Should Hitler be in the game?

[supersoulty]

Do you seriously think that Napolean and Hitler cannot be differentiated? Were you joking or are you ignorant?

Regardless, Napolean has nothing to do with this discussion. I simply said that there other choices to pick for leaders of Germany. In the poll, an option that said "there are better leaders" would have been useful.

I never said that Napolean and Hitler must or mustn't be in the game. I never claimed that Napolean was the best choice for France.

So I'm not sure whether your question was a joke, made out of ignorance, or simply off-topic.

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that France lost the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps you are also unaware that Napoleon's reign or conquest and self-glorification ended in the ruination of the French nation, just as Hitler's riegn ended in the ruination of Germany.

You seem to be making the case against Hitler because "Hitler's failures, combined with his immorality, make him an unattractive choice in my book."

Napoleon was a self-gratifying, mass murdering, abject failure as a leader, who led his country to utter distruction as a power.

The fact that other leaders in the game have been as bad as Hitler, or at least are guilty of many of the things that Hitler was guilty of, is central to this debate.

In any case, the only joke here (and a sad one, more than a funny one) is that you are silently making the case for one abject, immoral failure, while attempting to make the case that the other is "unattractive" for the game.

 

[jar2574]

The fact that other leaders in the game have been as bad as Hitler, or at least are guilty of many of the things that Hitler was guilty of, is central to this debate.

Other leaders did not lead their people to the level of degredation that Hitler brought Germany, both morally and economically. The moral and economic destruction of WWII was more catastrophic than any other war in human history.

If you want to compare him with other leaders, he was the biggest disaster as a leader that the world has ever seen. His negative impact on humanity was the largest in history.

In any case, the only joke here (and a sad one, more than a funny one) is that you are silently making the case for one abject, immoral failure, while attempting to make the case that the other is "unattractive" for the game.

The only joke is that you base an argument on an avatar. I picked it out after a glance at the leaderheads because it looked cooler than Monty's headress and some of the garb the other leaders wore. I haven't thought about it for a second since then.

I don't particularly care for Napolean. Look through all my threads. I don't talk about him anymore than other leaders. I never said Napolean MUST be in the game. I never endorsed Napolean's actions.

Now to the insane part of your argument: I never "silently" made a case that he belonged in the game.

Are you "silently" saying that Washington MUST be in the game because you happened to pick his leaderhead?
Are you "silently" endorsing slavery because your avatar is a slave-owner?

Ridiculous. Where would this "silent" support end?

Such ridiculous assumptions would be the work of a truly feeble mind. Let's stick to the positions put forth in the thread, and not assume the views of others based on their avatar (or lack thereof.)

 

[jar2574]

@ soulty

I pointed this out in a reply to Atropos, but I'm not sure if you saw it:

"I think what it comes down to is the people of the country involved. Most Germans don't want to be associated with Hitler. Fewer French would mind being associated with Napolean. If a nationality really doesn't want to be represented by a certain individual, I think that probably affects the game designers decisions."

My guess is that if the German people didn't mind Hitler's inclusion he'd probably be in the game.

I never said that including Hitler would be a huge mistake. On the contrary, I said that I wouldn't be offended if they included him. My response to the poll was simply that I thought there were better leaders for Germany, and that I personally would prefer their inclusion to Hitler's.

 

[Depravo]

Other leaders did not lead their people to the level of degredation that Hitler brought Germany, both morally and economically. The moral and economic destruction of WWII was more catastrophic than any other war in human history.

That more died in WWII than as a result of the Napoleonic Wars is hardly surprising. Men on horseback and artillery batteries can only wreak so much havoc. In WWII we have a fully mechanised world war exacerbated by vicious ideological competition, unprecedented state control and mass mobilisation. Who's to say what Napoleon could have done with 5,000 B-29s?

Such ridiculous assumptions would be the work of a truly feeble mind. Let's stick to the positions put forth in the thread, and not assume the views of others based on their avatar (or lack thereof.)

Can this be the same poster who took words out of context to accuse SilentDemon of being a closet Nazi?

 

[supersoulty]

Most of the leaders in the game did not lead their country to destruction.

True, most of them did not. However, as I pointed out, it certainly is worth noting that some of them either led to the immediate destruction of their country, or did something (such as Louis XIV) which displays very poor judgement as a leader, and ultimatly led to the destruction of their countries (at least in the form they had previously existed).

So why is Napolean in the game, but not Hitler? Perhaps the scope of Hitler's failure far outweighs the scope of Napolean's. You yourself pointed out the level of destruction in post-war Germany was so great that many Germans thought they had been the victims of the war.

France was basically in the same boat as Germany after the end of their respective wars. France was subject to foriegn powers. Shouldered with a government the people didn't want. Lacking a significant amount of its young male population. Economically ruined. Forced into a dictated peace.

Also, one could argue that certain allied actions against Germany (such as the bombing of Dresden, which even Churchill admitted was unnessesary) were not Hitler's fault at all, and represented asemetrical action on the part of the allies. BTW, I feel like I have to take a bath after saying that, but it is true.

Perhaps WWII and the Holocaust were such destructive events that Hitler's failures appear to be greater. Casualties in Napolean's war pale in comparison, and Napolean didn't murder millions of his own people for reasons of racial hatred.

And perhaps Hitler offered no positive contributions to humanity, while Napolean did institute positive reforms.

