Absolutely, although I woundn't argue he was a good person, he was able to direct a group of people amazingly well. He was able to convince an entire nation that they should take a path that, we in todays world can look back and say that his philosophies and policys, if someone else was to advocate such an agenda today, would be promptly dismissed and possibly required to get 'help'. This is mark of an excellent leader, he was able to convince his nation, down a path that had a great deal of uncertainty and through times of conflict and great loss. I'm not defending the merit of the path that he did take but rather the fact he was able to implement the path he wanted.
By Definition,leader: 1. a person or thing that leads. 2. a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group., Hitler's actions meet these requirements and he was able to do them exceptionally well.
btw:Thankyou bookworm for clarification
A leader is a person who leads, correct? -Yes.
Hitler was able to lead and unite his people for his purpose, correct? -Yes.
Therefore, Hitler was a good leader.
EDIT: This question is very vague. It could be asking whether he was good at leading people, or if he was ethically correct. I assumed it was asking for the former...but if it was the latter, I would have to take the other side.
Yes, Hitler was a good leader. However, this does not, in any way shape or form, make what he did acceptable by any means. And while he was certainly not a "fair" leader, he was exceptionally good at persuading a large portion of a nation into believing in what he thought was right.
So you will argue that the word 'good' in this argument applies to the merit of the decisions he makes.
(n)Well any example you or others have is simply another argument that satisfies the definition I outlined prior. All the military blunders and human rights violations he did commit show that despite opinions of some of the smartest at the time, like the Germans who did come up with their advanced military technology, or the ones who suggested that it would be a disastrous to invade Russia, or the ones who tried to assassinate him via Valkrieg, he,- one man -, was able to convince, persuade others to a greater degree, that what he thought, was in the best interests for Germany at the time, despite all logic of others that was far stronger than his.
(n)So for each example give, and the more horrific the better, is testament to the definition I've outlined earlier.
(n)And even if we were to take each of this definitions into account, my opinion is that he is still a good leader, what people let him do and get away with, people just like you and me, who had family s /loved ones, who empathised with others, they thought and felt just like us, shows how well he meets my defn. and on the whole outweighs the your defn.
The only real test of a good leader is whether or not people follow. Obviously people followed Hiltler so he was a good leader. Whether you agree with his ideas is an entirely different question.
when we talk about leadership, we're not talking about how evil a certain someone can be towards a certain religion or race. when we talk about leadership, we talk about how that certain someone mobilizes his people. if hitler was able to convince the vast majority of the german population into doing inhumane things towards the jews, then he's probably really good at leading
The judgement of a leader is based on whether or not he has followers. As in you lead or you follow. Pick any leader in history then simply attack his faults and ideas. Finding fault is one of the easiest things in the world.
People followed Hitler for their own reasons. Some believed in what he was saying, some were afraid not to and some followed because they were not leaders themselves. He was not afraid to take the helm. How many can say the same?
he was a great leader he got all those people under his control..thats a good leader...umm what he did after was horrible
The question should not be if Hitler was a good leader, rather if Hitler was a good man......the answer would be obvious! BUT....to say he was not a good leader is ridiculous because he managed to lead such a large group of people through persuasion and the use of propaganda......he was a GREAT leader but a TERRIBLE man!
OBAMA was not our greatest president. He is towards the bottom. OBAMA hasn't helped the oil spill at all. I'm almost tempted to say that the United States is more disfunctional than New York state at the moment.
Of course he was a good a leader. Look at what he was able to do. The question is not if he was a MORAL leader, but a good leader. You can be good at leading people, and be a horrible human. If he was NOT A GOOD LEADER he would have not been able to have been as effective. Kinda of like Obama.
Hitler was probably the best leader in history. Because of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany's economy was failing miserably, their sense of nationalism and national pride/identity was severely broken, and they were mad and angry at the Allies for enforcing A FUCKING HARSH AND UNFAIR treaty on them. WAS IT THEIR FAULT THAT WORLD WAR 1 STARTED? NO...however the Allies needed someone to blame and the richest Axis power was Germany. Hitler took this opportunity to direct and rule his people so that they can be more united and have a happier life (with the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans were stripped of all their money, land, and natural resources, and therefore starvation and death was rampant all across Germany). In this sense, Hitler is a very compassionate and caring leader. And keep in mind a leader is SOMEONE WHO DIRECTS HIS PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE A PROSPEROUS LIFE; a leaders' first and top priority is to take care of his people. Hitler did this exceptionally well because he made the inflation rate go down and therefore made Germany richer; he improved the lives of his people tremendously. Hitler was an amazing leader because he made Germany's economy improve DRASTICALLY, he restored the national identity of Germans, and he made his people's life much better. And if you think Hitler "BRAINWASHED" or "DECEIVED" or "MISLED" his people, read the Treaty of Versailles and its terms and conditions. Then you will see that Hitler and the Germans had every right to be mad at the Allies, particulary France and Great Britain.
i dont nessecarily think hes a very good leader, but it did help germany in a way by getting it out of inflation. i personally believe that if i were to go back in history i would have never tried to end his life. i think his rule taught certain people lessons. If you think hitler was bad, i totally agree, but think of what the world would be like if we didn't have WW2, think of how messed up germany would probably be. I think that in a way it helped the U.S be more prepared for battles and increase awareness that any country in the world could make a big mark on history if they went hostile and tried to take over the world.
What kind of world do we live in really?
everyone for themselves
Adolf Hitler lead his country to Victory many many times. In face he Almost had control over all of Europe before his military power began to diminish. Yes, he lead Germany very well military wise in WWII, BUT He is still messed up in the head. He still killed over 11 million Jewish people. This does not, however make him any less of a leader.
There is no question here, Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time. He led german through one of the best military campaigns of all time.. the only reason people argue this is because obviously.. he was not a good person.
I don't deny that we have every right to hate him, but personally I think that if his policies were more humane and he didn't start a war, he would've made quite a good leader.
This statement is subjective in many ways. One, we have to know which perspective we are taking, whether we are taking the perspectives of the victorious Allies, the brutalized Jewish, or the "superior race" (Germans) that Adolfo Hitler wanted to populate. However, I am taking the perspective of the Germans because it is a much feasible perspective. First, the policies of Hitler, if implemented properly, could have adversely affected the outcome of the war. One example is the use of the V-2 rockets. If developed properly, it could've posed a threat against the Western Powers. But, sadly, no. Hitler also, in a sense, satisfied the people's sense of security, as he was able to impose a scenario of a victorious German Army. In other words, he was a good leader to the Germans.
okay....so here i really want to agree with the fact that Hitler was a good leader...
i mean, no tom,dick or harry can just come and get his country out of the doldrums it was in....and for Germany's condition...it was TERRIBLE! even in those conditions, Hitler was able to lead his nationsto such an extent that Germany could participate in another war..
Plus, Hitler was just asking for the Danzing Port as he had to do something profitable for his nation...it was the Allies' insecurity that sparked off the war..
And...as everyone did say, Hitler was able to convince a huge populace into his ideology and that is what a leader needs to do (okay the fact that his ideology was something totally not humane is the different part) BUT, on this basis, we cannot question his ability to lead.
For example, you possess all the good leadership qualities like you are able to convince people, are able to co-ordinate everything, do the best for you team, no one should be labeling you as a "bad guy".
Agreed that a good leader should always do what is right, but if we see from the point of view of the people for whom he did all of that, his actions cannot be called as something that are not intellectual...( i still do not mean to say that his atrocious crimes should be pardoned)
But, the point i want to make is, that Hitler did have the potential to be a great leader, in fact he WAS a good one, the only this is that, he would be much more respected if he had done with the unpardonable crimes..