Login/Sign Up




Was Hitler a good leader?
Politics

pootdispensorheer
Jan 31, 2010
29 votes
30 debaters
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

19
Yes, his policies were great and helped Germany get out of the mess it was in Post-WW1


newbit
Jan 31, 2010
4 convinced
Rebuttal
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


 
hojin994
Jan 31, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
hmsbeagle
Feb 04, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
newbit
Feb 01, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

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.

 
processing
Feb 01, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
muzzerfooka
Feb 02, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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

 
armitage
Feb 02, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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?

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

he was a great leader he got all those people under his control..thats a good leader...umm what he did after was horrible

 
fareplay
May 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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!

 
giantscoach
Jun 22, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

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.

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
bvn
Oct 28, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: larryt700 Show

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.

 
thethirddgree
Oct 29, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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

 
tymcc18
Mar 29, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
ake15
Nov 22, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
blackdawn
Dec 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
antoniothedebater
Dec 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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.

 
0 convinced
Rebuttal
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..

-peace- :)

 
+ Add Argument

10
No, he was a hateful and terrible person. The world would be much better off if he had never existed


rebirth
Jan 31, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
The only good thing about him was that he wasn't Stalin.

 
timd
Jan 31, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Adolph Hitler was not a good leader.

Germany had a strong military coupled with advanced technology, yet Adolf Hitler pursued an parallel goal while fighting a world war, which was the persecution and genocide of the Jewish people. That goal, among other things, lead to multiple assassination attempts. If high ranking members of your own military are conspiring to assassinate you, you are not a good leader.

In August of 1939, Germany and the USSR signed Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which was a non-aggression pact. Less than two years later, implementing Operation Barbarossa, Germany invaded the USSR, breaking that pact. Thirteen months later, the Battle of Stalingrad began which was one of the biggest turning points in World War II for the Allies. Adolph Hitler made a horrible decision in his arrogance to assume he could take the USSR, and to do it when it was completely unnecessary as he had a treaty with the USSR.

 
hashref
Feb 01, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Honestly the question is far too simple. The world would have been better if he never would have existed; however, he did help Germany out of of Post-WWI depression that the Allies created. So in some respect, Hitler was a good leader, but in others he was not. What he did well was he was able to inspire a nation of people to a common goal. He created an economy; granted an economy of war with it's neighbors, but an economy nonetheless. But couple that with his many, many tactical military blunders, mistrust among his ranks and his genocidal ideals, this would seriously disqualify him as a great leader in my mind. A great leader is the whole package, not just a fractured idea of what leaders are "supposed" to be.

 
larryt700
Jan 31, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
How was Hitler a good leader? Because he brainwashed people? Because he took advantage of Germany when it was at its worst time? Because he used Germany's depression as a catalyst for blaming the Jews? Was he good tactically when he fought two fronts at the same time in Eastern Europe and Northern Africa? How was he a good leader? He was lucky that Japan came in when they did to help deter us from smoking him from the start. I think we as a modern people have to be very careful who we select as leaders simply because we want CHANGE!!!! We have a good example of what NOT TO DO as a society, yet we make the same mistakes. That's why we need to not only know history but keep referring to it when we continue to make stupid freakin mistakes... IE OBAMA!!!!!

 
frankiej4189
Jan 31, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: newbit Show

When i think of the word "leader" especially in terms of government, i dont just think of the person in charge. A governmental leader is someone who is able to guide his/her people towards the best possible path and provide what is best for his/her people.

Adolf Hitler was an amazing liar, he was advantageous, cunning, decieving, and perhaps one of the the most manipulative people in all of history, but he was no leader.

 
kleptocrat
Jan 31, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Hitler, despite his moral ineptitude, was charismatic speaker, and a great, if not good, person. He changed the course of history. However, even without considering his domestic policies, Hitler was an ineffective leader. He was overzealous. Had he been content with most of Europe–Poland, France and Austria–he might have successfully expanded his empire. But he failed. It comes down to whether or not he succeeded, and he did not.

 
larryt700
Feb 01, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hojin994 Show

Wow, with that logic, I guess Jim Jones was a good leader too huh? How about David Koresh? Geez, if that's your definition of leader, then pretty much any psychopath in history would fit that bill by your standards...

 
vague
Feb 04, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I could not help but post to this one.

Ok so I read everyone's responses and all I can say is this.

Hitler carried a country out of a depression yes...

However, he did not do it in a way that ensured success for the long run. With that I can say he was a bad leader.

He also had is own personal goals that did not sit very well with the rest of the planet. With that I can say he was a bad leader.

He killed his way to office...not earned..he killed everyone in his way. Good leader?

Seriously this guy was an idiot that took advantage of a siutation in Germany.

You see after WWI Germany was in a bad state.

