Was Hitler "that good" or just "that lucky" ?

[GeographyDude]

The Nazis were supposed to be easily controlled stooges to keep the SPD in power under Brunning. Schleicher managed to convince Hindenburg he could control Hitler and use the fact that these were the two largest parties to form a super-majority and prevent another election. In fact Schleicher practically assured Hindenburg he could control Hitler and the Nazis even after Hindenburg left office, and then started plotting to undermine Brunning. Boy was he wrong...

So, the luck side of the equation. Haven't really heard this angle explored that much. Although this is the way human beings often act in society, this whole business of shifting alliances.

So, other factions were trying to use the Nazis for their own purposes? Would like to know more about this if possible.

 

[History Learner]

Watching a documentary on Hitler's rise to power and it seems to paint the Nazi's ultimate political success as occurring mostly due to dumb luck (Great Depression, Hindeburg's Death, Hitler's Chancellorship, etc) without which the Nazis would've just ended up being a fad of extreme times.
That being said I've also seen documentaries that argued the opposite, painting Hitler and his clique as being cunning enough to take advantage of said situation where lesser politicians couldn't.

What do you think?

Focusing specifically on Hitler and his abilities during his and his party's rise to power, was he just that good or just that lucky?

I'm really inclined to say he just got really lucky, but then considering how much luck he got overall and in such a continuous order at that, it does make me ponder if he was more skillful than he gets credit for. By all accounts, he should've lost his bid for power even in the final stretch of 1932-1933 for example.

 

[Catsmate]

One of my favourite summaries of the Nazi leaders:

"Have you any idea what they were like when they started out? A broken down drug-addicted ex-pilot, a failed chicken farmer, an unsuccessful snob of a champagne salesman with a fake title and a ratty little lecher embittered by a club foot. A gang of total deadbeats, led by a paranoid failed art student".

A lot of luck, some clever exploitation of the populace and a charismatic speaker.

My second favourite (from the same source):

After the defeat of Germany in 1918, the resulting chaos threw up a number of minor political parties and splinter groups, now more or less forgotten. Amongst them was the National Socialist German Workers Party, founded in 1919 by Anton Drexler and Dietrich Erhart. With its cunningly chosen populist policies, a windy mixture of nationalism, socialism and, above all, anti-Semitism, the party enjoyed a modest success in the early twenties, thanks mainly to the rabble-rousing abilities of an ex-serviceman called Adolf Hittler, or Hitler. The party held a number of meetings in the beer halls of Munich, most of them ending in battles between National Socialist supporters and their Communist opponents.

However, the new party ruined whatever hopes it might have had of lasting political success with a ludicrously inept and ill-timed attempt at a political coup in Munich in September 1923, which led eventually to the new-born party being banned. Enlisting the support of the old, confused,now almost senile war hero General Ludendorf, the man Hittler led an armed rabble of followers in a march on the War Ministry . . .

From Ballots, Blood and Bullets - Political Chaos in Post-War Germany, by Professor Karl Muller. Published Berlin 1927.

This work was suppressed and its author executed when the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Very intriguing.

I have studied Hitler a lot and I can say he was pure genius and most of it was down to ability. He definitely knew what he was doing, however, I admit there was some margin of change. (Also known as "luck" - as always.)

uhh genius?
tell that to millions of dead Germans he used as cannon fodder

 

[Johnrankins]

uhh genius?
tell that to millions of dead Germans he used as cannon fodder

Being evil doesn't mean you can't be a genius as well. That aside I read Mein Kampf when I wrote a paper comparing capitalism, communism and fascism and reading it you can tell the man wasn't a genius. It is a poorly written book with a totally incoherent "philosophy" that contradicted facts known at the time and even itself. It reads like it was written by a totally insane 10 year old not a "man of genius".

Hitler's talent was telling people what they wanted to hear in desperate times. It is easier for people to accept that they were part of a "Master Race" that was stabbed in the back rather than they were soundly whipped in a war because of various boneheaded decisions they made in the past.

 

[Deleted member 92195]

uhh genius?
tell that to millions of dead Germans he used as cannon fodder

I had just deleted my message because it's a hot topic but because you answered my message I'll answer you. Yea he was a genius in its evil form - dark charisma. You have to be blind to not see he was a genius in his own right. Him being at the centre of killing how many millions of people was just the result of his beliefs. Even though I have studied his beliefs, it is how he conducting himself that makes him above everyone else.

Separately it must be said that Hitler surrounding himself with other geniuses, which made him so much more powerful and evil than he could have been on his own and many people forget about these people as there are so many and as Hitler is so infamous - iconic he the perfect symbol of evil. i.e not everyone knows about history.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

So, the luck side of the equation. Haven't really heard this angle explored that much. Although this is the way human beings often act in society, this whole business of shifting alliances.

So, other factions were trying to use the Nazis for their own purposes? Would like to know more about this if possible.

Well, luck that Hitler made it to the top.

He was undoubtedly charismatic and a rather good reader of people (you don't get on top of a party machine otherwise) and as a politician it was clear he had some chops. He never won a majority in a popular election though. Without the other more conservative (and just as authoritarian) politicians being so afraid of radical change in Germany he would not have had a shot at getting out on top without either a second coup attempt or trying a merger on his own, which he only might have been able to pull off.

 

[Teshuvah]

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

His rise to power was more a case of being in the right place at the right time. From 1933-1941 though, I'd say it took either skill or serious balls to get away with the stuff he did. He called Britain and France's bluffs pre-war and successfully predicted that both would be too war weary to challenge him over the Rhineland, Austria, or the Sudetenland. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact did a pretty good job of lulling Stalin into complacency, so much so that Operation Barbarossa was far more successful than it should have been.

In a lot of ways Hitler was the anti-Stalin: impulsive rather than cautious, belligerent by default rather than by necessity, and utterly unable to accept anything not on his terms. That worked well for him in the short term, but unlike Stalin, his luck eventually ran out and his gambits stopped paying off.

 

[Daniels]

uhh genius? tell that to millions of dead Germans he used as cannon fodder

So Stalin was the dumbest leader of WW2 then?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

uhh genius?
tell that to millions of dead Germans he used as cannon fodder

Yes, Hitler was an evil genius. If you read any decent history of the German leadership in WWII, it's full of instances where Hitler cut right to the heart of the matter and asked the most important questions or raised the most important issues. That kind of penetrating intelligence is a good hallmark of genius. It pays to keep in mind that men we do think of as military geniuses like Manstein and Rommel were in awe of Hitler's military and political acumen - at least until the bloom came off the rose in the later years.

The problem for Hitler was as the war progressed the answer to his questions became increasingly unpalatable to him, so he retreated deeper and deeper into a disconnected fantasy realm, leading to his decisions becoming increasingly outrageous. Another problem was that modern war is too complex for any one man to grasp, no matter how personally insightful, and Hitler should have cultivated a more capable and honest cabal of senior staffers in the pre-war. Churchill also came up with tons of boneheaded ideas, but he had people to tell him he was crazy and talk him out of it.

 

[Wendigo]

Have you any idea what they were like when they started out? A broken down drug-addicted ex-pilot, a failed chicken farmer, an unsuccessful snob of a champagne salesman with a fake title and a ratty little lecher embittered by a club foot. A gang of total deadbeats, led by a paranoid failed art student".

Funny how ideology brings people together from all corners of society (professionals, politicians, soldiers, bums, psychopaths, fanatics etc) in pursuit of a common goal.

Reagan once referred to several dictatorships as:

the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes, and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich

There's a reason why he used the Third Reich as a point of comparison.

If the Reich won the war their insanity and twisted beliefs would get WORSE and their leadership more zealous not less. Unfortunately this would ensure the death and enslavement of tens of millions of "untermensch". A nation as obsessed with ideology and race as the Reich would likely never moderate in any appreciable form.

 

[Catsmate]

Funny how ideology brings people together from all corners of society (professionals, politicians, soldiers, bums, psychopaths, fanatics etc) in pursuit of a common goal.

Reagan once referred to several dictatorships as:


There's a reason why he used the Third Reich as a point of comparison.

If the Reich won the war their insanity and twisted beliefs would get WORSE and their leadership more zealous not less. Unfortunately this would ensure the death and enslavement of tens of millions of "untermensch". A nation as obsessed with ideology and race as the Reich would likely never moderate in any appreciable form.

Yep, any moderating influence would disappear rapidly, as indeed it did during their reign.

 

[jahenders]

Basically, he was 'lucky' to seize power at just a point when the W. Allies were least willing/able to challenge him. His demands (Sudaten, etc.) were bold gambles that shouldn't all have paid off.

 

[Tonrich]

Hyperinflation had ended by January 1924. If it was inflation that drove the German people to vote for Hitler, it is surprising he didn't win any seats in either of the 1924 elections.

I see your point, but I think as the situation wasn't really improving under the Weimar Republic the 5 to 6 years started moving people towards a different voice. I think that happens in politics all the time. People will handle non-action for a while and get fed up and move to the next politician. Hitler happened to be next in line. Plus he was promising them all the things they wanted.

 

[BlondieBC]

And let´s not forget all the assassination attempts.
28 attempts after Hitler became leader of Germany in January 1933. That´s 28 in 12 years!
Plus 7 between 1921 and 1923.
If I were to write a TL with the "evil hero" surviving 35 assassination attempts, quite likely my story would be moved either to the ASB forum or the History Writer´s forum.

Yes, he was lucky but he was also paranoid about security, so it is a little of both here.

 

[BlondieBC]

This is a good point
Sometimes when read about the tactical achievements of the German army during the early years, i really start to wonder if that theory about us living in a simulation might be legit.
How else can you explain stroke of luck after stroke of luck.

Sure there is luck, and it may be majority luck, but some of it is easily explainable.

• France got the victors disease. The cut their military too much, and they build the CCC structure based on WW1 needs of trench warfare. If the French had responded so slow 1914 as they did in 1940, they might well have lost the war. Imagine for example the French 5th Army takes 4 additional days to decide to withdraw. The BEF sits in a port for 3-6 days as GHQ decides what to do. Good chance France loses WW1 when it loses the 5th Army to encirclement and the BEF hits a rested German army head on. When Germany ran its monthly simulations, the French tended to win. Until the Germans decide to slow down the French reaction time by several days, then the Germans generally won.
• For all the faults of the Luftwaffe, it was a good tactical air force in 1940. In the three critical days when the Germans were getting behind the French and BEF in WW2, the British took 60% losses to aircraft used on the second day. Sometimes, the other side is just better.
• The French low level command and control sucked too. When they tried a multi-division counter attack, they attack individual battalion by individual battalion.
• Poland could not stand against both Russia and Germany.
• Now Norway, yes, I see a lot of luck their, but even if the UK reacts better, the Germans will get Denmark and quite possibly Southern Norway.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Plus 7 between 1921 and 1923.
If I were to write a TL with the "evil hero" surviving 35 assassination attempts, quite likely my story would be moved either to the ASB forum or the History Writer´s forum.

Here's a quick list of all the assassination attempts for reference.

The amount of ASBs protecting this guy...

 

[tenthring]

Here's a quick list of all the assassination attempts for reference.

The amount of ASBs protecting this guy...

The Devil wanted him to blow his own brains out. The ultimate sin for the ultimate sinner.

 

[GeographyDude]

Yes, Hitler was an evil genius. If you read any decent history of the German leadership in WWII, it's full of instances were Hitler cut right to the heart of the matter and asked the most important questions or raised the most important issues.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Okay, W. Edwards Deming, the quality control guy who went to Japan and who Detroit only belatedly listened to, he asked all kinds of searching and penetrating questions. And I'm sure they sometimes fell flat. But the ones people remember are the ones which really worked.