Adolf Hitler: Historical Evaluation and Discussion

Now before you begin to read this I am absolutely not an Adolf Hitler 'fan'. I believe completely and absolutely that what Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did to this world is an unspeakable evil and a grim testament to what horrors human beings are capable of. Furthermore Hitler and the Nazis deserve the labelling of embodied evil which they have received and should serve as an example of human degeneration. Also before you read this I am well versed in the history of the Nazis and the Second World War, so what I say is a result of a passionate study and understanding of the subject matter.

(also I am typing this on an iPad so forgive the possible occasional spelling mistake)

Having researched and learnt about the Nazis, Hitler and the Second World War passionately I have reached a conundrum in which I am of the belief certain aspects of Hitlers leadership is a quality which would idealistically consist of a hypothetical ultra-leader of society. Now I am definitely not talking about persecution and intolerance which Hitler harboured, but rather the leadership qualities and charisma of the man. It is an undeniable fact that Hitler was a charismatic man whose ability to spur and unite the German nation took it from a economic mess to a world super-power in less than a decade. Now before you say it I know part of this unification of the German people was because of his intolerance and persecution of minorities, something which is definitely not admirable accomplishment. Rather I am talking about the charisma which allowed him to enthuse people into a common or individual goal.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who was the one to say that the world yearns for a Hitler who uses his abilities for good and the unification of peoples; something I concur with. So, ultimately, I am asking is it wrong for one to imagine the ultimate leader of our society to have the leadership skills and charisma of Adolf Hitler? A man who could unite peoples with tolerance of all beings... a 'good' Hitler. People who knew Hitler often spoke of how he, outwardly towards his guests, was often nice and genuinely kind. Obviously we know from history his personality was extremely controlling and brutal, however if these factors were removed and his kindness was reflected towards all would Hitler have had a genuinely ideally charismatic personality for a leader?

So essentially what I would like to raise here is, would a 'good' Hitler have made an ideal leader? If his intolerance, brutality and utterly evil ideological beliefs had been removed would his leadership qualities, charisma and outward kindness (I can't stress enough that I am not saying he was kind in any way, but rather just the outward kindness reported from staff) have made him a great leader for our society?

Once again I realise Hitlers rise was largely based around his radical and intolerant ideology, however if other more 'tolerant' factors had allowed his rise would he have made a good leader?

Another factor, before anyone mentions it, was that Hitlers leadership style was utterly chaotic with no real hard work expressed by Hitler (with a 'Dog eat Dog' world controlling his government). Obviously this wouldn't be a factor in what I am talking about; I am talking more about his ability to spur and unite a nation as well as his charisma.

Anyway, what are the thoughts of you guys? Once again I am no supporter of Hitler in any way and I think he is utterly evil much like Stalin, etc. However I have studied this subject matter and I tend to agree with Winston Churchill's thoughts on the matter. Would Hitler have made a great leader of our society/world if his intentions had been for peace and tolerance, especially in a time of hardship? Would he have even had the ability to be a 'good man'?

 

From the few Hitler biographies I've read, including the influential Bullock book, I don't believe it's possible to separate the aspects of his leadership that arose from his personal charisma from those that resulted directly from the brutality and totalitarianism of the techniques he employed to take over Germany and Austria.

The remaining living Austrians I know in their 80s will sometimes describe the Nazi era as "golden times" if they've had a few shots of schnapps. I don't think that had much to do with Hitler's personal charisma, since I doubt they had much direct access to it. I think it had more to do with the power of the institutions he created for making non Jewish Germans feel good about themselves, the Hitler Jugend, the pre Poland invasion economic recovery, etc.

