The measure of what makes someone a good leader isn't really what they LED... just how many people followed. And Hitler had brainwashing pretty down pat. So yes, Hitler was a freak and a little bit of a dick... but a good leader.

you could say that. that still doesn't rule of the horrific acts he did as dictator of Germany nor the Millions of Millions of lives he took with his "Final Solution" etc. He was smart but a horrible man never-the-less.

"Good"? Let's see ... He instigated the extermination of 6 million Jews and other people he deemed undesirable. So, the answer is an emphatic no.

Yes and no. The goal of a leader is to rally it's people for a cause raise them from devastation and restore them for glory. So yes he was in that sense. HOWEVER he was not a good good leader but an evil good leader if you get what I mean. He had the ability to lead but he use it for evil and if you are looking to follow in his footsteps I suggest different direction

Good leader. Biggest asshole in the entire galaxy.

He was one of the best leaders of all time, however he used his power for evil. Talented leader, but very disturbed.

If you set aside his ideology and the dreadful things he did he could have been a Good leader. He was supposed to be a brilliant orator and he came to power at a time when Germany was on its knees . His speeches seemed to transfix a nation. If his iseas had been for good he could have been a great leader he had that affect on the German masses.

Yes and no, he was one of the best speakers in history. He was however also higly unstable which led to many bad decisions which ultimately led to his downfall (arguably the worst being confronting Russia).

He must have been in order to get so many people to follow him! That is what was so scarey about him. Excellent question.

he was a great leader it doesnt mean what he did was right though.

Yes. If Hitler died peacfully in 1938 he would be regarded somwhat as a hero, for rescuing Germany from the depression.

Sure, if you were planning to go to hell anyway. He'll lead you straight there.

That depends on how you define good. From the Nazi perspective, absolutely he was. He mobilized a whole county into a war with the objective of taking over Europe, northern Africa and western Asia.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state in which a person feels discomfort when presented with facts that are contradictory to what he has always believed. His immediate response is to deny the new facts to remain in his comfort zone. ¶ As it has been historically documented, WW2 is a one-sided issue. The events are presented from the allied perspective while most of the facts from the German perspective have been censored. Go to Youtube and look for any videos that show the German perspective. You'll find that they have been removed "for violations of terms of use". Yet, there is a plethora of videos that demonize Germany. ¶ The history books talk about how bad the Holocaust was to the Jews, but nothing is mentioned about the way the Germans were treated after the war. Go to archive.com and watch Hellstorm - The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany. ¶ Was Hitler a good leader? I would say so. Contrary to western propaganda, he never wanted war and tried to avoid it - the war was forced on Germany. The conditions that existed when Hitler became Chancellor had been in place since the end of WW1 when the Versailles Treaty decimated Germany and its economy. Germany was virtually powerless to exist as a sovereign nation. Communism was rampant, the Zionist mafia ("Jews") controlled Germany's resources (finance, media, culture, education, etc) and left the Germans starving, unemployed, and homeless. It was 14 years of oppression under the Weimar Republic government that brought Hitler to power - not "brainwashing". Hitler vowed to turn Germany's economy around - and he kept his word. Within 6 years, Germany's unemployment dropped from around 30% to 3%. This is why the people loved Hitler - not "brainwashing". ¶ As to the "6 million Jews" and "extermination", this concept goes back to the early 20th century as the Zionists ("Jews"), who controlled the media, declared that 6 million Jews were being persecuted and threatened with extermination. This wasn't associated with Hitler or Germany at the time, but they pushed this support/financing campaign steadily until 1939. After more than 20 years, the claims of "6 million" and "extermination" resonated in the minds of people so that, when Hitler was first accused in the Zionists' hate campaign of exterminating Jews in 1933, the world readily accepted it. ¶ Most people want to dismiss these facts as the rantings of revisionists. But revisionism is nothing more than setting the facts straight ("revise"). Sadly, it seems no one wants to know the facts. They'd rather stay in their comfort zone.

Well...no. Read any history of Nazi Germany. Or: look how Hitler ended up WHILE STILL LEADER. Consider the fact that some of his top military officials attempted to assassinate him. Consider his treatment of the citizens in his charge. Consider how well he abided by international agreements. Etc. etc. Hitler was a despot whose political/economic system demanded conquest in order to prevent collapse, and HE PERSONALLY DEMANDED more conquest than the system could reasonably manage. *** Historically there have been despots who were "good leaders" in the sense that they seriously increased the power and wealth of the nation and the standard of living of the typical citizen. But Hitler did this only VERY temporarily, his system ending up killing millions of German citizens (and: I'm not speaking only of concentration camps, I'm also speaking of military personnel, factory workers, etc.) It's well above 3 million military personnel (to be fair: 1.9 million verified killed, 1.7 million MIA). This, from a nation that had a population of under 80 million. *** The equivalent would be for the U.S. (now) to lose about 12 million military personnel. Can you imagine how Americans would react to such a thing? How many military personnel did the U.S. lose in WWII? A little over 400,000. That includes both European and Pacific theaters. *** CONCLUSION: Hitler may have done his people a temporary favor, economically speaking, but in the long run his policies killed millions and impoverished far more. He was NOT a good leader. He was not a SUCCESSFUL leader. He was a POWERFUL leader while his leadership lasted...and though it lasted long compared to the leader of a typical democracy, compared to the typical despot his longevity as leader was not exceptional.

Clickbait!😐