Was Hitler one of the greatest leaders
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 2/2/2019 | Category: | Politics | ||
| Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 573 times | Debate No: | 120125 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)
 Pro I believe this because he was not the one to intiate the killing of the Jews that was forced into him by hungry and Austria by sending their Jews to Germany. Hitlers side men (himmler, Gerboles wft. ) then sent letter to hitler and it is near enough guaranteed he read non of them  Con great-of an extent, Amount, Or intensity considerably above the normal or average. leader-the person that commands the proof We should establish a criteria for evaluating Hitler's performance as a leader. If he was one of the greatest leaders, Than he must have surpassed many leaders' feats. I will provide a few leaders that makes Hitler pale in comparison to them, Napoleon Bonaparte Julius Ceaser Cyrus the Great Napoleon Bonaparte conquered all of Europe. He did this at a time when countries had large militaries at their disposal. None the less, He prevailed in conquering Europe, He implemented many reforms, Hitler attacked countries whose militaries were not built up, This fact makes Hitler's victories seem pathetic. Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, In those times, It was very difficult for the Roman Republic to conquer Gaul, Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, And than forged the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar was the main strategist. Hitler did not have any experience in military strategy, Hitler's generals did most of the work, Cyrus the Great created the first empire, Cyrus conquered many kingdoms, His most notable practices were forgiving his enemies. Hitler had his enemies killed. Cyrus proved that one can control a large empire through mercy, This brings us to one of Hitler's biggest blunders. Hitler decided to invade Russia. The Soviet Union was allied with Germany. This opened up two fronts in the war. His generals made so many attempts to persuade Hitler to make his armies retreat. He did not listen. This cost him so many divisions destroyed. Hitler acted on emotion. |
 |
|
Pro tjmanivo forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
|
Pro tjmanivo forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
The difference is that the Great Depression was nothing compared to the inflation in Germany. Where a mark was previously about 25 US cents of the time, It dropped to BILLIONS of marks to the dollar. They were printing out ridiculous amounts of money in a desperate attempt to pay off its war debts to France and the UK. People would literally take wheelbarrows full of money to the store and only be able to buy a handful of food.
Neville Chamberlain and FDR were great people too, For helping their people out of the Great Depression. They just weren't good military leaders as well, While I seem to recall a certain moustached man pushing the entire French army out of France. Not to mention conquering a large portion of Europe.
By your standards of greatness, Any leader who worked during the great depression should be considered great. FDR introduced the new deal which brought back thousands of jobs to an impoverished America. Neville Chamberlain introduced his own program which helped thousands of people get jobs, The point is that many leaders during this time were working to bring their countries back from the economic crash, Hitler also formed alliances with other countries. This does not reveal anything great about Hitler, Because many conquerors before him created alliances in order to stop any future opposition,
I want to point out that your point on the Soviet Union is on point! Stupid idea to invade so soon.
But the problem about the smaller country argument is that Germany annexed them quickly. If Hitler was prolonged from taking those weaker countries (like the Soviet Union with Finland, The winter war) then he would indeed be weak. You could even argue that the pact with Stalin was a sneaky master piece, As this allowed for a quick taking of Poland and Hitler to catch Stalin off guard with his invasion (though he should have waited longer).
What I would point out though, For your side, Hitler was super lackadaisical with his resources, At a point, He even had more than the Soviet Union at his hands, But failed to put it all to good use (There are numerous huge projects that the Germans wasted a ton of needed material on, Having far better uses for it). Britain even beat him to changing their countries to a war economy even though the Germans were the aggressors. Hitler presupposed far too much (but of course that was his ideology, His race was "stronger" than the rest, So of course he was going to beat everyone, Spoilers, He doesn't).
Fun debate so far,
To Truth! -logicae
Analyzing the major powers at the time: France, Great Britain, Soviet Union (and later U. S). First, France was a major buffer against Hitler, One of the prime reasons he decided to end them as soon as possible. The Maginot line on the German-French border was one of the most re-enforced borders in all of history, As the French learned from their WW1 mistakes. In addition the British and French had numerous tactics in order to counter a German invasion of Belgium and the Netherlands. By a freakish and bold German plan, The Germans broke around these defenses with tanks though the "unpassable" unsuitable terrain of Luxembourg. This "Blitzkrieg" tactic is highly credited for the huge German successes.
Great Britain and the Soviet Union were also under siege by the Germans, Both being highly fortified and well supplied by the U. S and in addition for the Soviets, Their monstrous industry. In all, The European theater came down to the highly incompetent Italy and Germany vs the world. No nation state has ever faced such odds in a war, The German tactics kept them in the war for a long enough 6 years, But only after defeating 11 countries and inflicting more than twice as many casualties on the allies.
Wish you guys luck in this debate!
To Truth! -logicae
His decision to persecute and bring about the genocide of the Jews is independent of his political genius. In this, Only end results matter. He pulled Germany out of HUGE inflation, United the German speaking and more countries of Europe, And contested against four of the greatest powers of the time for several years. And this is only after he became the Fuhrer. Before, He commandeered the National Socialistic (Nazi) Party, And brought it into popularity. He won the government majority with the Nazi Party, Which is practically unheard of. It would be like becoming president without being a Democrat or Republican today. So yes, He is a political genius, But not for the reasons you cited.