"Hitler Saved Europe"

reply to post by R-evolve


All of Europe was in a massive depression. Hitlers changes to the money system lifted them out.

And his massive military buildup stopped the Soviets from taking all of Europe. And maybe more.

If not for Hitler you might have been writing this in Japanese or Russian.

if getting out of a depression costs 50+million lives then that is depressing and if hitler had his way i'd be speaking german, you make the assumption russia would of conquered europe or even wanted too. IF we didnt have this tyrant then we possibly could of had another does not justify hitlers actions. Tell me would those parents rather be struggling in a depression with their kids or send them off to foreign lands to die, but at least they have money in their pockets eh

Originally posted by R-evolve
how on earth did hitler do some good things, its believed that 50+ milllion people died due to one mans rascist and bigoted vision, there are no if's and but's to say this absolute stain on human history could of prevented another one is a sad outlook on life. He is hated and dispised and rightly so, he saved nothing and no one.

I agree. anything that Hitler might have done that could be seen as "good" or even "moderate" is completely overshadowed by his total acts of evil. I don't care if he loved kittens and puppies and funded schools for the blind, the man started a world war fueled by his own aggression and caused the genocide of countless human beings!

as for the guy saying that the USA has done nothing good, and that the axis should have won the war: I suggest you rethink you stance. had the axis won the war, the genocide would have continued except now there would be pretty much nowhere safe to hide, and we would be living under a fascist police-state empire. I don't care how you cut it and try to explain any economic or political implications, the axis was WRONG and they DESERVED to be ground into the dust.

and I find it very funny that you say that Stalin, Hitler, and other people have done some good things, and yet you say the US has done NOTHING good. way to have double standards depending on your political view of the world.

anyone with a soul can see that Hitler was an evil evil man. it doesn't matter what his justification for his actions were, or what other relatively "good" things he managed to accomplish during his lifetime. he was an EVIL man, and the axis lost the war, as it should have if we wanted to save innocent lives from the hatred of a group of genocidal maniacs.

as for Hitler solving the economic depression and preventing Russia from conquering Europe: human lives are worth far more than any sum of money. sometimes wars are necessary in order to defend a way of life and preserve freedom. Hitler's acts of aggression were not necessary. I'm not going to second guess history and play these "what-if" games because anything COULD have happened. all I know is that I'd rather have skipped World War II so that all of those lives could have lived just that much longer. those people would have at least a few more years to live in peace before whatever war may have started later between Russia/Japan and the allies.

[edit on 10/13/2007 by FinalSonicX]

Is it me or does it seem like Iran is implying that their hero is Hitler?

I'm not sure anymore.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by TheoOne]

reply to post by Drzava


LMAO, wow another genius on the board. Now WW2 is Americas fault
I guess it doesnt matter that England was begging us for help since around 1938, so how did us entering the war in 1941 make things worse?

It is true that Hitler did turn Germany around, I dont have the numbers readily handy right now but just a couple of years after he came to power the employment rate was completely through the roof and Germany's Industry was pumping as well.
Its just to bad that Hitler went completely mad, had he stayed sane, became an ally and only invaded Russia, Germany could've been a great Nation.

Oh and since when did the number of people killed go up to 50 million?
It seems like every few years or so, the number goes up more and more, maybe theyre adding interest or something lol..
I remember in the 80s or so, the number stood at about 3 million, then over the next 10 or so years after that it went to 6 million, then 10 million etc...
I believe 50 million is closer to the number of people that was killed by the Russians during the Bolshevik Revolution.
Were not allowed to call that a holocaust though, that word is strictly reserved for the Jews that died in concentration camps.

Btw, Patton had the greatest and most controversial plan of the entire war, its no wonder he was assassinated.
He wanted to take captured SS Troops, assimilate them into his Army under his command and invade Russia.
Of course Ike coudlnt have talk like that, even though the war was practically over and we no longer needed the Russians..
Sure, this great leader survived many a tank battles and ends up dying in an automobile "accident"

[edit on 10/13/2007 by Kr0n0s]

reply to post by FinalSonicX



I would agree that on the surface Hitlers methods were wrong. But if you don't think the Soviets were prepared to invade go research Operation Barbarossa and Victor Suvorov.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Soviet Union suffered a stunning defeat. Being outnumbered more than 10 to one Germany launched a 'pre-emptive' strike. It was the most effective battle in the entire war. Even more so than Pearl Harbor. Half of the Soviet military forces were destroyed in a very short time.

And how could that be? Because they were massed for an attack. Several former Soviets, including Suvorov, have stated that it was a matter of days, depending on weather, before the Soviets launched their attack. Plans were already prepared for the largest airdrop ever to take over Britain itself. Why would they plan that far ahead if they were not already looking past the conquest of the European mainland?

That said, Hitler was a monster. But was he a bigger monster than Stalin?

This sort of thing is always bound for a explosive discission and hard line views on either side as well as some in the middle. I'll try and make ths point in hopefully a balanced and logical way.

How many times do you seen or have read about 'Hitler the madman'? It seems ot be a fault of the human being that the very thought of a mentally 'normal' person thinking that marching Jews, gypsies , gays and anyone else he thought made a good scapegoat into concentration camps makes us all feel a little 'dirty'. I personally dont think he was mad or had psychological problems, he was man who did what he thought was right for his country.

Now of course this wasn't the case, but I think Hitler truley belived he was doing the right thing. Anyone who has read 'Hitlers Table Talk 1941-1944' will now that he was far from a derranged lunatic. All be it that his logic was vastly flawed 9 times out of 10. An interesting philosophical question would be 'is a man evil if he does what he thinks in his heart is right?'

The facts that regardless of the fact, either way he caused one of the greatest periods of pain, death and suffering seen in recent century's. Although it makes us uncomfortable to think of hitler as a 'normal but vastly misguided man' it may not be far for the truth. At the end of the day words have a power, and 'evil psychopath' makes us all feel like he was an abberation that will never occur again. Whereas 'Misguided leader' doesn't...it makes people angry for a whole variety of reasons.

To a german of the times, I've no doubt that it must have seemed like he was a good leader with all the improvements to german lifestyle he made. Although lets not forget the cost that came at and if the average german in the street had known of the concentration camps etc, things would have been far different. Only after the his downfall did they see the real cost to them and the world.

I don't support hitlers views in any way for those that wonder, maybe we need to take a closer look at how a man such as hitler came about and what sort of mind he had and why he made those choices. Because when you get right down with it..the buck stops with him, lets hope we never see his like again.

Wayne...

well employment would go up if you are building a war machine, how did he get the rest of europe out of depression after the war most of europe was on its knees the uk only finished paying off its war debt to USA a couple of years ago, you speak of hitlers attack on russia like he was doing the honourable thing for the rest of the world, germany had its own agendas the nazi party used every political mind game and propaganda piece going to gain power and maintain it. If russia would of attacked europe then surely the outcome would still of been the same unless of course russia allied with germany and they both conquere europe

and the death toll figures of the war are a bizarre thing to try and find out they differ hugely, but its believed russia lost 20 million alone, we get shown figures and have to take them at face value its impossible to know exactly, its a shame in a recent poll of the greatest ever britons churchill came top it should of been the unknown soldier then maybe winston

reply to post by Kr0n0s


I know it's not something that is often taught in America, but you DO know that people died during World War 2 from, you know... the war, right? I know, it's a radical notion that not everyone died in a concentration camp during those years, but hear me out. See, you had the Axis and the allies (and the allies of the Axis, and an axis of allies for the Allies...) and they were, you know... shooting at each other and dropping bombs and I'll bet there were some stabbings, too... But, yeah. Lots and lots of people died. A lot of Soviets, too, though being communist most Americans don't really count 'em as people...

I think the point is well-made, that a world-wide war and likely a hundred million deaths (taking the pacific theater into consideration) isn't exactly a fair price tag for hastening the end of an economic depression in Europe.

Don't know how you can say that US had their problem with Japan and didn't belong in Europe. You may be unaware of the basic chronology of the second world but I am not. Afterall history is my profession. Make no mistake about it, it would have been very difficult for Roosevelt to get congress to declare war against Germany after pearl harbor. Luckily for the world though Hitler declared war against the USA before Roosevelt did against Germany. That is right USA belonged in Europe, because Hitler declared war against a neutral USA.

I am also afraid you are also wrong about Hitler helping the German economy. A lot of that is based on outdated 1950s historiography. In reality the real turn around in the German economy probably had more to do with the fiscal responsiblity and sacrafices made by the previous coallitions (notably Brunning and Muller). In reality the autarkic program emblematic of Hitler's economic vision did more to make Germany economically inefficient. His great public works programs did very little to enrich Germany. For example the autobahn only created a massive series of empty roads and the Volkswagen project was little more than a con perpetrated against Germans who thought they would receive a VW. Surprise, surprise they were slated for 1941 delivery, but who would have thought by then they were not delivered. I dare say professional historians (not the history channel documentries you undoubtedly derive your info from) have recognized the inadequecies of the National Socialistic economic system since the mid 1980s. At the end of the day it was an economic system based on claiming credit (from the predecessor), thievery (from Jewish citizens), deficit spending (they never had to pay back due to war), and eventually plundering (from conquered Europe).

Also please don't say that Versallies was too unfair. The worse of it was oer by 1923 with the Dawes Plan. In fact as a result of the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan the US ended up pumping more money into the German economy (1919-1933) than Versallies took out. The Depression was a worldwide crisis. Germany was hardly unique in reaching unemployment statistics of around 25-33%.

I am sorry, but I feel it is my professional obligation to shut down this type of uninformed idiocy. Not something I enjoy doing, rather charity work. I imagine though that you will disagree with me, though if you do I ask you to cite academic books published in the last 15 years. Thanks!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

know exactly what he meant and I was making a point on how numbers tend to

Are you trying to prove something by appearing to show a higher level of intelligence by talking to me like a child?
When people express themselves like that its usually because they are suffering from an inferiority complex and thats exactly the problem with 99% of the people on here that make Anti-American comments, just like you did.
Its funny to because Canadians are particularly bad about this and my theory for them being that way is because since they border the US, they feel immensely insignificant, another term for it is the "Napoleon Syndrome"
Im just using Canadians as an example, I dont know and dont care where you are from, hell you may even be a "hyphenated" American just trying to fit in with the bash America crowd around here.
In any case, this is my one and only comment to you, I refuse to get into back and forth debates with your kind, just not worth my time.
My advice to you though is, grow up

Walking Fox -- To be fair, the Soviet Generals were a bit "casual" with the lives of their soldiers. The Red Army would have likely lost far fewer without the political symbolism of (for example) taking Berlin by themselves. It was a poor battle plan largely designed to get there quickly (despite the human costs) to get the objective before the Americans could help them. Numbers are of course difficult to come by, but probably lost at the very least 100,000 men. So is life, but don't act like the Soviets had to bear these losses while the Americans/British didn't. Certainly they lost many (many, many, many) more men, but it was as much a result of their leadership as anything else.

Well thank you for refusing to get into a debate about history, as I am sure your mind is already made up. I wasn't treating you as a child, rather, I assumed that you have read some recent publications and asked you to show me where my errors were. Unfortunately, you were the one who went to name calling. That's too bad. I am obviously not trying to show "superior intelligence," like I said it is my job. I have spent the last 20 years reading German history books, and am sure that had you done the same you would have reached a similar conclusion. No slam on your intelligence, just thought I would share my insights. Deny ignorance, right?

By the way, I am not sure how anything I made was an anti-American comment. I said that Germany declared war on America and Hitler wasn't a great economist. How in the world that is anti-American, I don't know. For the record though I am a very proud American patriot. I support our troops in Iraq. I am pretty far to the political right. If you don't want to talk about history that is of course OK, since you probably can't do so in an informed way (again, please prove me wrong, just one recently published book that supports your viewpoint), but please tell me how what I said was even remotely anti-American.

reply to post by XBadger


I wasnt talking to you badger. why dont you read the top left of the post, where it says "reply to post by TheWalkingFox"
That is who my reply was was directed at, not you

Maybe you should pay a little more attention before you insult my intelligence. You think that would be a good idea? Maybe you should be a little more "informed" this time around


[edit on 10/13/2007 by Kr0n0s]

reply to post by Kr0n0s


Sorry you are right. I made a mistake. mea culpa.

reply to post by XBadger


No problemo, mistakes happen..
Just kinda confused by your post at first wasnt sure you whos post you were referring to in the beginning..

European history reflects a constant and recurring paranoia over the might of Russia. It is a long standing perception in Europe that the Easrern menace might one day be unleashed upon the European continent. The British, French and Germans have all, at some time, felt threatened by the might and vastness of Russia.

Napoleon met his destruction in an ill advised offensive against the Russians, the Crimean war saw a similar army destroyed by the Russian and we all know what happened to the Germans.

In some ways it could be said, by those who subscribe to the supposed threat of Russian expansionism, that Hitler did indeed do much to limit a Russian expansion but one has to doubt his motives.

Russia certainly capitalized on its military gains during WW2 by securing the Eastern Bloc. Had the Western Allies not established a strong presence on the continent it would seem that all Europe would have been quite vulnerable to further Russian expansion, if not military then economic. So it would seem that the Western Alliance was largely responsible for the salvation of Europe from this percieved threat while Hitler's action indirectly established a demand for the military presence of those nations who took part in the conflict.

So, in my opinion, Hitler was not the saviour of Europe against the 'Red Menace' but his actions allowed the West to make its presence felt in the region and balance it's power structure to inhibit possible Soviet expansion.

It's funny that this thread is immediately diverted to discussion about the Jews despite the fact that they are largely irrelevant considering the purpose of this topic. I hardly think that Hitlers attitude towards the Jewish people was any diferent to that of Russia or indeed a lot of Eastern Europe and parts of the West. His actions reguarding the Jewish people reflected a desire that was larger than Germany at this time and was certainly eminent in many of the nations that he invaded. However if you shout the name 'Hitler' loud enough anywhere it is bound to be made into a Semite Vs Anti-Semite debate which usually derails the merit of any debate concerning Nazi Germany...

reply to post by Drzava

Hitler Was a Failure

Never forget that, my revisionist young friend.

Hitler's thousand-year Reich didn't even last his lifetime.

His country was a blasted, famine-stricken charnel-pit by the time he'd finished with it. The place was carved into pieces by his victorious enemies, and only got put together again half a century later.

His botched, bungled attack on Russia helped strengthen and consolidate Stalin's evil rule and put the Soviet Union on the road to superpower status and the bomb. Not quite the result he was aiming at.

His espousal of Fascism buried it for ever as a political philosophy.

And the Jewish people, tra-la, are alive and well.

Even Hitler's moustache was a failure, looking like a bunch of transplanted pubic hairs that never really 'took'.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by XBadger
In reality the real turn around in the German economy probably had more to do with the fiscal responsiblity and sacrafices made by the previous coallitions (notably Brunning and Muller). In reality the autarkic program emblematic of Hitler's economic vision did more to make Germany economically inefficient.

Though I agree with you in principle, Hitler was able to encourage massive investment from overseas. Predominatley from the UK and USA. This enabled Germany to prepare for war before Hitler had even conceived of it as an eventual aim. Remember it was never Hitler's intention to wage war in Europe, he certainly did not foresee an international war with either the US or Britain and in the case of Britain, did everything in his power to appease. The Problem that Hitler had though was that the aggression that led to the invasion and annexation of Europe was not necessarily his own. He wished those territories that had been stripped by Versailles but beyond that he had no territorial claims (although Czechoslovakia remains an anathema). Others in Germany did though and much effort was placed in the manufacturing of Hitler's consent (not that difficult to acheive, he was highly suggestible and easily emoted).

Originally posted by XBadger
His great public works programs did very little to enrich Germany. For example the autobahn only created a massive series of empty roads and the Volkswagen project was little more than a con perpetrated against Germans who thought they would receive a VW. Surprise, surprise they were slated for 1941 delivery, but who would have thought by then they were not delivered.

Again, war did get in the way - tanks or cars, tanks of course won out and VW still got to make huge profits off the back of slave labour kindly provided by Speer, supplying the war effort.

Public projects served not only to provide employment and overall standard of living but it aided morale. Germany, if you weren't a member of any of the targeted groups was a pretty nice place to be. When asked in 2005 (ish), Wilfred von Oven (former assistant to Goebbels I think) to describe Nazi Germany at its height,he chose "Paradise" and to all intents and purposes it was. Life was good and it felt (for a few brief years) good to be German again. That cannot be under estimated.

Originally posted by XBadger
At the end of the day it was an economic system based on claiming credit (from the predecessor), thievery (from Jewish citizens), deficit spending (they never had to pay back due to war), and eventually plundering (from conquered Europe).

Unfortunately, the overseas investment had to be poured into reparation payments. As the German currency was worthless, and it was a criminal offence for it to leave the country in large amounts, every pound and dollar received from investors went straight out again - usually to pay for the extensive and expensive overseas intelligence networks. The SS solved this problem (for their own agents) by manufacturing dollars in the camps. However, as the dollars began to run out in 1934, I think it is no small co-incidence that the Nuremberg Laws relating to property ownership were introduced to enable the nazis to rob the Jews. Slave labour from occupied territories also had its rewards and it is said to have netted the SS somewhere between 60 to 90 million dollars pure profit.

Originally posted by XBadger
Also please don't say that Versallies was too unfair. The worse of it was oer by 1923 with the Dawes Plan. In fact as a result of the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan the US ended up pumping more money into the German economy (1919-1933) than Versallies took out.

The unfairness of the Versailles Treaty for Germans had little to do with reparations. A vast proportion of the population felt betrayed by the Allies, by the Kaiser and by those who mutinied and led the revolution in the closing days of the war. The armed forces had no option but to capitulate, they did not have an ulitmate leader. The Allies rather than attempt for lasting peace, as proposed by Willson's fifteen points, chose to kick Germany while it was down. The partition of Prussia by Versailles meant that the second world war was an inevitability before the blood had dried from the first.

The reasons why Hitlerism failed are myriad, but predominatly it comes down to the fact that Hitler never had control. In office, he was a fumbler who relied on those around him to interpret his mumblings and turn them into policy. There were those seeking their own realm of power, who acted against him and there was massive corruption at almost every level.

Most importantly of all though, Churchill and the power that he represented wished to destroy German nationalism once and for all. Despite Hitler's repeated overtures of peace, Churchill had no intention of negotiating and considered Germany to be the greater threat than communism. Without British interference and imperviousness it is likely that Germany would not have attacked the Soviets for a least another five years.