Debate Hitler Bad leader.??

jannette_camou posted on Apr 20, 2010 at 02:18AM
I was studing and doing a report on Hitler before I did this study I thought Hitler was the worst Man that could have ever walked the earth. But I think he had some veary good leadership skills. The way he got so many people to follow him and the way he got people to understnd his point of views with just a speech was amazing .,
He is and will always be a monster but is that what he is or is he considered a man that.Had so much power that he should be considerd an amazing leader Ive just been wanting to get more views from other peopple on this subject.?

Debate 40 antwoorden

Click here to write a response...
een jaar geleden MissKnowItAll said…
I don't agree with him at all. I think he has some horrible and completely illogical views.

He was a OK leader. You see, in Germany at the time, there was such poverty (due to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles) that the German people would follow any leader they had. If you were living in extreme poverty, and someone came along and said they could help you if you trusted them, you would probably follow them.

In conclusion, I think Hitler was a merely OK leader. I think circumstances gave him an advantage when he rose to power. I don't think he would have been as sucessful if Germany had been richer.
een jaar geleden jannette_camou said…
Well thank you, I just wanted to hear what other people thought. and I agree with you
een jaar geleden MissKnowItAll said…
smile
Your welcome. :)
een jaar geleden germany123 said…
well installing fear always helps the insane leaders of the world.

een jaar geleden Sappp said…
Not just fear I think The entire nation was humiliated and unsatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles. Add the economical problems (in which the Treaty wasn't entirely innocent either- Germany would've paid till the eighties to pay everything) and people would've followed everyone who promised better.
een jaar geleden MadamOcta13 said…
I think he was a very powerful speaker. If only he could convince that many people to do good in the world...
een jaar geleden Eline_K said…
He had some good leader skills and all the circumstances were perfect, to bad his ideas were insanely cruel... If his ideas had been 'normal' he could have helped Germany a lot, I think.
een jaar geleden CrazyJ said…
sad
It's true, Hitler had AWESOME leadership skills, but what he did with it was not awesome. I can tell God gave him those leadership skills and i'm guessing that God wanted Hitler to do something unimaginably good with it, but instead he literary spat in God's face. He could've been a good dude, but no.
Rainshadow999 commented…
And God's intentions with Lucifer were...? een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden Bramblestar said…
sad
Hitler was a good leader but what he was leading was terrible. He could have used his leading skills for something productive but instead he started the secound world war.
een jaar geleden Irina92 said…
hm as others said above, Germany was in a terrible condition after the Treaty of Versailles. People needed to believe in someone who claimed he would make their country powerful and rich. Also I think that he got support from the richer of that period's Germany, as they wanted to find someone to "boot out" the communists. They thought that it would be easier to weaken Hitler later, but apparently they were wrong. Most circumstances were favourable for him, so he didn't need to be a "genious" to lead such a strong movement!
een jaar geleden LoopyLuna96 said…
Hitler was a good leader, but obviously what he lead was awful. It is important to remember the state Germany was in at the time, though. People were desperate for someone who could lead them.
een jaar geleden teddy-lover said…
crying
I personly think that hitler was a poof.
for those who say he was a OK leader you are a total :(
een jaar geleden teddy-lover said…
worried
Well i guess he was a OK leader but i did only say OK
een jaar geleden pandawinx said…
Hitler didn't go mad with power. He went mad after the first world war. He was a soldier who almost died in the gas attacks and after-wards germany wasn't allowed any tanks, planes or a army--- it was poor, he could barely feed himself!
And so, he became like the people he hated.
oh, the irony!
een jaar geleden benm said…
all despots are to a degree...good leaders.
een jaar geleden -sapherequeen- said…
To give my own viewpoint of Adolf Hitler;

Adolf Hitler is not necessarily who I can call a genius madman when it comes to his actions. Hitler definitely posssessed the delusional mind there, don't get me wrong. But not my point.

What I will give to Hitler was his exceptionally brilliant skills of leadership; his ability to become the chieftain of a vast group of people and lead them into his preferrable direction. He had a strong voice that blossomed in his speeches to his audience, and a astonishingly dominating exterior personality that formed him to be a perfect leader in one's eyes.

But to me, this is where it ended.

