Hitler Vs. Stalin

[DeletedUser]

Well, fuhren means to lead. Fuhrer was an adopted title by Hitler. The word comes from a derivative that means leader, but Fuhrer was a title that reflected the leader of the Nazi Power and Germany as it was used in that context. Sort of like president vs Mr. President.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sort of like president vs Mr. President.

Good point. I wonder why I didn't think of that!

 

[DeletedUser]

we have israel at war due to ww2 (nothing else but war )

Wrong, Isreal has been a disputed piece of territory since Eygyption times of power.

to add to that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
is an extract about how he even pulled out of certain pacts and started a millitary campain

but what it does not tell you is the reason hitler pulled out.
.every millitary general knows this= coz he felt his genirals not up to the task of keeping the country safe,,so he fired most of them and took controle himself.
his first real mistake.

so there are two parts..one he's shaking hands
and the second pulling out of a unifying system to protect all people and countries

You bring in the League of Nations? Something made out of the Treaty of Versailles and a complete failure of Britain's way to police the world?
The League of Nations used Sanctions agaisnt Mussolini, thats the only thing it did, sanctions.

Most of what you just said makes absolutely no sense.

Hitler, as a leader, had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing anything that Germany did technologically in WWII. Had Germany won the war, as you put it, life would be the same from a technology standpoint.

Blitzkrieg was not Hitlers. Rocket Science was not Hitlers. Technologically speaking, we would be no different today than Hitler had never been born.

Blitzkrieg was an Idea Hitler was part of, Lightning War like that, Bombing then straight in with the troops, had never been done before.

befor the gread depretion people starved,
when hitler came along,,he turned it into a power house.

he had job openings at his lil factory ,,and the people needed them,,easy way for him to become mayor and then slowly uup the goverment chain

and yes he was the grand leader,,and yes he was persecuted by the world.
and no..he is a victem of his own accord.
and read it again...i said the guy did nothing good for genarations to come

ps. you double posted there

Hitler came to power due to the Recession, he gained the power through being elected to a cabinet which believed that they could control Hitler and the Nazi Party, inwhich they of course failed.

what about hessler and his daring flight to england to talk to churchhill??
he was escorted by two english plaines......this during war time.

what are you on about Hessler? i swear you make this up, his name was Rudolf Hess, he flew to scotland before the war with the USSR to negotiate Peace, instead he was arrested and kept imprisoned till 1987 when he died.

 

[DeletedUser]

Blitzkrieg was an Idea Hitler was part of, Lightning War like that, Bombing then straight in with the troops, had never been done before.

If I read the book Harry Potter, and I liked the story, that doesn't mean I have part in developing the story. Which was Hitler's essential role in the development of Germany's tactics.

Heinz Guderian is the main person behind Germany's adopted blitzkrieg tactics-particular with mobilized armor. Most of which are a disputable as a formal tactics for what we realize as blitzkrieg. Hitler was actually a detriment to this official doctrine, as his insistence was towards developing heavier armor, and thus slower moving armor.

The German Army of 1944 when compared to the German army prior to 1942 is greatly different, vastly less mobile. The lack of mobility worked directly against Guderian's philosophies, and that is due to Hitler's discretion to their armor development.

This left them unable to rapidly respond, and left them even more vulnerable to the allied air superiority.

Luftwaffe tactics were not developed by Hitler either, and outside of tactical close air support (the primary effective role of Air Support in pressing the enemy and disrupting reinforcements), the effectiveness of "terror bombing" is disputed as well-even by leaders of the Luftwaffe.

All that, is to say Germany's method in fighting the polish and french, known as blitzkrieg, was very effective. But it had nothing to do with Hitler. Everything Hitler did contradicted the tactical or technological advantage the German army had.

Whether it was the misguided belief on the ME-262, or the change in philosophy towards panthers, tigers, and konigstiger, or the change in war plans to splinter and take Leningrad first and not the Baku Oil Fields, Hitler was a self-proclaimed military genious. His actual records speak to the contrary, and the strength of the German Army was in spite of its Fuhrer, not because of it.

Hitler came to power due to the Recession,

Actually, Germany was on its way out of recession due to von Hindenburg. Hitler was von Hindenburg's chief political rival (Hitler lost the election to him), and his death while in office was what gave Hitler his doorway to power with no real opponent left. Germany's economy would have likely continued its growth with anyone else in power as well.

Hitler's 2 biggest achievements prior to WWII, was ignoring the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, and restoring a fragile German public. Up until he took office, Germany spent most of its time developing its arsenal around the ToV. Hitler just said screw it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, fuhren means to lead. Fuhrer was an adopted title by Hitler. The word comes from a derivative that means leader, but Fuhrer was a title that reflected the leader of the Nazi Power and Germany as it was used in that context. Sort of like president vs Mr. President.

Fuhrer was adopted by Hitler after the death of Hindenburg when he merged the Office of Chancellor and Prime Minister.

