[mooxe]

My question centers around his leadership abilities. My reason for asking is I have just completed reading two memoirs of German soldiers and I am currently on a military leadership course. This question did come up among my peers.

Some said he was a good leader. He motivated Germany to arms, to work, to so many things. He was able to bring people under his influence and act in a manner he desired to accomplish goals he had set out. So does that make his a good leader? I think the black and white dictionary definition would prove he was.

Now we know Hitler was not operating under good ethics according to Western standards, under his own standards he may of been, but we cant answer that. Ethics are grey.

I believe he was a bad leader and poor example to his followers. But he did have some strong leadership skills, that were misdirected. Its obvious that you can have a person with stong leadership skills but becomes a poor leader. One of the reasons he was proven to be a bad leader was the failure of his "Final Victory." He could not motivate his country to make this happen. To sum it all up, he did motivate millions of people to help achieve his goals, but in the end, his final goals were never met.

Can anyone argue he was a good leader?

[MörserCarl]

Der Führer, or the leader, was just about the worst example of a leader you could name. Yes, Germany experienced some economic development during his first years as chancellor but it was not due to his personal leadership. Expensive infrastructural projects were initiated that were of importance to Hitler only as statements to the world of his bizarre views on German cultural supremacy. The autobahn was a good example as it was indeed a great technological achievement that did facilitate commercial development, but basically was a political statement and, of course, would enable quicker movement of army units from one region of the country to another.

Mooxe, you would undoubtedly have read Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer (that book seems to be rather popular). Try also to read other first hand accounts such as The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (William L. Shirer) or even better Hitler and his Generals (Helmut Heiber & David M. Glantz). The latter contains the surviving stenographic records of Hitler’s military situation conferences. It becomes clear that he wasn’t much of a leader, but that he just had a strong presence, or charisma. Charisma should not be confused with leadership although it apparently and sadly seems to be natural for people to be mesmerized by charismatic persons.

There are, of course, also the well known strategic blunders of his creation, such as the constant changing of military plans – for example the impulsive decisions to change objectives during operation Barbarossa (read Panzer Leader by Karl Heinz Guderian). Hitler’s decision to declare war on the United States right after Pearl Harbour further proved him to be totally ignorant of the ramifications of his arbitrary decision making ‘style’.

Hitler and his regime thrived on confusion – not leadership. He encouraged resource consuming competition between his supporters. People like Goebles, Goering, Himmler, Bormann etc. competed for Hitler’s attention and they were ready to sacrifice anything or anyone in order to please him – all for their personal gain and most definitely not for the good of the German people. Hitler’s strong belief in the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ meant that there was no room for the pillars of a prosperous and viable modern social order: Freedom and Equality.

The only useful lesson that Hitler contributed to history of mankind is that we must be careful not to let individuals assume total control of us - as Karl Marx put it: “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, etc. etc. are all reminders of the fact that tyrants only lead their people one way… the road to perdition.

[AT_Stalky]

Yes..

The short hand record is a testimony to Hitler as a leader.
Another grate source is Walter Warlimonts book, he saw it from the inside of OKW, and in the book one often get three or more angles as he refers to OKW diary, Halders diary, Jodls Diary, and the short hand records, archive and most importent his own first person testimony.

Hitler was a ”specialist-personlighet”, a detail person… Detail person make really poor leaders, as they are too much into details and control of all aspects.

They put to much effort and energy into the small things and details so that they often lose the big picture.

A detail person have more problem trusting in others, and/or there abilities or judgments, your either over trusted or not trusted.

To have a briefing when a detail person is attending can be frustrating and a long drawn process, as they have comment on just about everything, and want more info about this and that or offering unneeded comments non whant or need, still failing to see what’s relevant and what’s not, or what’s his real aria and need to know.. Or what is obvious to everyone, except the detail person..

Reading the short hand records from the OKW, one see Hitler is much a specialist-detail person.

No specialist shall ever be let to lead others, in any army who have some sort of evaluation system this is prevented I believe.



Hitler was a corporal in his true military rank. So in that regard the Germans officers saw Hitler true potential as leader, and saw him for what he was.… ..a bad leader...



Stalky

[Polemarchos]

hi mooxe,

i will try to embeed your question from an epystimologic point of view.

