Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsports' started by MuscleCarHeart, Jul 6, 2009.
classic guibo argument. Completely missing the point.
Mugger example is void. Thats doing direct action. second the gun is gone so is the loyalty. Hard to fight a war like that. Pretty sure hitler didnt hold the gun to everyone in the country's head.
The fact that so many people died was a testament to how good of a leader he was. If he wasnt that good, it would have never gotten that far.
He wasnt a leader that did GOOD THINGS, but he was good at leading nonetheless. The fact that he was able to lead so many people to do such bad things is the proof itself.
If he was a shit leader, He would have never even gotten into power, let alone gotten enough clout to become a dictator and especially not enough to convince people that jews should be exterminated and the germans should conquer the world.
he made TIME's list of greatest leaders/revolutionaries of the 20th century for a reason.
He held the gun to the armies head, the army held the gun to everyone elses head. Not too hard to grasp, is it?
please inform me how you hold the gun to the armys head? Last I checked they usually have guns. And lots of them. And THERE ARE MILLIONS OF SOLDIERS. The army usually has to buy into the system to do the whole genocide thing very well. How do they buy into the system? Oh yeah,He was one of the best speakers of all time (this is not a debatable thing. It is fact.) He convinced them it was the right thing to do. He was quite a popular leader in germany in his time. He wasnt just ruling by fear, kim jong il style.
Are you people really actually arguing that hitler was bad at leading people? Are you really that stupid? I know he was probably the worst person of the 20th century, maybe ever, but you have to be a moron to say he was a poor leader. Whats with peoples auto-aversion to saying something generally regarded as bad has some good (but not redeeming) traits?
Do you know anything about European history? Hitler and others blamed the Army High Command for the defeat in WW1. This enabled them to blackmail the army leadership into following Hitlers policies since they did not want be portrayed as disloyal to Germany. It's not complicated.
Edit: An effective leader is.. you know.. EFFECTIVE. Hitler was successful at leading people to failure. That does not make him an effective leader. A leader must be judged on their results. What was Hitlers result?
Possessing the quality of leadership and using it for good things are completely unrelated.
Heres an analogy: If the fastest man in the world decided to use it to steal things and run from the cops instead of healthy competition, it wouldnt deny him the fact that hes a good runner.
and he did a pretty good job at leading them to what he wanted: No more jews and world domination. Just because he didnt lead them to goals we like doesnt mean he did not lead them.
Hitler was the greatest MISleader.
No more Jews? He failed.
World domination? He failed.
The result was:
1) a bullet to the head (usually not a sign of effective leadership)
2) Germany and much of Europe ravaged by war
3) Germany's production capabilities being massively contained by the Allies
Sounds like a pretty shitty job actually.
Mugger example is perfectly valid. You said the method by which to influence others to achieve a result doesn't matter, only the end result matters: getting shit done. You said coercion doesn't matter, it's still a form of leadership, and now suddenly it does matter? Please! Quit backtracking.
No, what I meant was he failed in EVERY SINGLE THING HE WANTED TO ACHIEVE. That is the definition of an unsuccessful leader.
whoa whoa bro
you mean the thousand year reich isn't STILL going?
his goals were unreachable and he did better than anyone else ever had at them. all time #1 genocide leader, closest to conquering europe/the world, etc.
good leaders are people that get people to try against the odds, not ones that necessarily win at everything they do.
Yeah, I know it's a bit of an assumption, but it just feels like it didn't work out for him.
Stalin managed to kill a few people, and stay in power, and not get his country overrun. He was a successful, evil bastard. Would you say Tojo was a successful leader? Or Pol Pot? They both killed a lot of people. Since Jews are still around, Hitler succeeded at nothing. If you want to use conquering the world etc as your metric, you should look at Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander, people like that, who actually left something behind for their descendants to lose, instead of losing it all themselves.
What a stupid #$%#ing thread