was hitler a great leader? bad leader?
- Thread starter Tim_Buoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He wasn't anything but a sociopath who had a fantastic ego and charisma. Goebbels was the only reason he could drum up any kind of support because the man was a manipulative genius and Hitler followed his teachings well. Hitler decided to attack Stalin (who thought him and Hitler were best buddies considering they had jointly invaded Poland and actually had treaties for dividing up eastern Europe) and declared war on the US after already fucking up Operation Sealion in the previous year. This brought down upon him the industrial might of the US even though he was already losing ground to the Soviet military machine. Hitler personally cost his country the war with his batshit insane decisions (Erwin Rommel had planned to greet Dwight D. Eisenhower on the shores of Normandy and betray Hitler because of the man's incompetence as a military leader). By the end of the war, the man was ordering entire armies that no longer existed to positions that had long since been overrun commanded by generals who had either died or deserted and still thought he could win. The only reason he even got as far as he did was because the generals actually knew what they were doing, and even they couldn't save Hitler from the fuck up that was him in any position of actual command.
His only real achievement was the autobahn and if you look at the plans he had for Berlin, you have to wonder how the hell he was even able to pull that off. The man who planned the autobahn also green lit a plan for Berlin (swampland) to be turned into a new Rome. Hitler planned a building so massive it would actually have rainfall, and then found out a whopping none of the buildings he had planned would work because they would be so heavy they would sink. His only real success was his ability to commit genocide. The holocaust is usually only remembered for the near annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe had it been allowed to continue, but there were also gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, those with disabilities, and other groups Hitler had problems with.
The man was a horrible leader whose only good decision was the people he surrounded himself with and an even worse person with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
His only real achievement was the autobahn and if you look at the plans he had for Berlin, you have to wonder how the hell he was even able to pull that off. The man who planned the autobahn also green lit a plan for Berlin (swampland) to be turned into a new Rome. Hitler planned a building so massive it would actually have rainfall, and then found out a whopping none of the buildings he had planned would work because they would be so heavy they would sink. His only real success was his ability to commit genocide. The holocaust is usually only remembered for the near annihilation of the Jewish people in Europe had it been allowed to continue, but there were also gypsies, homosexuals, political dissidents, those with disabilities, and other groups Hitler had problems with.
The man was a horrible leader whose only good decision was the people he surrounded himself with and an even worse person with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Ok.Verlander said:
Ever heard of the phrase "la ravanche"? It's actually rather easy to stir up nationalism over a past defeat, and turn that passion to the army. But being a good public speaker and being a good leader are not always the same thing.Verlander said:
I'd say he worst moment would involve death camps or some such but that's just me. Anyway attacking Stalingrad was not what brought Russia into the war, that was much earlier. In fact it's entirely possible that Russia's involvement on the side of the allies (or at least against germany) was inevitable because of the ideology and threats each nation held against the other.
No he might have been able to bring about a favorable peace treaty, but he could never win. Germany didn't lose to any single event, there were several key events.
Untill Hitler removed them for pointing out his plans were batshit insane.
EDIT: Your hypocritical arrogance precludes a civil discussion, so I'll not continue this. To be clear you made a wonderful rebuttal, so this isn't som e "fuck you I'm going home" thing.
Hitler did get the German economy working but he was running a war economy (large production of weapons and ammunition) so if he hadn't gone to war economic progression would have slowed down and meant that munitions factories would eventually have to close because of a surplus of weapons. Though he did get the US out of depression because although Roosvelts 'New Deal' had gone some way to doing this, when US became a war economy to supply european armies that created more jobs and produced more money.
Hitler was a w4nk3r anyway, and he only had one ball. In WW1 his squadmates called him 'The Screamer' because of the high pitched scream he let out when he got one shot off.
Hitler was a w4nk3r anyway, and he only had one ball. In WW1 his squadmates called him 'The Screamer' because of the high pitched scream he let out when he got one shot off.
Hitlers leadership skills should not be in question, ultimatly he is a victim of his own charasima he was a better speaker than his generals and talked people into believe that he knew more than what he was talking about (including himself) we know full well that his generals were better at military matters but his ability at public speaking convinced his own generals that they didn't in fact know better and left him to run the show.
and do you people really need to make distrinctions between the different english meanings of "good" hell when we say "great" why don't we also clarify that we use the word "great" in the sence of implying that he was skillful and not that he was twenty feet tall because "great" can also be used to denote something as being of a large size
and do you people really need to make distrinctions between the different english meanings of "good" hell when we say "great" why don't we also clarify that we use the word "great" in the sence of implying that he was skillful and not that he was twenty feet tall because "great" can also be used to denote something as being of a large size
It depends on what aspects of him you focus on. In terms of being able to inspire people, then sure he was greatly sufficient in that. I mean, he was willing to keep waging war until Germany was turned into a wasteland and his leadership and the fervor he inspired meant the German people were willing to go along with that as well.
Militarily, not so great, as we can see when he took control of his forces in their assault on Russia.
Ethically, well, he was a monster and horrible leader obviously.
But I suppose had his morals been a bit better he could have been a great leader. What he did was an incredible feat; in terms of pulling Germany out of post WWI shamble that was Germany's economy and creating a powerhouse with the means to wage all out war for around 6 years!
Militarily, not so great, as we can see when he took control of his forces in their assault on Russia.
Ethically, well, he was a monster and horrible leader obviously.
But I suppose had his morals been a bit better he could have been a great leader. What he did was an incredible feat; in terms of pulling Germany out of post WWI shamble that was Germany's economy and creating a powerhouse with the means to wage all out war for around 6 years!
