Joined the forum to ask a scripting question, ended up finding the answer without having to post, so I might as well talk about Hitler.
Wyatt":vldgcjjc said:
If anything, the only way he could have had kids is if he was a hermaphradite (that's the term, right?) and if it was possible for a hermaphradite to become pregnant.
Huh? Are you suggesting that the leader of a country driven to the brink of fanaticism couldn't get laid? And didn't he have a girlfriend, anyway, Eva something-or-other?
Wyatt":vldgcjjc said:
I don't think he'd ever have stopped. Mr Hilter favoured people with radical ideas. So... say he wiped out the entire Jewish population. Himler comes up to him, weary, as if he doesn't come up with a new idea he'd be replaced/killed. "Hmm, how about... if we kill all of the people in Liverpool!" Bang, entire Liverpudlian population gone. Week later, another meeting. Gaybells is there, has to think of an idea... "All caucasian people are secretly Jews in disguise." (Yes, I see the illogicalness here, but w/ever). Bang, all caucasian people are wiped out. Gaybels, Himler, and Mr Hilter are fine as they are Aryan. And so on, until all that is left is a small sausage factory outside of Berlin, and a racial stereotype hatred group.
Yeah, this sounds about right, though maybe the lunacy of the situation is a tad exaggerated. I think Hermann Goering put it best, when on trial for war crimes:
Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
As long as Hitler could come up with the next Great Enemy, he could keep control over his people... probably. I can think of other regimes where this hasn't held up quite as well, but then again, Hitler was one hell of an orator.
To those of you who claim Hitler was a good leader: shouldn't you stop and think about what, exactly, defines a good leader? If all it takes is artificially pumping up the economy and unifying the nation (while pounding down the parts of the nation that refuse to unify) is all it takes to be a "good" leader, okay, sure, that's Hitler. Personally, I would never call a man who tricks his people into giving up their freedoms, attempts genocide to simply get his poll numbers up, or starts unwinnable wars with the rest of the world a good leader.
As for the OP... Hm. I think that Hitler finishing the Holocaust and taking over the world are two pretty disparate goals. He was already pretty, let's say, unpopular when he started WWII, but if he had killed of the Jewish people there wouldn't be many nations that would consider a diplomatic resolution with Germany--who's to say their people wouldn't be next?
If he took over the world, um... no, there wouldn't be peace! Munich might be alright, because he'd likely have a massive garrison there to keep everything secure. But even if he somehow took control of the world, he'd have constant uprising, and
if he could raise an army big enough to police the entire planet, they'd have their hands full.
Like I said, starting unwinnable wars takes you off my "good leader" list.
