Adolf Hitler

[AndyHollinger]

He got a nation of its knees and engulfed in a war they could so easily have won.

Arm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arm ... Frankly, I think the leadership question was decided by History - my only quibble is over military leadership as differentiated from political leadership.

However, I am concerned about the comment noted above. My contention was that the Nazi war was over before it started with the Germans losing. Wars of conquest typically lose. It takes a will not often found (but has from time to time, witness the Normans) but, more importantly, an area conquered that no other great power wants (see England in the 12th C) ... Once the local population is cowed, only peace will allow the conquest party to completely subdue the vanquished party.

While the argument can be certainly made that IF Hitler had stopped at Poland and France ... Britain would have stood alone forever but be basically powerless to intervene in Fortress Europe ... (and eventually starved or isolated into peace, etc. etc.) that would apriori be contrary to the Nazi war ideal. Once the Soviets and the Americans were in ... and not content to contain Hitler, the war was lost. Hitler couldn't have NOT brought the war to the SU ... and, indeed, declared war on the US when there is a strong consideration, the US might have left themselves out of the war in Europe.

So, I don't think WWII could have easily been won by the Nazis ... just too many people to sudue and the Nazis could never have stopped when it could have won.

Well, my thoughts, anyway.

[PhilB]

So, I don't think WWII could have easily been won by the Nazis ... just too many people to sudue and the Nazis could never have stopped when it could have won.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

However, if the Germans had got the atom bomb first....... Phil B

[Max]

if the Germans had got the atom bomb first.......   Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And If my aunty had got testicles she would have been my uncle.

Hitlers leadership qualities took Germany from a struggling nation in the early 1930s to one absolutely on its knees in the mid 40s, not much of a leader in my opinion.

Andy

[Auimfo]

As a military leader he was pretty crap but as a political leader, I suppose you would have to say he had the potential to be the one of the greatest.

His ability to mesmerise the masses and to some degree restore their belief in themselves was uncanny. Let's face it, he took a country that was suffering severely from the depression and built it into one of the strongest, politically, militarily and economically which was no mean feat given the relatively small number of years it took him.

Unfortunately, at the same time his personal ideologies and over-inflated ego led him to become one of the most evil men ever to walk the face of this earth. It's sometimes a very fine line between genius and madman and I wonder how history would have remembered him if he had hadn't succumbed to his ideological manias of racial purity and genocide.

But knowing what he was to become, I would have to agree with Tom's analysis. The world would have been a far better place without him.

Tim L.

[PhilB]

Yes, but this isn`t a "Hitler - good or bad" thread!

Would he have been a good commander of a platoon/company/battalion? If an 18 year old virtually straight from school can run a platoon, why couldn`t a man who, not many years later, ran a nation, including all its armed forces? Phil B

[Auimfo]

I think military leadership and political leadership are two mutually exclusive things. A good military leader does not necessarily make a good political one and vice-versa.

Tim L.

[doogal]

A good military leader does not necessarily make a good political one and vice-versa.

Ghengis Khan did OK

[Max]

Ghengis Khan did OK

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Grant didn't

[doogal]

Grant didn't

Cromwell did.

Taking cover.

doogal

[Max]

Cromwell did.

Taking cover.

doogal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same sort of category as Hitler?

[doogal]

Same sort of category as Hitler?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

much more sophisticated. Cromwell won, invented a professional army, remained in power, represented himself as not wanting to have the King executed (but allowed it anyway). He also then managed to be made dictator, whilst all the while protesting that he was "Lord Protector", not a monarch.

Whilst my view of him has its limits, as far as this thread goes, he did pretty well.

regards

doogal

[armourersergeant]

Arm ... Frankly, I think the leadership question was decided by History - my only quibble is over military leadership as differentiated from political leadership.

However, I am concerned about the comment noted above.  My contention was that the Nazi war was over before it started with the Germans losing.  Wars of conquest typically lose.  It takes a will not often found (but has from time to time, witness the Normans) but, more importantly, an area conquered that no other great power wants (see England in the 12th C) ... Once the local population is cowed, only peace will allow the conquest party to completely subdue the vanquished party. 

