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

people say hitler made Germany into one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world? did he really? if he was not that fanatic, do you still believe he would have successed

2007-11-08 23:15:59 · 21 answers · asked by ifutd 2 in Arts & Humanities History

21 answers

No to both questions.

2007-11-08 23:18:51 · answer #1 · answered by margo 3 · 0 4

Yetu,
The pinnacle of Hitler’s fame came in 1938 when he incorporated Austria and the Sudentland into the Reich. From this point forward however, there is enough evidence to show the decline of Hitler and the vision that he held for Germany. To say that a person is “great” or that a country is economically “sound” is to say the whole of its parts share equally in the success of ones “greatness” or a country’s economically “sound” principles. To this extent, and purely my own perspective, the answer is a resounding “NO” to both questions.

Flashing forward from 1938 at what some consider to be Hitler’s “pinnacle” to the period of September 1944 through May 1945 one can witness in history the decline of a complete civilization. Hitler himself blamed the German people in the end and was therefore determined that if Germany could not be what “he” envisioned, then it too should become destroyed to the complete total ruin it ended up to be. Is this a mark of “greatness”? More than 5 million German citizens lost their lives through allied carpet bombing and strafing during the last 9 months of the war. Countless others died after ward as a result of the disease and injuries incurred up to the point of the close of the war. This does not include the millions that Hitler was responsible for killing in terms of Jews, Gypsies, mentally incapacitated, and other forms of “undesireables”.

The Corporal of World War 1 was not “great” and he certainly was not “sound”. The one thing that helped propel Germany in Post WW II to later become an economic power? The Marshal Plan – This kept the country fed in times of deep desperation and in the face of the Soviet Union’s vision to expand communism.

Good question.

Best to you!

Gerry

2007-11-09 04:03:06 · answer #2 · answered by Gerry 7 · 0 0

Well, Hitler lost in the end, and it's kind of hard to argue that Germany was very powerful when Soviet troops were in Berlin ...

But even before the war:

No. Hitler gave the _illusion_ of a powerful German economy, but in reality, one of the reasons he had to start the war when he did is because he was running a giant debt. He was essentially borrowing money to pay for a massive military build up, which had to be used then, or fall apart for lack of funding. Other countries were beginning to be very wary (IIRC, he was running a giant debt with the Czechs) and started to be unwilling to send him more resources. Invading propped up the regime for a while, since the countries which were invaded had to forgive the war debt, but as we know, the war situation did not turn out to his advantage.

2007-11-09 01:22:18 · answer #3 · answered by Miracle Robot 2 · 0 0

Hitler destroyed far more than he built. His thousand year Reich may be the stain he left on the German people.

Germany was a powerful country before WW1. From 1877 until 1914 when the 2nd Reich was formed Germany was united. Its power had surpassed that of France and was rivalry that of Great Britain.

What united Germans after the war was more the desire to reunite Germany than it was anything else. German followed Hitler because he told them what they wanted to here, because he promised to undo the Treaty of Versailles.

German did become powerfull the Germans fought the rest of the world and came very close to winning. But the Nazi's were equally as evil as they were powerful. The power that Nazi Germany rose to had lowered the bar upon all humanity to the depthes of which mankind could sink to.

2007-11-09 02:42:28 · answer #4 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0 1

Nazi Germany was very powerful for a very brief period in time. However, so much of Hitler's power was based on his appeals to the fears and resentment of the German people, I'm not sure it could have maintained itself long-term. War-mongering and scapegoating were a feature, not a bug.

2007-11-09 02:44:52 · answer #5 · answered by Elizabethe 3 · 0 0

He made it into a strong military nation but economically it was done on borrowed money and without a war of conquest Germany would have gone bankrupt

2007-11-09 04:17:40 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 0

He could have been a great leader because he knew how to motivate people .BUT that's his only good leadership quality.He actually made life very difficult for his people during and after the war.How many germans were killed ? Hitler still sucks no matter how you slice it.

2007-11-08 23:34:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Evil will win when good men do nothing! No Hitler was the thief who stole the German peoples' potential for social and economic good. He lied to them, stole their future, be killed and destroyed their country because because he also had hate for others. His economy was helped by slave labor.

2007-11-08 23:26:40 · answer #8 · answered by johnboy 4 · 2 0

The answer to your first question is: Yes, but this doesn't turn him into a positive person. The answer to your second question is yes too. And I am afraid that today, unfortunately, had he concentrated more ( God forbid) on annihilating Serbs and "Gypsies" instead of annihilating Jews, certain elements in today's world would regard him as "one of the world's greatest persons". Unfortunately, this is today's world's mentality.

2007-11-08 23:25:26 · answer #9 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0 1

ya i think so
n anyways i m a huge fan of his
i mean NOT THE WAY HE ACHIEVED HIS GOAL
but definately how he made his dreams come true
frm a poor painter he turned himself into i of the most famous personalities -- even though people r scared of him
n by the way there were many reasons of him being such a mercy less person cuz if he was a spark then there was also kerosine which was equally responsible for lighting up such an huge fire!!!

2007-11-08 23:22:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes

2007-11-08 23:19:27 · answer #11 · answered by Akhtar 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers