Russophobia

[sid waddell]

Hitler was guilty of many things, including foolishness, but to label him a fool is so simplistic it's comical. Seems to me the specific references here would make him guilty of hubris, egotism, failed political gambits, not being a fool. A fool does not manufacture one of the greatest Machiavellian rises to power ever.

Invading the Soviet Union was the act of a fool, it wasn't a "failed political gambit" - it wasn't political, it was genocidal, and suicidal

Though to Hitler, doing something suicidal was better than doing nothing at all - like Trump, and Qewanon MacKenna, and that repressed simpleton on this forum, he was obsessed above all with people talking about him, and he wanted people to talk about him forever

Invading Russia wasn't something done on the spur of the moment, surprise at Britain and France declaring war displayed a child-like delusion

He was also lazy as fook and surrounded by yes men

What he was certainly right about was his belief in the power of propaganda, rhetoric, charisma, grievance, notions of revenge and all out violence to bring many millions of people with him

Many millions of deluded fools - the same sort of people who exist everywhere right now - in the US, Britain, Russia, India, Ireland

[bennydorano]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

[armaghniac]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

He had talents in rabble rousing, so was no fool. However, his military strategic talents were less and he was foolish to overestimate them.

[dublin7]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

As a orator Hitler was excellent. He could have a crowd hanging off his every word and willing to follow him anywhere.

As a military strategist he was out of his depth and the failure of his attempted assassination by his own officers was a success for the Allies as he remained as leader

[Eamonnca1]

Hitler's strengths:

• Oratory (probably one of the greatest ever)
• Understood the power of branding, messaging, and propaganda in building support for the cause
• Understood the power of ruthlessness and terror in keeping subordinates in line

Hitler's weaknesses:

• Delegation (who micromanages someone like Rommel?)
• Used ruthlessness and terror to keep subordinates in line rather than take advice from experts
• Became more convinced of his own omnipotence the longer her held power (a common problem among politicians*)
• Military strategy
• Paranoia
• Allowed his actions to be dictated by anger and hatred
• Didn't know when to stop invading his neighbours

* Not to compare Tony Blair to Hitler or anything, but Blair got a taste of military success with the Balkan campaign and he got his ego boosted when he visited Kosovo and was greeted as a liberator.  This got the idea into his head that military power could be used to solve big problems, so he went off looking for a fight to pick with someone. The fact that GW Bush became US president was an unfortunate coincidence that sealed the fate of a lot of poor Iraqis.

Political leaders can get carried away with a few early successes and try to replicate them again later. Same as Cameron narrowly winning the Scottish IndyRef. He probably got a kick out of that in the same way a bungee jumper gets a thrill out of plunging to the ground without dying. Hence his willingness to take another big constitutional gamble with Brexit, and that came back to bite him in the ass the same way Iraq did for Blair. And Poland did for Hitler.

[sid waddell]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

[sid waddell]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

He had talents in rabble rousing, so was no fool. However, his military strategic talents were less and he was foolish to overestimate them.

Trump is the most gifted rabble rouser and demagogue since Hitler

But he is also demonstrably a fool

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/8af4dc4a-39a8-4d07-81f3-af2979dc3f35

"Russia’s rubber-stamp courts have played a starring role in the Kremlin’s crackdown on a protest movement led by anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, president Vladimir Putin’s pre-eminent challenger."

Russia isn't great on the rule of law, really.

[GetOverTheBar]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

You could make a decent argument they would have won the war totally had a natural event such as the weather not scuppered the invasion of Russia initially - they were 20 miles from Moscow in 1941. Had the got Moscow, was that Russia beaten?

After the first offensive stalled.....the inexhaustible Soviet man power wore them down in the most basic form of attrition possibly ever seen.

[LeoMc]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

You could make a decent argument they would have won the war totally had a natural event such as the weather not scuppered the invasion of Russia initially - they were 20 miles from Moscow in 1941. Had the got Moscow, was that Russia beaten?

After the first offensive stalled.....the inexhaustible Soviet man power wore them down in the most basic form of attrition possibly ever seen.

That would be an interesting scenario. Has anyone ever war gamed it? It is a book I would read.

[sid waddell]

In my view ultimately the Nazis were always going to lose in Russia because they were trying to control a vast space with a vast population, and they were hated

Long term or even medium term that was not sustainable no matter had they taken Moscow

Holding onto Russia would have drained them of resources to such an extent that they would have been sitting ducks on the western front

[Main Street]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

You could make a decent argument they would have won the war totally had a natural event such as the weather not scuppered the invasion of Russia initially - they were 20 miles from Moscow in 1941. Had the got Moscow, was that Russia beaten?

After the first offensive stalled.....the inexhaustible Soviet man power wore them down in the most basic form of attrition possibly ever seen.

That would be an interesting scenario. Has anyone ever war gamed it? It is a book I would read.

Had Germany actually got into Moscow, what then? The German army had poor supply lines and  stretched beyond sustainability,  would have had to survive the winter being relentlessly harassed by an ever improving Russian army who were being supplied by the USA who could produce and provide war supplies in abundance.

Hitler's war was lost when he started a war without a proper navy for an Atlantic blockade, had inferior air force and when the useless Goering was put in charge of the Luftwaffe.
He was fortunate that a hopelessly disjointed French army/ air force  managed to ignore the info about the  invading German's 100 mile tank jam in the Ardennes. The Luftwaffe were blown out of the sky over the Belgium and  France  where they lost over 1,000 planes, therefore BAF superiority of the skies  allowed for the first Brexit.from Dunkirk. Then the Blitz which came as a surprise to those in the know because it meant Hitler was bankrupt as a tactician.  Goering never got to grips with the Luftwaffe   so much energy spent on daft grandiose projects. The Brits had better fighter planes, had a solid production and always ruled the skies.  By the time Hitler decided to invade Russia he had no moves left, whatever move he made meant certain defeat.

[Angelo]

The thinly veiled anti-Russian racism around the Sputnik V vaccine from the EU is pretty wrong in this day and age.

[Eamonnca1]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

You could make a decent argument they would have won the war totally had a natural event such as the weather not scuppered the invasion of Russia initially - they were 20 miles from Moscow in 1941. Had the got Moscow, was that Russia beaten?

After the first offensive stalled.....the inexhaustible Soviet man power wore them down in the most basic form of attrition possibly ever seen.

That would be an interesting scenario. Has anyone ever war gamed it? It is a book I would read.

Had Germany actually got into Moscow, what then? The German army had poor supply lines and  stretched beyond sustainability,  would have had to survive the winter being relentlessly harassed by an ever improving Russian army who were being supplied by the USA who could produce and provide war supplies in abundance.

Hitler's war was lost when he started a war without a proper navy for an Atlantic blockade, had inferior air force and when the useless Goering was put in charge of the Luftwaffe.
He was fortunate that a hopelessly disjointed French army/ air force  managed to ignore the info about the  invading German's 100 mile tank jam in the Ardennes. The Luftwaffe were blown out of the sky over the Belgium and  France  where they lost over 1,000 planes, therefore BAF superiority of the skies  allowed for the first Brexit.from Dunkirk. Then the Blitz which came as a surprise to those in the know because it meant Hitler was bankrupt as a tactician.  Goering never got to grips with the Luftwaffe   so much energy spent on daft grandiose projects. The Brits had better fighter planes, had a solid production and always ruled the skies.  By the time Hitler decided to invade Russia he had no moves left, whatever move he made meant certain defeat.

Well Napoleon took Moscow, but the locals burned the place, and him and his army was sent packing from it. The scorched earth policy made it hard for the French to live off the land. Same thing might have happened with Hitler if he wouldn't have been able to keep his supply lines going.

[J70]

I've read many a history book, as I'm sure you have, I've yet to see Hitler being labelled a fool - as his defining characteristic. Calling him a fool as a throw away remark is fine, but if it's a hill you're prepared to die on - that it defines him, I'll leave you to it.

It depends what you class as a fool, doesn't it

He wasn't a fool in terms of winning power or propagandising

In terms of winning a war, he most certainly was, given that Germany could possibly have won the war if they'd played their cards differently - or at minimum made it much, much harder for them to be defeated

Some of the most intelligent people in the world can also be fools

As an example, Sunetra Gupta is obviously highly intellectual (which Hitler wasn't), but is also demonstrably a fool

You could make a decent argument they would have won the war totally had a natural event such as the weather not scuppered the invasion of Russia initially - they were 20 miles from Moscow in 1941. Had the got Moscow, was that Russia beaten?

After the first offensive stalled.....the inexhaustible Soviet man power wore them down in the most basic form of attrition possibly ever seen.

That would be an interesting scenario. Has anyone ever war gamed it? It is a book I would read.

Had Germany actually got into Moscow, what then? The German army had poor supply lines and  stretched beyond sustainability,  would have had to survive the winter being relentlessly harassed by an ever improving Russian army who were being supplied by the USA who could produce and provide war supplies in abundance.

Hitler's war was lost when he started a war without a proper navy for an Atlantic blockade, had inferior air force and when the useless Goering was put in charge of the Luftwaffe.
He was fortunate that a hopelessly disjointed French army/ air force  managed to ignore the info about the  invading German's 100 mile tank jam in the Ardennes. The Luftwaffe were blown out of the sky over the Belgium and  France  where they lost over 1,000 planes, therefore BAF superiority of the skies  allowed for the first Brexit.from Dunkirk. Then the Blitz which came as a surprise to those in the know because it meant Hitler was bankrupt as a tactician.  Goering never got to grips with the Luftwaffe   so much energy spent on daft grandiose projects. The Brits had better fighter planes, had a solid production and always ruled the skies.  By the time Hitler decided to invade Russia he had no moves left, whatever move he made meant certain defeat.

Well Napoleon took Moscow, but the locals burned the place, and him and his army was sent packing from it. The scorched earth policy made it hard for the French to live off the land. Same thing might have happened with Hitler if he wouldn't have been able to keep his supply lines going.

I'm sure the Russians would have defended Moscow to the death as they later did at Stalingrad which, correct me if I'm wrong, was one of the most brutal, bloodiest battles in history.