people hanging off his every word, and how he got people to do the things they did show he was strong [in my opinion].

but it's up to you.
pure evil guy? strong/weak dictator?
debate please?

Well, I was going to lock this, and say that it could go in the Holocaust thread, but I think I'll let it stay open, because this is a bit different. I can tell you put alot of work into making that post. I think Hitler was an incredibly strong leader, and its such a shame he used his power in the way that her did. If you think of how easily he gained control of Germany, and what he was able to do, imagine what would happen if someone with that type of leadership skills did something constructive. Hitler had a great mind, though he had sick morals, such a waste.

I pretty much agree with the above post. Hitler was a strong leader, but he was power-crazy and had some pretty messed up ideas. I don't know much about his positive side, but I'm hoping we'll go more into that in English class (we're studying the Holocaust). I think that Hitler surely changed the face of Germany, and probably, in effect, the world.

Well, I don't think his "good" side compensates for the bad things he did in any way, shape or form.

I_worship_tre_Cool:

Well, I don't think his "good" side compensates for the bad things he did in any way, shape or form.

It doesn't compensate, no, because really nothing could. However, it's interesting to know that he had a good side. I mean, I just assumed someone like that would be very bitter and not that kind.

Nine_Inch_Nails:

he loved kids

Except for the ones he killed?

No matter what he did on the good side, nothing is going to cover the evil he spread. He used scare tactics, persuasive speech, and careful and expressive body language to draw people in. He was a strong leader, sure, and he knew what he was doing. He had a sharp enough mind, but his beliefs were just too twisted to compensate ._.

Nine_Inch_Nails:

however, you cannot deny the fact that hitler DID significantly reduce the unemployment rate.

the jobs he gave them were absolutely unnecessary: he made them build lakes.
no wonder people had something to do.
they were just to stupid to realize that he fooled them.

Nine_Inch_Nails:

he was also lovely to his mistress, eva braun [sp?] and to his close friends.

she tried to commit suicide cause he didnt pay too much attention to her.
and she was obsessed with him (like every other person), she would have done anything for him (cf. the suicide with him).

Nine_Inch_Nails:

he was also wicked at giving speechs, using foul language and emotive language, and stirring hatred and the like, he really roused his crowds

thats probably cause they didnt understand too many parts of the speeches (and were blinded of course), cause of his weird way to talk

i often dont understand his speeches either

chump:

Nine_Inch_Nails:

he was also lovely to his mistress, eva braun [sp?] and to his close friends.

she tried to commit suicide cause he didnt pay too much attention to her.
and she was obsessed with him (like every other person), she would have done anything for him (cf. the suicide with him).

Also he kind of hid her from the outside.

I think he was a strong dictator, he had all qualities and the fucked up mind to it. And of course he had this you may call it 'good' side, he wasn't a machine; he was still evil..

Hitler did great things. Terrible things, yes, but great. He was a fantastic leader with a fantastic mind. Set to the wrong purposes, yes, but nontheless.

The 1915 Armenian Genocide is largely ignored by history. The Ukranian Genocide of the thirties is not even recognised by the UN. Yet time and time again, the square root and benchmark of all evil is placed on the Holocaust. If the Holcaust had not happened, how are we, in this age of nuclear missiles and mass aramgeddon at the click of the button, supposed to learn from the past?.
Every historical event is valuable. Meaning, yeah, Hitler did some good for the overall progression of humanity.

NeoSteph:

The Wansee conference decided that fate of the jews (please note Hitler was not present) the Buraeocrats of the SS (including Heydrich and Himmler) decided that extermination of the Jewish race was the only 'natural' road to take. Hitler gave his consent to this but the 'Final Solution' was not his doing.

I think people often ignore this point.

I think unemployment would have sorted it out through the economic cycle eventually anyway, and i think taking women out of work was more a step backwards for Germany than anything else. He probably benefited from peoples dislike of the weimar republic and the distrust of politicians fromt he stab in the back theory and peoples general ignorance to democracy at the time, they just werent used to it. As well as a very right wing army, police force and judiciary in Germany making it easy to get power.
It is a fair point to say he was excellent at giving speeches and winning over the german people. Basically there was a lot of unemployment he offered the solution through labour intensive construction work so people voted for him.

Bloodraine:

Hitler did great things. Terrible things, yes, but great. He was a fantastic leader with a fantastic mind. Set to the wrong purposes, yes, but nontheless.

The 1915 Armenian Genocide is largely ignored by history. The Ukranian Genocide of the thirties is not even recognised by the UN. Yet time and time again, the square root and benchmark of all evil is placed on the Holocaust. If the Holcaust had not happened, how are we, in this age of nuclear missiles and mass aramgeddon at the click of the button, supposed to learn from the past?.
Every historical event is valuable. Meaning, yeah, Hitler did some good for the overall progression of humanity.

NeoSteph:

The Wansee conference decided that fate of the jews (please note Hitler was not present) the Buraeocrats of the SS (including Heydrich and Himmler) decided that extermination of the Jewish race was the only 'natural' road to take. Hitler gave his consent to this but the 'Final Solution' was not his doing.

I think people often ignore this point.

i dont think it would take a holocost for people to learn that genocide is bad.....just because there were other genocides which were just as severe i think it was 4 million who died in the ukranian genocide, doesnt make the holocast any less terrible.

Dom:

i dont think it would take a holocost for people to learn that genocide is bad.....just because there were other genocides which were just as severe i think it was 4 million who died in the ukranian genocide, doesnt make the holocast any less terrible.

One quarter of the Ukranian population gone in less than 2 years.
Works out at around 10 million people, which is estimatedly more than the number of Jews killed via the Holocaust.

The point I was making (which seems to have been rather overlooked) is that if so many people were killed little over 60 years ago, and with current technology as it is, what is to stop it happening again on a bigger scale?.
Maybe its because we've seen the danger already.
People are wary of "doing a Hitler".
26 million is a pittance, a pittance of the destruction that could be achieved right now. And, I beg to reiterate, every historical event is valuable. The more extreme, the more valuable?
Perhaps so.

ok we all know what he did was wrong but look at it like this, the expierments he did on people are now being used in hospitals has a way to keep people alive, the tortour that he did was unexcuasble andit always will be but we have to think of the people that are now being kept alive because of his medical experiments.

Bloodraine:

Hitler did great things. Terrible things, yes, but great. He was a fantastic leader with a fantastic mind. Set to the wrong purposes, yes, but nontheless.

The 1915 Armenian Genocide is largely ignored by history. The Ukranian Genocide of the thirties is not even recognised by the UN. Yet time and time again, the square root and benchmark of all evil is placed on the Holocaust. If the Holcaust had not happened, how are we, in this age of nuclear missiles and mass aramgeddon at the click of the button, supposed to learn from the past?.
Every historical event is valuable. Meaning, yeah, Hitler did some good for the overall progression of humanity.

That is also my opinion.


And I do think that to some point it is necessary for something really big to happen, like a gencide, for people to get the lesson. If you don't agree you can just learn some history from almost any country, you'd realize that every disgrace in their history has already happened before, usually even in the same country and not only in a neighbour country, but they just didn't learn the lesson back then. People just forgets about it. But people can't forget of something like the Holocaust.

Bloodraine:

NeoSteph:

The Wansee conference decided that fate of the jews (please note Hitler was not present) the Buraeocrats of the SS (including Heydrich and Himmler) decided that extermination of the Jewish race was the only 'natural' road to take. Hitler gave his consent to this but the 'Final Solution' was not his doing.

I think people often ignore this point.

he wrote about killing the jews in his book "mein kampf" years before world war 2 !!

Misanthropist:

I_worship_tre_Cool:

Well, I don't think his "good" side compensates for the bad things he did in any way, shape or form.

It doesn't compensate, no, because really nothing could. However, it's interesting to know that he had a good side. I mean, I just assumed someone like that would be very bitter and not that kind.

Honestly, I don't think Hitler had a good side. He had a smarter side, a busniess savy side. He couldn't run a country if it was unemployed, naturally he created jobs. Nothing he did was out of the kindness of his heart (or where one should have been) it was done to advance his status. He was an excellent leader, and at the same time one of the most horrible people to ever live.

I_worship_tre_Cool:

Honestly, I don't think Hitler had a good side. He had a smarter side, a busniess savy side. He couldn't run a country if it was unemployed, naturally he created jobs. Nothing he did was out of the kindness of his heart (or where one should have been) it was done to advance his status. He was an excellent leader, and at the same time one of the most horrible people to ever live.

There must have been at least an ounce of goodness in his heart, although I agree that he was mostly (probably almost all) terrible. I haven't seen any proof of a good side, but I'm going on what Nine_Inch_Nails originally posted, I wouldn't mind knowing where the information was gathered. One thing for certain, Hitler knew what he was doing.

Misanthropist:

There must have been at least an ounce of goodness in his heart, although I agree that he was mostly (probably almost all) terrible. I haven't seen any proof of a good side, but I'm going on what Nine_Inch_Nails originally posted, I wouldn't mind knowing where the information was gathered. One thing for certain, Hitler knew what he was doing.

