was hitler a great leader? bad leader?

[Mechanix]

Only a legendary leader can get most of the population to hail, cheer, march, fight, and die in their name.

 

[ArcWinter]

Well, he was a pretty okay leader. On one hand, he was a very good speaker and propagandist. On the other hand, he had no idea how to deal with dissent. Hitler would have been a much better leader if he had not silenced any other opposing voice in government. Also, killing your own citizens does not a good leader make.

I will stop now because I am about to say something about the Holocaust and that is not what this thread is about.

man that was a good save i mean even though i am right some people will definitely not be able to see my point objectively

 

[peduncle]

He was an extremely good leader!

Then again, so was Darth Vader.

amen

 

[Evilbunny]

I'm pretty sure murdering your own citizens counts as bad leadership. If I were boss of a company and I murdered some of my employees, I think most people would say I'm a bad boss.

 

[biGBum333]

extremely good leader. probably the only politician who ever actually kept his promises. to think he went from eating soup at homeless shelters to becoming the leader of entire nation and almost conquering the world. i certainly wouldnt admire him because of how evil he was, but i definitely respect the accomplishments he made.

 

[Dancingman]

"Hitler Gave Great Speeches Too" The way to win people over is a great speech, Hitler nailed that and so does Obama.

Dude... this has been said WAAAAAAAAAAAY too many times!
Why does connect Obama (great man) with Hitler (Fucking Psycho) because they both gave great speaches?! Guess what, Martin Luther Kind gave one the the greatest speaches ever made... so is he like Hitler?

*Points up* This, I never understood why Obama wasn't allowed to make a good speech, why do good speakers always have to be Hitler.

 

[Kenko]

Adolf Hitler was a great man who was quite the political animal and very charismatic. He got shit done and made things happen wich won him alot of support. Ofcourse he went batshit crazy at some point. But hey, the french and british caused WW2 by punishing the entire country with poverty, so its all their fault. Had the Germans not lived in poverty and despair he would've been laughed at but they did and they saw him as a man who could help them away from it.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

If you think of it in that way yeah it's really damn big but still... the allies destroyed it with one commando solider dropped behind enemy lines well that's what I heard.

Hmm... Kind of an anti climactic way to go down. massive, imposing piece of perfection taken down by peon with explosive charges...

 

[Communist partisan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

If you think of it in that way yeah it's really damn big but still... the allies destroyed it with one commando solider dropped behind enemy lines well that's what I heard.

Hmm... Kind of an anti climactic way to go down. massive, imposing piece of perfection taken down by peon with explosive charges...

Yeah... and the stupid part is that they couldn't repair it beacose it's too big too heavy and too.... well I can't figure any more reason so we yust fill that one in whith: Bollo... Kittens... yeah.... kittens.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

If you think of it in that way yeah it's really damn big but still... the allies destroyed it with one commando solider dropped behind enemy lines well that's what I heard.

Hmm... Kind of an anti climactic way to go down. massive, imposing piece of perfection taken down by peon with explosive charges...

Yeah... and the stupid part is that they couldn't repair it beacose it's too big too heavy and too.... well I can't figure any more reason so we yust fill that one in whith: Bollo... Kittens... yeah.... kittens.

Lol watch those kittens, they're sharp.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Well, he had to have been a amazing leader to mobilize Germany to slaughter millions of people.

But he was a bad person.

 

[Communist partisan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

If you think of it in that way yeah it's really damn big but still... the allies destroyed it with one commando solider dropped behind enemy lines well that's what I heard.

Hmm... Kind of an anti climactic way to go down. massive, imposing piece of perfection taken down by peon with explosive charges...

Yeah... and the stupid part is that they couldn't repair it beacose it's too big too heavy and too.... well I can't figure any more reason so we yust fill that one in whith: Bollo... Kittens... yeah.... kittens.

Lol watch those kittens, they're sharp.

Yeah... I know they can poke your eye out....

 

[Vox Caster T2]

Hitler was not the best thing for the world in his time. He was the best thing for the world for the future. Because of him we can look back and as a people, say "Never again." It is the horrors of the past that lead to the glories of today. That is the "true history."

As a lesson learned then indeed it was a lesson learned.

As for those of you that praise Hitler on Germany's 1930- 36 period economy. The conditions were temporary at best, the NSDAP just stopped paying repearations, seized jewish assets, nullified interest/repayments on loans against jewish finanical entities, and fixed farming prices (A very socialist move by the way.)

None of this really helped the German farming infrastructure in the long term as an example, farmers still needed immediate capital and trade channels for mechanization for of which there was little available but were pacified by promises of better conditions to come.

Another creative book-keeping tactic was with women, more then one-third of the working age women group were considered 'employed' and entered in the registered labour force against the unemployedment numbers if they were at-home housewives, even though they were getting no pay. This was part of the 'Kinder, Kuche, Kirche' push by Goebbels and Hitler, which also gave a 1000 reichsmarks interest free loan for women to get out of the paying workforce but on the dark side of this push was the 1936 heavy tax levied against childless couples.

All of these plans gave short term veneers of the economic conditions getting better for the working classes, but in the end the NSDAP had no really economic sustainable game plan. To quote one of my former professors.

"To Hitler, space translated into agriculturally usable land. In the eternal struggle for space, the stronger won, seized the space, proliferated in the space, and then extended that space yet again. Thus by definition expansion was limitless: in the end, there could only be total victory or utter defeat, Weltmacht or Niedergang. The Key to Hitler's foreign policy was European Russia"

In other words, Hitler and the NSDAP -needed- to invade European Russia to maintain the fascade of economic prosperity (Even that would have come to an end eventually.) Having the game plan of a land-pirate a.k.a brigandage/claim-jumper does not make you a good leader. Hitler in truth didn't give a rat-arse about Western Europe aside from the surrounding regions. This also back-fired because the Western Front did not go away, Hitler believed in the whole "Aryan" nonsense and was completely boogled by the fact that the Common-Wealth nations did not fall in step with the NSDAP.

So you can't really say Hitler was a good leader but was dumb for invading Russia because the bulk of his political promises rode on the back of absorbing -European Russia-. The Asia portion of Soviet Union was another matter however.

One final thing, the war ended when it did due to three key factors, the wealth of North America, the resistance of the U.K. with its colonial troopers, and finally the blood the Soviets. I'm not Russian, but I have acknowledge the lives the Soviets spent fighting. While the U.K. and the U.S lives lost in the war was costly and we must forever honour those souls, the Soviets cost were far in excess. The struggle on the Eastern Front was a genocidal war and the result was truly frightening, there was a very real reason to why Western Europe governments were adamant about the US maintaining a nuclear presence in Europe as a counter to the red killing machine during the 50s.

 

[Dancingman]

Hitler was not the best thing for the world in his time. He was the best thing for the world for the future. Because of him we can look back and as a people, say "Never again." It is the horrors of the past that lead to the glories of today. That is the "true history."

As a lesson learned then indeed it was a lesson learned.

As for those of you that praise Hitler on Germany's 1930- 36 period economy. The conditions were temporary at best, the NSDAP just stopped paying repearations, seized jewish assets, nullified interest/repayments on loans against jewish finanical entities, and fixed farming prices (A very socialist move by the way.)

None of this really helped the German farming infrastructure in the long term as an example, farmers still needed immediate capital and trade channels for mechanization for of which there was little available but were pacified by promises of better conditions to come.

Another creative book-keeping tactic was with women, more then one-third of the working age women group were considered 'employed' and entered in the registered labour force against the unemployedment numbers if they were at-home housewives, even though they were getting no pay. This was part of the 'Kinder, Kuche, Kirche' push by Goebbels and Hitler, which also gave a 1000 reichsmarks interest free loan for women to get out of the paying workforce but on the dark side of this push was the 1936 heavy tax levied against childless couples.

All of these plans gave short term veneers of the economic conditions getting better for the working classes, but in the end the NSDAP had no really economic sustainable game plan. To quote one of my former professors.

"To Hitler, space translated into agriculturally usable land. In the eternal struggle for space, the stronger won, seized the space, proliferated in the space, and then extended that space yet again. Thus by definition expansion was limitless: in the end, there could only be total victory or utter defeat, Weltmacht or Niedergang. The Key to Hitler's foreign policy was European Russia"

In other words, Hitler and the NSDAP -needed- to invade European Russia to maintain the fascade of economic prosperity (Even that would have come to an end eventually.) Having the game plan of a land-pirate a.k.a brigandage/claim-jumper does not make you a good leader. Hitler in truth didn't give a rat-arse about Western Europe aside from the surrounding regions. This also back-fired because the Western Front did not go away, Hitler believed in the whole "Aryan" nonsense and was completely boogled by the fact that the Common-Wealth nations did not fall in step with the NSDAP.

So you can't really say Hitler was a good leader but was dumb for invading Russia because the bulk of his political promises rode on the back of absorbing -European Russia-. The Asia portion of Soviet Union was another matter however.

One final thing, the war ended when it did due to three key factors, the wealth of North America, the resistance of the U.K. with its colonial troopers, and finally the blood the Soviets. I'm not Russian, but I have acknowledge the lives the Soviets spent fighting. While the U.K. and the U.S lives lost in the war was costly and we must forever honour those souls, the Soviets cost were far in excess. The struggle on the Eastern Front was a genocidal war and the result was truly frightening, there was a very real reason to why Western Europe governments were adamant about the US maintaining a nuclear presence in Europe as a counter to the red killing machine during the 50s.

You know Vox, I honestly must say I feel really, really bad for the young'uns who drag themselves onto WWII debates on this forum and get broadsided like this, I mean it's funny and usually you learn some stuff but damn, you have to pity em.

 

[Verlander]

Snipped

I've already previously discussed this post with someone else, where I went through the exact same points that you have just pointed out. At the end of the day this is all speculation. Who knows how it might have turned out? My points were taken from leading theorists and historians, and I trust those people, so I stick by them. If you have a different opinion, that's your prerogative.

If you consider the atomic bomb being the deterrent, and the nuclear race being the winning factor of the war (which it wasn't for the Nazis), then you would consider Germany declaring war on the Americans the deciding factor. America was at war with the Japanese until 4 days after when Germany declared war on the US, I don't think that America would have joined in the European invasion otherwise. Germany was developing similar weapons to the atomic bomb, it was just a time issue. You got there first.

Oh God an appeal to authority, let's not and say we did okay? Claiming your arguments are backed up by "leading theorists and historians" doesn't mean that it automatically reinforces a faulty argument, if those really are the arguments that leading historians are making about WWII's possible outcomes then I'm depressed.

The technology for the atomic bomb was never really anywhere near within reach of Nazi Germany, we started our program partly because of Einstein's insistence and partly because we were afraid that the Germans would get it first, well, it turned out that they weren't ever exceptionally close to achieving their goal. The fact that they outright declared certain theories to be untrue (like Einstein's theories, because he was Jewish) and then actively pursued a policy of persecution meant that they pretty much alienated a lot of good scientists who instead defected to either the US or the USSR.

And in regards to the European war comment I disagree, the USA was already all but committed to the Allies in terms of running supplies to Great Britain (and later the Soviet Union) via the Lend-Lease Act, Hitler would've done something like call on u-boats to strike at U.S. ports eventually, even if by astronomical odds he were to stand on the sidelines and merely shake his fist at the fact that we were supplying his enemy, we'd have gotten in eventually. Roosevelt wanted to get us in the war and we were economically too close to the nations of Europe to leave them to fend for themselves.

How are you smarter than everyone else all of a sudden? I was merely stating where I had formed my opinion. I wasn't saying (like you are) that my statement had been fact. In fact I go on to say it's all speculation.

I have to ask a question. How do you know what Germany were and weren't doing? Were you there? I wasn't. Did you read it on a website? In a book? A computer game? In your history lesson? I went to school in America for a short period of time, and like all countries, I'd recommend you take your history lessons with a massive pinch of salt. Especially in a patriotic country. That's not to say you're wrong, but it's to say that you probably aren't right either.

As this is (I repeat) a speculative discussion, I have already agreed to disagree. I know my sources (however flawed you think they are), and I stick by them. You stick by yours. I'm not out to win converts, but I won't take kindly to people attacking me in their oh-so-sarcastic way either. Nazi Germany were constantly developing technology, and while Hitler and the propaganda merchants may not have agreed with Einstein, the Nazi scientists were extremely clever, and were developing similar weapons.

As for the European comment, well firstly I'm agreeing to disagree, but the reason I made my decision, is based on FDR. You guys were coming out of your depression, the army were training with wooden guns, the people, while concerned about what was happening in Europe, weren't thrilled about heading into another war. I can imagine the last thing FDR wanted to do was join into the war. It held little possibility of re-election, and you hadn't exactly prospered since the last world war. Then the over enthusiastic Japanese take out Pearl Harbour, one of the stupidest moves in the war, and in Japanese history. FDR declares war on Japan. Hitler (making another stupid move) declares war on the USA just 4 days later, thinking that the Japanese have a chance of bringing the US down. That way he can move in and take the rest after the European conquest is complete.

There is no way of telling whether FDR would have joined in the European struggle otherwise. I'd say no, but again it's down to speculation. Tell me, if you were the leader of an economically fragile country, who had been attacked by one powerful empire, would you simultaneously pick a fight with the Nazi machine which has almost desecrated Europe? That's a fools policy. Had Hitler not picked a fight with the soviets so early, they would a) try and take him down anyway at his weakest, or b)He would have successfully continued his tour of Europe. Had the latter happened, and he not started on the US, he would have taken Europe, and had much more time to develop those weapons you don't think they were developing, and then who knows? While you were busy fighting the Japanese, he could have been bombing the shit out of New York. Declaring was on the Soviets and Americans were the two moves that in my opinion, lost him the west. Therefore great leader. Absolute ****, but great leader.

And for those about to restart the fight of "he wasn't a great leader", look it up.

Leader n 1. a person who rules, guides, or inspires others; head

He inspires people today. He is a figurehead, an iconic symbol, and the worlds most recognisable man. 65 years after his death, more people recognise him than any current world leader.

OP question: Answered.

Disagree all you want

 

[Kurokami]

so this is my first time creating a thread be gentle and didn't turn anything up on the search bar
so anyway i was walking through my college campus a few days back when i heard a heated debate between two people one of them was insisting that hitler was a good leader despite the whole mass genocide thing and the other person considered his opinion was worth as much as the cigarette but i had just crushed under my foot and refused to discuss it with him
saying that he cant talk to people that blind to reality. so anyway what do you think

I think he was a genius to have manipulated people so and to have lead them so far, not that I support the whole genocide thing of course. From my understanding though, limited though it may be, and feel free to inform me otherwise, he wasn't exactly standing out at the time. All the hate was already there, he was simply the man to give the people power (or rather... Unify them into a power). I'm not saying there weren't exceptions to the haters there, but did he really standout as far as racists go?

In short, yeah I agree with the majority. Great leader, bad person.

Edit: Oh and in future, if you wish to create more threads, please try to be a bit more attentive to grammar and spelling, I know it sucks and is time consuming but it gives you a nice little portion of credibility and will help you in English in general. =]

 

[Dancingman]

quote="Verlander" post="18.228689.7929791"]

Snipped

I've already previously discussed this post with someone else, where I went through the exact same points that you have just pointed out. At the end of the day this is all speculation. Who knows how it might have turned out? My points were taken from leading theorists and historians, and I trust those people, so I stick by them. If you have a different opinion, that's your prerogative.

If you consider the atomic bomb being the deterrent, and the nuclear race being the winning factor of the war (which it wasn't for the Nazis), then you would consider Germany declaring war on the Americans the deciding factor. America was at war with the Japanese until 4 days after when Germany declared war on the US, I don't think that America would have joined in the European invasion otherwise. Germany was developing similar weapons to the atomic bomb, it was just a time issue. You got there first.