In terms of percentage of the population in the world at the time, the Napoleonic wars were just as devastating in terms of casulties and economies as WWII was. Genghis Kahn mass murdered a lot of people to. As did Mao. Do were care about those people less because they are not Europeans? Our their deeds somehow better because no one toppled them?

In any case, Napoleon, while not genocidal, was not the kindest person in dealing with decent, esspecially in Spain. In terms of contributions. Hitler contributed to modern military tactics. Napoleon might have made possitive reforms, but he didn't make any lasting reforms. In fact, the only thing Napoleon did that came to much in the end was contribute to the unification of Germany (oops).

I think what it comes down to is the people of the country involved. Most Germans don't want to be associated with Hitler. Fewer French would mind being associated with Napolean. If a nationality really doesn't want to be represented by a certain individual, I think that probably affects the game designers decisions.

I dont know too many Russians (and I do know enough) who seriously want to be associated with Stalin.

I wouldn't have a problem with both in or both out. As I said, I think that Hitler can be justified via some arguments.

That's reasonable, but that doesn't seem to be your general tone.

For me personally, I think that better leaders are available to represent Germany. I view Hitler as a failure, both as a leader and as a person. If they replaced Stalin for the same reasons that wouldn't bug me.

Better leaders, yes. Leaders who had as much impact, probably not. It is useful to point out that Hitler was not just a random occurance, but rather a culmination of German superiority ideology that lasted for at least a century. Thus, he is representative of an era. As I pointed out earlier, the two "German" leaders aren't even Germans at all.

 

[Armorydave]

I agree with Jar2574 across the board but have no idea why he bothers. How can you expect to have a serious discussion about history with someone that claims Germany was at its cultural zenith under Hitler. That degree of detachment from reality warrants the "smile and wave" treatment and little more.

 

[jar2574]

Can this be the same poster who took words out of context to accuse SilentDemon of being a closet Nazi?

I didn't take any of Silent Demon's words out of context. I didn't accuse him of being a closet Nazi. In fact I said that I didn't think he was racist, but that he was merely fascinated by Hitler.

Silent Demon was claiming that Nazism resulted in cultural greatness, not just military greatness. It appeared that he was unaware of the racist implications of asserting that Nazism is in anyway a form of cultural advancement.

But maybe you can explain how cultural greatness can arise from a racist ideology? I have my doubts. And I'll stand by my assertions.

 

[naterator]

The Western allies, yes. The major concern of the Soviets was to extract as much in reparations as possible

maybe the soviets felt that they had paid for any gains, land or monetary, in blood over the previous years. as bad as stalin was, he had every right to get every penny he could.

I dont know what qualifies a leader for civ4, but I can tell you that a leader who destroyed his country is not deserving of being a leader

you could argue that napoleon "destroyed" his country, or at least left it a husk of what it could of been, if he'd known when to say when. the same could be said for hitler. it's funny that in the 19th century, the nostradamus fans said that napoleon was the predicted coming of the antichrist. the same people, 100 years later, say hitler was the antichrist. it's because people think that because it happened in or near their lifetime, that it takes on some bigger historical perspective.

P1: Human life has value.

i disagree with your premise.

I don't think Hitler was a 'war criminal'. He was.

the problem with the idea of a "war crime", is that EVERYTHING about a war is criminal! this is why it's such a dramatic step to declare or engage in war. once war is engaged, all basic agreements of civilization and society are OFF. rules of war are only applicable if the other side agreed to the rules beforehand, probably in a combined effort to insure that captured soldiers of theirs could potentially be re-acquired. if somebody doesn't play by these rules, essentially they're giving permission to do as you please with their POW's, no quarter asked, none given. you can't logically combine "total war" with "rules of war"

The moral and economic destruction of WWII was more catastrophic than any other war in human history.

tell that to the carthaginians after rome slaughtered and enslaved them, razed the city, demolished the port, and took everything of value before annexing carthaginian lands to ensure that the civilization would never rise again. they tried to negotiate a peace, in the end they would have certainly taken the terms the germans did, but they were never given the chance. don't get too wrapped up in dollar amounts when you talk about economic devastation, at least they have an economy to return to.

Silent Demon was claiming that Nazism resulted in cultural greatness, not just military greatness. It appeared that he was unaware of the racist implications of asserting that Nazism is in anyway a form of cultural advancement

i don't think he was saying how great nazism was, but pointing out that during this time, and due in no small part to hitler and his rhetoric, the german sense of self, unity, and pride soared.

 

[jar2574]

True, most of them did not. However, as I pointed out, it certainly is worth noting that some of them either led to the immediate destruction of their country, or did something (such as Louis XIV) which displays very poor judgement as a leader, and ultimatly led to the destruction of their countries (at least in the form they had previously existed).

Yeah, the Civ choices are obviously influenced by fame as much as by competence.

But for me, a leader's failures are one good reason for keeping them out. Just because some failures are allowed as leaders doesn't mean we should have the Warren Hardings of the world as civ leaders. There are other factors involved. But failures are one of them.

France was basically in the same boat as Germany after the end of their respective wars. France was subject to foriegn powers. Shouldered with a government the people didn't want. Lacking a significant amount of its young male population. Economically ruined. Forced into a dictated peace.

All good reasons for keeping Napolean out. If the French people were still ticked off that Napolean left them in such a state, I bet he wouldn't be in the game.

Also, one could argue that certain allied actions against Germany (such as the bombing of Dresden, which even Churchill admitted was unnessesary) were not Hitler's fault at all, and represented asemetrical action on the part of the allies. BTW, I feel like I have to take a bath after saying that, but it is true.

