The Best and Worst leader of your nation's history...

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


You could justify anything under that, though.

Well, i think about it this way. Hitler was just a manifestion of what the people wanted. They would have just put in a Hitler with a different name.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by calgacus
Personally, I think Kaiser Wilhelm II was the worst German leader in recent times, because his aggressive, inept and tactless policies ruined the 2nd Reich and overturned most of the good work accomplished by Bismarck.
B]

Yep, he could have prevent WW1 by renewing the Insurance Treaty with Russia. We actaully had a thing in history class were the teacher started pointing and we'd yell stupid when his name was brought up.
In addition to the treaty, he also invaded French soveignty during the Moroccoan Crises and forced Austria-Hungery into WW1.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by calgacus
The problem you have is that you are judging Hitler without much reference to the circumstances he faced.

Actually this is exactly what makes Hitler the worst German leader even taken most morals aside.

Hitler lost a war which was bigger in scale than any previous war. Losing had the consequences it had because of the circumstances, not because of Hitler.

The best way of preventing the risk of losing a war is (analogue to birth control) not having one. Hitler's whole aim was the war, his very short-term economic success was based on arming for a war that then should have paid the bill, which didn't work.
Hitler started the war and stayed in power until the end, thus he is responsible for everything that came along with it.

His political ambitions, the ambitions that contributed to the war, were Germany's, were not just Hitler's.

Completely wrong. Many of his ambitions were not just his but also those of the nationalists in general, but they were far from being the whole people.
And his racial ideology was a small minority view.

That war would probably have been fought by any German leader.

No Democratic or Communist leader (therefore the major alternatives) would have fought it.
Also no insightful nationalist leader, because it was practically impossible to win.

[Hitler's almost single-handed success in creating the Nazi state was hardly the work of the worst German leader ever

Well, of course this depends a bit on opinions, but if you'd think (like me and many others) that creating the Nazi state was the worst thing ever done to Germany that leads a different conclusion.

neither was his success in reuniting the Saar, Austrian and the Sudetenland Germans without any bloodshed.

Taken for itself it was certainly a success (though only from a nationalist perspective). But it doesn't make sense to see it that way, because it was part of a bigger picture. You could also say he was great because Germany occupied France and many other countries. But that was not the end of the story.

I've already mentioned the theory that if Hitler would have been killed in 1939 he would be seen as a great German leader today, and that theory makes some sense, but he wasn't killed and so there's no chance of seperating him from the disaster that followed.

BTW, saying that any of my posts are "complete nonsense" won't do you any good because I know that it is never true of anything, never mind my high-quality posts

Yeah okay, but I had to do something about your Site Feedback post.

 

[Phantom Lord]

Originally posted by calgacus
I don't think Hitler is the worst German leader ever, even if he is the most "evil." The growth and recovery of the German state under his leadership was remarkable; ...

So were the dead bodies and ruined cities that were left after his leadership.

 

[Stapel]

The best way of preventing the risk of losing a war is (analogue to birth control) not having one. Hitler's whole aim was the war, his very short-term economic success was based on arming for a war that then should have paid the bill, which didn't work.

Not completey true. Keitel, Goering, Jodl and many others stated during the Nuernberg trials that Hitler would never have attacked Poland, if he had known the British would react with a war declaration. So the war was not his whole aim.

On topic:

Netherlands

Best: Frederik Hendrik, for taking Grolle (Nowadays Groenlo) from the Spanish. Here they brew the best beer in the world: Grolsch.
Frederik Hendrik, a son of Willem van Oranje, also captured more important cities from then Spanish. He was known as the 'city enforcer'.

Worst: Stadholder Willem V, for doing absolutely nothing.

 

[ZultanofZex]

I wish I had a leader, all I am stuck with is a fat pig called
Göran....

 

[Plexus]

United States of America

Best:
Lincoln/FDR: Both lead the nation through hard times.

