I don't agree with him at all. I think he has some horrible and completely illogical views.

He was a OK leader. You see, in Germany at the time, there was such poverty (due to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles) that the German people would follow any leader they had. If you were living in extreme poverty, and someone came along and said they could help you if you trusted them, you would probably follow them.

In conclusion, I think Hitler was a merely OK leader. I think circumstances gave him an advantage when he rose to power. I don't think he would have been as sucessful if Germany had been richer.

Well thank you, I just wanted to hear what other people thought. and I agree with you

Your welcome. :)

well installing fear always helps the insane leaders of the world.

Not just fear I think The entire nation was humiliated and unsatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles. Add the economical problems (in which the Treaty wasn't entirely innocent either- Germany would've paid till the eighties to pay everything) and people would've followed everyone who promised better.

I think he was a very powerful speaker. If only he could convince that many people to do good in the world...

He had some good leader skills and all the circumstances were perfect, to bad his ideas were insanely cruel... If his ideas had been 'normal' he could have helped Germany a lot, I think.

It's true, Hitler had AWESOME leadership skills, but what he did with it was not awesome. I can tell God gave him those leadership skills and i'm guessing that God wanted Hitler to do something unimaginably good with it, but instead he literary spat in God's face. He could've been a good dude, but no.

Hitler was a good leader but what he was leading was terrible. He could have used his leading skills for something productive but instead he started the secound world war.

hm as others said above, Germany was in a terrible condition after the Treaty of Versailles. People needed to believe in someone who claimed he would make their country powerful and rich. Also I think that he got support from the richer of that period's Germany, as they wanted to find someone to "boot out" the communists. They thought that it would be easier to weaken Hitler later, but apparently they were wrong. Most circumstances were favourable for him, so he didn't need to be a "genious" to lead such a strong movement!

Hitler was a good leader, but obviously what he lead was awful. It is important to remember the state Germany was in at the time, though. People were desperate for someone who could lead them.

I personly think that hitler was a poof.
for those who say he was a OK leader you are a total :(

Well i guess he was a OK leader but i did only say OK

Hitler didn't go mad with power. He went mad after the first world war. He was a soldier who almost died in the gas attacks and after-wards germany wasn't allowed any tanks, planes or a army--- it was poor, he could barely feed himself!
And so, he became like the people he hated.
oh, the irony!

all despots are to a degree...good leaders.

To give my own viewpoint of Adolf Hitler;

Adolf Hitler is not necessarily who I can call a genius madman when it comes to his actions. Hitler definitely posssessed the delusional mind there, don't get me wrong. But not my point.

What I will give to Hitler was his exceptionally brilliant skills of leadership; his ability to become the chieftain of a vast group of people and lead them into his preferrable direction. He had a strong voice that blossomed in his speeches to his audience, and a astonishingly dominating exterior personality that formed him to be a perfect leader in one's eyes.

But to me, this is where it ended.

Having done a project that focused on Hitler's rise, the causes, and the development of Anti-semitism until the Holocaust, I am familiar with Germany's devastation after World War I that left them utterly helpless;

After suffering a humiliating loss to other nations, Germany was left with the most damaging effects of the first international war. Over the following years, the German people endured unemployment, the Great Depression, poverty, inflation, rundown factories, starvation and other serious dilemmas. Germany lost its name as one of the strongest, most prosperous nations of the world and could have literally been hanging by a thread to what little stability the country had left.

When a society is in such turmoil, the people will most likely be desperate for a solution. The Germans may have had their eyes out for an individual who they could see as the man that leads them to salvation and sanctuary. Unfortunately, Hitler became the perfect candidate for that role.

Due to Germany's problems that resulted in the simple manipulation of the vulnerable citizens, Hitler and his Nazi party strengthened in power and influence, and this eventually lead to such infamous destruction that many cringe from to this very day.

There is also the fact that Anti-Semitism has long existed before World War II. The word Anti-Semitism was created during the late 1800's I believe, by a German journalist who wished to find a word that describe immense hatred towards the Jewish population. There was violence, riots, repulsive heresay and prejudice in general against the Jewish citizens of Europe before Adolf Hitler's party had even formed.

So, my point is this;

Do I see Adolf Hitler as exceptionally brilliant and skilled? Yes, in the terms of leadership, guidance, and manipulation he was indeed any of this. But I think that this is where it ends. The negative effects of a demolished society and the old yet passionate emotion that is hate were also significant catalysts in the power that Adolf Hitler later on grasped in his completely dangerous, untrustworthy paws.

Just my two cents :/

EDIT: If the word 'Anti-Semitism' was not formed in the 1800's, then my second best guess would be near the end of the nineteenth century.

Hitler wasn't a great leader. He was a psychopath; a master in manipulation, comes off as charming, hatefull as hell and all the other things he did.

There was nothing great about Hitler. Him being able to become a leader was because of the stupidity and ignorance of others.

You are grossly simplifying the situation which caused Hitler to become the leader of Germany. Now, if you want to do that and look at Hitler as a monster, fine, but that way you will never learn from history.

Hitler was good in getting people to follow him. He had some good ideas (he improved Germany's infrastructure for example). However, the good things are nothing compared to the bad things done under his rule.

If you want to go and praise Hitler's traits that are classic symptoms of psychopathie(master manipulater, calculated, high IQ), go ahead. But obviously you haven't had the lessons about the shoa and you obviously haven't seen Die Welle(or The Wave)

Any master manipulator could become a dictator. Hitler wasn't that special at all.

Sorry, where did I praise any of those traits? I was not disagreeing with you characterisation of Hitler, I was disagreing with 'Him being able to become a leader was because of the stupidity and ignorance of others' because I think it ignores the many factors involved in Hitler becoming a leader. Factors I think are important to know if people want to prevent someone like Hitler ever becoming powerfull again.

I have seen the Wave and I wonder what lesson I did not learn according to you. But please, enlighten me.

Hitler is worthy of some praise, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. He capably brought Germany back from the brink of economic destruction, expanded its borders dramatically (before they contracted back, of course), managed to make Germany a major player on the world stage, and effectively made Germans proud to be German.

Of course, he did so by the worst means imaginable. He killed millions in the Holocaust, his wars led to the deaths of 10's of millions, bringing in Japan and Italy to add to the death toll, he left scars on the human consciousness that will never disappear, and will be forever remembered as an evil man for all of it. Deontologically, he was a sadistic son of a bitch who deserved the worst of all possible ends.

That doesn't make him a bad leader, though. Much as we all want to scream bloody murder (I'm Jewish, and I lost many a family member in the Holocaust), he was effective in much of what he set out to do. He was a great leader, if you only look at the majority of his results and not the means by which he achieved them. Still, they cannot, nor should they, be ignored. Many supposedly great leaders became great by leaving a wave of corpses in their wake. Many of the leaders today have done terrible things akin to Hitler. And yet we hear far less about them.

I agree with Sapp and Whiteflame. Hitler, while delusional and sadistic, was still a great leader, who managed to turn Germany from a failing country, into a super-power. While his methods weren't exactly admirable, considering how many Jewish people he slaughtered (or advocated slaughter of), he was a GOOD leader, he was simply a horrible person.
Chaan94, you obviously have some kind of predudice against Hitler, that goes beyond the normal predudice, or you are simply rationalising a pointless hatred, if you cannot see why others take the view of Hitler that they do. His bad traits were simply factors of him being an absolutely horrible PERSON, but that is different from being a great LEADER. Just because he wasn't a nice person and ordered the deaths of many, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good leader, because being a great leader, doesn't mean you have to be a nice person. Bonaparte wasn't a nice person, but he was a great leader and all French people would agree with that. The same goes for Stalin and Churchill. Both were great leaders of their time, but neither were nice people.

Sociopath? Not diagnosed but may be possible. Evil? Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. Stupid? Not at all. He obviously knew what he was doing. I would imagine it takes serious leadership skills to convince thousands upon thousands of people to follow you on a plan to kill so many people. Now, the fact that those skills were used for evil instead of good is a whole different debate entirely.

Bad? Yes.
Bad leader? No, a very effective one.
"Good leader" does not allude to one's morals, merely to how well one leads.

He was not a bad leader. He was actually a very effective one, a very strong leader.
But...He did not do very good deeds. He killed people, committed genocide, and in turn shocked the world. That does not mean he is a bad leader.