Having done a project that focused on Hitler's rise, the causes, and the development of Anti-semitism until the Holocaust, I am familiar with Germany's devastation after World War I that left them utterly helpless;

After suffering a humiliating loss to other nations, Germany was left with the most damaging effects of the first international war. Over the following years, the German people endured unemployment, the Great Depression, poverty, inflation, rundown factories, starvation and other serious dilemmas. Germany lost its name as one of the strongest, most prosperous nations of the world and could have literally been hanging by a thread to what little stability the country had left.

When a society is in such turmoil, the people will most likely be desperate for a solution. The Germans may have had their eyes out for an individual who they could see as the man that leads them to salvation and sanctuary. Unfortunately, Hitler became the perfect candidate for that role.

Due to Germany's problems that resulted in the simple manipulation of the vulnerable citizens, Hitler and his Nazi party strengthened in power and influence, and this eventually lead to such infamous destruction that many cringe from to this very day.

There is also the fact that Anti-Semitism has long existed before World War II. The word Anti-Semitism was created during the late 1800's I believe, by a German journalist who wished to find a word that describe immense hatred towards the Jewish population. There was violence, riots, repulsive heresay and prejudice in general against the Jewish citizens of Europe before Adolf Hitler's party had even formed.

So, my point is this;

Do I see Adolf Hitler as exceptionally brilliant and skilled? Yes, in the terms of leadership, guidance, and manipulation he was indeed any of this. But I think that this is where it ends. The negative effects of a demolished society and the old yet passionate emotion that is hate were also significant catalysts in the power that Adolf Hitler later on grasped in his completely dangerous, untrustworthy paws.

Just my two cents :/

EDIT: If the word 'Anti-Semitism' was not formed in the 1800's, then my second best guess would be near the end of the nineteenth century.
last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden Chaann94 said…
Hitler wasn't a great leader. He was a psychopath; a master in manipulation, comes off as charming, hatefull as hell and all the other things he did.

There was nothing great about Hitler. Him being able to become a leader was because of the stupidity and ignorance of others.
een jaar geleden Sappp said…
You are grossly simplifying the situation which caused Hitler to become the leader of Germany. Now, if you want to do that and look at Hitler as a monster, fine, but that way you will never learn from history.

Hitler was good in getting people to follow him. He had some good ideas (he improved Germany's infrastructure for example). However, the good things are nothing compared to the bad things done under his rule.
een jaar geleden Chaann94 said…
If you want to go and praise Hitler's traits that are classic symptoms of psychopathie(master manipulater, calculated, high IQ), go ahead. But obviously you haven't had the lessons about the shoa and you obviously haven't seen Die Welle(or The Wave)

Any master manipulator could become a dictator. Hitler wasn't that special at all.
een jaar geleden Sappp said…
Sorry, where did I praise any of those traits? I was not disagreeing with you characterisation of Hitler, I was disagreing with 'Him being able to become a leader was because of the stupidity and ignorance of others' because I think it ignores the many factors involved in Hitler becoming a leader. Factors I think are important to know if people want to prevent someone like Hitler ever becoming powerfull again.

I have seen the Wave and I wonder what lesson I did not learn according to you. But please, enlighten me.
een jaar geleden whiteflame55 said…
Hitler is worthy of some praise, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. He capably brought Germany back from the brink of economic destruction, expanded its borders dramatically (before they contracted back, of course), managed to make Germany a major player on the world stage, and effectively made Germans proud to be German.

Of course, he did so by the worst means imaginable. He killed millions in the Holocaust, his wars led to the deaths of 10's of millions, bringing in Japan and Italy to add to the death toll, he left scars on the human consciousness that will never disappear, and will be forever remembered as an evil man for all of it. Deontologically, he was a sadistic son of a bitch who deserved the worst of all possible ends.

That doesn't make him a bad leader, though. Much as we all want to scream bloody murder (I'm Jewish, and I lost many a family member in the Holocaust), he was effective in much of what he set out to do. He was a great leader, if you only look at the majority of his results and not the means by which he achieved them. Still, they cannot, nor should they, be ignored. Many supposedly great leaders became great by leaving a wave of corpses in their wake. Many of the leaders today have done terrible things akin to Hitler. And yet we hear far less about them.
een jaar geleden blackpanther666 said…
I agree with Sapp and Whiteflame. Hitler, while delusional and sadistic, was still a great leader, who managed to turn Germany from a failing country, into a super-power. While his methods weren't exactly admirable, considering how many Jewish people he slaughtered (or advocated slaughter of), he was a GOOD leader, he was simply a horrible person.
Chaan94, you obviously have some kind of predudice against Hitler, that goes beyond the normal predudice, or you are simply rationalising a pointless hatred, if you cannot see why others take the view of Hitler that they do. His bad traits were simply factors of him being an absolutely horrible PERSON, but that is different from being a great LEADER. Just because he wasn't a nice person and ordered the deaths of many, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good leader, because being a great leader, doesn't mean you have to be a nice person. Bonaparte wasn't a nice person, but he was a great leader and all French people would agree with that. The same goes for Stalin and Churchill. Both were great leaders of their time, but neither were nice people.
een jaar geleden italiangirl976 said…
Sociopath? Not diagnosed but may be possible. Evil? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. Stupid? Not at all. He obviously knew what he was doing. I would imagine it takes serious leadership skills to convince thousands upon thousands of people to follow you on a plan to kill so many people. Now, the fact that those skills were used for evil instead of good is a whole different debate entirely.
een jaar geleden ThePrincesTale said…
Bad? Yes.
Bad leader? No, a very effective one.
"Good leader" does not allude to one's morals, merely to how well one leads.
een jaar geleden hgfan5602 said…
He was not a bad leader. He was actually a very effective one, a very strong leader.
But...He did not do very good deeds. He killed people, committed genocide, and in turn shocked the world. That does not mean he is a bad leader.
een jaar geleden ducky8abug4u said…
Hello,

I'm going to give a completely different view, here.

Hitler was more of an ACTOR, than a leader.

He used his theatrics to sell a belief (antisemitism) that had already existed throughout an economically-depressed, Germany. He honed-in on his oratory (speaking) skills, spending hours in front of a mirror to perfect a performance. His ability to read the audiences' mood and improvise his speech, is a trait many actors/actresses have done to elicit the audiences' empathy or to inspire a specific reaction. Therefore, Hitler was no better than an actor.

Those people who sat behind him and promoted Nazi propoganda, those people who inspired and actually outlined how Nazi Youth marches were performed, those people who actually trained and lead their military into battle were, sadly,(and I hate to even have to admit this because it is insulting, imo, for me to look upon these cowards as leaders) the REAL leaders of Germany. They had the knowledge, the know how, and the tenacity to get things done. Hitler was just a manic-depressive, mentally unstable figure-head who fussed over the details of giving a speech rather then details of leading a nation to prosperity; and I thank God, he was crazy ass nut 'cause if he had all his faculties together, we might've ended up living in an entirely different world, now.



last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden aceg said…
"those people who actually trained and lead their military into battle were, sadly,(and I hate to even have to admit this because it is insulting, imo, for me to look upon these cowards as leaders) the REAL leaders of Germany. "

Just wondering in what sense you believe the German military leaders are cowards? Submissive to Hitler himself? Well that's very complicated matter. lack of valor? lol Guderian,Mainstein, Rommel and many others have faced numerous battle (many of them are bloody I am sure you know East Front and North Africa) that many people would dare to face.
last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden aceg said…
smile
"Hitler was just a manic-depressive, mentally unstable figure-head who fussed over the details of giving a speech rather then details of leading a nation to prosperity; "

lol not necessarily, Hitler may be driven by his madness and inner demon but that doesn't mean he was completely clueless about governing a nation. if you are looking for a realistic viewpoint of Adolf Hitler I recommoned John Toland's Hitler biography to you. Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich and William Shirer 's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich also give great oversight on that matter.
een jaar geleden Chaann94 said…
Well if your leadership caused millions of people to be horribly killed and even more to be scarred for life, I'd call you a bad leader.
een jaar geleden aceg said…
Lol If you look up info about European history, you will find every detail of dark past that exist beneath the cold stone. Take French as example, Napoleon's wars result in death of 1,800,000 Frenchmen and death of 2,500,000 military personnel in Europe. Still he was generally referred to as a great leader and militarist. People may question his morals and actions, but never doubt his leadership.
last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden ducky8abug4u said…
smile
Just wondering in what sense you believe the German military leaders are cowards? Submissive to Hitler himself? Well that's very complicated matter. lack of valor? lol Guderian,Mainstein, Rommel and many others have faced numerous battle (many of them are bloody I am sure you know East Front and North Africa) that many people would dare to face.

