CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
12
He's good He's bad
Debate Score:27
Arguments:10
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 He's good (6)
 
 He's bad (5)

Debate Creator

SubwayZombie(141) pic



Leaders of the Past

Okay. Now pay attention before you comment. I want to know if you think Adolf Hitler was a good leader. Not a person, but whether or not he was a good leader. Please, try and keep it clean.

He's good

Side Score: 15
VS.

He's bad

Side Score: 12
3 points

Definitely. There's no question that he had fantastic leadership skills. He wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did otherwise.

Side: He's good

Just so everyone knows what I mean, I personally think he was a great leader. I mean, yeah, he was really racist, and yeah, he was not the best person, but however, he did build Germany from the ground up, and got the entire country to follow him. He was a very charismatic leader, and he was a great speaker. People followed this man, even after he started the Holocaust. He never smoked and never drank.

Side: He's good

He was good as a leader because in those documentaries you see the crowds cheering for him, however, he was a monster for exterminating six million people.

Side: He's good
4 points

No, he was not a good leader. While he did build up a powerful German Economy and Military, his personal choices, such as the Invasion of the USSR, lead to the downfall of his Government. His personal hatred for communism, and his failure to anticipate the enemy's basic strategies make him a terrible leader.

His personal hatred of Communism lead him to attack the Soviet Union, as he viewed Communism as a threat to his Fascist government.he needed simply to abide the non-aggression treaties he had with Stalin, who was content with peace on the Eastern Front, most likely, the Nazi's would still rule from Paris to Berlin, and possibly even to London.

What makes him truly terrible as a leader is his failure on the Eastern Front is that he acted against all the knowledge he had about an Invasion of Russian Territory. He studied the French Invasion under Napoleon and the prior German Invasions in World War One, and failed to devise a way to combat the Russians most basic tactic: Scorched Earth. The Russians, when outgunned, would always retreat and burn the land behind them, leaving no resources for their enemies to take. Without a way to resist the Scorched Earth policy, the Germans had no chance of winning.

Furthermore, he did create a strong, experienced army, but that army had to cover a 1,600 km front, the approx. distance from Leningrad to Stalingrad. This also would leave their supply lines exposed over thousands of kilometers of hostile, occupied land, and since the Russian employed Scorched Earth, there would be no local resources to depend on. Russia, the Soviet Union, it was simply too big to occupy, and history had proven that time and time again. Hitler failed to see this, and his people paid for his terrible leadership.

Side: He's bad

You have made a great argument, while keeping it clean. I thank you for that. And you make great point. He was a great leader, but he abused his power and underestimated the countries he invaded. The Scorched Earth policy was probably the most useful tactic against the German military and Nazis. Although he did spread out his men, he believed that they could handle it. He once again underestimated his enemies.

Side: He's good
Uspwns101(444) Disputed
2 points

History did not prove that Russia was unoccupiable, it simply proved that there is a certain way to go about it. The Mongols did it, and Hitler could have done it if he had ignored Leningrad and Stalingrad and went for Moscow with all his might. Moscow was where the leadership was, furthermore all communication and transportation lines led to Moscow, with the capture of Moscow Russia would have become like France with a disorganized rather pathetic resistance force the only remnant of the Russian military.

Side: He's bad
2 points

Hitler's so called achievements lasted six years and after that the country was in ruins. A good leader makes lasting contributions.

Side: He's bad
2 points

His achievements last even to today. Germany, much of it, wouldn't even be there, it'd be other countries, if he didn't do what he did. He rebuilt the economy, which faltered, but stayed stable, and he expanded his "empire", which still stands.

Side: He's good
2 points

Well, obviously I think he's a bad leader (racism and hatred aside...) he failed at his initial attempt. If he would of succeeded, I probably would've still hated him but I probably would agree he was a better leader.

Side: He's bad
2 points

How did he fail at his initial attempt? Do you know his initial attempt? He was tryin to do two things. One, rebuild his country. Two, rid the world of "evil Jews". He succedded at one, and the other was just horribly racist.

Side: He's good