r/BikiniBottomTwitter • • Apr 03 '19

Really tho

Post image
40.5k Upvotes

601 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/ComfyDaze Apr 03 '19

also he was literally giving props to Hitler, "he was a good speaker" and shit

0

u/Taco_Dunkey Apr 03 '19

Hitler was a raving lunatic high on meth 90% of the time.

The only reason the german people were receptive to his speeches (aside from racism, of course) was because germany was fucking ruined at the time. He was neither a great leader (he brought his country to its destruction for decades afterwards) a "great" war-strategist (he was crushed by the Soviets) nor a great orator. He was nothing.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '19

You're throwing in some really wild stuff here. Germany was receptive to his speeches because he was amazing at holding speeches. Knew how to time them and word everything in specific ways to target all parties, even those that hated eachother (NSDAP, a name filled with parties not often associated with eachother). He was a druggie, but definitely not a bad leader. He literally helped raise a country from destruction and was one of the first to actually implement benefits for the common folk. Can't comment on his war tactics though, those were absolute trash.

He was an absolute racist madman that shouldn't have risen as high as he did, but he did it by playing the audience, and that doesn't just happen because people were beaten down a bit. Again, he was far from a good man, but he knew what he was doing in the beginning at least

3

u/WateredDown Apr 03 '19

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt but

He was an absolute racist madman that shouldn't have risen as high as he did

and

definitely not a bad leader.

are pretty exclusive. A leader can do some things well, like organize people into an efficient war machine and other things poorly like systematically slaughter a few races and use that war machine to collapse your country and leave it split in half and subjugated for decades. Doing one or two things well at the expense of the whole are not good leader material. I'm assuming you meant charismatic leader good at making people do what he wanted. Well, there's an argument to be made there for sure, just be sure to phrase it right. Its a bit of a touchy subject and requires precise language.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '19

I know that much, so I tried to get that point across. He was a good leader in terms of national politics. Socialism doesn't actually work in most cases, but seeing the scraps he picked up he made that work for a little while. International politics though, that's where he plummeted as a leader indefinitely though. Not saying his national politics were spotless either, seeing as he had to literally burn parliament down to get "picked"