I am in no way condoning what Hitler did. I did, however, begin a discussion to defend what a great leader he was. And if any of you disagree, answer me this; if he wasn't so great, how come public schools lrean about him in great detail year after year? Adolf Hitler brought Germany out of economical depression, brought all the people together, made Germany a world power. He was a very, very smart man with very strong motives. He kept his promises, unlike former shame-marked president Nixon, and picked the first time to come into power. The German people were very angry after being in so much debt after WWI, an agreement put down in the Treaty of Versailles. The German people had unfocused rage, and what better a time to come into power? They were desperate for a leader, one who would understand and target their anger. Unfortunately that target was the Jews, which ended in what i hope we all know as the Holocaust. But still--very smart, very powerful man.

It is self evident that Hitler was an accomplished politician with a strong skill and mind set that ideall suited the time. One does not have to condone his actions or agree with them to recognize this. Having said that, I think that you were dead on when you made mention of the upheaval following WW I as being critical in setting the stage for someone like Hitler to rise to power. It is only with the backdrop of economic depression, social upheaval, and bitterness and dissatisfaction with the Treat of Versailles, among other things that a political organization like the National Socialist Party could rise to prominence. In a stable and even moderately prosperous nation, a party like the Nazis would almost certainly never advance beyond the status of a fringe group. The conditions in Germany were ripe for an ultra-Nationalist party to rise to the fore and it worked out that Hilter was the man with the skills, the will, and the ruthlessness to lead that party. He was certainly a strong leader and a man whose goals and methods suited his time, but I think that what set him apart was his sheer ruthlessness. He was willing to brutally cull any rivals within his own party, to say nothing of what he was willing to do to his enemies. Was he a great leader? I think not, I just think that he was an intelligent and ruthless man who only succeeded because essentially, he was in the right place at the right time for his particular skillset.

i get were your comeing from but hes dead forget bout it

I agree with you that hitler was a great leader but that not what he did but how he got people to follow him unquestionly

Unfortunately, as we now are seeing in the USA, people can be easliy led by fear when they are struggling...financially and spiritually.

*Reply to Dredge*

I'd have to disagree. His ruthlessness aided him with his success as a leader. Without his ruthless attitude towards any potential threat, he wouldn't have gained such a foothold in Europe.

His brutal and quick attacks on countries left them shattered, and his cruel treatment of the occupants kept them in line. He was also able to managed a large amount of land under extreme pressure.

Not only did he have a war outside his domain, he had a war inside his domain with the various resistance factions such as the White Rose within Germany. True, many of these were put down, but Tito's resistance managed to drive the Germans out of their country without aid from the Allies. Surely, some merit must be awarded for him being able to maintain so many territories?

Although, he couldn't have done it alone. Without Goebbels, Hitler would have struggled gaining the support of the people. Although, I do agree that he wouldn't have prospered in a different scenario, but he did take great advantage of the circumstances.

I concur and to take it one step further he was also a visionary. His writings in Mien kumpf detail the problems the jew has (and will) wrought. He correctly depicted them as a race, not a religion. He further denoted their manipulative ways are designed to bring leadership to their knees so they can power broker for their own gains and not those of a state. He spoke of the poison of a jew controlled media and the danger of their proliferation in the banker community. You not look any further than the current state of the U.S to see the effects of those toxins.

Today the definition of 'great', in terms of our leaders anyway,has positive connotations. It is assumed that a great leader did something to be admired for, to help those that he/she is leading. You define 'great' as smart and powerful, in terms of leadership. Either way, with either definition, I'm not sure Hitler fits.

That aside, I feel like your question isn't answerable because the object of study by public schools is not Hitler, but World War II and the Holocaust. Hitler brought Germany out of depression by giving it a purpose. To me, what you argue is that the means justifies the end. War and murder as a purpose hardly make a 'great' leader, in my mind, nor do they make a particularly smart one because the long term economic effect would be national debt and exhausted citizens.

At first war brings economies out of depression quite often because it inspires feelings of nationalism, produces industry based upon war necessities and reduces unemployment because the amount of soldiers increases.

You even say "what better time to come into power?". Is it not the implication then, that it wasn't Hitler's intelligence or cunning that brought him to leadership; but the combination of German anger and economic depression creating a volatile political situation in which a savior was sought? In other words, Hitler was in the right place at the right time.

I disagree that targeting Jews was a specifically smart move. It was, in fact a quite obvious one. Anti-Semitic behavior has been present in Europe since the middle ages. Jews were the main moneylenders in German society (as well as Christian Europe). Besides that the Jewish often kept separate from mainstream culture and were stereotyped as greedy. All these factors meant that it wasn't hard for Hitler to use the Jews as a scapegoat. To me, this doesn't mean Hitler was particularly smart in discerning this 'clever' solution to Germany's problems.

Finally you say that power is part of the criteria to be great. Nixon may not have been a great president, but as president he was certainly powerful. See the contradiction?

And saying that Hitler made Germany a world power? If the power is not sustainable, what does it matter? The Axis powers lost the war and Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, losing pre-war territory and experiencing economic problems like hyperinflation.

Response to Gwbyer

So you're blaming the Jews for the current state of the U.S.? What evidence do you have that could possibly support that?

As I said in my reply to the original post, blaming the Jewish for problems had been prevalent for centuries. In that respect, Hitler is hardly a visionary.

Yes it is correct to say that Jewish can be considered race,but it is also a culture and religion. You say the Jewish 'broker power for their own gains and not those of a state', but if they aren't considered citizens of a state why would they wish to surrender any amount of power they could gain? I'm going to use the example of Christianity, specifically Catholicism, which is much more present in the U.S. than Judaism and ask whether the pope should try to transfer power to a specific state or country? The answer is, of course, no. The Vatican seeks power and money for itself, yet you do not blame it for any problems in the world. It's human nature to look out for one's self interest and its hardly fair to say that a minority looking out for itself is cause enough for genocide.

If you're going to point to a race or a religion as the source for problems in the U.S. it would make more sense to pick the majority, white and Christian. You cite no evidence to support your implications that the Jews control the media and the banking community.

I'm certainly not an expert on history or Judaism but I know enough to wonder how you think your able to support your ridiculous allegations against the Jewish community.

I do not like him he killed thousands of men for him self

Dredge, you and turnkey have both made some very valid points. Spot on.

I agree: dredge, turnkey, and katiemm have clearly examined the question objectively and rationally.

I'd like to add a few observations. To the original question, ColumbineKid (and I pray that name doesn't imply a sympathy to the delusions of those two killers), is your starting point for claiming "greatness" the fact that public school boards think it's important to have some basic knowledge about a war that directly destroyed well over 60 million lives? And which destruction indirectly changed all the others? (And I'm assuming that the schools haven't reached the point where they TEACH that he was great!)

In your opinion, which was greater: the intensely flawed tyrant bent on revenge for the heavy price Germany paid for starting the FIRST World War, or the struggle to survive and ultimately stop him? And if you continue in an honest study of his character, I believe you'll eventually conclude that in reality, he wasn't even all that smart. His ideology was formed by the fact that he surrounded himself with other radicals who all believed the same thing. Show me an example where he spoke to an audience that disagreed with him, in a free and open exchange of ideas?

What he WAS, was a mesmerizing speaker capable of stirring passions in his audiences - which, as already noted, already believed as he did. In his career's first decade, his audience was always at LEAST as disenchanted, deluded, and poisoned with hate as he was. By the time he had to appeal to the mainstream, he had a large force of street thugs (the SA) to coerce cooperation from anyone who disagreed, a propaganda genius to twist public opinion, and a better handle on how to mask the genocide machine he was building. That's practice, not intelligence.

Do you know HOW he brought Germany out of depression? Rearmament and forcible annexation of surrounding territory, with the sole intent of waging unlimited war across Europe. He telegraphed it all in Mein Kampf, before anyone ever heard of him. And the only reason he was able to accomplish all of that, was that good men did nothing. France and England, alone, could have stopped him cold as late as 1937, if only they'd had the courage to act. Hitler wasn't any more "great" than the typical schoolyard bully.

As others pointed out, power and war don't make greatness. Only ideas, sacrifice, and selflessness do that.

And speaking of ideas, Gwyber, I find it curious that it's so natural for you to speak of "the Jew" as though there were such a thing. Pardon my language, but I'm trying to make a point here: would you recognize hate in your own speech if you simply substituted the words "nigger" or "fag?" How about "the rich" or "the Democrats" or "the Muslims?"

Speaking of any group as though every one of its individuals has identical characteristics, goals, will, or beliefs, only indicates the shallowness and ignorance of the speaker. Shame on you.