Was Hitler Master Of The Third Reich Or A Weak Dictator?

[wellmeaning]

just trying to sum up my whole feelings.

I agree (with what msot of you seem to be arguing) that Hitler, whilst techincally controlling immense power, could never be arsed to use it, and as a result in showed in the shambles that was the Nazi party organisation and conflict.

The Jewish question does seem to be the best example of this. In the early 30s one section of the immigration bureau seemed to be intent on making it as difficult as possible for the Jews to leave by stripping assets etc, another branch was pratically pushing them out of the door. Hitler seemed to want to sit back, relax and let everyone else decide things for him, hence Kershaws argument that everyone was workng towards the will of the furhrer. It did create a lot of chaos though, has anyone read that minutes from a meeting involving Heydrich, Goering etc on hwo they should decide train carriages and where Jews should sit in them, it seems to go on for hour... its almost funny, like a bad episode of friends

Anyway, it did work out for the best for him, it distanced himself from any policy making in case it had adverse effects. He backed off from taking a direct role in around 1935 (??) with the whole euthanisia for disabled children thing blowing up in his face

So Id say Hitler was a weak AND strong dictator, if that makes sense.. weak in that he had little say, and probably could not afford to get himself involved in too much on account of his terminal stupidity, strong because... hey it was all done for him

 

[MrPresident]

it distanced himself from any policy making

I didn't think Hitler was ever that interested in domestic policy. What he was interested in was foreign policy.

 

[marlowesfaustus]

I would vote Hitler was a very weak dictator, at least if one considers it a matter of freedom. He was inreplacable, of course, as nobody else likely would be masoschistically degenerated enough to take his role.

And who was responsible for the holocaust? The correct answer is: NOBODY.

Reason: There is no signed order left to the afterworld that Hitler commanded the Holocaust, but an usual argument goes that it cannot have happened without Hitler knew about it, and he therefore can be said to be responsible for it as highest chicken in Third Reich. Right from that aspect.

On the other hand, Hitler served his role skillfully enough for long. The political desicions he took during the Nazi political uprise, were amazingly sharpwitted. Yet Hitler was not better then anybody else to guess what his opponenent would do, but he was rather good at guessing what they would not do (what becomes clearly evident in 1938). But, although Hitler is ranked as a more ignorant strategist then he actually was, a while into WWII his judgements becomes more and more erratic, in the extension his personal behaviour and habits change and in the last months he almost seems to have lived in an imaginatory world. As the Holocaust started in major scale from the middle year of the war, Hitler can hardly be said to have been responsible for it as he cannot practically have had any actual control of which drugs he was given, given as (a sort of punishment?) to draw greater efforts from him. Actually I think one should be hold responsible for what one does under the influence of drugs, alcohol and heavier as well, but a praemisse for that is that one actually inhales the drugs oneself and that one at least has a fair knowledge of what it is. Hitlers 'doctors' cannot be held responsible either, because they seemingly had no idea at all how his genes and hormones would react on what.

Thank you, and may somebody else be with you.

 

[stalin006]

...............no offence but i think u are WRONG, he was responsible, at least w/ the fact taht he increased the level of antisemistism, and tehre is teh nuremberg laws which he signed to take the rights of the jewish people, you maight be right he was in drugs, but tah was at teh end of the war, not in 141 or 1942.

 

[MrPresident]

And who was responsible for the holocaust? The correct answer is: NOBODY.

No the correct answer is the Nazis.

The political desicions he took during the Nazi political uprise, were amazingly sharpwitted.

What about in 1923 when he tried taking the state by force? the army was never going to support him and so his attempted was always doomed to failure.

 

[nixon]

One must say that it is a grave mistake just to say that nobody was responsible for the barbaric acts of the Holocaust. Hitler managed to surround himself with very able and indeed loyal coworkers who plotted the Holocaust.

The Nazis managed to destroy most of their documents and notes which could have documented a possible authorization of the annihilation of the Jews, by Adolf Hitler.
It's a very naive position to take to believe that his men were authorizing these acts based solely on their decision and beliefs, Hitler wouldn't let them and he made that clear all the time when he was in power.

Hitler was certainly not a weak dictator, he was a man of extraordinary ambition. These ambitions drove him to power in a period of world history when the world found itself ravaged by depression and the miseries of war.
People tend to forget the man's unprecedented quest for power which still stands as one of the most remarkable political efforts in world history. Not saying that he was a great man, because he wasn't.

He had to many flaws and he found himself unable to cope with the intrigues of directing war, perfectly true when it comes to the war on the Eastern front, Hitler went bananas when he realized that he had made the wrong move and calculations, with the only result; impeding his own effort to lead and robbing the lives of even more of the German youth on the front lines.
This was one of his major flaws, which resulted in his defeat.

But if one has ever heard the speeches of Adolf Hitler, (one hears them occasionally ) one will quickly realize that this man was a man of great charismatic abilities. He was able to paralyse a crowd with his agitatorial talents which eventually won a place in the hearts of many Germans.

 

[insanewarrior]

I did not follow this thread from the start, but this is my oppinion...

Hitler a very strong minded individual, and perhaps that is his greatest weakness. Also, like many dictators we was also a paranoid, therefore weak psichologically.

Thus, Hitler, the arrogant, paranoid, overconfident leader, could never have won the war.

Yet, the term weak needs more deffining...

 

[insurgent]

He was crazy, paranoid, stupid, slow, schizofrenic, etc., but he had his fine moments. He had an amazing intuition, ability to adapt, understand, and foremost to control. He cannot be dismissed as weak, and yet he was no strong man. He was neither the reason the Germans lost, nor was he capable of winning the war. Hitler was a very intrigueing personality.

Check this out, BTW. It's quite funny... http://www.activehistory.co.uk/head2head/hitler/

 

[stalin006]

well i think the title of this thread is kind of wrong, of course hitler was master of ther 3r reich, duh!!!! and he wasnt a weak dictator! he ws a stron one, mussulini and franco were weak, stalin and hitler were strong

 

[insurgent]

Franco was never weak. He succeeded in many ways and can be said to be responsible for the current prosperity of Spain. Just because he didn't leave his country in chaos and ruins, doesn't mean he was weak.

 

[MrPresident]

well i think the title of this thread is kind of wrong, of course hitler was master of ther 3r reich, duh!!!!

The point of the thread is to debate that very point. The traditional view of Hitler (created in the 1950s) was of an all-powerful, evil dictator of an extremely efficient Nazi nation. However recent historians have begun to question this. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Hitler was very worried about his control over the German people, for example the guns vs butter debate. That doesn't sound like someone who was the master of the 3rd Reich.

He was neither the reason the Germans lost

I have to disagree. I think Hitler was one of the biggest reasons for why Germany lost the war. There are many instances throughout the war where Hitler's decisions had disasterous consequences for Germany. From Stalingrad to the Normandy landings.

 

[insurgent]

They couldn't have won with any leader. The incidents you mention made a difference, but in the end, the outcome was predetermined, and Hitler achieved extraordinarily much, besides his obvious insanity etc.

 

[RNolan]

I voted master.

I actually feel that Hitler was at his strongest point in terms of pure power AFTER the Bomb Plot. His terrible and brutal purge destroyed all the old aristocratic/Conservative opposition in the army which had always been the only real possible enemy. After the bomb the army was terrified into obedience or submission but was never again a challenger to Hitler.

Yours

Ross

 

[stalin006]

Originally posted by insurgent
They couldn't have won with any leader

well i think they could had.......the had acctually won by frence, russia w/ a better leader could had worked adn then a possible operation sea-lion could had happened after britans weak suply by sea networks destroyed by U-boats

 

[RNolan]

Originally posted by MrPresident

The point of the thread is to debate that very point. The traditional view of Hitler (created in the 1950s) was of an all-powerful, evil dictator of an extremely efficient Nazi nation. However recent historians have begun to question this. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Hitler was very worried about his control over the German people, for example the guns vs butter debate. That doesn't sound like someone who was the master of the 3rd Reich.

Hmm not sure that entirely follows. It could simply have been derived from his paranioa - attributing greater strength and ability to his foes than they actually possessed. After all, his domestic enemies did in the end fail as much due to their own arrogance and indescisiveness as to Hitlers methods. At the time however they doubtless appeared (and certainly believed themselves) to be more formidable than was the case.

Yours

Ross

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by stalin006
well i think they could had.......the had acctually won by frence, russia w/ a better leader could had worked adn then a possible operation sea-lion could had happened after britans weak suply by sea networks destroyed by U-boats

Had it not been for Hitler, they wouldn't even have gotten to the point they were before Barbarossa.