Was Hitler an effective leader?

Question

I am Jewish myself, and am not trying to be racist. Keep in mind that he effectively conquered all of Europe, save Great Britain. He convinced people (in his country) that Jews were bad people that had to be eliminated.

Answer 1

He wouldn't have been if he'd used his real name, Aloïs Schickelgruber.

As for anti-Semitism, it was endemic in central Europe. He just played on it.

Answer 2

Think about what you are asking.

Was a man who led his country and most of Europe into a series of disastrous wars resulting in millions killed, a man who employed genocide as a means to bolster popular support an effective leader?

I guess it boils down to how do you define an effective leader?

An effective leader is someone who improves the lot of the people he is leading at the very least, and the world in general.

I think it is safe to say that Hitler's leadership brought nothing but misery, pain and unspeakable outrage to the world.

You say that he conquered all of Europe. Technically that is not true, but even setting that point aside he *lost* the war. So it does not seem right to extol his military acumen. Any idiot can start a war (a certain recent U.S. president has eloquently demonstrated that), but that's not quite the same thing as winning a war. Nor are all wars won worth fighting. There is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory where by winning, you actually lose. In Hitler's case it was even simpler--he lost by losing.

So obviously my answer is no. He was about as far as you can get from being an effective leader.

Answer 3

No, Hitler was not even close to being an effective leader consider how much he was aiming for. If a conclusion must be drawn, he was too simple minded.

Fact that he didn't win the war says that he wasn't.

The initial surprise attacks gave him an enormous advantage but it wasn't followed up effectively. His waste of natural resources into too many risky technological ventures was another blunder.

There was no foresight with the UK nor Russia at all. (He should have learned from Waterloo and Napoleon.) He had logistic as well as geographical problems that he did not consider.

There were not much flexibility in his plans and little trust in his generals, so it costed him Normandy as well as Africa. His spies did not do enough damage to UK to be effective. The genocide was bad PR and lost of human resources. I see a real terrible mis-management of human resources.

As an empire builder he did not even see the need to capture the heart of the people in other countries -- just plain brute force. So again there was in-effective PR work.

His invasion turned into a defensive war by sheer lack of forethought.

The seemingly effectiveness was just the side-effect of a dictatorship style of government, but it lacked overall management of a complex chaotic situation which WWII was.

The only thing I could really give him was his over dramatic showmanship -- he had style and it caught the Germans.

In a nutshell, he took on the world by his inflated ego just like a fanatic tiger would have. At the end he was taken apart piecewise by a pack of cunning wolves.

Answer 4

Before I answer let's get one thing straight. He did not single out Jews - He singled out all groups of people that were not blonde-haired and blue eyed. Ok? Gypsies, blacks, eastern-Europeans, were all targeted as part of his obsession with the perfect race and genocide. I know because my family were part of the non-Jewish groups that were targeted in Europe at the time of his hate-campaign.

Secondly, yes he had effective qualities - but only because he fuelled the genocide with the egos of those who fell into the 'perfect race' category.

Unfortunately a successful leader does not set his ideology up against 7/8 of the rest of the world's population. He lifted himself up for a BIG fall from the start - and if he had in fact seen the big picture would not have even taken on the task.

Truly effective leaders see the big picture far enough to see beyond his faulty beliefs.

Answer 5

I don't know if effective would be the right description. A better term would be charismatic. He knew how to play to people's emotions, and seemed to engender loyalty to his ideas. As the war progressed he became more paranoid, and this drastically effected his leadership ability. He finally reached a point where he became completely withdrawn, and only dealt his closest advisors. In these days he seemed to believe that only he knew what was best for Germany. He stopped listening to the advice of his Generals, and this in part led to the eventual downfall. So I guess my answer would be no, Hitler was not an effective leader in the end.

