was hitler a great leader? bad leader?

Recommended Videos

T3hMonk3y

New member
May 28, 2008
65
0
0
Hitler was one of the best leaders a country has ever seen, he managed to get war broken Germany ready for another war in such a small space of time. He even managed to convince the people that what he was doing was right. He managed to reduce unemployment to ridiculously low figures and managed to make Germany great again. Sure he even managed to take over The Rhineland, Austria, The Sudetenland and Czechslovkia without having to fire a single shot!!


Of course he was an evil evil man. His intentions were evil but the way they were carried out was genuis.
 

T3hMonk3y

New member
May 28, 2008
65
0
0
TheRightToArmBears said:
He was a good orator at least and a decent politician, but was a terrible author. He was a good leader in the way that he could make the people love him whilst still screwing them over (even if they weren't jewish. Like women, for example.) and managed to indoctrinate a large proportion of German youth.

However, aside from rebuilding the German economy he didn't do much good for his people. Aside from the obvious, he wreaked hell on German society and had awful views on almost everything.
His sales of "Mein Kampf" beg to differ that he was a terrible author. Also not just the sales the fact that people read this book and after having read it wholeheartly believed that what Hitler was doing was "right". I can't think of any other author in history whose publication of a book had such a widespread effect. In my opinion that makes him an absoulete great author. This of course does not mean that i agree with what he wrote just that what he wrote was so well written that everyone seemed to agree with it at the time.

PS: sorry for the double post
 

superstringz

New member
Jul 6, 2010
290
0
0
Hitler was insane. You can debate on whether that made him as charismatic as he was, but you can't deny he was insane. Essentially, the only reason the nazi lasted so long was his due to his very talented subordinates, like Erwin Rommel. In other words, his leadership skills are badly overrated.
 

Vox Caster T2

New member
Apr 13, 2010
14
0
0
Urgh... Hitler was not a good leader, I will give that Hitler was charismatic and he found himself in an environment that was ripe for right-wing nationism, but the principle components that allowed Hitler to be in the center spot light of NSDAP power and influence was circumstance, circumstance, and a network of key individuals in the NSDAP.

First, the French influnce on Versailles was designed by intent and spite to break Germany's potent industrial potential; however the end result was utterly stupid in hindsight, the treaty just gave Germany a sense of rage to nurse over and its core industrial capabilities were maintained. The only thing the 1919 Treaty of Versailles did was break the crediability of the moderate German Weimar government and bankrupt the German middle class, which of course made a lot of the working poor jobless. Politically, these cataylst events polarised Germany into two basic camps since the moderates with the Weimar no longer had any influence. Communism was spreading like wildfire among the disenfranchised poor, of whom were rallying against industrialists and monopolists influence over society. This absolutely terrified Germany's social elites and royalists, in so they began to grow more sympathetic to nationalistic and right winged views.

On the German military side, the army, which held great amount of influence in Imperial German society, was still nursing a sense of betrayal against the Weimar government. There was also the matter of Erich Ludendorff, formerly von Hindenburg's right hand man in the Imperial forces, Ludendorff was an Iron Cross holder and very much believed in the NSDAP views. This was a serious factor in the NSDAP gaining influnce with the German elite and military's officer class.

All of this was happening without Hitler's influence, in fact during this time Hitler was soaking in political idealogy and retoric styles from men like Karl Lueger, a Christian Socialist leader, who made scandalous statements like "I decide who is a Jew..."

Anyways, Europe and the Americas in general were beginning to destabilised with the general depression and the various droughts. Street clashes between communist and nationalist factions became more common-place, and the world was quickly going down-hill. However the NSDAP wasn't a unitifed entity even by 1926, the NSDAP was still a fractional group, luckily for Hitler (Though not for the rest of the world) he was about to pull into his personal circle of influence men like Hess, Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels. Without these guys, Hitler would never have had the ability to focus the NSDAP.

The next major point was the Royalist, elites, and von Hindenburg's under-estimation of the NSDAP and personal dismisal of Hitler's character. On the plus side for Hitler, as communist clashes began to esculate and the general depression continued, roughly 339 industrialist (ie. Emil Kirdof, Fritz Thyseen) began to financially support the right-wing politics of the NSDAP. This financial muscle naturally translated into influnce and then votes.

With von Hindenburg's death and the NSDAP entrenched inside parliamentary to allow the Enabling Act, opposition to the NSDAP broken down. Yet German industry freed of the Versailles commitments, was still without heavy industry raw materials, of which regaining Alsace-Lorranine would help out. From there the wheels of war began to turn.

Anyways the thing is Hitler wasn't an intellectual or a keen strategist (despite his own self-stylings.) Hitler was a captivating icon for NSDAP hate speeches, which is why he was the de facto leader of the re-imaged NSDAP after Goebbels and Himmler had their way with the party. The real leaders or directors were always men like Goebbels and Himmler for the party, and later men like Heinz Guderian and Walther von Reichenau in the military. However the twist here is that while Goebbels was an intellectual, he had lacked the influence with a number of factions inside NSDAP. With Himmler, he was shrew but had an acidic personality and he was too feared by the more political party members. In the end the various leaders of the NSDAP all lacked Hitler's charisma to stabilise and keep the NSDAP various components focused. On the other hand, Hitler meeded his circle because he lacked their intellect and abilities. When the total war came into full form, Hitler was totally out of his league and Hitler was even more of a failure. Hitler was not heedful of his general and continued to interfere with operations, as the war progressed Hitler became more distrustful of OKW and OKH began to take personally take over operational planning.

Stalin was a better leader and that's saying a lot.
 

Fetzenfisch

New member
Sep 11, 2009
2,460
0
0
He was nothing but a quite charismatic marionette that went out of control, he by himself had never come to power, not without people with influence, putting him in that position.
Apart from this, he signed some governmental papers others created and then went completely nuts and the shit started to burn like the devils poophouse.
So no, nothing he personally decided was any good.
 

SnipErlite

New member
Aug 16, 2009
3,147
0
0
He was a great leader in that he gained total control over his country and then basically did whatever the fuck he liked.

He did great things. Terrible, but great (half quote, meh).
 

Alon Shechter

New member
Apr 8, 2010
1,286
0
0
Rhiehn said:
Had he not caused the holocaust he may have been one of the best leaders in history.
Bollocks, the two are unrelated.
He was an excellent leader, that is a fact.
Too bad his intentions were not as good.
 

mrF00bar

New member
Mar 17, 2009
591
0
0
Irony said:
Hitler was a good leader at least in the begining of his regime. How do you think he managed to get so popular and become "Der Fuhrer"? Some luck was involved but he did have a way of getting the people to follow him fanatically. Plus he managed to get Germany out of the horrible depression it was in and raise it up to being a world power. I always figured that he would be remembered more fondly if it weren't for the whole WW2 and Holocaust thing, but then off course that's a big if.

He was a successful leader yes, but that doesn't mean he has to be well liked.

Course towards the end though he was pretty crappy. He was actually one of the reasons the Allies won (at least in Europe).
Invading Russia in the height of winter was always a bad move. xD
 

T3hMonk3y

New member
May 28, 2008
65
0
0
Alon Shechter said:
Rhiehn said:
Had he not caused the holocaust he may have been one of the best leaders in history.
Bollocks, the two are unrelated.
He was an excellent leader, that is a fact.
Too bad his intentions were not as good.
This guy has hit the nail on the head. Being good and being a good leader are two completely unrelated things.
 

A Free Man

New member
May 9, 2010
322
0
0
I think he was a horrible leader. I am not saying he did not have the qualities required to become a leader as obviously he did, however in my opinion a leader should be more of a slave to those s/he leads, in other words, they should only lead with the intentions of helping those who are under their care. I think Hitler allowed his own fanatical beliefs to dictate how he would lead and that in my opinion is why he was a poor leader.
 

Kukakkau

New member
Feb 9, 2008
1,898
0
0
He did amazing things for his country and if he had just stuck to his own borders and not promoted his beliefs he probably would have been even better

Then again a country's leader wearing a military uniform pretty much all the time is a big sign of things to come.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
He was a very bad leader, but he had charisma, which most of the time is enough for a politic.
Albert Speer said in his autobiography "Inside the Third Reich", that Hitlers inner circle was full of uneducated idiots without any skills necessary to lead the country, and called Hitler himself incompetent and unprofessional.
 

