Was Hitler a good leader?

[Urlik]

Hitler was a good leader who became overconfident because of his early success.
as said before, he commissioned the autobahns and the volkswagon.
he pulled Germany out of a depression.
if things had gone slightly different and Britain hadn't managed to prevent an invasion across the channel, there would have been nothing that anyone could have done about it.
the USSR couldn't have invaded Germany without Britain and America attacking Germany from the west and supplying weapons to the USSR.

even as a strategist, he wasn't that bad.
the Battle of the Bulge was one of Hitler's plans and it caught the Americans with their pants down and was the most costly battle the US ever took part in (in terms of casualties) and was very nearly successful for Germany.

 

[Almalexia]

If a large part of the infrastructure you set up ends up in ruins at the end of your reign and you still want to burn down what's left you're kind of on the wrong track.
Sides. If he knew when to stop we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?

Why don't you probe a question and look beyond the surface?  Its called looking at the different facets instead of just looking at the end product.  If we look at the end product alone, then this thread should never have been made.  So, in summary, kick it up a notch and look closer.

This is Hyperion, he would die if he scratched beyond the surface of a subject.

Maybe he was a good politician, but he was definitively a ****ty artist.

Spoiler

Doesn't look terrible to me.

if things had gone slightly different and Britain hadn't managed to prevent an invasion across the channel, there would have been nothing that anyone could have done about it.

I think just about everyone in the Reich realized that Operation Sealion was a nigh-impossibility.

 

[omzdog]

.. lame.

Don't be hatin' just cause the Netherlands doesn't compare to the proud nation of Britain.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Hitler was a good leader who became overconfident because of his early success.
as said before, he commissioned the autobahns and the volkswagon.
he pulled Germany out of a depression.
if things had gone slightly different and Britain hadn't managed to prevent an invasion across the channel, there would have been nothing that anyone could have done about it.
the USSR couldn't have invaded Germany without Britain and America attacking Germany from the west and supplying weapons to the USSR.

It seems to me after the Soviets brought to the forefront their Siberian divisions that Hitler's chances were pretty much moot. Allied shipment or not, the majority of the factories that were moved east were pumping **** out on comparable levels to the US.
Though the victory might not have been as quick, nor would the amount of casualties stay the same, it's pretty obvious that after 1942 their forces had ground to a halt and caught in a fight they were not designed nor had planned for.

 

[socks]

I'm not even remotely educated on the subject but I don't know why the hell he declared war on Russia, could someone enlighten me?

mainly without the hammer and sickle they all would have been ****ed, with help from the lions and lady americuh

Have you completely foregone capitalizing or something?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I'm not even remotely educated on the subject but I don't know why the hell he declared war on Russia, could someone enlighten me?

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,67679.0.html

 

[Urlik]

Hitler was a good leader who became overconfident because of his early success.
as said before, he commissioned the autobahns and the volkswagon.
he pulled Germany out of a depression.
if things had gone slightly different and Britain hadn't managed to prevent an invasion across the channel, there would have been nothing that anyone could have done about it.
the USSR couldn't have invaded Germany without Britain and America attacking Germany from the west and supplying weapons to the USSR.

It seems to me after the Soviets brought to the forefront their Siberian divisions that Hitler's chances were pretty much moot. Allied shipment or not, the majority of the factories that were moved east were pumping **** out on comparable levels to the US.
Though the victory might not have been as quick, nor would the amount of casualties stay the same, it's pretty obvious that after 1942 their forces had ground to a halt and caught in a fight they were not designed nor had planned for.

if Britain had capitulated or even joined the Axis (Hitler was still hoping that Britain would join the Axis, even during operation sealion) then that would have sealed it for the rest of the world.

North Africa would have been under Italian and German control.
the Commonwealth would either have remained neutral or joined the Axis and all that would be left to oppose Hitler would be the USA and the USSR.

Hitler's biggest mistake was in thinking that the rest of Britain shared the views of Edward VIII and Oswald Mosely.

 

[omzdog]

Its obvious there were many factors involved not one single blunder or a few mistakes.

 

[Urlik]

true, but that one was one of the biggest and if he had been right, Hitler would have lead a long political career as leader of a unified Europe.

I'm glad he got it wrong though.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

if Britain had capitulated or even joined the Axis (Hitler was still hoping that Britain would join the Axis, even during operation sealion) then that would have sealed it for the rest of the world.

I'm not sure the common wealth states would follow suit as most of them had been caught in one conflict or another at the point of Britain coming under sustained air attacks.
Canada borders the US, and any friendly treaty with the Nazis probably wouldn't go over so well with the US, the Australians at this point are already fighting the Axis, and with a very likely war with Japan coming soon, I don't they would have switched sides either. India, throughout most of the war have remained mostly neutral. Egypt is one that will likely switch sides, given that Britain surrendered and how close the Italians were, but the Suez canal was only ever important when Britain was fighting against the Axis, now that they surrendered, it would seem a little redundant to fight over it.
I think that takes care of the major common wealth members. Everyone else is either too small, too poor, too isolated, or too far away to care one way or another.

North Africa would have been under Italian and German control.
the Commonwealth would either have remained neutral or joined the Axis and all that would be left to oppose Hitler would be the USA and the USSR.

North Africa has absolutely no strategic value, and Italian forces if not having their back broken in North Africa probably wouldn't be too keen on the idea of ferrying its troops to the eastern front when they just conquered wide swathes of rock and sand.

Nazi Germany's wartime production isn't good to say the least, compared to the ability of the USSR and USA to churn out tanks, planes, and soldier, the Nazis for the most part inherited their equipment first from the Czechs, then the Polish, and then a tiny bit from the French, I imagine they would have tried using some of Britain's tanks as well if they could. Their production ability could never sustain losses like the USSR can either in the number of tanks or the number of aircraft despite the vastness of it's supposedly conquered territory and factories.

 

[Captain Pyjama Shark]

mainly without the hammer and sickle they all would have been ****ed, with help from the lions and lady americuh

Have you completely foregone capitalizing or something?

so I read that and thought your were making some statement about Capitalism and i was racking my brains.  until I realized you meant capitilzation.  but no man i don't capitalize all the time.

 

[Urlik]

if Britain had capitulated or even joined the Axis (Hitler was still hoping that Britain would join the Axis, even during operation sealion) then that would have sealed it for the rest of the world.

I'm not sure the common wealth states would follow suit as most of them had been caught in one conflict or another at the point of Britain coming under sustained air attacks.
Canada borders the US, and any friendly treaty with the Nazis probably wouldn't go over so well with the US, the Australians at this point are already fighting the Axis, and with a very likely war with Japan coming soon, I don't they would have switched sides either. India, throughout most of the war have remained mostly neutral. Egypt is one that will likely switch sides, given that Britain surrendered and how close the Italians were, but the Suez canal was only ever important when Britain was fighting against the Axis, now that they surrendered, it would seem a little redundant to fight over it.
I think that takes care of the major common wealth members. Everyone else is either too small, too poor, too isolated, or too far away to care one way or another.

North Africa would have been under Italian and German control.
the Commonwealth would either have remained neutral or joined the Axis and all that would be left to oppose Hitler would be the USA and the USSR.

North Africa has absolutely no strategic value, and Italian forces if not having their back broken in North Africa probably wouldn't be too keen on the idea of ferrying its troops to the eastern front when they just conquered wide swathes of rock and sand.

Nazi Germany's wartime production isn't good to say the least, compared to the ability of the USSR and USA to churn out tanks, planes, and soldier, the Nazis for the most part inherited their equipment first from the Czechs, then the Polish, and then a tiny bit from the French, I imagine they would have tried using some of Britain's tanks as well if they could. Their production ability could never sustain losses like the USSR can either in the number of tanks or the number of aircraft despite the vastness of it's supposedly conquered territory and factories.

I don't think the US would have been that bothered by Canada being friendly with Germany considering that a lot of US money was going to Germany to support the Nazi party before 1939.

the Australians were only at war with the Axis because they are part of the Commonwealth and followed Britain's lead.

as for India being neutral, the Indian army was the largest volunteer army of all time, numbering over 2.5 million men who served in Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and even Italy.

if all of those were taken off the Allies' side and either remained neutral or joined the Axis, the USA and USSR would have been toast.

the USSR couldn't have done anything against Germany (look how well they did against Finland).
the US couldn't have done anything as they didn't have a large enough trained army before 1942.

 

[Rahn]

Maybe he was a good politician, but he was definitively a ****ty artist.

Spoiler

Doesn't look terrible to me.

...

****.

That's not too shabby.
Guess the Art Academy had pretty high standards.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Actually the reason for his rejection is noticeable in the painting (though I only noticed it since I know why he was rejected).  Hitler had a poor ability to paint the human form.  He was quite good with inanimate objects though.

 

[omzdog]

That's Hitler's work?

 

[LastRoman]

That's Hitler's work?

Yes. I have to admit, the buildings looks quite good.

 

[Archonsod]

the 3 lions is the emblem of England (as seen on the shirts of the English cricket and football squads)

It's not, it's the emblem of the throne (and there's some confusion over whether they're supposed to be lions or leopards). The emblem of England is the red rose, as seen on the rugby squad. The three lions indicate royal involvement in the sport, as is the case in football, where since 1939 the president of the FA has always been a royal.

I'm not sure the common wealth states would follow suit as most of them had been caught in one conflict or another at the point of Britain coming under sustained air attacks.

Prior to the war it was established that if Britain was forced to surrender the government would evacuate to Canada and fight on through the colonies. The only way to avoid that would be if Britain aligned itself with the Nazi's, which would require a rewrite of history from the 18th century onwards to ever be likely.

North Africa has absolutely no strategic value

Provided you never intend to use the Mediterranean in any capacity.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Also don't forget there was an almost successful pro-Nazi coup in Iraq, which would have ensured Germany's fuel problems being solved.  If the coup in Iraq succeeded, control of the Med Sea and the Suez would have been very important indeed....not to mention taking the Suez would have been a kick in the pills for the Brits (something the Germans and Turks knew and tried to succeed in taking in World War I, let alone Germany and Italy in WW2).

 

[Urlik]

Prior to the war it was established that if Britain was forced to surrender the government would evacuate to Canada and fight on through the colonies. The only way to avoid that would be if Britain aligned itself with the Nazi's, which would require a rewrite of history from the 18th century onwards to ever be likely.

it wouldn't have taken that much of an historical rewrite.

Edward Duke of Windsor (who would have been Edward VIII if he hadn't abdicated) was a friend of Hitler and could easily have allied with Germany if he was king.

also, don't forget that the British Royal family changed their name to Windsor in 1917 and before that they were Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

the 6th Baronet of Ancoats, otherwise known as Sir Oswald Mosley, and his wife, the daughter of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, were friends of Hitler, and Mosley also founded the British Union of Fascists.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

as for India being neutral, the Indian army was the largest volunteer army of all time, numbering over 2.5 million men who served in Africa, the Middle East, South East Asia and even Italy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought India only officially went to war and sent troops to fight with the rest of the common wealth when they were promised independence afterward? With Britain going kaput, I don't quite see why they would keep fighting.
Aside from that, the divisions sent to fight in the British theatres were minuscule, that 2.5 million wouldn't exist if the Japanese weren't knocking on their door near Burma.

if all of those were taken off the Allies' side and either remained neutral or joined the Axis, the USA and USSR would have been toast.

I think you severely overestimate the spoils that the Nazis made before the invasion of the Soviet republic. The swathes of land they conquered were not effectively turned into effective industrial territories, if anything, the countries they conquered produced at a fraction of what they were making prior to war.
It did not take the Western Allies, or the Soviet Union to figure out how to counter and mimic the Blitzkrieg method of fighting after engaging the Nazis.

the USSR couldn't have done anything against Germany (look how well they did against Finland).
the US couldn't have done anything as they didn't have a large enough trained army before 1942.

The USSR changed a hell of a lot after the Russo-Finnish war, and even more drastically after the Nazis invaded. If Russia and Japan hadn't signed the neutrality pact, they probably would never had been able to move those Siberian divisions to the Western front, and Moscow might well have been captured.
That being said, the manner in which Hitler involved himself more and more in 1941 pretty much sealed away any victory they would have had over the Russians. Even with the additional strength from the West, I don't think they would have been able to achieve all the objectives Hitler had outlined that they take. In one of Manstein's books, I think he mentions this.