I was having a discussion with my friends, and somehow someone happen to come up with a question about Hitler...was he a great leader or did he have a "sick" mind? Come on... I mean he may be evil, he may have a sick mind, but he was smart, otherwise how would he had counquered the most of Euroupe and terriozed the world into WW2. What do you think Hitler was?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why being a great leader and having a sick mind are considered exclusive. While I'm not entirely sure that Hitler was really a great leader -- he made too many obvious mistakes for that to really apply, IMO -- he was reasonably effective at implementing his chosen programs for a while. But he ALSO clearly had, as you put it, a sick mind.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
He led his people into something they still haven't fully recovered from. He cemented hatred, suspicion and fear of Germany in the minds of much of the rest of Europe. That's not what a great leader does to those he leads.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
I'm assuming this belongs on the Other Side?
He seemed to be very adept at getting people worked into a fervor and then using that momentum to his advantage. I wouldn't say he was a great leader militaristically, nor was he a good leader for his people. He was good at controlled rabble-rousing however.
Edit: Oh yeah, he was absolutely twisted in the mind. Very much crazy.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Before he went nuts he did bring back germnay from a third world economic depression to one of the worlds most dominant military powers. This doesnt change my opinion that he is one of history's greates monsters
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
a military build up that would've in of itself crippled Germany, 80 Billion dollars from 1933 to 1939 is not sustainable by ANY military at that time.
His victories in Poland and France was due to his trusting his younger Generals at a criticle time, he was suspicsious of his General Staff of the "Old School" and their Protests at Anschluss and the Munich Conference made damn sure he didnt trust his older more experianced but slower Generals.
So instead he trusted newer kids like Gudarian and Manstein who proposed in the first case using Blitzkrieg in Poland, and in the second case putting the bulk of the Panzer forces in the Ardennes (Gudarian was a huge help having served in the Ardennes in WWI and thus assured Hitler that it was passable to tanks).
He was good at manipulating people which allowed Germany to become somewhat war ready by 1939, but as the war dragged on his flaws acculmilated causing catastrophic defeats at Stalingrad, Kursk, Leningrad, Moscow etc.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
lesson learned dont mess with russia Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
As my WWII prof put it: One of the first things Hitler did when he got to Paris was visit Napoleon's tomb. Now, what are the two things you really should learn from Napoleon? England is harder to take than you'd think, and don't go to Russia.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The problem is an ambiguity in the word "great." Hitler was very effective at getting Germans to give him power. He was utterly ineffective at, say, not getting his country pulverized because of his actions. And he clearly wasn't good.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
You can also look at the definition of the word 'leader'. Boy did he ever lead ... and he was followed fanatically for the most part. So from that standpoint, he was adept at leading. But he was a complete and utter loony also, especially when it came to warfare. From my perusings of history, it seems that a leader is either great in war and sucky at politics, or sucky in war and great at politics. Hitler appears to be the latter.
Posted by Darakemba (Member # 9341) on :
I am currently doing a report on the Anthropology, Psychology, and the ideology of the Aryan race and in my research I found Hitler's 9 principles to leadership and I must say they are amazing. If this man wasn't the monster that he was he would have been an excellent leader. If you want I can find the book and post all the principles and a short explanation of them. There is one that sticks in my mind though ad it is "When motivated people can move mountains but it is the leader who tells them which mountains to move." He had great respect for the people of his country and knew that without them he would have no power even is his "people" where the blond haired, blue eye people of the "Aryan" race.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
not to be a bother but they arent exactly original, the concepts behind excellent leadership especially military leadership you can easily find in the works of Sun Tzu or Confusious.
Posted by Darakemba (Member # 9341) on :
I never said they were original. I understand that some of them may not have been his own original Ideas but the way he explains them to fir the current times in Germany are definatly his own.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I could totally kick Hitler's ass in a game of Axis and Allies.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i played it many times, basically you have to throw and i mean literally throw EVERY asset you have at Russia to ensure headway, you have to beat Russia in like 3-4 turns if your going to have enough time to fight off an Anglo-American expeditionary force in Europe.
(This is the AA Europe mode, the world map is substantially easier for the axis)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Remember the time during which Hitler rose to power. Germany was crushed after WWI, the economy was a shambles, moral was in the basement. Hitler appealed to the German sense of national identity and found someone else to blame for Germany's problems. He told the "good" about themselves again. Nothing makes us feel "good" about ourselves faster that hating somebody else.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Before he went nuts
You mean before 1889?
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
He was a great leader, but not a "good" leader, as in good vs. evil. Well, in some people's minds he was good, but not in mine.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think a lot of his craziness had to do with his daily injections of methamphetamines. Perhaps a lot of his successes were do to this as well.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Darakemba,
quote:He had great respect for the people of his country...
I'm not sure I understand whart you wrote beyond that, but Hitler certainly didn't have respect for a lot of the people in his country. He had respect for a chosen few.
And he was totally nuts (I say that in a mean, nasty, and vindictive way, not in a cute/charming/"nutsy uncle" sort of way)
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Hitler was
An effective motivator An ineffective General An evil person (in the accepted sense of the word 'evil'. To some, of course, he was not evil at all. But we will assume, for clarities sake, that we all agree that the word 'evil', along with all it's connotations, is applicable to Hitler).
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: in the accepted sense of the word 'evil'. To some, of course, he was not evil at all. But we will assume, for clarities sake, that we all agree that the word 'evil', along with all it's connotations, is applicable to Hitler
Yeah, if we all take into account that Adolf hitler was evil - which, of course, is not very true, but let's assume that - then he was a sick mind only.
Like the physicist who was asked to measure the surface of a cow - assume the cow is a sphere, and...
*grumble*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There were lots of things working in Hitler's favor; the other European leaders' reluctance to get involved in fighting him, to the point of placating him and letting him get away with things he shouldn't have, the people he surrounded himself with and how well they did their jobs, the general willingness of the German people to want to believe what he was saying... But yes, he managed his resources well enough to cover up his inadequacies for quite a while, he was very charismatic and good at convincing people as groups that what he wanted was good for them, and yes, he also had a sick mind. (And yes, I'm of the opinion that he-- or at least his chosen actions-- were very much evil.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
He was a crummy artist. All things considered, the world would've been better off if he'd learned to better at it.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
I think the best desription of Hitler I heard was this, "Hitler was an evil genius, a man who made the trains run on time, in a time when no one else could."
Edit:
I don't mean that in any way as saying that Hitler was a good thing, he was horrific. But we still have to give him credit, he pulled a country out of the dirt and set it up as the most powerful in the world (arguably). He was a genius, but he was evil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wasn't it Benito Mussolini who (supposedly) made the trains run on time?
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: He was a crummy artist. All things considered, the world would've been better off if he'd learned to better at it.
Bob, even if Hitler would succeed as an artist in Vienna and never go into politics - it is quite possible that someone else would fill in the gap. I think that the political and socio-economic situation in Germany after WW1, and the weakness of the democracy in a country, which had no democratic tradition whatsoever, would lead to an agressive war anyway.
There might have been less bloodshed, no attempts to wipe out entire peoples, or to dispose of mentally disabled people and homosexuals - it would just be a "regular" war. On the other hand, it could have been worse. Not that I have any ideas right now...
Posted by Goldenstar (Member # 6990) on :
quote:Originally posted by whoelse10: I was having a discussion with my friends, and somehow someone happen to come up with a question about Hitler...was he a great leader or did he have a "sick" mind? Come on... I mean he may be evil, he may have a sick mind, but he was smart, otherwise how would he had counquered the most of Euroupe and terriozed the world into WW2. What do you think Hitler was?
I think he's right up there with Napolean. Both were great but could have been even greater if they'd done things slightly differently so they didn't get screwed in the end.
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Napolean was the best person the world had ever seen. Right up until somewhere around 1802. By the time he was exiled, he deserved it. Shame; the world under Napolean could have been wonderful. Hitler on the other hand, was a decent artist, but he was just plain bonkers. Still, I guess some people just can't stand buff Jews. (Family guy reference, for those of you who didn't catch it.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jimbo the Clown: Napolean was the best person the world had ever seen.
That's quite a claim. What makes you think that?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I don't think it is right to assume that the people of Germany loved or respected him: in authoritarian and oppressive regimes, it was far more safe to seem enthusiastic and supportive than risk being perceived as a party enemy. In fact, when Stalin gave speeches, he had to give orders on how to control the clapping because they were all so petrified of being the first to stop.
Also, just because someone has ascended to a position of authoritative power does not mean that they inspire the majority, are intelligent or even actually adept. Seriously, go to the annual World's Worst Dictators and you will understand my point.
Darakemba: Sounds like a fascinating class. But how did he respect those around him? I am thinking of how he essentially purged the old SS out of paranoia/disgust. To me, it sounds a lot more like he terrified them into obeying.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)