One in 2 Austrians believe Hitler's rule had some positive aspects.

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He knew how to work a crowd

He really whipped the Germans into a frenzy of patriotism, promised them the world, told them everything they wanted and needed to hear at a time of desperate privation and hopelessness. And he gave them a scapegoat for all their ills. No wonder there's nostalgia.

blancheflower

People today are far too lazy. AH was a man of his time.

hatrickpatrick

No matter how evil a politician is, it's almost unheard of for there to be no positive aspects whatsoever to their rule.
Hell, I'm sure I could find at least one good thing to say about FF's last government if I really scratched my head about it...

Antar Bolaeisk

Every country needs a good dictator for a bit, you just need to make sure they're dumped before they get to the whole genocidal phase.

ejmaztec

blancheflower wrote: »

People today are far too lazy. AH was a man of his time.

People got a lot of exercise in those days, they ran everywhere.

Richard Hillman

No Band of Brothers,
Saving Private Ryan,
Medal of Honour,
Downfall,
those youtube videos of hitler complaining about modern issues,
Escape to victory,
The great escape,
Inglorious Basterds,
The Longest Day,
Schindlers List,
Sophies Choice,
Allo Allo,
The Dambusters,

and many many more

Tugboats

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Killing disabled and crippled people who couldn't work (except for WWI veterans) brought the unemployment rate below 1%.

Richard Bruton take note...

ejmaztec

Richard Hillman wrote: »

No Band of Brothers,
Saving Private Ryan,
Medal of Honour,
Downfall,
those youtube videos of hitler complaining about modern issues,
Escape to victory,
The great escape,
Inglorious Basterds,
The Longest Day,
Schindlers List,
Sophies Choice,
Allo Allo,
The Dambusters,

and many many more

More importantly, they'd be a bit stuck for programming on the History Channel.

Gmol

I think it is too much of a co incidence that Adolf and After hours both have the same initials

P_1

The key word in that statement is some.

WumBuster

The circumstances of Hitler's rise to power is not too unlike Ireland's current situation now. Huge debt and unemployment, feeling shafted by Europe, low morale and weak Government. perfect environment for an extremist to proclaim themselves saviour of the nation..Gerry Adams anyone?

Ryu Hayabusa

I consider Hitler as a good leader

great rhetoricial abilities, developed German infrastructure e.g autobahns, reduced unemployment etc

He did more good than harm for Germany

WumBuster

Ryu Hayabusa wrote: »

I consider Hitler as a good leader

great rhetoricial abilities, developed German infrastructure e.g autobahns, reduced unemployment etc

He did more good than harm for Germany

Yes Germany did prosper under his leadership but at what cost? The country was split into two after the war and wasnt reunited until the Berlin wall fell. The Germans are a very capable, resilient people and are now again the leading power in Europe. But as a nation of people they have always been bullies and believe they are superior to the rest of Europe.We still see that today with the financial crisis the way they are dictating and holding the balance of power over the rest of Europe. They have basically been the cause of two massive world wars that caused huge destruction and suffering and imo they were let off the hook to easily, especially by the British never seemed that interested in European affairs anyway.

dickwod1

"One in 2 Austrians believe Hitler's rule had some positive aspects."

I heard another survey said half of all Austrians believe Hitler's rule had some positive aspects.

I don't know which one to believe

TwoShedsJackson

Ryu Hayabusa wrote: »

He did more good than harm for Germany

I know you're trolling and all, but 9 million Germans got killed during World War II, something like 20% of the population at the time. The country was also totally destroyed during a war he started that killed over 50 million. Hardly ideal for Germany.

Miss Lockhart

I don't think it's surprising that half of them think Hitler's rule had some positive aspects for the country, I mean that's really just factual. The part that concerns me is that so many of them think the Nazi party would be elected if they stood now.

joetoad

He was nice enough to give people free showers

wolfpawnat

WumBuster wrote: »

The circumstances of Hitler's rise to power is not too unlike Ireland's current situation now. Huge debt and unemployment, feeling shafted by Europe, low morale and weak Government. perfect environment for an extremist to proclaim themselves saviour of the nation..Gerry Adams anyone?

Gerry Adams was extreme left wing (he took the Queens pound and then the Euro) Hitler was extreme right. Though it is slightly concerning that if we had someone charismatic these days they would get in regardless of their policies.

Hitler had great charisma, I haven't even a word of German and I can see why the people of Germany fell for his outstanding speeches. You can never deny the passion in them!!!

Yes he was responsible for mass genocide, but those SS uniforms were unreal, terrifying, but unreal.

Just because you are a homocidal maniac, doesn't mean you don't have some redeeming qualities! Ted Bundy was good to his mother apparently!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Austria have legislation in place prohibiting any expression of Nazi ideology. They've banned political parties in the past for having characteristics of National Socialism.

Some people are of the opinion that they never really came to terms with what happened, their leadership have decided that it's better to try and bury it for good.

Dwork

I think the best thing for Austrians regarding Hiltler is everyone thinks the little Austrian bollix was German.

Anyone else think that while almost every other EU country is vanishing down the fiscal plughole, Germany(which is dooing ok) seems to have won the Peace?Not too sure this whole EU thing has ended that well for the rest of us.

coolhull

One in 2 Austrians believe Hitler's rule had some positive aspects.
The same survey showed that one in 2 Austrians believe Hitler's rule had many negative aspects.

Those damn Austrians, they can't agree on anything

Conas

I wonder what this country would have been like had we been invaded and taken over by the Germans. An invasion would have been on the cards had he overcome the British I'd say. We wouldn't have had much of an army to put up any sort of a fight.

Hitler might not have disliked us Irish, after all he was a Catholic. I wonder if he would have United the country again with no Northern Ireland.

old hippy

joetoad wrote: »

He was nice enough to give people free showers

Yeah, genocide. What a laugh, eh?

Astonishing posts in this thread. Absolutely astonishing.

lecker Hendl

He was just misunderstood.

wellboytoo

At least he left the kangaroos live..

carpejugulum

Three Seasons wrote: »

Of course there were positive aspects.

Infrastructure was greatly improved in Germany as a result of Hitler's rule.

Hidalgo

WumBuster wrote: »

Yes Germany did prosper under his leadership but at what cost? The country was split into two after the war and wasnt reunited until the Berlin wall fell. The Germans are a very capable, resilient people and are now again the leading power in Europe. But as a nation of people they have always been bullies and believe they are superior to the rest of Europe.We still see that today with the financial crisis the way they are dictating and holding the balance of power over the rest of Europe. They have basically been the cause of two massive world wars that caused huge destruction and suffering and imo they were let off the hook to easily, especially by the British never seemed that interested in European affairs anyway.

Germany were simply one of the many belligerents regarding the cause of WWI, they alone didn't cause it.

The reason they were 'let off the hook too easily' post WWII was to avoid the mistakes of WWI. After the 1st WW, Germany was crippled which aided a figure like Hitler coming to power.
Getting unconditional surrender after WWII meant the Allies had full control over post-war Germany and could re-construct Germany in a way to avoid another European war

hfallada

He turned a ****ed economy into one in which everyone ( well not everyone and we know who) had a job. Stopped the hyperinflation which destroyed everyones savings. He ensured Germany and Austria had the best roads and rail in Europe. He provided housing and health to his citizens( something Ireland lacks in 2013).

He created a huge sense of pride something which the people lost after losing world war 1. People in extremely difficult circumstances will choose whoever will bring them the best life regardless of the consequences of others well being. Which is still try today.

But obviously he was pure evil and heartless. And Im sure the article did asked didn't ask do you think hitler was overall a nice person. I don't know what paper the der standard is and could easily be a tabloid which everyone knows isn't the most reliable for unbiased opinion

Hidalgo

Conas wrote: »

I wonder what this country would have been like had we been invaded and taken over by the Germans. An invasion would have been on the cards had he overcome the British I'd say. We wouldn't have had much of an army to put up any sort of a fight.

Hitler might not have disliked us Irish, after all he was a Catholic. I wonder if he would have United the country again with no Northern Ireland.

Wouldn't have relied on his religion to go handy on those of the same, plenty Catholics suffered under his regime. In fact, National Socialism's stronghold was in largely Protestant areas iirc

the_syco

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If Hitler hadn't been born

Strangly, Hitlers rise to power wouldn't have been so easy if the English and French had followed President Wilsons plan, rather than just strip mining Germany after WW1 thinking that that would prevent another World War, as opposed to being the cause of it!

Also, if it wasn't for WW2, NASA wouldn't have gotten so many rocket scientists. The absolute crazy thing if WW2 didn't happen would be that Germany would've gotten the atomic bomb perfected, along with it's long range missiles. In essence, if WW2 hadn't happened then, there'd be a couple of uninhabitable countries in the world if it happened today!

mikemac1

doolox wrote: »

The Autobahnen were built by mass cheap labour substituting dole payments for doing nothing to working on the roads for much the same payment. .

There are a few posters in AH who would like to see a similar scheme introduced here.

Read any dole bashing thread

A Primal Nut

Some people need to take a good read of slave labour under Nazi Germany. At its peak the forced labourers comprised 20% of the German work force. Counting deaths and turnover, about 15 million men and women were forced labourers at one point or another during the war. Its a jump of logic to call it "employment" and celebrating their infrastructure development is almost as bad as celebrating Dr Josef Mengele's scientific progress.

Capt'n Midnight

Three Seasons wrote: »

Of course there were positive aspects.

Infrastructure was greatly improved in Germany as a result of Hitler's rule.

comparing the infrastructure before and after I'd argue differently

The autobahns were built by hand rather than machine and there weren't that many car owners. for most of WWII the German army was dependent on horses for transport (afaik they used more than in WWI)

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone wrote: »

Also, Anne Frank's diary would have been pretty dull.

AFAIK they removed a lot of the naughty bits from it for general circulation.

wolfpawnat

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

AFAIK they removed a lot of the naughty bits from it for general circulation.

And the fact she despised her mother, hence the large section dedicated to her in the museum, sort of like "la la la, nope never happened" with fingers in your ears*

Cookie_Monster

There were huge benefits from the war (and hence from Hitlers rule) in many fields: aerospace, medical, manufacturing, weapons tech, computing, radar and so on and so on. War hypercharges tech development and to try and deny the benefits of all that tech over the last 50 years is madness

WumBuster

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Gerry Adams was extreme left wing (he took the Queens pound and then the Euro) Hitler was extreme right. Though it is slightly concerning that if we had someone charismatic these days they would get in regardless of their policies.

Hitler had great charisma, I haven't even a word of German and I can see why the people of Germany fell for his outstanding speeches. You can never deny the passion in them!!!

Yes he was responsible for mass genocide, but those SS uniforms were unreal, terrifying, but unreal.

Just because you are a homocidal maniac, doesn't mean you don't have some redeeming qualities! Ted Bundy was good to his mother apparently!

Hitler, like Stalin sold himself on propoganda. It amazing how you could fool millions of people's perception with a few flags, banners and uniforms.Also rhetoric that tapped into people emotions. It was a different time though. I dont think people would be fooled on such a grand scale today, although thats not to say that politicians today arent still fooling people in other ways.

As for Ted Bundy,he was the quintessential boy next door come sexual deviant-serial killer. Its quite chilling to see in this video how much he conned those around him, til the very end

Paramite Pie

hfallada wrote: »

He turned a ****ed economy into one in which everyone ( well not everyone and we know who) had a job. Stopped the hyperinflation which destroyed everyones savings. He ensured Germany and Austria had the best roads and rail in Europe. He provided housing and health to his citizens( something Ireland lacks in 2013).

Um... half of Germany's potential workforce was banned from working and made stay in the Kitchen. Austria and Germany's workforces are far larger today than they were in the past.

So how can you argue everyone had a job? No just every man and unless people wanna go down the old beaten road of rampant sexism the same techniques won't go down very well in modern times.

Capt'n Midnight

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Some people need to take a good read of slave labour under Nazi Germany.

More people were killed making V2 rockets than were killed by it's use.

And the deaths of the first Russian prisoners of war http://www.gendercide.org/case_soviet.html

In a mere eight months of 1941-42, the invading German armies killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war through starvation, exposure, and summary execution. This little-known gendercide vies with the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated mass killing in human history.
...
An important group of Soviet victims is also left out of these calculations: namely, those soldiers who never even reached captivity after surrendering. According to Ward Churchill, "perhaps as many as a million troops ... were simply executed by Wehrmacht and Waffen SS units rather than being taken prisoner in the first place." (Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide [City Lights Books, 1997], p. 48.)

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/Teplyakov.html

German statistics put it on record: 280,000 person died at deportation camps and 1,030,157 were executed when trying to escape or died at factories or mines in Germany.

steddyeddy

The mutation that makes people prone to sickle cell anemia also conveys to them a resistance to malaria.

So basically like Hitler it's something that is pretty sh1tty but might have some positive aspects. Saying that I would have to be a horrible and insensitive human being to say that sickle cell had some good features.

It's the same thing here. People suffered horible under Hitler and people (who didn't suffer under him) are being d1cks by saying he had some postitive features? Te only positive feature I can think of is that he had the decency to do himself in!

catallus

A person doesn't have to sympathise or empathise with Adolf Hitler or nazism to admit that his "rule had positive aspects".

AJP Taylor's book, The Origins of the Second World War painted a colourful picture of many of the important personages in the lead up to 1939; Taylor's take on it was that Hitler was a chancer and boaster who actively talked up his military and economic readiness when he didn't really have much of either; he was an opportunist who had things go his way at crucial times.

It's an interesting investigation into the idea that a lot of stuff just happens and there's not an awful lot anyone can do about it; the world stumbled into war, and it will do so again, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

The talk of slave-labour here is puzzling to me; in war all labour should be taken advantage of; what better people to labour than slaves?

Whatever about the "positive aspects" of Hitler's rule, I guess we can be grateful to those that fought and died to prevent his war-machine from winning. That's Hitler's real legacy; he was a loser who blamed everyone around him for their failures, when it was his decisions which brought about such a terrible end for his people.

It makes me laugh when people say they'd like to go back in time to kill him. And then what? Have Goering in charge? He'd could be a better commander than Hitler, could have won the bloody war! Better the devil you know, I say.

Madam_X

catallus wrote: »

The talk of slave-labour here is puzzling to me; in war all labour should be taken advantage of; what better people to labour than slaves?

I think people are saying there shouldn't have been slaves in the first place.

catallus

Madam_X wrote: »

I think people are saying there shouldn't have been slaves in the first place.

In a perfect world, of course. But war is a bad place to be for wishful thinkers.

Dodd

I don't know why but I still think it strange that people take what the were told about WW1 & WW11 as true when it was told by one side and people don't consider what the other side was.

catallus

Dodd wrote: »

I don't know why but I still think it strange that people take what the were told about WW1 & WW11 as true when it was told by one side and people don't consider what the other side was.

I think we know all there is to know apart from the murkier minutiae of the dealings of the winning side; history is written by the victors, obviously, and god knows enough books have been written about the whole mess.

Madam_X

catallus wrote: »

In a perfect world, of course. But war is a bad place to be for wishful thinkers.

Wars cannot be fought without slavery?

Dodd wrote: »

I don't know why but I still think it strange that people take what the were told about WW1 & WW11 as true when it was told by one side and people don't consider what the other side was.

People take what's pretty well documented as true. What do you feel has not been revealed?

catallus

Madam_X wrote: »

Wars cannot be fought without slavery?

People take what's pretty well documented as true. What do you feel has not been revealed?

Nope

Dyr

catallus wrote: »

A person doesn't have to sympathise or empathise with Adolf Hitler or nazism to admit that his "rule had positive aspects".

and there's not an awful lot anyone can do about it; the world stumbled into war, and it will do so again, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

The talk of slave-labour here is puzzling to me; in war all labour should be taken advantage of; what better people to labour than slaves?

Whatever about the "positive aspects" of Hitler's rule, I guess we can be grateful to those that fought and died to prevent his war-machine from winning. That's Hitler's real legacy; he was a loser who blamed everyone around him for their failures, when it was his decisions which brought about such a terrible end for his people.

It makes me laugh when people say they'd like to go back in time to kill him. And then what? Have Goering in charge? He'd could be a better commander than Hitler, could have won the bloody war! Better the devil you know, I say.

Goering was an awful commander, bigger spoofer than hitler

catallus

Bambi wrote: »

Goering was an awful commander, bigger spoofer than hitler

But given that the right side won the war, would you be willing to risk having him in charge?

Dodd

Madam_X wrote: »

Wars cannot be fought without slavery?

People take what's pretty well documented as true. What do you feel has not been revealed?

Just because something is well documented does not make it true.
You have media telling you what they want you to hear/read.