Hitler: good leader, bad morals
Why Hitler was a good leader
In the end, what is the definition of a good leader? If one assumes morals and values factor into the equation, that what a man fights for is the only way you can define whether a leader is poor or good, then he will find himself mistaken. A man who has the greatest of ethical values, and yet cannot organize his troops or successfully lead them to victory, would not be considered a good leader. A fine man, certainly, but that is all.
Instead, in evaluating the worth of any given leader, one must instead focus upon how he fought, and how he led the men he commanded. Napoleon was considered one of the great leaders of his time, because he brought tremendous victory with his strategic skill and cunning. Genghis Khan was a brutal, brutal man, but as conqueror and warlord he was one of the elite. Julius Caesar was in some ways as much involved in political backstabbing as the very individuals who perpetuated his eventual downfall. Alexander the Great tended to name nearly every city he conquered ‘Alexandria,’ displaying an ego that could have small planetoids orbiting it. All of these are individuals have their flaws as individuals, but their successes established them as tremendously powerful people.
In this sense, Hitler was perhaps one of the greatest war leaders of our time, though his reasons for such a war were disgusting, and immoral, and he was thought by many to be insane. Consider this; in one or two short years, the Nazi party’s army, which was led and motivated in no small way by Hitler, succeeded in conquering nearly the whole of Europe, sweeping aside French and British resistance with very little to no effort. Britain herself was close to being the next country conquered, but then Hitler called off the assault to instead attack the Soviet Union, one of the acts that displayed Hitler’s impatience, and led to his inevitable defeat.
This is the sort of take-over that even the mighty Roman Empire of early history was unable
In the end, what is the definition of a good leader? If one assumes morals and values factor into the equation, that what a man fights for is the only way you can define whether a leader is poor or good, then he will find himself mistaken. A man who has the greatest of ethical values, and yet cannot organize his troops or successfully lead them to victory, would not be considered a good leader. A fine man, certainly, but that is all.
Instead, in evaluating the worth of any given leader, one must instead focus upon how he fought, and how he led the men he commanded. Napoleon was considered one of the great leaders of his time, because he brought tremendous victory with his strategic skill and cunning. Genghis Khan was a brutal, brutal man, but as conqueror and warlord he was one of the elite. Julius Caesar was in some ways as much involved in political backstabbing as the very individuals who perpetuated his eventual downfall. Alexander the Great tended to name nearly every city he conquered ‘Alexandria,’ displaying an ego that could have small planetoids orbiting it. All of these are individuals have their flaws as individuals, but their successes established them as tremendously powerful people.
In this sense, Hitler was perhaps one of the greatest war leaders of our time, though his reasons for such a war were disgusting, and immoral, and he was thought by many to be insane. Consider this; in one or two short years, the Nazi party’s army, which was led and motivated in no small way by Hitler, succeeded in conquering nearly the whole of Europe, sweeping aside French and British resistance with very little to no effort. Britain herself was close to being the next country conquered, but then Hitler called off the assault to instead attack the Soviet Union, one of the acts that displayed Hitler’s impatience, and led to his inevitable defeat.
This is the sort of take-over that even the mighty Roman Empire of early history was unable