 

You make some good points, and from what I have studied about Hitler you are right in many ways. Much of his leadership and ability to lead was derived from his intolerance and totalitarian nature. However from the personal accounts from those who knew him personally it seems that he was, outwardly, a nice and charismatic man. For instance he was described as plesent by many of those who knew him and was noted as being able to reinvigorate a person exhausted. This is what makes him an incredibly scary man in a way. Whilst we know that he was obviously not nice or pleasant man there is no doubt that the ability he had to invigorate and outwardly give a 'face' of a kind man (Loyd George was impressed by Hitler without obviously taking into account the brutality of his regime) were essential qualities of a good leader. What I am saying is imagine if he had these abilities and was protesting peace and tolerance. Imagine if a leader had these ablities to reinvigorate his subordinates for peace and was actually genuinely nice (once again Hitler was not).

Here is the quote from Churchill:

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations. I am sorry, however, that he has not been mellowed by the great success that has attended him. The whole world would rejoice to see the Hitler of peace and tolerance, and nothing would adorn his name in world history so much as acts of magnanimity and of mercy and of pity to the forlorn and friendless, to the weak and poor. ... Let this great man search his own heart and conscience before he accuses anyone of being a warmonger.

 

I guess I wouldn't know how authentically people were responding to the personal charisma of the rising Hitler before he assumed control of the German govt., and how many people were showing deference to the threat of his SA thugs. True, there is a certain leadership ability in the skill to give a speech that whips your street gang into a battle frenzy. Part of the up and coming Hitler's personal charm is the underlying threat of violence that everyone knows he can make good on.

 

I wish Hitler posted here.

 

Here's my impression of Hitler singing children's songs:

"Mein Kampf der hat drei Ecken. Drei Ecken hat mein Kampf."

 

You know who else had thoughts on Hitler? Hitler.

Göbbels had a weird tendency to tell the truth in private. "Truth is the enemy of the state." And of course the big lie technique. More later.

 

According to Star Trek, one cannot separate Hitler's good qualities from his bad qualities. In the episode Tapestry, Picard has a chance to relive his life, ostensibly without the defects of character he had in his youth, and his life turns out to be mediocre. Because a person/ life is a tapestry and you can't remove one string without the whole thing coming apart.

As for whether a leader can so successfully achieve their aims (like Hitler) without physically wiping out and intimidating the opposition, I doubt it. There are always going to be people that disagree.

Also, it could be argued that Hitler's primary goal was to create a Utopia and that killing everyone was just a means to an end, ie that he was more crazy than evil. This may account for why people who knew him personally thought of him as a "nice guy". He probably was.

 

wannasee starts a posts with "According to Star Trek", and... I agree with him?!?

 

While I will agree with you that Hitler was certainly charismatic, I wouldn't take him much farther than being a very good motivational speaker. As pertains to his leadership qualities, he had none. He was a resolute micromanager, ignored the advice of subordinates better trained or better informed about situations (from field commanders to his own govt. appointees) and motivated through fear. None of this equals leadership.

While Hitler was decorated for his service in the first world war he never rose above the rank of corporal and was not a combat soldier. His exposure to miltiary tactics and doctrine, or rather the lack thereof was lacking on tremendous scale. Despite this he chose to manipulate the law and appoint himself the supreme commander of Germanys armed forces and had a direct hand in where they were deployed or where they were not deployed. I could go on and on about his military blunders but the most glaring would be trying to fight and hold on far too many fronts, and hitting Russia late summer despite the military history that should have been evident to him as a young enlisted man. No military takes russia in a winter. Russias resiliency during the first world war despite initial poor commanders should have been an indicator as well. Granted, he had a slew of early military victories, but lets be honest about the countries that he steamrolled over. None were major military players to begin with or could withstand the sheer numbers he threw at them. But thats what it was, sheer overwhelming numbers, not brilliant military strategem.

As far as his statesmanship he was the consumate politician and by that I mean bull artist. Its great to have increases in your GDP, dropped unemployment etc, but not at the cost of debt flotation and redirecting your economy toward a war that left numerous food shortages.

Granted, he had a lot of energy and was clearly committed to what he was doing. If the question is had he directed those towards the good of man, then yes he could probably have brought about some good. But, to do that, again he would actually have to have had genuine leadership ability. In that he did not, he is more clearly an excellent example of the Peter Principle at work. He took himself to the height of his own incompetence but couldn't see the forest for the trees and pressed on with it.