While the argument can be certainly made that IF Hitler had stopped at Poland and France ... Britain would have stood alone forever but be basically powerless to intervene in Fortress Europe ... (and eventually starved or isolated into peace, etc. etc.) that would apriori be contrary to the Nazi war ideal.  Once the Soviets and the Americans were in ... and not content to contain Hitler, the war was lost.  Hitler couldn't have NOT brought the war to the SU ... and, indeed, declared war on the US when there is a strong consideration, the US might have left themselves out of the war in Europe.

So, I don't think WWII could have easily been won by the Nazis ... just too many people to sudue and the Nazis could never have stopped when it could have won.

Well, my thoughts, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Andy,

Whilst my comments were admittedly very general and unsupported i still feel Germany could have won the war. If he had subdued Britian first and disabled the empire then Russia would have been easier pickings. Yes subtegation ( is that right?) of the masses can not necesserilly last forever but that does not stop an empire being built and lasting for some years.

Alot of ifs and i guess you could say the mistakes were his but...

[AndyHollinger]

Contrafactual history is always fun ... but it requires things that were not. (so to speak) At the risk of hijacking the thread ...

The if of getting the UK out is a big one. IF they'd continued hitting the RAF centers, the German kill ratio was still very bad. Let's say that the RAF was knocked down ... there's the invasion. They had enough troops ... but getting them there was a problem ... the RN could interupt the crossing fairly easily with everything from destroyers to Capital ships ... and it would be fairly easy to take out a corps during the crossing ... Germany stand for such losses? Maybe ... but maybe not. Look how tenuous the Normandy landings were without any air or naval resistance to speak of ... compared to what the RN would have put up.

Let's say that the UK is effectively out or at least neutralized ... Russia successfully handled them in reality without much help from the other allies ... almost everything I've read said that the Lend-lease stuff got shipped to the Japenese front ... the Russians fought the Germans essentially on their own ... and it was the partisans and rear-guard stuff (inherent in the Nazi regime) that destroyed the Germans ability to "take" Russia. Like Conspiracies, World Domination doesn't happen in real life ... too many chinks in the armor.

My contention is that the Germans had a great fighting machine ... and good stuff (though the Spitfire and Hurricane were better at the time) but it was the inherent issue of what the Nazis were that made it impossible and without being Nazi, the German state wouldn't have started it in the first place ...

Smart would have been to stop before Poland and build the country into the economic powerhouse it is today ... but, then that would have been - again - impossible for the Nazis to do ... without battles to fight, the need for all that discipline and militaristic order flags into consumerism, etc.

It's like talking about Americans without understanding we're a fractious bunch ... always trying to come to grips with Liberty vs Order / Economic Security vs Economic Opportunity / Sectional vs National / Race ... It is who we are and what we do ...

[RichardH]

Twenty twenty hindsight is always a great thing- however, if you look at National Socialist theory, and Nazism per se, you'll quickly understand that Hitlers war (and therefore Germanys war) was nothing to do with military gain- it was all about racial supremacy- Mein Kampf talks about the need for the push to the east, and the subjegation of the Slavic Race, in addition to the annhiliation of Judaism. This is not a rational ideology here- and it wasn't a rational war for Hitler- it was a war for the supremacy of the Aryan Race. Germany would not have won it- full stop! As soon as they crossed the Oder and headed for the Red Flag they were doomed. They simply didn't have enough resources to bleed Russia white- the Soviets (well, Stalin and his cronies) would have kept on and kept on. I am just not convinced that Germany would have ever had any hope at all of winning.

Anyway- back to the issue of Hitlers leadership skills- I said before- he was an average soldier- ok sure he won a medal or two for bravery- but that doesn't make a leader. How many VC winners became Field Marshalls or lofty Generals? Gort springs to mind- but how many others? He was a great 'political leader', however, because he was a great sales person- ie he had the gift of the gab. He could sell himself very well. In the German Army of 1917 I don't think Corporal Hitler would get promotion simply by telling his superior officers how good he was- he would have to prove it- and he couldn't. In politics- its the other way round- tell everyone around you how great you are and convince them to believe you and hey presto.