The Instigator
sod
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Man-is-good
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Adolf Hitler was a lazy leader.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
sod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,886 times Debate No: 17620
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

sod

Pro

The topic of is debate is on Adolf Hitler and I will arguing that in his capacity as Fuhrer, he was a lazy leader in terms of his direct involvement in the implementation of change/new policy within Nazi Germany.

I leave Con to present the opening arguments and thank in advance for accepting this debate.

Note: Anti-Semitic behaviour will be reported.
Man-is-good

Con

Since my opponent has failed to provide definitions, I will do so.

The adjective lazy is defined as “averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion” and is the chief center of contention. Activity is, in addition, defined as “work…”, the latter of which is defined as “exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something”. With that being stated, I will now present my argument against the resolution.

Laziness implies a lack of motivation to do work, which in turn is an exertion “directed to produce or something”. However, this does not apply to Hitler, from a chiefly-speaking, historical perspective.

An impetus for many of Hitler’s actions (and policies during the Reich) was: to purify his race according to the principle of “racial hygiene”, which states that “certain groups of individuals were allowed to procreate and others not", as a medium fo racial purity[1]. The second was to establish Germany as a powerful, both economically and militarily, force in West Europe. [2] These two impetuses will be nicknamed impetus A and impetus B, respectively.

Impetus A: The Nazi regime focused on “racial biology, population policy, culture, geography and especially physical fitness” [4], including “nordicism”, the belief in or the doctrine of the superiority of the hypothetical Nordiracial type and its cultural capacities [5]. Hitler’s rise, and possibly involvement, promoted the rise of Nordicism as a cultural strand in Nazi Germany, allowing it to become an abstract conception of racial superiority, as evinced in Hermann’s statement, “the shape of the Nordic gum allows a superior movement of the tongue, which is the reason why Nordic talking and singing are richer." [6] Eugenics was also promoted, in universities as well.

Most notorious of Hitler’s actions might be his acceptance of the ‘Final Solution’: the eradication of the Jewish race, in concentration camps. While Hitler himself was not the architect of the plan [in fact, Henrich Himmler, was], he did however express sentiment that might have lead to his acceptance of such a plan

“I am going to send State Secretary Dr. Buhler to this meeting…Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish emigration will commence. But what is going to happen to these Jews? Do you imagine there will be settlement villages for them in the Ostland?... Here are 3.5 million Jews that we can't shoot, we can't poison. But there are some things we can do, and one way or another these measures will successfully lead to a liquidation.” [7]

I have shown that Hitler had the motivation to accept Himmler’s proposal and enforce it willingly in the form of persecution within the concentration attempts.

Impetus B: I will explore, briefly the economic output and growth that occurred during Hitler’s reign that shows evidence for his diligence for the accomplishment of the goal. In order to improve the civil and industrial state of Germany, Hitler’s administration ramified several policies, a few of which encouraged women to leave the workforce. Consequently, rates of unemployment decreased. He did oversaw a large infrastructure-restoration campaign that however, as I shall note, did have adverse effects upon the poor (though the promotion of public works, through the construction of dams, railroads, and other works, burgeoned). [2]

What does this have to do with Hitler?

As the Chancellor of the State, Hitler acquired full legislative powers due to the Enabling Act of 1933 [8], thus giving him responsibility for the policies passed, and efforts to promote impetus B. This also extends to his acceptance, and promotion, of eugenics and the Final Solution, thereby an attempt to promote impetus A.

The sheer volume of his actions, and change under his reign, combined with his powerful legislative power shows that Hitler committed several actions to the two impetuses. Thus, in contrast to the resolution, Hitler was not lazy, but diligent in achieving his goal.

Please refer to my sources in the comments page.

Debate Round No. 1
sod

Pro

Before I begin would like to thank Con for taking up this debate.

Con has made crucial errors in his argument and I will point them out before moving on to my argument.
1. Con speaks of "Hitler's rise, and possibly involvement" with a cultural change. This debate centers around the direct involvement of Hitler in the Nazi policies and speaking of a 'possible' involvement is implausible as this debate is not about what Hitler 'may' have done rather what he did and didn't do. This then discredits the remaining argument on the topic of Nordicism as Con has already noted that Hitler did not have definite involvement, it remains a mere 'possibility'.
2. Further, Con's link to Hermann's statement and the topic of this debate is unclear especially when he fails to note that the book in which this statement was published was banned the Third Reich [1] and thus it disagreed with Nazi policy.
3. Impetus B speaks of "Hitler's administration" carrying out new policies and yet again this statement loses all effect in this debate as it focuses on Hitler, the individual rather than Hitler's government. Implementation of policy by Hitler's administration does not imply Hitler's direct involvement and he continued to be lazy whilst policies were passed by his subordinates.

I will continue with my argument.

I will argue that Hitler was a lazy leader in that having 'developed' Nazi ideology, he left future action to his ministers to carry out policies based on this ideology. This does not imply direct involvement by any means.

1. Nazi ideology stemmed from "Mein Kampf", Hitler's book which was published in 1925 and 1926. It is true, of course, that Hitler did have involvement in key Nazi policies, but this does not mean he had direct involvement in the subsequent policies that followed. Hitler preferred a Social Darwinist approach to administration and deliberately allowed much overlapping of responsibilities between subordinates so that the strongest individuals with the best ideas would emerge. This meant that once these figures (Goebbels, Goring, Himmler to name a few) established themselves, they were capable of implementing policy with the same force that had enabled them to reach the top. I quote Ian Kershaw, "However uninvolved [Hitler] was, the radicalization of the regime continued..forced on in a variety of ways by party activists, ministerial bureaucracy, economic opportunists and...an ideologically drawn police". [2]

2. I will now speak of direct policies implemented by the Nazi's that exemplifies Hitler as a lazy leader. As part of the process of Gleichschaltung (Co-ordination), Goebbels was given full responsibility for German culture, with the aim of achieving conformity to Nazi criteria.
-It was Goebbels who established the Reich Chamber of Culture, himself establishing laws such as 'A Law for the Confiscation of the Products of Degenerate Art' of May 1938. Such laws encouraged Hitler's ideology from "Mein Kampf", referring to Entartung or the 'degeneration' of German culture [3] and this ideology formed the foundation of Goebbels' actions. Having said this, setting the ideological foundation does not imply direct involvement in the implementation of that policy. Richard Evans speaks of Hitler's role in the Nazi state, "He frequently engaged in exhausting tours around Germany, speaking, meeting officials and carrying out his ceremonial functions....the absence of routine in Hitler's leadership that means he paid little attention to detailed issues..those who ha controlled, direct access to him could wield considerable influence"[4]

In conclusion, it is clear that Hitler was a lazy leader who set foundation of Nazi ideology through works such as Mein Kampf but that direct implementation of Nazi policy was something he left, lazily, to his subordinates. Such statements are clear through implementation of cultural policy by individuals such as Goebbels, based on Hitler's Nazi ideology.

Sources on the comments page.
Man-is-good

Con

I do apologize to my opponent, but I must concede. I have been analyzing his evidence and found it to be sufficient to erase my doubt that the resolution is correct. I apologize, again, since it has been universally acknowledged that Hitler did not pay a great role in the day-to-day adminstration, and was, as assigned by the Enabling Act, the power to issue laws [but no direct right to truly pass them without the consent of the legislation body]. In addition, during my course of research, I did learn that Hitler himself was not efficient in either engaging in paper work or even creating delegations, to the point that he, as Pro stated, let adminstrators and members of the bureaus to continually work and even consign laws in adherence to Hitler's writings and speeches. I understand that my opponent, who was seeking a lively debate, will be disappointed, but I do sincerely mean that I find little evidence contrary to your claims.

Even the proposition that Hitler did engage, persistently, in the fields of military and combat does not negate the solution as it has been shown that he was lenient in all other fields, making him a 'lazy dictator'. Indeed, the very structure of the "ministrial beaucracy" does give weight to this assertion, which is overwhelming in itself. I congratulate Pro for his knowledge and for his victory. I encourage voters to vote for Pro...for I can find little evidence to support my own claims, and would wish to forfeit this round, and the next.

Again, I apologize to Pro if he is disappointed. I do regret forfeiting this round, but, despite my best efforts, I have little justification for my side.

As to the debate, I suggest voters to vote for Pro, via forfiet. In the meantime, while I have lost, I have nevetheless learned a few historical facts about one of the most notorious totalarian leaders of the second half of the century.
Debate Round No. 2
sod

Pro

I thank Con for his acknowledgement.

Just to clarify, Hitler did have the ability to issue/pass laws without consenting with the parliament as that was what the Enabling Act allowed him to do. Then, by banning all other political parties, there was no real legislation body so Hitler (as Chancellor + President = Fuhrer) did of course have to sign off on the laws and was the only one who could do so but as I had previously stated, he wasn't often involved in the direct formulation of said laws or indeed their implementation.

I thank Con again for his good sportsmanship.
Man-is-good

Con

I do congratulate Pro since his knowledge of the Fuhrer government is clearly superior to that of mine...And his demonstration of such knowledge occurs again due to the mistake I have made (in designating a "legislation body", despite the presence of a chancellor and preside (the Fuhrer) and his accessory officials...I do welcome Pro to the site, but will give him a few tips before I end this debate humbly. I do urge voters to vote for Pro as he has clearly refuted my weak arguments successfully...Again, as I stated, even the consideration of Hitler's military doggedness and obsession on conquering and annexing lands (a sign of diligence, that is contrary to laziness) does not negate the resolution in its entirety....

As I stated in the comments, this debate was at least an experience for learning, which is another asset of debating. I do hope Pro continue to use his apparently extensive knowledge to benefit in the debates on this site. I do apologize again for the voters, since this situation is sad--an entire debate of historical discussion and even a game of semantics has been averted to perfunctory rounds of forfeit and acceptance.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
For all voters, I encourage you to vote Pro. The entire lesson was a bit of a history lesson for me.
Posted by sod 5 years ago
sod
Firstly, I apologize to Con about the fixed number characters - it was my first time debating and I don't think I was aware of what I was doing at the time! (Thank you nevertheless for accepting)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Kershaw, Ian. 2008, Hitler, Penguin Books, London, pp. 380-383.
[3] http://wallyrus.tripod.com...
[4] Evans, R.J. 2005, The Third Reich In Power, Penguin Books, England.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Resource number three was missing, so the correct list should be (in match to the corresponding reference number):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] Gerlach, Christian (December 1998). "The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler's Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews". The Journal of Modern History 70 (4): 790. doi:10.1086/235167. Reprinted in Bartov, Omer, ed (2000). The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath. London: Routledge. pp. 106–140. ISBN 0-415-15035-3.
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Please note that the definitions of laziness was from http://dictionary.reference.com.... I apologize for my sloppy referencing, but I had to drastically edit my argument to fit in with Pro's fixed number of characters. I also suggest that members comment as little as possible so that I can, if needed, provide my bibliography in the comments page.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Sources for the First Round:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] ] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4 ] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5 ] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6 ] Gerlach, Christian (December 1998). "The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler's Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews". The Journal of Modern History 70 (4): 790. doi:10.1086/235167. Reprinted in Bartov, Omer, ed (2000). The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath. London: Routledge. pp. 106–140. ISBN 0-415-15035-3.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Realize I am pro Israel and a spiritual Jew myself, but you cannot threaten people after a debate challenge.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
and I will report any anti-Nazi behavior out of you!

You are having a discussion that will draw people who are anti-semitic.

You just offended a Nazi Messiah and have proven yourself to be anti-Nazi.

Why is that ok for you not for the Nazi to be anti-semitic?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
sodMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con admitted defeat. Even though Con probably could have maintained the debate by focusing on what Hitler did, arguing that given Hitler's position, it was not physically possible to micromanage everything, even though he did micro manage a lot (especially regarding the wars). To do this kind of debate, one must focus on what he did, not what he didn't do.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
sodMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: for conceding to pro
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
sodMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession to Pro.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
sodMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
sodMan-is-goodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Congratulations