Was Hitler a good leader?

[omzdog]

Urlik has the point with India.
She definitely was not neutral.
Many of her provinces were still under the crown (in fact most of 'modern' India).

Indians played a very important role in combat and supplies to the allies.
Independence was not used as a diplomatic ploy, but my guess is that there was probably talk.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

India supplied Britian with a fair amount of supplies and armaments, Britain having been either beaten into submission or surrendered, I don't think India would get itself involved in a war in which there are no benefits either way who won.

 

[omzdog]

Dude they declared war on Germany on the same day.
India was all in, she wasn't thinking of ever backing out.
Besides this, she was a series of Commonwealth provinces under the Crown.
Don't try and tell me India wouldn't have gotten involved if Britain were about to get beat.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Their declaration meant very little if they didn't send any troops in, the majority that they focused on was sending supplies not manpower. It was the Viceroy of India, not the Indian congress that declared their entry into war.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

To me a good leader is someone who sacrifices their own good to better their people, and to provide for their well being, saftey, and happiness.

Considering Hitler brought Germany into a world war that devastated their country and killed millions, I don't think he can be considered a good leader.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

And I guess someone's gonna pop up, commenting on your superficial point of view.

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

No, because he gave a reason beyond the end product.  The problem with your earlier end product comment is that often there are good leaders who ultimately fail due to circumstances.

I agree with Edward about those ideals, its just unfortunate that most leaders lack those ideals (and thus I do not fault Hitler as a bad leader for it since everyone else does it as well).

 

[Archonsod]

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.

In the 1930's it was Parliament, not the monarch, who dictated foreign policy. And they forced Edward to abdicate at their behest because they felt his tart led to undue American influence over the monarchy; I doubt him hanging around with a German dictator would have led to a different result.

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

Yes. And they still had as much influence on foreign policy as the current Queen does.

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.

Mosley built his fascism after Mussolini, not Hitler. And you only have to look at what happened in Cable Street to see how likely he would have been to share Mussolini's ultimate fate if he had got anywhere near power.

 

[Urlik]

the point is that Hitler wanted Britain as an ally not an opponent and if things had been slightly different then that might have happened.

the facts are that members of the Monarchy, the house of Lords and Parliament were sympathetic to Germany and Italy.

if Hitler had made a deal with Chamberlain to divide France up so that Britain got back the territories lost in the 100 years war, Germany, Italy and Japan would not have had to use any resources fighting Britain and the Commonwealth which would have enabled them to take on the USSR and the the USA, even if Britain and the Commonwealth hadn't actually assisted them in any fighting.
Germany would still have had all its airforce and navy to use against the USSR as well as all the tanks they lost in North Africa.

Britain was still friendly with Italy and Japan until May and July 1940 respectively.
things could have been very different if Britain had been more inclined to stay friendly with them instead of staying friendly with France, Poland, the Netherlands and Belgium then the War in Europe would have been over in 1939.

even if France, the Netherlands and Belgium had stayed at war with Germany, they would have had a much harder time of it and Germany would have been able to occupy them quite easily.

without Britain as a base to launch an attack against Germany through France and without North Africa as a base to launch an attack against Italy, WW2 would have been won by Germany within a couple of years.

Britain would still have been friendly with Japan so Japan would have been able to forget South East Asia as they would have been getting supplies and support from the British colonies and they could then concentrate on China and eventually the USSR.

Britain would still have been friendly with Italy so instead of a war in North Africa, Italy could have attacked the USSR through the Balkans.

it is doubtful that the USSR could have stood against the combined force of Germany, Italy and Japan, and as even Churchill shared many of Hitler's views on the USSR, it is quite probable that Britain would have joined in against them as well.

with all that territory available to provide resources and no real threat on the doorstep for any of the Axis countries, the USA would not have stood a chance once the USSR fell.

 

[Archonsod]

Britain would never have agreed peace on those terms with Germany. Ignoring the long standing rivalry between the two countries, Britain viewed Germany as an inferior. Should Britain truly have desired peace she could simply renege on her treaty with Poland without any repercussions, the declaration of war was as much down to national pride as any diplomatic considerations.
And again, parliament being what it was it wouldn't matter if the entire house of Lords and the Monarchy were registered members of the Nazi party, not enough of the commons supported Germany and that is the deciding factor. Furthermore, those who were sympathetic to Hitler were for the most part the staunchest supporters of war when he defied British demands; they might have liked Hitler's approach to government but they were damned if some Austrian upstart was going to defy the Empire.
Same problem with Japan, despite being the main threat and rival in Asia (Britain was most certainly not friendly with Japan, in fact Japan prior to the war acted with great care not to anger Britain) Japan was viewed as backward in Britain.

As for the USSR, I doubt Japan would have attacked Russia until her designs in the Pacific had been achieved. A lot depends on just how the war with Germany went however; if Germany was successful Japan would probably attempt a land grab, and again if the USSR was successful Hitler would likely have called on Japan for assistance. In all likelihood you'd have two wars with the USSR vs Germany in Europe and the US vs Japan in the pacific.
Though of course, with Britain aligning with Germany there's no real reason for the US to get involved in the war in Europe. Assuming Pearl Harbour doesn't happen there's even a good chance the US would join Germany against the USSR.

 

[Almalexia]

Dude they declared war on Germany on the same day.
India was all in, she wasn't thinking of ever backing out.
Besides this, she was a series of Commonwealth provinces under the Crown.
Don't try and tell me India wouldn't have gotten involved if Britain were about to get beat.

Must I remind you of the Free Indian Legion?

 

[Urlik]

if Britain saw Japan as an inferior and Japan was being careful not to anger Britain, why did Britain close the Burma Road to cut off Chinese supply routes at the request of Japan in 1940?

also, Britain has a longer standing rivalry with France.
as you said, Britain could have reneged on the treaty with Poland and only upset the Poles and French.
it was the decision to honour that treaty that made it possible for the allies to win WWII.

and the USA would have eventually been dragged into the war. Germany always had plans for attacking the USA, even as early as 1938.
designs were commissioned in 1940, over a year before the Japanese launched the attack on Pearl Harbor.

if Germany didn't have to concentrate on replacing the aircraft lost in the Battle of Britain, they might have been able to get past the flying prototype stage for the various Amerika Bombers that were being developed by most of the leading German aircraft manufacturers.
if Britain had been allied to Germany, these prototypes might have been in full production by December 1941 rather than being shelved in favour of the production of aircraft that only needed to reach Britain.

 

[Almalexia]

They were a German unit. And just take a look at the Wikipedia article.

 

[Urlik]

I just did, I was thinking of the INA.

 

[omzdog]

Dude they declared war on Germany on the same day.
India was all in, she wasn't thinking of ever backing out.
Besides this, she was a series of Commonwealth provinces under the Crown.
Don't try and tell me India wouldn't have gotten involved if Britain were about to get beat.

Must I remind you of the Free Indian Legion?

Must I remind you that the legion was established in Nazi Germany and populated by citizens and PoWs of Indian heritage. It was not an armed force under the command of any Indian province and did not represent any Indian government.

Their declaration meant very little if they didn't send any troops in, the majority that they focused on was sending supplies not manpower. It was the Viceroy of India, not the Indian congress that declared their entry into war.

You are misinformed, India sent a total of 2.5 million men into combat. That is not a minuscule troop count. And why would I care what body declared war? The fact is India went to war and was a major influence to the War's end and as I said, Urlik has the point. Period.

 

[Condestavel]

As said before Hitler always wanted an alliance with UK. At Dunkirk where the brits got their arses kicked, Hitler let them flee across the sea ordering the panzer divisions not to advance.

It's quite refreshing to see an inteligent discussion about the flaws/traits of hitler without shouting nazi every 2 seconds. Hitler is a tabu discussion everywhere. For good reasons of course but people just don't think - It's bad, period. Don't talk about it, don't think about it. Staline, a man that ordered more killings than hitler did in the holocaust and nearly destryed the world in case the cold war had become hot,  can be defended by stalinist commies and others. That makes any sense? Yes, he won. 

 

[Archonsod]

if Britain saw Japan as an inferior and Japan was being careful not to anger Britain, why did Britain close the Burma Road to cut off Chinese supply routes at the request of Japan in 1940?

What, the road we'd been supplying China with arms and materiel for use against the Japanese? Does the phrase "rumbled" hold any meaning? Britain stopped overtly supplying China for three months to avoid giving Japan a pretext to declare war, since it would've meant fighting on two fronts. Covertly they were still supplied.

also, Britain has a longer standing rivalry with France.

Which we'd been allied with for over a century at that point. And Britain doesn't; England has a rivalry with France. Scotland and Ireland are long standing allies of France. France was also lucky enough to be on the right side during WWI, unlike Germany.

if Britain had been allied to Germany, these prototypes might have been in full production by December 1941 rather than being shelved in favour of the production of aircraft that only needed to reach Britain.

I doubt an alliance with Britain would have survived a declaration of war on America.

And why would I care what body declared war? The fact is India went to war and was a major influence to the War's end and as I said, Urlik has the point. Period.

Ghandi did write several sharply worded letters to Mr Hitler, which for him is about as close to war as he's likely to get. It's a moot point though, most of the Indian troops were volunteers, and as a colonial territory they had the right to enlist themselves into the British army irrespective of what their government did. Same as most colonial possessions. Of course, since India came under attack from Japan it's pretty much a non-argument, unless you think the Indian congress would happily exchange the Raj for the Rising Sun they had little choice in the matter.

 

[omzdog]

Ya so...
Stalin was a good politician to be able to do all these things and the World never actually fully noticed.
Hail! Glorious exploitation by example comrades!

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

 

[Almalexia]

also, Britain has a longer standing rivalry with France.

Which we'd been allied with for over a century at that point. And Britain doesn't; England has a rivalry with France. Scotland and Ireland are long standing allies of France. France was also lucky enough to be on the right side during WWI, unlike Germany.

Well going along that road, wasn't Japan and Britain allied for a while, until the end of WWI?

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

also, Britain has a longer standing rivalry with France.

Which we'd been allied with for over a century at that point. And Britain doesn't; England has a rivalry with France. Scotland and Ireland are long standing allies of France. France was also lucky enough to be on the right side during WWI, unlike Germany.

Well going along that road, wasn't Japan and Britain allied for a while, until the end of WWI?

Yes, Japan was part of the Allies in order to snatch up ex-German colonies.  Germany owned land in China, New Guinea, and even the island where the famous Rabaul airfield was located was originally German (though the latter went to Australia I believe).  The Sea of Bismark is named such for a reason