There are three types of ethics in philosophy:

1) Virtue ethics from Sokrates, Palto and Aristotle. (ideological Ethics)

- this ethics evaluates not the behaviour of a person by his actual ontology, i.e.
"good" as the highest good is derived not from deeds or actions of the person u analyse, but from the example he sets. This means that a good person inclines other people to follow his life style by emulating it after he is dead!!!Since this is not the case, Hitler is a bad leader, since he is a bad example.

( A second pillar of virtue ethics argues that in terms of selfpercepption ghitler might be good, because he and his surrounding think he was)

Virtue ethics = no deed is immoral as long as a moral person conducts it.

2) Anglo- utilitarian -consequentialist ethics (John stuart mill) (Ex post ethics)

Analyse the deeds of the person on the consequences of his deeds cause and evaluate the outcome whether its good or not. The utility of actions here defines whats good or not.

Utilitarian: If by breaking a law you do a higher good, than the negative act of braking the law inclines, than ure deeds are just and moral.

in hitler case it does not apply...

3) Deontologic ethics by Kant (ex ante ethics or duty ethics)

Behave in such a way that your deeds could equalize with a maxim witch is desired as an overarching law.(categorical imperative)

so the good is defined here as a deed every otherrational individual would emphazize as just for him too. this also does not apply for hitlers leadership.

Conclusion:

a question about "good" is an ehtical question. historical arguments dont apply, they only apply for practicability of deeds. Hitler was a capable leader, not a good one. Confront the guy that recognizes hitler as good with the problem of knowlodge and ontology and he will admit that argumentative evaluation about "good" can not include facts, since its ethical.

The only way to point out that Hitler was good ethically, can be conduted by
the self-perceptional version of virtue ethics, and probably a self-perceptional version of utilitarian thought.

Your counterpart means capable and says "good". Thats the point you can overwhelm his argumentation by pointing out that he implies an ethical percepetion he fisrt has to evaluate.
So ask him

"good"?

"hmm. from which philosophical perspective of ethics, virtue, utlitarian or deontological?"

[ZAPPI4]

Well for me Hitler was a good leader and a bad one ...
Good cos, he grown up Germany economy and name. Took the nightmare of conquest for all the Europe and over the Europe. Of course he will die but well he was fighting alone all the rest of the world ( Italian wasnt strong allies for German and Japan was fighting so far of their way except maybe by stucking allies troops on the pacific.). Do you think than a bad leader would do what he did? regrouping german citizen like 1 men. Getting one of the most powerfull army in 10 years. Conquered the France, who was the strongest army in 40, so fast. droving his tank around Moscow........

Of course he wasnt a good leader cos, this men was a devil. Using the way of nightmare just to extend the live space of the Reich. So for me it'snt possible to say Hitler was a good leader, as to be a good leader u must be first a good human, all what he wasnt.

[Antony_nz]

He was a great leader.
The only problem is he used his temper and emotions in battle.
He used emotion over intelligence. And it wasnt all ways good,
He was clever but at times cocky.

He was all so cruel to his men. Like starlin. But it got the job done.

[Blackstump]

Read Mein Kampf, its a blue print of a maniac... if you can get thru the ramble, and rubbish, you can clearly see a deluded mind, then read The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich, Shirers account was a close hand view of those early years of political skull duggery, and shows how he "conned" a nation in to making him a leader, by lies murder and deceit, once installed as the dictator he was, there was only ever going to be a total war for total power, Shirers account also gives a good view of those Germans who fought against this man with little help from the allied powers.. ie: Chamberlain whos prevarifcation from the Austrian coup thru to the Chekoslovakian hand over, probably stoped a much earlier out come had France and England and the German Resistance ie; The majority of the Wermacht generals been allowed to act much earlier.. even the German people at that stage didnt want a war...was he a good leader ?
.. well he conned a nation into voting him to power then conned 4 of the big world powers into stuffing around for so long ( by lying to them ) that he had enough time to rearm the nation . However he must of known that 1, his navy wasnt up to scratch.2, supply of fuel and armaments, compared to the 3 nations he was allways going to be up against, and the fourth that was allways going to supply them (America) was a day dream as his military commanders told him (that cost them there lives ) so no he was niether a great military commander and for that matter not even a great economical leader... and his timing was crap to boot... the only possible chance he had was to wait untill Germany had more powerfull allies, better supply of raw materials, an army that was headed by a real general who had full support of his troops not the puppet Keitel (he had allready killed the brains who told him Germany could not afford or win a world war) for mine he was as bad a leader as they didnt deserve...

[AT_Stalky]

As Hitler for a political leader…


NSDAP election results:
1924 may - 6,5%
1924 December - 2,8 %
1928 - 2,5%
-- 1929 --- financial crisis, the Great Depression
1930 - 18,3%
1932 July - 37,4%
1932 November - 33.1%
-- 1933 Jan - Meetings of the left-wing parties were banned…---
-- 1933 Feb - Arresting or murdering members of the Communist party..--
1933 March - 44,5% (43.9% of public votes)…

Hitler never gained more then 43,9% of the public votes, though that is a impressive figure. And in what way was it achieved?

Hitler was insignificant up to the Great Depression in 1929.
This was the start of a dark time for democracy in Europe. Peoples believe in democracy faded, and dictators took power in many nations not just Germany.
Up to 1938 many nation in Europe had lost there democracy.

The disbelief in democracy to salve the situation during the grate depression grew and the call for something different, was something radical the answer as democracy didn’t seem to work? Or people at least had an acceptance for a dictator whom took power.

"Radical" as in “communism” was one possibility many put there hope to, the middleclass sure dint want that neither did the industrial leaders and owners, hardly the farmers.

The Germans Communist party (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) got something between 10 to 15% of the votes during the Weimar Republic, they was a force to reckon with.

The shoice between two bad options, support or acceptance for the one who shoice believed to be less bad…


Who can be more different and radical then Hitler.. ?

Stalky

PS: When the ppl you lead try to murder you, it may be a sign that your not a good leader. Think about it..

[Blackstump]

BTW Polemarcos.... i hope you end up with a law degree other wise im going to be disapointed..( and probable harrange you in laymens terms for the rest of your ccv career)

[Polemarchos]

[Kommander Barbarossa]

I would say he was a good leader. He turned Germany from bankrupt into one of the World's strongest nations, and he was ruthless in achieving his goals.

But he was constantly, from 1933 (IIRC) and onwards being pumped up with drugs, which influenced many of his decisions later on in a negative manner.

[kawasaky]

Hitler was a bad leader because he only risen the worst in the people, and promoted only negativity. Unfortunately almost 100% leaders before and after him are as same as him. It speaks more about rest of us, then about them

[iDot]

Hitler was undeniably a bad leader. A lot of the things the boosted the economy in Germany during peace time while he was in power were a spin of from the strenghtened military or ideas of someone elses hitler claimed as his own and put in to place. hardly any were from hitlers leadership or original ideas of his own.

Hitler was and always will be a great speaker, that was it, that was all he was good at, properganda and getting people to believe what he was saying was true, and that what they were doing for him, was for a just cause.

There is no evidence or proof of anything you could use to prove hitler was a good leader. He was a genuis yes, but not a great leader.

[Itchy]

Hitler (capt coco pops) was a fantastic leader
Imagine what would of happened if a sane person was leading would i be typing this in english? ,would i be here? would you? we'll never know because Germany was run by a raving lunatic which is just as well for us

[Pz_Meyer]

He was an idiot who made all his most infamous military decisions based on intuition and not on the professional general staff.

The British scrapped all plans on assassinating Hitler because they reasoned that if they did kill him then someone competent would step in and they wouldn't be able to defeat Germany.



Think of it like this: no rescue at Dunkirk, Stalingrad is abandoned prior to encirclement, malta is invaded and conquered, the Afrika Korp keeps it's supply line intact, at no time are Germans commanded to stand and die instead of tactical withdrawal when threatened with annilhation and lastly the Me 262 goes into production in 1942, just a few examples of a no-Hitler Germany :

[shasadou]

just occasionally encountered this topic..

i believe the term "leader" can be applicable only to those individuals who lead whoever it is to something good (bright, peaceful, prosperous, positive, etc..)

nationalizm, phasizm, chauvinizm. etc are not really the positive ideals.