Hitler was a Great Leader

I apologise as my writing style is not as formal as you might like. Rest assured, I know about Hitler in world war 2, and the bio is not necessary. Some small corrections I'll make, my history textbook here being the source. (Second Edition Modern Europe and the Wider World, Dermot Lucy)Hitler was refused entry into the Austrian military before joining in Germany. Hitler did not gain power through legal means. In the Night of the Long Knives, he had the SA's leadership assassinated by the SS, who then absorbed the SA under his control. True, Hitler didn't fire a single shot to gain Austria, but then again, that's because it was the dissenters in Austria doing the work, Hitler not personally leading the charge. The Austrian PM was even assassinated at one point. If you say Hitler never fired a bullet, then he also never gassed 6 million people. Hitler never came close to winning the war because his defeat by Stalin was inevitable. The USSR was a beast which once woken, couldn't be stopped. Now, onto why he was not a good leader. The first issue I had to come to terms with is the question "what is a good leader?" The dictionary definition is rarely the best answer. Do we go by qualities, actions or results? Do morals come into this? My conclusion is all of these factors must be accounted for. Now, on the first point. Anti Semitism was already a worldwide issue at the time, along with many of the other minorities, few had objections to these people being interned. But it was only later that people discovered what happened to these prisoners. I would not call deception a good quality of leadership, nor would genocide be classed as a good action or result. On a side note, you are arguing about Hitler as leader, using detailed reports of how people were massacred as proof is.... unnerving to say the least. On his economic actions let me clarify something; I am not citing sources because I just finished my leaving cert last month, the last two years of studying History and Economics are still fresh in my mind, and just to be safe, the textbook is open on the table beside me. In economics, we study National Income or growth, with a few important notes; Any economic growth as a result of an approaching war is a misleading part of government spending which determines government spending. It's essentially viewed as cheating since the spending is only going towards arms and doesn't reflect the standard of living in the country. On another note, when attempting to find the qualities of a person, you do not ask the person what they think their best qualities are because your answer will be misleading, Hitler speaking of his achievements does little here; Unemployment was solved through infrastructure and conscription, The former I must concede was a good economic action. Re arming a country is not much of an achievement. France was the only nation pushing the Treaty, and Britain had already been repealing it with Germany beforehand through policies such as the Anglo Naval Agreement, 1935. The collection of land, I will have to bring up again at a latter point, but at the moment, it is a concession. And the end of that quote is rubbish as Hitler had no problem with cruelty, from the secret police he used to the public hangings of "Swingers", any youth who opposed the Nazi regime, that statement is a lie. Now, in your Before the War section, I already mentioned that approaching war is a big imbalance on National Income statistics, which also negates the part about avoiding war. Saying that if he had died before making any mistakes is a bit of a cheat too. If Bush was assassinated before the Iraq war, would he then be the greatest President in history? Does that mean we can ignore the atrocities of the war? No. Hitler cannot be weighed on what had happened if he died earlier. My example may be slightly poor as at least the scale of Bush's actions was smaller and was not done with intention to round up and execute. During the War; Hitler attacked populated cities instead of the airbases of the British, allowing them to retaliate and win the Battle of Britain. I found an issue with the quote "Hitler came very close to winning the war in 1940, but Britain's forces, led by Winston Churchill, forestalled his victory". You basically said; Hitler would have beaten his enemies if they had not fought back. It is a silly statement. I have nothing witty to say on that. Hitler invaded the USSR. That was a mistake. A big mistake. A titanic mistake. I cannot exaggerate enough. Hitler declared war on the biggest and most powerful nation on the continent at a time when they were neutral and he decided winter would be the best time to invade a frigid nation. This, along with Stalin's disregard for losses, was a terrible loss for Hitler, Stalingrad being the turning point when the Russians started pushing back. But it comes back to the question of leadership. Qualities; Hitler displayed skill necessary for a leadership role, understanding how to manipulate crowds. However, the propaganda was largely the work of others, like Goebbels and Leni Reifenstahl, who were his image workers. Being fair on this, I would have to concede he displayed an overall positive array of leadership qualities. Actions; Hitler began with promising ideas, mainly copied from his predecessor Mussolini who laird out the political, economic and global policies of the Fascist Regimes. However, the invasions and atrocities committed, against his own people, against minorities and against civilians during the Blitz make this an overwhelming minus. Results; Machiavelli once reluctantly admitted in The Prince that for a budding leader, the ends justify the means. If the results obtained from cruel actions are met with good results, then the leader's career survives, or overall the country benefits. But no. Germany was in ruins in the aftermath of WW2. The infrastructure he built was rubble, his Lebensraum was reclaimed by the countries invaded and Germany required the aid of the US in the Marshall Plan to avoid becoming communist, part of it still becoming communist as the nation was divided among the victors. You may try to claim Hitler had too many enemies, but who's fault was that? An outstanding minus. Overall, skills as a leader are meaning less when they're used poorly. Hitler may have had some qualities, but that didn't make him a good leader. You have a Before the War an a during the War, but no aftermath. If you recall, Franco died peacefully, as did Stalin. See you next round, Duncan.