 

[DeletedUser]

In German, it just means leader, doesn't it?

Well, fuhren means to lead. Fuhrer was an adopted title by Hitler. The word comes from a derivative that means leader, but Fuhrer was a title that reflected the leader of the Nazi Power and Germany as it was used in that context. Sort of like president vs Mr. President.

Fuhrer was adopted by Hitler after the death of Hindenburg when he merged the Office of Chancellor and Prime Minister.

That should sum it up.
I don't know if what Hefty stated is correct, but I'll take his word for it.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I read the book Harry Potter, and I liked the story, that doesn't mean I have part in developing the story. Which was Hitler's essential role in the development of Germany's tactics.

Heinz Guderian is the main person behind Germany's adopted blitzkrieg tactics-particular with mobilized armor. Most of which are a disputable as a formal tactics for what we realize as blitzkrieg. Hitler was actually a detriment to this official doctrine, as his insistence was towards developing heavier armor, and thus slower moving armor.

The German Army of 1944 when compared to the German army prior to 1942 is greatly different, vastly less mobile. The lack of mobility worked directly against Guderian's philosophies, and that is due to Hitler's discretion to their armor development.

This left them unable to rapidly respond, and left them even more vulnerable to the allied air superiority.

Luftwaffe tactics were not developed by Hitler either, and outside of tactical close air support (the primary effective role of Air Support in pressing the enemy and disrupting reinforcements), the effectiveness of "terror bombing" is disputed as well-even by leaders of the Luftwaffe.

All that, is to say Germany's method in fighting the polish and french, known as blitzkrieg, was very effective. But it had nothing to do with Hitler. Everything Hitler did contradicted the tactical or technological advantage the German army had.

Whether it was the misguided belief on the ME-262, or the change in philosophy towards panthers, tigers, and konigstiger, or the change in war plans to splinter and take Leningrad first and not the Baku Oil Fields, Hitler was a self-proclaimed military genious. His actual records speak to the contrary, and the strength of the German Army was in spite of its Fuhrer, not because of it.



Actually, Germany was on its way out of recession due to von Hindenburg. Hitler was von Hindenburg's chief political rival (Hitler lost the election to him), and his death while in office was what gave Hitler his doorway to power with no real opponent left. Germany's economy would have likely continued its growth with anyone else in power as well.

Hitler's 2 biggest achievements prior to WWII, was ignoring the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, and restoring a fragile German public. Up until he took office, Germany spent most of its time developing its arsenal around the ToV. Hitler just said screw it.

Hindenburg was the Reason Hitler came to power, along with the Recession.
The Recession gave the Nazi Party Power, Hindenburg gave Hitler power.


JR its Prime Minister/President, it can be either of the two tbh.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, Hefty is right, but it was President/Chancellor as he stated above.

Although, Hindenburg's appeasement to appoint Hitler as Chancellor is what put him in position to seize power, the Reichstag Fire Decree/Enabling Act is why he was able to seize it. No one gave him the powers of Fuhrer. Certainly not Hindenburg-who was not a fan of Hitler even at the time of his appointment.

The recession was in decline before Hitler seized power, although still technically in a recession.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, Hefty is right, but it was President/Chancellor as he stated above.

Although, Hindenburg's appeasement to appoint Hitler as Chancellor is what put him in position to seize power, the Reichstag Fire Decree/Enabling Act is why he was able to seize it. No one gave him the powers of Fuhrer. Certainly not Hindenburg-who was not a fan of Hitler even at the time of his appointment.

The recession was in decline before Hitler seized power, although still technically in a recession.

Hindeburg Agreed to the Enabling Act However, and never dismissed Hitler, which was within his power.

 

[DeletedUser]

Correct, but that is not to say he handed him power. Versions of the Enabling Act had been done before without so far as leading to a legal dictator.

Without Hindenburg's death, it would have been difficult for Hitler to do what he did after the fact.

 

[DeletedUser]

Correct, but that is not to say he handed him power. Versions of the Enabling Act had been done before without so far as leading to a legal dictator.

Without Hindenburg's death, it would have been difficult for Hitler to do what he did after the fact.

Hitler knew this, Hindenburg's death was inevitable, it was lucky infact Hindeburg was pressured into government, made it easier for him in a way

 

[DeletedUser]

True, but without Hindenburg in the election of '32 (I think) -then Hitler would have likely won it outright. Whether he could have seized power as he did in those events as President-I don't know.

