was hitler a great leader? bad leader?
- Thread starter Tim_Buoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He was always autocratic, but he was nonetheless successful as an autocratic leader right up until the 'become a syphilitic nutjob murdering millions of people and declaring war on the entire world at once' part. The turnaround in the German economy during the 1930s was utterly remarkable.
Looking at it purely from an Economic, Military and Popularity sense then yes Hitler was a brilliant leader. He basically rebuilt Germany from the shattered post WWI to the massive War Machine that was the Nazi Regime. While he did do terrible things they were still great things. Even though the Genocide was bad you still can't compare anyone to the Nazi for the ruthless efficiency of which they carried it out. I don't think there was a better trained soldier during WWII than the Waffen SS. Although they did lose overall those guys were really were the best. So yes Hitler was a brilliant but terrible leader and I don't agree with what he did to the Jews and with attempting to make Germans the Aryan race but you can't deny what he did to the economy.
Well, he and his "team" were great leaders and manipulators in the beginning, but he was pretty much a paranoid, druged up nutjob towards the end of the war from what I know.
He was an effective leader, but somewhat poor as a manager. His downfall was his inability to let go of control. The German military suffered greatly to meddling from Hitler. The system was built around his paranoia, and was designed to keep any one particular military commander from gaining too much influence or control. While this may be desirable from a political perspective, in actual combat it proved very ineffective.
Comparing him to other world leaders is somewhat fruitless, since fascism was such an isolated phenomenon. Theres only 4-5 other leaders one could compare to, and obviously leading a democratic country is very different than leading as a fascist.
I can easily say he was the greatest fascist however, not that one should consider that an honor.
Comparing him to other world leaders is somewhat fruitless, since fascism was such an isolated phenomenon. Theres only 4-5 other leaders one could compare to, and obviously leading a democratic country is very different than leading as a fascist.
I can easily say he was the greatest fascist however, not that one should consider that an honor.
As most people say here, he was a good leader but a terrible person.
Though, there were still obviously much better leaders, in his time and throughout history.
Though, there were still obviously much better leaders, in his time and throughout history.
I can't take that page seriously it's full of shit. This isn't a rant at you by the way, it's a rant at that site (the section on Hitler):Mr. Gency said:
1)Hitler got rejected from art school. So what? Einstein got kicked out of Math school, doesn't make him a retard. I find this particularly offensive as I got kicked out of art school a few years ago. I now have my masters degree.
Hitler was a traditionalist, and anyone who has studied world war 2 will know this. He wanted to demolish Berlin, and create new architecture that payed tribute to the worlds greatest architecture of history. That's right, there would have been a new pyramid (amongst other things) in Berlin. In a world where modernism was the biggest thing in art, Hitler loved the classics, and that sort of irony didn't exist in the art world at that time. Just saying you preferred the renaissance to Marcel Duchamp would have got you rejected. It probably would today.
2)Calling Mein Kamph "shitty" is a matter of opinion. It's a common opinion nowadays, but it wasn't then. The author on the website shoots himself in the foot when he describes how popular it was. This seems like "make fun of Hitler" when that really isn't necessary. I'm all for hearing negative points about him, but only intelligent ones.
For the sake of it though, you might as well say that the bible is shitty because it is poorly written and poorly translated. Doesn't stop the fact of it being the most influential document of all time, and responsible for many great things and many atrocities
3) Picking on him for a silly accent?
4)Insulting Mussolini really has nothing to do with Hitler. But Mussolini was a successful politician and a decent enough leader.
5)Saying that Hitlers invasion of France had nothing to do with him is wrong. Like any leader, he would have only had limited input, but he did more than a lot of leaders do nowadays. Do you think that George Bush had any decision making responsibilities in ousting Saddam Hussein? The Army Generals did all of the work. I can assure you that Hitler had more involvement than that
6)As for Dunkirk, it was a political decision than many would have made. Throughout the war Hitler tried to ally himself with Britain. Not only was Britain the most valuable ally to have (in his eyes), he thought they would relate to him. After all, their policies in India were almost identical to those of the Nazi regime. Pride and patriotism meant the Britain never gave up the war, and soon Hitler made the one devastating decision to invade Stalingrad. Had he not, I wouldn't be surprised if they had won the war. They only really had to hold off annoying the Russians
I think that website was designed to get a response similar to the one I just gave, and so in that case they are successful. However it pisses me off when people are so ignorant that they cascade half truths and insults around like facts. Had they properly learned about WWII, they may have picked something up about propaganda and learned something
he was good leader because his lack intelligent decision-making shortend WW2 by at least 5 years. He spend way to much money on huge but useless Projects like rebuilding Berlin or using the rocket technology to build the V2(most of the Nazi leadership wanted to develop some kind of antiair-missle but that was not big enough for Hitler)
you could consider him as the opposite of churchill i.e churchill was a great wartime leader but crap when things were peaceful and had a good demeanour while hitler was a great peacetime leader but crap wartime and had a shit demeanour.
half of his problems for wartime came when used to think he knew more about strategy then his military generals. for example he wanted to use a siege and move on tactic i.e leave lots of little pockets of resistance areas and leave some troops behind at each one to protect it. this left his supply lines vulnerable to any russians that managed to break out of the siege and his forces stretched against the russian might. that and hitler decided to try and take on what stalin used to refer to as his greatest ally "general winter" since all the german troops were ill equiped to deal with it and many died just of the cold itself.
half of his problems for wartime came when used to think he knew more about strategy then his military generals. for example he wanted to use a siege and move on tactic i.e leave lots of little pockets of resistance areas and leave some troops behind at each one to protect it. this left his supply lines vulnerable to any russians that managed to break out of the siege and his forces stretched against the russian might. that and hitler decided to try and take on what stalin used to refer to as his greatest ally "general winter" since all the german troops were ill equiped to deal with it and many died just of the cold itself.
He could lead alright.
He just led this country to a very destructive economical situation (even if he had won) and did unmentionable horrors.
He just led this country to a very destructive economical situation (even if he had won) and did unmentionable horrors.
He made half the world his own, and people followed him. So i'd say yes, only his intentions weren't the best..
He was a very good leader. He was great at talking to the people and inspiring them to believe in him and his cause...Ofcourse it was his cause that made him an utterly terrible human being. With some therapy or maybe in an alternate reality with better/different goals, he could've been one of the great world leaders.
He was a megalomaniac drug addict with luck firmly on his side. Granted, he seemed to have been good at rabble-rousing.
Short answer, though, is 'No'.
Short answer, though, is 'No'.
Good leader, bad with logistics and the actual running of stuff, but he could talk ghandhi in to drugs given the chance. Too bad he was an evil bastard.
I read an article sayin that he was an idiot. More of a face for the nazi party while other people pulled his strings. Kinda like George Bush, only evil....wait