Hitler

[Dante]

Germany was smouldering after the Treaty of Versailles, which was incredibly harsh due to the French desire to completely destroy the German nation. The German nation (and therefore the German people) had been humiliated by being forced to sign such a treaty in the very same place where Germany as a single nation had been born, Versailles. Then of course there was the inflation, the job losses, the doomed Weimar Republic, attacks and attempted coups from both the far right and the far left... Germany might have recovered on its own, but there would almost certainly have been a war afterwards simply because Germany had been so completely humiliated and national pride had been dented. It needed to be restored. The war as it happened, with Hitler in charge, was just a way of speeding this up.

(I believe Japan was involved in WW1, but not in a very major role. Allied to Britain, I believe).

EDIT: Yeah, more or less what Wolfwiz said.

[Wolf]

And to think I was just about to edit and say, "Look at Dust for a better description of the general attitude of the German people."

[Anathema]

Would any guy save Hitler have the charisma as well as the insanity to inflate the German economy to the point where it almost burst, as well as plot to exterminate every people on the Earth except the north Europeans? I don't think so. Maybe there would have been a war, but not one comparable to what really happened. In fact, with a less radical person then Hitler in charge, Germany may not have been "strong" enough to stand up against England and Frace, and the war may never have been on a global scale.

[Dante]

The external policy would have been the same. The internal policy (racism, concentration camps, yadda yadda) would most likely have been different. That was down to Hitler, while the war itself was much bigger than him.

[Anathema]

No it wouldn't :P

This is all pure speculation, though.

[Dante]

That's all history is anyway....

[Wolf]

I don't think so, history is a story of events and interpretation. The interpretation part is speculative, but we support that with facts. Here, we know that there were huge numbers of German political parties promising a return to imperial glory. We know that the vast majority of nationalistic Germans wanted -- desperately -- a return to imperial glory; that's what enabled Hitler to do what he did in the first place, and it could just as easily have enabled another man. I sincerely doubt Hitler was the only charismatic German in the country. Rommel, for one, was rumored to be even more inspiring a leader. What does that tell you about the probability of a militarily-driven Germany being the flashpoint of another war?

[Dante]

All the infomation we have about history is from people who were there at the time, or rehashed by people who examined it from another time or place. In the first case it's speculation as to whether they are telling the truth, and in the second case it's speculation as to how accurate these 'facts' are. History is speculation because there is no way we can be positive that these events actually happened, unless we were around to see them. Of course I'm not saying I doubt the existence of WW2; I'm just saying that history is speculation.

[Wolf]

If that's what you want to call it, then, sure. But it doesn't change my view that it's accurate speculation.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Wolfwiz does point out that no matter who the leader was Germany was without a doubt a major flashpoint based on historic information about the political sitution of Germany at that time.

[HasimirFenring]

Someone extreme was bound to come to power in Germany, it was just a question of which extremist group did it first.  There could easily not have been a holocaust had it been a different group, but there would most likely have been a war (perhaps not on the same scale).

Yay, more unverifiable speculation!

[Digital Guerrilla]

You know the interesting thing about Hitler's rise to power was that he was elected by democratic means. Hitler's first attempt to gain power was by force and he even made a comment about how he was going to gain power after that attempt failed.

"If out-voting them takes longer than out-shooting them, at least the result would be guaranteed by their own constitution...Any lawful process is slow...Sooner or later we shall have a majority -- and after that, Germany"

He also makes some another interesting comment that you might find thought provoking.

"The NSDAP [Nazi] Party must not serve the masses, but rather dominate them" (p. 260) Mein Kampf.

Hitler had done what he planned to do "destroy democracy with the weapons of democracy". Once elected and in full control Hitler could not be stopped but I think several European leaders of that era pointed out that fact before he came into power in Germany most notable would have been Winston Churchill.

[HasimirFenring]

Hitler himself was never elected, nor was the Nazi party ever even elected to a majority in the Reichstag.  They were, however, the largest single party after 1933, and the only party a few years later.

[Anathema]

The NSDAP got so big because they gradually absorbed almost all other right wing splinter groups under Hitler's leadership. Germany may have clashed with France & England sooner or later but I doubt other leaders would have been equally succesful.

And what does Rommel have to do with anything? He never made any political career did he?

[Digital Guerrilla]

Hitler himself was never elected, nor was the Nazi party ever even elected to a majority in the Reichstag.

[The Spac]

We make Hitler evil because we have different ideals.

To those people in the Nazi party or the people of Germany, you can bet they didn't think they were evil or doing evil, they were doing what they thought was nessary for their survival and that is what drives all human actions.

People can do some damn nasty things when they believe they have no way out.

[Digital Guerrilla]

"We make Hitler evil because we have different ideals."

There have been many men who had different ideals that is not the case in point with Hitler.

"To those people in the Nazi party or the people of Germany, you can bet they didn't think they were evil or doing evil, they were doing what they thought was nessary for their survival and that is what drives all human actions."

That I disagree with on the basis of the fact that the Nazi Party knew exactly what they were doing without any doubts. The German people may have been fooled to a certain extent but with Hitler in control and his Nazi thugs at his disposal and I do not see the German people starting any revolutions to overthrow the Nazi regime. You can not recongnize evil if you would like but that still does not make it evil. Sir Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I wouldn't say hitler was evil. just because one kills many people doesn't make him evil. it is the motive that would make him evil. and what was the motive? to prevent jews from conquering the world. even though it was wrong that this would happen, it was nevertheless not an evil motive to prevent it. Hitler believed this was going to happen if no action was initiated.

[HasimirFenring]

I wouldn't say hitler was evil. just because one kills many people doesn't make him evil. it is the motive that would make him evil. and what was the motive? to prevent jews from conquering the world. even though it was wrong that this would happen, it was nevertheless not an evil motive to prevent it. Hitler believed this was going to happen if no action was initiated.

BS!  His motive was racial purification, which makes him terribly evil(from our subjective moral standpoint).

[Digital Guerrilla]

I wouldn't say hitler was evil. just because one kills many people doesn't make him evil. it is the motive that would make him evil. and what was the motive? to prevent jews from conquering the world. even though it was wrong that this would happen, it was nevertheless not an evil motive to prevent it. Hitler believed this was going to happen if no action was initiated.

What would you like to say next that Hitler was not a hypocrite either. Hitler always spoke of the Jews and how they would subverte public opinion to serve Jewish interests, is that not the same thing that Hitler also did to serve his own purposes. Hitler was half Jewish himself what type of self hate is that give me a break. He talked of the superior Aryan race but he allied with the nation of Japan, question for Hitler where are the Aryans in Japan. Hitler was a confused nutcase and he was evil. Nazi sympathizers never cease to amaze me you proably only admire them because they had nice suits and shiny boots.

[ordos45]

This thread was begun to look into the handful of deeds, one of the most hated men in history had done for his adopted nation of Germany.  Hitler created jobs, did several public works projects, and helped restore Germany to a better standard of living before the beginning of World War Two. 

However, these acts do not excuse his horrifying actions, including the start of the second World War.  Twelve million dead civilians would beg to differ with those who sympathize with Hitler, as would the dead soldiers who fought to stop him. 

Due to the fact this thread has begun to question one of the immutable truths of our time, the evil of a man who seemed to think he was doing the Lord's Work (and some complaints), it is being locked.