Hitler Good Or Bad? Whats your opinion?

[____]

I love it how people still seem to think that Hitler wrote up the precise method of killing 6 million jews. Everyone seems to forget that the SS (although most likely the Gestapo in particular) were ultimately left with the planning an execution of such a large scale order.

 

 

 

Actually - depending on what sources you look at, the SS tend to propose a final solution to the jewish problem. And then one day hitler finally said "yea go for it", basically.

 

 

 

He may have given the order but his ultimate involvement with the extermination of 6 million people essentially ended there and the blame then moved to the members of the SS who formulated and then carried out the solution.

 

 

 

Ultimately Hitler saw less operational material on his own war then your average clerk who filed decrypted intercepts at Bletchley Park. So even though he was a tin-pot dictator or whatever you want to call him. All he really did at the end of the day was "do this" then left it in the hands of other people to achieve it.

[assassin_696]

To everyone commenting on how ruined Germany was after the war, that was largely due to America and the USSR bickering over who gets what, West Berlin largely propered in the 1950's, it was East Berlin which suffered under communism.

 

 

 

What's your opinion on American president(s) and generals who planned the camps for Japan-related people during ww2 and who ordered nukes to be dropped to civil places? What about those who turned Dresden in a flaming hell? What do you think about Stalin and his policies?

 

 

 

Eventually, someone mentions Dresden! All these people who think Hitler killed milliond of people in the Blitz... well that's laughable really. It is estimated the UK only lost about 40,000 (I say only 40,000, but on the scheme of things it's pretty small) citizens during the German bombing campaigns over the whole of the six-year war. Towards the end of the war, the Allies were killing around 40,000 people a night in their bombing missions!

 

 

 

If this thread proves one thing, it's that children go to school these days to be 'taught', not to learn.

 

 

 

Excellent point, (and to be fair, on the UK GCSE History syllabus) that the allied bombing campaigns of Dresden and Hamburg killed far more than the Blitz ever did, and much later into the war when it would have given no real strategic advantage. I did my coursework on the WWII bombing campaigns, I've forgotten my conclusion, I think Bomber Harris was essentially acting for Britain's best interests, but people seem to overlook the horror of the allied bombing campaigns. War brings out atrocities on either side.

 

 

 

It's laughable that anyone is trying to rationalize this. How about you think of it this way...you bring home a girl/boy to meet your parents, he/she helps old people, they volunteer their time to numerous causes, they are really intelligent...oh by the way they just happen to hate "certain" people and try and slaughter their entire race....... :XD:

 

 

 

That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand how you can rule ethics out of the equation when asking, "what makes a good leader?"

 

 

 

Easy, look back in history. Many of the great military leaders in the past have had 'questionable' ethics, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell etc etc.

[Lionheart_0]

To all those saying "How can you say he was good, he killed so many people", Don't forget the world is not black or white. Most of the people posting above me are making good points of how it wasn't just him.

 

 

 

Which brings me to my point. If we are to blame anyone for the atrocities that went on over there, let it be the German people of the time. As said already, Hitler was excellent at public speaking, thus all he did was rally his people behind him. So in a sense, who made the boo boo? The people who were stupid enough to follow, or him for taking the opportunity to use desperate people?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with being a good leader. if you are ethically-sound, you're a nice person, not a good leader. Did anyone watch The Apprentice (UK version), where Sophie got the boot for being too ethical towards her approach? Unfortunetely, doing the best thing as a leader doesn't mean doing the best thing ethically. Do I shop at the Co-operative because it's well-run, or because it's an ethically sound group?

 

 

 

As for the reference about Mein Kampf made before. Hitler made that after the failed Munich Putsch, and while he does blame the Jews for the troubles (hypocritically at that!) of the German people, he doesn't actually say what should be done about them. Stop with this myth that Hitler was a brutal psychopath that knew what he was doing from the moment he was forced onto the streets in Vienna.

[fakeitormakeit]

Well in his mind trying to make the german's the supreme race was like whoa big-to-do. He did do somethings to benefit the people but he cancelled that out with all the bad things he did to them, and I saw this thing on the history channel about several of his officers said when he was in his secret underground bunker in the challeor headquarters when the russians started moving in, he said that then the weak should be destroyed and if the German people are, then yet them all get killed.

 

 

 

He was kind of like Benito Mussolini except Mussolini did alot more good such as strengthen the economy and planned a great number of motorway and train tracks in Italy.

