Adolf Hitler and the Nazis = revolutionaries?

hitler was no revolutionary

I don't understand how debating the semantics of whether Hitler was revolutionary or not has any purpose whatsoever.

What about George Washington? Hitler failed.

which certainly wasn't some popular uprising.

I don't understand how debating the semantics of whether Hitler was revolutionary or not has any purpose whatsoever.

Hitler was not a revolutionary because he achieved power legally.

I'm studying it

What about George Washington? Hitler failed.

I would like to know, we have all this talk of the Arab spring revolutions, Bolshevik Revolutions, French Revolutions etc.

Why don't ever mention Hitler and Nazi Germany as a revolution.

I mean, the Nazis got to power, completely alters the cultural/socio-political/economic aspects of the country, invaded most of europe and almost succeed.

Yet I have never heard 'Hitler the revolutionary', While it is pretty obvious why we never see his face on a poster or a T-shirt, why don't we seem to hear of the nazis as revolutionaries?

As far as some revolutions go (had he not invaded most of europe and lost) it would have been pretty successful if you look at the way they tranformed the ecomony etc.

Is it purely because of the anti-semetism that we don't refer to them as revolutionaries?

do we seem to asociate revolutions with toppling oppressors (not the case in Germany) and building a nation for the good of the people (not the case in Germany as it excluded jews etc)?

Maybe because he used "legal" means, and techiqaly followed the weimar republic's rules to change Germany, and as the above said, there was not really an uprising of the masses that we dont count him as a revolutionary, even though the changes he made were quite dramatic.
I suppose you could also argue that many of the changes simpley reverted back to the old traditional system eg one strong male authorotarian leader that it wasent as revolutionary as, say the October revolution
Dunnow, like the above, not an expert. Depeds on your defenition of "revolution"

Yeah, he was a revolutionary.

Hitler didn't fail getting to power though did he. Lenin also failed if thats how you look at it, just took 60yrs longer to fail...

His takeover was illegal under the constitution with only a veneer of legality for the sole purpose of propaganda.

Nazi Germany was pretty different to Imperialist Germany:

e.g.

- Nazi Germany had a total demise of law and order. The police no longer were answerable to law and legislation. They could (and did) do whatever they pleased.
- Imperial Germany always had elections, political parties, freedom of press.
- The Kaiser was reliant on popular opinion and the Chancellor to be able to rule.

speaking of China, Mao Zedong was a very successful revolutionary as well. Hell, even Kim Il-Sung was successful in creating the ultimate secret-police state and cult of personality.

(Putting aside all the issues about the definition of 'revolutionary' - it's already been covered enough.) He achieved power but his dreams weren't achieved, he killed many Jews but immediately after the war they were free in Germany again. I'd only really count a truly successful revolution as one where it has a lasting effect beyond the death of the revolution's leader. The Battle of Bosworth Field was a successful revolution because the Lancastrians never held the throne again; the Glorious Revolution was successful because England/Britain never had another Catholic monarch; the English Civil War was only a short term success and eventually failed, because the monarch was restored, and in the same sense Hitler ultimately failed. On the other hand, something like the American Revolution was an overwhelming successes with long-lasting effects.