You make an excellent point. One basically echoed by former Secretary of Defense McNamera in Fog of War, regarding the bombings in Japan and later Vietnam. And I support the idea that asymetrical responses are immoral.

But Hitler and Japan had been massacering civilians for quite some time, so I do think that they brought on the responses themselves. Hitler and Japan provoked the brutal and asymatrical response by engaging in such shocking acts of brutality. It made it easy for Americans to justify the firebombings to themselves. That doesn't make the firebombings more moral.

In terms of percentage of the population in the world at the time, the Napoleonic wars were just as devastating in terms of casulties and economies as WWII was. Genghis Kahn mass murdered a lot of people to. As did Mao. Do were care about those people less because they are not Europeans? Our their deeds somehow better because no one toppled them?

Well I think that part of the response to Hitler is that mankind was supposed to be "progressing" and getting more "civilized." We fooled ourselves into thinking that we weren't going to run around butchering one another anymore after WWI. So Hitler's mass murders and his racial genocides shock the conscience even more than the murders in ancient history. Whether the atrocities should have surpised us is another matter, but I think the revulsion is rooted in the hope that we are progressing.

In any case, Napoleon, while not genocidal, was not the kindest person in dealing with decent, esspecially in Spain. In terms of contributions. Hitler contributed to modern military tactics. Napoleon might have made possitive reforms, but he didn't make any lasting reforms. In fact, the only thing Napoleon did that came to much in the end was contribute to the unification of Germany (oops).

I believe that genocide is particulary pernicious, because it devalues human beings based on immutable characteristics. The fact that Hitler was genocidial carries particular weight for me.

Napolean's rule did have some important long term benefits. It lead to the Napoleanic code, which was an incredibly important legal development for the rights of individuals, and which still forms the basis for the law in much of Continental Europe. It also solidified the use of the metric system, which is still used today. I wouldn't say that's a huge accomplishment, since I uses inches and feet.

Hitler contributed nothing positive to humanity IMO.

I dont know too many Russians (and I do know enough) who seriously want to be associated with Stalin.

I wouldn't want to be either. And I think that's a good reason to leave him out of the game. It would be OK with me if the developers asked nationalities who they wanted to be their leaders.

That's reasonable, but that doesn't seem to be your general tone.

My general tone was probably influenced by the debate I had with Silent Demon about Nazism's CULTURAL achievemants. I was arguing that Hitler's racism meant that Germany went backwards culturally, while he was saying that Germany advanced culturally during Hitler's rule.

Hitler could be included for other reasons. But not because of "culture."

Better leaders, yes. Leaders who had as much impact, probably not. It is useful to point out that Hitler was not just a random occurance, but rather a culmination of German superiority ideology that lasted for at least a century. Thus, he is representative of an era. As I pointed out earlier, the two "German" leaders aren't even Germans at all.

Hitler's impact is undeniable. He had a larger negative impact than any other leader in history.

I don't think that his rise was inevitable. I don't believe in cultural determinism. At many points during his rise to power he could have been stopped, had his adversaries taken him seriously or read Mein Kampf.

I think that he represented an awful divergence in German thought and culture, and that Germans rightly regard him as a disastrous leader in their history.

Regarding the Prussian / German distinction, I think that Civ makers will always take historical liberties with leaders and thier Civs.

 

[Pawel]

Germany was not at all close to a nuclear weapon. Even if Heisenberg had not declared that a chain reaction was not possible using fast neutrons, there was no enrichment capability. The capture of the Norwegian heavy water facility opened the path of a Pu-weapon, but the Germans did not know how to actually build a reactor. (Enrico Fermi was the first one who solved the problem.) At the end of the war their uranium was shipped to Japan for use in their nuclear program, but instead the submarine ended up in the US.

This is one of the many myths of Nazi achievements. In fact, the German industry was in total chaos. Compared to allied projects, productivity was much lower, fewer new technologies were implemented in projects that were mature for enough for production, and the failure rate for new projects was much higher. As a consequence, the bulk of the German weapons in 1945 were just upgraded versions of what was already in production in 1939. The Bf109 and PzIV are good examples of this. There was nothing 'great' about Hitler at any level.

I have to disagree with this post, simply because until the manhattan project was started the German nuclear program was argueably closer than the U.S. To say there was "nothing great" about someone who, if I have to reiterate changed most of the face of history, is just plainly ignorant.

This post didn't merit a long winded response.

This is indeed a very curious reply.

To begin with, I am a nuclear physicist, so I happen to know quite a lot on the subject. But it is, of course, by definition true that before the US started to develop a nuclear weapon, they were not close to having one. Even then, the US was clearly ahead of Germany in design critical areas of nuclear technology, such as accelerator driven mass separation.

Secondly, I think that your definition that anyone who has an impact on history is 'great' has some serious flaws. To equate being well known with great is highly questionable. Greatness is a positive attribute that implies some kind of accomplishment. Hitler and his cronies never succeeded at enything except destruction - and they did not even managed to top Stalin in that respect. If this is great to you, I guess your standards are pretty low.

 

[zeeter]

How many more Hitler threads can we build on this forum?

 

[Atropos]

Most of the leaders in the game did not lead their country to destruction.

So why is Napolean in the game, but not Hitler? Perhaps the scope of Hitler's failure far outweighs the scope of Napolean's. You yourself pointed out the level of destruction in post-war Germany was so great that many Germans thought they had been the victims of the war.

The level of destruction in postwar Germany was greater, no question. That was partly because there was more to destroy. France had no industrial plant worth mentioning. Invasions rarely ruin agrarian economies.

But the point, I think, still stands that failure, even titanic failure, should not disqualify a leader for participating. I've heard that Hannibal will be in the expansion.

Perhaps WWII and the Holocaust were such destructive events that Hitler's failures appear to be greater. Casualties in Napolean's war pale in comparison, and Napolean didn't murder millions of his own people for reasons of racial hatred.

Napoleon's evil is not comparable to Hitler's. Not even close. I agree with you thoroughly there.

And perhaps Hitler offered no positive contributions to humanity, while Napolean did institute positive reforms.

No "perhaps" needed. I can think of nothing worthwhile that Hitler promoted, except, perhaps, as an untentional byproduct. And the Code Napoleon, or, to give it its proper title, the Civil Code, was a major contribution to legal systematisation.

The example of Napoleon is relevant simply as an example of a failure who is nonetheless normally considered "great," albeit not good.

I think what it comes down to is the people of the country involved. Most Germans don't want to be associated with Hitler. Fewer French would mind being associated with Napolean. If a nationality really doesn't want to be represented by a certain individual, I think that probably affects the game designers decisions.

If you were a Mongolian, would you really want to be represented by Genghis Khan?

You're quite right, though, that French school textbooks treat Napoleon in a very ambiguous manner, as the saboteur of the revolution who nonetheless brought French military strength to its peak.

By the way, I forgot to thank you for your extensive earlier response regarding Stalin's ideology.

Most of my views on Stalin as a thinker came from a book called From Dawn to Decadence, which is an account of Western thought and culture. The author was extremely critical of Stalin, viewing him as nothing more than a thug.

It appears that there are contradicting authorities on the subject, and as with many things, Stalin's genius (or lack thereof) is probably endlessly debatable.

Hey...don't tell me that I came across as saying that Stalin was a genius? He wasn't. I would view "thug" as an excellent description. But no one denies that he was intelligent, in a fashion. Otherwise he would not have been able to beat highly intelligent people like Bukharin and Trotsky in the struggle for power.

If you are interested in the subject, Conquest's biography of Stalin provides an excellent view of Stalin as bureaucrat. Tucker's biography is still probably the best psychological study. For an account which makes extensive use of sources released after 1991 (but has been criticised for overly humanising Stalin), see Robert Service.

 

[Atropos]

The only joke is that you base an argument on an avatar. I picked it out after a glance at the leaderheads because it looked cooler than Monty's headress and some of the garb the other leaders wore. I haven't thought about it for a second since then.

Jar, I'm pretty sure that Soulty was referring to Stalin, not Napoleon. He was suggesting that, by saying that Stalin has a case for being in the game but Hitler does not, you were underestimating Stalin's evil.

 

[Atropos]

maybe the soviets felt that they had paid for any gains, land or monetary, in blood over the previous years. as bad as stalin was, he had every right to get every penny he could.

The Soviet people, maybe. Stalin, no. And the Soviet people were not noticeably benefited by what Stalin took.

And neither Stalin nor the Soviet people had a right to rape so many innocent German women that there was a measurable impact on the birthrate the next year.

i disagree with your premise.

If you disagree that human life has value, then I suggest that you do not discuss morality on an internet chatboard. Your views are clearly too advanced for us.

the problem with the idea of a "war crime", is that EVERYTHING about a war is criminal! this is why it's such a dramatic step to declare or engage in war. once war is engaged, all basic agreements of civilization and society are OFF. rules of war are only applicable if the other side agreed to the rules beforehand, probably in a combined effort to insure that captured soldiers of theirs could potentially be re-acquired. if somebody doesn't play by these rules, essentially they're giving permission to do as you please with their POW's, no quarter asked, none given. you can't logically combine "total war" with "rules of war"

Who says that total war is a good thing?

But, in any event, three points need to be made.

1. The primary charge against Hitler is not that he was a war criminal. There were four categories of charges at the Nuremburg Trials, of which war crimes formed only one.

2. If the other side in the conflict loses its sense of humanity, that does not mean both should.

3. No human act can abrogate "the basic agreements of civilization." If people are shooting at you, or if you have good reason to believe that they will, or if they engage in some act comparable to shooting at you - then you have a right to shoot at them. You do not have a right to go beyond whatever the norms of your society have declared to be the limits of civilised wartime conduct.

i don't think he was saying how great nazism was, but pointing out that during this time, and due in no small part to hitler and his rhetoric, the german sense of self, unity, and pride soared.

It's possible to argue that German nationalism increased under Hitler. It's doubtful whether this was a good thing. For "pride" substitute "hubris."

 

[jar2574]

Jar, I'm pretty sure that Soulty was referring to Stalin, not Napoleon. He was suggesting that, by saying that Stalin has a case for being in the game but Hitler does not, you were underestimating Stalin's evil.

Oh, I thought he was referring to the picture of Napolean underneath my screen name. And I thought that the subsequent conversation between him and me confirmed that, but maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks for the book ideas. I'm about to tackle The Conservative Mind, by Kirk. But I need to put a Stalin biography on my 'to do' list.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Sorry this reply is late, relative to the post, but I just joined the forums! There are a number of inaccuracies, misconceptions and urban myths about WW2 era Germany and Hitler's 'genius' in the following post that I felt it necessary to respond to.

SilentDemon wrote:

The leading innovators of rocket technology for their time (V2s etc.) (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)


The Germans were leading innovators of rocket technology (along with the Soviets). But Hitler (and Goering) were unimpressed and did not believe in the potential of rocket power. Hitler actually ordered development on rocket technology stopped from 1939 - 42. And, FYI, he did the same thing with jet engine technology (as did Stalin, that idiot). The Luftwaffe could have had an operational jet interceptor by 1942 instead of 1944, if Hitler had been more realistic about Germany's chances to win the war.
source: Michels, Juergen and Przybilski, Olaf, Peenemuende und seine Erben in Ost und West, Bernard & Graefe, Bonn, 1997.

Had the best tanks at the onset of WW2 (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Yeah, wow, did you get this one wrong. What Germany had was armored/combined arms doctrine, not good tanks. German doctrine (to grossly oversimplify) grouped armored/mobile units into their own divisions, instead of dispersing them among infantry divisions as the French did.

In 1939, Germany had mostly light tanks that were outclassed in armor and firepower by both French and Russian (even Czech!) tanks. Germany did not have any heavy tanks at the outbreak of the war. The Germans did have early Panzer III and Panzer IV designs, though not in any great numbers. The Panzer IV was one of the most durable tank designs, being in production through to the end of the war.

The Russians had the T-34 prototype in 1939, a tank that the PzIIIs had difficulties with 2 years later. The T-34 was one of the best tanks of the entire war. They also had the KV-1, a monster heavy tank. The French had the Somua 34 and the Char B1-bis heavy tank--excellent tanks for their time, and the Czechs the 35t and 38t, all of which the Germans put to good use. The Czech tanks were in fact some of the best the Germans had in 1939. All these tanks (except the Czech) had 75 or 76mm) guns, far larger than anything the Germans had put on a tank up to that time.

What German tanks had over all their rivals, in technical innovation, was superior optics. What they lacked, especially compared to the Russians, was reliability and simplicity. German tanks were complex which meant that they were more expensive and time-consuming to produce, and prone to breaking down in the field. The T-34 was the precise opposite.

Were the first to use radio communications in their tanks / armored vehicles (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)
You're right here (partially), because now you're talking about doctrine. But you keep mentioning "Hitler's" policies--"Part of German War machine, a product of Hitler's policies." Exactly what policies are you referring to? You seem to credit everything about Germany's military to Hitler and that is simply specious logic.

Germany had a long and illustrious military tradition dating back hundreds of years to Fredrick the Great. They had an amazing officer corps and huge pool of superb NCOs. They also faced a unique military situation in Europe, faced with a two-front war, which spurred innovative thinking. If Hitler did anything it was to promote the policies and doctrines of younger, innovative officers such as Guderian (who really developed the Blitzkrieg) and von Manstein. But he also made a lot of poor personnel choices later on.

Contrast this with, say, France and England. It was DeGaulle who in fact pioneered the concept of combined arms/armored warfare, along with Liddell-Hart in Britain. However, they did not get the support in their respective military establishments that Hitler gave Guderian.

Had the most well trained and organized military beginning WW2 (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Again, you can't give Hitler all the credit for this. But Germany did definitely have the best-trained and organized military at the start of the war.

Created the luger, which almost became the standard side arm instead of the colt 45 for the U.S. military.

I don't think this was one of Germany's greatest military innovations. Personally, I'd rather have a Colt (more stopping power). The Russians had better SMGs (PPsh), as did the Finns (Suomi). The US came up with the M1 Garand, a nice semi-auto rifle that gave infantry more firepower than the bolt-action rifles used by the Germans and Soviets. I would say that of all the German small-arms achievements, the Panzerfaust (infantry anti-tank rocket similar to a bazooka) and the forerunner of the modern assault rifle (the MP44) that Kalishnikov based his AK-47 design on.

Went from one of the least to one of the most industrialized countries (One of many reasons this occured was in part because of Hitlers concentration camps used as a form of cheap labor)

Where did you get this gem in your crown of misinformation? Germany was one of the world's most industrialized nations from the end of 19th century on. Concentration camps had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. In fact, by imprisoning Jews Hitler actually depleted his workforce of highly trained talent.

Defeated France/Defeated Poland (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Waged campaigns in North Africa, controlling vast amounts of territory. Waged war against Russia, Britain and was fighting in North Africa and winning at a point (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Whatever does this prove? Capturing territory and holding it are two different things. Heck, the Japanese conquered a much bigger portion of the globe than the Germans, but held onto it for even less time. "Winning at a point"? You either win or you lose, and Germany lost. The high water mark of German expansion was probably November 1942, but even then the writing was on the wall. The US was in the war, Japan had suffered an insurmountable defeat at Midway, the Russians had stalled the German advance at Stalingrad, the allies were about to send the Germans in North Africa running all the way back to Tunis, etc. etc.

Had support from numerous U.S. businessmen and lobbyists (Henry Ford...) (Product of Hitlers anti-semitism and policy regarding the jewish populace)
Not to mention Prescott Bush, Lindberg, and Joseph Kennedy, Sr.




Adolf Hitler was elected democraticly, don't forget. (the man himself)
But he was not elected Chancellor of Germany. He was the head of the party with the largest block of votes, (slightly less than 38%), not a majority by any means. Hindenburg, the President of Weimar, reluctantly and foolishly appointed Hitler Chancellor, thinking that Nazi support was on the wane, and Hitler based staged a coup.

Germany went from relatively no military to the best in the world See my comments above. Germany had an illustrious military tradition; they just did not have a large armed force.