Lost Cause

New member
Nov 18, 2009
63
0
0
T3hMonk3y said:
His sales of "Mein Kampf" beg to differ that he was a terrible author.
Slight problem with that: he didn't write it, he dictated it. But that's just my inherent pedantry showing.
 

teqrevisited

New member
Mar 17, 2010
2,343
0
0
Say what you will about the mass-murdering bastard, he knew how to play peoples' minds. Towards the end of the war, though, he appeared to have become unstable and insane (If he wasn't beforehand). Who in their right mind would attack Russia? He might've stood a chance if it were only Russia, but half of Europe aswell?
 

Broken Boy

New member
Apr 10, 2010
399
0
0
Vilcus said:
Hitler was a charismatic leader, not necessarily a good leader. He could get people to follow him with his words, and people found him to be very dedicated.

However, Hitler was essentially an idiot. Germany lost the war because of him, and had the attempts on his life by his own generals been successful, then the war might have turned out differently.

During WWII, Germany had developed jet engines for their fighters, which would have made them many times faster than any fighter the Allies could have brought against them. However, Hitler didn't want any aircraft being developed that didn't have bombing equipment. He also didn't like any technology that he didn't fully understand, he even disliked the V-2 rocket, and didn't want to use it until the scientists who designed it could explain it to him.

Hitler was a government person, and he was not fit to command an army. Had he left his forces in the hands of his very capable generals, Hitler's Reich, and his genocidal goals might have come to fruition. Luckily for us he remained in place, and continued to make incompetent decisions time after time.

In conclusion, Hitler was a charismatic man who knew how to play to a crowd. However, when faced with a military campaign, he basically knew nothing of tactics, or what weapons would be successful in war (which is strange because he was a soldier in WWI).
Seconds this...

As a bit of a history buff WWII being one of my favorite subjects. This is a correct assessment of Hitler not a great leader but able to sway the masses with words which sometimes is all you need.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
T3hMonk3y said:
TheRightToArmBears said:
He was a good orator at least and a decent politician, but was a terrible author. He was a good leader in the way that he could make the people love him whilst still screwing them over (even if they weren't jewish. Like women, for example.) and managed to indoctrinate a large proportion of German youth.

However, aside from rebuilding the German economy he didn't do much good for his people. Aside from the obvious, he wreaked hell on German society and had awful views on almost everything.
His sales of "Mein Kampf" beg to differ that he was a terrible author.
Have you read it? The prose is deadful. I think the only reason it sold was due to his celebrity status after the Munich Putsch and going to jail for a bit.
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
faspxina said:
jamesworkshop said:
faspxina said:
Mr. Gency said:
People saying he was a good leader should take a look at this.
you do realise the mark of a good leader has nothing to do with knowledge, your boss isn't your boss because they can do every job in the company, they are your boss because they understand how to control a group of people that all have different skills in different areas.
Poltics is about parties, the job of the figurehead is to understand which people have the right skills and in what areas should they be given control of.

Take Obama he doesn't have a clue how to run an economy his job is to apoint people that have specialist knowledge in that area to help him run a nation it's not possible to have indepth knowledge of everything.
Your right, but that just makes him "a leader" then.
not really restructuring the minority party to power over the ruling comunist party wasn't an easy job.
His staff knew what they were doing its only that very later on his self delusion stopped him from listening to them for the most part all was handled well, Erwin was such a brilliant commander even his enemies gave him almost as much respect as the Germans did and Hitler left him to his own devices in Africa for the most part of the war.

He had good leadership skills he also just happened to be mad

His war council was just as strong as Churchill's the difference is Churchill didn't start ignoring and replacing them 3 years into the war.
Hilter failed when he got lucky and won a single battle and then decided that meant he was somekind of war leader with a better sence of the war than his own military commanders that had actually been doing a fairly decent job in the first half of the war.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
Yeah, but he was awful at managing wars, which he shouldn't even have been doing. Case in point, there were a bunch of different tank varieties, that were all pretty much the same, but required different parts. This meant that manufacturing and supplying theses parts was a complete nightmare, whereas the allies didn't have to deal with all that hassle.