Was Hitler a humble man?

Was Hitler a humble man?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

maybe

Humble in rhetoric and self-portrayal, but elevating oneself to the position of dictator is pretty much the clearest expression of megalomania there is.

>but elevating oneself to the position of dictator is pretty much the clearest expression of megalomania there is.

Kek, no. He just knew for a country to function correctly there needs to be one vision, and one vision only. Multiple people in control of the same power colludes to the point where neither can achieve their goals. This is no way justifies or even attempts to justify what he did, it's simply stating dictators are not all bad. Dictatorships are essentially the opposite of a capitalist democratic society, of course they would get heavily shafted. Google Dictator. See what you get? You don't get pic related, that's for sure. You only get the bad, to the point where I highly doubt you average human bean knows of any dictatorship that worked out.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus

He was, and then he was not

Hidenburg was a pompous reactionary playing aloof king, adolf's problem was more so physical weakness to break down in his 50's worse than hidenburg was in his 80's

aka he was a batshit crazy parkisons schizo

He was humble enough to give the poor slavs of the Soviet Union free entertainment and girls while making sure any strong german man of aryan stock froze to death in the Soviet winter.

Kinda like Merkel is today. Man, history sure can be eerie.

This.

>Cincinnatus

Not a great argument when it was pushed upon him and he only had the position for two weeks.

savage

He was humble until after yugoslavia when he seemed invincible.

But at the same time the only people writing about him were attempting to shit on him in order to appease the victors and cover up their own failures.

So who will ever know?

Does Speer ever call him arrogant or whatever?

Hess?

Huh? It wasn't "pushed" upon him, he was expressed as the only man who could do the job and he rose to the challenge.

>and he only had the position for two weeks.
Are you an idiot?

>gets asked to quash rebellion
>granted dictatorship to do so
>quashes rebellion in timely fashion
>hands back power for not a second longer than needed

How does that not count again? He was granted it for a second time to put down another politician, again he held onto power for no longer than needed.

>Are you an idiot?

Are you? Do you not understand how this does not at all apply to most dictators, especially not Hitler? Most dictators are not Cincinnatus, they're power grabbers. The very reason Cincinnatus is so praised is because he relinquished his power, he didn't make himself "dictator for life" like so many often do.

He's the exception, not the rule.

>he's the exception, not the rule

Thats the point he was trying to make

No he wasn't, read his first post again, he was defending dictators. Cincinnatus is not a good example of the average dictator. If he was, he would not be such a famous example. It's because of his "noble" relinquishing of power that he's so praised. Using him is cherrypicking at best.

I think you need to read it again:

>Google Dictator. See what you get? You don't get pic related, that's for sure. You only get the bad, to the point where I highly doubt you average human bean knows of any dictatorship that worked out.

And then we look at the rest of the post and see otherwise:

> He just knew for a country to function correctly there needs to be one vision, and one vision only. Multiple people in control of the same power colludes to the point where neither can achieve their goals.
>This is no way justifies or even attempts to justify what he did, it's simply stating dictators are not all bad.
>Dictatorships are essentially the opposite of a capitalist democratic society, of course they would get heavily shafted.

Cherrypicking is becoming a bad trend of this thread.

>Using him is cherrypicking at best.
Google - 'benevolent dictatorship'. Like I mean, I used a SINGLE example. And that's all you could shit on. I could give you many more, I won't as it's literally googleable.

Thanks for trying. I mean really all this has to do is with dictators being megalomaniacs, not 'good' or bad'. He had to move the goalposts in order to not look like an idiot when he for some reason thought Cincinnatus was not a good example of a dictator who wasn't a megalomaniac.

Unfortunately the potential benefits of dictatorship are outweighed by the general dislike of concentrating power into the hands of an individual. If you could somehow guarantee that power would not be abused and tyranny reign, I'm sure a lot more people would be in favour of it. Benevolent dictatorship vs always mediocre democracy, what's your poison?

>I could make a real argument with real examples but I won't, just Google it

Sloppy. I'm not even the guy you originally replied to, obviously because I replied to it with "This.". So obviously I can't move the goalposts when I didn't set them to begin with. Not exactly the brightest bulb, are you?

But if we look back at why I agreed with it:

>elevating oneself to the position of dictator is pretty much the clearest expression of megalomania there is

The key words here are "elevating oneself to the position of dictator".

Cincinnatus did not elevate himself (he was nominated both times), and he surrendered his power as soon as his "duty" was done. Like I said before, that's not a good example of the average dictator.

The average dictator seizes power, generally through scheming, and immediately seeks to cement their power. THAT is megalomania, and THAT perfectly applies to Hitler. Who is the topic of this thread, in case you forgot.

>I could make a real argument with real examples but I won't, just Google it
>I don't want to google something
>spoonfeed me
>If you don't spoon feed me you are wrong and I am right
>due to my ignorance
xD

>Cincinnatus did not elevate himself (he was nominated both times),
Which, you know, he accepted. He would not have elevated himself had he not accepted it, ya'know?

>Who is the topic of this thread, in case you forgot.
Oh, did you not actually read the thread? Because I am not replying to OP.
I replied to this.

>but elevating oneself to the position of dictator is pretty much the clearest expression of megalomania there is.

xD

I mean seriously, do not even bother replying again - you have literally not a single point but you're one of the regular denizens here who can only argue semantics so they argue away. By all means reply to this line by line - I won't bother replying.

Before you go any further, why do retards such as yourself only argue semantics? Why? Seriously, WHY?

If you have to beg your opponent to do the research for you in a debate, you're losing. It has nothing to do with ignorance, I just don't want to make your arguments for you. I especially don't want to have to guess what your arguments actually are. THAT is spoonfeeding.

>Which, you know, he accepted. He would not have elevated himself had he not accepted it, ya'know?

So... are you saying that he was seeking power? That kind of undercuts everything you're saying about him not suffering from megalomania. Or are you trying to argue semantics, the very thing you later accuse me of doing? Again, sloppy.

>s-stop replying!

Fine by me. Come back when you get some self-awareness and a real argument.

He was a crazy megalomaniac.