Adolf Hitler

[Telvanni]

Telvanni, since Hitler started WWII, many ppl hold him responsible for all the casualties in Europe, on the order of 30 million plus. I think there would have been some kind of conflict in Europe again regardless of whether Hitler would have gotten into power, though.

I think that the Leaders where responsable for their own troops, as they decided the strategy! I mean like Stalin was a bad poo at keeping his poor soldiers alive, and he sent them in suicidal attacks against the Germans, who had a leader, that cared a bit more about em'..... exept for the bad example at Stalingrad, where the Germans where treated even worse than the Russians or the same...
So every dead Russian is Stalins fault, he could've saved alot of lives if he wanted too! Every dead German is Hitler fault! Every dead American is Roosevelt fault! Every dead Brit is Churchhills fault! And every dead Japp is Emperor 'something I can't remeber's fault!

"In war, no one win, there's only losers. But one dosn't have to lose as much as the other one."

 

[brinko]

Previous Response

not to conspirasize but.. I actually Heard Hitler was only a puppet for the German Generals of WW1 only to seek revenge. What was he, a messenger boy in ww1?...yet oddly , what a message he sent in ww2.

 

[Telvanni]

not to conspirasize but.. I actually Heard Hitler was only a puppet for the German Generals of WW1 only to seek revenge. What was he, a messenger boy in ww1?...yet oddly , what a message he sent in ww2.

I don't think so, if he was a puppet for his Generals, then he wouldn't disagree with them.
And I do think that he wanted revenge himself too, atleast against the French.. as he was very interested in war (WWI), and higly disapointed when he found out that they've lost, I think many Germans where. He was wounded too, and the Wounded Medal is among Officers and Generals the highest award you can get, even better than the Iron Cross, because you can get the Iron Cross with participating in battle, but to get the Wounded Medal, you have to be wounded of course. So when Hitler's Generals didn't like his ideas, then Hitler showed them his old medal, and he told them that he knew better, cause he had been fighting in a real battle, and not just sitting in a chair, (like most of us do actually, but I'm still proud of my chair) playing wargames. He also got temporely (bad spelling I know, but the opposite of permanently, please correct me if anyone know how to spell it, I gotta learn from my mistakes) blinded, by a gas-attack, during the war (still WWI), imagine how terrible that must be, not to know if it's permanent or if it isn't? Uuuuggghhh glad I wasn't a soldier back then! And the trench feet! uggghhh, enough ugly thoughts for me, back to Hitler... Uuuggghhh Hitler!

 

[DonStamos]

Conspiracy was a typical Hollywood movie, complete with the "good German" who recoiled in horror at the thought of killing of the Jews. More moralizing and distortion of history. The Wannsee conference was more straightforward then that, all the Nazis already knew what they were going to do. Kenneth Branagh was a poor choice to play Heydrich also, IRL Heydrich was a very chilling person. It also annoys me to see jewish actors playing Nazis, as it takes away from the realism. Still, it was an ok movie from the standpoint of ENTERTAINMENT. If you want a true perspective on the way things were in Nazi Germany, I would suggest reading some historical works, not watching modern movies about it.

Telvanni, since Hitler started WWII, many ppl hold him responsible for all the casualties in Europe, on the order of 30 million plus. I think there would have been some kind of conflict in Europe again regardless of whether Hitler would have gotten into power, though.

I never said it was the best source for the Holocaust, but it is the only movie that I know of that covers the Conference. Besides, it's only arbitrary that the history in the film is skewed towards the American perspective, otherwise the MPAA may not have allowed it to be released, which is sad, considering all the trash getting released nowadays.

 

[Superkrest]

i thought of that, but he was only a general...although he was a brilliant man...Desert Fox...would it be appropriate to hail him as king?

i think it would be far more just as appropriate to hail him as a king then alot of the nazi leaders.. he seemed to be the only one(with the exception of maybe speer) that had his head on straight..and he would repersent that era. just a thought.

