yes, but because he didnt win, hes insane. a true genius wouldve won the war, like Truman. even if we were under his control, everyone wouldve hated him and eventually turned against him as the people population would be far too great.

You mean hated him like the german people hated him between 1930 and 1945?
Or the norwegians, danes, french and dutch from 1941 to 1945?

What does population have to do with liking or disliking Hitler?

And another thing, for germany to beat:
russia, britain, usa, canada, new zealand, australia and south africa
pretty much all by itself would require a genius leader.
For the allies to win did not require genius leaders for the power balance was already so much in their favour.

Had the british not exterminated such a large part of the planet and established their own colonies there they would never have had the guts to declare a war on germany simply for overthrowing their recently created
pet-dictatorship called Polland.
They knew their colonies would back them up in their war to break and divide germany.

I think very much that herr furhur Hitler wasn't so much a genious as somebody who strongly believed in one of the most left-winged policies most ever come to know in a lifetime. At the same time, he knew what he was doing and might have had a chance if it weren't for Mr. Oppenheimer and his doomsday device.

Hitler sucks.

There are many facist,evil, "Rulers" in history that led large empires while successfully conquering others and 'surviving' to thier dieing day. Yet, they're still seen as "insane". If hitler had won, he would still be called insane.. Though not by his brainwashed followers nor those who would only say it behind his back due to fear. Well, most likely anyway. Fotunately, we wont know.

Its true than insanity and genius actually do share the same "wave lengths" in most cases.

Hitler was a genius in the political sense in that he took the Nazi party from being a radical fringe group in the early thirties to being the main party in Germany. He also managed to transform the economy of Germany which was crippled by WW1 and the Depression of the 30's to being a major world power, and create a large powerful army whilst fobbing off the objections of the other major powers. However his insanity and greed was ulitmately his undoing, as taking on the might of the Soviet Union against advice effectively was the main reason they lost the war. His various health problems including syphilis probably added to his insanity. Murdering half of Europe also suggests he was something of a mentalist. So a genius yes, but a deeply flawed, insane megalomaniac also.

Hitler became insane for he was living in an insane world.
I dont think anybody could have become a healthy adult with a childhood like his.

On his deathnote in 1945 he wrote that he never wanted a war but the allies were determined to get one.
And discovery channel supports that claim of his.

Hitler had a sick S&M Fetish: he liked to have women crap on his chest. so im gonna say he was a sisk crazy genius

where do you have that from?

sorry but just ... shutup...

Im not used to be talking to people who have no brains.
So learn some manners will ya.

it's just one of the random facts, people learn in life

DUDE. IF HITLER WON WWII HALF OF EARTH WOULDN'T BE HERE.HE WAS A PHYCO AND BY THE SOUNDS OF SO R U.GET A BRAIN AND STFU DUMBASS.

This idea seems similar to the quote, "War doesn't determine who is correct, but who is left." (something like that)

History is written by those currently in power and also taught by those in power. This can severely bias what is taught and how it is taught. A good example would be of General Custer's last stand. Years ago textbooks displayed it as a tragic occurance where the general was lured by Indians and then surrounded to be basically murdered. Years later.. As I sat in a classroom, I was taught that it was a good example of arrogance that lead to the downfall of the general. In the coming years, perhaps it will be taught to students as a triumph of native Americans, or perhaps it won't be taught at all?

Vietnam serves as a good example of selective teaching. I was never taught much of anything about Vietnam in school. I was shown some bad about America from other wars, but most of what I was taught served to glorify America. "We are the best country in the world" seems to be the mantra. A majority of the deaths from that war were Vietnamese civilians, over 3 million! The American public was stirred into a racial frenzy of hatred, not much unlike the nazi's. Yet was I taught about this? No, I wasn't.

Bias permeates society. Sad, yet true. What is normal is not necessesarily right.

Let him stick it in your pooper!

i agree with what your saying about geniuses and that, but not hitler. it's like leonardo da vinci, he had ideas and invented things that people said were insane, but it turns out they're mostly right and he was in fact a complete genius and centuries ahead of his time.

It is so ridiculous that the pretext for the entire war was germanys "invasion" of western Polland.
Forgetting that western Polland was mostly inhabited by Germans and other minorities who preferred to belong to Germany over Polland and this British created Polish regime had executed thousands of innocent civilians for the sole crime of speaking out their thoughts.
But off course nobody heard about those things in the west.
Wonder why that was?

So a reunification of the german people was depicted in the west as "expansion", but how can you expand into your own country?

In 1918 the allies had just decided that the westernmost parts of democratic Germany werent Germany anymore and that it belonged to their pet dictatorship, Polland.

This kinda ticked off the Germans and encouraged them to vote for whomever had the balls to tell the allies to go to hell.
Which is why Adolf Hitler got so popular.
Completely understandable.

Also, had the dictatorship in Germany been the reason for the war, shouldnt the west then not have supported Polland?
Also, had the invasion been the reason, shouldnt they then have declared war on the soviet union as well?

Germany took west, the Soviet Union took the east, and thats used as a reason to declare war on Germany while at the same time sending military support to the other dictator.

The German "invasion" was just a pretext the allies used to make the war they wanted in order to justify stealing taxpayer money.
The more i study history the more clear it becomes.

"In 1918 the allies had just decided that the westernmost"

westernmost was ment to be easternmost

@ Mimir2: I don't think the allies wanted another war (at least not the European powers) as they were still traumatised from the last war. Also have you heard of the policy of appeasement? Hitler joined with Austria and annexed Czechoslovakia amongst other things, which the allies turned a blind eye to, invading Poland was the straw that broke the camels back. I don't think you could say they entered the war for financial gain, what with most of europe being decimated afterwards. Maybe the Americans did, seeing as how they were attacked by the Japanese which lead to them fighting the Germans?

Also on an unrelated point, on a recent trip to Japan I discovered that in their national war museum they say that the USA 'forced' them into war, and that it was a good thing because it 'liberated' asia from the colonial powers, which goes back to what BoredNL was saying...