Had extreme instances of propoganda and innovation, such as Zepplins and some of the first ever television broadcasts. (Zepplins donned the Nazi flag, Hitlers party and some of the first ever television broadcasts were of him having speeches)

Gotta agree here. Hitler and the Nazi Party were definitely innovators in the use of propaganda, radio, TV, and misinformation.

Germans possessed some of the best machine gun technology at this time
True.

Tiger tanks are widely considered some of the best tanks ever made for their time
This is an issue of some debate. Many would argue for the Panther, the T-34, even the Sherman (for its adaptability for modification).

The German airforce was one of the most potent in the world at this time (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

The nazis had the largest air transport plane (originally designed to be a glider) created during the war, which could transport infantry as well as tanks. (This plane was deliberately commissioned by Hitler to be created, he wanted a larger form of a "glider" which could be used as a troop transport)

In the process of making this glider transport the germans devised the first functional plane that was 2 planes sharing the same engines. (used to pull the glider that was invented)

Researched unusual weaponry systems such as: Sound amplification weaponry, vortex guns, radioactive space shuttle systems, submersive tanks and more. (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy
Germans also had some of the best and most impressive cannon technologies and applications. (Including I believe the biggest cannon ever built to date.)

The Germans had the world's largest airforce in 1939. Pretty amazing. They also had better doctrines. Unfortunately, Hitler and Goering didn't know how to use it effectively against Britain.

I did not know that about the German glider. What was it called?

The Gustav is the gun you're referring to. A rail gun originally conceived to attack the Maginot Line, it was HUGE and took long to move and set up. It had incredibly limited usefulness, and I think it fired only on Sevastopol.

As for the rest - the unusual weaponry etc. - I think a good argument can be made that these were to the detriment of Germany's military efforts. The Germans had too many competing R&D efforts. Instead of trying to design a single, effective advanced propulsion fighter, they were trying to design several - jet, rocket, VTOL - simultaneously. This diluted precious engineering and technical resources. And many of these wonderweapons were started late in the war, when Hitler became desperate.

A lot of people don't understand this, but the Nazi regime was inherently incredibly INefficient. The common image is one of ruthless efficiency but that simply isn't true. The Nazi party was a gang, with Hitler as its undisputed head. Everyone else - Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Hess, von Ribbentrop, some senior generals and admirals - were jockeying for position and currying favor. There was tremendous infighting among these parties and, as a result, R&D projects (not to mention strategy) stopped and started with the whims of the day.

On other thing: despite the dramatic change in prosperity after the Nazi's took over (which you mention) they failed to manage the economy well during the war. They only went to total war production in 1942!!! well after the invasion of Russia. Little late, donchathink?

 

[Atropos]

Sorry this reply is late, relative to the post, but I just joined the forums!

Welcome, Yggrasill!

Had the best tanks at the onset of WW2 (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Yeah, wow, did you get this one wrong.

The strength of the German armoured divisions did not lie in their armour or weaponry. They were superior in the category of highly manoeverable light tanks. The French tanks, for example, may have been better armoured and armed, but they lacked turrets, making them very hard to use in practise.

Germans possessed some of the best machine gun technology at this time
True.

Invented earlier, and their use pioneered by Ludendorff in WWI.

A lot of people don't understand this, but the Nazi regime was inherently incredibly INefficient. The common image is one of ruthless efficiency but that simply isn't true.

True. Hitler deliberately encouraged power-jockeying to solidify his own position as the arbiter.

On other thing: despite the dramatic change in prosperity after the Nazi's took over (which you mention) they failed to manage the economy well during the war. They only went to total war production in 1942!!! well after the invasion of Russia. Little late, donchathink?

They didn't have to earlier. The Russian campaign was the first Hitler undertook to take years instead of weeks.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Sorry this reply is late, relative to the post, but I just joined the forums! There are a number of inaccuracies, misconceptions and urban myths about WW2 era Germany and Hitler's 'genius' in the following post that I felt it necessary to respond to.

SilentDemon wrote:

The leading innovators of rocket technology for their time (V2s etc.) (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)


The Germans were leading innovators of rocket technology (along with the Soviets). But Hitler (and Goering) were unimpressed and did not believe in the potential of rocket power. Hitler actually ordered development on rocket technology stopped from 1939 - 42. And, FYI, he did the same thing with jet engine technology (as did Stalin, that idiot). The Luftwaffe could have had an operational jet interceptor by 1942 instead of 1944, if Hitler had been more realistic about Germany's chances to win the war.
source: Michels, Juergen and Przybilski, Olaf, Peenemuende und seine Erben in Ost und West, Bernard & Graefe, Bonn, 1997.

Had the best tanks at the onset of WW2 (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Yeah, wow, did you get this one wrong. What Germany had was armored/combined arms doctrine, not good tanks. German doctrine (to grossly oversimplify) grouped armored/mobile units into their own divisions, instead of dispersing them among infantry divisions as the French did.

In 1939, Germany had mostly light tanks that were outclassed in armor and firepower by both French and Russian (even Czech!) tanks. Germany did not have any heavy tanks at the outbreak of the war. The Germans did have early Panzer III and Panzer IV designs, though not in any great numbers. The Panzer IV was one of the most durable tank designs, being in production through to the end of the war.

The Russians had the T-34 prototype in 1939, a tank that the PzIIIs had difficulties with 2 years later. The T-34 was one of the best tanks of the entire war. They also had the KV-1, a monster heavy tank. The French had the Somua 34 and the Char B1-bis heavy tank--excellent tanks for their time, and the Czechs the 35t and 38t, all of which the Germans put to good use. The Czech tanks were in fact some of the best the Germans had in 1939. All these tanks (except the Czech) had 75 or 76mm) guns, far larger than anything the Germans had put on a tank up to that time.

What German tanks had over all their rivals, in technical innovation, was superior optics. What they lacked, especially compared to the Russians, was reliability and simplicity. German tanks were complex which meant that they were more expensive and time-consuming to produce, and prone to breaking down in the field. The T-34 was the precise opposite.

Were the first to use radio communications in their tanks / armored vehicles (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)
You're right here (partially), because now you're talking about doctrine. But you keep mentioning "Hitler's" policies--"Part of German War machine, a product of Hitler's policies." Exactly what policies are you referring to? You seem to credit everything about Germany's military to Hitler and that is simply specious logic.

Germany had a long and illustrious military tradition dating back hundreds of years to Fredrick the Great. They had an amazing officer corps and huge pool of superb NCOs. They also faced a unique military situation in Europe, faced with a two-front war, which spurred innovative thinking. If Hitler did anything it was to promote the policies and doctrines of younger, innovative officers such as Guderian (who really developed the Blitzkrieg) and von Manstein. But he also made a lot of poor personnel choices later on.

Contrast this with, say, France and England. It was DeGaulle who in fact pioneered the concept of combined arms/armored warfare, along with Liddell-Hart in Britain. However, they did not get the support in their respective military establishments that Hitler gave Guderian.

Had the most well trained and organized military beginning WW2 (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Again, you can't give Hitler all the credit for this. But Germany did definitely have the best-trained and organized military at the start of the war.

Created the luger, which almost became the standard side arm instead of the colt 45 for the U.S. military.

I don't think this was one of Germany's greatest military innovations. Personally, I'd rather have a Colt (more stopping power). The Russians had better SMGs (PPsh), as did the Finns (Suomi). The US came up with the M1 Garand, a nice semi-auto rifle that gave infantry more firepower than the bolt-action rifles used by the Germans and Soviets. I would say that of all the German small-arms achievements, the Panzerfaust (infantry anti-tank rocket similar to a bazooka) and the forerunner of the modern assault rifle (the MP44) that Kalishnikov based his AK-47 design on.

Went from one of the least to one of the most industrialized countries (One of many reasons this occured was in part because of Hitlers concentration camps used as a form of cheap labor)

Where did you get this gem in your crown of misinformation? Germany was one of the world's most industrialized nations from the end of 19th century on. Concentration camps had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. In fact, by imprisoning Jews Hitler actually depleted his workforce of highly trained talent.

Defeated France/Defeated Poland (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Waged campaigns in North Africa, controlling vast amounts of territory. Waged war against Russia, Britain and was fighting in North Africa and winning at a point (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

Whatever does this prove? Capturing territory and holding it are two different things. Heck, the Japanese conquered a much bigger portion of the globe than the Germans, but held onto it for even less time. "Winning at a point"? You either win or you lose, and Germany lost. The high water mark of German expansion was probably November 1942, but even then the writing was on the wall. The US was in the war, Japan had suffered an insurmountable defeat at Midway, the Russians had stalled the German advance at Stalingrad, the allies were about to send the Germans in North Africa running all the way back to Tunis, etc. etc.

Had support from numerous U.S. businessmen and lobbyists (Henry Ford...) (Product of Hitlers anti-semitism and policy regarding the jewish populace)
Not to mention Prescott Bush, Lindberg, and Joseph Kennedy, Sr.




Adolf Hitler was elected democraticly, don't forget. (the man himself)
But he was not elected Chancellor of Germany. He was the head of the party with the largest block of votes, (slightly less than 38%), not a majority by any means. Hindenburg, the President of Weimar, reluctantly and foolishly appointed Hitler Chancellor, thinking that Nazi support was on the wane, and Hitler based staged a coup.

Germany went from relatively no military to the best in the world See my comments above. Germany had an illustrious military tradition; they just did not have a large armed force.

Had extreme instances of propoganda and innovation, such as Zepplins and some of the first ever television broadcasts. (Zepplins donned the Nazi flag, Hitlers party and some of the first ever television broadcasts were of him having speeches)

Gotta agree here. Hitler and the Nazi Party were definitely innovators in the use of propaganda, radio, TV, and misinformation.

Germans possessed some of the best machine gun technology at this time
True.

Tiger tanks are widely considered some of the best tanks ever made for their time
This is an issue of some debate. Many would argue for the Panther, the T-34, even the Sherman (for its adaptability for modification).

The German airforce was one of the most potent in the world at this time (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy)

The nazis had the largest air transport plane (originally designed to be a glider) created during the war, which could transport infantry as well as tanks. (This plane was deliberately commissioned by Hitler to be created, he wanted a larger form of a "glider" which could be used as a troop transport)

In the process of making this glider transport the germans devised the first functional plane that was 2 planes sharing the same engines. (used to pull the glider that was invented)

Researched unusual weaponry systems such as: Sound amplification weaponry, vortex guns, radioactive space shuttle systems, submersive tanks and more. (Part of the German War machine, a product of Hitlers policy
Germans also had some of the best and most impressive cannon technologies and applications. (Including I believe the biggest cannon ever built to date.)

The Germans had the world's largest airforce in 1939. Pretty amazing. They also had better doctrines. Unfortunately, Hitler and Goering didn't know how to use it effectively against Britain.

I did not know that about the German glider. What was it called?

