# Think Tank > History >  Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938 - Time Magazine

## DamianTV

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...760539,00.html




> Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler. 
> 
> Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world. 
> 
> All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year. 
> 
> Most other world figures of 1938 faded in importance as the year drew to a close. Prime Minister Chamberlain's "peace with honor'' seemed more than ever to have achieved neither. An increasing number of Britons ridiculed his appease-the-dictators policy, believed that nothing save abject surrender could satisfy the dictators' ambitions. 
> 
> Among many Frenchmen there rose a feeling that Premier Daladier, by a few strokes of the pen at Munich, had turned France into a second-rate power. Aping Mussolini in his gestures and copying triumphant Hitler's shouting complex, the once liberal Daladier at year's end was reduced to using parliamentary tricks to keep his job. 
> ...


So, how many of you did not know that?  I didn't.

----------


## Zippyjuan

"Man of the Year" is typically the person who influenced world events the most.  It does not necessariy mean they were a nice person. 




> Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy he had pursued for five and a half years. He had torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds. He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. *He had stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world*. 
> 
> All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but *nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events* which during late summer and early autumn *threatened a world war* over Czechoslovakia. When without loss of blood he reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state, forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, how many of you did not know that?  I didn't.


I knew it happened, I just forgot the year.  But Zippy's right.  Remember ~10 years ago when the PoTY was "YOU"? :rollyes:

----------


## Seraphim

Stalin received the award twice...

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> "Man of the Year" is typically the person who influenced world events the most.  It does not necessariy mean they were a nice person.


For the reason you speak, I'd say president Obama should win the award.  Wait.  I take that back.  President Obama is less of a "Commander and Chief" and more a "Cower in the background and Kill from a distance."  
Unlike these antagonists in the past, he is truly evil.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...760539,00.html
> 
> 
> 
> So, how many of you did not know that?  I didn't.


Keep digging...

----------


## ronpaulfollower999



----------


## Seraphim

Just goes to show you what a pile of dog $#@! Time Magazine is. Nefarious propagandists. Always have been.




>

----------


## RabbitMan

Again, 'Man of the Year' implies their effect on world events, not on how nice they were.  There is no reason to be angry with the magazine over stuff like this.

----------


## acptulsa

> Again, 'Man of the Year' implies their effect on world events, not on how nice they were.  There is no reason to be angry with the magazine over stuff like this.


I don't think anyone's denying that.  But the slant of _Time_ over the years definitely doesn't make me think more of Rubio for appearing on the cover.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Again, 'Man of the Year' implies their effect on world events, not on how nice they were.


I've made the statement several times that I believe Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of all time.  People always get really offended, because they think I'm saying he did good things.  It's a similar phenomenon... people like to jump to conclusions entirely too quickly.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ayatullah Khomeini got it in 1979 for the Iranian revoulution and the US hostages taken and held for 444 days. Nixon and Kissinger in 1972.  1951 was Mohammad Mosaddegh, freely elected leader of Iran who was ousted that year by the US CIA who installed the Shah of Iran.

Marco Rubio would have to do something significant to get the title.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Just goes to show you what a pile of dog $#@! Time Magazine is. Nefarious propagandists. Always have been.


I'd wipe my ass with Time, but toilet paper is cheaper.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I've made the statement several times that I believe Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of all time.  People always get really offended, because they think I'm saying he did good things.  It's a similar phenomenon... people like to jump to conclusions entirely too quickly.


Back up your claim.

How was he the greatest leader?

He used terrorism on his own people. Great speaker? He lied during speeches constantly. He was intellectually dishonest - he killed or expelled any competition whether political or intellectual. He was a thug.

Any chimpanzee could have done what Hitler did, he used the new technologies of an era to oppress his people and go on a genocidal rampage.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that people think you're a neo-nazi or full of $#@! when you make that claim.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> "Man of the Year" is typically the person who influenced world events the most.  It does not necessariy mean they were a nice person.


Everyone always says this when anyone mentions Hitler's being named it, but if that were true: why was Giuliani Time's 'Man of the Year' in 2001 instead of Osama bin Laden?

----------


## Henry Rogue

Moving hungry and frightened sheep in the direction you want them to go, doesn't make you a great leader. It just makes you a sheepherder. I think a great leader of a country, would be one who left everyone alone. Maybe convince everyone to lead themselves.

----------


## DamianTV

From other sources, Hitler rebuilt his country after "The World War" by not surrendering to the Central Banks.  That is what made him Man of the Year.  But since he became a threat to the Central Banks, he had to be taken out.  WWII.  Excluding the obvious, did I miss anything?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Moving hungry and frightened sheep in the direction you want them to go, doesn't make you a great leader. It just makes you a sheepherder. I think a great leader of a country, would be one who left everyone alone. Maybe convince everyone to lead themselves.


Like Ron Paul?

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> From other sources, Hitler rebuilt his country after "The World War" by not surrendering to the Central Banks.  That is what made him Man of the Year.  But since he became a threat to the Central Banks, he had to be taken out.  WWII.  Excluding the obvious, did I miss anything?


And liquidating the wealth and lives of a minority group.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Like Ron Paul?


 Exactly who I had in mind.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Back up your claim.
> 
> How was he the greatest leader?
> 
> He used terrorism on his own people. Great speaker? He lied during speeches constantly. He was intellectually dishonest - he killed or expelled any competition whether political or intellectual. He was a thug.
> 
> Any chimpanzee could have done what Hitler did, he used the new technologies of an era to oppress his people and go on a genocidal rampage.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me in the least that people think you're a neo-nazi or full of $#@! when you make that claim.





> Moving hungry and frightened sheep in the direction you want them to go, doesn't make you a great leader. It just makes you a sheepherder. I think a great leader of a country, would be one who left everyone alone. Maybe convince everyone to lead themselves.


You both seem to be making the assumption that a leader has to be a good person while they lead.  I look at leadership as getting people to do things you want them to do.  Hitler accomplished this extremely well.  You can call it herding sheep or whatever you want, but Hitler was capable of motivating people to do his bidding.

Also, lies during a speech don't make someone a bad orator... just a dishonest one.  Hitler was regarded as an extremely charismatic speaker and knew how to rally the masses.

The guy was an $#@!, I think we can all agree on that.  When it comes to motivating people to do something he was an expert.  And while we would all love a President who leaves everyone alone, Henry Rogue, that would be showing no form of leadership.  Leadership is about guiding and directing people, something which is a little bit of a conflict for liberty supporters who just want personal freedom.  Leadership isn't _always_ needed... it's really only needed for change.  Leaving people alone would be a change, but it doesn't really require getting a ton of people to follow you.

But thank you both for proving my point.  People often confuse the bad things that Hitler did with the basic understanding of what leadership is.  Great leaders aren't necessarily great people.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> You both seem to be making the assumption that a leader has to be a good person while they lead.  I look at leadership as getting people to do things you want them to do.  Hitler accomplished this extremely well.  You can call it herding sheep or whatever you want, but Hitler was capable of motivating people to do his bidding.
> 
> Also, lies during a speech don't make someone a bad orator... just a dishonest one.  Hitler was regarded as an extremely charismatic speaker and knew how to rally the masses.
> 
> The guy was an $#@!, I think we can all agree on that.  When it comes to motivating people to do something he was an expert.  And while we would all love a President who leaves everyone alone, Henry Rogue, that would be showing no form of leadership.  Leadership is about guiding and directing people, something which is a little bit of a conflict for liberty supporters who just want personal freedom.  Leadership isn't _always_ needed... it's really only needed for change.  Leaving people alone would be a change, but it doesn't really require getting a ton of people to follow you.
> 
> But thank you both for proving my point.  People often confuse the bad things that Hitler did with the basic understanding of what leadership is.  Great leaders aren't necessarily great people.


 Leading by example is a form of leadership, but if you're right about great leaders then I hope this country ends up with the worst leader possible.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Leading by example is a form of leadership, but if you're right about great leaders then I hope this country ends up with the worst leader possible.


Leading by example is _part_ of being a good leader.  People are hesitant to follow "leaders" who don't live what they're preaching.  Leading by just setting the example alone does not guarantee any form of results.  From a liberty perspective, I think a good leader would be one who motivated the rest of the government to leave the public alone (while they did the same).

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Leading by example is _part_ of being a good leader.  People are hesitant to follow "leaders" who don't live what they're preaching.  Leading by just setting the example alone does not guarantee any form of results.  From a liberty perspective, I think a good leader would be one who motivated the rest of the government to leave the public alone (while they did the same).


 Sounds good to me. I often wonder how much media plays a part in a leader's goals. It seems they have the power to decide what agendas will be discussed in public and eventually legislated. If the leader's and media's goals are the same then it bodes well for the leader. I've had bosses that were micromanagers. Their style wore thin in short order. I had bosses that delegated responsibility and kept people motivated towards an end goal. If motivation is the only criteria for a great leader, then results must be meaningless. The result of hitler's leadership was disastrous for his followers.  

Off topic. The thing is, should the President of the U.S. be considered a leader of the people at all. President suggests he presides, 


> 1.Be in the position of authority in a meeting or gathering: "Bishop Herbener presided at the meeting". 2.Be in charge of (a place or situation). Synonyms chair - head - moderate


 a position of authority, 


> 1.The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates". 2.The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another. Synonyms power - control - warrant


 but authority over who? His executive branch. Supposedly the People are the presidents boss. Supposedly we give him his marching orders. Of course the morality of a democratically elected representative is a different subject.

----------


## Anti Federalist

That's why we don't have "leaders".

Never mind the outright ridiculous notion of thinking that mob of cum-drunk sluts in the District of Calamity could even "lead" a drunken sailor to a whore house, the idea never was to be "leaders".

They are supposed to be our *representatives*.

Which I suppose, when you think about it, is even worse.

----------


## idiom

People are still following Hitler and the dudes been dead for more than six decades.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I look at leadership as getting people to do things you want them to do.


This is your problem. With your view of 'leadership' totalitarians like Hitler will always be the greatest leader.

But as far as his orating skills... like I said already, he lied and used terrorism/false flags to back his lies up. That's not civil debate. People were afraid of him. Of course they would say he was a great speaker.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> That's why we don't have "leaders".
> 
> Never mind the outright ridiculous notion of thinking that mob of cum-drunk sluts in the District of Calamity could even "lead" a drunken sailor to a whore house, the idea never was to be "leaders".
> 
> They are supposed to be our *representatives*.
> 
> Which I suppose, when you think about it, is even worse.


That's what happens when I keep thinking about and adding to my post without refreshing the page. The next post states what I added. Could of saved myself the trouble if I would have refreshed the page.

----------


## Aeroneous

> This is your problem. With your view of 'leadership' totalitarians like Hitler will always be the greatest leader.
> 
> But as far as his orating skills... like I said already, he lied and used terrorism/false flags to back his lies up. That's not civil debate. People were afraid of him. Of course they would say he was a great speaker.


Actually much like Obama, he constantly spoke of "change" and "hope", which inspired a depressed population.  The fear came later, but that's irrelevant.  Whether or not the guy lied or used false flags, he was good at delivering speeches.

The dictionary definition of leadership has to do only with the capability to direct.  Society has turned the phrase "leadership" into some type of mystical trait that only good people have, so they hate to hear that it can be used for terrible ends.  So yes, totalitarianism fosters an environment for effective leadership.

But again you prove my point.  People keep confusing the word leader with words like savior, hero, humanitarian, philanthropist, altruist, samaritan, etc.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Actually much like Obama, he constantly spoke of "change" and "hope", which inspired a depressed population.  The fear came later, but that's irrelevant.  Whether or not the guy lied or used false flags, he was good at delivering speeches.
> 
> The dictionary definition of leadership has to do only with the capability to direct.  Society has turned the phrase "leadership" into some type of mystical trait that only good people have, so they hate to hear that it can be used for terrible ends.  So yes, totalitarianism fosters an environment for effective leadership.
> 
> But again you prove my point.  People keep confusing the word leader with words like savior, hero, humanitarian, philanthropist, altruist, samaritan, etc.


It has been reported that, while Hitler was speaking, young German women would scream, tinkle in their panties, and pass out.  That sounds just like the effects of president Obama's golden voice.  I know there has been a few occasions when I've found myself waking up after passing out during one of the majestic bastard's State of the Union addresses!

----------


## Aeroneous

> would scream, tinkle in their panties, and pass out.


I know this phenomenon all too well, unfortunately.  Unfortunately it's never a result of my beautiful prose.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I know this phenomenon all too well, unfortunately.  Unfortunately it's never a result of my beautiful prose.


It's not the looks that turn the women on.  It is the power.  One can see an excellent example of this in the lion kingdom.  Male lions know this when, after running off an old male lion from a harem of females, they set about driving all the young male lions out of the feline group before viciously turning their attention to their helpless kittens.  I can remember one video of a little kitten growling at the level of a "meow" at a larger male just before he viciously pounced upon it grabbing the poor thing around the throat thrashing it about.  This is the same technique Obama uses.  He seems very powerful and virile.  You know, male lions are cruel bastards, but it really seemed to turn on the female lions who immediately took up the mating position.

----------


## Aeroneous

> You know, male lions are cruel bastards, but it really seemed to turn on the female lions who immediately took up the mating position.


So given the previous discussion of female reaction to Hitler's speeches, does that mean that passing out is the mating position of the human female?

----------


## Todd

> It has been reported that, while Hitler was speaking, young German women would scream, tinkle in their panties, and pass out.  That sounds just like the effects of president Obama's golden voice.  I know there has been a few occasions when I've found myself waking up after passing out during one of the majestic bastard's State of the Union addresses!


Hopefully your undies were dry.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> So given the previous discussion of female reaction to Hitler's speeches, does that mean that passing out is the mating position of the human female?


Well, I guess I'd compare Obama to a rock-star, heavy-metal kind of Adolph Hitler.  You know, there really isn't anything wise about a young man, but allow him to grow out his hair and give him a guitar to play and chicks will be willing to give it up for him in a heartbeat.  I can only suppose the deep and mysterious psychological reasons for this.  Perhaps they see the guitar as a massive penis?  I fear to venture any further into this discussion.  It is good to know that there are lots of Ron Paul supporters deep into the psychic arts.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Hopefully your undies were dry.


The way that man cowers from behind and then kills from a distance is very admirable.  What a great leader he is.  I would never tinkle for him, to answer your question, but I'd almost be willing to take it on the nose by one of the majestic bastard's drones!

----------


## jcannon98188

> Back up your claim.
> 
> How was he the greatest leader?
> 
> He used terrorism on his own people. Great speaker? He lied during speeches constantly. He was intellectually dishonest - he killed or expelled any competition whether political or intellectual. He was a thug.
> 
> Any chimpanzee could have done what Hitler did, he used the new technologies of an era to oppress his people and go on a genocidal rampage.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me in the least that people think you're a neo-nazi or full of $#@! when you make that claim.


Prior to the rise of Hitler, Germany was in ruin. You had to spend buckets full of cash in order to buy a coffee, and the price went up throughout the day. They had no army, no nothing. They were starving, and desolate. Then hitler came. He overthrew the private bank, backed his currency by gold (pretty sure it was gold) and in a few short years had created the largest manufactoring power the world had ever seen. He took a nation without an army, and created the most feared fighting force that the Europe had seen since Ghengis Khan. Under his rule, the German People prospered. He was an amazing leader, the likes of which I doubt the world has ever seen, or will see again. Yes, he was evil, but he was still great.

----------


## acptulsa

> Prior to the rise of Hitler, Germany was in ruin. You had to spend buckets full of cash in order to buy a coffee, and the price went up throughout the day. They had no army, no nothing. They were starving, and desolate. Then hitler came. He overthrew the private bank, backed his currency by gold (pretty sure it was gold) and in a few short years had created the largest manufactoring power the world had ever seen. He took a nation without an army, and created the most feared fighting force that the Europe had seen since Ghengis Khan. Under his rule, the German People prospered. He was an amazing leader, the likes of which I doubt the world has ever seen, or will see again. Yes, he was evil, but he was still great.


In short, his sole claim to fame is that he violated the living snot out of the Treaty of Versailles.

----------


## Schifference

Ever heard of "The Great Patents Heist"?
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...s/patents.html

----------


## TheGrinch

> Everyone always says this when anyone mentions Hitler's being named it, but if that were true: why was Giuliani Time's 'Man of the Year' in 2001 instead of Osama bin Laden?


http://www.snopes.com/rumors/manyear.asp

----------


## Aeroneous

> In short, his sole claim to fame is that he violated the living snot out of the Treaty of Versailles.


Yes, he violated a treaty which required the modern day equivalent of half a trillion dollars in reparations.  It was also a treaty that did not allow Germany, Austria, or Hungary to attend negotiations.  I think I'd violate that one too... or any treaty that was made by foreign bodies against my country without even soliciting my opinion.  Germany certainly did some horrific things to earn their treatment at the Paris Peace Conference, but the terms of the treaty weren't very feasible.  The Treaty of Versailles played a big part in contributing to Germany's depression.

----------


## DamianTV

If naming the most influencial people is the prerequisite for Time Magazines Person of the Year, then wouldnt most of the people on the cover actually be members of the Bilderberg Group?

----------


## bolil

> Stalin received the award twice...


WTF?  Murderer of the year.   Tyrant of the year.  ****sucker of the year.  But man of the year, and twice.  Disgusting.

----------


## TheGrinch

> WTF?  Murderer of the year.   Tyrant of the year.  ****sucker of the year.  But man of the year, and twice.  Disgusting.


I really wish snopes would let me copy and paste. Man of the year, in their own words means "the person who, *for better or worse*, has most influenced events in the previous year. The only reason that Time didn't put Bin Laden on the cover in 2001 was to avoid contreversy from people like you who don't understand that it is an informational piece, not praise (though I can see why someone would easily think it was).

See my link below for more info:




> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/manyear.asp

----------


## bolil

> I really wish snopes would let me copy and paste. Man of the year, in their own words means "the person who, *for better or worse*, has most influenced events in the previous year. The only reason that Time didn't put Bin Laden on the cover in 2001 was to avoid contreversy from people like you who don't understand that it is an informational piece, not praise (though I can see why someone would easily think it was).
> 
> See my link below for more info:


Yes, because "Man of the year" is a title absent implications.  Negative, explanation rejected.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Yes, because "Man of the year" is a title absent implications.  Negative, explanation rejected.


So.. you're rejecting the established criteria for the designation?  Must be fun creating your own debate logic.

"Man of the year" implies no positive or negative connotation.  You're just creating implications in your mind.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Yes, because "Man of the year" is a title absent implications.  Negative, explanation rejected.


LOL, that's in their own words, and it is obvious that they would have no interest in glorifying men who many of their readers abhor. 

Beleive what you want to believe, but does this really sound like praise to you:




> Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic conference were Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain, Premier Edouard Daladier of France, and Dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy. But by all odds the dominating figure at Munich was the German host, Adolf Hitler.
> 
> Führer of the German people, Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, Navy & Air Force, Chancellor of the Third Reich, Herr Hitler reaped on that day at Munich the harvest of an *audacious, defiant, ruthless foreign policy* he had pursued for five and a half years. He had *torn the Treaty of Versailles to shreds.* He had rearmed Germany to the teeth— or as close to the teeth as he was able. He had *stolen Austria before the eyes of a horrified and apparently impotent world.* 
> 
> All these events were shocking to nations which had defeated Germany on the battlefield only 20 years before, but *nothing so terrified the world as the ruthless, methodical, Nazi-directed events which during late summer and early autumn threatened a world war over Czechoslovakia*. When without loss of blood he *reduced Czechoslovakia to a German puppet state,* forced a drastic revision of Europe's defensive alliances, and won a free hand for himself in Eastern Europe by getting a "hands-off" promise from powerful Britain (and later France), Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938's Man of the Year.
> 
> Most other world figures of 1938 faded in importance as the year drew to a close. Prime Minister Chamberlain's "peace with honor'' seemed more than ever to have achieved neither. An increasing number of Britons ridiculed his appease-the-dictators policy, believed that nothing save abject surrender could satisfy the dictators' ambitions.
> 
> Among many Frenchmen there rose a feeling that Premier Daladier, by a few strokes of the pen at Munich, had turned France into a second-rate power. Aping Mussolini in his gestures and copying triumphant Hitler's shouting complex, the once liberal Daladier at year's end was reduced to using parliamentary tricks to keep his job.
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes, he violated a treaty which required the modern day equivalent of half a trillion dollars in reparations.  It was also a treaty that did not allow Germany, Austria, or Hungary to attend negotiations.  I think I'd violate that one too... or any treaty that was made by foreign bodies against my country without even soliciting my opinion.  Germany certainly did some horrific things to earn their treatment at the Paris Peace Conference, but the terms of the treaty weren't very feasible.  The Treaty of Versailles played a big part in contributing to Germany's depression.


Or, to put it another way, all the miracles attributed to him were not his doing, or even a result of his leadership.  The German people didn't need leadership to excel and thrive, they just needed out from under the yolk of an unbearable treaty.

And he removed that yolk the old fashioned way.  He violated the snot out of the treaty.  Some 'leadership'.

----------


## bolil

> So.. you're rejecting the established criteria for the designation?  Must be fun creating your own debate logic.
> 
> "Man of the year" implies no positive or negative connotation.  You're just creating implications in your mind.


So, "Play of the day" can be bad or good?
"Goal of the year" usually a bad thing?

----------


## Aeroneous

> Or, to put it another way, all the miracles attributed to him were not his doing, or even a result of his leadership.  The German people didn't need leadership to excel and thrive, they just needed out from under the yolk of an unbearable treaty.
> 
> And he removed that yolk the old fashioned way.  He violated the snot out of the treaty.  Some 'leadership'.


That has got to be the most tunnel-visioned analysis I've ever seen.  The guy rallied an entire country to defy the treaty, fostered economic prosperity, and convinced millions of people to follow a pretty devious agenda.  I'm sorry, but it takes tremendous leadership ability to pull off the things he did.  If you want to remain that narrow minded about the issue, feel free to do so.




> So, "Play of the day" can be bad or good?
> "Goal of the year" usually a bad thing?


Yes, either could be good or bad.  The words themselves carry no bias or connotations.  If the awarding entity describes the designation as having a positive connotation prior to the fact, then so be it.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you want to remain that narrow minded about the issue, feel free to do so.


I come not to praise him.  I'm more than content to bury him.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So, "Play of the day" can be bad or good?
> "Goal of the year" usually a bad thing?


Oh yippee, a semantic argument that completely ignores the stated intent of the designation.

I'll pass.

----------


## Aeroneous

> I come not to praise him.  I'm more than content to bury him.


He was a horrible person and I'm glad he's gone.  I'm just saying he had tremendous leadership ability.

----------


## jcannon98188

> In short, his sole claim to fame is that he violated the living snot out of the Treaty of Versailles.


No. Violating the treaty was a consequence of his actions. His claim to fame was the rebirth of the German Empire, the return of German Engineering to the forefront of the world, and launching the worlds most vile and evil war. 

And might I also add in a truth bomb here. Had the Treaty of Versailles never happened, and had we never gotten involved with WW1 in the first place, Adolf Hitler would have never rose to power. Had America and Britain and everyone else not gotten involved in WW1, then it would have just been another small scale European Conflict. Also, food for thought, why did the Treaty of Versailles come down so hard on Germany, when it was Serbia who started the war? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

----------


## jcannon98188

> Or, to put it another way, all the miracles attributed to him were not his doing, or even a result of his leadership.  The German people didn't need leadership to excel and thrive, they just needed out from under the yolk of an unbearable treaty.
> 
> And he removed that yolk the old fashioned way.  He violated the snot out of the treaty.  Some 'leadership'.


Are you criticizing him for urging the people to rise in civil disobediance, and overthrow the chains of their oppressors, and enabling them to realize their true potential? Because that is what Hitler did buddy.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Prior to the rise of Hitler, Germany was in ruin. You had to spend buckets full of cash in order to buy a coffee, and the price went up throughout the day. They had no army, no nothing. They were starving, and desolate. Then hitler came. He overthrew the private bank, backed his currency by gold (pretty sure it was gold) and in a few short years had created the largest manufactoring power the world had ever seen. He took a nation without an army, and created the most feared fighting force that the Europe had seen since Ghengis Khan. Under his rule, the German People prospered. He was an amazing leader, the likes of which I doubt the world has ever seen, or will see again. Yes, he was evil, but he was still great.


Wow, this forum is getting radical.  First Abraham Lincoln was an evil bastard.  Now Hitler was great.  I am speechless.

----------


## acptulsa

> Are you criticizing him for urging the people to rise in civil disobediance, and overthrow the chains of their oppressors, and enabling them to realize their true potential? Because that is what Hitler did buddy.


The German people have since proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their true potential encompasses something other than warfare and genocide.

Buddy.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Wow, this forum is getting radical.  First Abraham Lincoln was an evil bastard.  Now Hitler was great.  I am speechless.


He Aldo said Hitler was evil, and yes, it does take a persuasive and trusted leader to convince a country to commit genocide.

To call him an incompetent leader would be dishonest, and regardless has nothing to do with him being evil and despised.

----------


## bolil

> Oh yippee, a semantic argument that completely ignores the stated intent of the designation.
> 
> I'll pass.


No, you just failed to see that the answer rests on perspective.

----------


## Philhelm

> Leading by example is a form of leadership, but if you're right about great leaders then I hope this country ends up with the worst leader possible.


I don't want a leader; I want a representative.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Back up your claim.
> 
> How was he the greatest leader?
> 
> He used terrorism on his own people. Great speaker? He lied during speeches constantly. He was intellectually dishonest - he killed or expelled any competition whether political or intellectual. He was a thug.
> 
> Any chimpanzee could have done what Hitler did, he used the new technologies of an era to oppress his people and go on a genocidal rampage.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me in the least that people think you're a neo-nazi or full of $#@! when you make that claim.


If you measure the _ability_ (I don't think Aeroneous meant great in terms of positive or desirable characteristics) of a leader by his rhetorical skills, I would have to say Hitler is ranked up there, although you could also make the argument that Goebbels was more in charge of building up the cult of personality surrounding him. But then again, no one ever credits any other leader's speechwriters.

----------


## Philhelm

> If you measure the _ability_ (I don't think Aeroneous meant great in terms of positive or desirable characteristics) of a leader by his rhetorical skills, I would have to say Hitler is ranked up there, although you could also make the argument that Goebbels was more in charge of building up the cult of personality surrounding him. But then again, no one ever credits any other leader's speechwriters.


I wonder if Goebbels felt a tingle go up his leg when Hitler had assumed power.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> He Aldo said Hitler was evil, and yes, it does take a persuasive and trusted leader to convince a country to commit genocide.
> 
> To call him an incompetent leader would be dishonest, and regardless has nothing to do with him being evil and despised.


While literary historians have taken very little courage by their looking back to designate antagonists and protagonists during the time of Hitler, Nietzsche beforehand actually predicted the nihilism that would take place during both World Wars.  Problem is, he was a German.  Oops.  
Seems the only one who ever got away with making fun of Jewish History was the Lord Jesus Christ.

It has been said that Hitler was the ultimate noble savage, a character idealized by Niccolo Machiavelli, born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Italy.

----------


## TheGrinch

> No, you just failed to see that the answer rests on perspective.


Very true.

Your perspective is of one who takes words too literally and argues semantics, rather determining intent of the use of words (which are entirely arbitrary without attached meaning).

My perspective is of one who examines the stated methodology and content to determine the meaning/intent of said words.  

In short, you can make all the claims you want, but you can't tell someone else what they mean. They've already told you, and you're ignoring the fact that the Hitler article is entirely unflattering, not glorifying.

You may want to quit before you really embarass yourself trying to put words in others' mouths.

----------


## TheGrinch

> While literary historians have taken very little courage to look back and designate antagonists and protagonists, Nietzsche beforehand actually predicted the nihilism that would take place during both World Wars.  Problem is, he was a German.  Oops.  
> Seems the only one who ever got away with making fun of Jewish History was the Lord Jesus Christ.


Ummm, cool, what part of that implies that Hitler was an ineffective leader?

----------


## bolil

> Very true.
> 
> Your perspective is of one who takes words too literally and argues semantics, rather determining intent of the use of words (which are entirely arbitrary without attached meaning).
> 
> My perspective is of one who examines the stated methodology and content to determine the meaning/intent of said words.  
> 
> In short, you can make all the claims you want, but you can't tell someone else what they mean. They've already told you, and you're ignoring the fact that the Hitler article is entirely unflattering, not glorifying.
> 
> You may want to quit before you really embarass yourself trying to put words in others' mouths.


If words were not meant to be taken literally, communication would be a ****.

The perspective I spoke of was for there to be a great play there must also be a failure.

Quit while I am ahead?  So I am winning and you want me to quit, forfeiting the contest yourself.  Right?  Cause that is what your words say, unless you would like to offer an epexegesis.

----------


## anaconda

The computer was Man Of The Year in, I think, 1984.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Ummm, cool, what part of that implies that Hitler was an ineffective leader?


Most people are idiots.  Even those who look smart.  Then there are those who support a lie for the sake of counterfeit, notes certified as official legal tender by the lawyers, before being handed over to them by bankers.  In comparison to the idiots who make up stories, Nietzsche placed blame philosophically on the irresponsibility of the whole world.  He noted the shell of the world looked virtuous in its abilities to govern; meanwhile, he also showed how the individuals making up that virtuous world were rotten to the core.  God (morality) is dead.  That the true evil of why the world fought in both World Wars was irresponsibility.  In contrast, Adolph Hitler was just a minor evil.

----------


## bolil

Nietzsche is the man.  TOTI changed my meager mind.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The computer was Man Of The Year in, I think, 1984.


Actually 1982.  Reminds me of seeing this commercial for the first time (it only was shown once during the Super Bowl):

----------


## Aratus

> 


i'm 50something and i remember seeing the classic ding darling cartoon that showed the guy conversing with mister death in 1953

----------


## jcannon98188

> The German people have since proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their true potential encompasses something other than warfare and genocide.
> 
> Buddy.


Oh wow. You really are retarded. 

Yes or No, did Hitler take over the worse economy that the Germans ever had. 
Yes or No, when Hitler rose to power, did the Germans have one of the strongest economies in the world?
Yes or No, Was it not America and her allies that caused the Germans to have the worst economy they had ever seen?
Yes or No, Did Hitler take a nation with no military, and create one of the strongest fighting forces the world ever saw.
Yes or No, Does Hitler still have people who follow him to this day?


Hint: The answer to all of those was Yes. To claim otherwise is to ignore fact. Hitler took a country in chaos, and created a strong economy, and a strong national defense. He was a great leader.

----------


## acptulsa

> Hint: The answer to all of those was Yes. To claim otherwise is to ignore fact. Hitler took a country in chaos, and created a strong economy, and a strong national defense. He was a great leader.


Yes or no, did he leave the nation in tatters, and far worse off than he found it?

A great leader does not lead people down the garden path to destruction.  Now retarded do you have to be to think otherwise?

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes or no, did he leave the nation in tatters, and far worse off than he found it?
> 
> A great leader does not lead people down the garden path to destruction.  Now retarded do you have to be to think otherwise?


*jcannon98188* is correct,, as are you. 
Hitler was a "type" or shadow of one yet to come,, and shared characteristics with others of the past.

The Anti-Christ will bring peace and stability out of the Chaos that is soon to come. He will be welcomed and praised at first,, but will bring horrors that will make Hitler look like a choir boy.

There are many in powerful positions that are working diligently to bring him  to power.

----------


## DamianTV

> *jcannon98188* is correct,, as are you. 
> Hitler was a "type" or shadow of one yet to come,, and shared characteristics with others of the past.
> 
> The Anti-Christ will bring peace and stability out of the Chaos that is soon to come. He will be welcomed and praised at first,, but will bring horrors that will make Hitler look like a choir boy.
> 
> There are many in powerful positions that are working diligently to bring him  to power.


Hint: It isnt me.  I just got a bad rap because of a stupid movie.

----------


## Demigod

> Oh wow. You really are retarded. 
> 
> Yes or No, did Hitler take over the worse economy that the Germans ever had. 
> Yes or No, when Hitler rose to power, did the Germans have one of the strongest economies in the world?
> Yes or No, Was it not America and her allies that caused the Germans to have the worst economy they had ever seen?
> Yes or No, Did Hitler take a nation with no military, and create one of the strongest fighting forces the world ever saw.
> Yes or No, Does Hitler still have people who follow him to this day?
> 
> 
> Hint: The answer to all of those was Yes. To claim otherwise is to ignore fact. Hitler took a country in chaos, and created a strong economy, and a strong national defense. He was a great leader.


Germany had rationing on almost everything during the war.The German army was one of the worst equipped armies in the war.The only thing the Germans had was a strategy ahead of its time,brilliant commanders that thought of it and implemented it and CRAZY CRAZY *LUCK*.

So the answer of you questions would be:

1.Yes
2.No
3.No
4.No
5.Yes

----------


## jcannon98188

> Yes or no, did he leave the nation in tatters, and far worse off than he found it?
> 
> A great leader does not lead people down the garden path to destruction.  Now retarded do you have to be to think otherwise?


Compare Wiemar Republic Germany, to Post-WW2 Germany. One was broken, and going no where. The other was broken but had a future.

----------


## jcannon98188

> Germany had rationing on almost everything during the war.The German army was one of the worst equipped armies in the war.The only thing the Germans had was a strategy ahead of its time,brilliant commanders that thought of it and implemented it and CRAZY CRAZY *LUCK*.
> 
> So the answer of you questions would be:
> 
> 1.Yes
> 2.No
> 3.No
> 4.No
> 5.Yes


Everyone rations during war. We did. Britain did. Germany did. Rationing has nothing to do with it. And luck had nothing to do with it. Also, your answer to #3 is wayyyy off base. America and her Allies forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany following WW1. We royalled effed them so hard that it created the conditions that lead to the rise of Hitler. This is not opinion. This is solid fact. Also, regardless of their equipment, they were the strongest. Had they not gotten greedy and gone after Russia, they would have controlled all of Western Europe.

----------


## Demigod

> Everyone rations during war. We did. Britain did. Germany did. Rationing has nothing to do with it. And luck had nothing to do with it. Also, your answer to #3 is wayyyy off base. America and her Allies forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany following WW1. We royalled effed them so hard that it created the conditions that lead to the rise of Hitler. This is not opinion. This is solid fact. Also, regardless of their equipment, they were the strongest. Had they not gotten greedy and gone after Russia, they would have controlled all of Western Europe.


Germany never had a chance of winning the war.Their attack on the SSSR was maybe one of the gambles with the smallest risks they took.If they had not attacked the SU, the SU was going to attack Germany in 2 years.All the SU was waiting for was a final battle between the UK and Germany that would bleed them both out enough so they can then just steamroll entire Europe in one big sweep.This is always the biggest reason for the high losses of the SU against Germany.They were preparing for an offensive war in a couple of years and not a defensive one.With the Blitzkrieg and no static defense the German army encircled and captured huge numbers of man and equipment.After the SU transferred their industry and rearmed and reorganized the Germans did not win a single battle.

I do not wish to even start about the crazy luck they had with France,Norway,Czehoslovakia,Poland and Italy.It is incredible how the Nazis even survived to start the second world war,the conquest of Western Europe was essentially "User" won.


About 3. I would like to know "WHO WON WW I ?" . The Allies could impose what ever they wanted.The same way Prussia humiliated France when they won the Prusso-French war and not only did they demanded huge war reparations but they also even crowned their Emperor in Paris which is as insulting as it gets.

----------


## pcosmar

> About 3. I would like to know "WHO WON WW I ?"


The Rothschild Empire

----------


## acptulsa

> Compare Wiemar Republic Germany, to Post-WW2 Germany. One was broken, and going no where. The other was broken but had a future.


If you'll read back through this thread, friend, with a rational head that isn't primarily driven by Fuhrerlust, you'll find that I was the very first person in it to indict the Treaty of Versailles and lay the Second World War at its feet.

You don't have to have any fondness, or even tolerance, for the Treaty of Versailles to consider Hitler one of the all time great criminals and one of the most short sighted 'leaders' any country ever made the major mistake of following.  Quite the opposite.

You might try reading the whole thread before you decide who to come unglued on.  You do do a nice imitation of a cheap suitcase, though, I'll give you that.

----------

