Without a doubt Hitler was a great leader to be able to get so many people to follow and obey him but what was not great was his intentions but, even if his actions were horrible they may have prevented something even worse. What if one of the people he killed would've grown up to cause a nuclear war and destroy numerous countries? SO he was a great leader with horrible intentions.Tim_Buoy said:
was hitler a great leader? bad leader?
- Thread starter Tim_Buoy
- Start date
Good Politician, Bad Leader, Unbelievably bad strategist and war time leader. Seriously, he was a moron. There was literally no way he would have won World War 2. You can point out any mistake he made and by like "if he didn't make that one", but the truth is he would have made a different one, or Russia would have just destroyed them anyways.
Umm... do you know anything about WWI? It was started when Archduke Franz Ferdinand or whatever was assassinated. Germany and a ton of other countries were pulled in from the alliance system.Axolotl said:
They didn't actually start it, but like I said above the assassination officially started it, then everyone else was pulled in. I'm not saying Germany wasn't wrong in what they did or that they shouldn't have taken some of the blame, but they shouldn't have taken ALL of the blame and reparations (or debts or whatever they are called), especially when they didn't exactly start the war.Dyme said:
Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany when he came into power.
Those just tend to be buried deep under the whole "leader of the Nazis who was responsible for the Holocaust and pretty much was the one who started WWII" deal whenever people talk about him.
Those just tend to be buried deep under the whole "leader of the Nazis who was responsible for the Holocaust and pretty much was the one who started WWII" deal whenever people talk about him.
That depends on what qualities you look for in a leader. If you look for local order/stability and nothing else, then yes, he was a good leader. However, if you look for a leader that ensures equality, freedom, national security, then hitler was a bad leader.
The reason I say he was a bad leader in terms of national security, is that he went and attacked everybody unprovoked, causing a massive retaliation that led to the eventual destruction of the nation.
The reason I say he was a bad leader in terms of national security, is that he went and attacked everybody unprovoked, causing a massive retaliation that led to the eventual destruction of the nation.
He was a political genius.
But as a military leader, not so much. In the end he made three huge, stupid IMO, strategic mistakes that led to his downfall:
1)Declared war on the U.S. when he had all but conquered Europe. Leading to many more troops being dispatched to help his enemies(who at the time were rather weakened).
2)Decided to attack Russia(his largest allie up to that point), causing him to lose many allied troops and supplies(Russia supplied over 80% of Nazis materials) and essentially painting himself into a corner between the Euopean/American forces and Asia.
3)Used nearly half of his forces to detain and torture Jews, instead of using them to actually fight on the front lines in the war.
As you can probably see, #2 is easily the most moronic thing a military leader could do. He essentially crippled and then trapped his own forces with that decision. The other 2 are quite stupid as well.
But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
But as a military leader, not so much. In the end he made three huge, stupid IMO, strategic mistakes that led to his downfall:
1)Declared war on the U.S. when he had all but conquered Europe. Leading to many more troops being dispatched to help his enemies(who at the time were rather weakened).
2)Decided to attack Russia(his largest allie up to that point), causing him to lose many allied troops and supplies(Russia supplied over 80% of Nazis materials) and essentially painting himself into a corner between the Euopean/American forces and Asia.
3)Used nearly half of his forces to detain and torture Jews, instead of using them to actually fight on the front lines in the war.
As you can probably see, #2 is easily the most moronic thing a military leader could do. He essentially crippled and then trapped his own forces with that decision. The other 2 are quite stupid as well.
But I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Hitler was, whether you wish to believe it or deny it, a great leader.
He just had the wrong motives and a twisted reason to become a leader - namely to avenge Germany after WW1.
He had a way with words, and he didn't lie when he said he'd get jobs for everyone.
Jobs at the frontline, of course, but jobs nontheless.
Heck, I hate Hitler and his Nazi monobollock, but even I can't deny the fact that he was actually a great leader.
Pity he snapped at some point in his life - maybe he could've changed the world in a different way than he did.
He just had the wrong motives and a twisted reason to become a leader - namely to avenge Germany after WW1.
He had a way with words, and he didn't lie when he said he'd get jobs for everyone.
Jobs at the frontline, of course, but jobs nontheless.
Heck, I hate Hitler and his Nazi monobollock, but even I can't deny the fact that he was actually a great leader.
Pity he snapped at some point in his life - maybe he could've changed the world in a different way than he did.
True.Ultratwinkie said:
I probably should have said multiple strategic mistakes. I'm sure if you look closely he made many more, but those were the ones that stood out to me.
Well as most of the tactics used by the Germans in WWII were developed by Heinz Guderian along with Hitler, from a military perspective he was quite the capable military leader all the way to '42 or so. After that his paranoia and his obsession with exterminating large numbers of people just because of their beliefs, skin color or nationality brought his downfall. From an economical point of view he was again very gifted as he did bring Germany out of one of the worst economical crysis' it has ever been in (in 1919 a bread could cost up to 5 milion deutch marks - or whatever you type that one down). But as previously stated his ideology is... well... you know my oppinion on that one >_>
But that doen't change the fact that it was Germany who started the war by attacking first. The assasination of an Austrian noble in Serbia is hardly an excuse for Germany to attack of Belgium, Luxembourg and France.Assassin Xaero said:
In addition the demanding of waqr reparations was standard practice for the Germans, they took vast ammount from the Russians and intended to pay for their war effort by demanding repartions from France if they won.
Quite a shame contemporary educators do not ask for such retrospective takes on such topics
Much more could be explored, learned, taken to several higher plains of thought when asking from a critical, or factual standpoint, on Hitler's reign. Instead (or as well as) of an emotional, or moral standpoint.
Much more could be explored, learned, taken to several higher plains of thought when asking from a critical, or factual standpoint, on Hitler's reign. Instead (or as well as) of an emotional, or moral standpoint.
he was a great leader in most areas but he is also one of the reasons why germany lost the war in the first place. (he was a horrible war stratigist and didnt listen to people with more knowledge)
You're not making any sense at all. The spark of the war was the assassination, I don't care if you don't think it was a good enough reason for the war to start, but it was the start of the war and your opinion doesn't change that fact. Germany was then brought in by the alliance system and started to attack/encourage Austria-Hungary to attack. Germany did NOT start the war. And fyi, shooting someone is an attack, so therefore, Serbia attacked first.Axolotl said: