mein kampf

[Stonecold54]

do you believe that Alexander, Caesar, or Napoleon were great leaders?. explain to me how Hitler was different from any of them.

who would you consider a great leader?

i couldn't comment on any of them because i didn't know them. what you are doing bouncer is taking different contexts of the term and applying it universally. I will say hitler was good at what he DID....whatever that was. he was well on his way to his GOALS of exterminating other races.

why don't you tell me what is wrong with my definition. George washington was a great leader....are you honestly telling me you would put some of those other names in his league? building a nation is more of a business...so I would say hitler is more of a driven businessman. he had goals and was trying to reach them by any means necessary.

[Bouncer]

i couldn't comment on any of them because i didn't know them. what you are doing bouncer is taking different contexts of the term and applying it universally. I will say hitler was good at what he DID....whatever that was. he was well on his way to his GOALS of exterminating other races.

why don't you tell me what is wrong with my definition. George washington was a great leader....are you honestly telling me you would put some of those other names in his league? building a nation is more of a business...so I would say hitler is more of a driven businessman. he had goals and was trying to reach them by any means necessary.

George Washington was a great leader. agreed.

and yes, i sure would put some of those names in his league. are you implying that Alexander or Caesar are not in the same league as George Washington?!?

[mindstar]

for me a great leader is one who leads for the betterment of his people, and in such a way as not to overly oppress others while doing so.

The sum of Hitler's leadership lead to the ruin of his people much like Scrumhalf said. Not only that, but it was something that echoed with east Germans for 50 years.

Coming from nothing might be remarkable, but it is not great. And motivating a population through hate, fear and coercion is not leadership, it makes you merely a tyrant. Hitler practiced the worst kind of politics, that of exclusion. Every time someone in power seeks to solve problems by blaming minority groups for their society's ills they are taking both a cowardly and intellectually dishonest stance. Real courage and truly great leadership overcomes problems without blame and scapegoating...true leadership seeks to solve the problem for the betterment of all people.

Yes, Hitler was the 'man of the year' in the 30's, but he was judged so by an anti-semetic world, many of whom agreed with his policies.

And let's be honest here, Hitler's plans to exterminate an entire group of people was born out of the same nationalist and anti-immagrant rhetoric that can still be found everywhere today. Think of it this way, currently, "real Americans" (or other natianalities...the logic is the same) are defined a certain way. In the early part of the last century, 'real Americans' were an entirely different group of people. Historically, Italian Americans and Irish Americans were not always seen as legitimate additions to your country. They were, by way of a crude analogy, their day's Mexicans. You can't admire Hitler's exclusionary and xenophobic policies without thinking them through to their logical end, which was the holocaust. The latter was born of the former.

[mindstar]

Oh, and as an aside, I would say that FDR was a great leader...in how I understand the term.

[Stonecold54]

George Washington was a great leader. agreed.

and yes, i sure would put some of those names in his league. are you implying that Alexander or Caesar are not in the same league as George Washington?!?

i wasn't commenting on the other names besides hitler. I have never read enough about their exploits or achievements to hold an opinion on them.

[Bouncer]

for me a great leader is one who leads for the betterment of his people, and in such a way as not to overly oppress others while doing so.

The sum of Hitler's leadership lead to the ruin of his people much like Scrumhalf said. Not only that, but it was something that echoed with east Germans for 50 years.

Coming from nothing might be remarkable, but it is not great. And motivating a population through hate, fear and coercion is not leadership, it makes you merely a tyrant. Hitler practiced the worst kind of politics, that of exclusion. Every time someone in power seeks to solve problems by blaming minority groups for their society's ills they are taking both a cowardly and intellectually dishonest stance. Real courage and truly great leadership overcomes problems without blame and scapegoating...true leadership seeks to solve the problem for the betterment of all people.

Yes, Hitler was the 'man of the year' in the 30's, but he was judged so by an anti-semetic world, many of whom agreed with his policies.

And let's be honest here, Hitler's plans to exterminate an entire group of people was born out of the same nationalist and anti-immagrant rhetoric that can still be found everywhere today. Think of it this way, currently, "real Americans" (or other natianalities...the logic is the same) are defined a certain way. In the early part of the last century, 'real Americans' were an entirely different group of people. Historically, Italian Americans and Irish Americans were not always seen as legitimate additions to your country. They were, by way of a crude analogy, their day's Mexicans. You can't admire Hitler's exclusionary and xenophobic policies without thinking them through to their logical end, which was the holocaust. The latter was born of the former.

i just don't agree with this, not one bit.

again i bring up Alexander "the great". he took over countries and killed just because he wanted too. we call him great because he never lost a battle, he conquered everything he wanted and lead huge army's. we have given him the title of "great". now you tell me, what makes Hitler any different? if you ask me, you have a hate for Hitler that you cant separate from. you can give him no credit because of how evil he was. you have no hate for someone that did the exact same things centuries and centuries ago because time has made these ancient leaders somehow more acceptable.

i dont look at bad or good, i am talking strictly about his ability to rise to power from such humble beginnings and become as powerful as he did. to me that is a great leader, be it for peace or absolute evil.

[Bouncer]

Oh, and as an aside, I would say that FDR was a great leader...in how I understand the term.

and so was Admiral Yamamoto

[bigbadexcursion]

I have not seen any secret police around arresting people that speak ill of bush. Or perhaps you are writing this from Gitmo.

Exactly this hate Bush is laughable. Have we been attacked since? He is my boss and I am proud to say that. Do I want to go back over, who does? Will I? Of course because its the right thing to do.


and as far as aas goes, everyone remember bidens role in the steroid witch hunts.

Just wait for Obama to take office.

[mindstar]

i just don't agree with this, not one bit.

again i bring up Alexander "the great". he took over countries and killed just because he wanted too. we call him great because he never lost a battle, he conquered everything he wanted and lead huge army's. we have given him the title of "great". now you tell me, what makes Hitler any different? if you ask me, you have a hate for Hitler that you cant separate from. you can give him no credit because of how evil he was. you have no hate for someone that did the exact same things centuries and centuries ago because time has made these ancient leaders somehow more acceptable.

i dont look at bad or good, i am talking strictly about his ability to rise to power from such humble beginnings and become as powerful as he did. to me that is a great leader, be it for peace or absolute evil.

I guess we disagree. I defined what great is as far as I'm concerned, and so have you. There seems to be a wolrd of difference between them.

Though I don't know enough about Alexander the Great to comment on whether he deserves his moniker or not, I will say that your understanding of his greatness in not very nuanced. There are substantial differences between he and Hitler and there are reasons beyond his conquering of lands which have earned him the title 'great'. First off, Alexander's goal was not the erradication of a people, but rather the expansion of his empire. Once within his empire, many citizens were no worse off than before, and many flourised, having access to culture and trade that they hadn't previously. Great leaders do not kill needlessly or for sport, as Hitler did. Alexander also held his empire together for more than 6 years...something you seem to overlook with Hitler. Anyone can conquer something...a great leader integrates the new terretory into his own. By your logic, Sadam Hussein was a great leader when he conquered Kuwait. He used the same methods of fear and murder that Hitler did, and he also didn't hold on to his new territory very long.

It seems that you simply worship power and authority. Having power does not make someone great, it is rather how they use it. Leading through fear is the easiest way to lead. You seem content to rely on outcomes as a mechanism to determine greatness...if you conquer something, you are great. If you kill enough people that no one will stand against you, you are great. The exercise of brute military strength is not a measure of greatness, it is a measure of military strength.

[bigbadexcursion]

well said.

[Konitz]

I think people put emotions in behind hard facts if you said there was this guy in history who motivated millions of people to fight for his cause ,you would say he sounds like a great leader, then if you said it was Hitler they would say oh no he was a horrible leader.

[Bouncer]

I guess we disagree. I defined what great is as far as I'm concerned, and so have you. There seems to be a wolrd of difference between them.

Though I don't know enough about Alexander the Great to comment on whether he deserves his moniker or not, I will say that your understanding of his greatness in not very nuanced. There are substantial differences between he and Hitler and there are reasons beyond his conquering of lands which have earned him the title 'great'. First off, Alexander's goal was not the erradication of a people, but rather the expansion of his empire. Once within his empire, many citizens were no worse off than before, and many flourised, having access to culture and trade that they hadn't previously. Great leaders do not kill needlessly or for sport, as Hitler did. Alexander also held his empire together for more than 6 years...something you seem to overlook with Hitler. Anyone can conquer something...a great leader integrates the new terretory into his own. By your logic, Sadam Hussein was a great leader when he conquered Kuwait. He used the same methods of fear and murder that Hitler did, and he also didn't hold on to his new territory very long.

It seems that you simply worship power and authority. Having power does not make someone great, it is rather how they use it. Leading through fear is the easiest way to lead. You seem content to rely on outcomes as a mechanism to determine greatness...if you conquer something, you are great. If you kill enough people that no one will stand against you, you are great. The exercise of brute military strength is not a measure of greatness, it is a measure of military strength.

regardless of Alexanders goals he killed any who stood in his way and he stole other countries simply because it was his quest to expand his empire. in your terms of "great" or "good" he did not have a right to do any of that.

lets also address the issue of leading through fear. do you think hitler just started leading through fear one day? do you think he started yelling at people at the age of 19 and said, "follow me you fuckers"? he got to the position he did because people wanted to follow him, he was a born leader. sure, once he had enough power he started fear tactics but don't you think for one second that he didnt have millions of people that agreed with him and believed in him. hitler was a leader, he certanly was not a follower. this is not in dispute. what we are arguing is about the term "great". much like the time mag man of the year type argument. when i say "great leader" i do not mean a good person or a nice guy. personally, i think he is an absolute piece of shit. but a great leader none the less.

[Bouncer]

well said.

thanks for adding to the convo. :)

[Bouncer]

I think people put emotions in behind hard facts if you said there was this guy in history who motivated millions of people to fight for his cause ,you would say he sounds like a great leader, then if you said it was Hitler they would say oh no he was a horrible leader.

exactly!


people go on a rant about how he isn't a great leader because he "motivated with fear".

the way i see it, he simply used a tactic to achieve his goal.

was he a good man, fuck no. worst kind of human possible. BUT, i respect the hell out of him. to rise to such power is something that VERY FEW can do.

people need to separate emotion from reality. General George Patton was great at this. he hated the Nazis and he hatted General Rommel (nazi general) but he had absolute respect for him.

[Bouncer]

Exactly this hate Bush is laughable. Have we been attacked since? He is my boss and I am proud to say that. Do I want to go back over, who does? Will I? Of course because its the right thing to do.


and as far as aas goes, everyone remember bidens role in the steroid witch hunts.

Just wait for Obama to take office.

i respect you as a soldier but please shut the hell up with the "proud of my boss" crap. your boss's are the great generals over there leading the war. bush is a pencil pusher that has no clue about war or leadership and no respect for it.

while you yourself went to war, your "boss" was sheltered and hid from war. he went to the national guard and was sheltered there by daddy dearest. you are a respectable soldier, bush is nothing of the sort and he is no leader either..

steroids have nothing to do with this convo but if you want to go there... their has never been a bigger steroid witch hunt than that of which happened during the bush administration the year leading up too the Olympics.