How correct is this /pol/? Was Hitler really a shit leader and

File: 1475258992187.jpg (225KB, 1400x1304px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1400x1304px

How correct is this /pol/? Was Hitler really a shit leader and had no sustainable economic plan?

>Common historical misconception. They only increased employment and constructed the autobahns simply by borrowing insane amounts of money and directly employing every unemployed person they could with government work creation schemes. The US could do that today, it's just that it would leave them with an absolutely massive debt and a budget they could never balance... which is exactly what happened to Germany. Their recovery was unsustainable to put it mildly.

>Also, the four year plan was a complete failure, and the increased emphasis on munitions production lead to serious shortages of basic provisions such as food and clothes, a fact that bit them hard as soon as the rationing set in.

>Hitler's economic plan relied entirely upon fighting a huge war and winning it. It was hardly a foolproof or stable strategy. And people usually use the argument that if he hadn't invaded Russia the Germans would have won, but that's exactly the problem: They NEEDED to invade Russia to sustain the massive government spending and gain access to oil because they'd used up just about every last drop they had at home.

>Hitler was a disaster of a leader. He employed and promoted sycophants in governments and created a huge government that was slow, disorganised and ineffective. Oh, and he also shot the national deficit into the sky.

>It's an important misconception to correct, because many people today feel that dictatorships are more effective than democracies, albeit prone to evil, the main example they cite being Hitler. This is completely untrue. One man usually not faster or more effective than a large group of elected officials.