_________________________________________­___­___­___­___­

Rommel? Hmmm, that's interesting! No, I don't think Rommel's half-assed attempt to "knock off" Hitler during the tail-end of WW II or his two failed attempts to defeat the British army in North Africa counts as "acts of valor"...if that is what you're angling for. Mr. Desert Fox didn't wake up one day and suddenly realize der Führer was crazier than a shithouse rat. They all knew what was going on. It's only when he realized that Germany could lose the war that thoughts of assassinating Hitler came to mind. As for his leadership abilities, I hear he had potential to be an exceptional commander. It's just a shame it didn't translate on the field, seeing as Rommel was prone to making rash decisions.

Anyway, when I described the majority of Nazi German military leaders as cowards, I'm refering to individuals who encouraged widespread dehumanization "that defined itself in depraved acts of cowardice," evil and brutal voilence.

_________________________________________­___­___­___­___­___­
lol not necessarily, Hitler may be driven by his madness and inner demon but that doesn't mean he was completely clueless about governing a nation. if you are looking for a realistic viewpoint of Adolf Hitler I recommoned John Toland's Hitler biography to you. Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich and William Shirer 's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich also give great oversight on that matter.

_________________________________________­___­___­___­___­___­_

Thank you for the recommendation but I've never had an urge to read Tolland's historical views/account on Adolf.

We're all aware that Adolf Hitler inspired national pride in the beginning of his career as Der Führer but when it came to his skills as a leader (especially one as a military leader during the latter half of the war), he failed miserably and lead his country towards ruin.
een jaar geleden aceg said…
" his two failed attempts to defeat the British army in North Africa counts as "acts of valor"." you have a misconception about valor. The concept of valour exceed beyond winning and losing sides. If you want to discuss the reason of Rommel and North Africa Crop's defeat you can open another thread.

"Thank you for the recommendation but I've never had an urge to read Tolland's historical views/account on Adolf. " lol there was a famous quote from the famous book Art of War (I am not sure if you ever read it ) Details determine the outcome. Discussion on history subjects looks more into details than just shoot the bull.

"Rommel was prone to making rash decisions" A commander adjust his decision to changing circumstance (like the "great retreat" after 1942) and has to make a decision shortly. Rommel did it like many commanders that's why he was able to push the British back to Egypt (also his intelligence team played a huge role here) But a field commander is not the one that execute the strategy (the High Command, ultimately made by Hitler). Hitler's North Africa strategy was inconsistent. At first, He reluctantly agree to sent troops and Rommel to save the Italian from defeat at the request of Mussolini. It wasn't until late 1941 after hearing Rommel's numerous victories, had Hitler valued strategic importance of North Africa. But at the time Germany was heavily involved in East Front with Russians. Hitler can't promise much Substantial aid to Rommel. However, the British was able to get supplies and equipment from the U.S and their home country not to mention that they have powerful navy for assistance (advantages of naval superiority)... After all, Rommel was only one man he may achieve victories through tactics but he can't really change the outcome of war. War is competition in the overall national strength.
last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden aceg said…
"that is what you're angling for. Mr. Desert Fox didn't wake up one day and suddenly realize der Führer was crazier than a shithouse rat. They all knew what was going on." Well i wasn't angry i just think it is funny that you sitting there talking about history as if you were expert. I know this is debate but knowledge is still required don't you think. Just taking Karl Marx as example, he might be major critique of capitalism but he was not sitting at home and yell "down with the bourgeoisie" to proletariats haha. He actually read extensively (in Germany, France, Belgium and the famous British Library ) especially Adam Smith's Wealth of Nation to understand the history and nature of capitalism in real world before wrote his famous Communist' s Manifesto and Das Capital.

"They all knew what was going on."lol this may not be an accurate statement lol. German generals may know something but certainly not everything. For example, Field commanders may not know Hitler's plan of attack on Britain and Russia like the officers of general staff, or mass murdering Jewish people in Poland unlike Hitler's inner circles in Nazi Party (ex. Himmler, Goering). so you really need to be elaborate with that statement.

last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden Chaann94 said…
"German generals may know something but certainly not everything"

So how is keeping information from really important people good leadership?
een jaar geleden aceg said…
lol the right to learn the truth represent an ideal version of aspect in society, but it is far from truth in reality. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said a person who works and leads a meaningful life does not need this excessive burdening flow of information. It can become a burden. Same with the nature of top secret missions in every country. It is a political thing lol.
een jaar geleden Lt_Pupster said…
Yea Hitler was an outstanding leader, Germany was the worlds worst economy before his rule and after the economy was one of the best in the world. He conquered many countries that people thought would never fall. Produced the most efficient Military (kill death ratio wise), and rescued many eastern Europeans from Stalin... for a time (many Russians (around 300,000) immediately enlisted into the axis military from conquered lands in russia).

