Hitler's Influence on The World

[kissfan85]

Well I think every bad guy has his good days and he has my support of
'not being the most evil man in all of history'

and I applaud him in his efforts in trying to give to the human race
everyone on this earth was here for a reason, He did what he did cause he was meant to...
things just don't happen to happen

 

[The Crock]

The German army was organized so that nearly every single action was directly ordered by Hitler. Hitler would have frontline infantry-man killed if they didn't follow his orders, he was that extensive in his total dominance of the military. Hitler's speeches are the main reason people followed him. He was such a good speaker that he got a cult following and they influenced everybody else. No doubt in my mind that he is the mastermind.

 

[Ferbian]

The German army was organized so that nearly every single action was directly ordered by Hitler. Hitler would have frontline infantry-man killed if they didn't follow his orders, he was that extensive in his total dominance of the military. Hitler's speeches are the main reason people followed him. He was such a good speaker that he got a cult following and they influenced everybody else. No doubt in my mind that he is the mastermind.

Yet you don't credit Stalin as the most evil guy, the one person that practically did the exact same thing? He had the men shot if they retreated from the line at Stalingrad (Volgograd), as well as he had Chechnya men send to Siberia for being rebellious towards the Soviet empire. He was just as ruthless towards his men, however he stood up against Hitler, so the majority of people don't see him as an overall evil person, at least not from what I've heard.

How is that fair Crock? Can you explain me this, how is it fair that Hitler, a man who actually has direct proof of doing good for his country, is considered evil, rather than a man I have never heard doing anything directly progressive and good for his country?

 

[Барбоса]

We've already realized that there are good things as well done by Hitler

We have? I certainly have not. I do not see anything good in what Hitler did to Germany between 1933-1939.

Some of his individual measures might seem "good" when studied in isolation but they were all part of an evil master plan and cannot be separated from it.

He took an economically recovering society and turned in a militarised state for the sole purposes of wiping out Jews, gypsies and Slavs and stealing their land AND he made the German people think this was a good idea.

as well as some of the bad things having influenced the future of the world in a good way.

He may have influenced the decisions made by his enemies but that does not mean that he should in any way receive credit.

 

[The Crock]

Yet you don't credit Stalin as the most evil guy, the one person that practically did the exact same thing? He had the men shot if they retreated from the line at Stalingrad (Volgograd), as well as he had Chechnya men send to Siberia for being rebellious towards the Soviet empire. He was just as ruthless towards his men, however he stood up against Hitler, so the majority of people don't see him as an overall evil person, at least not from what I've heard.

How is that fair Crock? Can you explain me this, how is it fair that Hitler, a man who actually has direct proof of doing good for his country, is considered evil, rather than a man I have never heard doing anything directly progressive and good for his country?

Direct proof? Direct proof he did good? He made a fucking car, boo hoo. He did nothing but evil. He killed a lot of innocent people and he put children in concentration camps. Stalin didn't do shit like that to kids. The only reason he shot people on the line at Stalingrad is because he needed as many loyal soldiers as he could get... he was getting desperate. His country was losing more people than any other country. He had to do something.

 

[Барбоса]

Yet you don't credit Stalin as the most evil guy, the one person that practically did the exact same thing? He had the men shot if they retreated from the line at Stalingrad (Volgograd), as well as he had Chechnya men send to Siberia for being rebellious towards the Soviet empire. He was just as ruthless towards his men, however he stood up against Hitler, so the majority of people don't see him as an overall evil person, at least not from what I've heard.

How is that fair Crock? Can you explain me this, how is it fair that Hitler, a man who actually has direct proof of doing good for his country, is considered evil, rather than a man I have never heard doing anything directly progressive and good for his country?

It is all a question of long term objectives.

Stalin and Mao did far more good for their countries than Hitler by dragging them out of the Dark Ages into a more modern economy so they could actually compete industrially with the west, leaving their countries better off when they died than before they came to power. In the process, however, both men killed more of their own citizens than died during the Second World War.

Hitler on the other did not kill as many of his own people but he is treated as worse than the others because he did not revolutionise his country and instead used it purely for the aim of starting a genocidal war and left in a worse state than it had ever been before when he shot himself.

 

[kissfan85]

No one commended him yet for his Anti Smoking Campaign efforts
That's a good thing right? His reason was prejudice but regardless of reasoning it is still a healthy habit to resist

 

[Ferbian]

We have? I certainly have not. I do not see anything good in what Hitler did to Germany between 1933-1939.

Let me rephrase that then. We have discussed that he did good, he brought back Germany to it's former powerful position among the top nations in the world.

Some of his individual measures might seem "good" when studied in isolation but they were all part of an evil master plan and cannot be separated from it.

Arguable. Restoring the country to it's glorious nationalistic self I'll give you, but I don't see how the introduction of the Volkswagen for example is any part of a evil master plan?

He took an economically recovering society and turned in a militarised state for the sole purposes of wiping out Jews, gypsies and Slavs and stealing their land AND he made the German people think this was a good idea.

Well obviously he had a belief that one race was cleaner than the other. I'll give you that wasn't necessarily a good thing. But it's something that we still have going on today. Good or bad thing, you tell me. Denmark has a party that beliefs in keeping Denmark, Danish. As well as Neo-Nazi parties still exist.

He may have influenced the decisions made by his enemies but that does not mean that he should in any way receive credit.

And why is that? Should he not be considered parts in what has gone on to be accomplished by his enemies, as well as the country he ruled for about 12 years?

Direct proof? Direct proof he did good? He made a fucking car, boo hoo. He did nothing but evil. He killed a lot of innocent people and he put children in concentration camps. Stalin didn't do shit like that to kids. The only reason he shot people on the line at Stalingrad is because he needed as many loyal soldiers as he could get... he was getting desperate. His country was losing more people than any other country. He had to do something.

That's where you're wrong. Stalin did only banish thousands of Chechnya natives to Siberia as punishment for helping the germans, and rebelling against Soviet rule. That's not bad at all, I'm sorry Crock.

You can't deny that, no matter the intention of Hitler, he brought glory back to Germany, and he helped them utilize a plan to bring them up from the battered and broken state they suffered from due to the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[The Crock]

No one commended him yet for his Anti Smoking Campaign efforts
That's a good thing right? His reason was prejudice but regardless of reasoning it is still a healthy habit to resist

What the fuck?! Like what are you trying to say. Yeah he killed tons of people, but at least they died tobacco free. Oh my god, this is a ******ed post. You're getting totally sidetracked. And your posts are all about this philosophical shit about God putting Hitler on Earth. It makes no sense. It makes no difference that he stopped people from smoking, he is still a TERRIBLE human being.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I know that very well. However you're simply pointing out the bad things. We've already realized that there are good things as well done by Hitler, as well as some of the bad things having influenced the future of the world in a good way. I know very well that the bad things will easily overshadow the good things. Going a bit off-topic, it's like TNA - Good material in there, but the majority is crap. But do we discredit every damn thing that TNA has doing on? No we don't, I sure don't. And that's why I don't see why we discredit Hitler primarily, and don't at least take one step to the side on occasions, and applaud some of the good things he did.

I can understand you maybe wishing to point to part of their civics programs to use as an example of something progressive, such as their stance on smoking. However, note the bolded text. I simply, and respectfully, feel that you are wrong about this. So what that NATO and other strategic military alliances were brokered as a result of his actions? That still isn't something you can credit to him. I read an earlier comment somewhere about how we don't credit the men responsible for the creation of Amber Alert and Megan's Law for being part of the creation of child safety and sex offender laws. It sums up the situation quite nicely. And did you really just compare TNA to Hitler?

And no I'm not directly saying to applaud the guy, however I'm saying that at least we can give the guy a bit of honor for some of the things, and not associate him with all evil and bad.

No. Just simply no, Ferbian. There is no excuse, there is no accomplishment, there is no contribution that Hitler or the Nazis in general could have up their sleeves that warrant "putting aside" genocide, amongst his many other crimes. The further we get away from that stuff, the less shocking and real it becomes to people. And when that happens, others become emboldened to repeat such actions. The Nazis picked it up from others, they were hardly the first to try such thing, they were only the first to do so on such a grand scale. Admire what you will, Ferbian, but I can't think of anything that comes even close to being honorable.

 

[The Crock]

Let me rephrase that then. We have discussed that he did good, he brought back Germany to it's former powerful position among the top nations in the world.



Arguable. Restoring the country to it's glorious nationalistic self I'll give you, but I don't see how the introduction of the Volkswagen for example is any part of a evil master plan?



