English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-31 10:43:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

12 answers

he was smarter than you, its genius, not genuse, you could be really smert if you larn to hit the speel cheeck button

2007-01-31 10:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Hitler was a genius at public speaking and coercion, and was a genius at managing huge groups of people, but it has been proven that he did suffer from mental illness. He may have been a genius, he just used his genius in a vastly wrong way. And he couldn't have stayed at the Art Academy in Austria, because he was never admitted. In fact he was rejected twice due to "unfitness for painting" and was told he leaned more towards architecture, but did not have the education for architecture school, so he went into politics. And why don't we just answer the question, instead of having a moral debate about how terrible Hitler was. Everyone knows he was one of the most terrible human beings ever. So just answer the question.

2007-01-31 19:45:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If Hitler was a genius,he would have stayed in the Art Academy in Austria instead of going into politics. He was more of an opportunist who knew how to turn misfortune into a win-win situation not only for the Nazis,but for himself.

2007-01-31 19:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

More than half a century after its conclusion in 1945, virtually every example of World War II insists that Adolf Hitler started it in order to conquer the world, whose peoples only wanted to live in peace. His sole purpose after achieving power, which he did by terrorizing his way into the chancellery, was to wage military aggression as soon as possible. He bullied little innocent defenseless nations, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, then overcame France only because he had long been preparing for war, while the French themselves were too peace-loving to put up much of a fight, although they were heroes of the Resistance.

The Fuehrer soon met his match in Winston Churchill, one of the very greatest heroes of the 20th Century. Frustrated by his inability to overcome the indomitable spirit of democracy in Britain, Hitler foolishly created a second front by attacking Russia. Just lucky at first, the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad, due to Hitler’s amateurish meddling in the professional strategies of his generals. Insanely, he declared war on the United States, whose president had worked so hard for world peace. The Fuehrer’s fantastic blunders inevitably led to the Normandy Invasion, and nearly a year later, he admitted his guilt by committing suicide, rather than defending himself in a fair trial at Nuremberg.

2007-01-31 18:55:59 · answer #4 · answered by tewarienormy 4 · 0 1

It's interesting that he began the Holocaust, because he was small and dark and lame (literally--he had a limp) and he had a Semitic grandmotherand...HE WAS INSANE. HE HAD MENTAL UNBALANCE...no joke! I understand that it was not so apparent in his younger years, except for when he fought with his half-siblings. Then, his mother (Klara Pollock), once said, "He had a flaming temper."
And, of course, you have to remember that he and old Eva Braun committed suicide. Psychologists say that that is the ultimate sign of insanity.

2007-01-31 18:58:41 · answer #5 · answered by : ) 4 · 0 0

Well, I don't know...depends in what terms you use "genius". He had a very persuasive disposition and he knew how to use it for what he wanted. What he wanted wasn't what I would call "cool", but he got it. He manipulated a country and quite a few places...I think it takes a pretty powerful person to do something like that, but he DID kill himself afterall. And in my opinion, he wasn't a genius. More like a lunnatic...

2007-01-31 18:50:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

If you want to call him that I wouldn't but know one denies that it takes a person of extraordinary talents to rally a nation to his side, and bring Europe to her knees.

2007-01-31 19:20:37 · answer #7 · answered by ray44898 2 · 0 0

He was very good at organizing, uniting, and leading people. He was certainly not a military genius (as he thought) and should have left that part to his generals.

2007-01-31 18:46:53 · answer #8 · answered by parrotsandgrog 3 · 0 2

Sure. Most mistake his success as 'crazy', or they don't believe in the word, 'evil', so they get confused on this issue.

2007-01-31 18:56:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

no what he did was rule over the military generlas who were his stratagy genuises so true credit of battles shoul dbe his generals

2007-01-31 18:52:15 · answer #10 · answered by RANDOM 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers