[NB_ide]

(Original post by Molts)
I'm sure that if you look at most of history, it will show you that the opposite is true.

Opposite how, exactly? What do you think was the case?

[Laozi]

(Original post by mevidek)
Hitler wasn't exactly the smartest chap; by supporting the impossible Operation Barbarossa, he pretty much sent Germany down the road to destruction. This might have just been that he wasn't a strategist, but generally he was more of an opportunist than an intellectual and a genius.

I don't think you can say a man who rose from a noneity to the leader of one of the most sophisticated countries in the world was not a genius, and you can't deny this in a political sense. Would you not call Alexander a genius because he didn't enroll in some intellectual institute.

[CUFCDan]

I'm not sure there's a correlation.

I actually disagree.

The majority of people who subscribe to any doctrine - especially that of the far-right - tend to be less 'intelligent' than average. I'm not sure this is up for debate: nearly every study into the voting habits of a populous conclude that those who vote for the far-right (in the UK, the BNP) tend to have below average education.

[mevidek]

(Original post by Laozi)
I don't think you can say a man who rose from a noneity to the leader of one of the most sophisticated countries in the world was not a genius, and you can't deny this in a political sense. Would you not call Alexander a genius because he didn't enroll in some intellectual institute.

No, opportunism played a massive role, and if he was such a "genius", then why did he go with Barbarossa, or the Battle of the Bulge, or why did he waste so many soldiers in his infamously idiot counterattacks in Berlin?

[Laozi]

(Original post by mevidek)
No, opportunism played a massive role, and if he was such a "genius", then why did he go with Barbarossa, or the Battle of the Bulge, or why did he waste so many soldiers in his infamously idiot counterattacks in Berlin?

Opportunism did play a role, but so did his genius and political skills. Joining a weak and outcast political party and within 13 years being total leader of the country requires more than just opportunism, don't you agree?

Barbarossa actually had a chance of success. A higher concertration of forces in Army Grupp Mitte, that was to make a thrust at Moscow, would have allowed Germany to take Moscow (the Soviet Union being vunerable to the loss of the capital because the state command and control apparatus was highly centralised). Stalin also decided to stay in Moscow and go down with his ship of state. Therefore, armoured pincer thrusts to Moscow would have certainly cut Stalin off, thus decapitating the Soviet state of it's capital and it's leader.

Operation Barbarossa also began a month too late as the Wehrmacht was helping Italy's failing invasion of Greece. This meant the Wehrmach had one less month of solid ground and where then faced with 'rasputiza' (autumn rains and mud) which completley slowed their advace as there was a complete absense of proper roads in Russia. The advance only continued when the snows came, and the Germans soldiers were completley unprepared for the Russian cold and weather.

The German war economy also peaked too late (1943) and as a result the best weapons and tanks came too late to the front in order to perform any miracles. The Wehrmacht managed to penetrate to the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad within 2 months, with around 3000 minor tanks (panzer IV). Imagine if they had 4000 Panthers and 2000 Tigers

But yes, Hitler did make some cruical mistakes; he divereted Army Group Centre from Moscow to help in the Caucasus, which meant Moscow was able to mount a formidable, in-depth defence.

The Battle of the Bulge was the last gamble in halting the Allied advance on the precious Rhineland and Ruhr regions and to take Antwerp in the process, in order to buy 'time' to stall the Soviet advance on the Eastern front. It was attack or be attacked. But yes it was stupid and wasted the last decent resources and tanks he had left. Compare this to 'Operation Market Garden' where the Wehrmacht stopped the Allied advance in its tracks and prolonged the war by several months. It was a bold move, and if it had of worked, who knows what would have happened.

Berlin was total hand-to-hand combat to the bitter end. Give me one example of a idiot counter-attack? The foreign legions in the Waffen-SS thought hard because they were ideologically motivated. Is that what you mean?

[Dmon1Unlimited]

youre intelligence does not stop you from being a ****...
if there was a correlation, than most of all intelligent people will be ***** which is not the case...

unless someone can tell me how smart people are more prone to being arse holes?
you will get smart bastards and you will get dumb bastards... the sad thing is the smart bastards may use their intelligence as a tool to make what ever *******s theyre doing (e.g. the nazis (assuming youre right)) worse... but this does not mean smart people are more prone to being bad... intelligence is a tool.... not a disease... dont start another bonfire of the vanities people...

it also doesnt mean dumb people are not as bad as smart people...

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by natchina)
Ok, fair enough. You have genuine reasons to hate nazis. My point is broader. If the nazis won the war, the nazis would be celebrated as the good guys today.

By who? Certainly not the vanquished nations.

[Barden]

Reminds me of this quote attributed to Rommel:

"Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders."

[tufc]

There's a big difference between being clever and being wise.

[snozzle]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Some bad people are intelligent.

The people at the top of most societies will have needed smarts to get themselves there, in fact many of the Nazi elite just used the ideology as hateful as it was, to put themselves into positions of power, it was just machiavellianism.

The Nazi system ensured these ruthless types would rise to power. An organised society like Nazi Germany just has ends. If people disagree with those ends they must be made to agree by either propaganda or violence as a final resort. Given the primacy of the ends then the means is whatever is most expedient from a practical point of view. One cannot subscribe to liberal concepts of ethics which emphasises individual conscience and respect for people as ends, one must be a kind of amoral person and just do what is necessary having accepted the premiss' of collectivism. As Hayek said 'the worst rose to the top'.

Machiavelli conceived of the state as an instrument of force, the Prince must do what is necessary to retain power so there was a gap between public and private morality.

The Nazi leaders were not hypocrites in their politics though, their ruthlessness was quite open and the system demanded and approved of it. In an organised society good and bad is attached to ends only and not means.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Barden)
Reminds me of this quote attributed to Rommel:

"Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders."

That quote has been attributed to pretty much every famous commander in history.

Spoiler:

Show

It must be a good policy

[Kiss]

(Original post by Panta Rhei)
I hate the Nazis and I don´t want to discuss about how bad this crowd of brutes were. But I found an interesting fact in the book: ”The Nuremberg- Mind – The Psychology of the Nazi Leaders”
Authors Florence R. Miale, Michael Selzer. Quadrangle / The New York Times Book Co., New York Source: OSS Officer Gilbert

“All examined Nazi leaders, excluded Julius Streicher, publisher of the "Stuermer", had an above-average intelligence ; Hjalmar shaft and Arthur Seyss-Inquart reached even unusually high IQ values from more than 140 (Göring: 138).”

What do you think, is the motivation for above-average intelligent people to be involved in such an inhuman and barbaric system?

Being evil usually goes hand in hand with being intelligent. You can look at any basis of a good villain: The Joker from Batman, Magneto from X-Men or Hannibal Lector from Silence of The Lambs. And what they all have in common is their view of humanity and what right and wrong are - and the scariest part about their logic is that it's right in some respects.

Of course they're all just fictional, but you understand my point when you place it into the context of reality.