 

There's the Hitler who was able to flatter and charm the people he needed, and there was the Hitler who ruthlessly eliminated his domestic and foreign enemies. DarthPhilosopher is asking if you take away the latter Hitler, and are left with half a Hitler, how formidable is the half left over. Not very I'd say. My sense is you'd have less than half a Hitler, because people's susceptibility to his charms occurred in the context of understanding his ruthlessness. The charming Hitler is not enough Hitler to take control of Weimar Germany.

 

Agreed

 

A 'good' Hitler is a contradiction in terms; though a lot of people would classify Napoleon as such.

 

Good responces all round

Good points (especially about the leadership inadequacy of Hitler, which I should have made clear wasn?t the aspect I was necessarily talking about). I am not necessarily talking about taking Hitler and watering him down to, what could be describe as, ?good? aspects because evidently there would of course be little left of the man. Rather I am talking about and asking the question whether it is wrong to find certain attributes ?admirable? (for lack of a better term...) within Hitler, take them specifically, and perhaps supplement them with other aspects. It is no secret that Hitler specifically had very attuned abilities in certain aspects of his personality. The ?quality? aspects may have been few and far between, however the few that he maintained were noted as being specifically strong. Here are the aspects I am talking about:

Charisma ? Hitler has been noted as being an exceptionally charismatic and charming man with the ability to persuade and flatter people into a state in which they were ignorant of certain realities. I would argue a clear example of this would be David Lloyd George who was charmed by Hitler in his visit, evidently causing him to refer to Hitler as a ?great man? despite the intolerance he must have been aware of. Likewise his personal staff noted him as being genuinely kind and nice man, often noting this over that of his obviously terrible atrocities. In fact I would argue that Hitler had one of the most charismatic personalities of perhaps any leader of the 20th Century, thus why I note this ability of his. As such I would argue an idealistic leader would have the same charisma as Hitler, with the obv

 

There's a few points I think could use addressing:

1. Remember that Hitler was not seen in his time as we see him now, although he didn't take long to be viewed as we do after his defeat. Although it could be no secret how anti-semetic Hitler was, few would have realized just how far he would go: at least, the Western Nations. Keep in mind that Hitler's feelings on many races were not so uncommon in France and Britian... ironically, one of the most permissive nations at the time of his service in WWI were the German allies in Austria Hungary.

2. Hitler's re-invigorating of the economy had more to do with the party he was in than who he was and how he led it. And Hitler's interest in what the party stood for before his involvement was less than fleeting. Before Hitler was involved the National Socialists had a socialist agenda, which happened to be what the times would need in order to get the economy back on its feet. The same solutions would have been advisable, come 1929, in France, Britain and America -- and America would in fact begin adopting these methods before War began, much less her own involvement in it.

In terms of Hitler's strategy of re-invigorating his nation, I view himself and the economic platform of his party as almost, but not quite, mutually exclusive. I take a page from AJP Taylor's understanding of him in his "Origins of the Second World War" in saying that Hitler had no master plan for Germany: merely that Germany would become great. He did not know how to get Germany into the economic black, not did he plan for the conflict for which he would be blamed. This is also what would make him incredibly dangerous for everyone because, prior to the fall of France, he was willing to hear out the better ideas of other individuals than himself -- and under the Nazis the general rule went that eventually competence fell off as you got into the higher tiers of leadership.

Hitler was not interested much in socialism. He could very easily have started off as the leader of the Stahlhelm party. But he WAS interested in getting Germany back in pre-eminance, and it was to his incredible fortune that he landed himself in a party that had the right ideas on what was needed for world economies at that time. It was horrible luck for just about everyone else, though.

3. Leading from 2, this really means that Hitler didn't really DO anything the Germans could not have done without a more humane leader obeying the constitution, that was willing to try socialist ideas. All his symbols, his rhetoric, it was just showmanship: the people could have done what they did without any of it. The most significant thing he might have done, perhaps, was make the necessary economic decisions very quickly as a dictator can do. However I fail to see how a majority British Parliament, for instance, would have moved much slower had it known the proper route to take. The American system of today, perhaps, would be stymied by state immobility, but for what we're talking about, Hitler's tyrannical powers were simply unnecessary.

Hitler may or may not have been charismatic: he was charismatic at large public events, at least. But charima in your leaders is something I think is inherently unwise -- Charisma, like beauty, is itself a measure of power. And while I don't believe that power always corrupts absolutely, I DO believe that it often does, and when it doesn't, what IS almost always true is what Frank Herbert once said: Power attracts the corruptable.

Meaning here, that if a leader of Hitler's Charisma or social power came along and WAS humane, that would only mean that by the end of his autocratic term he would merely play the Sulla, inspiring others in his name who had less scruples than he did to do the same. The only way out for the good, charismatic man is to play the part of a Cinncinatus or a George Washington, and give up power EXACTLY when the moment comes. Only by powerful men surrendering to the process can you ensure that process will someday protect itself.

Hitler showed that Democracy and Freedom are

 

Yes, if you combined all the good qualities of every great leader in history, then you would have the "ultimate leader."

Similarly, the ultimate basketball player should have the ability to create off the dribble of Jordan, the range of reggie miller, the strength of shaq, the passing ability of Magic, and the breasts of Scarlett Johanssen. Also, he should be able to dance like Shakira.

 

Passing of Magic? Puh-lease! Bird baby, Bird!

 

"I understand that Colin Ross, whom you know, is a Nazi and you should be governed accordingly."
-Harold Ickes, to John Collier

Göbbels actually sent NSDAP/AO agents onto Indian reservations, posing as anthropologists, to distribute Nazi propaganda, and even promised to give America back to the Indians (going so far as to say that the Sioux were Aryan*). Of course, as I said before, truth is the enemy of the state. Alice Lee Jemison, one of the few Indians who took the bait, declared John Collier to be Jewish. Other members of her assimilationist American Indian Federation were similar; E.A. Towner, a self-appointed representative of all the Indians who went by the name Chief Red Cloud (not that one, or that one, or that one, and not even a Sioux), thought Indians should join the Nazis just because of the use of the swastika.

The Aryan declaration led to Ales Hrdlicka, head of the Smithsonian, to say that Indians had "Chinese or Russian affinities". (Still wrong, since modern Russians are from the west and modern Chinese are from the south, but more right than German affinities.) Collier went further, comparing the Nazis to Mormons who said Indians were lost Jews. So, ur-example of Godwin's law?

Hilariously enough, the first Jew the Sioux met was probably Julius Meyer, who was known for his honesty. For a white man. Also, while the hook-nosed Jew is an antisemitic myth, the Sioux really do have hook noses. I'm looking down my hook nose at Those Wacky Nazis right now.

So, Hitler cared for indigenous rights. Of course, we still fought in World War II, and became legendary.

*This does not explain Jeff Weise, who was a Chippewa, the traditional enemies of the Sioux.

 

That's new one on me.

 

I?ll respond to the Hitler ?attributes? and other subjects later. I just have the following I would like to address in the time I have at the moment:

These two posts specifically, as well as a few others I have read, raise an exceptionally good point in my opinion which I think is a worthy discussion topic (perhaps a moderator could rename the thread title, Adolf Hitler Historical Evaluation and Discussion... or something like that).

The point raised is how does Hitler really fit the mold of the methodically evil dictator determined to destroy the world. Whilst certain parts of that sentence can be seen as fact, especially in the final years of the war, how ?implicit? was Hitler in the eventual events of 1933 ? 1945. Obviously we know from historical research and understanding that Hitler, as a person, was certainly largely and almost solely responsible for the essential re-destruction of Europe in a second round of World War, as well as in the mass murder unprecedented in the modern western world. However to what extent was Hitler implicit as a methodical and calculating dictator and to what extent can these events be seen as a result of a truly deranged, dreaming and disconnected man surrounded in ?yes? men creating the ?will? of their Fuhrer in accordance to their own beliefs and ideological understandings. I am not saying that he was any less implicit in these actions as a person ? he is warranted all the implicitly the modern world gives him ? however to what extent was he implicit in actually calculating these actions in any precise way.

