Being anti-Great Man Theory doesn't mean you have to discount any and all individual actions. It's not unreasonable to think that a Nazi Party under different leadership would've failed to take power as they did.
I don't think he was the deciding factor, but he could have quite possibly been a deciding factor.
Hitler under different material conditions wouldn't have done what he did, but the same conditions with a different Nazi leader could quite easily have led to a different historical outcome.
I don't think there's any guarantee that the Nazis would even come to power. They barely managed it in real life, another leader could've failed where Hitler was lucky to succeed.
Maybe in the absence of a successful Nazi Party a revanchist conservative Germany would've fought the Soviets in a similar WWII but yeah that's all speculation. Doubt a Hindenburg would go all exterminationist in that scenario though.
You know, you really are pushing the "Great Man Theory" of history bit here. I recommend not to do that. Neither the Nazi party organization, nor the contradictions of the Fascists in the parliamentary system are explained by one person.
The parliamentarians would've given any major party official the same rights as Hitler and even if they wouldn't have gotten the legality they would've taken the power. The only counter defense were leftists and those were killed and crushed by the reactionaries and social democratic elites.
Look at Italy in which Mussolini was just given the leadership of the country. There is little reason to believe that a "milder man" wouldn't have started an war of aggression, too. This was inevitable for many reasons, some are economic, some are to deliver on debt.
I don't want to talk any further, but really implore you to give us clear references for your opinions, who came to those conclusions, why and if you reference books, tell us the pages and paragraphs (which isn't possible tbh).
I said “no nazi party” not that they could’ve have failed without Hitler. Though that’s still hard to believe since the fascist reaction happened every where so clearly didn’t rely on Hitler being Hitler
Being anti-Great Man Theory doesn't mean you have to discount any and all individual actions. It's not unreasonable to think that a Nazi Party under different leadership would've failed to take power as they did.
Nah, pretty unlikely that Hitler was the deciding factor.
I don't think he was the deciding factor, but he could have quite possibly been a deciding factor.
Hitler under different material conditions wouldn't have done what he did, but the same conditions with a different Nazi leader could quite easily have led to a different historical outcome.
Similar chance of a worse outcome as a better outcome.
Nah I'm pretty sure the Holocaust was pretty close to the worst possible outcome.
More Holocaust
More Holocaust and the german general staff being left alone enough to cause more harm
That is a bit vague and a lot speculation. The red army would've fought the Nazis anyhow. That much was inevitable.
I don't think there's any guarantee that the Nazis would even come to power. They barely managed it in real life, another leader could've failed where Hitler was lucky to succeed.
Maybe in the absence of a successful Nazi Party a revanchist conservative Germany would've fought the Soviets in a similar WWII but yeah that's all speculation. Doubt a Hindenburg would go all exterminationist in that scenario though.
You know, you really are pushing the "Great Man Theory" of history bit here. I recommend not to do that. Neither the Nazi party organization, nor the contradictions of the Fascists in the parliamentary system are explained by one person.
The parliamentarians would've given any major party official the same rights as Hitler and even if they wouldn't have gotten the legality they would've taken the power. The only counter defense were leftists and those were killed and crushed by the reactionaries and social democratic elites.
Look at Italy in which Mussolini was just given the leadership of the country. There is little reason to believe that a "milder man" wouldn't have started an war of aggression, too. This was inevitable for many reasons, some are economic, some are to deliver on debt.
I don't want to talk any further, but really implore you to give us clear references for your opinions, who came to those conclusions, why and if you reference books, tell us the pages and paragraphs (which isn't possible tbh).
Nah I'm not, Chapos are just over-inclusive of what counts as 'Great Man Theory'.
They're not the primary drivers of history as GMT claims, but individuals and their actions can still heavily influence history.
Hitler had nothing to do with Prussia and yet the Nazi police force kicked down the doors of my socialists grand grand parents.
Hitler was the Fuhrer of Prussia.
You are too historically illiterate to lead this discussion. Papen was the leader of Prussia during the Preußenschlag.
Not my fault you're being too vague about what you're talking about for me to respond properly, and I don't see how your point is relevant anyway?
No Hitler's public speaking ability did have a large effect on the success of the Nazi party.
deleted by creator
I said “no nazi party” not that they could’ve have failed without Hitler. Though that’s still hard to believe since the fascist reaction happened every where so clearly didn’t rely on Hitler being Hitler
yeah but there was also a communist reaction in Germany at the time the Nazi's gained power of similar size