Hitler, of course? Any of you big-mouths even HEARD of Mien Kampf? Jesus.... Anyway, he was qutie the military tactician, at one point anyways. Apparently he heard voices, telling him what to do. Aparently, they were correct, most of the time. And i believe the Germans were an honorable RACE, not culture, mind you RACE, that fought until literally 99.9% of all native Germans were oblitarated by war. AKA killed. Hitler had 10-year-olds flyinf fw 109's in der lufftewaffe. Under hien ver something something Held denn die fatherland, something something, denn die todten reiten schnell. I have NO ideam how that relates. But still, a 4th riech would be good, right about now. Change. REAL change. Hail dur fuhrer. BTW, on some test about my political views, apparently I'm left-wing fascist. So.... Yeah.
Hitler was definitely smarter. Stalin was a terrible leader, not that Hitler wasn't either. However, Hitler had the potential to be a good leader. He just happened to be very stupid with his intelligence and not use it to the right advantage. I'm sure Germany was shameful about that as well. He was not smart with his beliefs with his 'erfect race' because he clearly knew nothing correct about the Aryans.
He could have been one of the greatest military leaders in the world... but he just failed... terribly.
I really dislike the Communist party, so I'd have to go with the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei AKA, the Nazis. Regardless of the fact that my great grandfather was an S.S., I prefer the Nazis to the Communists. One thing I do know is that the German people, they were over 65% Christian and were terrified of the Communists because they were afraid that that they would invade Germany and take away their religion from them. Basically, in a nutshell Communism is the people having complete control and freedom without having a class system (everyone's equal) and Nazism was the total opposite. Nazism sought to expand government government and control everybody. Nazism differed from Facism slightly though. Nazism was racist and only wanted the white Germans to achieve their goal. Facism however included everybody of all classes to achieve their common goal under their supreme government. With an unbiased opinon, I would probably prefer Communism because of the freedoms, and having no government to rule over you. However, that was not the case in Communist Russia. Stalin executed people for having religiious beliefs such(so much for freedom) and he was very much a dictator like Hitler. Living back then though, I would strongly prefer Nazism. Hitler offered jobs and military service and promised to expand the Lebensraum. And for the sake of religious freedom, I would choose Nazism because the Communists didn't allow religious freedoms.
I go with Hitler he had the better army he had the charisma and the intelligence to make a small country almost take over all of europe.
You're joking right? A small country? You mean the largest population centre in Europe at that time? The most advanced industrial population in Europe at that time?
As for Hitler's charisma, he didn't need charisma. He took hold during a period of deep recession and the German people were suffering due to hyper-inflation. It wasn't his charisma, it was his lies about the rest of Europe, his trick of blaming other cultures for the woes of Germany and telling them that the remunerations they had to pay for WW1 were unfair.
He played on the fears and anxieties of the German people in the worst possible way and stirred them up into fighting against anything and everything that could damage Germanic wealth and pride.
Stalin was a monster and so was Hitler. Choosing between the two is impossible, unless you relish backing dictators who cruelly torture those who disagree, kill their own people by the thousands and threaten the rest of the worlds stability for their own selfish gain.
Forgive me, but this is possibly one of the most insensitive and stupid threads on the AG forums.
As for Hitler's charisma, he didn't need charisma. He took hold during a period of deep recession and the German people were suffering due to hyper-inflation. It wasn't his charisma, it was his lies about the rest of Europe, his trick of blaming other cultures for the woes of Germany and telling them that the remunerations they had to pay for WW1 were unfair.
Hitler DID have a lot of charisma, which he used to electrify the people in his speeches. Sure, he had the good luck to be in the middle of a recession, but he had brilliant oratorical skills. Plus, he often easily charmed his entourage through his magnetism.
I go with Hitler he had the better army he had the charisma and the intelligence to make a small country almost take over all of europe.
And just to be pedantic, because I do a lot of research on these two, no Hitler was intelligent? I'm laughing at that. He was an opportunist, and many of the actual work was done by his subordinates.
Also, when the Soviet archives were opened, it was revealed that Stalin ruled and made his way to power largely because he was extremely charming.
Charming and Charismatic are two words that describe more serial killers, mass murderers and just plain evil people than they do good people. Unfortunately, having charm and charisma are two skills/qualities that make a good serial killer. I've always had a quiet chuckle when someone calls a person charming or charismatic. Just puttin' it out there.
Charming and Charismatic are two words that describe more serial killers, mass murderers and just plain evil people than they do good people. Unfortunately, having charm and charisma are two skills/qualities that make a good serial killer. I've always had a quiet chuckle when someone calls a person charming or charismatic. Just puttin' it out there.
Er.....no? Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad were clearly charming. Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Obama are all charming. Most Presidential candidates are too. Heard of Prince Charming?
Gaddafi, Amin, Hussein, Lukashenko, Franco, Ceausescu all were dictators who were not charming at all. Just because many dictators and mass murderers are charming does not give it negative connotations. Just as you can find examples of charming killers, I can find more murderers who were just plain disgusting scum and psychopathic. social introverts.
Gaddafi, Amin, Hussein, Lukashenko, Franco, Ceausescu all were dictators who were not charming at all. Just because many dictators and mass murderers are charming does not give it negative connotations. Just as you can find examples of charming killers, I can find more murderers who were just plain disgusting scum and psychopathic. social introverts.
I still think there's more evil people who are charming and charismatic than there are good people. Also I never said all serial killers or most were charming and charismatic. I said those two qualities help make a good serial killer.
Thanks to a quick google search Gaddafi was described as charming and charismatic. Though it doesn't really prove anything.
Charming and Charismatic are two words that describe more serial killers, mass murderers and just plain evil people than they do good people.
My bad on Gaddafi. That still doesn't show that there are more bad charming people than there are good people. On the contrary, we are exposed to the charming baddies since they often make headlines, whilst no one pays attention to the numerous suave charming guys as they pursue crushes, the charismatic teacher, or the social worker who works wonders with smiles.