Actually, it's believed he was a pretty bad leader.
Yes, he provided a short-term boost in jobs and the economy, but his foresight was pretty lacking. Not to mention he - reportedly - mostly woke up late in the day, and should anyone try to give him bad news I think he used to just ignore it (or he got very angry, I can't remember).
The Nazis as a whole were pretty shit; for all their beliefs, I don't think anyone in the top ranks was even Aryan, and a lot of them had physical impediments (Hitler needed glass, Goebbels had a limp), plus many of them were pretty heavy drinkers.
They sorted jobs and the economy out in the short-term, but that was because they put so much into fighting a war. Like I said, no foresight.
Not to mention that they gassed a few million of their citizens because they were Jews. That's not really sticking up for the people.
Yes, he provided a short-term boost in jobs and the economy, but his foresight was pretty lacking. Not to mention he - reportedly - mostly woke up late in the day, and should anyone try to give him bad news I think he used to just ignore it (or he got very angry, I can't remember).
The Nazis as a whole were pretty shit; for all their beliefs, I don't think anyone in the top ranks was even Aryan, and a lot of them had physical impediments (Hitler needed glass, Goebbels had a limp), plus many of them were pretty heavy drinkers.
They sorted jobs and the economy out in the short-term, but that was because they put so much into fighting a war. Like I said, no foresight.
Not to mention that they gassed a few million of their citizens because they were Jews. That's not really sticking up for the people.
He was a frustrated artist-wannabe that no academy would accept, who started socializing with fascist freaks with great connections, and thanks to the media he got the attention he needed to overcome the fact that he had very small penis.
Hitler wasn't a great leader, he was just lucky enough to have people giving him too much power.
Hitler wasn't a great leader, he was just lucky enough to have people giving him too much power.
I vote Erwin Rommel for president! Hitler was a douche, a great leader and public speaker, but a douche.
I like Erwin Rommel because he was a brilliant tactician and one of the people who tried to end Hitler's life, but mostly because of the tactician thingy. I have seen every documentary ever made so far about him and they only make me admire that man even more.
I like Erwin Rommel because he was a brilliant tactician and one of the people who tried to end Hitler's life, but mostly because of the tactician thingy. I have seen every documentary ever made so far about him and they only make me admire that man even more.
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.faspxina said:
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.
Yeah, but this wasn't a defeat, it was the biggest defeat in modern history. There wasn't just a huge load of people feeling like they'd been put out, there was the absolute loss of faith. Hitler did many important things, such as use a scapegoat (jews) for the economic crisis, and fully utilised propaganda in order for the country to be fighting fit again.Knight Templar said:
Plus, while revanchism could be a reason, it's not the whole reason. Hitler persuaded the country to fight again. He was a good orator and he was a good leader. Maybe you have found a different definition of leader that I am not aware of, but I would say a good leader is someone who can lead his troops into various battles against the odds. Which is what he did.
Firstly, we are talking about his leadership skills here, not his morality. Yes his "worst moment" was the deaths of millions, but this isn't a thread on Hitler being an asshole. We can't propose to know the motivations of a different country under a different political system 60 years ago. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "brought the Russians into the war". I didn't mean it literally. It brought them in as the most major player, which they hadn't been. Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, and all major historians agree. I had to research this for a story I wrote. It's been common knowledge for years, Phillip K Dick used the lack of invasion of Stalingrad for his 1962 alternative reality book "The Man in the High Castle". Therefore I, like many people, would say that the Battle of Stalingrad was the worst tactical move he made
This is a matter of opinion. Hitler wasn't out for world domination, he understood that he couldn't do that, at least not at once. IMO he let his hatred of communism overtake himself, and he picked a fight with the soviet union, who may have left him alone long enough after his successful campaign of Europe for his troops to recover and start again. Then again, they may have taken the opportunity to invade when Europe was at its weakest. Who knows? These are all "what if"s and maybes. It's all speculation
Mostly that was at the end, when the war was already lost. Hitler starting making desperate decisions with limited information as to where his troops actually were. He wasn't a great soldier, and had no idea what they were going through. His generals could come up with better tactics, but it would have all been futile.
In the beginning however, his tactics and discipline were good, and he achieved a lot in a short amount of time. For him, it's a shame that he got ahead of himself.
Look, I understand where you are coming from, and you had decent enough points, even if I don't agree. You're comment was uncalled for, and was designed to start some sort of flame war. Think before you write something like that, because you're just going to get the moderators down on you
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.
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.
He was a brilliant leader. My history teacher actually went has far to say he thought Hitler was a genius.
He managed to fix the depression, get everyone jobs and build up the country to the superpower it once was. But he was also bat shit crazy, and ruined everything by attempting to invade Russia.
He managed to fix the depression, get everyone jobs and build up the country to the superpower it once was. But he was also bat shit crazy, and ruined everything by attempting to invade Russia.
I don't really know how people managed to like him, I saw some of his speeches (obviously not in person), and he came across as a bit of a psycopath. Mind you, I don't speak German, but he was way too... twitchy.
So I guess he was a bad leader and a bad person, and people were simply stupid. Or used him to get into power, which backfired in the end.
So I guess he was a bad leader and a bad person, and people were simply stupid. Or used him to get into power, which backfired in the end.
He was good in leading a people, yeah. Into war and genocide, but nevertheless, a good leader.
As stated above, he had his way and sway with his people and they loved him for it.
"But Hitler started killing people next door. And we won't stand for that after a few years!" - Eddie Izzard
As stated above, he had his way and sway with his people and they loved him for it.
"But Hitler started killing people next door. And we won't stand for that after a few years!" - Eddie Izzard