Well at a younger age Hitler always seemed to be the cool cloaked anti villain. He even had a story to boot, how he was a failed painter and politician at first but then took a turn to the dark side so to speak. Stalin didn't have any famous hair style or speeches. He played the same game and somehow worked his way up the political ladder and was just as twisted. What has the above paragraph to do with the thread title? Well from that it always seemed like Hitler was the better leader. He managed to bring a defeated nation up to a superpower. Now after reading and learning more about ww2 my opinion has started shifting towards Stalin as the better leader. I ask you forum members, who was really the better leader? 1) Stalin probably saved the game for USSR by redeploying the factories several hundred miles backward. Germany never really reached those locations. 2) Stalin managed to stay in power and eliminate every thread he might of faced. Hitler had a lot of close calls, even by his own staff. Well of course we can't know the end of the story as one side was victorious. 3) Stalin didn't interfere with military that much, he gave general commands and edicts to not retreat but no real army group orders. Hitler on the other hand directly ordered army groups to dig in and not move. So more of a nuisance thinking he knows best. Also a smart move by Stalin was to pit competing commanders to lead the charge against Berlin. So I am beginning to think that Stalin played the social game better and had a wider perspective. Hitler was in a worse position to start with in terms of enemies against him and resources but he did confirm the plans and ideas of his commanders and politicians. For example some say if there were just 2 army groups when attacking Russia, Germany might of taken Moscow.
Both Hitler and Starlin were good at political games. Both were able to eliminate all oppositions in their own party and country. Both were "gods" of their own nation at some point and were worshiped by majority in their own country. Hitler was better at speeches for sure. I have heard stories of someone whose wife was a fan of Hitler (back in WWII of course), and he had to go to one of Hitler's speech with his wife that he had no interest in. But after just that one speech, he became a fan of Hitler too. Sure Hitler had the power of "attraction" when come to speech. Hitler however was foolish enough to interfere with military plans. He wasn't a military general to begin with, why would he think he know better than his generals who graduated from military academe? He should not put his nose where he didn't belong. His effort was counter-productive... Starlin on the other hand was very good at using good generals and let them do their thing. He might give general orders of you need to hold there, etc. but he never intervene in detailed plans. Starlin is the winner of course when compares to Hitler. The outcome of the war was the proof.
There was an elderly man in my village who as a cub reporter attended a Hitler rally just before the outbreak of hostilities. He had to leave half way through the speech because he found he was starting to believe all the stuff that Hitler was saying, which he found repugnant. As a speaker, Hitler was spellbinding. As a military leader, he did have flashes of inspiration: the blitzkrieg attack on France in 1940 resulting in the French surrender just weeks later was his strategy. But in general he interfered with his generals' better wisdom and the German war effort suffered as a result. The Prussian miltary elite never accepted the corporal of WWI who had served as a postal clerk at a safe distance behind the front line while his countrymen were up to their waist in mud and blood. Stalin, or Dyugashvili if we use his real name, had a lot more experience of being a ruthless executioner and military strategist long before the war. He came up through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party by killing his rivals like Trotsky. But he didn't have the bewitching charisma of Hitler, he rather inspired fear to maintain his iron grip. But he wasn't a brilliant military mind, he relied on his competent generals like Zhukov, and the tactic of scorched earth, accumulation of troops and tanks for brutal confrontation totally regardless of his own casualties, and the Russian winter. IMHO, neither would get the prize for military genius. Lee, Wellington, Wingate, Stonewall Jackson and many others totally eclipse them.
