Adolf Hitler was a lazy leader.

Con has made crucial errors in his argument and I will point them out before moving on to my argument. 1. Con speaks of "Hitler's rise, and possibly involvement" with a cultural change. This debate centers around the direct involvement of Hitler in the Nazi policies and speaking of a 'possible' involvement is implausible as this debate is not about what Hitler 'may' have done rather what he did and didn't do. This then discredits the remaining argument on the topic of Nordicism as Con has already noted that Hitler did not have definite involvement, it remains a mere 'possibility'. 2. Further, Con's link to Hermann's statement and the topic of this debate is unclear especially when he fails to note that the book in which this statement was published was banned the Third Reich [1] and thus it disagreed with Nazi policy. 3. Impetus B speaks of "Hitler's administration" carrying out new policies and yet again this statement loses all effect in this debate as it focuses on Hitler, the individual rather than Hitler's government. Implementation of policy by Hitler's administration does not imply Hitler's direct involvement and he continued to be lazy whilst policies were passed by his subordinates. I will continue with my argument. I will argue that Hitler was a lazy leader in that having 'developed' Nazi ideology, he left future action to his ministers to carry out policies based on this ideology. This does not imply direct involvement by any means. 1. Nazi ideology stemmed from "Mein Kampf", Hitler's book which was published in 1925 and 1926. It is true, of course, that Hitler did have involvement in key Nazi policies, but this does not mean he had direct involvement in the subsequent policies that followed. Hitler preferred a Social Darwinist approach to administration and deliberately allowed much overlapping of responsibilities between subordinates so that the strongest individuals with the best ideas would emerge. This meant that once these figures (Goebbels, Goring, Himmler to name a few) established themselves, they were capable of implementing policy with the same force that had enabled them to reach the top. I quote Ian Kershaw, "However uninvolved [Hitler] was, the radicalization of the regime continued. .forced on in a variety of ways by party activists, ministerial bureaucracy, economic opportunists and. .. an ideologically drawn police". [2] 2. I will now speak of direct policies implemented by the Nazi's that exemplifies Hitler as a lazy leader. As part of the process of Gleichschaltung (Co-ordination), Goebbels was given full responsibility for German culture, with the aim of achieving conformity to Nazi criteria. -It was Goebbels who established the Reich Chamber of Culture, himself establishing laws such as 'A Law for the Confiscation of the Products of Degenerate Art' of May 1938. Such laws encouraged Hitler's ideology from "Mein Kampf", referring to Entartung or the 'degeneration' of German culture [3] and this ideology formed the foundation of Goebbels' actions. Having said this, setting the ideological foundation does not imply direct involvement in the implementation of that policy. Richard Evans speaks of Hitler's role in the Nazi state, "He frequently engaged in exhausting tours around Germany, speaking, meeting officials and carrying out his ceremonial functions. .. .the absence of routine in Hitler's leadership that means he paid little attention to detailed issues. .those who ha controlled, direct access to him could wield considerable influence"[4] In conclusion, it is clear that Hitler was a lazy leader who set foundation of Nazi ideology through works such as Mein Kampf but that direct implementation of Nazi policy was something he left, lazily, to his subordinates. Such statements are clear through implementation of cultural policy by individuals such as Goebbels, based on Hitler's Nazi ideology. Sources on the comments page.