Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

As he is usually portray as evil demon let’s skip media campaign and dig deeper, shall we.
Pros:

  1. He rallied German people, economy and created powerful country - so very good manager.
  2. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! This was perhaps his biggest asset.
  3. He was no coward. His WW1 record proves that having obtained Iron Cross on battlefield and almost blind after gas attack.
    4.His intuition was second to none. He predicted nobody will interfere with rearming, breaking Versailes, recapturing Alsas, Austria and Czech. He knew that France demanded different strategy and found Manstein who gave it to him etc. He was right about rotten Soviet system which he almost defeated. He was right about French being lazy and tired despite having equivalent Army etc.
  4. He was lucky as he escaped 30 or so assassinations.
  5. He had hadn’t forgotten to marry Braun in last days of life.
  6. He let everyone go (Himmler, Goering,Speer…) from surrounded Berlin although he didn’t have to and addressed Speer as gentlemen wishing him farewell. Nice little touch.

Cons:

  1. Genocidal maniac.
  2. He distrusted everyone once things went wrong. He blamed others for his faults.
  3. He hadn’t realize his weaknesses.
  4. Starting war on 2 fronts - braking his own words.
  5. Establishing totalitarian system in Germany.
  6. Declaring war on USA although by reading generic translation declaration itself is mere acknowledgment of war like present situation brought by USA rather than declaration of war upon USA. Very nicely put together.
#2

Perhaps you should send him Roses, and chocolates…

#3

I expect that that’s because Jews and Russians, among others, feel that he had rather a lot to do with the unnecessary and brutal deaths of millions of their people, purely because he hated them for no good reason. And that lots of other people also think this was evil.

What’s the media got to do with Hitler’s reputation?

Do you mean you want to skip history?

Most people who want to portray him as a great man find his history rather inconvenient.

You mean like making people dig pits at gunpoint so they could be lined up on the edges before getting a Nazi bullet in the back of their necks?

He caused the deaths of millions of his own people and left his country (which was united and made powerful by Bismarck) in ruins. Admittedly, that makes Hitler an outstanding manager judged by the standards of the incompetent and rapacious ****s who destroy many major corporations and national and international economies nowadays, but there’s nothing commendable about it unless you admire pointless destruction and magnificent failure by people of modest ability but forceful and self-centred personality who abuse their power to gain and maintain their power and wealth without regard to the interests of anyone else.

If they were so good, how come they lost the war?

If Goering was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he deliver on his promise of rendering Britain ready for invasion?

If Himmler was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he stomach watching executions?

If Speer was such a brilliant choice and Hitler had such a gift for selecting the right people for the right job, why didn’t he recognise the need for Speer a few years earlier and appoint him when Germany needed a full war economy while fully engaged in a war?

Yeah, Rommel was a great choice. Hitler’s intuition was so good that he was able to pick a commander he would have executed a few years later if Rommel hadn’t committed suicide under duress from Hitler’s henchmen. Definitely another great piece of intuitively correct handpicked selection by Hitler.

Could it be that apart from making bad decisions which eliminated some of his most able people, Hitler also had a gift for making astonishingly bad strategic decisions on all aspects of the military and civilian conduct of the war he started?

You need to dig deeper on this, disappointing though it may be to you when you find out that he wasn’t exactly the most courageous soldier engaged in combat with the enemy, although anyone who served under fire in the trenches in WWI on either side demonstrated courage.

Then it must have come as a great surprise to him to realise that he was losing the war in the last couple of years before he, no coward, committed suicide because he couldn’t face the reality crowding in on him as a spectacularly unsuccessful war leader.

I wonder if his second to none intuition in 1939 saw that coming?

Plans or bullets?

Anyway, how lucky was he when his motorcade was preceded with sacrificial vehicles and he was surrounded with guards and his routes were checked beforehand by his security people?

Well, had he or hadn’t he?

Was this an example of his second to none intuition selecting the right person for the job?

Actually, if you check the historical record closely you will find that he sent them on a mission to find closely woven wool carpets as he had chewed his way through the Persian rugs in the bunker, and his teeth were beginning to hurt from chewing on the concrete.

Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?

Churchill might have been drunk for most of the war and Roosevelt was a cripple, but it looks like a drunk and a cripple will triumph over a sicko who likes being shat on, regardless of the shitee’s supposedly great abilities.