Answer 6

I would say that he and his henchmen (the first ones with brown shirts, bullies and sexual predators and sexual deviants) used force and fear and other dubious means to get elected; that led to a certain degree of success; they acted as moral champions in the eyes of the public. He later used propaganda that divided people, that pitted the populace against one another by offering the citizenry so-called common enemies (those who were least likely to break the laws), and he turned a near bankrupt country into a world threat and he called it patriotism and nationalism. He brought about war. Yeah, he was pretty effective. Sounds pretty much like another person in office today; I won't mention his name but, I call him Dubya Hedge, figure it out.

Not too far-fetched to believe, by the way. Remember Garesh, Jim Jones, and the other sect in California (I think) that poisoned themselves waiting for a spaceship to take their souls away? We have that to this very day that persuade several women to live in polygamous marriages... if that ain't brainwashing (they also receive Food Stamps and do lie to get them!). We have some religious leaders today that brainwash the most gullible (regardless of intelligence) to strap bombs to their bodies to kill enemies!

We've had those throughout history. How about Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great? Mussolini. Lenin. Castro. Idi Amin. Dubya.

Answer 7

Effective only to a certain extent - that of being able to control the opulace & impose his will on the masses, including the leading military leaders.

However, he was indecisive at times, & when making decisions, failed to take into account realisitic problems & factors. In fact he often had good advice given by intelligent & reliable subordinates but seldom listened, if at all.

Answer 8

I would think before the whole "Kill the Jews" thing, he was a very effective leader. Germany became a huge power in the world, because of Hitler.

But then he went nuts.

Answer 9

well he was partely an effective leader because he had a mission and a plan and he was able to effectively lead his people to carry out allot of what he wanted.. was he a responsible leader, no. Was he a just leader? NO.. was he a humane leader.. NO.. Was he a stable minded leader.. NO.. was he a loving , caring leader.. NO.. was he a justified leader.. NO... however he nearly accomplished what he wanted... so he was partially effective

Answer 10

Hitler united a troubled, poverished country. He drove it to become an industrial power. He elminated his oppostion. He brain washed a nation into destroying other countries, peoples, and ideals.

I'd say he was an effective leader, but not a great leader.

Answer 11

Well it looks like he was on Methamphetamine. He went mad. He left his people in poverty after he lost the war and he did not go down with his ship so to speak. He lost his war. So besides the social atrocities and the evil inside him I do not think he seved a good to his people either. If they opposed him he killed them too. He did not allow them to have connection with the outside world. He disarmed them. He trained their own kids to rat them out. He burned books and did not let them listen to foreign radio. If they wanted to leave they had to escape. They could do things, but their kids could report them. If their kids wanted to go to school they had to become a hitler youth. I do not think he was a good leader for his people either. He did no good for no one. He created death for many people and he hurt his own people. I think he was carismatic, but he used it for bad. One would wonder if he had just be sucessful with his art if he could have lived and left others alone. So he destoryed innocent people who were jews and his own people who oppsed him. He also destroyed other people. It was early day computers that helped him catalog the people. History may repeat itself and we have friends of hitler and hitler money in office in the USA right now as I am sure you know. You are not being racist. Nope I do not see what good he did. Everything he did went down with a crash. Unlike a loyal captain of a ship like the titanic he was not there with them. We do not really know where he went or where the other Nazis hid. We did not find all those cowards. It is amazing to me that there are still so many angles to that war and that disease of a man to understand after so much time has pasted, but there are. I learn more and more each year.
I have met some people whom I believe are former Nazis in my home town. They will not speak of it, but they saw hitler in his glory days. One was a soldier. The other was a wife. After the war they were living with an extended family in one room. It was very hard for them. They moved to the USA for a better life and put that life behind them. The frezzing cold of germany and the life of poverty post the war. They have let non evil lives in the USA since then. One would have to believe that people were forced to do things they did not want to do just to survive.
I think Hitler was good at getting people to commit social injustice at the detrement to themselves at the threat that they would be hurt if they did not help him. A good leader no.
We must remember our history because as they say it can repeat itself. Thinking is stressful, but it can be good for our future as a whole.