Jump to content

Hitler Good Or Bad? Whats your opinion?


miss18

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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??

 

 

 

Where he failed as a tactician towards the end (Blitzkrieg was genius), he made up for with his ability to inspire an entire nation and get them behind a war effort. It takes a powerful leader to do that. He began to fail towards the end of the war (see the film Downfall, it's excellent).

 

 

 

The point was more made to assert that ethics (sadly) have little to do with the quality of a military leader.

 

 

 

It's weird, I almost feel like i'm defending Hitler in this thread. I'm not, what i'm trying to do is show that Hitler is not the modern day satan that he's made out to be in popular culture and society, and that he was by no means the worst, there are many equally bad people out there.

 

 

 

Of course his eugenics policy was disgusting, but so is any and his was far from the only one. He also had a smaller part to play in it that he's made out to have, Himmler (the coward) visited the death camps far more than Hitler.

"Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

Without Hitler, the nazi party wouldn't have had such a brilliant spokesperson.

 

It's not like you find people who can make a whole nation believe what you think are easy to come by. The Nazi Party could have risen to power still, but using different main propaganda points and such. Without Hitler, it could've taken longer for them to have power, and Japan would've striked first, and it could've been Europe helping America. So I think there would've been differences.(obviously, really)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big softy I don't like when large amounts of people die.

 

 

 

Save them all until I die, then the world can over populate I wont be around to see the problems :P

igoddessIsig.png

 

The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

Without Hitler, the nazi party wouldn't have had such a brilliant spokesperson.

 

It's not like you find people who can make a whole nation believe what you think are easy to come by. The Nazi Party could have risen to power still, but using different main propaganda points and such. Without Hitler, it could've taken longer for them to have power, and Japan would've striked first, and it could've been Europe helping America. So I think there would've been differences.(obviously, really)

 

 

 

No, Hitler may have been a brilliant spokesperson but so was Goebells and many of the other Nazi's. I said before that only 40% of the country were behind the Nazi's when they rose to power, he hardly united Germany behind him. Hitler didn't really do anything to keep Germany on track that another German leader wouldn't.

 

 

 

For example the Autobahns were not started by Hitler, the depression was lifting by the time Hitler came to power. Even Hitler's ambitions in the East were illustrated similarly by the Weimar Government as they had failed to guarantee the Eastern Borders at the Locarno Treaty 1925. Hitler's terrible ideologies are the only things that seperate him from many of the German Leaders prior to him. Which is why it is argued that World War 2 was inevitable as Hitler was just an opportunist, his book Mein Kampf supports this as it just a series of misdirected anger towards people Hitler hated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... his book Mein Kampf supports this as it just a series of misdirected anger towards people Hitler hated.

 

 

 

Are you sure? Have you actually read the book?

 

 

 

It's hardly "just a series of misdirected anger".

 

 

 

It's poorly written, sure, but you can't just run about making generalisations about it based on who wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like you find people who can make a whole nation believe what you think are easy to come by. The Nazi Party could have risen to power still, but using different main propaganda points and such. Without Hitler, it could've taken longer for them to have power, and Japan would've striked first, and it could've been Europe helping America. So I think there would've been differences.(obviously, really)

 

 

 

Germany was in so bad condition during 1920s and 1930s mainly because of WW1 and its peace treaty, that if it hadn't been NSDAP, some other radical party would have taken the power. It could have been some other right wing party, it could have been the communists or it could have been anything.

 

 

 

And talking about the starting of WW2, it could have been the Soviet Union. After all they went against Poland just few weeks after Germany. If they had striken first, could it have been UK&France against them?

signaturehoh.jpg

 

I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.

Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... his book Mein Kampf supports this as it just a series of misdirected anger towards people Hitler hated.

 

 

 

Are you sure? Have you actually read the book?

 

 

 

It's hardly "just a series of misdirected anger".

 

 

 

It's poorly written, sure, but you can't just run about making generalisations about it based on who wrote it.

 

 

 

Blaming the Jews for the loss of the war, denying the fact the war was ever lost are in my view misdirected. I would also appreciate that if you are going to disagree with me you reply to all of my points, not just pick one line out of two paragraphs in an effort to make yourself appear smarter than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he also brought Germany straight back into economic trouble when he took on more countries than he could handle in WWII.

 

 

 

Actually Hitler only took on the countries that had taken land away from Germany after the first world war. After that, other countries became involved. Soon the whole world was battling it out.

 

 

 

He had his Countries best interests at heart. He wanted his country to be powerful and respected. Like ALL country leaders do. He just went the step futher. he decided to take the gamble. I respect him for that.

 

 

 

He only did what he thought was neccessary for his country. That reason was clear. The reasons why he thought that he should hate the Jews probably died with him. The dead tell no secrets after all.