I wonder if Hitler’s second to none intuition told him that ladies shitting into his mouth, but for the glass, was prophetic about his war and other abilities.

Now, my dear witman111, you come across as a Nazi fanboi, and about as ill-informed as most of your ilk. This forum is a lot more tolerant than most and some of us are happy to dispute Nazi fanboi nonsense, but there comes a point where Nazi fanboi nonsense results in fanbois being banned. It’s up to you whether you want to keep pushing to find out where that point is, but be aware that you are being watched closely by the mods.

#4

You forgot a rather important con:
7: Starting a war with a whole bunch of countries more powerful than him, that he couldn’t win and which would leave Germany in ruins and divided for nearly 50 years.

#5

I have noticed a slightly larger than average amount of people posting with the seeming intention of getting banned with the Nazifanboi posts all seem to use SS names (individuals or units) or ranks. It seems to give a slight hint of their leanings.

Nether less I have a question for witman111 why did you chose that particular nic, just being nosey really but I was wondering.

#6

Don’t forget that Adolf was also a drug addict…among those he used was meth-amphetamine daily by injection. He was displaying all the common symptoms for long term abusers.

#7

Further, according to more recent information postulated by historical tv shows, (and written of in other threads here) he had been suffering from late stage Syphilis. A true Paragon of all Human virtue…

#8

Despite the fact that he was militantly against smoking, a teetotaler, and a vegetarian superficially dedicated to healthy living…

#9

Hitler didn’t build anything out of nothing. Germany was already a powerful economy that would have rallied on its own, and in time, perhaps securing the Wiemar Republic despite the restrictions of Versailles. Much of what Hitler gets credit for the groundwork was already laid by the Wiemar Republic. In fact, rearmament was inevitable and may well have been more ably carried out under a more democratic or more efficient authoritarian regime albeit under a more prolonged period. It was in fact already happening by the late 1920s…

  1. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! This was perhaps his biggest asset.

Yes. He had a penchant for taking men who were mostly failures in other aspects of their lives, devoid of real talent, and making chicken farmers into secret policemen. Speer is way overrated. Most of the ‘new histories’ paint him as a cynical opportunist often taking credit for others’ work. Germany was already ramping up production before Speer took over and again, like Hitler, he gets credit for much of what his predecessor had set up…

  1. He was no coward. His WW1 record proves that having obtained Iron Cross on battlefield and almost blind after gas attack.

It’s hard to gauge his cowardice or physical courage. But as RS* stated, you might want to look at his record a bit closer. He was NO FRONT-LINE SOLDIER! He was a messenger, but this in no way implies cowardice in itself. But contrary to Nazi propaganda, Hitler was not really in the trenches very often and was not particularly popular with his comrades who often thought of him as an oddball. Adolf did get a whiff of gas–unfortunately not nearly enough–and he was blinded and hospitalized. But that sort of wound is a far cry from someone directly in the line of fire during combat, although I think there were times when Hitler did display physical courage by running messages during battle. But if he had some physical courage, it sure left him and he never seems to have had all that much moral courage. At any rate, his “Iron Cross” was not at all uncommon for favored rear echelon soldiers operating out of command posts and in HQ’s around officers whom had relatively little contact with enlisted and junior NCO’s, whose status tended to be elevated over their comrades in the trenches IIRC…

4.His intuition was second to none. He predicted nobody will interfere with rearming, breaking Versailes, recapturing Alsas, Austria and Czech. He knew that France demanded different strategy and found Manstein who gave it to him etc. He was right about rotten Soviet system which he almost defeated. He was right about French being lazy and tired despite having equivalent Army etc.

At best, you’re being rather selective regarding Hitler’s “intuition.” It didn’t work all that well at Stalingrad, did it? Or when he wanted to attack the advancing Allies with phantom divisions? The best that can be said about Hitler regarding France was that he set the stage for Manstein’s (and Halder as well, who deserves much credit) “Sichelschnitt” out of his reckless abandon to invade France, whether the Army wanted too or not. But only because the original, rushed Fall Gelb was a very basic, awful plan that basically semi-retraced the original WWI Schleiffin Plan with far more limited objectives.