Well, look at the statistics for deaths caused by the Holocaust, Im sure you'll find he was not a lovely person. Any good he did have, he didn't use to better society, which makes him a bad leader, sadly, he was a powerful leader, so what he used his power for was inexcusable.

chump:

Bloodraine:

NeoSteph:

The Wansee conference decided that fate of the jews (please note Hitler was not present) the Buraeocrats of the SS (including Heydrich and Himmler) decided that extermination of the Jewish race was the only 'natural' road to take. Hitler gave his consent to this but the 'Final Solution' was not his doing.

I think people often ignore this point.

he wrote about killing the jews in his book "mein kampf" years before world war 2 !!

He did indeed blame them for Germany'S loss of world war one and the depression and pondered their removal from Germany. However early on in the Nazi Regime Hitler and top officials only wanted them removed from germany by force many plans were put in place to move them to Madagascar or to the far ends of Europe however when the war started movement between countries became restricted and it was no longer an option. As time moved on and it became more apparent that to foolproof the aryan race drastic measures would have to be taken but it was not Hitlers idea to start the expansion of concentration camps which up to that point had been created for communist party members.

Hitler was an average person, for everyone here who says hitler was a great leader, he was powerful, well no he wasn't and where your going wrong is your seeing Hitler as the Nazi party when what made it powerful were the millions of supporters and intelligent leaders. Hitler made a good icon but as a leader he was undenialbly shit in fact he spent most of his time vacationing in the mountains. for anyone who studies this era knows that after the first two years the nazi's were never going to win the war.

What got Hitler into power was circumstance he joined the party which would later become the Nazi Party. Only took over as his art work and speech made him good for propaganda. Bullying tactics and even more strange circumstances took him to government. (see holocaust thread for more details. -

NeoSteph:

hmmm I would have to disagree with both your choices.

The Nazi party was voted in under extreme circumstances, where the voting public were given little choice Nazism was the only option at that time. Though Hitler made his anti-semtism feelings known the full extent of that tirade was not unleashed until 3 years after the voting booth had shut, by then it was a dictatorship. In fact a percentage of Nazi supporters were Jewish, believing Hitler semite remarks were personal rather than part of the regime. Though Jews were at the fore front of persucution a further 6 million people (3 million poles) were murdered. I don't believe tha apathy and ignorance of the voting public is to blame for the Holocaust.

Though Hitler was for policies that persacuted Jews, It was th accountant power of Joesph Goebbels and the brute strength and terror of Himmler that led to the destruction of Jews. Goebbels bled the jews dry of all resources, the initial plan was to deport all Jews to Madagascar however that became impossible after the war had started.

The Wansee conference decided that fate of the jews (please note Hitler was not present) the Buraeocrats of the SS (including Heydrich and Himmler) decided that extermination of the J race was the only 'natural' road to take. Hitler gave his consent to this but the 'Final Solution' was not his doing.

Hitler had very little to do with the policies of the Nazi party, he was merely a good speaker and a figurehead, towards the end when the deportation of the ghetto's had begun, because of the losing war Hitler was in no position to argue against his own generals.

So in fact, one could argue that Hitler had as much to do with the holocaust as the people in the villages who did nothing.

quick notes:
Hitler did not write his own speech
His 'ideals' were not his own they were already in the mind-set of most of europe he became and speaker of it.
his girlfriend Ava, was his niece. She was into masochist behaviour. no matter much he 'loved' her it was incest and an abusive relatioship.
he had very little to do with Nazi laws or acts in fact he was bored by it
Medical experiments were the works of Dr mengele and were put into place by Himmler it can't even be proven Hitler knew about them.
Hitler liked kids because he loved being more powerful than others and nothings more fragile than children.

NeoSteph:

Actually your time frame is completely messed up and inadequate.

The Kaiser (german version of King) was in control of the government in the first World War and abdicated on the 28th of November 1918, then President Hindenburg was voted in by the german public to form a democratic union.

The DAP (to go on to become the Nazi Party) was formed in 1919 by Drexler and Harrer as a social workers party, Hitler moved to reform the party in december of that same year but did not gain control of it until 1922-23. When the Munich Putsch happened. Within the government the Nazi Party had a very small majority. However they gained support due to strong propaganda tactics and Hitlers increasing power as public speaker to bend the truth and place blame for the the Great Depression which took place in 1923.

It was not until ten years later in 1933, that because of increasing support Hitler was voted in by his peers to become Chancellor of the Democratic Republic, serving under Hindenburg who was distressed at the circumstances of the election (what can be considered a smeer camapaign which damaged all other candidates). Anyhow so because of Hitlers position support for the Nazi Party grew. Hitler was not able to take control of the government until Hindenburg had died in 1934, which is when Hitler gained control and yes he was voted in but the public was put under polling booth pressure. Well i've covered the rest in earlier post.

the quotes are posts that cover this topic.

offtopic

NeoSteph:

The Kaiser (german version of King)

kaiser > king.