How would you change history?

@sharwood

I think that he could have easily brought prosperity to the impoverished eastern nations of Europe, even if his means of doing so (censorship, secret police, etc) were not the most ethical of all choices.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though; I am no expert on Hitler's economic policies in relation to annexed regions.

@flyingchicken

Didn't he also want to restore Germany's standing as a leading world power too?
 
@sharwood

I think that he could have easily brought prosperity to the impoverished eastern nations of Europe, even if his means of doing so (censorship, secret police, etc) were not the most ethical of all choices.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though; I am no expert on Hitler's economic policies in relation to annexed regions.

@flyingchicken

Didn't he also want to restore Germany's standing as a leading world power too?
Like Stalin did? he didn't even really solve Gremany's problems, except through massive rearmament and public works.
 
But weren't those very policies the keys to bringing Germany out of poverty and onto the world stage? And sure, I guess you could draw a parable with Stalin, although Hitler's annexation of eastern Europe resulted in far fewer deaths than Stalin's modernization program, and had he not been a racist SoB, could have helped eastern Europe prosper in the long run, no?
 
But weren't those very policies the keys to bringing Germany out of poverty and onto the world stage? And sure, I guess you could draw a parable with Stalin, although Hitler's annexation of eastern Europe resulted in far fewer deaths than Stalin's modernization program, and had he not been a racist SoB, could have helped eastern Europe prosper in the long run, no?
I sincerely doubt it. Even if Hitler had not been racist, his program of conquest threatened all of his neighbours, which would result in bloody war. A war Gremany would lose. His economic policies also wreen't particularly well thought out, though they were effective. That had far more to do with Speer than Hitler

If Hitler were removed from power after the Munich Pact, especially if Speer was the one who removed him, Germany could have become a great power. But Hitler himself was not a good leader, by any reckoning.
 
I'm not certain that Germany would inevitably lose any conflict against its neighbors though. Like the article said in the blitzkrieg thread earlier, Germany had the means to defeat its enemies, but it didn't due to lack of foresight.

And was Hitler really a bad leader? I would assume that someone who could take Germany from its 1920s state to its 1930s state is a fairly good leader.
 
I'm not certain that Germany would inevitably lose any conflict against its neighbors though. Like the article said in the blitzkrieg thread earlier, Germany had the means to defeat its enemies, but it didn't due to lack of foresight.

And was Hitler really a bad leader? I would assume that someone who could take Germany from its 1920s state to its 1930s state is a fairly good leader.
I mentioned the large-scale rearmament and public works programmes, which are what pulled Germany out of its economic slump. They had nothing to do with Hitler's economic policy, and just coincidentally helped the economy.

Germany would lose a prolonged war, which is what it was destined to fight. A realpolitik policy would have resulted in great things for Germany, but Hitler was terrible at foreign affairs. His greatest triumph, Munich, was negotiated by Goering behind his back.
 
So what did Hitler contribute? Was he just a frontman for the policies of the Nazis then?

But wasn't blitzkrieg conceived exactly to avoid a drawn-out war?
He wasn't a front-man for the Nazis by any means - many of their policies came directly ffrom him. But from an economic standpoint, he didn't really know what he was doing. The economic turnaround - which had begun before he camn to power, he simply sped it up - was incidental.

There was a thread - I think Camikaze started it - about Hitler's economic policy just a month or so ago, I'll try to find it. It will be infinitely more detailed than anything I can come up with. His economic policy is not really what I've studied about him.

As for the blitzkrieg, it was conceived to evade a drawn-out war, but it wasn't applicable to the UK. The British Empire could hold out against Germany pretty much indefinitely. The real threat to Britain was from starvation, not conquest, and I don't believe that Hitler could ever have cut off supplies to Britain completely.

And with every passing year that Britain survived, Stalin came closer to attacking Germany himself. At some point, those two were going to go at it, as neither could countenance the other's existence. That particular war was always going to favour the aggressor, due to the terrain in Russia and Poland.

The US is a wildcard - if Hitler were reasonably sane, the US may maintain its isolationist attitude. But a long drawn out war is what Germany was destined to be involved in if it tried to conquer Europe, and it simply didn't have what it took to win such a war.
 
That must be a pleasant view to entertain if you enjoy the luxury of not living under an absolutist monarchical system.

The murder of the tsar and his family was certainly a brutal crime, but no more brutal or sinful than it would have been had it been perpetrated against non-royal people.

Dont you ruin my Idea of Pre War Russia!
I see peasants dancing in the field harvesting weed while singing songs about the Romanovs!!

Nothing else happen! Nothing!!!

I just like Monarchs, never said I like opression.
 
So what did Hitler contribute? Was he just a frontman for the policies of the Nazis then?

But wasn't blitzkrieg conceived exactly to avoid a drawn-out war?

Hitler's Economic Principles.

It's actually more about his ideology that what he actually did. IIRC, the general consensus was that his ideological aims didn't translate into policies, which could either be taken as showing Hitler as an opportunist, or taking Hitler as more of a figurehead. However, the second one of these (the Structuralist viewpoint) probably doesn't stick in this case, as 'working towards the Führer' would have involved following Mein Kampf, and Hitler's economic principles, which didn't happen.

But then again, you could take the Structuralist viewpoint in the way of Nazi society being structured so as that Hitler was focused on his baby, foreign policy, and foreign policy alone, leaving the economy to others, who may have followed their own ideas, 'cause Hitler wasn't very interested.

As for Speer, as Sharwood suggested, being responsible for the economic policies of Hitler, that is certainly true for after 1942, or even more specifically, after March 1942 and the creation of the Central Planning Office, but before that, it is certainly not correct. Before he became Minister for Armaments and War Production, Speer was, to quote Christopher Condon, "A mere bit player in Germany's war effort." Yes, he was the closest person to Hitler, and yes he was a law unto himself in his field (the reconstruction of Berlin), but he did not have control over the economy. He was merely a department head in the Todt Organization. This, of course means that there was no way that Speer would have seized power after the Munich Pact, 4 years before he became a Reich Minister and probably 5 years before he could actually consider himself Hitler's successor (although that chance was destroyed by Speer's own petty egotism and megalomania, as well as his sympathies for the Stauffenberg Plot).

While I'm on the topic, Speer serves as a good example of how Hitler was not a particularly good leader, and how this was almost put into practice. Whilst others were a calming influence on Hitler's gargantuan plans, Speer egged him on with his fantasies. For example, the Great Hall that was to be built in the new capital, Germania, near where the Reichstag stood, was exaggerated by Hitler and Speer, combined, to the level at which it was to be built with a 300m high dome. This would:
a) Cause clouds to form in the top of the dome when the arena was filled, and
b) Deafen anyone listening to Hitler speaking, due to the noise reverberation.
Not to mention the structural problems such as the bog it was to be built on. But these obvious concerns didn't bother Hitler, who went on with the plan at the behest of Speer (although it was never completed). Basically, his judgement was severely impaired by his fantasies of grandeur.

As for Blitzkrieg, whilst it was designed to create a short war, Hitler had not wanted to implement as early as he did. When he invaded Poland, he hadn't expected Britain and France to declare war. He wanted to wait until the mid-40's before the great struggle commenced. Again, this is symptomatic his lack of judgement and impaired thought processes.
 
*Assuming it doesn't affect my future existence in any negative way*:D

Show Hitler that his racist views were false.

I think he would have made a great leader otherwise.

Ignoring the economic issues and the minor matter of declaring war on half the world, I'd like to point out that even without the racism, Hitler was still a fascist who took autocratic power, made political dissent illegal, outlawed all political parties other than his own, ended elections, banned religions that did not conform to his political and social views, indoctrinated the population and especially young people through compulsory social organisations, and made a brutally militarised state supreme over the the individual. I'd also point out that it wasn't just those he regarded as belonging to inferior races who were murdered, but also those belonging to dissenting religions, the disabled, homosexuals, political dissenters, and others. So, no, take away the racism and there were still a few not-wholly-brilliant elements to Hitler's leadership.

On the other hand, he was a fanatical anti-smoker and promoted very enlightened healthy eating programmes, so perhaps that balances out the other stuff.
 
He was also very nice to his secretary too! Got her a birthday present.
 
And he told German Women to marry for love (provided that they are Aryan).

You have to give Hitler credit for restoring confidence of the public in the German Government, even if he did brainwash an entire nation. I am no supporter of Hitler, or Nazism, but this particular political party stopped Germany from unravelling to hell after, Stresseman's death and the Great Depression.

Similarly, he led Germany to Hell and then seperation through his badly-thought out plans and personal arrogance.
 
Camikaze said:
While I'm on the topic, Speer serves as a good example of how Hitler was not a particularly good leader, and how this was almost put into practice. Whilst others were a calming influence on Hitler's gargantuan plans, Speer egged him on with his fantasies. For example, the Great Hall that was to be built in the new capital, Germania, near where the Reichstag stood, was exaggerated by Hitler and Speer, combined, to the level at which it was to be built with a 300m high dome. This would:
a) Cause clouds to form in the top of the dome when the arena was filled, and
b) Deafen anyone listening to Hitler speaking, due to the noise reverberation.
Not to mention the structural problems such as the bog it was to be built on. But these obvious concerns didn't bother Hitler, who went on with the plan at the behest of Speer (although it was never completed). Basically, his judgement was severely impaired by his fantasies of grandeur.

... had he conquered Europe he could have built whatever he wanted indeed to do anything less would have been an exemplary show of will power. How exactly are these concerns obvious? I didn't know Hitler was an architect? And if Speer wanted to egg on Hitlers grandiose architectural desires it makes sense to me considering the patronage like system which operated, and who would have benefited from the architectural munificence of Hitler in any case? Further context would be desired :p

Camikaze said:
As for Speer, as Sharwood suggested, being responsible for the economic policies of Hitler, that is certainly true for after 1942, or even more specifically, after March 1942 and the creation of the Central Planning Office, but before that, it is certainly not correct.

Blame Schancht for some of that at least till 36'.
 
Hitler wasn't an architect, but he fancied himself as one because of his background as an amateur artist (it's often said that Hitler was better at drawing architecture than he was at any other aspect of art). That's why he spent so much time with Speer, because it indulged his own self-image, and of course Speer knew this and took advantage of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom