Modern History Debate Thread

[fantasticbeasts3]

I hadn't actually heard about those groups so i suppose thats true, there was small pockets of resistence. But they were a definite minority compared to the hitler youth. 
But were these groups full of children who ddin't agree with Hitlers way of thinking (were they free thinking) or where they influenced into joining these groups through ways such as propaganda?

For sure! Resistance groups were definitely a minority. The Edelweiss Pirates were a group of teenagers who decided they didn't like Hitler's way of thinking, and decided to form a group. I don't think they would've used propaganda to advertise the group though, because open opposition wouldn't be good for anyone involved, and would have consequences.

[dancing phalanges]

Big shout out to both Owidjaja and Mada438 who spearheaded the debate last week!

This week, we are kicking it off with a much more interesting question: Was Hitler a lazy dictator?

There has been much written about how Hitler spent countless days in his mansion in the alps eating cream cakes and watching television and that he in fact had little interest in the politics of Germany. In addition, Hitler's role appears to have been overemphasised as a result of the propaganda ministry, which under Goebells, was in my opinion even more important in Hitler's success than his own actions as without Goebells Hitler would not have gained nearly as much power and support. The Propaganda Ministry portrayed Hitler as an everyday man and also a leader destined by fate to direct Germany to greatness. It also projected Hitler as at the head of all decisions when in actual fact he scarcely showed much interest and in reality just signed decisions off. As a result, he was not the strong dictator as made out and was rather disengaged at times. There are countless opinions on this question so keen to hear them

[Mada438]

Big shout out to both Owidjaja and Mada438 who spearheaded the debate last week!

This week, we are kicking it off with a much more interesting question: Was Hitler a lazy dictator?

There has been much written about how Hitler spent countless days in his mansion in the Alps eating cream cakes and watching television and that he, in fact, had little interest in the politics of Germany. In addition, Hitler's role appears to have been overemphasised as a result of the propaganda ministry, which under Goebells, was in my opinion even more important in Hitler's success than his own actions as without Goebells Hitler would not have gained nearly as much power and support. The Propaganda Ministry portrayed Hitler as an everyday man and also a leader destined by fate to direct Germany to greatness. It also projected Hitler as at the head of all decisions when in actual fact he scarcely showed much interest and in reality just signed decisions off. As a result, he was not the strong dictator as made out and was rather disengaged at times. There are countless opinions on this question so keen to hear them

Let's be real-the Nazi's wouldn't have got anywhere without Hitler in the first place. He's the reason everything happened the way it did.
He just didn't micromanage everything
Can Malcolm Turnball make literally every decision and oversee EVERY SINGLE PART, every little detail about Australia? No, he can't and neither can Hitler.
 That's why he had various ministers to do some of the mircro management for him. Being the dictator of a country isn't an easy job

[fantasticbeasts3]

I'm going to agree with dancing phalanges here! There has been evidence Hitler delegated a lot of stuff to departments he created - he never really ran anything himself personally. In terms of actually gaining support, Hitler was a great speaker, and was able to convince the people, but he often retreated to his holiday(?) house.

Spoiler

Also going to drop a documentary here that I watched on SBS on Sunday! It's called Hitler's Secrets, and focuses more on his role during WW2, but nonetheless, super interesting and very much worth the watch. There are bits about his personal life, and his role in actually leading Nazi Germany.

[Mada438]

I'm going to agree with dancing phalanges here! There has been evidence Hitler delegated a lot of stuff to departments he created - he never really ran anything himself personally. In terms of actually gaining support, Hitler was a great speaker, and was able to convince the people, but he often retreated to his holiday(?) house.

Spoiler

Also going to drop a documentary here that I watched on SBS on Sunday! It's called Hitler's Secrets, and focuses more on his role during WW2, but nonetheless, super interesting and very much worth the watch. There are bits about his personal life, and his role in actually leading Nazi Germany.

If it wasn't clear before, i do agree that he was a bit lazy; but with good reason.
Also another cool documentary series: "Hitlers Cirlce of Evil" on netflix 

[fantasticbeasts3]

Let's be real-the Nazi's wouldn't have got anywhere without Hitler in the first place. He's the reason everything happened the way it did.
He just didn't micromanage everything
Can Malcolm Turnball make literally every decision and oversee EVERY SINGLE PART, every little detail about Australia? No, he can't and neither can Hitler.
 That's why he had various ministers to do some of the mircro management for him. Being the dictator of a country isn't an easy job

In terms of propaganda representation though, did he do everything they said? No, hahaha but it definitely made him look a lot better, especially with involvement in big decisions and what not. Of course he didn't micromanage everything though, not everyone has that much time on their hands lol. Just that he wasn't super involved and didn't really care after he got power.

[dancing phalanges]

If it wasn't clear before, i do agree that he was a bit lazy; but with good reason.
Also another cool documentary series: "Hitlers Cirlce of Evil" on netflix 

Adam - if I wasn't clear before - rip my argument to shreds! This is all for enjoyment I won't take it personally! Hitler did initially lead to the rise of the Nazis but I am focusing on his role as a dictator. Sure, he shouldn't have to look over everything but other than the 1933-1934 consolidation of power, he didn't seem to contribute personally to much of Nazi policy with the same vigour and enthusiasm.

[sudodds]

[Mada438]

(Image removed from quote.)

Keen for when you get back and are active again so we can continue our debating! 

[LochNess Monster]

Through an intentionalist historian view, it can be seen that Hitler was not lazy but a strong dictator who ruled over Germany. However, he liked creating chaos as it would secure his own position. As Hitler came across unfortunate incidents in Germany's history such as the Great Depression 1929, he would turn these to his advantage. Therefore, Hitler had an opportunistic role in the Nazi state. However, within the chaos of his forced reign, Hitler would eliminate the opposition who seemed to be strong against him or able to rise up. This can be seen in the Night of Long Knives 1934 as Hitler recruited the SS army under Himmler to eradicate the powerful and growing SA. Hitler was someone who had a firm grasp on politics and could sway the populace opinion to his favour, yet was not necessarily a professed "puppet-master" as some historians would call it. Hitler's role in the Nazi state was not a lazy dictator but a calculating one who could sit back and let others "do his dirty work for him;" as the Fuhrer myth allowed him to keep a strong grip and hold of Germany's totalitarian governance.

*Note: Sorry for the "bracketed" things! I couldn't think of a nice way to say it on the spot. Haha.  But hope y'all like it and can take something new from it.

Lots of love, history budd, LochNess.

[Mada438]

Through an intentionalist historian view, it can be seen that Hitler was not lazy but a strong dictator who ruled over Germany. However, he liked creating chaos as it would secure his own position. As Hitler came across unfortunate incidents in Germany's history such as the Great Depression 1929, he would turn these to his advantage. Therefore, Hitler had an opportunistic role in the Nazi state. However, within the chaos of his forced reign, Hitler would eliminate the opposition who seemed to be strong against him or able to rise up. This can be seen in the Night of Long Knives 1934 as Hitler recruited the SS army under Himmler to eradicate the powerful and growing SA. Hitler was someone who had a firm grasp on politics and could sway the populace opinion to his favour, yet was not necessarily a professed "puppet-master" as some historians would call it. Hitler's role in the Nazi state was not a lazy dictator but a calculating one who could sit back and let others "do his dirty work for him;" as the Fuhrer myth allowed him to keep a strong grip and hold of Germany's totalitarian governance.

*Note: Sorry for the "bracketed" things! I couldn't think of a nice way to say it on the spot. Haha.  But hope y'all like it and can take something new from it.

Lots of love, history budd, LochNess.

You make some good points; but they're centered more around the early 1930s, when he rose and consoslidated power
What about the late 1930's as well as in WW2, where his "style" kind of changed

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hello, hello!

Thank you to Mada438 and LochNess Monster who contributed to last week's debate!

This week's question is: What had the largest impact on the fall of the Weimar Republic?
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression had the largest impact. Prior to the Great Depression, Germany wasn't very economically stable; the strength of the economy was built on foreign loans. In relying on foreign loans, the Great Depression caused the withdrawal of the loans from the US, as economies around the world began to collapse. The Great Depression took away any form of stability Germany had, thus leading to the fall of the Weimar Republic.

[prickles]

You make some good points; but they're centered more around the early 1930s, when he rose and consoslidated power
What about the late 1930's as well as in WW2, where his "style" kind of changed

By that time (late 1930's), had Hitler "taught" (maybe indoctrinated through fear) his inner circle e.g. Goebbels, Himmler, so well on his philosophy, that they carried out their actions 'the way Hitler would have wanted'? Without him even saying anything?
You could bring in the Fuhrerprinzip here also – not just his inner circle, but German society in general. They were expected to give complete obedience to the Fuhrer, and when making their own decisions, to think of doing things ‘the way Hitler would have wanted’. Hitler didn’t explicitly tell the German children to persecute the Jewish students in their schools – his propaganda and leadership principle did. Those thoughts would have remained with those children, to the extent where they did it without being told. Hitler didn’t put much work into that, except for outline his philosophy, and have Goebbels indoctrinate do many people through his propaganda.
So was Hitler a smart and hardworking leader in the early 30’s, so that so he could be a ‘lazy’ leader in the late 30’s?

(Adam I know I quoted you here, but it is not just directed at you, it's for everyone

[jenae.madden]

yooooo do a question on USA

[prickles]

yooooo do a question on USA

You could make your response to the current question include aspects of USA influence if you wanted to and felt it answered the question?