Is naming a child 'Hitler' Child abuse?

[PeterCH]

Adolf Hitler was a meth smoking idiot who could give good public presentations. He was a TERRIBLE leader with good charisma. Just my opinion.

He was a great leader (notwithstanding that he was a mass murderer). He came from obscurity and managed to get himself elected Chancellor. His party had the majority. He also eliminated enemies within his own party (got rid of Rohm and the SA leadership).

Of course he told the Germans what they wanted to hear and had their support to the last days of WW2.

 

[w1z4rd]

He was a great leader. He came from obscurity and managed to get himself elected Chancellor. His party had the majority. He also eliminated enemies within his own party (got rid of Rohm and the SA leadership).

Of course he told the Germans what they wanted to hear and had their support to the last days of WW2.

By your definition then.. Robert Mugabe is a "great leader".

 

[PeterCH]

By your definition then.. Robert Mugabe is a "great leader".

I'm not saying he was a great leader because he was a good guy.
LOL, I knew you'd get so emotional over this.

Did you actually read why I said that he was a 'great leader'?
I'll repeat it for you.

1. Came from obscurity (and poverty) and became the executive leader of Germany.
2. His party ultimately had the majority in parliament (legally).
3. He became chancellor.
4. He consolidated his position internally (Rohm was a competitor).
5. He knew how to appeal to the Germans who voted him in and allowed him to start his genocide and war. They were mostly happy until the Russians came a'knocking.

If he was a meth smoking junkie, he wouldn't have made it anywhere. Charisma is one thing but you have to know what to say, not just how to say it.

 

[w1z4rd]

I'm not saying he was a great leader because he was a good guy.
LOL, I knew you'd get so emotional over this.

Dude.. wtf? Im as emotional about this as I am about when I put butter on my bread in the morning. Stop making more stuff up Peter. Its a terrible habit you have there.

Did you actually read why I said that he was a 'great leader'?
I'll repeat it for you.

1. Came from obscurity (and poverty) and became the executive leader of Germany.
2. His party ultimately had the majority in parliament (legally).
3. He became chancellor.
4. He consolidated his position internally (Rohm was a competitor).
5. He knew how to appeal to the Germans who voted him in and allowed him to start his genocide and war. They were mostly happy until the Russians came a'knocking.

Peters definition of a great leader:" Someone who almost causes his country and all its people to be completely annihilated".

The oke must be a star in your eyes Pete!

Im so glad I have different standards and requirements out of what I would call great world leaders than you do Pete.

Carry on though.. the podium is yours. My day fills with grins when you post!

 

[PeterCH]

By your definition then.. Robert Mugabe is a "great leader".

Yeah well Mugabe also came from nothing and became president.
He made mistakes later on but he could have ruled forever if he
sided with the whites and the British. He was just too sure of himself
later on. However, the man did succeed in becoming the pres, one in 22 million or however many Zim citizens there are. That is 'greatness'.

Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, etc were all great leaders.
They got to the top and stayed on top. They were sociopaths too,
and mass murdurers but they were better politicians than a serial killer you'd
find on Crime and Investigation Channel.

 

[PeterCH]

Dude.. wtf? Im as emotional about this as I am about when I put butter on my bread in the morning. Stop making more stuff up Peter. Its a terrible habit you have there.



Peters definition of a great leader:" Someone who almost causes his country and all its people to be completely annihilated".

The oke must be a star in your eyes Pete!

Im so glad I have different standards and requirements out of what I would call great world leaders than you do Pete.

Carry on though.. the podium is yours. My day fills with grins when you post!

Wiz your posts are hillarious in their naivety and misunderstanding of the Enlish language. BTW Wiz, my nic is PeterCH not Peter. Don't call me Peter.
Thanks.

Great can mean anything. The man was great in that he was loved by the Germans lol.
He got to the top from nothing.

I did not say he was a BENEVOLENT leader though. I never also said that his leadership was GOOD for his people. Are you becoming confused here?

 

[MielieSpoor]

By your definition then.. Robert Mugabe is a "great leader".

No because AH worked with well educated people. He worked to get into the leader position he was in, and worked really hard to get the country to fight the whole world. He had vision and ideals. He achieved some of it, but failed misireably on others.

VW is one of the biggest car brands in the world - its a product from a vision and a dream of Adolf Hitler.

Robert Mugabe, he got a country on a silver plate. Never had to work that hard to get the support of the people. He is working with illiterate people wich is very easy to convince something is good for them even if you know its not. There are huge diffirences between these two people!

 

[bk.ru]

Wiz your posts are hillarious.

You lack originality.

 

[Slaine73]

Agree with PeterCH. Even though these guys were either a bit insane or even a bit more than that, does not take away the fact that these people all were genius in their own ways. I don't agree with what they did, but you have to have respect for what they accomplished.

 

[PeterCH]

You lack originality.

Well thank you. Coming from someone like you who fills this forum with insightful information I'm flattered. Thanks. Keep up the original posts.

 

[PeterCH]

Agree with PeterCH. Even though these guys were either a bit insane or even a bit more than that, does not take away the fact that these people all were genius in their own ways. I don't agree with what they did, but you have to have respect for what accomplished.

Which is exactly what I tried to say. Thanks for wording it better.

 

[w1z4rd]

Agree with Peter. Even though these guys were either a bit insane or even a bit more than that, does not take away the fact that these people all were genius in their own ways. I don't agree with what they did, but you have to have respect for what accomplished.

He was genius in his presentation but pathetic in his delivery. His policies ended in his death.. and the deaths of millions of Germans. He had worse policies than GW Bush...

It was only because he had smart men underneath him (Like Rommel).. that he lasted so long. If you want a real good infamous "great" leader then Stalin is your man. While he was a butcher like Adolf, he didnt reduce his country to rubble and the Russians came out of that war stronger than they went in. Germany came out weaker than when it went in.

 

[Slaine73]

He was genius in his presentation but pathetic in his delivery. His policies ended in his death.. and the deaths of millions of Germans. He had worse policies than GW Bush...

All true yes. But look where he came from and in the end he had the whole world up in arms and one country at one stage threatening the rest. Whether you aree with it or not, you have to admit it and in a way respect it.

 

[JK8]

Adolf Hitler was a meth smoking idiot who could give good public presentations. He was a TERRIBLE leader with good charisma. Just my opinion.

He was not!! He was a great leader, the last few years of his reign is controversial to some.

By your definition then.. Robert Mugabe is a "great leader".

Was also a great leader in the 80s and 90's, he kinda lost his way after that.
Its human nature for someone to have so much power for so long to just lose sense of it all... can happen to anyone.

 

[MielieSpoor]

His policies ended in his death..

Something that he also planned to perfection. Till this day, his body has not been found. The think that they may have found it, but cannot say that it is his. Nobody knows exactly how he killed himself - althought it is believed he shot himself.

 

[PeterCH]

He was genius in his presentation but pathetic in his delivery. His policies ended in his death.. and the deaths of millions of Germans. He had worse policies than GW Bush...

He was a genius in delivery too. You're just judging him by the outcome of WW2 however what I said was thet he was a 'great leader'.

He was a genius or great at delivery because he got to the top from nothing. He also cleaned up the NSDAP internally
by killing off the opponents and making himself a demi-god.
His socialist industrial plans were able to rebuild Germany. Granted this was not sustainable without conquest but he did it. He also challenged Britain and France and got his way - that was in reclaiming territories Germany lost in WW1.

So no simpleton would be capable of doing that. Call Hitler a homicidal pig, I agree here, I lost relatives to him too, but I didn't loose relatives to a simpleton. That insults the millions of people Hilter killed and is also untrue.

As for WW2, Germany could have won.

 

[w1z4rd]

He was not!! He was a great leader, the last few years of his reign is controversial to some.

Could you explain your reasoning? If someone leads your country to disaster... how is that great?

If someone leads a country to a worse state than when they got control of it.. how is that great?

If you end up dying for your choices and you leave no orsm legacy policy.. how is that great?

You had Stalindgrad, Alexandria.. wheres the Hitlerville?

 

[PeterCH]

Could you explain your reasoning? If someone leads your country to disaster... how is that great?

If someone leads a country to a worse state than when they got control of it.. how is that great?

If you end up dying for your choices and you leave no orsm legacy policy.. how is that great?

You had Stalindgrad, Alexandria.. wheres the Hitlerville?

It's not great for the country but as a leader, if Hitler was more astute in his
handling of the War early on, he would have won.

1. No one stood up for the Jews and others Hitler was killing in Germany.
2. No one stood up for Germany's aggression prior to the invasion of Poland.
3. The only reason why Hitler lost, was that a guy called Beck who was the Polish foreign minister at the time, signed a pact of defence with France and Britain. WW2 started because of this pact. Even now you have guys like Pat Buchanan who ask why US and Britain got into WW2. Britain and France did not declare war on Germany because of aggression against Poland or because Hitler was advocating genocide. They declared war because it was in
a defensive treaty they signed with Poland which said if any of the 3 were attacked, the other 2 would come to its aid.

BTW I don't admire Hitler. He was a pig but he was a really clever, astute politician hence
he was 'great' in that respect. He was a scumbag, and his name is a curse but he wasn't an idiot.

 

[w1z4rd]

Waiting for jk8`s response

 

[Slaine73]

Could you explain your reasoning? If someone leads your country to disaster... how is that great?

If someone leads a country to a worse state than when they got control of it.. how is that great?

If you end up dying for your choices and you leave no orsm legacy policy.. how is that great?

You had Stalindgrad, Alexandria.. wheres the Hitlerville?

Wait a minute. Hitler actually brought Germany out of total economic and social collapse to a nation with pride and believe in themselves. It did go a bit sour later, but Hitler did not ruin Germany.