 

[DeletedUser11019]

this is from wiki..look up stalin



Falsifiers of History

In 1948, Stalin personally edited and rewrote by hand sections of the cold war book Falsifiers of History.[198] Falsifiers was published in response to the documents made public in Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939–1941: Documents from the Archives of The German Foreign Office,[199][200] which included the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and other secret German-Soviet relations documents.[199][201] Falsifiers originally appeared as a series of articles in Pravda in February 1948,[200] and was subsequently published in numerous language and distributed worldwide.[202]
The book did not attempt to directly counter or deal with the documents published in Nazi-Soviet Relations[203] and rather, focused upon Western culpability for the outbreak of war in 1939.[202] It argues that "Western powers" aided Nazi rearmament and aggression, including that American bankers and industrialists provided capital for the growth of German war industries, while deliberately encouraging Hitler to expand eastward.[199][202] It depicted the Soviet Union as striving to negotiate a collective security against Hitler, while being thwarted by double-dealing Anglo-French appeasers who, despite appearances, had no intention of a Soviet alliance and were secretly negotiating with Berlin.[202] It casts the Munich agreement, not just as Anglo-French short-sightedness or cowardice, but as a "secret" agreement that was a "a highly important phase in their policy aimed at goading the Hitlerite aggressors against the Soviet Union."[204] The book also included the claim that, during the Pact's operation, Stalin rejected Hitler's offer to share in a division of the world, without mentioning the Soviet offers to join the Axis.[205] Historical studies, official accounts, memoirs and textbooks published in the Soviet Union used that depiction of events until the Soviet Union's dissolution.[205]



and about the saudi thing...i cant find i too...sez here he died of a stroke in 1953

 

[DeletedUser]

this is from wiki..look up stalin



Falsifiers of History

In 1948, Stalin personally edited and rewrote by hand sections of the cold war book Falsifiers of History.[198] Falsifiers was published in response to the documents made public in Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939–1941: Documents from the Archives of The German Foreign Office,[199][200] which included the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and other secret German-Soviet relations documents.[199][201] Falsifiers originally appeared as a series of articles in Pravda in February 1948,[200] and was subsequently published in numerous language and distributed worldwide.[202]
The book did not attempt to directly counter or deal with the documents published in Nazi-Soviet Relations[203] and rather, focused upon Western culpability for the outbreak of war in 1939.[202] It argues that "Western powers" aided Nazi rearmament and aggression, including that American bankers and industrialists provided capital for the growth of German war industries, while deliberately encouraging Hitler to expand eastward.[199][202] It depicted the Soviet Union as striving to negotiate a collective security against Hitler, while being thwarted by double-dealing Anglo-French appeasers who, despite appearances, had no intention of a Soviet alliance and were secretly negotiating with Berlin.[202] It casts the Munich agreement, not just as Anglo-French short-sightedness or cowardice, but as a "secret" agreement that was a "a highly important phase in their policy aimed at goading the Hitlerite aggressors against the Soviet Union."[204] The book also included the claim that, during the Pact's operation, Stalin rejected Hitler's offer to share in a division of the world, without mentioning the Soviet offers to join the Axis.[205] Historical studies, official accounts, memoirs and textbooks published in the Soviet Union used that depiction of events until the Soviet Union's dissolution.[205]



and about the saudi thing...i cant find i too...sez here he died of a stroke in 1953

Stalin was murdered in 1953, from your wikipedia:

In 2003, a joint group of Russian and American historians announced their view that Stalin ingested warfarin, a powerful rat poison that inhibits coagulation of the blood and so predisposes the victim to hemorrhagic stroke (cerebral hemorrhage). Since it is flavorless, warfarin is a plausible weapon of murder. The facts surrounding Stalin's death will probably never be known with certainty.

Thats how he died anyway, a Cerebral Hemorrhage, not a Stroke.

Also your other point, Hitler appealed to the masses in terms of using others as a scapegoat, Germans wanted to blame sombody for what happend to them, the jews got blamed.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thats how he died anyway, a Cerebral Hemorrhage, not a Stroke.

A Cerebral Hemorrhage is a stroke, but I can't comment on the rest.

 

[DeletedUser]

A Cerebral Hemorrhage is a stroke, but I can't comment on the rest.

Meh, post words confused me But i reckon he was murdered

 

[DeletedUser]

The important thing is that he really is dead.

 

[DeletedUser]

(( This discussion has veered off-topic a few times. Please refrain from veering too far away from the two topics of discussion = Hitler/Stalin ))

 

[DeletedUser]

I found a thread that has more than ten pages HAHA!

On Topic-
Hitler and Stalin were almost equally as bad as the other, one was against the other for their bad doing, even though theirs was equally horrible, although some of the stuff Stalin did might have been worse than Hitler, even though my brothers and sisters in the faith were in those concentration camps, but so were those in Russia that were killed by genocide.

In the end, there is hypocrisy in all forms of government.

 

[DeletedUser]

getting back to the point, as a DEFINITE conservative, i say that they were both insane people who were schizophrenic lunatics. They killed millions of people in their own horrible and sickening ways. I am a son of a veteran of the army and the brother in law of active military. Stalin cut all grain supply to Ukraine which was their only food supply. And Hitler gassed Millions of people that he found "errored, or distasteful" And just adding this in people: Che Guevara killed tens of thousands with his bare hands, just so Castro could take over and rule with an iron fist to suppress the spirit of Cuba.