Worst:
Harding: Teapot Dome Scandal/Corrupt
Harrison: Died in thrity days.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Hitro

Actually this is exactly what makes Hitler the worst German leader even taken most morals aside.

How

Originally posted by Hitro


The best way of preventing the risk of losing a war is (analogue to birth control) not having one. Hitler's whole aim was the war, his very short-term economic success was based on arming for a war that then should have paid the bill, which didn't work.
Hitler started the war and stayed in power until the end, thus he is responsible for everything that came along with it.

Well, actually, it was England that declared war.

Originally posted by Hitro



Completely wrong. Many of his ambitions were not just his but also those of the nationalists in general, but they were far from being the whole people.
And his racial ideology was a small minority view.

It never could be the whole people, but German politics would always have been dominated nationalism while the international situation appeared designed to humiliate her, irrespective of Hitler. Hitler's policies were merely a continuation of previous German foreign policy, not a break. Even if you ignore the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the so-called "September 1914 Program", there is still the fact that the Treaty of Locarno formally regonized losses in the West but not in the East. Do you think that Stresemann would not have used aggressive tactics in the East if Germany had recovered her strength?

Originally posted by Hitro


No Democratic or Communist leader (therefore the major alternatives) would have fought it.
Also no insightful nationalist leader, because it was practically impossible to win.

I doubt that is true. Nationalism was such a powerful force in Germany that any party in power would have to have appeased it.

Originally posted by Hitro



Well, of course this depends a bit on opinions, but if you'd think (like me and many others) that creating the Nazi state was the worst thing ever done to Germany that leads a different conclusion.

Here you are abandoning the distinction between the moral and the practical.

Originally posted by Hitro

Taken for itself it was certainly a success (though only from a nationalist perspective). But it doesn't make sense to see it that way, because it was part of a bigger picture. You could also say he was great because Germany occupied France and many other countries. But that was not the end of the story.

No, but neither is the last 2 Years of WWII the only period of Hitler's reign that one has to consider.

Originally posted by Hitro

I've already mentioned the theory that if Hitler would have been killed in 1939 he would be seen as a great German leader today, and that theory makes some sense, but he wasn't killed and so there's no chance of seperating him from the disaster that followed.

Yeah okay, but I had to do something about your Site Feedback post.

You can't separate him from the disaster of defeat, but it would be better perhaps if you tried to consider other reasons for defeat a little bit more, rather than blaming it all on Hitler.

 

[Zcylen]

Country :Mexico
best ruler.- Benito Juarez ( I'd choose Pancho Villa but he wasnt a president exactly)

the worst.- Carlos Salinas de Gortari,

 

[Suppersalmon]

Country UK

Best : Churchill
Worst : Thatcher

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by calgacus
How

As explained in the rest of the post.

Well, actually, it was England that declared war.

Yeah, and it was also Poland and the USSR who declared war.

And I'd say "the UK" or "Britain", rather than England.

It never could be the whole people, but German politics would always have been dominated nationalism while the international situation appeared designed to humiliate her, irrespective of Hitler.

That' simply wrong. It was pretty clear that the Republic would die, but the possible successors were not a group of nationalist movements, but rather either the Nationalists or the Communists. And it is not very likely that the latter would have been dominated by nationalism...

I doubt that is true. Nationalism was such a powerful force in Germany that any party in power would have to have appeased it.

No, Communism was also a powerful force. A possible radical Communist government (like the Bolshevists in Russia) would have oppressed their enemies like the Nazis did, at least that would have been possible. They would definately not have appeased them, and that was why so many on the right who weren't really Nazis supported Hitler.

Here you are abandoning the distinction between the moral and the practical.

The lifes of the people, sovereignty and territorial integrity are pretty practical in my view.

No, but neither is the last 2 Years of WWII the only period of Hitler's reign that one has to consider.

The whole picture has to be considered, and that is one of complete failure. You can't just take out any two (or five) years.
Let's say someone builds a big beautiful house without caring about statics and sells appartments to alot of people for virtually no money. Of course he would be ruined financially and the house would eventually collapse killing the inhabitants. Would you then call him a great architect?

