was hitler a great leader? bad leader?

[Gewiz 1]

@Dancingman

The German military was the best trained, most skilled, best equiped and most drilled military in WWII. The Waffen SS was trained as well as the Army Rangers of today. The Germans had heavy armor that rivals todays most advanced tanks. Had Hitler not walked back into not a two front, but THREE front war, he would have most likely have won the war, or at least gotten much farther than he did.

The US troops in WWII were not in nearly as good shape as the Germans. The only respectable US units in the war, in my opinion, were the 101st and 82nd Airbournes, the Rangers, and the Newcastle group, a group similar to todays Green Berets. And, to be honest, none of these units could even be compared to the German SS brigades.

The U.S.S.R. did hold strong in battles like the Battle of Stalingrad, though they were far from an effecient combat force. Soldiers going into Stalingrad were split into pairs. One was given a rifle, the other clips of ammunition and were told "When the person in front of you dies, pick up his weapon and continue on." The major reason they held Stalingrad was because of the seemingly endless number of Soviet troops.

If you know military tactics and strategies, you would know that timing is was is the difference between failure and success on the battlefield. Sure the Germans and the Soviets would eventually go to war with eachother, but if the Germans did not attack them outright then they could have focused their forces to the western and southern fronts (the south considered virtually unpassable because of the harsh Italian Alps that went on for hundreds of miles.

If the Germans took over the British Isles, the war would have ended much differently than it did.

 

[Dancingman]

@Dancingman

The German military was the best trained, most skilled, best equiped and most drilled military in WWII. The Waffen SS was trained as well as the Army Rangers of today. The Germans had heavy armor that rivals todays most advanced tanks. Had Hitler not walked back into not a two front, but THREE front war, he would have most likely have won the war, or at least gotten much farther than he did.

The US troops in WWII were not in nearly as good shape as the Germans. The only respectable US units in the war, in my opinion, were the 101st and 82nd Airbournes, the Rangers, and the Newcastle group, a group similar to todays Green Berets. And, to be honest, none of these units could even be compared to the German SS brigades.

The U.S.S.R. did hold strong in battles like the Battle of Stalingrad, though they were far from an effecient combat force. Soldiers going into Stalingrad were split into pairs. One was given a rifle, the other clips of ammunition and were told "When the person in front of you dies, pick up his weapon and continue on." The major reason they held Stalingrad was because of the seemingly endless number of Soviet troops.

If you know military tactics and strategies, you would know that timing is was is the difference between failure and success on the battlefield. Sure the Germans and the Soviets would eventually go to war with eachother, but if the Germans did not attack them outright then they could have focused their forces to the western and southern fronts (the south considered virtually unpassable because of the harsh Italian Alps that went on for hundreds of miles.

If the Germans took over the British Isles, the war would have ended much differently than it did.

The Germans were formidable fighters, I'll give you that, even if a statement like "best trained or best equipped" is ridiculously subjective and thus is almost always irrelevant. however you're still overlooking the fact that American military production was not only strong enough to train and equip a massive military, but it could also equip those of the USA's allies as well. It doesn't really matter that in the early stages of its war the Soviet Union had supply deficiencies because the USA's Lend-Lease aid would be able to cover their needs until their industrial production got up to snuff, which it did towards roughly 1943 or so.

As for the dispute on Soviet efficiency, yeah it really doesn't matter, Germany wasn't equipped for a full war with the Soviets anyway and they pretty much got steamrolled after they got turned around at Stalingrad. If you know logistics and how it applied in WWII you'd know that the Germans fighting on the Eastern Front were often immensely strung-out and underequipped, they were not issued winter uniforms because they were expected to be finished by summer. And by the time winter rolled around the Germans weren't in any position to get those supplies to their men in the numbers they would've needed. But even that's beside the point, no German invasion of the USSR would just mean that it gets more time to build up its military might and avoid the significant devastation inflicted upon their production by the German invasion. It's a no-win situation, Germany attacks the USSR and gets bogged down (like it historically did), it doesn't invade, than the USSR builds up and attacks them then, they lose either way against the Soviets.

 

[Kortney]

The German military was the best trained, most skilled, best equiped and most drilled military in WWII. The Waffen SS was trained as well as the Army Rangers of today. The Germans had heavy armor that rivals todays most advanced tanks. Had Hitler not walked back into not a two front, but THREE front war, he would have most likely have won the war, or at least gotten much farther than he did.

And can you explain the bit where Germany manages to find the resources to conquer America whilst trying to fight off Russia and the Commonwealth at the same time?

(pro tip: They didn't have it. The USA had the largest economy and production capability in the World). The Germans having superior tanks would not change anything, and hindsight shows us the Allies won the war comfortably despite having inferior tanks.

The US troops in WWII were not in nearly as good shape as the Germans. The only respectable US units in the war, in my opinion, were the 101st and 82nd Airbournes, the Rangers, and the Newcastle group, a group similar to todays Green Berets. And, to be honest, none of these units could even be compared to the German SS brigades.

Utter nonsense. US troops won most encounters with German infantry. Why? Because Germany was stretched thin and had holes in their defense. SS Brigades all fell. Besides, there is no relevance to this. Logistics and resources are more important than who has the best troops and you are completely forgetting the amount of logistics that would be needed for Germany to win the war.

Oh and by the way, the British and Australian SAS were the best troops that set foot on Europe, and they still are today. But as I said, there is little relevence to it and it is very subjective.

The U.S.S.R. did hold strong in battles like the Battle of Stalingrad, though they were far from an effecient combat force. Soldiers going into Stalingrad were split into pairs. One was given a rifle, the other clips of ammunition and were told "When the person in front of you dies, pick up his weapon and continue on." The major reason they held Stalingrad was because of the seemingly endless number of Soviet troops.

You've defeated your own point here. Germany couldn't invade Russia despite having superior troops. Russia was defending it's home land and had more human resources. Even if your claims of who had the better troops were true, it wouldn't change the fact that Germany was not big enough nor capable enough to win the war, let alone being able to take Russia or as you suggested the USA.

If you know military tactics and strategies, you would know that timing is was is the difference between failure and success on the battlefield. Sure the Germans and the Soviets would eventually go to war with eachother, but if the Germans did not attack them outright then they could have focused their forces to the western and southern fronts (the south considered virtually unpassable because of the harsh Italian Alps that went on for hundreds of miles.

Relevance? You were called out over your claims of Nazi Germany being able to conquer the USA. Everyone knows the German's dealt with the Russia situation poorly. Besides, not invading Russia would of had consequences. If they didn't strike when they did, Russia would of waited a year or so before invading Germany and doing even more damage. Either way, Germany was in serious trouble.

If the Germans took over the British Isles, the war would have ended much differently than it did.

The point is they couldn't have. They didn't have the manpower to do it. I don't know how you can suggest that they would be capable of taking over the USA but weren't capable of taking Britain. There was no way in hell Germany could expect to take and hold Britain whilst trying to defend France, Germany, Afrika and the Eastern front. That's kind of why they didn't bother.

Oh and by the way, if Germany had lasted past 1945 their entire country would of been destroyed by atomic energy, in more devastating ways that Japan was.

Sorry but no matter what happened, USA would never have become Nazi occupied. And I love how you manage to say that whilst forgetting about the part that they weren't even capable to take Europe, let alone North America.

You greatly underestimate the immense production capabilities 1940s America had. It blew Germany out of the water.

 

[bubba145]

good leader bad polices

 

[Radelaide]

Hitler as an idea, was great. He wanted to make sure that Germany recovered from the devastation that was the first world war. He was charismatic, likeable (to a point) and shared a lot of the values that the German people had too.

Hitler as a person, was fairly terrible. He convinced the people that the Jews were responsible and a lot of good people died for his ideals. Also, he was a GIANT hypocrite. His ultimate race was all about tall, blonde hair, blue eyed people who would prosper and be great. He was a short, stubby ugly man with brown eyes and black hair. He was as bland as they come.

But hey, we did get the VW Bug out of him.

 

[Socius]

Irrelative, even if he did some things that was good for his country those were overshaded by his madness and WW2. as many leaders, good or bad, he started good and ended up butchering millions. In my opinion he was an evil bastard, but even though there has been worse leaders over the times, and that scares the crap our of me.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Is was possible one of the best. He had odvious bad intentions, but either got people to go with or get peolple from know about it. Although he had a fascist government, which is the easy setting of politics

 

[MikailCaboose]

He was a great leader, despite the horrible things he commited. The ability to rally so many people behind him is testament on its own. Leader: Great. Person: Absolutely horrible.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

 

[skywalkerlion]

I can't say he's a great leader, even morals aside. He invaded Russia (you DON'T invade Russia), only a few years after making a pact with them. And taking the Germans out of their depression doesn't matter cause only 10 years later it resumed. So it's not like he actually did anything that lasted long term except, you know, killing millions of innocent people.

 

[Dancingman]

Is was possible one of the best. He had odvious bad intentions, but either got people to go with or get peolple from know about it. Although he had a fascist government, which is the easy setting of politics

Since when is a dictatorial government the easy setting? Sure you can't be voted out but at least a democratically-elected has a Hell of a lot less chance of dying via being dragged out of his palace by an angry mob and torn apart.

Hell if anything fascism is one of the worst forms of world government, sustains itself by starting nationalist/expansionist wars, which are risky and never helpful for long-term stability, plus there's the omnipresent fear of a coup that takes you out of power and perhaps out of your life.

 

[Dancingman]

he was good with the economy and manipulation, but bad with essentially everything else.

Economy was only temporary in his case, yeah it was fine and dandy that he had the skills to successfully re-militarize and rebuild, problem was, it was all built off debts and war, World War Two would've happened with the Nazi regime around no matter what, if the German nation was not glutted with the plunder of conquered lands, it would die, simple as that.

 

[Wing Dairu]

Hitler was one step short of possibly being the greatest leader ever. What he led people to do was horrific, yes. A trip to the German or American Holocaust museums will demonstrate that. But his actual leadership was astounding.
He was a man with more charisma than you could stuff in a hot air balloon. When he spoke, people listened. Hitler was a man who had that most uncanny of history's abilities: what I like to call the "Follow Me" talent.
Biblically, Jesus Christ had this ten times better than Hitler did, since he only actually had to say "follow me".
But when someone with an ability like this comes along, you drop everything and follow them, because they stir something within you that you can't identify. They speak to your very soul.
This is the greatest leadership quality one can have: the ability to speak to the heart of people and make them understand what you're trying to accomplish.
It just so happens that what he was trying to accomplish was the eradication of a culture that's historically been used as a glorified punching bag for a millennium.

 

[HassEsser]

You are making an incredibly biased point, and are completely looking past the big picture.

I'm looking past the big picture? Sorry, it's just that TWELVE MILLION DEAD is kind of a big deal.

Woe is the person who restates their already debunked point, but since this now sounds like I am arguing in favor of Hitler, I will stop; especially since realizing after your post that nothing I say will make a difference.

Hitler was one step short of possibly being the greatest leader ever. What he led people to do was horrific, yes. A trip to the German or American Holocaust museums will demonstrate that. But his actual leadership was astounding.
He was a man with more charisma than you could stuff in a hot air balloon. When he spoke, people listened. Hitler was a man who had that most uncanny of history's abilities: what I like to call the "Follow Me" talent.
Biblically, Jesus Christ had this ten times better than Hitler did, since he only actually had to say "follow me".
etc

Hit the nail on the head

 

[Verlander]

My goodness there is a lot of misinformed tripe in this thread. It's making me angry. Is "he was a great leader but a bad person" the uninformed person's automatic default response? If you truly believe he was a "great leader" I suggest you start brushing up on history.

-------

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

Yes, Obama could if the people wanted it. Hitler took advantage of the collective mindset in Germany at the time. People felt downtrodden and angry. They wanted a chance to be proud to German for the first time in a long time. They wanted to have independence and didn't like the fact most of their income was given back to the Allies. A revolution was on the cards. But you are forgetting that Hitler isn't, wasn't and will never be the only person to achieve this. Hell, Japan went through a very similar thing during the same time. The extremities of that era allowed for events like this to happen.

Hitler was influential and that's about it.

His worst moment was the invasion of Stalingrad, which brought the Russians into the war.

That's completely ignoring both country's foreign policy. The two despised each other and a conflict between the two was inevitable. The German High Command knew this. Hence the invasion.

Had he not done that, he would have won.

No, Germany could never have won in the long run. Sure with better strategy and planning they could have done a lot better. If Hitler involved himself less with the affairs of the armed forces than they would have done marvelously. But a straight out victory? The allies had competent leadership. Germany didn't. The Allies made smart tactical moves. Germany seldom did, especially when the order came from the top. America had the know how to produce a nuclear bomb.Germany didn't. Game over.

The only terrible military decision he made, in my opinion, is going to war with the Soviets. If he didn't do that, I as a militarist believe we would all be living in Nazi occupied North America right now.

ARGH! SO MUCH NONSENSE!

*contains self*

I'm sorry. Welcome to the escapist

I've already previously discussed this post with someone else, where I went through the exact same points that you have just pointed out. At the end of the day this is all speculation. Who knows how it might have turned out? My points were taken from leading theorists and historians, and I trust those people, so I stick by them. If you have a different opinion, that's your prerogative.

If you consider the atomic bomb being the deterrent, and the nuclear race being the winning factor of the war (which it wasn't for the Nazis), then you would consider Germany declaring war on the Americans the deciding factor. America was at war with the Japanese until 4 days after when Germany declared war on the US, I don't think that America would have joined in the European invasion otherwise. Germany was developing similar weapons to the atomic bomb, it was just a time issue. You got there first.

 

[Communist partisan]

Good leader doing horrible things but we kicked his a*s!

He really kicked his own ass... I mean, who in their right mind fights a war, unprepared, into a RUSSIAN WINTER! Stupid, stupid idea that cost him the war... Although, the several months the Russians delayed him at Kiev may have played a part... like, a huge part.

It was a lot he wasn't supose to do if he wanted to win the war both against sovjet the allies and ofc he lost a lot helping the italians or starting on über weapon ideas that never saw the light.

Good point, but a superweapon idea that DID see the light was Dora:The largest artillery piece ever, she was just really, really slow, but accurate and powerful.

Wasn't that the Gustav gun it was big could fire over... well many miles and many miles more and was really accurate

It's A LOT bigger than it LOOKS on the picture.

It may have been, but I remember it being referred to as 'Dora'. And considering that in the picture, it appears to take up two full railway cars in width alone, that is a Fucking huge artillery piece. Would make a good doorstop, or decoration to put at the end of your driveway... if you lived in a 5 million square foot house with a two mile long driveway that is...

you got that right but I don't think it look that high on the picture

Lol, just think, each of the rail cars in the pic are about 5 feet, give or take, and the barrel is lowered. That'd be a TALL gun when in firing position.

If you think of it in that way yeah it's really damn big but still... the allies destroyed it whith one commando solider dropped behind emeny lines well that's what I heard.

 

[Obrien Xp]

He was an incredible leader, however he went downhill after Czechoslovakia. He should have left most of the war to the OKW (high-command) and put a competent leader in charge of the Luftwaffe (Galland perhaps). And the Waffen SS was a huge barrier to conduct of a war, you can't lead troops when some are waiting for some other guy to make up their minds, it has to be the guy there.

Autobahns, Anti-Smoking, environmentalism, etc. pretty far ahead of its time.

Lots of people don't get it, he was a great leader, period.
Was genocide right, no. Was he batshit bonkers, eventually. Was he a nice guy, no.
Look at what Stalin did for Russia, then look at his genocide figures. Why we rarely give this guy any hate is beyond me. (oh yeah, he took on the Axis with little help for the most part).

 

[Dancingman]

Snipped

I've already previously discussed this post with someone else, where I went through the exact same points that you have just pointed out. At the end of the day this is all speculation. Who knows how it might have turned out? My points were taken from leading theorists and historians, and I trust those people, so I stick by them. If you have a different opinion, that's your prerogative.

If you consider the atomic bomb being the deterrent, and the nuclear race being the winning factor of the war (which it wasn't for the Nazis), then you would consider Germany declaring war on the Americans the deciding factor. America was at war with the Japanese until 4 days after when Germany declared war on the US, I don't think that America would have joined in the European invasion otherwise. Germany was developing similar weapons to the atomic bomb, it was just a time issue. You got there first.

Oh God an appeal to authority, let's not and say we did okay? Claiming your arguments are backed up by "leading theorists and historians" doesn't mean that it automatically reinforces a faulty argument, if those really are the arguments that leading historians are making about WWII's possible outcomes then I'm depressed.

The technology for the atomic bomb was never really anywhere near within reach of Nazi Germany, we started our program partly because of Einstein's insistence and partly because we were afraid that the Germans would get it first, well, it turned out that they weren't ever exceptionally close to achieving their goal. The fact that they outright declared certain theories to be untrue (like Einstein's theories, because he was Jewish) and then actively pursued a policy of persecution meant that they pretty much alienated a lot of good scientists who instead defected to either the US or the USSR.

And in regards to the European war comment I disagree, the USA was already all but committed to the Allies in terms of running supplies to Great Britain (and later the Soviet Union) via the Lend-Lease Act, Hitler would've done something like call on u-boats to strike at U.S. ports eventually, even if by astronomical odds he were to stand on the sidelines and merely shake his fist at the fact that we were supplying his enemy, we'd have gotten in eventually. Roosevelt wanted to get us in the war and we were economically too close to the nations of Europe to leave them to fend for themselves.

 

[hyperhammy]

"Hitler Gave Great Speeches Too" The way to win people over is a great speech, Hitler nailed that and so does Obama.

Dude... this has been said WAAAAAAAAAAAY too many times!
Why does connect Obama (great man) with Hitler (Fucking Psycho) because they both gave great speaches?! Guess what, Martin Luther Kind gave one the the greatest speaches ever made... so is he like Hitler?