The Gustav is the gun you're referring to. A rail gun originally conceived to attack the Maginot Line, it was HUGE and took long to move and set up. It had incredibly limited usefulness, and I think it fired only on Sevastopol.

As for the rest - the unusual weaponry etc. - I think a good argument can be made that these were to the detriment of Germany's military efforts. The Germans had too many competing R&D efforts. Instead of trying to design a single, effective advanced propulsion fighter, they were trying to design several - jet, rocket, VTOL - simultaneously. This diluted precious engineering and technical resources. And many of these wonderweapons were started late in the war, when Hitler became desperate.

A lot of people don't understand this, but the Nazi regime was inherently incredibly INefficient. The common image is one of ruthless efficiency but that simply isn't true. The Nazi party was a gang, with Hitler as its undisputed head. Everyone else - Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, Hess, von Ribbentrop, some senior generals and admirals - were jockeying for position and currying favor. There was tremendous infighting among these parties and, as a result, R&D projects (not to mention strategy) stopped and started with the whims of the day.

On other thing: despite the dramatic change in prosperity after the Nazi's took over (which you mention) they failed to manage the economy well during the war. They only went to total war production in 1942!!! well after the invasion of Russia. Little late, donchathink?


Which part exactly did Hitler have very little to do with..?[/QUOTE]

 

[naterator]

If you were a Mongolian, would you really want to be represented by Genghis Khan?

actually genghis khan is celebrated as a hero in mongolia to this day. the most popular brand of vodka in mongolia is genghis khan brand!

The Soviet people, maybe. Stalin, no. And the Soviet people were not noticeably benefited by what Stalin took.

true that the soviet people did all the work and saw no benefit, but that's how it goes sometimes when a brutal dictator is in charge. nonetheless, the soviets lost far more lives than any other notion involved, and arguably made more contributions to the winning effort. as their representative in the peace talks, stalin had EVERY RIGHT to demand tribute. i'm not defending the essential annexing of eastern europe, but east germany, by all means.

If you disagree that human life has value, then I suggest that you do not discuss morality on an internet chatboard.

just because sarcasm doesn't translate well into type doesn't mean i'll stop using it!

Who says that total war is a good thing?

But, in any event, three points need to be made.

1. The primary charge against Hitler is not that he was a war criminal. There were four categories of charges at the Nuremburg Trials, of which war crimes formed only one.

2. If the other side in the conflict loses its sense of humanity, that does not mean both should.

3. No human act can abrogate "the basic agreements of civilization." If people are shooting at you, or if you have good reason to believe that they will, or if they engage in some act comparable to shooting at you - then you have a right to shoot at them. You do not have a right to go beyond whatever the norms of your society have declared to be the limits of civilised wartime conduct.

i never said that total war or nazi pride were good things, but it was the state of things at the time.
1. although the primary charge against hitler may not have been that he was a war criminal, it is certainly a charge that has been tossed around the pages of this thread a few times.
2. forget 2.
3. if people are shooting at you, you certainly do have the right to shoot back, but they didn't have the right to shoot in the first place, they've absolutly broken the #1 rule of civilized society, which is if we are to live together, as a society, then we can't kill each other. it's counterproductive to living, y'know. i like the phrase "civilized wartime combat" there's nothing civilized about war. it's the breakdown of civilization. i should rephrase that, there's certainly civilized aspects when you're dealing with your own side, but when dealing with the enemy, any rules you allow others to impose upon you are a liability.

 

[Atropos]

actually genghis khan is celebrated as a hero in mongolia to this day. the most popular brand of vodka in mongolia is genghis khan brand!

Thanks. I didn't know that.

But I still wouldn't view a people's own assessment of its leaders to be the last word in fairness. It tends to be biased.

true that the soviet people did all the work and saw no benefit, but that's how it goes sometimes when a brutal dictator is in charge. nonetheless, the soviets lost far more lives than any other notion involved, and arguably made more contributions to the winning effort. as their representative in the peace talks, stalin had EVERY RIGHT to demand tribute. i'm not defending the essential annexing of eastern europe, but east germany, by all means.

In what way did Stalin "represent" the Soviet people? That's my point.

Perhaps the Soviet people deserved compensation from Germany for their suffering. But they didn't get it. Stalin got a power boost instead.

But, also, I would argue that the Soviet people forfeited their right to compensation by their conduct (mass rape) in Eastern Germany.

just because sarcasm doesn't translate well into type doesn't mean i'll stop using it!

Now I'm confused. I interpreted your original post to mean that you do not value human life. What was your meaning?

i never said that total war or nazi pride were good things, but it was the state of things at the time.
1. although the primary charge against hitler may not have been that he was a war criminal, it is certainly a charge that has been tossed around the pages of this thread a few times.
2. forget 2.
3. if people are shooting at you, you certainly do have the right to shoot back, but they didn't have the right to shoot in the first place, they've absolutly broken the #1 rule of civilized society, which is if we are to live together, as a society, then we can't kill each other. it's counterproductive to living, y'know. i like the phrase "civilized wartime combat" there's nothing civilized about war. it's the breakdown of civilization. i should rephrase that, there's certainly civilized aspects when you're dealing with your own side, but when dealing with the enemy, any rules you allow others to impose upon you are a liability.

2 is precisely my point. If others act as barbarians, it does not follow that you can act as a barbarian. If others steal from you, it does not give you the right to steal from them.

War can lead to the breakdown of civilization. But all wars eventually end. If you want to resurrect something meaningful from that civilization, then you had better keep as much of it as you can going.