Korean Job Discussion Forums

[VanIslander]

let's not try and appreciate or praise anything he did

though the Zionists got great aid for their cause from his actions
(swayed Jewish opinion in the Zionists' favour after long efforts to try and re-establish a homeland met with constant resistance from most Jews)

instead of looking at his ABILITIES in terms of skill, the context should be one of: how was he ABLE to do what he did? what failings and conditions allowed a maniac to take power and do what he did?

[Moldy Rutabaga]

I agree that we shouldn't praise the man, but I don't think anyone here is doing this. Many of Hitler's so-called achievements weren't in fact true-- to my knowledge he patronized and supported Ferdinand Porsche, but I don't believe he personally designed the VW; his interests were in architecture, not auto styling or engineering, and his architectural stylings favored bulky, blocky, intimidating structures. His handling of the economy was typical socialistic state intervention, and the German economy was actually said to be quite inefficient under him and was only propped up by money pilfered from conquered territories. And leaving aside the horror of it and speaking very clinically, throwing away over six million of your civilian population that could have served in the war effort as willing laborers or soldiers is also incredibly counterproductive.

Thus I think Hitler was a genius in his charismatic ability to come to power and to exploit opportunities, but I'm not sure his administrative abilities were much better than his painting abilities.

It mystifies me that there are still very extreme right-wing gun-nut fundamentalists who follow the man. Hitler wasn't right-wing-- he was an elitist vegetarian and his party was "national socialism" (Na-zi); the Nazis prohibited private gun ownership; and Hitler hated Christianity and had church leaders gassed. But then, these people aren't known for clear thinking.

Saddam, Stalin, Kim Il-- those are evil geniuses. Cold-blooded analytical murderers, and successful and unrepentant to the end. As Chesterton said, the madman hasn't lost his reason-- he's lost everything but his reason.

Ken:>

[Captain Corea]

[Novernae]

[eamo]

As far as I can tell his only real talent was oration.

He got to the top by pure, good old fashioned bullying. Those who opposed him were threatened with physical violence. He also stirred up that age-old demon of nationalism. The way Germany were treated after WWI that wasn't even very hard to do.

So, no. Not a genius. Just a bully in the right place at the right time. But he could deliver a blood 'n' guts speech in clasic '30's style!!!

[Hollywoodaction]

Had he been a genius, he would have listened to his advisors and waited until spring to send troops to the Russian front. His decision to attack Russia in late summer/early fall (shortly before snowfall) while Germany couldn't even provide sufficient supplies to its troops in Africa shows that Hitler was far from being a genius.

[laogaiguk]

This guy pulled his best general off the African front because he was worried about him getting to popular and replacing him. Add in the Battle of the Bulge, attacking Russia, and the focus on Stalingrad, etc etc he wasn't a genius. He was observant I think, saw things and was smart enough to manipulate things. But you don't need to be a genious for that.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

Reading Ian Kershaw's very detailed biography of him led me to the belief that he wasn't really the reason behind very many Nazi policies and was more of a useful idiot, not unlike GWB.

[RACETRAITOR]

I'm not going to vote. This is my opinion.

1) Hitler was doing something right if he was able to take control of an entire country and conquer more of Europe than Napoleon did.
2) Most of his ideas and ideologies were farked up and just plain wrong.

[Doogie]

I think he was a genius. He was also pure evil and, like a lot of geniuses, he went totally insane near the end.

[stevieg4ever]

A genius? I dont think so. A great political leader, yes. Depends on the semantics of the word genius and what one would have to do to constitute being called that. But relativity aside...

He managed to revive the German economy from the depths of recession and the sacntions after WW1, he restored national pride to the German people and spread one universal german national consciousness which gave them vigour and strength. He gave them back their culture and their past in the face of economic and social doom: no easy task.

But he made some fatal strategic errors and oversights. Had his vision emancipated jews instead of ostracising them he would of be considered an even better political leader imo as Germany would have surely been stronger and with more economic muscle.

Though im sure the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Mel Gibson would disagree...

[Guri Guy]

Genius? Yes.
Worthy of respect and admiration? No.

[skinhead]

I just wanted to post on this thread.

[travel zen]

I used to think he was....but then, why did he make so many damned stupid mistakes.

In fact, the fool killed himself before his enemies could put him in a cage Babylonian-style.


I vote Nein !

[Talbain]

He was smart, sure, but a genius? No, not really. Putting him up there with people like Einstein or Shakespeare or Newton is really not rational.

Were he a genius, he probably would've taken over Europe.