But, you’re again vastly oversimplifying things by leaving out the fact that Hitler possibly sent Germany into total disaster by trying to prematurely invade through Belgium in the fall of 1939, marching in right where the French wanted them too. His intuition was kept intact by delays of weather and obstinate officers who saw him as foolhardy. Adolf only turned to Manstein after the original Fall Gelb documents partially fell into Allied hands. Rommel already had a name for himself dating back from his valiant attacks and his propensity to lead from the front and bring order to the chaos of battle in is sector, he would have risen no matter what…

And how do you reckon he “almost defeated the Soviets?” Most sensible people with an IQ above 40 tend to see the “Rotten structure” statement as the height of hubris and folly. The whole structure did not come down until his head was under it!

  1. He was lucky as he escaped 30 or so assassinations.

He had a cordon of security around him at all times. And he was “lucky,” but so what?

  1. He had hadn’t forgotten to marry Braun in last days of life.

Why does that make him “good?” Because he made an ‘honest woman’ out of his bird-brained whore?

  1. He let everyone go (Himmler, Goering,Speer…) from surrounded Berlin although he didn’t have to and addressed Speer as gentlemen wishing him farewell. Nice little touch.

Yeah, his “golden eagle” henchmen could go free. But the little people, both civilian and military were ****ed and had to fight to the bitter end, to the death. BTW, those that told them this seemed to have a penchant for fleeing westward. What a great guy…

#10

:mrgreen:

#11

This is one of the less well-known causes of WW2. German spending on rearmament was unsustainable, so by summer 1939 Germany could either launch a major war to seize more money/resources or would run out of money and suffer an enormous recession - potentially as bad as that of the 1930s. Doesn’t look such a bright idea now does it?

#12

That’s not my field, but there is a parallel with Japan and its threatened oil supplies, reinforced by other trade embargoes, impelling Japan towards an expansionist war as a consequence of Japan’s armaments expansion, notably its oil-dependent navy, inviting hostility from its intended enemies.

The same thing could have happened during the Cold War where some of the same elements were present on both sides, especially a ruthless expansionist dictatorship in the USSR, but it didn’t.

It could be interesting to explore the differences and why the Cold War didn’t result in another calamitous conflict. MAD was undoubtedly one reason, and perhaps the absence of critical trade conflict was another, in part because the USSR had its own trade bloc and external trade and strategic partners.

Apart from that, I don’t know enough detail.

#13

Let’s see, where do I start?
Pro: Hitler loved little children.
Con: Unless of course you were a Jewish, Gypsy, Soviet, Polish, or French child. Hitler had no problem with killing or snatching them up from their families.

Pro: Hitler loved military parades.
Con: After the parading was over his soldiers were apt to “parade” into other countries uninvited.

Pro: Hitler loved snappy looking uniforms.
Con: The soldiers wearing those “snappy” uniforms struck terror into the hearts of the peoples’ of Europe.

Pro: Hitler loved being on the cutting edge of medicine.
Con: Unfortunatly, the testing for this “cutting edge” medicine was done on unwilling live human beings.

Pro: Hitler loved cutting edge technology.
Con: His “cutting edge” technology killed millions.

We could go on and on about this man, but we all know the truth about this individual. Everything about this person can be summed up with one word. EVIL!!!

#14

I’m with RS, had a nice laugh at this one…:mrgreen:

#15

Perhaps you should send him Roses, and chocolates…

My girlfriend might become jealous :mrgreen:

I expect that that’s because Jews and Russians, among others, feel that he had rather a lot to do with the unnecessary and brutal deaths of millions of their people, purely because he hated them for no good reason. And that lots of other people also think this was evil.

Which in no way changes what you quoted…

What’s the media got to do with Hitler’s reputation?
Do you mean you want to skip history?
Most people who want to portray him as a great man find his history rather inconvenient.

  1. Nowdays, media create history. They tell one thing and forgot thew other. For example, Russian dead - 0 minutes, deaths in British colonies - 0 minutes, genocide over American indians - 0 minutes, enemies of Jews 100% minutes etc. This is my perception as independent viewer.
  2. I don’t know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
    But he certainly started big events which costed him his life and that of others as well. No doubt he become nuisance to imperial powers but for Germans - I think it is safe to say they lived better under dictatorship (destruction does not count as falling bombs are result of declaring war on too many nations rather than domestic economic policies) than after Versailles or 1950s when they still wore wooden shoes :). [b]I forgot to mention 3 other things:
  1. he was gifted artist - look on you tube
  2. he designed VW beatle car
  3. he invented highways[/b]

This was certainly not true of Rosenvelt, Churchill or Stalin. And Stalin was genocidal maniac and Churchill HM imperialistic maniac.