 

 

 

So i would say he was good, but everything he did. Backfired upon himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep saying that we're discussing his leadership qualities, not him as a person. Sorry, but, what the smeg? If you lead your country with the ideology and the actual practice to commit mass genocide, then no, you're not a good leader either.

 

 

 

Simple as. Case Closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think improving the lives of some of your citizens at the expense of grossly abusing the human rights of other citizens is the mark of a good leader. So I think Hitler was pretty terrible, you know, committing genocide against entire ethnic groups and all.

 

 

 

That said, my same argument applies today in dealing with terrorism: I don't think it's okay to improve the safety of some people by abusing human rights and torturing "suspected terrorists" who have never been charged with anything in Guantanamo.

Everybody hug and spread the love :D

 

siggypooro0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL ok, let's weigh this up with pros and cons...

 

 

 

Cons

 

* Started a world war that was responsible for the deaths of 55 million people

 

* Authorised mass genocide of 6 million jews, because they were... well, jewish. Geez

 

* Invaded other countries without provocation

 

* Established the Gestapo so he could kill polictal and domestic enemies

 

* Caused crippling collateral and economic damage that lasted decades (my own country only just finished paying off it's WW2 debt a few years ago)

 

 

 

Pros

 

* ummm...

 

* I'm thinking....

 

* I'll think of something....

 

* Oh yeah, he was tee-total (didn't drink)

 

* And he didn't smoke

 

* Invaded France (joking)

 

* Started a technology revolution

 

 

 

Overall, gotta say the guy was a nut and is a sterling example of what a human being should not be

 

 

 

:XD: man after my own heart, well said Harrington, well said. To bad I can't buy you a drink :uhh:

lord+krohn.png

RS name: lord krohn Combat 138

slayer specific: 103 whips, 38 dark bows and 250+ dragon boots dropped to date.

Dragon drops: 5 Half shields, 21 drag legs, 8 dragon skirts, and 9 drag meds dropped to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, i cant believe i have actually seen people saying hitler was a good leader. let me remind you all of one little thing, HE KILLED MILLIONS OF INOCENT PEOPLE, JUST BECAUSE HE DIDNT LIKE THEM! how anyone could ever say that hitler was a good leader is just beyond me. there is more to being a leader than have charisma.

Say what you mean and mean what you say because those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL ok, let's weigh this up with pros and cons...

 

 

 

Cons

 

* Started a world war that was responsible for the deaths of 55 million people

 

* Authorised mass genocide of 6 million jews, because they were... well, jewish. Geez

 

* Invaded other countries without provocation

 

* Established the Gestapo so he could kill polictal and domestic enemies

 

* Caused crippling collateral and economic damage that lasted decades (my own country only just finished paying off it's WW2 debt a few years ago)

 

 

 

Pros

 

* ummm...

 

* I'm thinking....

 

* I'll think of something....

 

* Oh yeah, he was tee-total (didn't drink)

 

* And he didn't smoke

 

* Invaded France (joking)

 

* Started a technology revolution

 

 

 

Overall, gotta say the guy was a nut and is a sterling example of what a human being should not be

 

 

 

:XD: man after my own heart, well said Harrington, well said. To bad I can't buy you a drink :uhh:

 

 

 

 

 

lol, nice touch.

Say what you mean and mean what you say because those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, i cant believe i have actually seen people saying hitler was a good leader. let me remind you all of one little thing, HE KILLED MILLIONS OF INOCENT PEOPLE, JUST BECAUSE HE DIDNT LIKE THEM! how anyone could ever say that hitler was a good leader is just beyond me. there is more to being a leader than have charisma.

 

 

 

When Society starts claiming that Hilter was a good leader, you should start finding a nice comfy rock to hide under! Its going to get ugly in the years ahead!

 

 

 

If you would have said Hilter was a good leader back in the 40's, you probably would have been shot... 10 times... even after your dead.. and they shoot you again.. and burry you.. and shoot your grave.. 10 times a day.

 

 

 

~Defender~

If you love me, send me a PM.

 

8 - Love me

2 - Hate me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Was Hitler a good leader of Germans?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Just like my old teacher said. The war is not only a tragedy for occupated, but also for occupators. In Hitler's mind, someone who didn't support him was his enemy. So Germans, especially German soldiers had to do something often being against their nature or believes - to kill innocent people. They were not only soulless killers, we all have to agree - they were like all other nations - good and bad, feeling and unfeeling. But they were forced to stand on one of the sides: to live and be like Hitler, or not to be and be killed. Some of them were scared and join nazi. Then they were forced to humilitate, oppress and kill in the name of fuhrer's glory. Wouldn't the soldier, normally harmless and peaceful, remember the face of terrified "enemy" - so often woman or child - if he had to kill him/her? I bet he would, for the rest of his life... His own little big tragedy. Only one of houndreds. The war was considered as a "right move" only by REAL nazi.

 

 

 

But as a terrible mistake for all others, especially for LOTS of Germans that couldn't see the point of racism and murdering "worse" nations.

 

 

 

Another point showing us that we cannot generalize. '39-'45 Germans aren't equal to "nation of nazi"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Hitler a good leader of Germans?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Just like my old teacher said. The war is not only a tragedy for occupated, but also for occupators. In Hitler's mind, someone who didn't support him was his enemy. So Germans, especially German soldiers had to do something often being against their nature or believes - to kill innocent people. They were not only soulless killers, we all have to agree - they were like all other nations - good and bad, feeling and unfeeling. But they were forced to stand on one of the sides: to live and be like Hitler, or not to be and be killed. Some of them were scared and join nazi. Then they were forced to humilitate, oppress and kill in the name of fuhrer's glory. Wouldn't the soldier, normally harmless and peaceful, remember the face of terrified "enemy" - so often woman or child - if he had to kill him/her? I bet he would, for the rest of his life... His own little big tragedy. Only one of houndreds. The war was considered as a "right move" only by REAL nazi.

 

 

 

But as a terrible mistake for all others, especially for LOTS of Germans that couldn't see the point of racism and murdering "worse" nations.

 

 

 

Another point showing us that we cannot generalize. '39-'45 Germans aren't equal to "nation of nazi"

 

 

 

thought this post was dead. #-o

Say what you mean and mean what you say because those that matter don't mind, and those that mind don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the second world war, approximately casualties for each country,

 

 

 

Germany Military 3,250,000 Civilian 5,600,000

 

Italy Military 226,900 Civilian 60,000

 

Japan Military 1,740,000 Civilian 393,400

 

France Military 122,000 Civilian 470,000

 

Britain Military 305,800 Civilian 60,600

 

United States Military 405,400 Civilian -

 

Russia Military 11,000,000 Civilian 6,700,000

 

China Military 1,400,000 Civilian 8,000,000

 

 

 

Hitler wasn't the only cause of the most cataclysmic event of human history, but by invading Poland he certainly became one of the biggest.

 

 

 

Also (slightly OT) in terms of numbers of bodies, I think that the word 'holocaust' should not be applied to what happened to the Jews.

vivimancer.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also (slightly OT) in terms of numbers of bodies, I think that the word 'holocaust' should not be applied to what happened to the Jews.

 

 

 

With a literal translation, yes - it is better applied to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler was a brilliant leader - no doubt about that. But sadly he was mentally ill and had an insane hate to jews. That overweights his skills as a leader, so Hitler was bad.

99 ranged | 99 magic | 99 defence | 99 hitpoints

Remember, it's just a game

Feel free to add me on RS. :) Always ready for a chat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i only read the first page, so I don;t know if this has been brought up yet, but I think he was a good guy for the reason many think he was awful: the genocide. I have nothing against Jews, in fact one of my friends is Jewish, but think about it; had all those people survived and reproduced, the world would be flooded with even more people than now,a nd our resources would be even more down the crapper. Sure, they could have died in a more humane way, but they still helped protect resources.

whalenuke.png

Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

angel2w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i only read the first page, so I don;t know if this has been brought up yet, but I think he was a good guy for the reason many think he was awful: the genocide. I have nothing against Jews, in fact one of my friends is Jewish, but think about it; had all those people survived and reproduced, the world would be flooded with even more people than now,a nd our resources would be even more down the crapper. Sure, they could have died in a more humane way, but they still helped protect resources.

 

 

 

I bet you wouldn't say that if your uncle or grandparents died in the holocaust.

dmanxb7.jpg

Trix.--quit WoW as of 12/07

Thank you 4be2jue for the wonderful sig and avatar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i only read the first page, so I don;t know if this has been brought up yet, but I think he was a good guy for the reason many think he was awful: the genocide. I have nothing against Jews, in fact one of my friends is Jewish, but think about it; had all those people survived and reproduced, the world would be flooded with even more people than now,a nd our resources would be even more down the crapper. Sure, they could have died in a more humane way, but they still helped protect resources.

 

 

 

6 millions is nothing, we'd need to reduce the amount at least 10 times more than that. Also it happened at the wrong place: Africa is the real problem and it's followed by Asia and South America.

 

 

 

Oh well maybe that was the excuse for genocides and massdeaths caused by the commies...

signaturehoh.jpg

 

I'd rather die for what I believe in than live for anything else.

Name Removed by Administrator ~Turtlefemm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was evil, sure he was a charasmatic leader, but he attempted to exterminate a perfectly religous group. Many young men were condemmed to die in the snowy hells of Stalingrad and Leningrad because for his arrogance. He lied to his people so he could invade another country.

 

 

 

ivangorodlj6.th.jpg

 

 

 

This pretty much sums it up. :shock: :o :shame:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.