What did Hitler do for Germany?

[borjastick]

In the British and US media the other day was a reference to a comment claimed to have been made by former President Trump. He was supposed to have said that Hitler did many good things. Perfectly reasonable to me if I am honest.

This was reported in the media and I was watching a comments debate in one of the British newspapers online. The usual 'Hitler was the worst man ever' routine was revealed and some tried to support the Trump thought. I would like some back up here please. I firmly believe that Hitler did a massive amount of good for the country and people. If I am correct he created millions of jobs, the social welfare and benefits system, national pride, infrastructure projects like re-building the country, motorway network, overseas trade and the banking and finance system which benefited many millions of Germans.

Have I missed something here? Can you direct me towards a more well thought through list of how good the man was for Germany?

[Eduardo]

NS was a global project for the re-building of the german society after the disastrous Weimar republic and the defeat of the WWI. They destroy the class struggle and other marxists dogmas that so much pain brought to the world after WWII. The same can be said of the political nihilism of the liberals (I mean "liberal" in the traditional political sense, not in the US concept of "leftist"). In fact, NS was the spearhead of a european alternative to the ideologies of the Elightment. After that, we are in free fall.

[Mortimer]

In the British and US media the other day was a reference to a comment claimed to have been made by former President Trump. He was supposed to have said that Hitler did many good things. Perfectly reasonable to me if I am honest.

This was reported in the media and I was watching a comments debate in one of the British newspapers online. The usual 'Hitler was the worst man ever' routine was revealed and some tried to support the Trump thought. I would like some back up here please. I firmly believe that Hitler did a massive amount of good for the country and people. If I am correct he created millions of jobs, the social welfare and benefits system, national pride, infrastructure projects like re-building the country, motorway network, overseas trade and the banking and finance system which benefited many millions of Germans.

Have I missed something here? Can you direct me towards a more well thought through list of how good the man was for Germany?

Here are a couple of articles that should interest you.
1. How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany's Economy
http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html
2. How Hitler Consolidated Power In Germany And Launched A Social Revolution
https://codoh.com/library/document/how- ... ny-and/en/
They demonstrate how his national socialist policies helped to get Germany back on it's feet and improve the living standard of millions of people after the misery and drudgery of the Weimar Republic and the Great Depression.

[borjastick]

Thanks Mortimer these are pure dynamite to those who think Hitler's only 'achievement' was the mass murder of millions of jews under the framework and effort of a war. No wonder the world took against him and Germany when they saw how well a large economy could be turned around and how that generated wealth could be enjoyed by every worker and his family in the country.

I will save these documents and use them to shove the 'Hitler was all bad' argument right up their arses the next time it comes up. Which it will because it is a perennial theme in the media.

[Mortimer]

British intelligence during World War 2 certainly admitted that Hitler's social and economic policies had improved Germany as a whole. They were very interested in finding out how the national socialists had achieved this.
https://jailingopinions.com/realhistory ... c-miracle/

[Hektor]

NS was a global project for the re-building of the german society after the disastrous Weimar republic and the defeat of the WWI. They destroy the class struggle and other marxists dogmas that so much pain brought to the world after WWII. The same can be said of the political nihilism of the liberals (I mean "liberal" in the traditional political sense, not in the US concept of "leftist"). In fact, NS was the spearhead of a european alternative to the ideologies of the Elightment. After that, we are in free fall.

The term global is misleading. NS wasn't for export, not at all. The scope was national, as the name already says.

As for policies. One needs to look how things were in the early 30s and then how it changed afterwards. Essentially, NS created policy certainty and reflated the economy by ensuring that workers were actually paid what they were owed by their employers (This wasn't the case previously). That's what got the economy going again. The reflation was done by public projects like the "Autobahn". The rearmament didn't really play a role in this. In fact, this came at a cost for other projects, programs and general wealth.

I recall Germans that were kids during the time. They virtually all affirm that things improved during the NS-era. Stuff only went bad at later stages of the war. Perhaps from 1943 onward. It is however the last phase that shaped the picture of the era for many.

The NS-voters came for a large part from the previous voters of the liberal parties DVP/DDP. The DVP was more classical liberal. The DDP was a bit more like the modern liberals stronger emphasis on 'moral liberalism'. Essentially a bone to pick with what is considered 'repressive' by the left. It's both about 'individual rights'. NS viewed this as decadent and put the emphasis on community, while not denying that an individual can fend for himself. There was however also a more 'enlightened' or 'progressive' arm within NS. And that was represented by Bormann and Himmler. They were not as leftist as Strasser and Roehm, though. But their idea of managing the state and society was more centralist as e.g. the views of Hitler, who accepted that most decisions were to be made on the regional or local level. And well: The leadership principle ("Fuehrerprinzip") did not mean that 'The Fuehrer' makes all the decision. Quite to the contrary were decision making powers to be delegated towards lower-level leaders. So the whole strawmen of 'blind obedience', 'tyranny', and dismissal of rule of law were not a given. Although there was of course the issue of Hitler having powers to supersede the usual governmental processes at will. It should however be recognized that he often did not do that, even if he wanted to.

For the most part, most Germans didn't experience National Socialism as 'too coercive'. In fact, I don't think there was much of a difference in private freedom between Germans in 1938 from those in 1988. Talking about the Western Part of course.

[Whodunnit?]

Germany only had tactical bombers with a low range, but dive bombing capability, which made the aircraft more complicated and expensive, but gave it high accuracy. Famously, the put a siren on their main bomber, the Ju 87. People get taught that this was done to psychologically terrorise the enemy. This is nonsense. The Germans put a air-siren on their dive bomber. Are air-sirens there to terrorize people? No, they are there to warn people. And imagine that this is what the Germans did on a tactical dive bomber: they put an air siren on it. The Ju 87 was there to destroy material while giving the crew a chance to escape. The siren made the aircraft 30 km/h slower, which made it more vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. They made an aircraft worse to save enemy lives, imagine that.

The British on the other hand started developing the technology for heavy strategic bombers in the 1930's.

Even Wikipedia admits that (still):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_warfa ... rld_War_II

The Luftwaffe lacked the bomber forces for strategic bombing, because it did not think such bombing was worthwhile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

During the interwar period (1919–1939), the use of aerial bombing was developed as part of British foreign policy in its colonies, with Hugh Trenchard as its leading proponent, Sir Charles Portal, Sir Arthur Harris, and Sidney Bufton. The Trenchard School theories were successfully put into action in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) where RAF bombers used high-explosive bombs and strafing runs against Arab forces. [...] Arthur Harris, a young RAF squadron commander (later nicknamed "Bomber"), reported after a mission in 1924, "The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage. They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured".[28]

On an official level, RAF directives stressed:

In these attacks, endeavour should be made to spare the women and children as far as possible, and for this purpose, a warning should be given, whenever practicable. It would be wrong even at this stage to think that airpower was simply seen as a tool for rapid retribution.

[...]

Bombing as a military strategy proved to be an effective and efficient way for the British to police their Middle East protectorates in the 1920s. Fewer men were required as compared to ground forces


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bombe ... et_through

"The bomber will always get through" was a phrase used by Stanley Baldwin in a 1932 speech "A Fear for the Future" given to the British Parliament. His speech stated that contemporary bomber aircraft had the performance necessary to conduct a strategic bombing campaign that would destroy a country's cities and there was little that could be done in response. It concluded that the conduct of future wars would require one to "kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape ... gs_to_Come

The Shape of Things to Come is a work of science fiction by British writer H. G. Wells, published in 1933. [...] A number of Wells' short-term predictions would come true, such as the aerial bombing of whole cities presented in more detail than in his previous The War in the Air and the eventual development of weapons of mass destruction.


And don't buy this nonsense that the British started bombing German cities because of some polish town or to take revenge for some other foreign people. Wars aren't fought for altruistic reasons.

but speaking of the bombing of Poland, some info:

On 13 September, following orders of the ObdL to launch an attack on Warsaw's Jewish Quarter, justified as being for unspecified crimes committed against German soldiers but probably in response to a recent defeat by Polish ground troops,[84] and intended as a terror attack,[85] 183 bomber sorties were flown with 50:50 load of high explosive and incendiary bombs, reportedly set the Jewish Quarter ablaze.

On 14 September, the French Air attaché in Warsaw reported to Paris, "the German Air Force acted in accordance to the international laws of war [...] and bombed only targets of military nature. Therefore, there is no reason for French retorsions."[87] That day – the Jewish New Year – the Germans concentrated again on the Warsaw's Jewish population, bombing the Jewish quarter and targeting synagogues.[86] According to professor Szarota the report was inaccurate – as its author Armengaud didn't know about the most barbaric bombings like those in Wieluń or Kamieniec, left Poland on 12 September, and was motivated by his personal political goal to avoid French involvement in the war, in addition the report published in 1948 rather than in 1939.[77]

Oy vey, the french were just cowards. The streets of the cities were littered with shoes, children's shoes, but nobody cared about who wore these shoes and where the owners of these shoes are.

Now this right here is an example of how the current WW2 narrative makes people dumber.


On 22 September, Wolfram von Richthofen messaged, "Urgently request exploitation of last opportunity for large-scale experiment as devastation terror raid ... Every effort will be made to eradicate Warsaw completely". His request was rejected.[85] However, Adolf Hitler issued an order to prevent civilians from leaving the city and to continue with the bombing, which he thought would encourage Polish surrender.[86] [...]

Three days later, Warsaw was surrounded by the Wehrmacht, and hundreds of thousands of leaflets were dropped on the city, instructing citizens to evacuate the city pending a possible bomber attack.[89] On 25 September the Luftwaffe flew 1,150 sorties and dropped 560 tonnes of high explosive and 72 tonnes of incendiaries.[86][90] (Overall, incendiaries made up only three percent of the total tonnage dropped.)

So some guy said "destroy the city". Then Hitler said no. Then Hitler allegeldy prevented civilians to leave the city. Then the Luftwaffe dropped leafles to make the people leave the city. Which they couldn't since the Germans prevented them to leave at the same time. Then they erradicated the city.

Nothing here makes sense. Nothing. But it happened. In several countries it's a criminal offense to openly say that you don't believe it. You have to believe that stuff that doesn't make sense actually makes sense somehow.