You mean like making people dig pits at gunpoint so they could be lined up on the edges before getting a Nazi bullet in the back of their necks?

Nobody denies that happened. But so did Stalin (on much larger scale), and was he declared war criminal ? how many people sees him as genocidal maniac and why is that ?

He caused the deaths of millions of his own people and left his country (which was united and made powerful by Bismarck) in ruins.

That indeed had happened.

admire pointless destruction and magnificent failure by people of modest ability but forceful and self-centred personality who abuse their power to gain and maintain their power and wealth without regard to the interests of anyone else.

I would not call German economic model of 1930s failure. First they had close to 0% unemployment, second they had free medical insurance, state pension system, lot of them buying WV cars - much better than USA at the time for example !!! If that is his selfish interest - be it so. War is other story.

If they were so good, how come they lost the war?

considering ratios it is a miracle it lasted as much as it did.

If Goering was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he deliver on his promise of rendering Britain ready for invasion?

Did I mention Goering ?

If Himmler was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he stomach watching executions?

Well, efficiency of extermination has nothing to do with other abilities…

If Speer was such a brilliant choice and Hitler had such a gift for selecting the right people for the right job, why didn’t he recognise the need for Speer a few years earlier and appoint him when Germany needed a full war economy while fully engaged in a war?

Better late than never.

Yeah, Rommel was a great choice. Hitler’s intuition was so good that he was able to pick a commander he would have executed a few years later

He knew and therefore had to pay the price - at least in Hitlers mind.

Could it be that apart from making bad decisions which eliminated some of his most able people, Hitler also had a gift for making astonishingly bad strategic decisions on all aspects of the military and civilian conduct of the war he started?

Yes

although anyone who served under fire in the trenches in WWI on either side demonstrated courage.

Amen to that

Then it must have come as a great surprise to him to realise that he was losing the war in the last couple of years before he, no coward, committed suicide because he couldn’t face the reality crowding in on him as a spectacularly unsuccessful war leader.

Most probably. He thought and worked in interest of greater German empire which, had it been successful would probably have been on par or stronger than US rather than being hungry communist-Bolshevik misery for 50 years in East Europe. Germany today, much reduced in size, has 40% of US GDP.

I wonder if his second to none intuition in 1939 saw that coming?

No

Plans or bullets?

many of them bullets and bombs

Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?

no, where did you get that

Churchill might have been drunk for most of the war and Roosevelt was a cripple, but it looks like a drunk and a cripple will triumph over a sicko who likes being shat on, regardless of the shitee’s supposedly great abilities.

Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin had advantage of 4:1. What’s your point ?

Now, my dear witman111, you come across as a Nazi fanboi, and about as ill-informed as most of your ilk. This forum is a lot more tolerant than most and some of us are happy to dispute Nazi fanboi nonsense, but there comes a point where Nazi fanboi nonsense results in fanbois being banned. It’s up to you whether you want to keep pushing to find out where that point is, but be aware that you are being watched closely by the mods.

about as ill-informed as most of your ilk

please, go ahead, try to challenge anything I have written

I have noticed a slightly larger than average amount of people posting with the seeming intention of getting banned with the Nazifanboi posts all seem to use SS names (individuals or units) or ranks. It seems to give a slight hint of their leanings.
Nether less I have a question for witman111 why did you chose that particular nic, just being nosey really but I was wondering.

Because Wittman was what allies wanted to be but simply couldn’t. And no he DID NOT commit any war crimes but even displayed acts of humanity by feeding and helping wounded russian tankists - despite wearing SS insignia - think about it ?
From German inventory there is plenty to pick really, be it Ulrich Rudel or Eric Hartmann…or you name it. All performed miracles beyond belief.

Don’t forget that Adolf was also a drug addict…among those he used was meth-amphetamine daily by injection. He was displaying all the common symptoms for long term abusers.

and that was last minute signal he should be removed as incapable of fulfilling his duties

Hitler didn’t build anything out of nothing. Germany was already a powerful economy

That is simply not true as data on employment and GDP tells you

that would have rallied on its own

you mean like US only with higher debt to be paid. Had it not been for Hitler US would be in recession looong time.

despite the restrictions of Versailles

Right :confused:

Much of what Hitler gets credit for the groundwork was already laid by the Wiemar Republic. In fact, rearmament was inevitable and may well have been more ably carried out under a more democratic or more efficient authoritarian regime albeit under a more prolonged period. It was in fact already happening by the late 1920s...

