Who was a more competent leader: Adolf Hitler or Julius Caesar?

More competent leader: Hitler or Caesar?

  • Hitler

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Caesar

    Votes: 24 96.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Oct 2014
42
Toronto
#1
Hitler: rallied a nation through charisma and a well-presented manifesto, was relatively successful in restoring German economic might to being the largest in Europe following the great depression, impressed the world with the 1936 Olympics, conquered most of Europe but his overzealous expansion and limited resources cost him the war and ultimately his life.

Julius Caesar: from a middle class background, escaped the purges of Sulla to become a Roman general in his 40s. Was made Roman governor of transalpine Gaul during which he and his legions invaded and conquered all of Gaul and ventured into Britain. Defeated political opponents in civil war and was friendly to the plebs which made him a target. Was far too forgiving to opponents which ultimately led to him being killed.

Who do you feel was more competent as a leader: Hitler or Caesar?
 
Nov 2016
755
Germany
#4
Hitler: rallied a nation through charisma and a well-presented manifesto, was relatively successful in restoring German economic might to being the largest in Europe following the great depression, impressed the world with the 1936 Olympics, conquered most of Europe but his overzealous expansion and limited resources cost him the war and ultimately his life.
What you forget in your hymn to Hitler is the fact that all economic measures and apparent successes were only intended to serve the military armament that would plunge Europe into chaos. And why the alleged successes you list generally distinguish Hitler as a good leader remains your secret in the face of the incredible suffering inflicted after 1939 on the peoples of Europe through his cruel warfare and after 1933 on the Jews and Hitler's political opponents (of whom you are not speaking).

So the elimination of unemployment was not primarily Hitler's concern in the 1930s, but served only to prepare for war. The state expenditures that Hitler ordered for this purpose were financed by loans from the Reichsbank. The deficit policy took on such proportions that at the beginning of 1939 the Reichsbank in a letter to Hitler denounced the "unrestrained spending economy of the public sector". This would bring the "public finances to the brink of collapse" and endanger the stability of the currency. Two weeks later, the Reichsbank president was removed from office. Nothing changed in Hitler's politics. Everyone knows what then happened from 1939 onwards.

As to Caesar, he was a m**********r, too, though not as mad as Hitler. Morally, he acted quite within the framework of his time, while Hitler - like Stalin - completely overruled the moral norms of his time.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Scaeva
Mar 2019
1,190
Kansas
#6
So the elimination of unemployment was not primarily Hitler's concern in the 1930s, but served only to prepare for war. The state expenditures that Hitler ordered for this purpose were financed by loans from the Reichsbank. The deficit policy took on such proportions that at the beginning of 1939 the Reichsbank in a letter to Hitler denounced the "unrestrained spending economy of the public sector". This would bring the "public finances to the brink of collapse" and endanger the stability of the currency. Two weeks later, the Reichsbank president was removed from office. Nothing changed in Hitler's politics. Everyone knows what then happened from 1939 onwards.
It is interesting both Gobbles and Himmler had huge concerns about the deficit, of course as you point out Hitler would have none of it. I am not sure where I read it, but projections for the cost/benefit for the invasion of Poland really did not paint the picture Hitler wanted to see either. In fact things were so bad, the only thing keeping the economy going was the confiscation of Jewish owned assets.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,175
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#7
Well ... if the discriminant factor is competence .... Caesar ... Hitler was dramatically incompetent.

Caesar leaded the expanding Roman power and he left a lasting legacy [after him Rome kept on expanding its domains], we cannot say the same about Hitler. If Trajan ruled on almost all the known world it was thanks to Caesar, Augustus and the others. If Frau Merkel doesn't rule on Baltic German regions it is thanks to Hitler ...

When did Hitler show his incompetence? When he didn't understand that he was not leading the Roman Empire, but only little Germany. Germany wasn't in the conditions to sustain a global war. Period, end of history.

Romans were pragmatic ... Caesar made the first amphibious assault on large scale in history to invade Great Britain ... but he understood the situation, looking for local alliances and taking time. It took a century for the Romans to be able for real to conquer modern England [and pieces of Scotland and Wales]. I'm underlining that Caesar didn't carry Rome to a "total invasion" of Great Britain ... he was aware it was still early. Better to consolidate the Roman domain in Gaul. Great Britain was not going to escape ... [isles don't navigate!].

While Hitler and his buddies believed in "Blitzkrieg".
 
Jun 2018
471
New Hampshire
#9
What you forget in your hymn to Hitler is the fact that all economic measures and apparent successes were only intended to serve the military armament that would plunge Europe into chaos. And why the alleged successes you list generally distinguish Hitler as a good leader remains your secret in the face of the incredible suffering inflicted after 1939 on the peoples of Europe through his cruel warfare and after 1933 on the Jews and Hitler's political opponents (of whom you are not speaking).

So the elimination of unemployment was not primarily Hitler's concern in the 1930s, but served only to prepare for war. The state expenditures that Hitler ordered for this purpose were financed by loans from the Reichsbank. The deficit policy took on such proportions that at the beginning of 1939 the Reichsbank in a letter to Hitler denounced the "unrestrained spending economy of the public sector". This would bring the "public finances to the brink of collapse" and endanger the stability of the currency. Two weeks later, the Reichsbank president was removed from office. Nothing changed in Hitler's politics. Everyone knows what then happened from 1939 onwards.

As to Caesar, he was a m**********r, too, though not as mad as Hitler. Morally, he acted quite within the framework of his time, while Hitler - like Stalin - completely overruled the moral norms of his time.
Just because a ruler engaged in some acts that were morally reprehensible does not mean that they didn't enact some successful and even commendable policies. For instance, Hitler transformed the German army from a militarily neutered and paultry 100,000 defense force into the most powerful and technologically advanced land army on earth. The Luftwaffe also dominated the skies over Europe during early years of the war. Not to mention Hitler also enacted universal health care, which I am certain you would not object to.
 
Likes: WhatAnArtist