When you talk about how Hitler turned Germany around from a dump after WWI, to a super power, he set out and influenced others, he very much should be considered as one. I agree with you.

Though I hope that mother fucker burns in hell and has pineapples shoved up his ass hourly.

Many blame FDR for getting us into the war, rightfully so, but as a country, we needed it. He basically saved our asses.

I also agree with Turi, and his post brings to mind a quote from my favourite novel, John Fowles' The Magus, in which one character notes of Hitler, "the tragedy wasn't that one man had the courage to do evil, it was that millions hadn't the courage to do good."

To mark a great leader by balls, one would certainly put Hitler near the top of their list.

My list is absent of anybody, for I haven't studied history enough to judge, and nobody in my lifetime deserves a place.

You raise a very good point here Turi.

You know, Mick, for some reason I thought, reading your writings, that you must be influenced by Fowles. Magus especially.

I define the word 'leader' in "world leader" as a person who leads his nation/tribe/people to somewhere, to a good goal. Did Hitler lead his people to a good goal? Think not. He got half of his nation to believe strongly in him, he had the capabilities to lead them, and militarily, he was an absolute genius.
But really a leader? Put him in the category of Evil World Leaders.

In Hitler's eyes he was achieving a good goal. But that's a moot point. I've already justified the basics of what a leader is. Good or bad it doesn't matter. He was a leader and probably the best in the modern world. The fact that he got millions of people to do dispicable acts and really believe what they are doing is right is incredible.

Tell me what Führer translates to and who it's more commonly associated with in history.

But did he in general did anything that helped the world forward? Nope.

Sure, he did something for the economy, he even diminshed unemployment from 25% to 1%. But how? He put them all in the weaponindustry, a situation that would have lead to an economic timebomb (just look at the Sovjet-Union).

You also seem to forget that it wasn't the whole nation that stood behind him. In the 1933 elections, 42% voted for him. Needless to say many were forced to by the SS.

And after that, even during the war, far from all Germans supported him. Hitler didn't liked that, so the Gestapo searched all political opponents, and he put them in Auschwitz, .... Easy trick, if you ask me.

Plus, during the war, many people began to support him, because they were in war. They tought that they couldn't demand a pull-out for the troups, and that they couldn't stop supporting the Pres... I mean führer now the nation was in war.
Yep, extremely supportig somewhere can lead to dirty things, innit?

Edit: I just tought of another thing. Germany was very much punished after WWI, and the economy was dead. All Germans were very pissed, and frustrated. Any idiot could've stepped forward, and say "I'll fix all problems, just support me".
Then throw some extreme POV at the people, and because there were rough times, they accepted them without much thinking. Like "all Ara... I mean Jews are what's wrong in this world" and because they people were blind of anger, they accepted it.

But no idiot did. People can spot bullshit.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree but I encourage you to read up on Leaders and Leadership. You'll find Hitler cited as having all the characteristics and traits as a true leader. Interviews with people who have met him all say the same things. That he was charismatic, charming, self confident, able to hold an audience, able to influence others, in fact even change a room just by walking into it. This is before he was even elected.

Just look up Great Man Theory if you want to keep it simple. You'll find his name alongside Churchill, Ghandi et al.

I know he was a great leader, I don't deny that. I just think he was overrated. Other leaders had the same charisma, plus intellectual content. And Hitler bought a great deal of his 'support' with brutal military force.

Militarily see, he was of course unpassed, with the exception of perhaps Rommel and Eisenhower.

The outcome of WWII proved that he was not. Zhukov kicked his ass in so many battles that I would rather call him unpassed military genius.

Zjoekov, how could I forgot him.

But Hitler was a military genius, until 1942. Then he should have stopped, invading Russia was his bridge too far. Another thing he did wrong was fighting everyone at the same time.

The Blitzkrieg on the other hand, was pure genius, and extremely innovative in it's time.

It never worked though. Can we call pure genius something that never worked despite all its innovation? Or you find beautiful the very scheme and how it was applied in right time to impress masses that would follow him?

It never worked though. [/b][/quote]Yes it did. He used it to invade Belgium, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, and France in just some months.

I mean, France in 6 weeks, Belgium in 6 days! In WWI, the Germans tried for 4 years with no result, as we all know.

I totally agree with you Turi, Hitler is the definition of a successful leader. However, I don't think what he did was so extraordinary. Call out for a patriotic movement any anywhere and see how many would gather around you, no matter if your cause is justified or even has any basis. He used the ignorance and patriotism of ordinary citizens.