Then comes the bad stuff. Axis killed about 8 million jews. People around the world disliked those of the jewish faith anyway but not as much as the Nazis.

I believe there is a somewhat 'good' type of propaganda(if thats even possible). As I and a few others mentioned earlier people all over the world disliked or maybe hated jews. Society due to the atrocities committed by the SS and Hitler no longer harbors that dislike. After such terrible things have been done it is hard for a normal person to hate them so much. America compared to many other countries has a large amount of jewish populations especially in high influence areas such as new york and California. Large amounts of pro jewish propaganda is widespread and well i guess you can call it good because the anti-semitic numbers have dropped drastically. I myself have been subjected to large amounts of propaganda like that. Just a few weeks ago in school we had to watch an hour long play about those issues. Well maybe the halocaust in a way it improved how people think about Jews

Well Hitler was a good leader but bad person.
last edited een jaar geleden
een jaar geleden zanhar1 said…
I definaly don't agree with his actions or his beliefs but yeah, I think he's got some quality leadership skills.
een jaar geleden Rainshadow999 said…
laugh
I think he was an okay guy...I mean apart from all the Jews he killed he must of been somewhat nice. I think he might have gone over-the-top though when it came to ruling Germany. Hitler seems to be awesome with awesome leadership skills, but I can't say killed the Jews was the right thing to do. Let's just say he was racist but he had somewhat good intentions for Germany. :D

Like Lucifer, he made some bad decisions but he was okay and probably a little too competitive? I dunno, but he did hate Jews...A LOT.
Just saying but I bet he would've liked me. XD
een jaar geleden blackpanther666 said…
@Chaan.

Well if your leadership caused millions of people to be horribly killed and even more to be scarred for life, I'd call you a bad leader.

Well, for a start, he killed people he didn't see as being ideally created... It had no impact on his country, so killing millions of Jewish people didn't make him a bad leader, it made him a terrible person. I honestly don't see how it is so hard for you to understand. You keep getting mixed up between being a good person and being a good leader... The fact remains that being a good leader doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being a nice person. Being a good leader means bringing your country to prosperity, which is exactly what he did.

Basically, you can have your opinion as much as you wish, but it make it any more right for you saying so. Your beliefs aren't going to change the fact that leadership and personality/deeds are two very different things, that are defined and characterised differently. Labour under that impression all you like, but remember that history is more than just the idea of people being nice or not.
een jaar geleden hetalianstella said…
The way I see it, he was a horrible person with twisted morals. But leadership is about leading people, whether what you are leading them to do is morally correct or not is irrelevant. Minus out all of the cruel acts he caused and you are left with his techniques as a ruler. While I do not agree with what Hitler was doing in any way whatsoever, I have to admit his leadership skills were outstanding. The way he rose to power is fascinating really~ There's a reason why the leaders of today study him and other rulers of the past hoping to learn from their leadership qualities. He was dedicated and strong willed. He had a great sense of nationalism for Germany despite it not even being his native country, (he was born and raised in Austria). Germany was suffering through a great depression but when Hitler became chancellor the economy couldn't be better. Unemployment was at an all time low and everything in Germany was running more efficient because of him. What he preached inspired and gave hope to the German people which caused millions to follow him without question. A natural people pleaser. He had a strong sense of self confidence and always had a way to get people to listen to what he had to say. He had a vast knowledge of warfare, technology, a dedication to learn which added onto his fantastic memory. Though later on he became power hungry, a feeling which overwhelmed him and drove him into playing God, choosing which groups of people deserved to live and die. He was clever and gained unbelievable power all on his own, but then went on to abuse it. The world was his chess game. He was the king who used his pawns effectively. However I think his actions towards the end were rather foolish. He let his pride get the better of him and exhausted his military which left it on the verge of collapsing. Which then led to the Russians closing in on Berlin and his suicide. But his followers were still very loyal til the end. What he led them to do may have been revolting and atrocious. But that is because he was a bad person, not a bad leader~
last edited een jaar geleden