If not for the holocaust and WWII would you say Hitler was a "good leader"?
It might be possible to argue he had some important achievements ... When he wasn't being propped up with amphetamines.
If it wasn't for his presidency or the American revolution, or his involvement in American government, would you say George Washington wasn't historically significant? You can take away defining moments of a person and spin it any way you want.
The holocaust and WWII were kind of Hitler's defining events. I don't know how you can judge him without it. If it wasn't for communism, would you say Russia was an economically and politically free nation? I guess? but that doesn't mean ANYTHING!!!
Hitler brought Germany out of an extreme depression in just three years he turned it into one of the richest countries during that time.
He was a terrible person but that doesn't mean your not a good leader. People did follow him so that means he had good leadership qualities. Problem is he used them for evil
He was a terrible leader but also a good leader. Wait...what?
I said terrible
I don't get people, I'm obviously not praising hitler. READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT....liberals
I'm probably too emotionally vested in this question to answer with full objectivity
I understand, I'm feeling similar.
He would be just another dictator like Mussolini or Stalin.
There's no denying he was a "good leader". The things he did were terrible but remember that he had millions of people that followed him.
I think Hitler, Churchill, Stalin and FDR all tapped into what the people were looking for at that time. Hitler knew the German people. He was a dynamic speaker and he gave them a scapegoat to turn their hatred towards. He understood his audience.
Good at what? Thus is why we need to stare at evil in the face in all its forms and boldly call it what it is, because if we rationalize poor behavior and blow it off as acceptable, we will soon come to be led by monsters like him.
A very affective leader probably but I'd never call him great
Time magazine lauded his performance and he sent shivers up the legs of western liberals. He was beloved amongst democrats, for a while.
He was a very "progressive" leader with his government seizure of entire industries and nationalization of businesses and corporate profits so that the money could be used "for the people."
He led with his mouth, like someone else I despise.
A violent self serving prejudice bully-eventually the evil and human weakness with prevail in a dictator and ruin will come-if pre 1936 Germany continued- history could be different- the man couldn't resist acting the monster he was.
He inspired only fear, which is not sustainable without continually expanding punishment of those who do not comply.
You would have never had the peoples car or the autobaun.
He was an awful person but a strategic genius
There was a reason Hitler was on the front of a Time magazine cover, because he was a phenomenal leader. The world watched as he resurrected an economically defunct and demoralized Germany to a global force. He inspired his people and lead well.
Excluding the holocaust.
Not morally good, but he was certainly great at getting people to follow him.
He did a fantastic job leading his people out of a depression many times worse than the American Great Depression. And at the same time he unified his people.
Bad mad. Great leader.
Even if he didn't have a war and genocide, he still would have been a bad leader. He killed a lot of acedemics, he killed disabled people, and he alienated/encouraged violence against Jews. I don't think his divisive tactics are sustainable.
Creating a dictatorship idealizing the classic German peasant only works when you can keep the Germans happy. Eventually his policies would have become so restrictive I think people would have rebelled. Also, he was so militant.
I think he would have alienated other Western countries with his extremism, and that would hurt German trade with the outside world.
I have to say no because I find it impossible to separate him from those events.
Well that depends how you define "leader".
Until 1939 probably but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war he started, and it's still failure. Even if he had won, he'd be just feared and mostly hated, like Stalin who did win.
He was still a brutal dictator who tried to conquer the world.
And? Holocaust not happening, I see no problem with that.
I suggest you seek the assistance of a mental health professional.
He was a very good speaker and good at convincing people, but it wasn't for the sake of them or for their rights and benefits, so because of that I would say no.
If it weren't for the holocaust, he would ranked up their with Napoleon and Alexander as a conqueror.
Inspired by a convo i was a part of. I don't know enough to say either way. I only know he was supposedly a good economist.
Outside the dorm.