[dutchdreams]

Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with being a good leader. if you are ethically-sound, you're a nice person, not a good leader. Did anyone watch The Apprentice (UK version), where Sophie got the boot for being too ethical towards her approach? Unfortunetely, doing the best thing as a leader doesn't mean doing the best thing ethically. Do I shop at the Co-operative because it's well-run, or because it's an ethically sound group?

 

 

 

If he was such a good leader, he would have had no problem pulling Germany out of the mess in a different, more ethical way, right ? Don't tell me you think he was the right man for the right job.

 

 

 

A sad, lying and manipulative master of puppets, who left his hateful legacy in a book he wrote in prison after his failed putsch in Munich. There's nothing good about the man. He even sucked at painting. Not even did he or any of his close henchmen fit the physique of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtrue raceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

 

 

As for the reference about Mein Kampf made before. Hitler made that after the failed Munich Putsch, and while he does blame the Jews for the troubles (hypocritically at that!) of the German people, he doesn't actually say what should be done about them. Stop with this myth that Hitler was a brutal psychopath that knew what he was doing from the moment he was forced onto the streets in Vienna.

 

 

 

Say what ? Since I was the last one to refer to it, I quoted what I actually said. Now compare what you made of that statement.

 

In his book he explains the need for 'Lebensraum' , 'drang nach Osten' and spreads anti-semetic views, superiority of the German race and attacks the Versailles treaty. Seems to me he sure knew what he wanted: a scapegoat. He probably didn't specifically mention the eradication of the jews, but as is, it's already a hateful legacy.

[LP]

although he was the cause of millions of deaths he was still one of the greatest leaders this world has ever seen.

[antonwhy]

bad. Bad far outways any good he did (if any)

[sycosis5]

hmm do good people slaughter hundreds maybe thousands of inocent jewish people

[dsavi]

Bad. Anyone that racist is bad.

[richpoepaap]

 

 

 

A sad, lying and manipulative master of puppets, who left his hateful legacy in a book he wrote in prison after his failed putsch in Munich. There's nothing good about the man. He even sucked at painting. Not even did he or any of his close henchmen fit the physique of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtrue raceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

Bit off topic, but have you actually seen his paintings? He wasn't all that bad imo. If you think about it, had he been accepeted at the art academy he applied to, wwII as we know it wouldn't have happened. It's often the small details that decide world history.

[megakiller32]

So pointing out something that somebody did right is instantly supporting them? Well, in that case, by all means, call me a Nazi. Go on.

 

So what your saying, is that hitler killing millions of people is right?

 

 

 

You're kidding, right? Would you mind looking at how horribly the Great Depression affected the US, UK and Australia?

 

Yes, but a good political leader can sort out problems just as well :x

[Striker6]

 

 

 

A sad, lying and manipulative master of puppets, who left his hateful legacy in a book he wrote in prison after his failed putsch in Munich. There's nothing good about the man. He even sucked at painting. Not even did he or any of his close henchmen fit the physique of the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtrue raceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

Bit off topic, but have you actually seen his paintings? He wasn't all that bad imo. If you think about it, had he been accepeted at the art academy he applied to, wwII as we know it wouldn't have happened. It's often the small details that decide world history.

 

 

 

No it probably would have been the same with or without Hitler.

[hellbellz]

If you consider killing countless amounts of people, almost whiping out the Jewish religion not a bad thing - he was a good leader.

 

 

 

But wow; whoever thinks he was great should check out if they had any family members die due to the haulocaust.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Say what ? Since I was the last one to refer to it, I quoted what I actually said. Now compare what you made of that statement.

 

In his book he explains the need for 'Lebensraum' , 'drang nach Osten' and spreads anti-semetic views, superiority of the German race and attacks the Versailles treaty. Seems to me he sure knew what he wanted: a scapegoat. He probably didn't specifically mention the eradication of the jews, but as is, it's already a hateful legacy.

 

And I'll repeat, dutchdreams:

 

 

 

...he doesn't actually say what should be done about them.

 

 

 

And he didn't. If you study the organisation of the NSDAP in any sort of detail you'd realise Hitler was *not* the person that orchestrated any of his policies. Hitler's role, despite all the propaganda, was to basically set a vision of what should be done, and then leave others to achieve that vision. This actually helps to explain why the Final Solution was thought of. Hitler asked for a 'solution to finally end the Jewish problem'. Himmler and Georing (who BTW wasn't in Hitler's good books after an affair) took this opportunity to radicalise the Nazis' views on how they should take action against (what they perceived as) the 'Jewish Problem'. Hitler at no point calls for extermination camps to be built. In fact, on the contrary, he actually promised his economists that no such thing would happen. Get this into your head now - Himmler came up with the Holocaust, *not* Hitler; and the SS carried it out, *not* Hitler.