At that point there existed a political party for every type of person in the country. There was one for farmers...business men..the poor.. the rich. Therefore, nobody was really running the country.

That of course had nothing but negative effects on the economy and such. All hitler did was provide a temporary band-aid for a dying country. This great leader that brought a country out of a depression only did so to fuel his war machine.

A good leader intends on producing positive results. Positive meaning whatever you want it to mean. Hitler was definately not a good leader.

 
larryt700
Feb 10, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: toxichamburgerhelper Show

So control makes a good leader? With that point of view then abusivers in relationships are good leaders, as well as charles manson... Way to go!

 
bookworm
Jan 31, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The question is not whether or not he was a good person. I don't think you would get much of a debate on that one. It's about whether he was a good leader. A person can be good at leading, but still lead them in a wrong way. Unless the word good here is used as the opposite of evil, rather than skilled.

 
cicero
Jan 31, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Hitler knew how to lead his country but not where to lead it. The two are equally important components to the definition of leadership. Of course his ability to turn a povern stricken hopeless crowd into a patriotic frenzy burning with zealous nationalism got him into a leadership position. It's the fact that his passion drove his country to commit terrible acts and eventually a worse economic position than they were after WW1 that defines him as a bad leader.

 
frankiej4189
Feb 02, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: newbit Show

Hitler=Good Bullsh*tter, not a good leader

 
ricardo
Feb 05, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
He was a failiure in life at first he started a shoe company AND FAILED MISERBALY then he got pissed that the jews got all the best jobs in town so he started a dictatership at the begining he was so stupiddd the allies could defintily beat the axis he even knew that but noo HIS IDIODIC reasons caused both jews and germans to die

 
ricardo
Feb 05, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: processing Show

Sorry but you are wrong check in the history in WW I there was three German leaders in WWI the person failed germany miserbaly the second person wanted democarcy but he got murdered the third leader didn't want to change anything he said right now it was just fine but back then 65% jews didn't get jobs Hitler promised a brighter future but in his speech he never said to kill jews he siad he disliked them but not KILL but Germany back then was really poor and bad after WWI so HITLER was there only chance all three leaders competing against him failed it was only HITLER

 
teachme
May 19, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
He was magnetic, persuasive...penetrating, and even hypnotic...in his power and control over his people.

However, he was NOT a "good" leader, in the sense that he was a leader with a horrific vision and mission. The outcome of his leadership was the embodiment of inhumanity.

 
matt1989
Dec 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Uhh, I`m not sure about this one.

Hitler came into power easily and was well liked mainly because he was an expert liar. Originally, coming out of ww1 Germany was in a depression and had nothing but old monarchistic leaders running the country and everyone was just about sick and tired of it. Then comes this new young guy who promises to fix everything wrong with the country and promises to make Germany known as a superpower among European countries.

Naturally everyone preferred to have him in power and with having the right people in his pocket he easily made Chancellorship. I would call anyone a liar who would say that under the circumstances they would have preferred to have Von Papen as their leader.

Anyways after Hitler was put into power, he broke the country, (subtly) into Gaus or districts. Then to each Gau he assigned a Gauleiter which is essentially a Gau-leader. This person`s job was to cater to whatever the demographic of that Gau wants. Ie: you hate jews? we`ll run them out. You`re poor? we`ll help you out. You`re Jewish? we`ll fight for your rights etc...

So naturally everyone loved Hitler the savior and everything about the Nazi party, mostly of course. So while everyone is happy and well fed Hitler quietly brings some things in like the Gestapo and the Waffen SS and other kinds of "bully police" that were pretty much gangs that worked for the government and quietly did his bidding. Which included "getting rid of" opposing political parties or government officials or ruffing up some neighbourhoods or stores just to show that he`s in power and nothing `s going to stop it.

Then the war came and Hitler began to put his own personal agenda into play which included the gathering up and slaughtering of millions and millions of people. When anyone asked questions, (namely German citizens) they were told things like "oh they committed this crime, they"ll be back" or told some other kind of hokus pokus that made it seem legit because lying is what Hitler did best.

Guaranteed there are still TONS of people who deny the holocaust or other terrible atrocities that Hitler committed. How would you feel if someone came up to you and told you that someone you trusted with all your heart had done such terrible things. I PROMISE you that nobody wants to swallow news like that easily.

I, (having not lived under Hitler`s rule) know what has been done, just saying I don`t blame people for not accepting it especially when all the evidence comes mostly from everyone who opposed them during the war. Which coincidentally is everybody but it`s still a tough pill to swallow.

 
matt1989
Dec 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Sorry forgot my point.

So yeah, I don`t know about good leader, maybe excellent motivational speaker or liar but definitely not a good leader.

 
Cameron Chrest
Jan 19, 2014
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If he never existed, Germany would not have been divided for decades after World War 2.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain politics 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong