Alexander the Great VS Adolf Hitler - Battles

#1 Edited by Wario88 (1619 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Who is a better leader?

#2 Edited by Vortex13 (11137 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander the Great, because he has my name lol.

Edit: Also Hitler was a man who was evil and a bigot and tried to conquer the wold to try and make what he thought was a pure race. Alexander the Great wanted to conquer to unite, still misguided but not as evil.

#3 Posted by warlord1234 (1215 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander the great was a military genius . Hitler was political genius that was one of the main reason why the German lost the war.

#4 Posted by MisterGuyMan (1811 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler deluded himself into believing his preconceived notions. Alexander was practical and flexible. Despite Alexander's excesses, his reign is one of the most remarkable in history paralleled only by Ghengis Khan.

Alexander, literally won so much that his army got tired of all the winning. However funny that sounds, it's absolutely true.
On the contrary most rulers find victory on the battlefield an effective way to pacify dissenters.

#5 Posted by King Saturn (212950 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander the Great wins

#6 Posted by Kastiel (8919 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander, his battle tactics were phenomenal, though I prefer Hannibal.

#7 Posted by Kal'smahboi (2885 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander. His empire was larger and he created it through genius tactics and local politics.
Hitler wanted a perfect human race and didn't do it very well.

#8 Edited by EdwardWindsor (13209 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

you serious with this thread ? , one of the worlds best miltary leaders in all of history who created one of the largets empires on earth and sweep through countrys and landmasses with ease , against a man who couldnt back up what he wanted and ended up shooting himself , hitler isnt evn the top 10 best military leaders of all time where as alexander the great has to be top 5

#9 Posted by Lunacyde (16541 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Adolf was a better manipulator and speaker and that's it. Militarily he is one of the worst leaders the world ever seen.

#10 Posted by Final Arrow (24295 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler inspired a nation, Alexander inspired the world!!

#11 Posted by glforthewin (2355 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler was terrible when it came to military tactics. that's why he had people like Rommel

#12 Posted by CortSether (1821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler wasn't the greatest in military tactics, but he deserves more credit in that department than you guys give him. Hitler was the reason that France fell to Nazi Germany within days as he came up with the strategy to catch them off guard.

Although politically, Hitler is much better than Alexander the Great, militarily speaking Alexander is leaps ahead of him.

And to those who said Hitler wanted to conquer the world, that is absolutely untrue.

#13 Posted by DeadPool a.k.a Wade Wilson (979 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander The Great was a military genius, ATG

#14 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@CortSether:
@glforthewin:
@Final Arrow:
@lazystudent:
Hannible Barca himself said that Alexander was number 1! Hannibal rated himself #2.
Hitlers goals good or bad have nothing to do with leadership. He was a poor boy growing up in a poor neiborhood, with an abusive father and no hope fort the future. He rose to become a phenomenal leader who inspired milions of poor and destitute Germans to stand up for their rights when the entire world was already against them because of WWI. As far as militarily, he took all of Europe except Britain in a matter of months. Many of the early military strategies were his, not his generals. He may have been mentally off, he may have been a monster, but he was still one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen, easily on par with Napoleon. Remember that greatness can sometimes be terrible. By comparison Alexander inherited a strong military, and a strong country in Macedonia. He had every advantage in education and money, and he led a force of a few thousand men from Eastern Europe to Pakistan. He ultimately saw that what he was doing was futile, when he marched his 25-40000 men on to a field where Indian generals had amassed an army more than ten times that size. He promptly turned around and came home, though he died along the way. As far as who wins I'd say I favor Alexander, more for Hannibal's recommendation than any impressive strategy I've seen demonstrated. In fact many of his victories, even against inferior forces can be attributed to dumb luck. But while he was technically the Macedonian king, and the Egyptian pharoah, and everything else, he was ultimately only a war leader who didn't accomplish much beyond territorial gain, all of which was lost after his death. Hitler stablized the German market, brought value back to German currency, And established terde routes and roadways, and as horrible as it is the greatest medical advancements of the 20th century came out of Nazi death camps. His contributions both good and bad still effect the world today. Germans still aren't allowed a real military, and we still maintain a strong military presence there because of the fear this one littl man instilled in the entire world. Hitler was a far more effective leader than Alexander could ever have imagined being.

#15 Posted by CortSether (1821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@yodagod: But you're not allowed to say anything good about Hitler or you're automatically a Nazi!

Anyway, those are good points. It's just that Hitler made some horrible decisions regarding Stalingrad.

#16 Posted by NightFang (9268 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander the Great wins.

#17 Posted by Vance Astro (88997 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander.Hitler was really a hypocritcal,tantrum throwing, p#ssy!

Moderator

#18 Posted by StrongestOneThereIs (6487 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

No leader in history compares to Alexander

#19 Posted by .Mistress Redhead. (27022 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Vance Astro said:

" Alexander.Hitler was really a hypocritcal,tantrum throwing, p#ssy! "

ahhaaahaaaaa

sorry that was the funniest thing i have read today!

#20 Posted by Vance Astro (88997 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@.Mistress Redhead. said:

" @Vance Astro said:
" Alexander.Hitler was really a hypocritcal,tantrum throwing, p#ssy! "
ahhaaahaaaaa sorry that was the funniest thing i have read today! "

I'm glad I can make your day,Mistress :)

Moderator

#21 Posted by .Mistress Redhead. (27022 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Vance Astro said:

" @.Mistress Redhead. said:
" @Vance Astro said:
" Alexander.Hitler was really a hypocritcal,tantrum throwing, p#ssy! "
ahhaaahaaaaa sorry that was the funniest thing i have read today! "
I'm glad I can make your day,Mistress :) "

lol a good laugh is never dissaproved!

#22 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@CortSether:
Agreed, though by the time he split his forces and attacked Russia, he had degenerated so far into psychosis and paranoia that they had already lost. The Hitler who started the war, frightening as it may be, wouldn't have lost the way he did, maybe not at all.
I personally think that everyone saying Alexander either A. doesn't know history or B. are deluding themselves by automatically viewing Hitler as the "bad" guy and ignoring his accomplishments.
For a man to start as a nobody, rise to at least some distinction in WWI (though only a messenger, he recieved multiple commendations for bravery), end up arrested for daring to speak against the government for allowing the sanctions that were imposed after WWI, to then get out of prison and rise to power the way he did (by inspiring the masses), to leading one of the most comprehensive military campeigns in history, and convincing defeated enemies to fight for him says more to me about leadership ability than a Prince who started with everything and had a successful series of battles.

#23 Posted by Emperor Gonzo Noir (19681 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Alexander actually conquered most of the known world, Hitler didn't

#24 Posted by Vance Astro (88997 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Emperor Gonzo Noir said:

" Alexander actually conquered most of the known world, Hitler didn't "

Not like Genghis Khan.

Moderator

#25 Posted by Emperor Gonzo Noir (19681 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Vance Astro said:

" @Emperor Gonzo Noir said:

" Alexander actually conquered most of the known world, Hitler didn't "
Not like Genghis Khan. "

In a fight with Genghis Khan they would both be annihilated

#26 Posted by Rothschild (1311 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Does Hitler have Rommels Help? If not then Alexander Easily... Even with the Desert Fox's help Alexander would prob win... Napolean is a better military mind than Herr Hitler

#27 Posted by Radiante (327 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

lol
But you mean in a hand to hand fight?
Anyway, Alexander with no doubt!!! What a question...

#28 Posted by SilverGalford (2930 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

hitler sucks , he killed himself

#29 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

This forum doesn't ask who's the better military strategist, who would win in h2h combat, or who is the nicer guy. Even if hate Hitler, not hard to do, if you ignore his accomplishments that is ignorance. Ignorance on the same magnitude as ignoring someone's talent because you're racist or sexist. It's on par with being a racist who says Michael Jordan wasn't that good cause he's black. It goes beyond ignorance and borders on blindness. The very fact that so many people hate him shows his greatness.

#30 Edited by Lunacyde (16541 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler wasn't a military leader...the shots he did call where horrible ones and led to his downfall...I have never once downplayed his talent, i merely told the truth....he is a talented speaker and politician ...not military leader. He never led the army in the way Alexander did so it's hard to compare. Hitler didnt come up with strategy or tactics, he may have been the highest authority in Nazi Germany but he didn't call the military shots most of the time.

#31 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Lunacyde:
Actually the blitzkrieg style that allowed for the complete fall of poland in less than a month was Hitler's as was winning over the Polish people and getting them to fight for him.
Also the fall of France was orchestrated by Hitler. The Germans didn't start losing until two things happened. First...Hitler became mentally unstable and paranoid and began making poor decisions ( like attacking the Soviet Union when they had already agreed to stay out of the rest of the war because Hitler was winning.) Second... In the wake of his instability his own generals began sabotaging him, most notably Rommell.
And you reinforce my point even more, because while Hitler had to be the head of state, keep his own people and those of conquered countries under control, while also running his day to day government (which he did successfully for almost 10 years prior to WWII), and serving as commander in chief of his military, which is not something that most countries outside the U.S. do. He had to maintain control of a huge war machine with thousands of officers and millions of troop. Alexander (while he was technically the leader of his country) was never there. He spent all of his time as a field commander of his military which included a few other officers and, depending on what point during his battles, between twenty and forty thousand troops. He never had to deal with domestic issues, or any of the problems that a world leader faces. Of course he was a great military leader, it's what he dedicated his entire (though short) adult life to. But Hitler was a great leader in every sense of the word. He's the man who said the greater the lie the more people will believe it. He convinced millions and millions of people, not just Germans that they should follow him not just as a politician, not just in to the greatest war in history with effects and huge casualties worldwide, but he also convinced them that aryan people were better (completly ignoring that he didn't fit his own profile for what he wanted) and that it was a good idea to exterminate the Jews. That takes far more talent than convincing a few thousand worriors in a warrior society to follow you through battle after battle. Alexander didn't even establish his own governments as he conquered his way across eastern europe, he just asked for some money and called it good. That's why his empire didn't last. As soon as he died, only a few years later, so did the empire.

#32 Posted by Akwa (4821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Who is the better leader? Hitler.

All Alexander was good was for was military strategy. There is more to leadership than that.

Hitler took a ground down country that had been ruined by the First World War and turned it into a slick well moving machine with a powerhouse economy.

#33 Posted by gobstakid777 (1815 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

well hitler did kill millions but....
hitler did conquer nearly all of europe,but alexander did conquer nearly all of what was the known world at the time
personally if u make it rommel vs alexander it would be a better fight

#34 Edited by stevepidge (408 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Lunacyde said:

" Hitler wasn't a military leader...the shots he did call where horrible ones and led to his downfall...I have never once downplayed his talent, i merely told the truth....he is a talented speaker and politician ...not military leader. He never led the army in the way Alexander did so it's hard to compare. Hitler didnt come up with strategy or tactics, he may have been the highest authority in Nazi Germany but he didn't call the military shots most of the time. "

Hitler called all the shots of the military, you have no idea what you are talking about. In many instances he even intervened down to the divisional level which really pissed off alot of officers.

@yodagod

BLitzkrieg was not developed by Hitler, it was his brilliant general Heinz Guderian who developed blitzkrieg. During the invasion of Poland Hitler examined the destruction of some Polish fortifications and asked Guderian " Our dive bombers did that?" In reply Guderian said " No that was our Panzers!" Hitler was extremely impressed and allowed Guderian to continue to perfect his method.

#35 Posted by Akwa (4821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@gobstakid777 said:

"well hitler did kill millions but.... hitler did conquer nearly all of europe,but alexander did conquer nearly all of what was the known world at the time personally if u make it rommel vs alexander it would be a better fight "

How many people they killed does not reflect on leadership capabilities. When you think about it, a lot of people eariler were saying that Alexander was the better leader because he was the better military strategist. That is to say, they were essentially praising him on his ability to kill people.

#36 Posted by Ellocobruja (558 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler had the harisma and the ability to surround himself with great military minds.
As Twisted as he was and may he burn in the ddevils ass crack he at least deserves that.

Alexander was a mIlitary leader. Not the greatest I give that to Sitting Bull/Crazy horse or Shaka Zulu who fought better tech and still managed to win.
But He was an awesome leader and held together a large empire ithout telephones or teleggraphs he also was an expert politican and tactician to boot.

Giving Hitler and Alexander the same troops against each other on a flat battle field with no chance of retreat Alex wins.

#37 Posted by Radiante (327 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@yodagod:
forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.
Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet...
Don't curse, friend,

#38 Edited by MisterGuyMan (1811 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Hitler made a lot of mistakes on every military level you can name. Tactically he refused to allow German troops to give ground during critical points even when doing so cost them battles. Strategically, he wanted Stalingrad even though it had no strategic importance. On a scale of grand strategy, he declared war on on the United States literally for no reason.

Hitler's problem, as I stated before, was that he was inflexible. He even learned the wrong lessons from his early stunning victories. After taking Paris, Hitler had any number of options before him. He could have and would have won lasting gains had he listened to his advisers. Alexander would not have made the same mistake. A good parallel can be made when Alexander chose to secure his flank by attacking coastal settlements along to Egypt instead of going straight for Persia.

#39 Posted by MisterGuyMan (1811 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

It all depends on what you want in a leader. Hitler was charismatic to be sure but then so was Alexander. Everyone surely has faults but if you're being compared to Alexander the Great, you can't have many mistakes at all if you want to come out well in the comparison.

Let's keep it simple. Look at their goals. Hitler wanted to built the foundations of an Empire to rival Rome. Alexander wanted to conquer Persia. Hitler utterly failed reaching his goal. His Reich didn't even last beyond himself. Alexander surpassed his.

#40 Posted by stevepidge (408 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@MisterGuyMan said:

" It all depends on what you want in a leader. Hitler was charismatic to be sure but then so was Alexander. Everyone surely has faults but if you're being compared to Alexander the Great, you can't have many mistakes at all if you want to come out well in the comparison. Let's keep it simple. Look at their goals. Hitler wanted to built the foundations of an Empire to rival Rome. Alexander wanted to conquer Persia. Hitler utterly failed reaching his goal. His Reich didn't even last beyond himself. Alexander surpassed his. "

well to be fair,alexander'sdidn't exactly last beyond his death. The generals all divided it among themselves, and the empire was extinguished almost as quickly as it was forged. But overall Alexander was the better of the two.

#41 Posted by Akwa (4821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Radiante said:

"@yodagod: forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet... Don't curse, friend, "

Actaully no. Germany had not been a perfect machine as you put it, before Hitler took over. It had just lost the Second World War and had been forced to cede large amounts of land to other countries. It's economy was in the craphole.

It was the Nazi Regime that changed that.

Before WWII, Hitler was actually praised by other world leaders for his work in turning Germany into such an efficient nation.

#42 Edited by Stormultt (5302 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Actually to tell you the truth alexander was good but hitler had an image he wanted to show throughout the world and surely did it. of course alexander was good but hitler's persuading skills were off the charts especially during the time of the holocaust, he just had good timing is all really, he was one of the worst the world has seen but i will give him that credit where its due. alex ftw anyway.

#43 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

Remember Hitler took the nation of Germany from complete failure to a world power in less than 10 years. When he first took power Germany's currency was worth about a million'th of a dollar(literally). They had no military, people were starving, unemployment was ridiculous, crime was rampant. By the beginning of WWII Hitler had solved all of those problems, and in the end it took the combined might of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and many more to stop him and it ultimatly cost more than 60 million lives to do it. Alexander was stopped by one nation pulling an actual army together. He did nothing for his country or his people beyond expanding his borders. And I guarantee had Persia, India, Egypt, and everyone else stood together he would have been just as soundly defeated as Hitler while not accomplishing anything else for his people.

#44 Posted by Radiante (327 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@yodagod: forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet... Don't curse, friend, "
Actaully no. Germany had not been a perfect machine as you put it, before Hitler took over. It had just lost the Second World War and had been forced to cede large amounts of land to other countries. It's economy was in the craphole. It was the Nazi Regime that changed that. Before WWII, Hitler was actually praised by other world leaders for his work in turning Germany into such an efficient nation. "

Germany was so efficient nation, that would have grown up from 1st world war problems also if the leader was Mickey Mouse...

#45 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Radiante:
it only became so efficient because of Hitler's extraordinary leadership skills. That's my point. To further illustrate it , here we are 70 odd years later and the Germans still haven't recovered from WWII, but they recovered from far worse concessions after WWI in only ten years with Hitler at the helm. Noone disputes what a horrible person he was, but in overall leadership qualities he wins this.

#46 Posted by Radiante (327 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@yodagod said:

"@Radiante: it only became so efficient because of Hitler's extraordinary leadership skills. That's my point. To further illustrate it , here we are 70 odd years later and the Germans still haven't recovered from WWII, but they recovered from far worse concessions after WWI in only ten years with Hitler at the helm. Noone disputes what a horrible person he was, but in overall leadership qualities he wins this. "

West Germany recovered so fast.... Think, they recovered and they in the '90 yrs absorbed East Germany's disastred economy without big problems. Now Germany is one of better economies, in a world in deep crisis....

#47 Posted by yodagod (2180 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Radiante:
It only looks that way because everyone else is down. And again it took them how many decades to even do that much. Again, compare to post WWI.

#48 Posted by Akwa (4821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Radiante said:

"@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@yodagod: forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet... Don't curse, friend, "
Actaully no. Germany had not been a perfect machine as you put it, before Hitler took over. It had just lost the Second World War and had been forced to cede large amounts of land to other countries. It's economy was in the craphole. It was the Nazi Regime that changed that. Before WWII, Hitler was actually praised by other world leaders for his work in turning Germany into such an efficient nation. "
Germany was so efficient nation, that would have grown up from 1st world war problems also if the leader was Mickey Mouse... "

Just because they are an efficient nation now doesn't mean they always were. Germany's well-known efficiency as a nation first comes from the time of the Nazi Regime.

#49 Posted by Radiante (327 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@yodagod: forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet... Don't curse, friend, "
Actaully no. Germany had not been a perfect machine as you put it, before Hitler took over. It had just lost the Second World War and had been forced to cede large amounts of land to other countries. It's economy was in the craphole. It was the Nazi Regime that changed that. Before WWII, Hitler was actually praised by other world leaders for his work in turning Germany into such an efficient nation. "
Germany was so efficient nation, that would have grown up from 1st world war problems also if the leader was Mickey Mouse... "
Just because they are an efficient nation now doesn't mean they always were. Germany's well-known efficiency as a nation first comes from the time of the Nazi Regime. "

Wrong, deeply wrong. Hitler climbed on a winning horse already running... And did what he did... a disaster....

#50 Posted by Akwa (4821 posts) - 3 years, 10 months ago - Show Bio

@Radiante said:

"@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@Akwa said:

"@Radiante said:

"@yodagod: forgive my ignorance, but i still say Alexander. Hitler's talent has been to take the power in Germany, this I agree. But what he did after? Germany was a perfect machine, a very rich nation. Without Hitler Germany would have been simply better. Talent??? Talent to kill innocent people? Racist who????? Who is the king of racism???? If racism = ignorance, then Hitler is the Emperor of ignorance.Alexander did awesome... If Hitler would have done what Alexander did, proportionally, mutati mutandis, keeping in mind of different era, he would have conquered not only the whole world, but probably he would have discovered a new habitable planet... Don't curse, friend, "
Actaully no. Germany had not been a perfect machine as you put it, before Hitler took over. It had just lost the Second World War and had been forced to cede large amounts of land to other countries. It's economy was in the craphole. It was the Nazi Regime that changed that. Before WWII, Hitler was actually praised by other world leaders for his work in turning Germany into such an efficient nation. "
Germany was so efficient nation, that would have grown up from 1st world war problems also if the leader was Mickey Mouse... "
Just because they are an efficient nation now doesn't mean they always were. Germany's well-known efficiency as a nation first comes from the time of the Nazi Regime. "
Wrong, deeply wrong. Hitler climbed on a winning horse already running... And did what he did... a disaster.... "

A winning horse already winning?

By that I assume you mean a country that had just lost a huge war, had lost a good deal of it's land, had had it's economy ground into the ground, had been royally screwed over by the Treaty of Versailles and had currency that was almost worthless.

Sounds like it was winning to me.