Was Hitler a great leader?

[bernie]

Atrocities aside, of course. Is he considered to have been a great leader?

[wacki]

Political leader - he was a genius
Military leader - he sucked.

If it wasn't for Rommel and the other generals Germany wouldn't of made it very far. And if it wasn't for Hitler's pride being hurt from that accidental nightdrop over Berlin, Cyrus would be speaking german.

[zaxx19]

Hmm....

His ULTIMATE agenda was the preservation and expansion of the Germanic races(demographics)....and German nation(geographic). This was to culminate in the settling of all of Eurasia with uber well bred Aryans...etc etc..yatta yatta.

Other than Italians I dont think many races are dying out any faster than the Germanic ones.

Germany is MUCH smaller post WW2 than it was in the preceding century..

By 2100 Germany will basically be a little Anatolia demographically.


So no he wasnt an effective leader as compared to what his own stated goals were.

OTOH he killed a crapload of Jews and lessened Jewish influence in Continental Europe.

Of course America eventually became the dominant power......and Jews thrived there as they hadnt perhaps anywhere in history.

[bernie]

Does his role and the impact he had during his reign qualify as a good leader?

Not sure if I asked that right.

b

[Gamblor]

What makes a great leader?

Is it convincing people to follow your act? Inspiring confidence in your followers?

Well he certainly managed to convince a lot of Germans that a lot of Jews were bad, but I would argue that he simply made it acceptable.

He might have inspired confidence in people that their jew-hatred was okay, that their opinions should be manifested into action. Generally, I find people with no confidence aren't forward about their opinions and do not act on them.

After all, Europeans love their traditions, and there aren't many European traditions quite like Jew-hating.

You could also argue that being a great leader requires success. I don't think there's much argument for that case.

[lehighguy]

Define leader.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You could also argue that being a great leader requires success. I don't think there's much argument for that case

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't he successful in leading germany to a near powerhouse status in europe? Sure, his end result he lost, but has german status in the world ever been higher before or after?

b

[bobman0330]

uhhhh, no. I don't know for sure how many Germans were killed in WWII, but it was probably in excess of 5 million? Every major German city was levelled, and half the country became a fiefdom of the Soviet Union and is still struggling with the aftereffects of that situation. You can't give him the credit for Germany taking advantage of its large population, sophisticated educational system and natural resources to become an economic powerhouse. Without the catastrophe of WWII, Germany would have developed to its current level much sooner.

[elwoodblues]

I don't know if I'll explain myself well here (surprise, surprise, surprise.) Being a great leader does not necessarily mean being great at having others follow. It is REALLY, REALLY, EASY to play off of people fears and have them belive you. It is EASY to get people who are down on their luck (so to speak) rally together to unite against someone lower --- i.e. by rallying against a "lower" class, they make themselves feel like they are higher/elite class.

Hitler effectively accomplished these relatively easy tasks (it took a fairly good mind to recognize the right opportunity in this regard.) However, were Hitler a great leader, he probably wouldn't have had to fight a huge frickin' war to get others to sign-on to his position.

[AlmightyJay]

Hitler was an amazing leader. He pulled Germany out of an incomprehensible economic depression (after WW1, one American dollar was worth around 4 TRILLION Deutschmarks). He basically saved the country. Unfortunately, the way he did this was by uniting everyone against a common enemy - the Jews. He used his power for horrible things. But that doesn't change the fact that he was a great leader, much in the same way that Napoleon was a military genius.

[bernie]

I think it's interesting that the vote is that close.

The reason this came up is me and a bud were discussing Bobby Knight (basketball coach). I told him I thought he was an idiot, which he is, among other derogatory things I could say about him. He said he was a great coach. I asked him sarcastically Hitler was a great leader wasn't he? Still didn't mean I'd like to be under him. So then we got into a conversation about his role as a leader and in history and whether he was actually considered a great leader.

Thanks for the replies

b

[BCPVP]

I guess you really need a definition of a great leader to answer that question.

[lastchance]

Definitions are almost always the key to points like these, I agree.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you really need a definition of a great leader to answer that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I think these forums have some very bright minds along with people more up to speed on this type of topic, much more-so than I am, I figured I'd post it here.

Should I post a question as to what some think makes a great leader of a nation? That might get some interesting answers.

b

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I post a question as to what some think makes a great leader of a nation?

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you just did! /images/graemlins/grin.gif
One possible answer might be how future generations regard that particular person. Look at George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. They've been seen as great leaders throughout our history. If you look at Hitler, I doubt there are many Germans who feel that he was great.

I think at least these two things are necessary to make a leader great: conflict and time. It's hard to be seen as a great leader if there wasn't something that required great leadership. And ultimately, does this leader stand the test of time?

My $0.02

[jokerswild]

It was never lower. I'm not surprised that with the current fascist administration that threads like these appear. The brown shirts among us wish to find justification for agggressive war, religious and racial discrmination, torture, and death camps.

[jokerswild]

I'm not surprised that with the current fascist administration that threads like these appear. The brown shirts among us (44% in this poll)wish to find justification for agggressive war, religious and racial discrmination, torture, and death camps.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not surprised that with the current fascist administration that threads like these appear. The brown shirts among us wish to find justification for agggressive war, religious and racial discrmination, torture, and death camps.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has absolutely nothing to do with why I'm asking the question.

b

[college_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not surprised that with the current fascist administration that threads like these appear. The brown shirts among us (44% in this poll)wish to find justification for agggressive war, religious and racial discrmination, torture, and death camps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take your meds.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
It was never lower. I'm not surprised that with the current fascist administration that threads like these appear. The brown shirts among us wish to find justification for agggressive war, religious and racial discrmination, torture, and death camps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd appreciate if you could link to any Republican or George-Bush related website that suggests all non-white-Americans should be rounded up and slaughtered. Perhaps some platform holding racial discrimination as a value for all Americans.

Now, I could hardly be called a republican (fat old guys in texas with cowboy hats and big gold rings aren't my type of dudes) but did you have something important to say? or were you just going to spew random rhetoric all day?

[partygirluk]

Lets see:

When he took over his country was one of few democracies in the world, had been at peace for 14 years and its economy was starting to recover from Weimar Hyperinflation. Germany also possessed many of the world's leading scientists and artists.

When he ended his own reign German cities were destroyed, the country was split in 2 and occupied, his people were the most hated in the world, the economy was destroyed, the brilliant scientists and artists had been driven away and the country is still completely embarassed abouts its past.

Doesn't sound like a great leader to me.

[adios]

As well as having being the "architect" of unprecedented genocide. It's unbelievable that anyone like Hitler could be perceived as a great leader of a nation.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets see:

When he took over his country was one of few democracies in the world, had been at peace for 14 years and its economy was starting to recover from Weimar Hyperinflation. Germany also possessed many of the world's leading scientists and artists.

When he ended his own reign German cities were destroyed, the country was split in 2 and occupied, his people were the most hated in the world, the economy was destroyed, the brilliant scientists and artists had been driven away and the country is still completely embarassed abouts its past.

Doesn't sound like a great leader to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being results oriented is not good poker.

[Chris Alger]

.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Atrocities aside, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we do that?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
As well as having being the "architect" of unprecedented genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate on this? Primarily the 'unprecedented' part. Since genocide existed long before hitler came along.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would we do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking more of his role leading up to that point. Most of the history you hear about is from that point on, not before or leading up to.

I wonder how he'd have been percieved had he never went after the jews. I don't know if that was his goal from the start of his political career or not. Most likely it was. At least somewhere on the agenda.

So far I've learned a bit in this thread.

b

[BCPVP]

I think you have to include the atrocities. You can't judge whether someone is great if you ignore the worst parts about them. You just can't. Look at how todays Germans view him. Probably not that favorably. That doesn't make it sound like he was a great leader.

[Girchuck]

But in this case, Hitler was drawing dead.
He started a war that he couldn't win.

[BadBoyBenny]

Adios most likely meant that it was unprecendented in its size and efficiency. Also that it was undertaken by a relatively advanced Western Nation.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't judge whether someone is great if you ignore the worst parts about them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn't whether he is great; rather, whether he has great leadership skills.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to include the atrocities

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on whether you believe great leadership depends on what you are leading people to, or whether great leadership skills can be judged independently. For me, it doesn't much matter in this particular case because I think either way he is not a great leader.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
But in this case, Hitler was drawing dead.
He started a war that he couldn't win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Germany had 90% of its combat power deployed on the East front.

If Hitlers megar tard military leadership hadnt got the entire 6th Army wiped out at Stalingrad and other fecks up like repeated stand or die orders then its arguable the Germans could have won in Russia.

This would have made an Allied invasion of france utterly immpossible and therfore the only way we could have beat them is to have droped an A bomb on them.

[Girchuck]

When the blitzkrieg failed in its ultimate objective, Hitler was doomed on Eastern front. Russia is not France, it would not surrender even after devastating damage inflicted in 1941. Thats the main error. Hitler was counting on Russians surrendering, but they didn't. Strategically, Germany was faced with an adversary that had vast industrial capabilities located so far in the rear as to be unaccessible to bombers, that had many millions of highly motivated soldiers, that had nearly caught up technologically and that received an ever-increasing stream of western weaponry, supplies and expertise. In addition, the task of pacifying the conquered territories was orders of magnitude harder than it is for Americans in Iraq. Germany was running out of oil, some minerals, and people. Even if a superior general managed to save the 6th Army somehow, the war in the East was still going to last for years. Germany could not afford to fight a protracted war in the East. But confrontation with Soviet Union was inevitable. Therefore, Germany could not afford to start the war in the West either. Even with all the best case military scenarios they managed in the Western Europe.

[tolbiny]

"Hitler was an amazing leader. He pulled Germany out of an incomprehensible economic depression (after WW1, one American dollar was worth around 4 TRILLION Deutschmarks). He basically saved the country."

Germany was only pulled out of the depression by Militirizing the enitre ocuntry, and stripping huge amounts of wealth from a small group of people to pay for it. When that ran out Germany went into huge amounts of debt. The resurection of their economy was a temporary one, and had WWII not started it is very likely that Germany would have sank right back down into a depressed economic state. Hitler had no long term solution (besides winning the war, and somehow turning it into a stable conglomerate) and that essentially makes the very shortrun economic recovery insignifigant, imo.

[The once and future king]

It was the decsion to waste an whole army group on Stalingrad instead of just going round it and pressing on and other decisions made against the behest of his generals that ment German forces didnt press much further into the Russian interior and take Moscow.

Germany captured much oil reserves around the Caucasus and the Sevastopol Pennisula.

Im not saying they could have won but there chances of victory were rendered zero by strategic decsions made by Hitler and also Germanys demise and retreat in the East came about much much quicker because of Hitler.