<p><<population overgrowth="" panic="" is="" bull.="">>
Anyone who agrees with that point needs to seriously read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn...it will change your perspective on a lot of things; not a really long book, but very interesting</population></p>
<p>wasnt he an artist?
<em>i am not saying that there is anything good about hitler, because i agree there is not, i am simply pointing out an unrelated "talent" of his, although he failed, did he not?</em></p>
<p>hitler is one of the great leaders of all time. though he led in a way that we would not approve, u cannot disagree that hitler is one of the most amazing men that have ever lived</p>
<p>cookie_monster, gehen Sie zur Hölle.</p>
<p>"hitler is one of the great leaders of all time. though he led in a way that we would not approve, u cannot disagree that hitler is one of the most amazing men that have ever lived"</p>
<p>In response to this, and the post that apparently cited an argument that Hitler aided the human species through population control, (I'm not saying, Shrek, that this is what you are claiming) I have a few things to say...Whom did Hitler kill? A great number of his victims were intellectuals, professionals, and other educated people...who begins a technological war by destroying his country's "brains?" He used antisemitism as a political tool, but he was so blinded by it himself that he brought his own aims to ruin. That is the mark of an idiot. He invaded the USSR at a time when he could have defeated England and secured his position as the ruler of Europe. Instead, he commenced the most vicious struggle in human history, one which destroyed utterly the nation of Germany. Again, he was an idiot.</p>
<p>wasn't he good to his cat?</p>
<p>haha i remember ap euro teacher talking about that...very ironic..and a vegan i think too</p>
<p>he was not an idiot. hes methods were unacceptable and many of the things he did was bad, but just because he was a bad/evil man does not mean he was not a great man. He was a very effective orator. He had great leadership skills. He roused fear in all of his men, had no questions of rebeling whatsoever. He turned germany around during a time of crisis. i dont believe you can call him an idiot. he is a very bad person, but not an idiot. </p>
<p>he would have taken england and soviet union anyways if the united states had not entered the war. the soviet union did little to stop him.</p>
<p>shrek2004 is absolutely right.</p>
<p>All of you ought to read Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich before opening your mouths on Hitler. Hitler was indeed great. He rose from indigence on the streets of Vienna to the most memorable personage of the twentieth century; devoured literature voraciously; possessed arguably the keenest political and propagandist abilities of our time. Are these not abilities to be respected, regardless of their ends?</p>
<p>I understand that objectivity is hard to maintain when viewing Hitler, but if you can't comment objectively, then don't comment at all.</p>
<p>sure he was evil</p>
<p>but he was a commanding, forceful, powerful, and not to mention persuasive leader.</p>
<p>He was an insecure, small minded, immeasurably cruel, egotistical and sick bast*rd. If "great" means that he had a far-reaching and lasting effect on the history of human-kind, yes he was a "great man". He was a master manipulator. But, any talent, or strength, or virtue he may have possessed was more than negated by his actions and their resulting legacy.</p>
<p>Anyone who believes that genocide is justifiable for population control ... well you can imagine what I think.. It goes without say. Would you like to volunteer???</p>
<p>Yup.</p>
<p>You are all insane. And know NOTHING. Who here was in the concentration camps? In World War II?</p>
<p>It's impressive how Hitler spoke and gained power, but he was unarguably the most evil, disgusting being ever to walk this planet.</p>
<p>I concur with aim78</p>
<p>hehehe my friends joke about hitler a lot.. the thread reminds me of this <a href="http://hitler.greatestjournal.com%5B/url%5D">http://hitler.greatestjournal.com</a> </p>
<p>I want to have a conversation with Hitler. even though he did evil things [that should never be repeated] he fascinates me in a creepy curious way.</p>
<p>The US had very little effect on the outcome of the War in Europe. The major cause the D-Day itself was successful was that the war in Russia had cost Germany so much, otherwise D-Day would have been a complete slaughter of Allied forces. (don't remember where i got this from, but it is very likely true). Even the Russians were lucky that the weather was so horrible that the Germans weren't prepared. Also, at the time that German invaded Russia, England had been reduced to mainly its RAF, which was matched by the luftwaffe.
One fact, the Holocaust was not the largest genocide in history</p>
<p>Just wanted to fix some of your facts, but Hitler was definitely sick and f***ed up and the world would be a better place without him, although the Jews would still likely be without their homeland</p>
<p>
[quote]
The US had very little effect on the outcome of the War in Europe.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Either rephrase your post, or pick up a history book.</p>
<p>Honestly, don't try to argue this point with me.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, that didnt come out quite how I meant it to, but my point was that the largest factors that resulted in Germany's lost (not the end of WWII) was the weather and conditions in Russia, which resulted in greatly reduced forces which helped make D-Day possible.</p>
<p>This is retarded. This thread shouldn't have even been made. I'm so angry that people would try to even defend him by saying "he was an artist" or "he was good to his cat" or "he loved his wife"</p>
<p>This is NOT a debate to be won or lost. This man, despite his oratory prowess and military skills, was a true representation of evil. Stop trying to create arguments for the other side of it. It truly disgusts me how people can be so blind only 60 years after the second most vile extinction of people in all of history.</p>
<p>"he would have taken england and soviet union anyways if the united states had not entered the war. the soviet union did little to stop him."</p>
<p>On what do you base your information? The Soviet Union did little to stop him? I don't want to get into a long discussion of World War II, but I don't understand where you could have possibly gotten that idea.</p>
<p>"I'm sorry, that didnt come out quite how I meant it to, but my point was that the largest factors that resulted in Germany's lost (not the end of WWII) was the weather and conditions in Russia, which resulted in greatly reduced forces which helped make D-Day possible."</p>
<p>Weather didn't defeat the Wermacht. Weather affects both sides in a given area. The Germans failed to deliver a lethal blow to the Red Army. The war of attrition that ensued doomed the Germans because they could not match the Soviet Union's production and manpower. I would advise looking at the numbers describing soldiers involved on both fronts, causialties, etc if you want to gain an accurate picture of the relative scale of the fighting in the East and West. D-Day was largely irrelevent, as far as the fate of Nazi Germany is concerned. Everything was decided by June of 1944. The Germans couldn't win after Stalingrad, and they were incapable of conducting an effective offensive after Kursk.</p>
<p>annoyingusername87,</p>
<p>I haven't read any serious comments attempting to defend Adolf as virtuous, altruistic, or exempt from evil in any manner. All I've seen are arguments of his greatness.</p>
<p>Perhaps if the thread poster had clearly defined the point of this thread, these discrepancies between whether Hitler was good, evil, great, et cetera wouldn't have arisen</p>