Oh God an appeal to authority, let's not and say we did okay? Claiming your arguments are backed up by "leading theorists and historians" doesn't mean that it automatically reinforces a faulty argument, if those really are the arguments that leading historians are making about WWII's possible outcomes then I'm depressed.

The technology for the atomic bomb was never really anywhere near within reach of Nazi Germany, we started our program partly because of Einstein's insistence and partly because we were afraid that the Germans would get it first, well, it turned out that they weren't ever exceptionally close to achieving their goal. The fact that they outright declared certain theories to be untrue (like Einstein's theories, because he was Jewish) and then actively pursued a policy of persecution meant that they pretty much alienated a lot of good scientists who instead defected to either the US or the USSR.

And in regards to the European war comment I disagree, the USA was already all but committed to the Allies in terms of running supplies to Great Britain (and later the Soviet Union) via the Lend-Lease Act, Hitler would've done something like call on u-boats to strike at U.S. ports eventually, even if by astronomical odds he were to stand on the sidelines and merely shake his fist at the fact that we were supplying his enemy, we'd have gotten in eventually. Roosevelt wanted to get us in the war and we were economically too close to the nations of Europe to leave them to fend for themselves.

How are you smarter than everyone else all of a sudden? I was merely stating where I had formed my opinion. I wasn't saying (like you are) that my statement had been fact. In fact I go on to say it's all speculation.

I have to ask a question. How do you know what Germany were and weren't doing? Were you there? I wasn't. Did you read it on a website? In a book? A computer game? In your history lesson? I went to school in America for a short period of time, and like all countries, I'd recommend you take your history lessons with a massive pinch of salt. Especially in a patriotic country. That's not to say you're wrong, but it's to say that you probably aren't right either.

I never said I believed absolutely everything I hear, there's some degree of sentiment here that America rushed in at the nick of time to save the day and if they hadn't than all of Europe would have fallen to Nazi Germany but the fact of the matter is that if we'd have been left to our lonesome selves the whole time than Germany almost definitely would have lost, the war would've been longer and Europe would have been devastated a lot more by it than it was in real life, but eventually Nazi Germany would've been steamrollered by the Soviet Union with the British rolling in on the West, the resources of those three other major countries were just too stacked against it for the Germans to have any real hope of victory.

As this is (I repeat) a speculative discussion, I have already agreed to disagree. I know my sources (however flawed you think they are), and I stick by them. You stick by yours. I'm not out to win converts, but I won't take kindly to people attacking me in their oh-so-sarcastic way either. Nazi Germany were constantly developing technology, and while Hitler and the propaganda merchants may not have agreed with Einstein, the Nazi scientists were extremely clever, and were developing similar weapons.

It doesn't matter that I wasn't there, the fact of the matter still remains that no matter the skill of German scientists in certain areas, the rise to power of the Nazi regime still severely retarded their nuclear physics program, though Germany's rocket science was leaps and bounds more advanced than that of any other nation in the world (to the point where a lot of sneaky politicking was done behind closed doors to make sure that the US got a hold of defecting German scientists), their nuclear physics left a lot to be desired. Einstein was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the exodus of nearly an entire generation of German nuclear scientists. Because the Nazi regime pretty much made the sciences conform to their various doctrines (Aryan supremacy, the strong must rule the weak, etc.) they wound up alienating a lot of people who could have potentially contributed to a German atomic weapons program. So yes, Nazi Germany was indeed developing similar weapons while the other Allied powers (namely the USA with the Soviets piggybacking off of our program) were leaps and bounds ahead because we'd played politics well enough to make German scientists defect. The Germans simply would not have been able to complete the program before the Allies. The fact that they automatically ruled Einstein's theories (which turned out to be right on the money) invalid was icing on the cake. It doesn't matter whether or not I "think" that the Nazis weren't working on a program when historically they were, and when historically their program was terribly implemented.

As for the European comment, well firstly I'm agreeing to disagree, but the reason I made my decision, is based on FDR. You guys were coming out of your depression, the army were training with wooden guns, the people, while concerned about what was happening in Europe, weren't thrilled about heading into another war. I can imagine the last thing FDR wanted to do was join into the war. It held little possibility of re-election, and you hadn't exactly prospered since the last world war. Then the over enthusiastic Japanese take out Pearl Harbour, one of the stupidest moves in the war, and in Japanese history. FDR declares war on Japan. Hitler (making another stupid move) declares war on the USA just 4 days later, thinking that the Japanese have a chance of bringing the US down. That way he can move in and take the rest after the European conquest is complete.

There is no way of telling whether FDR would have joined in the European struggle otherwise. I'd say no, but again it's down to speculation. Tell me, if you were the leader of an economically fragile country, who had been attacked by one powerful empire, would you simultaneously pick a fight with the Nazi machine which has almost desecrated Europe? That's a fools policy. Had Hitler not picked a fight with the soviets so early, they would a) try and take him down anyway at his weakest, or b)He would have successfully continued his tour of Europe. Had the latter happened, and he not started on the US, he would have taken Europe, and had much more time to develop those weapons you don't think they were developing, and then who knows? While you were busy fighting the Japanese, he could have been bombing the shit out of New York. Declaring was on the Soviets and Americans were the two moves that in my opinion, lost him the west. Therefore great leader. Absolute ****, but great leader.

Actually you're still ignoring the fact that Hitler would need a way bigger navy than he historically had to even be able to transport the armies he would need to make a foothold from which to attack North America, not to mention the planes since he'd need to have his own version of "Island-hopping" to be able to take areas that could be used as air bases for strikes into the USA. Invasion of the USA roughly from Spanish-American War onward becomes a nearly impossible task with the strength of American military and production capacity. If Nazi Germany had pursued the mind-bogglingly difficult task (yes it genuinely would be really, really hard to pull off it's not just me thumping my chest with patriotism) of trying to not only find a place that they can attack from then they would simply be repulsed, unlike Germany, we didn't have enemies closing in on our opposite border, which meant that as soon as the Nazis bombed the East Coast then it would be completely militarized and would go from a relatively unexpected target to one of the most heavily-defended portions of the nation. It is simply logistically impossible to successfully invade WWII-era USA as any one country, even a Germany that was victorious in Europe still would have trouble with the undertaking.

And yes, in response to your question, I would declare war, sure the USA was economically fragile but then there are a few things that would make a war possible, regardless of the public opinion. Firstly, we'd have been eventually outright attacked by Germany even if neither side declared war on the other, Hitler didn't like that we were supplying the Allies and we were neutral only on paper. Most Americans did support the supplying of the Allies. Hitler would've turned the wolf packs on American shipping or other American targets eventually to persuade us not to continue supplying the Allies. There'd have been some sort of similar re-run of the Lusitania incident in WWI, public opinion would have swelled against Germany and probably against her allies as well, and the US declared war on Germany then. Secondly, we were fragile, but we were still a major industrial power, no matter how hard the Depression had hit us there was still the fact that we remained a leading economic power and there was still the fact that we'd emerged from WWI more prosperous than we had been when we started and the rest of the powers involved found only ruin and devastation (again, this is genuinely true and not just patriotism, WWI had not been fought on our territory/colonial possessions, so of course we got to reap all the benefits with few of the costs). Thirdly, there's nothing like a war to distract from troubles at home, a ruthless maxim yes but a true one nevertheless. War stimulates the economy and puts people back to work, that's the principle upon which Hitler's plans for Germany were built. And it most definitely contributed the flourishing of the USA during and after the Second World War. World War Two from the American perspective was of course a bit more complicated than that but the fact of the matter was that we simply were one of the strongest industrial powers around, German capacity could not match it and they simply wouldn't have the ability to win a battle of conquest against the USA.

And for those about to restart the fight of "he wasn't a great leader", look it up.

Leader n 1. a person who rules, guides, or inspires others; head

He inspires people today. He is a figurehead, an iconic symbol, and the worlds most recognisable man. 65 years after his death, more people recognise him than any current world leader.

OP question: Answered.

Disagree all you want[/quote]