Well obviously he had a belief that one race was cleaner than the other. I'll give you that wasn't necessarily a good thing. But it's something that we still have going on today. Good or bad thing, you tell me. Denmark has a party that beliefs in keeping Denmark, Danish. As well as Neo-Nazi parties still exist.



And why is that? Should he not be considered parts in what has gone on to be accomplished by his enemies, as well as the country he ruled for about 12 years?



That's where you're wrong. Stalin did only banish thousands of Chechnya natives to Siberia as punishment for helping the germans, and rebelling against Soviet rule. That's not bad at all, I'm sorry Crock.

You can't deny that, no matter the intention of Hitler, he brought glory back to Germany, and he helped them utilize a plan to bring them up from the battered and broken state they suffered from due to the Treaty of Versailles.

The kids still got decent treatment, I probably should have rephrased it a bit. He didn't go as far as Hitler. I'm not saying he was a good dude, but he's not as bad as Hitler. The whole Treaty of Versailles is a cop out, Ferbs. It's not valid at all. The Germans got exactly what they needed, and Hitler pretty much brainwashed them into thinking it was unfair. Yeah, they should have taken most of the responsibility for the war... they started it.

 

[kissfan85]

What the fuck?! Like what are you trying to say. Yeah he killed tons of people, but at least they died tobacco free. Oh my god, this is a ******ed post. You're getting totally sidetracked. And you're posts are all about this philosophical shit about God putting Hitler on Earth. It makes no sense. It makes no difference that he stopped people from smoking, he is still a TERRIBLE human being.

There are many different sides to every debate.
There's a philosophical point to every side of all debates so what's wrong with using it...

There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box and exploring different points of view.

Like maybe there aren't good, bad, or evil people.
Just people who do good, bad and evil things.

and I'm getting side tracked? This is about Hitler doing some good things even with all the bad he's done and yes an anti smoking campaign to rid a country of a dependence on tobacco is a good thing is it not?

 

[The Crock]

There are many different sides to every debate.
There's a philosophical point to every side of all debates so what's wrong with using it...

There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box and exploring different points of view.

Like maybe there aren't good, bad, or evil people.
Just people who do good, bad and evil things.

and I'm getting side tracked? This is about Hitler doing some good things even with all the bad he's done and yes an anti smoking campaign to rid a country of a dependence on tobacco is a good thing is it not?

Every time I see a post of yours I think... ok here we go... "philosophical shit". You're talking about good and evil, heaven and hell, all that good shit. We're all bringing real arguments to the table. I don't find your arguments convincing at all. So, every person has a good or evil side? Does that explain why Hitler is the most evil person ever... NO. Does that explain why Stalin is slightly less evil? No. It doesn't tell me anything about concentration camps, or even WWII. Pointless.

 

[Ferbian]

I can understand you maybe wishing to point to part of their civics programs to use as an example of something progressive, such as their stance on smoking. However, note the bolded text. I simply, and respectfully, feel that you are wrong about this. So what that NATO and other strategic military alliances were brokered as a result of his actions? That still isn't something you can credit to him. I read an earlier comment somewhere about how we don't credit the men responsible for the creation of Amber Alert and Megan's Law for being part of the creation of child safety and sex offender laws. It sums up the situation quite nicely.

I barely knew of the smoking campaigning Dirty for one.

As well as I respect that you disagree with my beliefs Dirty, it's a discussion forum, and this one simply brings a little life to the Cigar Lounge. But all in all, you can't possibly tell me that some of the things Hitler managed to do during his reign on top in Germany, did not influence the future of the world? Did not in fact teach the world how horrible it actually can go wrong.

I'm not sure when it was implemented, but I do recall Hitler having a small finger on the whole influence of human rights, had he not?

And did you really just compare TNA to Hitler?

Not in the manner of which you might see it Dirty. Just overall TNA has it's good points, as well as Hitler had his, but they're overshadowed by the bad. The concept of both is the same, right?

No. Just simply no, Ferbian. There is no excuse, there is no accomplishment, there is no contribution that Hitler or the Nazis in general could have up their sleeves that warrant "putting aside" genocide, amongst his many other crimes. The further we get away from that stuff, the less shocking and real it becomes to people. And when that happens, others become emboldened to repeat such actions. The Nazis picked it up from others, they were hardly the first to try such thing, they were only the first to do so on such a grand scale. Admire what you will, Ferbian, but I can't think of anything that comes even close to being honorable.

I guess it's all about how you look at it Dirty, because I feel that credit worth credit's due (If that's how you use it in this context?) that he did accomplish things that should be remembered for more than it is. You can't tell me there's zero credit to be given to the man for bringing back glory to a country like Germany, a country that I believe currently has, and always have been a big influence in how the world functions. They're a large part of imports and everything, do you honestly think that without Hitler bringing it back to glory, that it would've happened some other time by someone less horrific, as well as being brought back to the same level of glory that it has?

The kids still got decent treatment, I probably should have rephrased it a bit. He didn't go as far as Hitler. I'm not saying he was a good dude, but he's not as bad as Hitler. The whole Treaty of Versailles is a cop out, Ferbs. It's not valid at all. The Germans got exactly what they needed, and Hitler pretty much brainwashed them into thinking it was unfair. Yeah, they should have taken most of the responsibility for the war... they started it.

Now I can't really comment on the treatment they got there, I believe there were something about work camps in Siberia, I'm not completely sure however. But does that excuse Stalin's actions compared to Hitlers actions? Not really no.

Sure Hitler's actions might very well have been worse during that period of time, but can you honestly say that Hitler therefore were the more evil man, because it was carried out upon more people in a worse manner? And couldn't possibly have been because Stalin didn't capitalize on the material he had? Hell who knows who were more fucked up in the head really?

 

[The Crock]

Stalin only forced capable men to work in the work camps. They also weren't as bad as Concentration Camps. The biggest thing was that the camps in Siberia were really cold, and a lot of people did get sick as a result. I'm saying that Stalin was also terrible, but he isn't as bad as Hitler. Hitler didn't give a shit if a chick was pregnant, she would still work, kid has a broken leg.. work or he'll kill you. It's all very messed up.

 

[Ferbian]

Stalin only forced capable men to work in the work camps. They also weren't as bad as Concentration Camps. The biggest thing was that the camps in Siberia were really cold, and a lot of people did get sick as a result. I'm saying that Stalin was also terrible, but he isn't as bad as Hitler. Hitler didn't give a shit if a chick was pregnant, she would still work, kid has a broken leg.. work or he'll kill you. It's all very messed up.

And how sure are you that it was the specific orders that Hitler gave to the concentration camps, and not simply the leaders of the camps twisting the orders just a little bit?

I just don't see Hitler as the direct worst person to ever exist, knowing there have been many brutal tyrants in this world, that have done horrible things for what weapons and tools available during their time.

 

[The Crock]

The only person that even comes close is Napoleon. Hitler had a sick, twisted, sadistic mind. His entire political career was based on taking over and destroying other people's lives. Hitler in my eyes is so evil that I don't think anybody will ever come close, EVER. Just the plain amount of death he caused tells me that.

 

[Барбоса]

That Germany holds a leading position in the world economy today has nothing to do with Hitler. It was a powerhouse before Hitler and it was a powerhouse after.

In fact without Hitler, Germany would have been a richer country for longer. It would not have been split in two for over 40 years for starters and like the rest of the world would have recovered economically throughout the 1930s without Hitler's forced rearmament.

And how sure are you that it was the specific orders that Hitler gave to the concentration camps, and not simply the leaders of the camps twisting the orders just a little bit?

Hitler ordered the herding of Jews in ghettos, the liquidation of said ghettos and the institution of the Final Solution, which allowed camp commandants to dispose of Jews whatever way they saw fit.

The only person that even comes close is Napoleon.

Equating Napoleon to Hitler? Sorry, Crock but that is a MEGA fail.

In no way is Boney anywhere near as bad as Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

 

[DirtyJosé]

I barely knew of the smoking campaigning Dirty for one.

Odd because it is probably the best suited example for what you are trying to say. German doctors were the first to identify a link between lung cancer and smoking.

As well as I respect that you disagree with my beliefs Dirty, it's a discussion forum, and this one simply brings a little life to the Cigar Lounge. But all in all, you can't possibly tell me that some of the things Hitler managed to do during his reign on top in Germany, did not influence the future of the world? Did not in fact teach the world how horrible it actually can go wrong.

That's not something worth credit though. You want to thank him for that? Credit is given for something you do, not for the long term consequences of your reckless and destructive actions.

I'm not sure when it was implemented, but I do recall Hitler having a small finger on the whole influence of human rights, had he not?

You're going to have to explain this a little better please.

Not in the manner of which you might see it Dirty. Just overall TNA has it's good points, as well as Hitler had his, but they're overshadowed by the bad. The concept of both is the same, right?

The concept is similar, sure, but the scope is laughable. The worst TNA has done is fire people and put on bad television. Hitler caused the deaths of millions.

I guess it's all about how you look at it Dirty, because I feel that credit worth credit's due (If that's how you use it in this context?) that he did accomplish things that should be remembered for more than it is. You can't tell me there's zero credit to be given to the man for bringing back glory to a country like Germany, a country that I believe currently has, and always have been a big influence in how the world functions. They're a large part of imports and everything, do you honestly think that without Hitler bringing it back to glory, that it would've happened some other time by someone less horrific, as well as being brought back to the same level of glory that it has?

Wrong again Ferbian. First of all, he restored Germany to a functioning nation on the back of terror, thuggery, extortion, and violence. The industries he revived were for the purpose of taking land and life from others. The prestige he developed for Germany very quickly soured when it was shown to be an untrustworthy ally. And second of all, even pretending he accomplished more than create a war machine out of Germany, what was left of it when he was gone? What was his legacy? A broken, divided and embarrassed Germany. One that was not able to run it's own shit as one nation for many many years? Is that glory? Is that a lasting legacy worth credit?

 

[Ferbian]

That Germany holds a leading position in the world economy today has nothing to do with Hitler. It was a powerhouse before Hitler and it was a powerhouse after.

With exception of a brief period before Hitler stepped forth again, with the depression and the wall street crack and all that. Hitler brought them from a broken down state, to once again a powerhouse in the economic department, as well as a glorious nation of power.

In fact without Hitler, Germany would have been a richer country for longer. It would not have been split in two for over 40 years for starters and like the rest of the world would have recovered economically throughout the 1930s without Hitler's forced rearmament.

This I could very well support. However who's to say they would ever have been risen to the point that they needed that separation if it wasn't for Hitler? We may never know, because that is what Hitler did, he did raise them from the ground.

And no I'm not denying that someone else couldn't have done it, because that would be idiotic, however Hitler did it very well, you can't possibly deny that Barbosa, can you?

Hitler ordered the herding of Jews in ghettos, the liquidation of said ghettos and the institution of the Final Solution, which allowed camp commandants to dispose of Jews whatever way they saw fit.

Exactly, so who's to say Hitler really had the most messed up mind, who's to say Mengele didn't have the most fucked up mind, or whomever ran one of the other concentration camps?

 

[The Crock]

That Germany holds a leading position in the world economy today has nothing to do with Hitler. It was a powerhouse before Hitler and it was a powerhouse after.

In fact without Hitler, Germany would have been a richer country for longer. It would not have been split in two for over 40 years for starters and like the rest of the world would have recovered economically throughout the 1930s without Hitler's forced rearmament.



Hitler ordered the herding of Jews in ghettos, the liquidation of said ghettos and the institution of the Final Solution, which allowed camp commandants to dispose of Jews whatever way they saw fit.



Equating Napoleon to Hitler? Sorry, Crock but that is a MEGA fail.

In no way is Boney anywhere near as bad as Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

No not at all. Look at the amount of death Napoleon caused. I'm not talking about as a ruler, I'm talking about sheer lives lost when I say Napoleon compares to Hitler. I should have made that a little clearer. If you go look it up you'll see that it actually makes sense.

 

[Ferbian]

Odd because it is probably the best suited example for what you are trying to say. German doctors were the first to identify a link between lung cancer and smoking.

I just never heard of that specific thing, that's all.

That's not something worth credit though. You want to thank him for that? Credit is given for something you do, not for the long term consequences of your reckless and destructive actions.

You have a point somewhere in this paragraph. I'm just not completely sure where I want to place that point. However I will say this - Hitler did no matter how we twist and turn it impact something in a good manner, I'm not sure whether I would directly thank him for it. But I wouldn't spit on his grave for the actions that obviously went on to better the world did it not?

You're going to have to explain this a little better please.

The horrific actions done by the concentration camps, as well as the warfare brought upon Europe, as well as the world in a whole is obviously something due to Hitler, the horrors are something that caused the implementation of the human rights in the 50's was it not? (Like I said, I might have some dates wrong, as well as some knowledge misplaced)

The concept is similar, sure, but the scope is laughable. The worst TNA has done is fire people and put on bad television. Hitler caused the deaths of millions.

And it's purely about the concept, I'm not comparing them in any other manner than the actual concept of the whole thing Dirty.

Wrong again Ferbian. First of all, he restored Germany to a functioning nation on the back of terror, thuggery, extortion, and violence. The industries he revived were for the purpose of taking land and life from others. The prestige he developed for Germany very quickly soured when it was shown to be an untrustworthy ally. And second of all, even pretending he accomplished more than create a war machine out of Germany, what was left of it when he was gone? What was his legacy? A broken, divided and embarrassed Germany. One that was not able to run it's own shit as one nation for many many years? Is that glory? Is that a lasting legacy worth credit?

That all depends on how we look at it Dirty. Considering the fact that Germany was beaten and broken down, and further destructed due to the split done by the Americans, French, English and Russians who all believed that "Let's split this bitch up in 4, because of one man, the nation shall suffer!!!!".

I'm confident that with a little bit of time, Germany could very well have ran on all 8 cylinders (or how you use that description) for all I know after they had been rebuild. But the splitting ruined the potential to properly rebuild and do what Germany had indeed been rebuild to do, work as a functional powerful nation, a powerful nation like it once was before that.

 

[Барбоса]

And no I'm not denying that someone else couldn't have done it, because that would be idiotic, however Hitler did it very well, you can't possibly deny that Barbosa, can you?

Can I deny that Hitler took an already recovering nation that had a solid basis of industry and turned it into a military powerhouse? No, I can't but I can deny that it was a good thing, even for Germany.

Exactly, so who's to say Hitler really had the most messed up mind, who's to say Mengele didn't have the most fucked up mind, or whomever ran one of the other concentration camps?

I guarantee that Hitler knew exactly the kind of human experiments that were going on as he wanted to know if the results had any military applications as well as the wholesale gassing of Jews, gypsies and other marginalised groups.

No not at all. Look at the amount of death Napoleon caused. I'm not talking about as a ruler, I'm talking about sheer lives lost when I say Napoleon compares to Hitler. I should have made that a little clearer. If you go look it up you'll see that it actually makes sense.

At the very worst Napoleon's military campaigns were responsible for 6.5million deaths. This is a wildly unreliable number for while a figure of around 3-3.5million is usually agreed upon for military casualties, civilian figures are virtually unknown. Napoleon never directly targeted civilians for extermination so even a figure of 3million civilian casualties might be a gross exaggeration.

Even if it isn't, 6.5 million pales in comparison to the deaths caused by Hitler, Stalin and Mao, particularly when the vast majority of deaths caused by the 20th century tyrants were civilians.

 

[Ferbian]

Can I deny that Hitler took an already recovering nation that had a solid basis of industry and turned it into a military powerhouse? No, I can't but I can deny that it was a good thing, even for Germany.

How is it a bad thing, considering that it was brought back to the glory that it has been wildly known for many years? Even today Germany is known as a military powerhouse, with other advantages as well. But Germany has always been known as a world power when it comes to war. How is it a bad thing that Hitler brought it back to that glory, perhaps even new heights?

I guarantee that Hitler knew exactly the kind of human experiments that were going on as he wanted to know if the results had any military applications as well as the wholesale gassing of Jews, gypsies and other marginalised groups.

Very well. I'll give you this one, but I'll redirect you to one of my earlier points. Who says Hitler had the most messed up mind, when Mengele and the other concentration camp leaders brought the final words, and did the experiments?

We've already addressed the fact that Mengele opened up twins and others to study them, how is that not a sick thing? Possibly exceeding Hitler?

 

[Барбоса]

How is it a bad thing, considering that it was brought back to the glory that it has been wildly known for many years? Even today Germany is known as a military powerhouse, with other advantages as well. But Germany has always been known as a world power when it comes to war. How is it a bad thing that Hitler brought it back to that glory, perhaps even new heights?

It is a bad thing because he forced a military rebuild on a country that was not ready for it and would have eventually recovered anyway.

It was a bad thing because instead of gearing his people and industry for Total War, he should have been building long term industries and farming. Even Volkswagen produced more military machinery than actual civilian cars (and owes its continue existence after the war to a Brit). His social, economic and foreign policies were all the same - war

It is also a bad thing because of why he did it. It was not to retake Germany's place as a powerhouse (a concept that was only 60 years old at the time) - it was to establish a Reich that was to last 1000 years.