 

 

 

If he was such a good leader, he would have had no problem pulling Germany out of the mess in a different, more ethical way, right ? Don't tell me you think he was the right man for the right job.

 

Strange argument really... since that would entail going back on what he personally stood for (strong, autocratic leadership). Going back on such values would actually make him a weaker leader, not a stronger one merely because he fits into your ethical world. Was he the right man for the job? How could I possibly comment? All political opponents were killed within the first year of his Chancellorship - that's something we'll never know the answer to. I do however know one thing - the democratic government that existed prior to the regime wasn't ever going to solve Germany's problems.

 

 

 

Now, can you please lay this argument to rest? This isn't about whether Hitler was an ethical person, it's about whether he was a good leader. That's the question I was asked, and it's the question I've answered. Whether or not Hitler's views make him suitable to be a leader in the first place, which is the argument you seem to following, is a different question - but it's not the one that's being asked by the author of this thread.

[mrmyk]

i did Nazi Germany in History recently and well...

 

 

 

We can't dispute that Hitler did very, very bad things but he did achieve many of the goals he set out to do, for example lowering unemployment which became near non-existant.

 

 

 

Overall, yes...trying to wipe out a race isn't something that i'd take lightly even though he did help his country in some respects.

[dutchdreams]

When megalomaniacs rise to power, the people suffer and pay for it....with their lives. He abused and singled out one part of the population as a scapegoat pre-war to favor the rest of the population. He tried to exterminate them like vermin during the war, authorized horrific experiments on these people, authorized breeding programs for the true race in Germany and Norway, indoctrinated the German youth and filled them with hate (Hitlerjugend).

 

All this to quench his thirst for glory and power, to further the grandeur of the true race. Disgusting.

 

 

 

Eugenics isn't anything that rare in western world actually. Just use google to find out that even our democractic goddess USA has been doing some of that stuff. Second, even after WW2 they kept doing some researches with living human beings, mainly blacks.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

 

 

 

What other countries do, relates to Hitler's character exactly how ? It makes his own actions less evil ? It makes him less a worse leader how ? The particular research you mentioned wasn't disclosed till 1972. He had no way of knowing about it, so he allowed Mengele's research to go on without ever hearing of the syfilis research. The topic is about Hitler being a good or bad leader, not about a competition who's the most evil.

 

 

 

For the Scapegoat thing, it's not that black and white situation. Of course he did take "few" steps too much, but almost everyone everytime seem to forget the fact that the jews declared a war on Germany and drove them even deeper chaos after the ridicilous ww1 peace threaty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Decl ... on_Germany

 

 

 

Hm, a headline that occured only in a paper deemed in the wikipedia article as a 'tabloid'. Their 'war' consisted of calling on an economic ban against Germany. It was a response to the German parliament passing the enabling act. An act which made an openly anti-semetic warmonger the acting head of state/dictator.

 

Mein Kampf was written already in 1924, this course of action from the Jews has no relevance to him *starting* to hate jews. He did that years before already. Jews, as an organisation or nation weren't involved in the Versailles treaty. If anything, the boycott gave him a stick to beat the jews with. A reason to start the propaganda machine to unite the Germans against an easily identified neighborhood enemy.

 

 

 

A man who had no problem carpet bombing cities to rubble to aide his Blitzkrieg (Rotterdam, Warsaw, Stalingrad). The thousands of civilian casualties it caused were insignificant to him. Something his Luftwaffe had demonstrated already in 1937, in the Spanish civil war (Guernica).

 

A complete and total disrespect for human life or human suffering, *nobody* can qualify as good leader after that.

 

 

 

He was nothing compared to the war criminals who bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima with Nukes or the ones who made Dresden into a fire hell. In my eyes those were a lot worse than what Hitler did to UK civilians for example.

 

 

 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed after he killed himself, so acts committed by others make his less evil ? Once again, I thought the topic was about Hitler being good/bad leader, not if he were the lesser evil compared to others. He had Alfred Speer looking into nuclear bombs/research during the war himself. Yes, he was a real saint.

 

 

 

Dresden, yes pitty for such a beautiful city to be destroyed. Same goes for Rotterdam, which city center was completely bombed to bits till the only building left standing was a church. The economic center of a neutral country blown apart.