Before Hitler there was disaster and that’s why he won elections in 1933.

Yes. He had a penchant for taking men who were mostly failures in other aspects of their lives, devoid of real talent, and making chicken farmers into secret policemen…

While this is true can you think of anyone better than Himmler for sick job he had ?

Speer is way overrated. Most of the ‘new histories’ paint him as a cynical opportunist often taking credit for others’ work.

No he isn’t. 38000 planes in 1944 against 3 times less in 1941 ?

It didn’t work all that well at Stalingrad, did it? Or when he wanted to attack the advancing Allies with phantom divisions?

Correct his intuition was valid until … 1942.

he would have risen no matter what…

maybe to divisional commander at best ?

And how do you reckon he "almost defeated the Soviets?" Most sensible people with an IQ above 40 tend to see the "Rotten structure" statement as the height of hubris and folly.

Had it not been for USA and LL Soviets would have ultimately been defeated or at least in steal mate. Not only did USA gave USSR incredible amount of supplies but also has done incredible damage to Germany.Germans had what 5:1 or 10:1 in kill ratios over Russians. 90 million germans vs. what 200 million Russians.

Why does that make him “good?”

she followed him through good and bad and had to be rewarded

both civilian and military were ****ed and had to fight to the bitter end, to the death.

not so relevant for my statement. he let go his closest partners in order they save themselves while he did not even try. Stalin for example would not do this.

Adolf did get a whiff of gas–unfortunately not nearly enough–

:D:D

#16 
 German spending on rearmament was unsustainable, so by summer 1939 Germany could either launch a major war to seize more money/resources or would run out of money and suffer an enormous recession - potentially as bad as that of the 1930s

Well how many people here are economists ?
I certainly know for one. Actually GDP consists of personal and government spending, investments and exports-imports. and there are 2 things government can spend money: luxury or investment goods. Investment goods are expected to yield return after some time. Military classifies as luxury because it does not produce anything back aside money spent on wages and material in military industry - think of it as equivalent of buying luxury cars and jewels only slightly more dangerous… Provided all wages and material are German no money is lost by producing military equipment as long as money does not come from foreign loans that had to be repaid and as long Germans don’t mind having lesser WV cars for example due to increase in PzKmpfw I production for example.

As ore from Russia and Sweeden was mostly paid with finished military products, and as other things Germans produced themselves and were paid for by Nazi government to which they themselves paid taxes and as there were minor loans … Germany could rearm forever. They could even sell military products and create exports too further boost other luxury spending.
What people fail to realize is that Nazis achieved incredible boosts in GDP by increase in efficiency/scale of human capital and carefully pooling scarce capital “as inputs” and could consequentially “in terms of outputs” produce far more of something ie. give more to the people via social programmes, build highways and rearm at the same time - such can be scale of well governed dictatorship.

People think democracy is best because you can oust people you elect every 5 years. However, even democracy is filled with corruption and “unholy” alliences between bank(S)ters, media moguls and politicians that distort free markets and make basically mockery of free elections. In US there are two parties who change every so often while all have their fingers dipped in same backwater sugar - I mean common who are you kidding here. Influence of US weapon companies on US foreign policy is frightening.

Well governed dictatorship can beat democracy any time of day. Look at China for example.

#17

One hopes, none.

It wasn’t christened ‘the dismal science’ for nothing, although Carlyle in coining the term was actually complaining about the notion of market forces interfering with the right of the socially privileged to exploit labour for their own benefit.

The Nazis would have loved him.

I don’t know what university you attended to acquire a bastardised understanding of Economics 101, but I hope you didn’t pay any money for it because you sure as hell didn’t get value for money.

You are confusing free elections, where all people can vote, with electioneering, which is what those seeking election to office do. As, indeed, Hitler and the Nazis did to get into power.

  1. Name one well-governed dictatorship.
  2. Specify the criteria which make it well-governed.
  3. Name some well-governed dictatorships which have had a military or any other major victory over a democracy.
  4. Describe how China (a) is well-governed; (b) is a dictatorship; (c) has beaten a democracy; and (d) explain the fact that without the substantial contribution of English-speaking democracies before and during WWII to China’s war with Japan then China would not exist in its present, or probably any, form.
#18

You mean that he’s usually portrayed as an evil demon?

I wonder why that might be?

Really?

But even if that is now so, was it the case 1923-45?

Isn’t it possible that professional historians might have a little influence on the interpretation of past events, which we commonly call history?

My perception of that as an independent viewer is that I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

It’s a bit of a revelation that Germans post-WWII aren’t better off than they were under Hitler, and notably 1943-45 when their country was steadily pounded into submission by the Allies from the East and West. Could you demonstrate how it is that, say, people in Dresden or Hamburg or Berlin are worse off now than they were 1943-45?

If you seriously believe any of that, and some of your subsequent drivel that doesn’t merit a response, you have no place in a serious historical discussion.

If you don’t believe any of that, you are just a troll who has no place in the forum.

Either way, those idiotic statements combined with your other ill-informed provocative statements are getting you very close to an involuntary exit from this forum.

This is a formal moderator’s warning to reinforce previous informal moderators’ warnings given to you: Post more of this nonsense and you will be banned, without further warning.

Or, given your love of dictatorships over democracies, I might just exercise my arbitrary dictatorial power and ban you because you look or sound like a Jew, Gypsy, Russian, other Slav, homosexual, mentally retarded person (for which there is ample evidence from your posts), or sundry other groups determined by the Nazis as worthy of extermination.

You’ve just about run your race. You decide how it ends.

#19

wittman111

Because Wittman was what allies wanted to be but simply couldn’t. And no he DID NOT commit any war crimes but even displayed acts of humanity by feeding and helping wounded russian tankists - despite wearing SS insignia - think about it ?
From German inventory there is plenty to pick really, be it Ulrich Rudel or Eric Hartmann…or you name it. All performed miracles beyond belief.

The reason I asked was because he seems to be the most picked German tank ace despite not being the most prolific. Kurt Knispel a Wehrmacht NCO (Feldwebel) born in the Sudetanland had 168 confirmed kills but did not seem popular with the Nazi ruling class.

Knispel Kurowski .jpg
Knispel Kurowski .jpg600×841 216 KB

Originally Posted by witman111
I forgot to mention 3 other things:

  1. he was gifted artist - look on you tube
  2. he designed VW beatle car
  3. he invented highways

The VW Beetle was designed by Erwin Komenda, Porsches Chief Designer not Hitler.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, personally I think he was adequate for cheap tourist stuff but not very good otherwise, some of his work is little more than daubings. The styles of some seem so different that it lends a huge amount of credence to the claims that many paintings and drawings around now are forgeries especially as he personally rarely mentions them.

#20

Well f**k me sideways, which nuthouse did you crawl out of? Obviously the Boys from Brazil wasn’t a work of fiction.

Picking up on some of the barking quotes
‘They tell one thing and forgot thew other. For example, Russian dead - 0 minutes, deaths in British colonies - 0 minutes, genocide over American indians - 0 minutes, enemies of Jews 100% minutes etc. This is my perception as independent viewer.’

Good gracious, are you devoid of all news sources? There are plenty of television progammes and books on Russian casualties. Again, there are stories abound of Kenyans queuing up for compo from HM Gov. As for the the phrase ‘enemies of Jews’ it causes alarm bells to start ringing in my head, you’re not a member of Aryan pride et al are you?

And then there’s this one
‘2. I don’t know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
But he certainly started big events which costed him his life (unlucky:lol: ) and that of others as well. No doubt he become nuisance to imperial powers but for Germans - I think it is safe to say they lived better under dictatorship (destruction does not count as falling bombs are result of declaring war on too many nations rather than domestic economic policies) than after Versailles or 1950s when they still wore wooden shoes .’

Whilst considering how better off the Germans were under Hitler, why don’t we consider how worse off every other bugger was, the Austrians, Czechs, French, Poles etc etc now they had a REALLY fun time as part of Hitler’s 3rd Reich paradise.

I’m hoping you’re a wind-up because seriously no-one, and I mean no-one other than a shaven headed, knuckle dragging neo-nazi thinks Hitler had any good points.