English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-08 10:41:29 · 27 answers · asked by Korny Kaucasian Kraker 1 in Arts & Humanities Other - Arts & Humanities

27 answers

Hitler was a good leader until he wanted to kill all the jews and invade everyone.

2007-03-08 10:44:00 · answer #1 · answered by Samantha 6 · 4 5

None of the two above show(ed) a leadership that is considered a leader for the advantage of the people of a country. Yes, Hitler united the Germans totally back then, but only for one reason: to use an entire country to archieve his evil goals. His tremendous charisma and his restless propaganda machine plunged a whole continent and even the world into the greatest catastrophy besides epidemics in its human history.
You cannot compare Bush with Hitler. Bush lacks the ability to be a leader, since he divides the American people to a scale comparable the way James Buchanan did prior to the Civil War. But he is not evil. He is rather stubborn and tone deaf when it comes to listen to public and international opinion.
Sure, you could say, so was Hitler, but no one was allowed to speak up to him at all.

2007-03-08 19:05:09 · answer #2 · answered by McMurdo 3 · 0 0

America does not have, nor has it ever had a Dictator! We have the power to remove any President who abuses executive authority and if we don't then blame the people not the man they keep in office. Bush has been and is a good leader and it has been his hardship to have come into office and receive the end product of other Presidents and Congresses goof ups as well. He has done well considering what he inherited. Nothing like the attack on the twin towers had ever happened in America! Easy to say who would have done better. Pretty scary to think what will happen when he leaves office! At least he has vast experience with all that's happened. A radical move at this time could spell worse disasters. God Bless America and her leaders.

2007-03-08 18:50:46 · answer #3 · answered by Faerie loue 5 · 0 2

I think it would be better to ask who has done the least damage - then again we will not know the full impact of the damage that Bush has done for a decade or so yet as a lot of what Hitler did didn't come out till after the war.

2007-03-08 18:46:41 · answer #4 · answered by Jez 5 · 1 1

I'm avidly anti-Bush, and believe he may well to down in history as one of the worst leaders of all time. But Hitler goes down in history as one of the worst people of all time.

The unfounded and war-mongering invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are bad. Very bad. If the conspircy theories regarding the Bush administration being behind Sept 11 are even remotely true, that would make it far far worse.

But the planned, concerted and successful plan to kill 6 million Jews goes down as the greatest atrocity in memory. Ever.

But if you mean who was better at the act of "leading", then it's got to be Hitler, cos he managed to convince a entire nation to back his sociopathic dream.

2007-03-08 18:48:01 · answer #5 · answered by lazer 3 · 2 0

Bush. He wasn't a crazed psycho who liked killing people for an irrational reason. But then again, Bush is really unstable, Hitler was the total opposite, but for more negative reasons. But Bush is trying to do right, but is unsuccessful. And, maybe now that I think of it, they both suck.

2007-03-08 18:45:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Hitler, he unified a nation under one banner and led them to what he believed to be his destiny. He also was one of the most influential speakers ever. Bush... um his speeches are deffently something to laugh about =D. Hitler may have done many bad things, but he led his nation a heck of a lot better.

2007-03-08 18:48:55 · answer #7 · answered by Mr.Domino 2 · 2 0

Hitler was the devil incarnate. There is no comparison and you know it. What seems like harmless Bush bashing can be considered a threat. Best not to be known as a threat or incite others to threaten. Even if you do not agree with a President's politics, he is working to protect people's freedom. Argue issues intelligently (if you can) but stay away from empty insults...it reflects on you, not your target.

2007-03-08 18:49:55 · answer #8 · answered by Over The Rainbow 5 · 2 1

Hitler had higher approval ratings.
Bush has caused the death of fewer people.

Give it some time so we can look back at them both in retrospect. Bush isn't done yet.

2007-03-08 18:52:25 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 1 0

Hitler was worse, as he got his country bombed and army decimated. So you could say that Bush was less "worse" which I suppose equates to being better. But being better implies that one of them was at least good, and that will not be the case.

2007-03-08 18:49:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Bush. Hitler knew what he wanted and killed in disgusting ways 6 million Jews, caues he hated them cause he was rejected from art school by a jewish headmaster, and like 30 million other ppl who were not pure german, blonde and blue eyed. bush is just stupid. he cant help being partially retarded!! seriously! ive heard that his family paid to have him pass university because he was so stupid.lol.

2007-03-08 18:45:40 · answer #11 · answered by punkprincessgd_89 2 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers