Hitler was a great leader. At least about rebuilding his country and waging a war where his country was outmannend and such. But mentally? He was bat-crap-crazy. Who knows what made him snap into such a horrible person.
was hitler a great leader? bad leader?
- Thread starter Tim_Buoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He was a good leader in terms of his ability to motivate his followers. But he did not like listening to others.
brilliant man with all of the tools of a great leader, which was why he was able to twist and bend an entire nation to his will.
there is, however, the matter of the 7-something million Jews whose deaths he was responsible for, which is probably the biggest black mark ever seen on a politician's resume.
there is, however, the matter of the 7-something million Jews whose deaths he was responsible for, which is probably the biggest black mark ever seen on a politician's resume.
except no one is claiming that. There is a difference between condoning what he did, and recognizing that he was an influential figure whom did quite a bit to bring germany forward, out of their depression and quite literally push forward science and economical theory and other such things around the world.T_ConX said:
He was an evil evil man, he did horrible horrible things, but denying the influential and even good things I.E not good as in nice but good as in well done, is much like denying quite a few treatments in cancer, and medicine that were derived from weapons of war, animal testing, and even human testing.
edit: I think we have a problem with definitions here, Good doesn't allways mean nice, pure hearted...ect It means as well Well to do, Well down, I am good at my job. I am great at my job.
Of course he was a good leader. It's evident. He lead millions of people with complete power, through a world war. He was a gret leader; there is no debate to be had. The genocide, and his penchant for martinis are irrelevant to the argument. If sanything, they only dtrengthen it. If he could continue to lead a nation after a genocide, and several martinis, he must have been a brilliant leader.Tim_Buoy said:
I think you should go and kill the person who disagreed. Just for the lolz.
Well, he did come very close to conquering the entire world. He had a knack for appointing the right people to run his military.Knight Templar said:
He DID however lose (thankfully), and as such this causes the losses that brought down the Nazis like the Russian Campaign to viewed as signs of overall idiocy when that's no more fair than saying that Naoplean was an idiot commander because of the fact that Wellington eventually brought him down for good. Any defeated leader is going to look bad when you look at their mistakes, rather than their successes. Another good example of course would be General Custer, he lost a battle and got himself killed, that became his defining achievement, people tend to overlook the career that made the man what he was before that, and why that was such a surprising thing. What's more that one in paticular is sort of an example of idiotic military bureucracy, some stuff I've read implies that there are records showing that he lost because he split his forces in two, and had his supplies kept back from the fighting, when sent back to bring up more bullets the quartermaster refused to release the ammo without proper authorizations which had not been prepared due to the nature of the fighting, leading to the destruction of his main force when they ran out of ammo, and then the decimation of the secondary force with the supplies. How true that is, is beyond me, but the point is that in the end no matter what the reasons may be, people will always pick on the failures, and blame the men in charge even if they had massively successful military careers before their defeat.
I guess Naoplean was kind of a bad example in retrospect, since he actually does get a lot of respect despite everything.
"What kind of a man was he?"
"What does it matter? He was some kind of a man."
Cookies for reference.
"What does it matter? He was some kind of a man."
Cookies for reference.
Something to consider: At the end of World War I, Germany was taking the brunt of the Great Depression and was, all in all, in a really really shitty situation in terms of its place in the World. Then he united the people, rebuilt the nation, and almost took over the World. But then he failed, and then, Germany was back in the shitter, Berlin was bombed all to Hell, entire generations of his nations' people had been killed in war.Billion Backs said:
So really, Hitler ended up tearing down everything he rebuilt.
Pretty pointless, putting him in power. Wouldn't you think?
Agreed. When anyone talks about Hitler they mention that he got the country out of a huge economical crisis and raising the spirits of Germany, but what they seem to forget is that he then drove all of that down to the ground. He raised their economy by making weapons to go to war, he raised their spirits so they would want to go to war, he had awful tactical decisions. A good leader would have built a better army and won the war. He decided that making better tanks was the key, but the mass produced crappy ones won by pure quantity, kinda like in a game of Starcraft more is more. Hitler was a great politician because he knew how to use the crisis to brainwash the crowd. People wanted change, and he promised change, also he made the communists look bad by framing them for burning down some important building. He was great at holding speeches, but not a good leader even if you don't count the genocide.SonicKoala said:
The loss to Russia can be placed almost entirely on his back. He could have just sat and let the Russian army struggle just to recapture their own land, but he had this strange obsession with constantly attacking.Therumancer said:
Take for example Stalingrad, if he had let the 6th army pull back then they wouldn't have become entrapped by Operation Little Saturn. He didn't have the ability to extend so far into Russia yet refused to halt the advance, he replaced commanders with yes-men.
His incompetence was known to the allies, that's why assassination was never considered worthwhile.
In Hitlers time, he made the first highway/freeway happen, rockets, the first mass produced civilian car , jets, light sensors, and many other things...
What he was best at was stirring the heart of a Germany broken by WW1.
The frightening thing was he could tell the average German all the jobs were taken by Jews... and they would see Jewish store owners bankers ect... even though the average german at the time was not so inclined to have those jobs...he made the common enemy.
Which isn't to far off is someone in the USA stirred such thoughts, and pointed to the Illegals in construction or fast food...walmart, maid service ect...
No one cares what the "other" side would think, but to the American citizen out of work he would see the same...many jobs taken by people they would not do...but still it is a job lost.
Hitler knew what people wanted and needed to shake Germany back, charisma, his speeches the ability to stir a countries pride all lost in the US today was able to brings about the reconstruction of a destroyed nation... but his own madness took over and well....the rest is history.
Good leader, hell yeah. Leader = leadership.
Good person? God no.
As well in the end he could not keep the war, country and his generals together. So he was both....
And today he still gives tards a example... Be it Bush or the wrong dog catcher the term "worse than hitler" always spews from from morons mouth without understanding history...
Then again, Genghis Khan slaughtered 20 million Chinese and no one seems to fear him anymore...
What he was best at was stirring the heart of a Germany broken by WW1.
The frightening thing was he could tell the average German all the jobs were taken by Jews... and they would see Jewish store owners bankers ect... even though the average german at the time was not so inclined to have those jobs...he made the common enemy.
Which isn't to far off is someone in the USA stirred such thoughts, and pointed to the Illegals in construction or fast food...walmart, maid service ect...
No one cares what the "other" side would think, but to the American citizen out of work he would see the same...many jobs taken by people they would not do...but still it is a job lost.
Hitler knew what people wanted and needed to shake Germany back, charisma, his speeches the ability to stir a countries pride all lost in the US today was able to brings about the reconstruction of a destroyed nation... but his own madness took over and well....the rest is history.
Good leader, hell yeah. Leader = leadership.
Good person? God no.
As well in the end he could not keep the war, country and his generals together. So he was both....
And today he still gives tards a example... Be it Bush or the wrong dog catcher the term "worse than hitler" always spews from from morons mouth without understanding history...
Then again, Genghis Khan slaughtered 20 million Chinese and no one seems to fear him anymore...
This is a tricky question to answer because you haven't defined what you mean by "good leader". In broad terms using my own definition:
Hitler managed quite well in his rise to power, but there was a fair share of luck involved in getting the chancellorship and complete power over the government in 1935. Overall, he did reasonably well in the early stages and through the invasions of the Sudetenland and Poland.
Two of his big mistakes were the genocide - because it helped solidify his opposition and reduced his own resources - and taking full control of the armed forces in the East in 1943 roundabouts the stinging defeat of Stalingrad. Had he left his generals to do their job and been less arrogant, he might have taken Moscow and history would not have been the same.
Two other big mistakes: declaring war on the U.S. in 1941 was idiotic at best - U.S. might never have declared war on Germany/Italy and just gone after the Japanese - also, I think that if Germany hadn't declared on USSR in 1941 and kept the alliance, U.S. / Britain would never have won - USSR won the war in Europe for the Allies. With the U.S. facing off vs USSR and Germany, personally I think they would have stood no chance.
Hitler managed quite well in his rise to power, but there was a fair share of luck involved in getting the chancellorship and complete power over the government in 1935. Overall, he did reasonably well in the early stages and through the invasions of the Sudetenland and Poland.
Two of his big mistakes were the genocide - because it helped solidify his opposition and reduced his own resources - and taking full control of the armed forces in the East in 1943 roundabouts the stinging defeat of Stalingrad. Had he left his generals to do their job and been less arrogant, he might have taken Moscow and history would not have been the same.
Two other big mistakes: declaring war on the U.S. in 1941 was idiotic at best - U.S. might never have declared war on Germany/Italy and just gone after the Japanese - also, I think that if Germany hadn't declared on USSR in 1941 and kept the alliance, U.S. / Britain would never have won - USSR won the war in Europe for the Allies. With the U.S. facing off vs USSR and Germany, personally I think they would have stood no chance.
I concur entirely. I would also like to add that Hitler failed to learn the #1 lesson of Napoleonic history: If you're not dead-sure you can capture Moscow by the end of November, you may as well hold off until April.Knight Templar said:
