Extension of the Kreger Poll

[DeletedUser]

As I believe it the question that started this thread was "what makes a good/bad leader"

In my opinion a good leader is one who wants to lead in order to bring out the best out of his followers, even to his own determent .
A bad leader is one who leads using fear and manipulation, using his power to pump up his own ego while disregarding the true need of his followers.

In both instances, a good leader and bad leader both start not with people who want to bitch about the leader but the few who will stand up and actually lead.

 

[DeletedUser]

I already commented on what Hitler was. He was evil. He was cruel. But on a proportional ratio, did he kill any more than past leaders? I can't honestly answer that question, because I don't know. But there are far more people now than there were say in 100 A.D. Or 200 B.C. Were leaders then any less evil than Hitler?

Hitler, while probably the most evil person this side of the 19th century, was a brilliant man if you only look at his accomplishment and not his cruelty. In a thread about what makes a leader great, counting out someone who managed to take control that much of the world is rather rediculous.

Much of the world? Your geography is very poor darky. The Nazis controlled approximately half of Europe and a small part of Africa. If that equates to most of the world, then I'm a Blue Orangutan.

 

[DeletedUser]

Most of Germany was unaware of the holocaust, and as such were not aware of such crimes...when they became aware they were shocked. I grew up with a German friend, whose grandmother grew up in Berlin, and she actually met Hitler as a teenager several times. She told us (my friend and I) as we were growing up several stories about Hitler from her youth. She spoke about him as a great speaker with "great hypnotic like speaking". She said that they (the German citizens) were only told that the "Jews" were being shipped out of Germany. The entirety was not known of what was going on. A complete genocide of millions of innocent people due to their nationality and religion to that degree had not occurred to that level in centuries, and will not occur to that level unchecked (due to the world agreements on human rights in the post holocaust society). Yes many groups have murdered millions (stallin, Sadam Husein, and others), however no one had such a level of torture and sacrifices. Using humans as guinea pigs in experiments and torture situations in "the name of science" - this is what set Hitler apart from Stalin, or Husein.

now the main point of this is the issue of what makes a "Good leader", I believe it has been well established that Hitler was NOT a good leader.

Kreger

 

[DeletedUser]

I already commented on what Hitler was. He was evil. He was cruel. But on a proportional ratio, did he kill any more than past leaders? I can't honestly answer that question, because I don't know. But there are far more people now than there were say in 100 A.D. Or 200 B.C. Were leaders then any less evil than Hitler?

Hitler, while probably the most evil person this side of the 19th century, was a brilliant man if you only look at his accomplishment and not his cruelty. In a thread about what makes a leader great, counting out someone who managed to take control that much of the world is rather rediculous.

hitler was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party.
but he never made the big decisions and never started theparty
Anton Drexler was the person who was behind most of the things
and he knew hitler had allot of influence on the german community and kinda brainwashed hitler but thing got out of hand and hitler became to power full and took in Anton Drexler his position
but what made NSDAP power full where coleaders of NSDAP and the advisors of hitler (Göring, Goebbels, Frick en Darré )
well atleast this is the story i got at school :S

 

[DeletedUser]

See this is a problem with people. We try to rate people in some sort of crazy league table of evilness. And the way this is rated is on a kill count? This is absurd. Surely all evill has to be subjective and based on the persons mind set and not their actions? For example psychology has shown us that certain psychopaths can not be considered "evil" because they have no concept of right or wrong. Theists would argue that they are immoral but not sinful.
What makes killing 6million jews and being responsible for the death of 25million other people, more evil than say killing a few people for pleasure. Their minds have reached a certain level. I would argue that actions such as when Thatcher allowed for the sinking of the belgrano was just as mentally evil as Hitler.
And in regards to Hitler being a great speaker and hypnotic- Tv magicians are both, but you wouldn't rate them as leaders. The current english prime minister is the least charismatic person I've even seen, however if you understand policy he is actually a pretty good leader.

To topic- I don't think you can really rate leadership by examining success. The plauge wiped out loads and that was just the actions of barely sentient bacteria merely trying to survive and 'breed'.
If we are going to examine which leader in w3 was the greatest (which is a silly thing to do because everyone can only see the subjective in this matter.) then we have to consider it in context to the game. Which means which leader was the most fun. Surely?

 

[DeletedUser]

See this is a problem with people. We try to rate people in some sort of crazy league table of evilness. And the way this is rated is on a kill count? This is absurd. Surely all evill has to be subjective and based on the persons mind set and not their actions?

Most sensible thing said in this thread.

This is why the genocide in Rwanda, among many other places, is either ignored or not known to many. The number of dead is much lower than the Holocaust, yet it doesn't make the Holocaust worse than the Rwandan Genocide.

And if we spoke of pure numbers, then there has been far worse than the Holocaust. But the survivors and winners do write the history books, and sometimes those responsible for the deaths of millions aren't ever tagged as evil.

It's not a numbers game for evilness, I must agree.

 

[DeletedUser]

Woh, I was just about to mention Rwanda, but decided that not enough people would recognize it. It's hard trying to judge it I suppose. Two tribes fighting like that, I mean it's hard to know what they were thinking. Best just to blame colonialism...that's what I usually do.

"Tagged as evil" That's one of my original complaints about Kreger's examples. What we know of Ghengis Khan was that he was a brutal killer and he loved it.

Just thinking back to some philosophy. Augustine didn't actually believe in Evil. He put forward a convincing case that there was just Good and the absence of it.

 

[Valnor Lathriel]

lol @ hitler being a brilliant leader.

 

[DeletedUser]

In response to the question actually posed, Kregers original list pretty much sums it up for me. Regardless of how much of that you believe, perception is in my opinion the biggest factor in maintaining rule.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well we are leaving out some of the most crucial leaders in shaping their respected countries.

Peter the Great- Russia had never seen a leader so devoted, so dedicated to building up the reputation of Russia as Peter did. He acquired so much in the form of territory as well as the ever crucial warm water ports. In bringing Russia into the light he also modernizied and westernized the country enabling it to keep up with the rest of Europe in a time when the slightest disadvantage meant some form of war to come.

One other before I hit the hay

Joseph II of Austria- If there was any ruler who could be considered an enlightened despot it would be Joseph. Taking over a country that not a century ago was fighting just to be known to making it one of the key eastern-european powers it was him. He was Enlightened in every sense of the word with his policies on religious toleration and abolishment of serfdom. He like his mother and former ruler Maria Theresa kept Austria together while it was bombared by Prussia and other powers in the east showing that one power could stand alone against a group. He could command his armies one day and the next walk the streets making sure his rules and his policies were being inforced and his people loved him and feared him.


If there is one trait that every ruler must have they must be loved and feared. In the ever lasting words of Machiavelli, "It is best to be both feared and loved, but if you must be one, it is best to be feared over loved.

 

[DeletedUser]

I already commented on what Hitler was. He was evil. He was cruel. But on a proportional ratio, did he kill any more than past leaders? I can't honestly answer that question, because I don't know. But there are far more people now than there were say in 100 A.D. Or 200 B.C. Were leaders then any less evil than Hitler?

Hitler, while probably the most evil person this side of the 19th century, was a brilliant man if you only look at his accomplishment and not his cruelty. In a thread about what makes a leader great, counting out someone who managed to take control that much of the world is rather rediculous.

A most intriguing conversation. I have enjoyed the read. However, my obsession must be satisfied.

Hitler cannot be the 'Most Evil' person on this side of the 19th Century. Stalin precedes him in murders. Death and Destruction.

 

[zgamer]

Hitler Must get some points for the fact that as horrible it was he nearly eliminated a whole religion, by the end of WWII there was just 1/3rd the remaining Jews in the world compared to before, Stalin did kill 20 million while hitler killed only 10, but Stailin killed a lot of his own people, in terms of damage felt, i think hilter beats stalin. Stailin was the Blunt Stick of Destruction per say while hitler was more of a laser guided missile.

Basically Stailin Killed 20 million out of 100 million people in russia, Hitler killed 6 million out of 9 million jewish people. that was much more terrifying in my opinion how focused hitler was

 

[DeletedUser]

You folks do know that more than just Jews were killed by the Nazi regime, right?

 

[darkaniken2]

You folks do know that more than just Jews were killed by the Nazi regime, right?

Yes. But the Jewish people were the most widely targeted and sustained the heaviest casualties.

 

[spleen mage]

To me there are many definitions under this, but to look into history for views of good leaders and why?

1. Ghengis Khan - The greatest Empire (size wise) ever known on Earth, even larger then USSR at its height, and far larger then even the Roman Empire. He led though in an interesting way... he delegated positions and placed conquered leaders as leaders over their own people, so long as they paid their "tithes" to his government those leaders were free to lead as they felt fit, with only intermittent interference where he thought needed.

I may be ignorant here, but didn't the size of the British empire exceed that of the Mongols? Apparently, the British Empire was 33.7 million km squared, while GK's empire was only 33 million. Though, admittedly, wikipedia isn't the most reliable source (doesn't stop me using it in assignments though!!).

As for Hitler as a "great" leader. I'm in two minds on this one (moral issues aside). I think, arguably, being charismatic is important for a leader, which he certainly had. He may have made a good peace time leader, and he did wonders for the German economy. Still, he got too ambitious, which is never a good characteristic.

Sadly, I'm also a history student However, I get enough work, so I try not to do it in my spare time. ;D

 

[DeletedUser]

I may be ignorant here, but didn't the size of the British empire exceed that of the Mongols? Apparently, the British Empire was 33.7 million km squared, while GK's empire was only 33 million. Though, admittedly, wikipedia isn't the most reliable source (doesn't stop me using it in assignments though!!).

As for Hitler as a "great" leader. I'm in two minds on this one (moral issues aside). I think, arguably, being charismatic is important for a leader, which he certainly had. He may have made a good peace time leader, and he did wonders for the German economy. Still, he got too ambitious, which is never a good characteristic.

Sadly, I'm also a history student However, I get enough work, so I try not to do it in my spare time. ;D

The most difficult thing with regards to Ghengis Khan's empire is knowing the exact borders of it. In the east, just how far did his borders go in the southeast towards China and also in towards India? Whereas, the British Empire was in a more recent time where borders were much more defined and established. Of course the British empire at its height included much of todays Canada, India and Australian countries... So perhaps I should have worded that as the largest continuous land based empire - lol

at any rate, it is not my personal achievements of these leaders that I wished to stand out, however the attributes which made them great, or that they were most widely known for.

I am not a history major or anything like that, just an avid reader and study of the histories and thus a novice Historian as compared to some others, but the purpose was not to challenge anyones concept of history, but to point at the figures in history and what made them great.

kreger

 

[DeletedUser]

A most intriguing conversation. I have enjoyed the read. However, my obsession must be satisfied.

Hitler cannot be the 'Most Evil' person on this side of the 19th Century. Stalin precedes him in murders. Death and Destruction.

Actually since the facts are still wrong, Mao Zedong beat both of them in number killed and although he did it from 1949-1975 (a longer time than both Hitler and Stalin) his number was a much greater number in proportion to the number of citizens in China. He is credited to having killed between 50 and 70 million, as somewhere in-between is where most textbooks and pieces on Mao stand at.

Hitler Must get some points for the fact that as horrible it was he nearly eliminated a whole religion, by the end of WWII there was just 1/3rd the remaining Jews in the world compared to before, Stalin did kill 20 million while hitler killed only 10, but Stailin killed a lot of his own people, in terms of damage felt, i think hilter beats stalin. Stailin was the Blunt Stick of Destruction per say while hitler was more of a laser guided missile.

Basically Stailin Killed 20 million out of 100 million people in russia, Hitler killed 6 million out of 9 million jewish people. that was much more terrifying in my opinion how focused hitler was

Well this doesn't make sense. You can't sit here and compare one man to a whole religion while you compare the other man to his own people, the logic itself is missing which discredits your whole statement. So in 1939 the German population was around 80,600,000+ and lets stay conservative and say by 1942 it was close to 82,000,000, for argument sake. Now a majority of the Jews were German, but Hitler did go out of Germany and rounded up not only Jews but other "undesirables" making up a fraction of the 6 million. Since I don't have exact numbers we will go with this.
Hitler killed 5.5M of his own population out of 82,000,000, which comes out to be about 6%.

Stalin in 1940 had a population of 191,700,000. Again remaining conservative lets say it increased to 193,000,000. To stay up to date, the common number for Stalin kills is 20,000,000.

Stalin killed 20,000,000 of his own population out of 193,000,000, which comes out to be about 10%.

Mao in 1940 had a population of 455,590,000. Staying conservative lets say it increased to 460,000,000 by 1942. The relative number for his kills sits steady at about 60,000,000.

Mao killed 60,000,000 of his own population out of 455,590,000, which comes out to be about 13%.

I know these numbers are estimates while some are fact. The idea is the same.
Zgamer you cannot compare whole religions and populations of countries.
Congo your wrong in that Stalin is the most, clearly shown that Mao killed more of his population, and even more so, a higher percentage.

 

[DeletedUser]

Congo your wrong in that Stalin is the most, clearly shown that Mao killed more of his population, and even more so, a higher percentage.

Can you quote me anywhere where I stated Stalin had more killings (either in total number or percentages) than Mao Ze-Dong? Based on era related issues (Mao Ze-Dong started doing his killings after both Stalin and Hitler were dead).

It is a common conception that Hitler was the most ruthless leader in the 20th Century. What people keep forgetting is that Stalin reigned in the same time he era Hitler was in, and yet, he killed more people.

But since Stalin was 'our ally', in terms of the view of the American perception, we will overlook that and see Hitler as the true evil.

Now, China, is commonly viewed as a country not to be trusted (again, based on American perception only). They are evil because Mao Ze-Dong is evil. Communism is evil. And all that patriotic blah-blah-blah.

But no, what I was really trying to say in all this is that, 'No. I was not wrong.'

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok lets see what you said.

A most intriguing conversation. I have enjoyed the read. However, my obsession must be satisfied.

Hitler cannot be the 'Most Evil' person on this side of the 19th Century. Stalin precedes him in murders. Death and Destruction.

1.Well first off your not historical correct at all so again your argument holds 0 value. 19th century was 1800s.. Who the hell is Hitler and Stalin in the 1800s..? WRONG

2. Get your facts straight. You don't define, don't describe or depict what qualifies as most evil. By sheer numbers alone Mao is. And then you say precedes? You do know that precedes means comes before. So Stalin did all of his killing before Hitler? Here is the deal.. I'll let you 1st get your facts straight.. what I mean is Do your homework.. Then after you've got that down we can work on how you present an argument and how you learn to use diction that actually works!?!?!

Then after that is done and your information looks good we can really try to say that you were not wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

1.Well first off your not historical correct at all so again your argument holds 0 value. 19th century...

Wow. You got me on that one. A typing error. You'll notice that in the very next post, I have 20th Century. Are you a genius?

MY NEXT POST:

It is a common conception that Hitler was the most ruthless leader in the 20th Century.

And then you say precedes? You do know that precedes means comes before.

When I used the word 'precede', I meant it saying that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.

Now, again, 'Can you quote me anywhere where I stated Stalin had more killings than Mao Ze-Dong?'

Not gonna answer that question, are ya? :lol:


That's what I thought.