 

The Rotterdam bombing was the reason the UK decided to steer away from the 1938 Amsterdam draft convention for the protection of civilian populations (strategic bombing to minimise civillian casualties). Something Hitler never adhered to and rather deployed terror bombing from day one. Hitler was the agressor, others responded.

[dutchdreams]

Say what ? Since I was the last one to refer to it, I quoted what I actually said. Now compare what you made of that statement.

 

In his book he explains the need for 'Lebensraum' , 'drang nach Osten' and spreads anti-semetic views, superiority of the German race and attacks the Versailles treaty. Seems to me he sure knew what he wanted: a scapegoat. He probably didn't specifically mention the eradication of the jews, but as is, it's already a hateful legacy.

 

And I'll repeat, dutchdreams:

 

 

 

...he doesn't actually say what should be done about them.

 

 

 

And he didn't. If you study the organisation of the NSDAP in any sort of detail you'd realise Hitler was *not* the person that orchestrated any of his policies. Hitler's role, despite all the propaganda, was to basically set a vision of what should be done, and then leave others to achieve that vision. This actually helps to explain why the Final Solution was thought of. Hitler asked for a 'solution to finally end the Jewish problem'. Himmler and Georing (who BTW wasn't in Hitler's good books after an affair) took this opportunity to radicalise the Nazis' views on how they should take action against (what they perceived as) the 'Jewish Problem'. Hitler at no point calls for extermination camps to be built. In fact, on the contrary, he actually promised his economists that no such thing would happen. Get this into your head now - Himmler came up with the Holocaust, *not* Hitler; and the SS carried it out, *not* Hitler.

 

 

 

And who carried the end responsibility and had the power to stop it ? Whose signature decided the fate of all those killed ? Who had the power to allocate the funds to the Endlosing? Who put those henchmen in power in the first place ? Who had the power to kick out Goering, Himmler and Goebbles? Who gave carte blanche to Himmler ? The great leader himself.

 

 

 

A leader decision to put those men in power, a leader decision to facilitate the Endlosing. Ah yes, a great leader. By the way, I didn't claim he came up with the Endlosing, so try and get that out of your head that I'm somehow claiming that.

 

So basically you're saying, the henchmen went against the will of the leader. Hitler had no input in it ? His subordinates are actually doing the opposite of what the leader wants after he promised no destruction camps and he takes no actions to replace those rebellious subordinates ? That's the tell-tale sign of a lousy leader in my book.

 

 

 

If he was such a good leader, he would have had no problem pulling Germany out of the mess in a different, more ethical way, right ? Don't tell me you think he was the right man for the right job.

 

Strange argument really... since that would entail going back on what he personally stood for (strong, autocratic leadership). Going back on such values would actually make him a weaker leader, not a stronger one merely because he fits into your ethical world. Was he the right man for the job? How could I possibly comment? All political opponents were killed within the first year of his Chancellorship - that's something we'll never know the answer to. I do however know one thing - the democratic government that existed prior to the regime wasn't ever going to solve Germany's problems.

 

 

 

Now, can you please lay this argument to rest? This isn't about whether Hitler was an ethical person, it's about whether he was a good leader. That's the question I was asked, and it's the question I've answered. Whether or not Hitler's views make him suitable to be a leader in the first place, which is the argument you seem to following, is a different question - but it's not the one that's being asked by the author of this thread.

 

 

 

Someones ethical values are the *core* and subject to public scrutany to anyone holding a public function. Shall we elect Ted Bundy as the next president of the USA ? He has great charisma so I've heard.

 

The point I was making in the quote is: if he is the great speaker, with great charisma that so many credit him for (if I'm not mistaken, most his speeches were written by Goebbles), he should have had no problem rallying the German population towards rebuilding through less destructive ways. Not by focussing hatred on a part of a population (scapegoat), but by rallying them towards a common goal.

[darkmage099]

Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with being a good leader. if you are ethically-sound, you're a nice person, not a good leader. Did anyone watch The Apprentice (UK version), where Sophie got the boot for being too ethical towards her approach? Unfortunetely, doing the best thing as a leader doesn't mean doing the best thing ethically. Do I shop at the Co-operative because it's well-run, or because it's an ethically sound group?

 

 

 

As for the reference about Mein Kampf made before. Hitler made that after the failed Munich Putsch, and while he does blame the Jews for the troubles (hypocritically at that!) of the German people, he doesn't actually say what should be done about them. Stop with this myth that Hitler was a brutal psychopath that knew what he was doing from the moment he was forced onto the streets in Vienna.

 

Ethics has EVERYTHING to do with being a good leader. If someone was running for office who was very good leader and had "buckets full of charisma" would you vote for them even though their morals were worse than trash? No, being a good leader means your motives are in touch with the moral standards of the time. Hitler...clearly not.

 

 

 

Unfortunetely, doing the best thing as a leader doesn't mean doing the best thing ethically.

 

explain? How is doing something ethically correct not the best? And I mean doing something that violates ethics so badly like killing millions of people?

 

 

he doesn't actually say what should be done about them. Stop with this myth that Hitler was a brutal psychopath that knew what he was doing from the moment he was forced onto the streets in Vienna.

 

"Jimmy proposed to Fred to kill Harold. Fred knew it was going to happen and could have told Jimmy no (with Jimmy obeying), but Fred just decided to let Jimmy kill Harold. I swear! It's really not Fred's fault! All he did was agree to something terrible that he could have stopped!" X 6,000,000 = Hitler

 

 

 

 

 

It's laughable that anyone is trying to rationalize this. How about you think of it this way...you bring home a girl/boy to meet your parents, he/she helps old people, they volunteer their time to numerous causes, they are really intelligent...oh by the way they just happen to hate "certain" people and try and slaughter their entire race....... :XD:

 

 

 

That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand how you can rule ethics out of the equation when asking, "what makes a good leader?"

 

 

 

Easy, look back in history. Many of the great military leaders in the past have had 'questionable' ethics, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell etc etc.

 

 

 

Some of those people's morals corresponded with the time they led in. Hitler was in OUR time not when you had to defend your land from nomadic cavalry men. Hitler is modern day.

 

 

 

Being a good leader means leading for the right reasons as well. Right reasons being defined as the moral standards relative to the time period they existed in. I know some of you say motives and reasons have nothing to do with what makes a good leader but it does. Yes, Hitler was a leader but because his motives and actions are horrific he is NOT a good leader. He is just a leader

[Duke_Freedom]

This question is about whether Hitler was a good leader, not a good person. There's a difference.

 

 

 

I don't see a difference at all. How do you define a good leader? As someone who does the best for humanity, as someone who only does good? How do you define a good person? As someone who does the best for humanity, as someone who only does good?

 

 

 

In fact, if you don't consider ethics, I don't think it's even possible to talk about good / bad in such a sense. :roll:

 

 

 

Easy, look back in history. Many of the great military leaders in the past have had 'questionable' ethics, Atilla the Hun, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell etc etc.

 

 

 

A good military leader is something different then a good overall leader, especially when it comes to defining the word "good". Plus, he made the same mistake as Napoleon so I don't know how you can call him a good military leader at all.

 

 

 

In my eyes the ones who dropped nukes and ordered them to be dropped to Hiroshima and Nagasaki wer a lot bigger criminals than Julius Streicher for example.

 

 

 

Those guys saved a few hundred thousands if not millions of lives, they are heros. The whole problem with those who oppose(d) the use of nuclear bombs during world war II is that they can't do simple math and think that 1 million death more or less doesn't matter anymore or because they are too naive too realise that death count would have been much higher if the nukes were not dropped.

[Ginger_Warrior]

This is actually the most healthy debate I've seen in a while =D>

 

 

 

Those guys saved a few hundred thousands if not millions of lives, they are heros. The whole problem with those who oppose(d) the use of nuclear bombs during world war II is that they can't do simple math and think that 1 million death more or less doesn't matter anymore or because they are too naive too realise that death count would have been much higher if the nukes were not dropped.

 

Wrong! Japan knew the war was over and was preparing to declare peace, if not before the first bomb, certainly after. The use of the nuclear bomb was unjustified, and I highly doubt millions more lives would have been lost had they not been dropped. I see this as a false argument the US government used to defend its actions. Having said that, the bomb only killed as many people as the UK bombings - it just did it in a more horrific and destructive way.

 

 

 

Ethics has EVERYTHING to do with being a good leader. If someone was running for office who was very good leader and had "buckets full of charisma" would you vote for them even though their morals were worse than trash? No, being a good leader means your motives are in touch with the moral standards of the time. Hitler...clearly not.

 

That concept holds true only in a form of government where popular opinion controls who holds power, in other words, a republic/democracy. Hitler was the totalitarian dictator of Germany, and his power was very secure at that. He had no reason to consider 'moral standards' in his policies, and thus his lack of them doesn't make him a weak leader.

 

 

 

"Jimmy proposed to Fred to kill Harold. Fred knew it was going to happen and could have told Jimmy no (with Jimmy obeying), but Fred just decided to let Jimmy kill Harold. I swear! It's really not Fred's fault! All he did was agree to something terrible that he could have stopped!" X 6,000,000 = Hitler

 

I'll reiterate for the third time now. When Hitler joined the NSDAP, he had no intention for his polices to become as extreme as they did. In fact, his earlier polices were designed to remove Jews from the Nazi German way of life, in other words, removing them by emmigration rather than murder. Hitler gave the order for the Jews to be removed from the German way of life - although he allowed the Holocaust to happen, he certainly didn't premeditate it, and there is an abundance of evidence to show Hitler would rather have had the Jews emmigrated rather than killed. It was Himmler who wanted the opposite.

 

 

 

A leader decision to put those men in power, a leader decision to facilitate the Endlosing. Ah yes, a great leader. By the way, I didn't claim he came up with the Endlosing, so try and get that out of your head that I'm somehow claiming that.

 

So basically you're saying, the henchmen went against the will of the leader. Hitler had no input in it ? His subordinates are actually doing the opposite of what the leader wants after he promised no destruction camps and he takes no actions to replace those rebellious subordinates ? That's the tell-tale sign of a lousy leader in my book.

 

If you read my post and comprehended it, you would actually see I said the opposite. They did not run counter to Hitler, Hitler said deliberetely ambiguously to gget rid of the Jews. His men did that. Do I agree with how they did that? No. I'm a Socialist (the left-wing variety), why would I agree with a policy of mass murder? But I'm not going to critise his leadership just because his actions don't fit with my morals. I find that attitude to be arrogant and ignorant.

 

 

 

My measure of a 'good' leader is someone who sets out with a clear agenda, and then someone who achieves that vision, with the scale being a measure of how far did they acheive that end vision? When I think about Hitler, as said in my original post in this topic, I see someone who wanted to remove the Jews from the German way of life, someone who wanted to economically lift post-Depression Germany to a world military power, and someone who wanted to achieve this system of Autarky.

 

 

 

Did he remove the Jews from German way of life? Well, after considering Kristallnacht, the Nuremburg Laws, and of course, the Holocaust, you'd have to say that Nazi Germany didn't have Jews. Did he achive his goal? Yes, this makes him a strong and capable leader. Do I agree with his mission? No! Just because I think Hitler was a good leader in this area doesn't mean I condone his actions.

 

 

 

Did he rebuild Germany economically to a military power? Well, considering that the Allies would probably have lost had Hitler not decided to invade the USSR, I'd have to say yes, although I can understand that Germany's Home Front wasn't ready to deal with long wars and this ulitimetely killed them. He never ahcieved his idea of Autarky either. Having said that, Hitler never intented a six-year war. Do I think he's a strong leader here? Well, in his early years, yes, but after war broke out, obviously not. Hence why I believe at times Hitler could be an amazing leader, but at others, a completely hopeless one.

 

 

 

Now, flame me all you want. But frankly, if the only argument you can come up with to deny Hitler was a good leader is "He killed millions of Jews" (which is nothing compared to the tens of millions of Soviets that died anyway), then I find your argument weak, since Hitler was in charge of a dictatorship, so what is seen as 'ethical' doesn't really hold much weight in such a state.

[FrancisRune83]

Man, I'm feeling like that I am going to shoot somebody in the head right now...

 

 

 

Hitler got expelled from school, but he still studied and became an intelligent boy. Then he bravely fought for the Germans in the First World War. He was very lucky that he survived in the Battle of The Somme. He was in prison in 1924, then was released in 1928. Germans voted for him, so he was elected, the Fuhrer of Germany. He made intelligent decisions, but he was so mad, so I have to vote BOTH.

[dutchdreams]

A leader decision to put those men in power, a leader decision to facilitate the Endlosing. Ah yes, a great leader. By the way, I didn't claim he came up with the Endlosing, so try and get that out of your head that I'm somehow claiming that.

 

So basically you're saying, the henchmen went against the will of the leader. Hitler had no input in it ? His subordinates are actually doing the opposite of what the leader wants after he promised no destruction camps and he takes no actions to replace those rebellious subordinates ? That's the tell-tale sign of a lousy leader in my book.

 

If you read my post and comprehended it, you would actually see I said the opposite. They did not run counter to Hitler, Hitler said deliberetely ambiguously to gget rid of the Jews. His men did that. Do I agree with how they did that? No. I'm a Socialist (the left-wing variety), why would I agree with a policy of mass murder? But I'm not going to critise his leadership just because his actions don't fit with my morals. I find that attitude to be arrogant and ignorant.

 

 

 

Your post says:

Hitler at no point calls for extermination camps to be built. In fact, on the contrary, he actually promised his economists that no such thing would happen. Get this into your head now - Himmler came up with the Holocaust, *not* Hitler; and the SS carried it out, *not* Hitler.

 

 

 

You claim Hitler makes a promise not to build them, yet his henchman does the opposite. A strong leader in a dictatorship would kick out any subordinate disagreeing with the policy the leader sets forth on such a big issue, don't you agree? Specially if the actions of that subordinate would make the leader look like a fool to others.

 

So yes, I comprehended your post: you painted a picture of an incompetent leader not having the power to keep his subordinate in check. Or that of a leader not caring enough to keep track of what his subordinate does. Which scenario fits good leadership best ? Neither in my book.

 

 

 

Do you comprehend my comments a little better now? That as a leader, he kept Himmler in office after Himmler built deathcamps, despite what Hitler had promised to his economists (hence Himmler rebelling against what Hitler envisioned)?

 

Also, that as a leader of course he must've been fully aware of what went on in those camps. That he had absolute power to stop the radicalistic views of Himmler and allow jews to emigrate. Yet, he did nothing to stop Himmler and even facilitated the eradication. The great dictator with absolute power, can't sign a decree to let all jews emigrate - it obviously was not an issue to Hitler what happened with the jews.

 

 

 

My measure of a 'good' leader is someone who sets out with a clear agenda, and then someone who achieves that vision, with the scale being a measure of how far did they acheive that end vision? When I think about Hitler, as said in my original post in this topic, I see someone who wanted to remove the Jews from the German way of life, someone who wanted to economically lift post-Depression Germany to a world military power, and someone who wanted to achieve this system of Autarky.

 

 

 

Why did he have this agenda/goals? It's safe to say it was to make the Germans prosper. When his reign ended, his population wasn't better of than when he rose to power. Country in ruins, young men dead, hunger and starvation immediately after the war ended not only for the Germans, but for other countries as well, a young generation filled with visions of hate and visions of superiority over others (Hitlerjugend).

 

He lifted the economy at the expense of a whole generation in shatters and the surviving population left with a collective guilty complex spanning decades. A visionairy leader he is, feeding upon and taking from the population he tries to flourish by sucking out the youth.

 

 

 

A good leader also looks ahead and tries to foresee what reactions his own action may cause. Anschluss of Austria and the following annexation of Sudetenland of course wasn't good enough to establish Germany as a force to be reckoned with.

 

Both actions were condoned by the allies. He could've consolidated, but didn't. He broke the 1938 Munich agreement in which Germany (Hitler) promised no further territorial claims in exchange for Sudetenland. 1939 Hitler claimed the remainder of Czechoslovakia for Lebensraum: it showed he wasn't a trustworthy leader. His action allied Poland and France, UK joining in later. A good leader establishes trust in foreign policies.

 

 

 

He lead Germany into war, while he already had achieved alot of what you mentioned. He had built up Germany's military, legislation in place that made Jews flee the country and/or greatly abandoned their civil rights, was building labour/concentration camps (no, no extermination camps till 1942) from 1933 onwards, had shown the German organisational talent to the world with the 1936 olympics, giving the Germans national pride and gave the economy a boost by rebuilding an army.

 

 

 

It still wasn't enough, Poland had to be added with the aide of Russia in the Ribbentrop-agreement. After overrunning Holland/Belgium and France, instead of consolidating, he turns on his powerful ally Russia. Against the advice of his generals and disregarding Napoleon's debacle. A frontline in Africa where arguably his best strategist Rommel resided. A good leader also knows when to stop and doesn't stretch himself too thin.

 

 

 

Did he remove the Jews from German way of life? Well, after considering Kristallnacht, the Nuremburg Laws, and of course, the Holocaust, you'd have to say that Nazi Germany didn't have Jews. Did he achive his goal? Yes, this makes him a strong and capable leader. Do I agree with his mission? No! Just because I think Hitler was a good leader in this area doesn't mean I condone his actions.

 

 

 

Also Poland, Belgium, Holland, every country he invaded jews were removed from every day life. He overshot his goal appearently. He couldn't keep to his own country.

 

Did he lie to his own people with propaganda and manipulations about jewish conspiracies? For sure a strong and capable leader wouldn't have to lie against the people he so much cherishes?

 

 

 

Did he rebuild Germany economically to a military power? Well, considering that the Allies would probably have lost had Hitler not decided to invade the USSR, I'd have to say yes, although I can understand that Germany's Home Front wasn't ready to deal with long wars and this ulitimetely killed them. He never ahcieved his idea of Autarky either. Having said that, Hitler never intented a six-year war. Do I think he's a strong leader here? Well, in his early years, yes, but after war broke out, obviously not. Hence why I believe at times Hitler could be an amazing leader, but at others, a completely hopeless one.

 

 

 

Disregarding the long-term consequences to achieve short-term goals. Not exactly great leadership material I agree.

 

 

 

Now, flame me all you want. But frankly, if the only argument you can come up with to deny Hitler was a good leader is "He killed millions of Jews" (which is nothing compared to the tens of millions of Soviets that died anyway), then I find your argument weak, since Hitler was in charge of a dictatorship, so what is seen as 'ethical' doesn't really hold much weight in such a state.

 

 

 

Flaming ? I'd have to say you made some condescending remarks in your discussions in this thread, some based on things that weren't even said or claimed. If you take any comments I've given as flaming, so be it. It wasn't my intention though.

 

However, if after all these posts you think my only argument of him being a bad leader is that he killed millions of Jews then you may want to read them again. Especially the very first line in which I say, when megalomaniacs rise to power, *people* (i.e. not just 'millions of jews') suffer and pay for it with their lives.

 

 

 

Other points basically come down to what I said in my very first post, that he's a:

 

-sad invading countries for Lebensraum, wreaking havoc on a whole generation across Europe, couldn't keep his henchmen in check, not seeing long-term consequences to achieve short-term results, preying on his own population to get short-term results,

 

-lying turning his back on Russia, looked for a scapegoat as a means to an end, breaking the Munich agreement, the forced suicide of Rommel and the following cover-up,

 

-manipulative Filling the minds of people with propaganda and creating a reign of terror, Hess, Goering, Rohm, strategic blunders then hiding behind the supposed inadequacy of other people,

 

-megalomaniac German race superiority, glorification of German's history, an almost cult-like glorification of his person, his preposterous plans to rebuild Berlin into a capitol that fits the Third Reich, how long was his reich supposed to last again (?)

 

 

 

These were all leadership decisions/visions. It sure fits the description of 'a brutal psychopath' to me. Your statement on ethics being irrelevant in a dictatorship may hold for in-state affairs, since the dictator has the power to set the ethics. This leader however, decided to operate on an international stage where these ethics are very relevant. Poorest leadership decision he made if you ask me.

 

 

 

Let's just agree that I look at other qualities to define a good leader than you. I strongly disagree with your point of view however, that ethics are not part of what makes a good leader.

[Kilo]

It's laughable that anyone is trying to rationalize this. How about you think of it this way...you bring home a girl/boy to meet your parents, he/she helps old people, they volunteer their time to numerous causes, they are really intelligent...oh by the way they just happen to hate "certain" people and try and slaughter their entire race....... :XD:

 

 

 

That's irrelevant regarding the quality of their leadership or other such things. Ethically, yeah he was bad, but as I said, it's not that simple.

 

 

 

But, he was a bad leader, he (or Himmler I suppose, but as the guy up there said "He didn't have leadership over Himmler, and by not stopping it shows he didn't mind) didn't just kill Jews, he also killed the disabled, Pow's, and gays. Is that the quality of good leadership? Killing off people you don't like? The reason hilter got Germany *slightly* out of their depression was by creating factories to *fund* the war! To *lead* Germany to a war without any previous engagement! How is that good leadership??

[evilrodyle]

Nice topic

 

 

 

Im gona sum it up, the guy was crazy, evil, BAD...

 

 

 

I think I got a topic that beats this thought;

 

 

 

"Osama Bin Ladin good or bad? Whats your opinions?"

 

 

 

 

 

Pros:

 

 

 

*..err

 

 

 

*...hmm

 

 

 

*...he was loyal to his religion?

 

 

 

Cons:

 

 

 

*everything else