Firstly I raise the fact that Hitler has been noted as an ?idle dreamer? whose life was literally spent dreaming of a Utopian paradise with the Aryan race in sole leadership. He often retreated to his private Bavarian Alps retreat where he would often not rise from bed until the afternoon. He is known to run a rather chaotic ?system? where-in Hitler showed no real leadership qualities. As such the brutal policies which we have been attained to the Third Reich seem to have likely originated from ambitious subordinates and not from a calculated mind of Adolf Hitler. Policies such as the ?Final Solution? are known to have arisen from ambitious and sadistic SS officers such as Himmler and Eichmann which were subsequently approved by Hitler. This does not remove Hitler?s guilt; he endorsed, supported and promoted the brutal policies, however never-the-less ? in my opinion ? did not think of them himself. As such I ask, to what extent was Hitler evil in calculating mind, rather than simply evil from dilution, incompetence and utter insanity.

The second point I would raise to support this notion that he was evil in underlying psychopathic terms rather than in calculating sadistic bloodlust which Himmler seemed to show. As someone else noted this would not only make it understandable why he was outwardly a ?nice guy? but also his seeming disconnectedness and ?radicalness? in the development and implementation of the later brutal policies of the Reich.

If we are to consider the fact that his true incompetence (and thus true psychopathic behaviour) began following the ego boost he got from the Fall of France then we can also draw parallels to his

 

I didn't realise that the anti-multiculturalism was a historical stance, that certainly puts a more interesting historical context for the revitalised Nazism that is "multicultural" in that it's tried to make inroads into minority groups by opposing the mixing of those groups rather than strict superiority of one of them. There was a native american school shooter that was apparently involved online with one of those groups a few years back and it had always intrigued me.



And more thorough thread title coming shortly

 

DarthPhil: I both agree and disagree with some of your assertions.

Firstly I raise the fact that Hitler has been noted as an ?idle dreamer? whose life was literally spent dreaming of a Utopian paradise with the Aryan race in sole leadership. He often retreated to his private Bavarian Alps retreat where he would often not rise from bed until the afternoon. He is known to run a rather chaotic ?system? where-in Hitler showed no real leadership qualities. As such the brutal policies which we have been attained to the Third Reich seem to have likely originated from ambitious subordinates and not from a calculated mind of Adolf Hitler. Policies such as the ?Final Solution? are known to have arisen from ambitious and sadistic SS officers such as Himmler and Eichmann which were subsequently approved by Hitler. This does not remove Hitler?s guilt; he endorsed, supported and promoted the brutal policies, however never-the-less ? in my opinion ? did not think of them himself. As such I ask, to what extent was Hitler evil in calculating mind, rather than simply evil from dilution, incompetence and utter insanity.

This general description in Hitler is generally supported by the facts and documents. In fact the very piece of evidence that was used to condemn Hitler as committing "conspiracy to wage war", the Hossbach Memorandum: the document itself is really something of a brainstorming session of the Nazis in power for how they could deal with thier mid-1930s situation, not an actual plan.

Just what was wrong with Hitler is unknown, but it seems to be that the Fall of France exaserbated existing problems. Prior to it he had always been an obstinant and uncompromising individual prone to childish tantrums: actually, quite like a child, come to think of it. People often consider Hitler and his cronies psychopaths, but I am not sure that is really the correct term for many of them (although many people carrying out the orders likely were) -- rather, Hitler himself was probably someone whose "Monkeysphere" was dialed up all the way. I am uncertain how Hitler interacted with many of the ramifications he caused. No doubt he received regular reports on the final solution, but did he just look at the numbers, or did he demand pictures and sordid details?

A psychopath is someone who enjoys violence and killing... as in THEY THEMSELVES doing the act. I'm not sure that describes Hitler as far as we know. In fact he might not even be properly termed a sociopath, since it seems he was definately capable of human connections, strange as they might have been. What he was, at the very least, was someone who abjectly refused to partake in the question of what I might call "theoretical humanity" or thinking beyond his monkeysphere that most of us do. He had no imagination for the suffering of those he did not know, and no conscience at all on the matter of life and death. Psychologically that might mean many things, but that does not mean Hitler himself had a propensity for blood, say, or the thought and sight of it excited him. He was not a serial killer in the Ted Bundy sense of the word -- Charles Manson would be possibly closer to the mark, but note that it is still uncertain if Manson ever killed anyone himself (and if he did, it is suspected to be a low number).

Could it be that Hitler was little different than anyone who watches the news of, say, Rwanda with indifference and that the rest was just that combined with unscroupulous, childish behavior seen so often in young teenagers? An immature man who thought only of himself given power on a massive scale? Or perhaps issues with lightweight mental problems such as Bipolar Disorder? It might be that the only differences between Hitler and Charlie Sheen are a couple personal experiences and 60 million angry Germans.

Chilling, when you think of how easily such a persona could become a head of state.

That said, Hitler himself, like Napoleon, is not a very interesting historical figure. Hitler was not a very complicated individual and his motivations were simple. He is

 

Actually from what I learned in psychology and the Military Channel is Hitler is a very complex figure and quite interesting. You just got to read more into it

 

My thinking is that Hitler was really only interesting from the standpoint of mental illness. There is nothing, I think, in Hitler himself that challenges us. There has been, I suppose, the question of how cruddy does society have to be to let someone like Hitler get into a position of so much power... but I've never seen Hitler as an interesting character study.

And that's because -- well I've had a hard time thinking of the guy as a serious adult. He cheated and backstabbed his way to the top as the darling of millions... at least when Nixon did and thought that everyone secretly hated him -- it was actually sort of TRUE, nobody ever really liked that guy even when he played the honorable game. And he knew certain things were wrong even as he did them, and there are serious signs he suffered a lot of guilt over things he did, even if it's unlikely he'd have done anything different. A petty man, but for some reason I can kind of see how Nixon become Nixon. I can see him from where I stand.

I don't see Hitler. I don't get any of that from him. The guy was never any more victimized than anyone else, blamed people that were blameless (Nixon did that too, but he blamed EVERYONE because it was him against the world, a notion that I can understand even if I disagree -- Hitler had this whole racial ranking system that ran against science, history, and common sense that I've never understood as anything more than Manifest Destiny in German tongue), and broke nearly every deal he ever made. He was not only fairly unhinged, he was a jerk to boot.

Interesting historical figures make me wonder if at the end of it they had either a real point or a real reason outside of their own head for what they did. Trotsky had real ideas about society even as he raged for the Romonovs to die. Nixon actually WAS treated, to some extent, as this strange loser who was not really respected (although by the time he entered public service in the 50s, he probably didn't deserve it any longer anyway) and he knew that something was wrong with him, Robespierre was a killer on a mass scale who once deplored the death penalty, a tyrant who eliminated slavery and promoted women's rights about 100 years or more before other societies started following suit, and sent his best friend to the guillotine -- a greater paradox of a man there has never been.

Compared to personas like these... Hitler doesn't register for me. The only greater question he makes me ponder is why they didn't keep him locked up after he tried to take over the government.

 

Stalin is more interesting than Hitler too. He understood people better than Hitler and so despised all of them a lot more. His paranoia if he had any was of the most pragmatic kind, born of hanging out in the Kremlin. Also, he had a sex life and had children and dominated them unhealthily the way he dominated the Soviet Union, with the same kind of results. Hitler vs. Stalin may have looked like a fair fight on the surface, but it was really no contest.