The Instigator
Jimolopolas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lege12bi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Was Hitler a political genius?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 80377
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Jimolopolas

Pro

Hitler is perhaps the most controversial and hated person in human history, hated even by those whom others would call evil.

He is known for his ruthless, cruel and objectively evil slaughter of six million jews, war & political prisoners, homosexuals and foreigners. And his majority of his persoanality trait are less than pleasing, his quick temper, over-righteous feelings of himself, utter disregard for human life and his apparant insanity. Under his shroud of malicious actions the beacon of his intellect can be found.

Hitler was both an political and administrative genius. He was able to mould the events of the day to his advantage, even when things went against him. His charisma was said to be 'electric', he was able to hold large crowds and divert the attention of the room to him. His leadership of the Nazi Party led to the party becoming one of the fastest growning political movements in history, constantly bostering in ranks every year it was in existance. His ability to deceive millions of Germans and brainwash them into agreeing with his often immortal opinions, is more than enough to show his charismatic greatness.

His administrative prowess cannot be denied. His ability to turn a devastated Germany (that was rife with political strife, economic hardships and turmoil between the government and the army) into the most powerful state on the planet within six short years. The way he was able to provide 2 million jobs within the span of two years, rejuvinate the German industry and economy,To organise a war machine that brought the world to its knees, without any training in command.

My stance in this debate is not to commend Hitler on his actions, or even to change the opinion held of him. But to debate the basis of his intellect in terms of governing a nation and playing the political scene.

I wish for my opponent not to be blinded by the black stain of Hitler and look to the facts of his actions in terms of gaining power and governing Germany. I wish my luck to whomever takes up my debate.

Sources:

http://www.jstor.org...
http://ir.nmu.org.ua...
https://books.google.com.au...
Daniel Thompson's - Europe Since Napoleon
Ian Kershaw's - Hitler
Richard J Evan's - The Third Reich at War
lege12bi

Con

No, Hitler really had no thought of his own. He got his ideas of Government from Mussolini, he never invented anything he stole other peoples work and took credit for it. His military tactics were lacking, he made huge mistakes that cost him in the end. The only thing that you could consider that he was a genus was the way he manipulated and brainwashed people into doing what he wanted.
Debate Round No. 1
Jimolopolas

Pro

Before I start I would like to thank you for accepting my debate and I enjoy that I wil be able to discuss this controversial topic with you. In my reply I will address the points you made and I expect you to attempt to rebuttal the points I make after addressing yours. So without further ado, I will begin.

It is true that Hitler did take aspects of his government and especially the organisation of his party from Mussolini. Examples of such is Hitler's Browncoats which mirrored Mussolini's Redshirts. Hitler's party imagry also mirrored Mussolinis. He even attempted to recreate Mussolini's 'March on Rome' in his 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, which failed histerically. But the reason why Hilter copied Mussolini is both due him perceiving what allowed Mussolini to achieve success in Italy, and because both of these men were very alike.

Hitler and Mussolini both had troubled childhoods, they both were hyper nationalist and hyper socialist, they were both veterans of World War I and both felt cheated due to the outcome of the war (Hitler feelng that the Jews caused Germany's defeat and Mussolini feeling that the Allies cheated Italy out of it's prizes of the war, as Italy did not receive any of the land promised to it).

But also you have to take into account the situation of both nations. Germany and Italy had been in periods of social and economic upheaval. Both have governments that were disliked by the citizenry and had problems in working with the army, namely Germany moreso than Italy. Both countries had anti-semetic thoughts rife throughout their societies and both nations had been hit hard by the depression.

Hitler looked at the success of Mussolini, noticed the similarities between their countries, and adopted what got Mussolini into power. Once Hitler gained power the majority of the similarities with Mussolini ended. Especially within the way he ran his government, which differed widely from the way Mussolini's did.

Mussolini invested power within himself but allowed for automony within his generals and citizen councils (jury-like councils that goverened regions). Mussolini listened to the advice of his generals and adopted their ideas and opinions, he was also geared against war with the Allies, as he wished to restore Italys economy and industry in the long term. He was noticably less nationalist and severely less anti-semetic than Hitler was.

Hitler on the other hand kept power solely within in, colodating all power in Germany inside him. He was very strict regime upon his advisors and generals, and was severely against automony. Every dicision made during his reign had to go through him; even ones that pertained to local administration. Though Hitler listened to his advisors he very rarely took heed to their advice. Hitler geared the German industry and economy to prepar for World War Two, planning that the new lands he would gain would aid in regearing the economy for the long term. Hitler also implented his own organisation and leadership style independant of Mussolini. Examples of these was the Hitler Myth and the Hitler Curriculum.

The Hitler Curriculum involved the way Hitler shared minute power with his generals. Hitler purposely appointed his generals and advisors to positions they did not like, in doing so he enforced rivalries between his advisors and generals; he did this for two reasons, that these men would strive and work harder so that they impressed Hitler in an attempt to gain the position they wished for, and the enforced rivalry meant that these people could only trust Hitler and none other, working against coups and dissention within Germany. And the Hitler Myth, which was perpetuated by Hitler himself, proposed that Hitler was chosen by God and was sent to bring Germany to greatness. This myth was so effectively spread throughout Germany that many blamed Hitler's advisors for any mistake and defeat in the war, beliving that Hitler could not be at fault but rather his advisors being incapable.

In terms of military you are right, he tactics were lacking and he made tremendous mistakes that lost him the way, naming the stupid decision to invade the Soviet Union, which opened up a three front war. I am not arguing that Hitler was a good military commander, but was good at administration. Hitler was able to organise effectively the supply and equipment of his forces. He was also good at placing and maneuvering his armies along with ensuring that each of his campaigns had the men to move forward. One contributer to the loss of the war was that his generals were too afraid to admitt that armies had been defeated, which came to be a problem in the end of war when Hitler was moving around armies he did not have. Hitler was no military commander, by a long shot, but he did have an intermediary knowledge of how to supply and wage a war. Though this is not the point of this debate and I ask that we do not discuss this as it has no relevance on his political and administrative genius.

These differences in his administration proved that Hitler did have a thought of his own in running Germany and organising the country. That he did not just copy the ideas of other dictators but created his own way of ruling a country. Since when was adopted effective ways of doing something diminish ones intelligence? I would ask, and I would answer that it doesn't. Hitler did adopted old ways of doing things but he shaped them to be better than they were and suited them to Germany, which itself is a feat that is very difficult to do.

Your last statement is one major point that I am arguing to show that he was a genius, him being able to convince a large population to look over their morality and brainwash his supporters into blindly following him shows how charismatic he was, his mastery over politics and his knowledge of psychology and the German society.

Looking forward to your repsonse.

Sources:

Ian Kershaw's - Hitler
Richard J Evan's - The Third Reich at War
Daniel Thompson's - Europe Since Napoleon

http://link.springer.com...

https://books.google.com.au...

http://journals.cambridge.org...

http://www.jstor.org...

http://ir.nmu.org.ua...

https://books.google.com.au...

https://books.google.com.au...

https://books.google.com.au...

https://books.google.com.au...

https://books.google.com.au...
lege12bi

Con

lege12bi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jimolopolas

Pro

Jimolopolas forfeited this round.
lege12bi

Con

lege12bi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jimolopolas

Pro

Jimolopolas forfeited this round.
lege12bi

Con

lege12bi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
This is better argued that he was a "better" politician than those around him. Prime Minister Neville was horrible and America had no interest with the French too busy rebuilding for them to notice/care about Hitler. Everyone was too preoccupied with their own countries to think of having to deal with him. Just a fun fact, Hitler was named man of the year because they thought he was rebuilding Germany. Turns out the jobs he was giving were to make tanks and weapons. Oops.
Posted by rabbidrabbid 1 year ago
rabbidrabbid
I don't have enough in me to fully debate this, but he did send soldiers to Russia without thinking of the consequences. Whoever decides to debate may use this argument.
Posted by Kukithan 1 year ago
Kukithan
I do not condone Hitler's actions in any way.
Posted by Kukithan 1 year ago
Kukithan
Hitler was only a political genius at the beginning and the end. The middle was a total bust. We all know why the beginning was good, but few know that he faked his death so convincingly that most believe he committed suicide today. The "Hitler remains" that the Soviets recovered not only belonged to someone other than Hitler, but they belonged to a WOMAN!
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Sciguy
*Sighs* I enjoy the idea of the Fuhrer but only because of his military strategies, his manipulative power, and his poses for his speeches and speeches in general. Not for his murderous ideas of ant-Semitic decent.
No votes have been placed for this debate.