2007-11-25 12:01:58 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's a good question. I would say yes even though he had were plenty of other faults. Just look at how Germany was when he took over. He almost completely got rid of unemployment which some figures show as high as 20%. Of course a lot of those jobs came from rearmament but that is still impressive. The German currency was unbelievably worthless and he also improved that even if it was through counterfitting. He raised the German people up and took them to heights that they had never been at before and he did it in a short time. So lunacy aside, I would say yes.
2007-11-25 16:39:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think not, Hitler was addicted to a variety of drugs and was also suffering from moderate Parkinson's disease in the final year of WWII, He was born out of an Incestuous relationship between his Uncle and his Mother, he attempted to carry on that tradition with his niece and that alone is grounds for Mental issues
2007-11-25 20:11:13 · answer #2 · answered by demon_wrench 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
Only in the sense many other warmongering tyrants are though.
Um, to put it another way, The world would still be able to view Napoleon as a better leader, I think.
2007-11-25 20:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by roostershine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was chosen as a front man for the Nazi Party because of his views on purifying the Aryan race in Germany.
Without his fervent advocation of the "final solution," Hitler would not have been hand-picked by the Nazi hierarchy to rule Austria, then Germany.
2007-11-25 20:08:22 · answer #4 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's a good question. He helped Germany recover from WWI and the depression that followed. Many Germans were able to get jobs again while he was in power. But obviously that means nothing when he had millions of people executed and experimented on innocent people.
He was obviously intelligent to do what he did. Some people say that he wasn't smart, but you have to be smart to brainwash an entire country and get people to kill for you. He could have done a lot of good if he used his intelligence in the right way.
2007-11-25 20:06:02 · answer #5 · answered by Ruby Girl 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No. He was flawed as a leader beyond his "final solution" issue. Don't confuse his ability to mesmerize the population with being a good leader.
2007-11-25 20:05:29 · answer #6 · answered by missourim43 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm guessing no. Anyone who tries to commit genocide on any group of people is likely to have made some serious mistakes no matter what happened. That's one of the reasons the U.S. went after Saddam.
2007-11-25 20:08:59 · answer #7 · answered by K.K. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When you commit suicide while your capital city burns and the enemy troops over run your army of children and old men, it is hard for history to consider you a good leader.
2007-11-25 20:13:31 · answer #8 · answered by Dash 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. He led Germany into a disastrous war that killed millions and destroyed the country. After the war, Germany was portioned out among its enemies. There were no beneficial outcomes.
2007-11-25 20:06:35 · answer #9 · answered by TG 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
well, he was upset at the coalition for destroying Germany in the first world war, so he would have tried to pull something else on the world
2007-11-25 20:04:05 · answer #10 · answered by Kenton C 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