was hitler a great leader? bad leader?
- Thread starter Tim_Buoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't get me wrong, he was a terrible person, but a fantastic leader.
He pulled Germany out of the depression of the first world war, united the country and damn near conquered Europe. You can't really argue with his leadership skills.
He pulled Germany out of the depression of the first world war, united the country and damn near conquered Europe. You can't really argue with his leadership skills.
Like there's any real difference, my friend. I don't think George Lucas was the first person to coin the name "Storm Troopers."Funkiest Monkey said:
As a politician, he was one of the best. Remember, he managed to turn a minority party into the ruling (and only) party. Admittedly, some of that was his use of Stormtroopers to threaten voters at the ballots, but his use of propaganda (which in that time was a perfectly legit term. Hitlers use of it stigmatised it) was huge and blunt, which he used to constantly bombard the population. Remember, if you're told something often enough, and with enough force, you will eventually believe it.
He was a political genius. He was also quite a good leader (in some ways). He decreased unemployment during the Depression by forcing people into jobs (and discounting those in part time, the under age, the over age, and the infirm, but then most governments do that anyway) and brought Germany back to a state of military power.
He was also a pretty decent tactician. Blitzkrieg was a revolutionary tactic (whether he thought of it or not) but he messed up when he invaded the Soviet Union. Thats when he lost the momentum. That was easily the biggest turning point of the war.
So yeah, Hitler was quite a good leader. Not a great person, but a pretty decent leader.
He was a political genius. He was also quite a good leader (in some ways). He decreased unemployment during the Depression by forcing people into jobs (and discounting those in part time, the under age, the over age, and the infirm, but then most governments do that anyway) and brought Germany back to a state of military power.
He was also a pretty decent tactician. Blitzkrieg was a revolutionary tactic (whether he thought of it or not) but he messed up when he invaded the Soviet Union. Thats when he lost the momentum. That was easily the biggest turning point of the war.
So yeah, Hitler was quite a good leader. Not a great person, but a pretty decent leader.
He is definitely up there with some of the best in leaders in history. He may not have been a great military leader seeming as he fucked up by opening the second front with Russia when he still had Britain to take over, but as a general political leader, he was very good. Of course, there is the ongoing debate about how popular he and the Nazi party really were. Was he genuinely adored or were the citizens of Germany just so afraid of the Nazis that they behaved. You also have to remember that the Nazis highest election result (37.5%), wasn't even successful into getting them into power. It was only because President Hindenburg and his associates believed that they could control Hitler if they gave him a position of power and obviously, that failed.
Really, he was very lucky to ever become the Fuhrer but he was very good at turning the luck his way. When he was in charge, he did help increase economic growth, "legally" retake much of Germnay lost after the Great War and continue to run a successful war campaign even after a series of fuck ups.
Really, he was very lucky to ever become the Fuhrer but he was very good at turning the luck his way. When he was in charge, he did help increase economic growth, "legally" retake much of Germnay lost after the Great War and continue to run a successful war campaign even after a series of fuck ups.
From the perspective of doing things / getting things done he was an AMAZING leader.
From the perspective of doing right by his people and being a fair and just ruler, he was atrocious.
It all depends on the point of view that you look at it. Great in what regard you should have said? Those people clearly had a break down of mis-communication. No one can deny that Hitler did what he set out to do and very near achieved it had it not have been for the brave men and women of America, Russia, England, France, and the rest of the world not including those in the Axis.
From the perspective of doing right by his people and being a fair and just ruler, he was atrocious.
It all depends on the point of view that you look at it. Great in what regard you should have said? Those people clearly had a break down of mis-communication. No one can deny that Hitler did what he set out to do and very near achieved it had it not have been for the brave men and women of America, Russia, England, France, and the rest of the world not including those in the Axis.
Hitler was an incredible leader, Obama couldn't convince you to invade another country after a crippling defeat doing the same thing 20 years earlier
His worst moment was the invasion of Stalingrad, which brought the Russians into the war. Had he not done that, he would have won. He wasn't the best tactician, but many of the best were under his command
His worst moment was the invasion of Stalingrad, which brought the Russians into the war. Had he not done that, he would have won. He wasn't the best tactician, but many of the best were under his command
You know, now that i think about it, Krudd's political career could in some cases be considered similar to that of Hitler's.
They both rose to power by saying how amazing they are (like any politician would)
They both did great things for their country, Hitler organised the construction of the autobahns and Rudd .......................umm, he, did..... can someone help me here.
They were both back stabbed by their coworkers (though it was successful in Rudd's case)
and both persons popularity and success crashed and burned in a short time frame.
My god, politics has more drama then a soap opera.
EDIT: although Hitler was probably the most hideous racist the world knew, while Rudd wasn't.
They both rose to power by saying how amazing they are (like any politician would)
They both did great things for their country, Hitler organised the construction of the autobahns and Rudd .......................umm, he, did..... can someone help me here.
They were both back stabbed by their coworkers (though it was successful in Rudd's case)
and both persons popularity and success crashed and burned in a short time frame.
My god, politics has more drama then a soap opera.
EDIT: although Hitler was probably the most hideous racist the world knew, while Rudd wasn't.
Hitler was charismatic, but that was pretty much it to be honest. A lot of the 'great leader' aspects are complete fallacies, and for every positive (usually instigated by a member of the Democratic party, Schacht I think his name was) there were a series of negatives. i.e., increased work in construction went hand in hand with the deconstruction of the trade unions, the reworking of the education system to suit their social darwinist philosophies etc. The whole economic 'boom' that happened was based around getting Nazi Germany to go to war, a war which in the end destroyed the country. Without this war plan, the country wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful as some people claim it to be, and it's because of the war that the country failed. Not to mention the money lending, the theft of Jewish estates, etc. Nazi Germany wasn't anywhere near as strong as it's now implied it was - a lot of cracks were covered over by Hitler's nationalism and the inherrent racism in the system. And, you know, a brutal secret police force. This is without even getting into the genocides, discrimination, etc (which in my opinion completely rules him out of being a great leader).
So in short: the Nazis did a select few things right, and those few things could never have been sustainable long-term. How much Hitler had to do with them is questionable. He was charismatic and that covered up a lot of problems in the country, and with his leadership in general. And he was, obviously, one of history's greatest monsters.
So in short: the Nazis did a select few things right, and those few things could never have been sustainable long-term. How much Hitler had to do with them is questionable. He was charismatic and that covered up a lot of problems in the country, and with his leadership in general. And he was, obviously, one of history's greatest monsters.
If you read some history books from the period you'd quickly realise that he was an awful leader and all around not-so-intelligent person. For starters he failed to get into an art school 4 times. The book he wrote was so crap that even Mussolini (also known as the village idiot of WW2) called it an awful, cliché waste of paper. Throughout the war he made mind bogglingly stupid mistakes (fighting a war against an enemy who could not be defeated and who would have been an unstoppable ally, the USSR) and the only reason the Reich did not fall apart sooner two weeks after the start of the war is because he was lucky enough to be surrounded by intelligent men who formulated all of his strategies. The ones he came up with led to his defeat.
This. it is absolutely true even if it's a cracked article about history which should be taken with a shovel of salt.Mr. Gency said:
Hitler's staff were in fact much more capable, better educated, better thinkers and planners.
To Adolf's credit he was a rather charismatic person who could give a good speech.
So in short: Hitler was the presenter of the ideas, concepts and plans smarter people than him came up with.
He was a good military leader, to be specific. Killing hundreds of thousands of your own people for any reason doesn't make you a very good political leader. His idea of trying to make the perfect soldier by brainwashing with genetic selection worked. Plus, their fast invasion techniques and technological advances helped. Of course, no one is perfect and some of his decisions helped in his downfall. I always thought it was funny that everyone remembers Hitler as a leader that commited mass genocide and crimes against humanity, but most forget to include Stalin.
To the people who say Hitler personally ordered the Holocaust, I say prove it.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it wasn't necessarily on his orders. Indeed, it may have been without his knowledge, full stop.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it wasn't necessarily on his orders. Indeed, it may have been without his knowledge, full stop.