Two definitions of the word leader are "a person who directs a military force on unit" and "a person who leads" among others. Based on these, was Hitler a great leader or does the atrociousness of his ideas and actions eliminate him from any sort of praise.
2006-10-12 05:10:18 · 12 answers · asked by ? 2 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Yes he was, but as he got older, he started to lose it, and he got caught breaking his own rule - He fought a war on 2 fronts. Few people realize that Hitler hated Communism more than Jews, and if it weren't for the concentration camps, America and Britain may have let Hitler wipe out the USSR before interfering.
2006-10-12 05:22:59 · answer #1 · answered by pacerslover31 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Calling Hitler a great leader is like saying Osama is a great leader. It seems to me that great leaders end up being victorious in their endeavors, but Hitler failed miserably and Germany lost the war and many troops. Osama cannot be a great leader because he's hiding out in fear of the same death he encourages his cronies to embrace. No, great leaders do good things for mankind. Great generals may be closer to what you're asking, and even then, Hitler was a loser and a bastard. Osama could be his brother.
2006-10-12 07:20:45 · answer #2 · answered by heyrobo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would stay away from using the term "great" given his reputation I would say that would be considered offensive to some audiences. I personally would have no problem calling him an very "effective" leader. You are commenting more on his skill and you don't sound like you are praising his crusade against the Jews
2006-10-12 05:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by Psionyx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think based on the definitions of the word leader than technically he could be considered a great leader. I don;t agree with what he did at all, but if we are only going by the definitions than yes, he was a leader and he did it well.
2006-10-12 05:18:49 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler was a great orator. The fact that he had eleven regiments of nazis in the waiting and only sent two to Normandy, France when he knew the Americans were ivading eliminates praise. If it didn't, this question wouldn't be asked in English, it would be Deutsch.
2006-10-12 05:18:46 · answer #5 · answered by Phoenix_Slasher 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if someone is atour guide, and they are good at their job, and they give out treats, and whatever else. then they lead you to a spot where you die or get ill, are they a good leader?
lets say, They push you off the grand canyon,
or take you in the woods, and let you eat some poison mushrooms.
I think someone is a good leader, if you get to the destination.
as far as governments, the destination is happy people, who are benefited.
hitler poisoned people.
at first, he even wanted to wipe out old and handicap germans, but "softened" his view to just the jews and other assorted religions
he led his county to war, causign great suffering for the population.
his economy was in ruin
I mean, if a president did something that left this countrys money worthless,
and cities in ruin, do you think he'd get reelected?
2006-10-12 05:22:08 · answer #6 · answered by papeche 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a director of a military force, he was a military moron. Had he listened to his generals, instead of pursuing his own misguided ego, we would all be speaking German now. As a person who leads, well he led alright. He led Germany and the rest of the world into the greatest abyss of the 20th century. He deserves nothing but absolute destine, disgust and should be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
2006-10-12 05:37:31 · answer #7 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
based on the definitions that you provided, i would say that yes he was a great leader. he knew what he was doing and had the force and power to do it. i just don't think that what he did was right.
2006-10-12 05:19:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was truly a great leader, an amazing speaker, and a sick and crazy man. Had he used his abilities for good things, he would have accomplished much good in this world.
2006-10-12 09:08:03 · answer #9 · answered by ♥ terry g ♥ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Atrocities aside, he may have been shrewd, but was too megalomaniacal and paranoid to be considered "great". His commitment to his hideous ideaology was actually what interfered the most.
2006-10-12 05:15:56 · answer #10 · answered by adrianne 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