 

[Flak]

This thread seems to have spun out of control for a few posters here. I think it was a bad idea to list the 'worst' leader.

Anyways in keeping:
Best: Abraham Lincoln
Worst: Andrew Johnson

 

[Pillager]

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Best: Queen Victoria
Worst: 'Sir' Edward Heath

 

[superunknown]

Originally posted by calgacus

No, but neither is the last 2 Years of WWII the only period of Hitler's reign that one has to consider.

What you really have to consider is what everything he did finally resulted in, and we all know what that was. Total devastation.

 

[Cimbri]

Originally posted by Yoda Power
Denmark

Best: Canute, he conquerd England, Norway and the Orkney Islands
Worst: dont know

Knud (Canute) good choice… But I prefer Absalon (He funded Copenhagen ) or Christian 10. our king during the nazi occupation 1940-1945…

I have a worst Danish leader ever btw: King Christian II… Why? November 8. 1520… The ‘Bloodbath in Stockholm’

Cimbri

 

[Vote BNP]

Best - Churchill, with Thatcher a close second.

Worst - Any Prime Minister in the 50s for starting the liberal do-gooder policies of the welfare state and Tony Blair.

 

[Vote BNP]

Calgacus - I very much enjoyed reading your posts about Hitler and I am pleased to see that someone else has it right about the man. Hitler is clearly not the worst leader in German history, and as I stated previously in another thread, had Hitler died in 1938, he would be regarded as perhaps one of the great heroes in German history.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Romania.

Best leader: King Michael I (son of Carol I of Hohenzolern)

Turned the weapons against Hitler during WW2. Shortened WW2 by at least 6 months, effectively saved the lives over 500,000 soldiers and millions of civillians).
One of the unsung heros of WW2.

Worst leader: Ceausescu

 

[Phantom Lord]

Originally posted by Vote BNP
Calgacus - I very much enjoyed reading your posts about Hitler and I am pleased to see that someone else has it right about the man. Hitler is clearly not the worst leader in German history, and as I stated previously in another thread, had Hitler died in 1938, he would be regarded as perhaps one of the great heroes in German history.

Hitler didn't die in 1938 and he planned the extinction of millions and the sacrifice of million others just to make his insane ideas come true long before 1938.

And since history is the judge here and not someone who knows everything about nothing and nothing about it all, there is not the slightest doubt that he clearly was the worst leader Germany ever had.

All he did was to turn the unemployment situation into a no future industry that only existed to create and maintain his warmachine. All that talk what he did for the economy is nonsense, unless we talk of supplying it with slaves.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Hitro
And I'd say "the UK" or "Britain", rather than England.

Well, that's up to you.

I tend to use "UK" and "England" interchangably.

Originally posted by Hitro
That' simply wrong. It was pretty clear that the Republic would die, but the possible successors were not a group of nationalist movements, but rather either the Nationalists or the Communists. And it is not very likely that the latter would have been dominated by nationalism...

Communism was also a powerful force. A possible radical Communist government (like the Bolshevists in Russia) would have oppressed their enemies like the Nazis did, at least that would have been possible. They would definately not have appeased them, and that was why so many on the right who weren't really Nazis supported Hitler.

You would be misunderstanding this period of history if you really do think that Nationalism and Communism are mutually exclusive. After all, the second world war was known in Russia as "the Great Patriotic War" and the Nazis do have the word "socialist" in their title.

Originally posted by Hitro

The whole picture has to be considered, and that is one of complete failure. You can't just take out any two (or five) years.

No you can't Hitro, which is one of my points

Originally posted by Hitro

Let's say someone builds a big beautiful house without caring about statics and sells appartments to alot of people for virtually no money. Of course he would be ruined financially and the house would eventually collapse killing the inhabitants. Would you then call him a great architect?

You might prefer to compare him to a racing driver, whose live and car are brought to an end in an accident. Does that mean he is a bad driver?