 

[Telvanni]

Rommel seemed to be the only one(with the exception of maybe speer) that had his head on straight..and he would repersent that era. just a thought.

There was many Generals and other high ranking officers, that wasn't so bad! For example the guy that intended to give the Ukrainians more freedom, but then Hitler disagrred with him, and got the final word in that case.....
Von Mannstein was a good general too. It was he who planed the Strategt in the invasion of France, I think it most be the greatest victory the Germans had in the war!

 

[Superkrest]

very true..and thats kinda my point. i belive any one of these men would be better suited for a leader than hittler or his henchmen if people really want a leader that repersents that era of german history

 

[FieldMarshall]

OK, I prevoiusly said that I would be OK if Hitler were included in the game. And you know what, screw Hitler! I don't want him in my game anymore. Granted, I'd be fun taking him out, but otherwise, I'd rather see of the great German generals in his place, I'd like to see either von Rundenstedt, von Kluge, von Manstein, von Leeb, von Bock, Speer, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, List, Guderian, and above all, Rommel. ANY of these generals would be a better replacemet than Hitler.

i belive any one of these men would be better suited for a leader than hittler or his henchmen if people really want a leader that repersents that era of german history

I absolutly agree!

 

[Superkrest]

well thank you..but i must think that just avoiding that era (although one of germanies most powerful) may be the best option. but if there were a rep from the 3rd riech. it would in my opinion have to be one of them

ps. speer was chief architect of the riech and then production(or somethin) minister..not a general

 

[Telvanni]

ps. speer was chief architect of the riech and then production(or somethin) minister..not a general

Exactly, he drew Germania, the rebuilding of Berlin, looked real nice, sad thing that Hitler didn't made to build it....

I don't think a German General could be used as a replacement for Hitler. Hitler was the national leader, he was the great politician, the ruler of Germany. And the Generals was just Generals, and they've never ruled Germany.... just because we like em', they don't become Rulers, exept for that if we turned back time and made an election, and told everyone about Hitlers future, but then again they wouldn't belive us, wouldn't belive in war, wouldn't belive in Holocaust, by that nice good man, as he looked to be at first!

 

[Andrew_Jay]

ps. speer was chief architect of the riech and then production(or somethin) minister..not a general

Minister of Armaments, and as such he oversaw the use of slave labour throughout German-occupied Europe.

While I have some sympathy for the man compared to the other members of Hitler's government because of his willingness to express remorse for what he had done, the fact is that he was still found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He's not suitable either.

Who are the leaders supposed to be anyway? Bismarck and Frederick Barbarosa? Why would anyone prefer Hitler to them?

 

[Telvanni]

Why would anyone prefer Hitler to them?

They can't be emoted, just by putting your finger under your nose! Hitler is the most infamous or famous man in the world (I think), and as such he's easy to make fun of.

 

[frankthe butler]

yes, it's quite ludicrous to put a general under Hitler as figurehead of the german nation instead of Hitler. people who want this are squeaming away from not liking the this figurehead and trying to choose someone they find palatable, when that should not be the criteria at all.
competence is also not the criteria either, as every generation in every country has vastly competent men, but if those men have no way to excersise their compentence, and no power of their own, it can't be said to be figureheads or leaders of their countries. exhibit A: Chairman Mao. pretty incompetent. his wife was more competent than he, from what i'm told. should she be the figurehead of china? ...maybe... wait. no!

 

[Telvanni]

yes, it's quite ludicrous to put a general under Hitler as figurehead of the german nation instead of Hitler. people who want this are squeaming away from not liking the this figurehead and trying to choose someone they find palatable, when that should not be the criteria at all.
competence is also not the criteria either, as every generation in every country has vastly competent men, but if those men have no way to excersise their compentence, and no power of their own, it can't be said to be figureheads or leaders of their countries. exhibit A: Chairman Mao. pretty incompetent. his wife was more competent than he, from what i'm told. should she be the figurehead of china? ...maybe... wait. no!

I agree with this guy! Well said Frank!

 

[FieldMarshall]

Minister of Armaments, and as such he oversaw the use of slave labour throughout German-occupied Europe.

I thought that Wilhelm Frick oversaw slave labor? He is known as the Prince of Terror (forgive me if I have this wrong).

I think that when the people (including myself) who say that they'd rather have a general as a figurehead than Hitler only say so because most of these men were good people, in that they didn't needlessly kill people, like Hitler and his henchmen (a.k.a. Murder, Inc. II). Look at the accomplishments that Hitler has: Rebuilding Germany, starting WW II, Holocaust ... wait... HOLOCAUST. 6-12 million dead. Who would want to play as Germany when their leader is a MASS murderer? Now, let's look at... Rommel: Led 7 Panzer Div. to victory in France, led another armored div. to victory in Russia, kicked Britain's butt in North Africa with his Africa Corps, commaned Army Group B in Normandy, participated in plot to kill Hitler.... hold on! Stop there! PARTICIPATED IN PLOT TO KILL HITLER. OK, I want Rommel. And, Rommel killed himself after the plot failed to keep the morale of the German people from sinking; it's disheartining to know that your country's greatest general tried to kill your nations' leader! So, Rommel is a better choice for a leader than Hitler in that he served the people of Germany, not just in one incident, but almost all the time. He wasn't for the Reich or Hitler -- he was for Germany.

 

[frankthe butler]

Trotsky
.

 

[Telvanni]

Trotsky
.

??
The leader of the Soviet Revolutionairy Hooligans?
I don't think he could be Germanys leader, even if we gave him a funny mustache.....

 

[FieldMarshall]

Trotsky

Well.... Huh?

 

[Belcarius]

I thought that Wilhelm Frick oversaw slave labor? He is known as the Prince of Terror (forgive me if I have this wrong).

No idea who he is. Speer shifted the blame for the slave labour onto Fritz Saukel, but there's little doubt he was behind it.

I think that when the people (including myself) who say that they'd rather have a general as a figurehead than Hitler only say so because most of these men were good people, in that they didn't needlessly kill people, like Hitler and his henchmen (a.k.a. Murder, Inc. II). Look at the accomplishments that Hitler has: Rebuilding Germany, starting WW II, Holocaust ... wait... HOLOCAUST. 6-12 million dead. Who would want to play as Germany when their leader is a MASS murderer? Now, let's look at... Rommel: Led 7 Panzer Div. to victory in France, led another armored div. to victory in Russia, kicked Britain's butt in North Africa with his Africa Corps, commaned Army Group B in Normandy, participated in plot to kill Hitler.... hold on! Stop there! PARTICIPATED IN PLOT TO KILL HITLER. OK, I want Rommel. And, Rommel killed himself after the plot failed to keep the morale of the German people from sinking; it's disheartining to know that your country's greatest general tried to kill your nations' leader! So, Rommel is a better choice for a leader than Hitler in that he served the people of Germany, not just in one incident, but almost all the time. He wasn't for the Reich or Hitler -- he was for Germany.

That's like saying Charles Darwin is a better choice for leader than Elizabeth I. You cannot have a leader who was not in a position to govern their country. I think you have been confused because someone suggested Ludendorff, but that's acceptable because he did practically run Germany during WW1.

 

[FieldMarshall]

That's like saying Charles Darwin is a better choice for leader than Elizabeth I. You cannot have a leader who was not in a position to govern their country. I think you have been confused because someone suggested Ludendorff, but that's acceptable because he did practically run Germany during WW1.

Well, the only thing that Darwin ever led was an 80ft sail boat. Ohm and I believe that I was the one who suggested Ludendorff. But, all I'm saying is that considering that Hitler didn't always have the intrests of EVERYONE in Germany in mind ALL OF THE TIME, I just think that ANY of these men would be better than Hitler, simply because they're not ruthless, cold hearted megolomaniacs.