what are people's views on this?

Speaking strictly about his leadership abilities and ignoring all of the other insane things he did (which is asking a lot), I'd say he was sort of mediocre. He certainly had the ability to inspire and whip his people into a nationalistic frenzy, which is one part of leadership, but he lacked the ability to trust and listen to his generals and advisors, which definitely cost him the war.

He was an organizer. A planner. A powerful speaker.

........................and one of the most evil men in history.

How you all wish to tilt the balance is your own decision.

He was very charismatic. He took advantage of a time in his countries history that people were seeking leadership during hard times. Like any good politician he made "pie-in-the-sky promises that the right people supported. This allowed him to gain power. He originally had good ideas, he did not have the mental stability to carry them out in an appropriate manner.

He was certainly capable of inspiring people to follow him. Unfortunately he was not capable of picking good directions to lead Germany in. Instead his personal demons became the worlds demons. He caused a great deal of horror and death.

His mustache was quite fashionable...

in terms of leading a country, in peacetime he was amazing. hell, he invaded five countries with, really, no retribution. he was not a great wartime leader, but he was weeks, maybe even days within winning the war. if not for pearl harbor, he would have bombed britain into submission and been able to keep a one front war.
not that i'm complaining he didn't suceed?

Originally posted by MajiPirate
if not for pearl harbor, he would have bombed britain into submission and been able to keep a one front war.

The Brits had already beaten him back by the time Pearl Harbor happened. Hitler had invasion plans all drawn up and everything but the Luftwaffe could never get air superiority.

unfortunately, beaten back is not the same thing as defeated.

Originally posted by MajiPirate
unfortunately, beaten back is not the same thing as defeated.

True, but it is the same as not being bombed into submission.

Had Germany not declared war on the U.S. and we hadn't invaded France, the Russians would have defeated Germany. They were already advancing into eastern Europe by the time D-Day happened.

Depends on what you mean by good, he was an exceptional orator but terrible at planning and organizing real stratigies. Most of everything he did was sucidical for him and his people from the start.

I wouldn't use the word good maybe smart. His mustache being fashionable that's funny :D :D looked more like a rabbit turd instead of a mustache

I would say he was a successful leader until some of the people surrounding him and supporting him began to realize he was certifiably insane.

Originally posted by captain smuty
what are people's views on this?


not really. people are sheep and need to be led. but what is that quote by betrand? a nation of sheep eventually will be led by wolves? or some sorta shit......

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Had Germany not declared war on the U.S. and we hadn't invaded France, the Russians would have defeated Germany. They were already advancing into eastern Europe by the time D-Day happened.

Can't say I give this thesis any credability. Before D-day, the Americans had seriously damaged the Luftwaffe (sp?) as well as German production capabilities. Besides that, the Americans were largely responsible for supplying the Russians, had invaded and inflicted heavy casualties in Africa and Italy, and the mere threat of D-day created a huge diversion of German forces. These factors together with the fact that the German advance halted right on the front door of Moscow, tell you that the American contribution was most probably JUST enough to save the Russians from military defeat.

Originally posted by Leper
Can't say I give this thesis any credability. Before D-day, the Americans had seriously damaged the Luftwaffe (sp?) as well as German production capabilities.

The first daylight bombing raids by US planes were conducted on Jan 27 1943. By this time Russia had already halted the German advance, and was counterattacking. As far as the effectiveness of the bombing campaign, it was effective early on, but the Germans soon de-centralized their production facilities, and the bombers effectiveness was greatly reduced. The main German problem was access to raw materials, like iron, oil, etc.

By the time we invaded France in 1944, the Russians already had the Germans in full retreat mode.

Besides that, the Americans were largely responsible for supplying the Russians, had invaded and inflicted heavy casualties in Africa and Italy, and the mere threat of D-day created a huge diversion of German forces.

We did supply Russia with large numbers of trucks, boots, and other items to fight the war, but the Russians built almost all of their war machines themselves. I'll admit it is difficult to accurately assess the effect we had on Germany by diverting their forces in Africa, and Italy. No doubt if Germany had the freedom to send all their troops to the Eastern Front, the war against Russia would have lasted longer, but the outcome would have been the same.

These factors together with the fact that the German advance halted right on the front door of Moscow, tell you that the American contribution was most probably JUST enough to save the Russians from military defeat.

I agree that we did contribute to Germany's defeat, but I don't agree that Russia would have been defeated without our aid. The numbers were against Germany from the start.

After Russia recovered from the initial German onslaught, they moved the vast majority of their heavy industry out of the range of German bombers, and were able to produce tanks, planes, and other war materiel faster than the Germans were destroying it. They had an overwhelming population advantage, and the German tactic of "total war" on the Russians soon taught the Russians that surrender was not an option. They weren't fighting for Stalin, or Moscow, or Russia, they were fighting for their lives. The Russians had access to all the raw materials they needed to fight Germany, and their industry was relatively unmolested. In short, the Germans never had a chance against Russia. One final point. The US lost something like 600,000 people in WWII...The Russians lost 20 Million and still went on to defeat Germany. If they could lose that many people and still win, I'll say it again...the Germans never had a chance.

No doubt we did help the Russians defeat Germany, but was our help neccessary? I don't think so.

Silly question. Hitler was a great leader. He convinced an entire country to commit genocidal acts. What more proof in necessary?

To me, He was a smart man. And if it wasn't for him ,the world would not be the way it is now. Now, granted I am not pro-Hitler and yes, the killings and the Great War we really did not need but at the same time, he did change the world.


and a lot of his ideas are used today...


kind regards,

Rachel