Adolf Hitler and the Nazis = revolutionaries?

Watch
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#1
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)?
4
reply
vortexvoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 years ago
#2
I guess they're not generally referred to revolutionaries partly because it glamourises them, and also because of the way they seized power - which certainly wasn't some popular uprising. That's all I can think off off the top of my head - its not a topic I know much about.
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 years ago
#3
I don't understand how debating the semantics of whether Hitler was revolutionary or not has any purpose whatsoever.
2
reply
Bowman.Hath
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 years ago
#4
hitler was no revolutionary
0
reply
GiantFrozenPenguin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 years ago
#5
Hitler was not a revolutionary because he achieved power legally.

His 1923 Munich Coup ended in disaster and he was arresteed. Hardly a successful revolution.
1
reply
bestofyou
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#6
(Original post by Bowman.Hath)
hitler was no revolutionary
why?

(Original post by jesusofsuburbia)
I don't understand how debating the semantics of whether Hitler was revolutionary or not has any purpose whatsoever.
I'm studying it


(Original post by Craig_D)
What about George Washington? Hitler failed.
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...
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 years ago
#7
(Original post by vortexvoid)
which certainly wasn't some popular uprising.
Erm what? The Nazis were by far the biggest political party in Germany when they took power under completely fair elections.

If you're going to neg rep a completely undisputed fact, can you at least explain why?
3
reply
vortexvoid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 years ago
#8
(Original post by jesusofsuburbia)
I don't understand how debating the semantics of whether Hitler was revolutionary or not has any purpose whatsoever.
It's history. It doesn't need to have a purpose :P
0
reply
KJane
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 9 years ago
#9
They didn't rise up, the party gained enough power and influence until they were voted in and then enacted their policies.
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 years ago
#10
(Original post by GiantFrozenPenguin)
Hitler was not a revolutionary because he achieved power legally.
No he didn't. He needed a 2/3 majority to legally alter the constitution. Achieving this majority meant unlawfully arresting every Communist opponent, threatening violence against those who would not vote with them and even then still rigging the vote.
1
reply
bilidowcar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 9 years ago
#11
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"
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 9 years ago
#12
What about George Washington? Hitler failed.
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 9 years ago
#13
(Original post by bestofyou)
I'm studying it
OK. All I meant was there are far more thought-provoking questions to ask about Nazi Germany than whether Hitler was or wasn't some arbitrary type of person.
1
reply
GiantFrozenPenguin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 years ago
#14
(Original post by Craig_D)
What about George Washington? Hitler failed.
Yeah, the two most successful revolutionaries is probably between Washington and Lenin. Both created two of the most powerful countries on Earth, even though one failed and the other is bound to fail or be surpassed by India or China.

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.
0
reply
Indo-Chinese Food
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 9 years ago
#15
(Original post by bestofyou)
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)?
There are people that do - but they tend to be nutcases, like andreas brevick in norway , or members of the bnp/c18/edl in this country. I would think his the rabid racism (ps it wasnt just jews he didnt like - he described arabs as 'half-apes') facist ideals and general lies, propagnada and supremacist theory drivel put a lot of normal minded people off hitler.

I wouldnt necessarrily equate having your face ona t-shirt to accepted as a 'successful' revolutionary, most spotty students wearing pictures of Mao or che guevara on their chests have no clue of what sort of men they were.
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 9 years ago
#16
(Original post by bilidowcar)
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"
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.
0
reply
Craig_D
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 9 years ago
#17
(Original post by bestofyou)
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...
(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.
0
reply
bilidowcar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 9 years ago
#18
(Original post by jesusofsuburbia)
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.
Thats true. What i meant with the first point was that he achived the changes from within the establishmed goverment. Bad wording. But i suppose that the fact that it was takn down from within doesent change the fact that it was taken down does it.
I think it does however affect our perception of the natzi takeover as not being revolutionary though.
0
reply
bilidowcar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 9 years ago
#19
(Original post by GiantFrozenPenguin)
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.
Martin Luther is probably one of the greats too
0
reply
jesusofsuburbia
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 9 years ago
#20
(Original post by Craig_D)
(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.
Are you really saying Nazism's impact did not endure beyond Hitler's death?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (606)
33.82%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (750)
41.85%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (356)
19.87%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (80)
4.46%

Watched Threads

View All