PDA

View Full Version : What makes a leader



John Galt
4th August 2006, 15:29
Having a quiet musing to myself which will probably be of no interest to you lot but thought I'd share it with you anyway. It occured that the deaths in the 2nd world war could, pretty much, be laid at the door of Mr Hitler. It then further occured - how the hell can one man create so much devestation. There have been a few over the years - Stalin, Chairman Mao etc Any opinions from the panel on what made them what they were? I believe that such force of will and appetite for disaster has to stem from a sociopathic nature but, if that is the case, how the hell did they get so many followers? You can only go so far on charm

wendigo100
4th August 2006, 15:53
In Hitler's case, it's because his name is an anagram of "a hot, ill Fred".

He never got over that.

Lucifer Box
4th August 2006, 16:00
Having a quiet musing to myself which will probably be of no interest to you lot but thought I'd share it with you anyway. It occured that the deaths in the 2nd world war could, pretty much, be laid at the door of Mr Hitler. It then further occured - how the hell can one man create so much devestation. There have been a few over the years - Stalin, Chairman Mao etc Any opinions from the panel on what made them what they were? I believe that such force of will and appetite for disaster has to stem from a sociopathic nature but, if that is the case, how the hell did they get so many followers? You can only go so far on charm
There is no simplistic answer to this sort of question. For example you say all the deaths of WWII can be laid at Hitler's door. Some might say would those deaths have occurred had Chamberlain and Deladier honoured their treaty committments to Czechoslovakia, a stable central European democracy with a modern, well-equiped army and defences easily the match of the relatively weak Wehrmacht of 1938, rather than cave in and agree to its brutal dismemberment without a fight? It is likely Hitler would not have survived the humiliation of defeat, so is failure to act to prevent subsequent actions as much to blame as the subsequent actions themselves? Who knows?

This is not in any way an attempt to be an apologist for Hitler (renknowned humanist that he was ;)), but to illustrate that simplistic thinking applied to complex problems gives simplistic and inadequate answers.

ferret
4th August 2006, 16:02
Also an anagram of "Fart Held Oil", this was actually true - why else would the UK and US invade him? The stuff about concentration camps and other atrocities were all made up, we actually secretly hid him under the north sea, the oil rigs are used to suck up his natural secretions.

Fungus
4th August 2006, 16:47
I suspect that such people do not prosper in stable societies, and that it is only when there is considerable turmoil and discontent that radicals gain support. Germany had massive economic troubles, and Hitler claimed to be able to sort out the country. Hence he was made dictator. Russia had problems with a semi-fuedal system, and simmering discontent. It was not surprising that an uprising occurred. There were after all several competing groups. China was an Imperial nation with a poor underclass, and underwent a Nationalist revolution in 1911, followed by a Communist revolution in 1949. The Chinese Communists succeeded because of financial and military backing from the Soviet Union. Otherwise they probably would not have won, and I believe they did not have much support.

And I suppose that once a dictatorship arises, the nastiest and most ruthless rise to the top. Paranoia and absolute power are not happy bed fellows.

Hitler and Stalin were known to have finished off political adversaries. I suspect that Chairman Mao was no different.

Looking at Bosnia, Milosovic appealed to the nationalism of the Serbs, directing anger at others, a classic trick of an evil politician. Hitler used the same trick. Stalin demonised the kulaks (smallholders). I would argue that some Arabs and Israelis are demonising their adversaries. It's always easier to kill if you think the enemy are foul, evil and out to get you.

And I do suspect that most politicians are sociopaths and are only held in check by a stable society and a free press otherwise their egos would lead to mass bloodshed.

Fungus

Board Game Geek
5th August 2006, 01:57
One man cannot commit mass murder (at least not on the apocalyptic scale you mentioned). He can ony incite and motivate others to do it for him.

I feel a touch of Alf coming on here...

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Donovan's "Universal Soldier" pretty much hits the nail on the head. Without the Universal Soldier (or the human instrument to commit the killing), all you are left is with a deluded lunatic ranting at the walls in his padded cell. (That reminds me, any one seen Chico recently ?)

The problem is, one of the first steps in creating "The Enemy(tm)" is a process of dehumanisation, making them so far removed from our own cultural beliefs and mores, that we view them with distrust and suspicion.

This allows manipulative leaders to further drive an ice pick in the crevasse and enlargen the hatred, stoking the fires of public outrage, condemnation and mass hysteria, until we have reached a point of no return. Again, a leader on his own cannot achieve such a sea-change in public opinion, hence control of at least part of the media is a salient move.

The word "terrorist" is an emotive one, that conjures up all sorts of negative imagery, possibly even first hand emotions and pain.

But "terrorist" is a just a word. To the Germans in Occupied France in the 1940's, the French Resistance were "Terrorists". The fact that they were trying to fight the Germans and were, in this case, righteous and legitimate to defend their sovereign nation, would hardly have been trumpeted in "Die Welt" back in Berlin. They would have been called "Terrorists".

Sorry...I digress. Back to the original observation, and it is a well-made one.

Power means Control, and Control means Exertion of Will Over Others.

It is when this Exertion of Will (or the craving to attain it) becomes near-absolute that Power-Crazed people redouble their efforts to effect greater Control, as they are increasingly paranoid that they will suffer removal of power.

As long as human beings continue to allow their existences to be governed by others other than themselves, the opportunity for those to exert control will remain.

Democracy was supposed to be the "check and balance" to such exerted will, however I think most people will agree, we are now a Democracy only in name in the UK.

Xog....2 years ago, you wrote on here about your army of slug minions making their gallant march to Number 10. What's their progress so far ?

hyperD
5th August 2006, 09:29
Misdirection, propaganda and ignorance of a population on a national scale.

wendigo100
5th August 2006, 11:18
Donovan's "Universal Soldier" pretty much hits the nail on the head.Actually it is Buffy Sainte-Marie's "Universal Soldier".

Bit pedantic I know, but credit where credit's due.

sasguru
5th August 2006, 11:58
Interesting that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all had fathers who they hated and who beat them.
I suspect you'll find a dysfunctional family behind all tyrants.

benn0
5th August 2006, 14:07
Interesting that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all had fathers who they hated and who beat them.
I suspect you'll find a dysfunctional family behind all tyrants.


Not all.....


"Margaret Thatcher's father was a grocer who was also heavily involved in local politics. He was a powerful influence on her and later became the Mayor of Grantham."

Troll
5th August 2006, 14:07
Interesting that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all had fathers who they hated and who beat them.
I suspect you'll find a dysfunctional family behind all tyrants.

I thought Adolf´s dad was dead when he grew up ... bit I could be talking the usual bollocks.

Anyway most of the deaths during WW2 can be laid at Churchills feet - it was not our war....& certainly we got nothing out of it except being a bankrupt nation & helping America & Russia becoming superpowers.

& aren´t spanish keyboards great -I can do stuff like Ç & ¿ on-the-fly!!

Helios
6th August 2006, 06:53
In Hitler's case, it's because his name is an anagram of "a hot, ill Fred".

He never got over that.

Not even funny.

Stick to watching big brother and reading hello magazine.

When there is a will there is a way. Tell a lie enough times and everyone will believe it. Nothing to do with charisma. Give a broken man an ak47 and a shinny uniform and he will do your bidding.

Helios
6th August 2006, 07:00
I thought Adolf´s dad was dead when he grew up ... bit I could be talking the usual bollocks.

Anyway most of the deaths during WW2 can be laid at Churchills feet - it was not our war....& certainly we got nothing out of it except being a bankrupt nation & helping America & Russia becoming superpowers.

& aren´t spanish keyboards great -I can do stuff like Ç & ¿ on-the-fly!!

If it was not your war why join it. Or was it an excuse for football hooligans to walk round with rifles rather than beer bottles? Just a 1940's world cup i suppose.

Fungus
6th August 2006, 11:58
Not all.....


"Margaret Thatcher's father was a grocer who was also heavily involved in local politics. He was a powerful influence on her and later became the Mayor of Grantham."

I see the forum's token rabid leftie is back.

As usual your statement is demolished by facts.

I think you will find that Thatcher listened to her colleagues and encouraged cabinet debate, so that she could form an informed opinion. Blair has the tendency to use cabinet to rubber stamp his decisions, having already made up his mind. And he appoints his mates to senior roles such as Lord Chancellor, rather than finding the most talented person for the job. It's Government by sofa. Even the civil service have criticised his style of sidelining the normal processes of democracy.

It's what happens when someone with a massive ego and not much talent gets to the head of government. He obtained a third in Law. Thatcher obtained a first in chemistry.

Fungus
6th August 2006, 12:02
I thought Adolf´s dad was dead when he grew up ... bit I could be talking the usual bollocks.

Anyway most of the deaths during WW2 can be laid at Churchills feet - it was not our war....& certainly we got nothing out of it except being a bankrupt nation & helping America & Russia becoming superpowers.

& aren´t spanish keyboards great -I can do stuff like Ç & ¿ on-the-fly!!

We declared war on Germany in order to save Europe from a Nazi tyranny, and could we really have done anything else? Were we really responsible for the 20 million dead Russians, the 6 million dead Jews, and the millions of others shot and gassed by the Nazis?

Yes we bankrupted ourselves, selling off overseas assets, often to America at cut down prices, to fund the purchase of arms and food, often from America, and America only entered the war when the Japanese launched a strike on their flleet in Hawaii. I wonder how well America did out of the war?

benn0
7th August 2006, 07:20
I see the forum's token rabid leftie is back.

As usual your statement is demolished by facts.

I think you will find that Thatcher listened to her colleagues and encouraged cabinet debate, so that she could form an informed opinion. Blair has the tendency to use cabinet to rubber stamp his decisions, having already made up his mind. And he appoints his mates to senior roles such as Lord Chancellor, rather than finding the most talented person for the job. It's Government by sofa. Even the civil service have criticised his style of sidelining the normal processes of democracy.

It's what happens when someone with a massive ego and not much talent gets to the head of government. He obtained a third in Law. Thatcher obtained a first in chemistry.

Get your head from up her smelly arse and you'll see she was a tyrant.

Not long now before we can celebrate her demise.

djfoot
7th August 2006, 07:59
What makes a leader?

Lot's of followers, clearly!

Lucifer Box
7th August 2006, 09:07
We declared war on Germany in order to save Europe from a Nazi tyranny, and could we really have done anything else? Were we really responsible for the 20 million dead Russians, the 6 million dead Jews, and the millions of others shot and gassed by the Nazis?

Yes we bankrupted ourselves, selling off overseas assets, often to America at cut down prices, to fund the purchase of arms and food, often from America, and America only entered the war when the Japanese launched a strike on their flleet in Hawaii. I wonder how well America did out of the war?
It seems to have been Britain's purpose to save the world from a succession of tyrants bent on global domination, going back to Napoleon at least, and probably much further, usually at her own expense while others just sat back and watched.


THE BRITISH EMPIRE (1497 - 1997)
'The empire on which the sun never sets'

Five centuries of energy, triumph and disaster, heroism and invention are too full to be explored here in the detail they deserve. What follows is a summary of the rise and fall of the largest empire the world has ever known. The influence of language, custom, law and tradition continues, but the British Empire came to an end on 30 June 1997, when Hong Kong passed back into Chinese ownership. It is astonishing to think that almost exactly 100 years before, on 20 June 1897, Queen Victoria celebrated her Diamond Jubilee of sixty years ruling 375 million subjects. The idea that the Empire would vanish only a century later would have been laughed at, though Rudyard Kipling saw that the world turns on, regardless of human achievement. His poem 'Recessional' was read to Victoria. These four lines are particularly poignant.

Far-called, our navies melt away -
On dune and headland sinks the fire -
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

It has struck some that if an empire had to be broken against an enemy, Nazi Germany was a worthy cause. All the countries in the Empire sent men back for that conflict. They came from America, India, Canada, Nepal, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa - everywhere, in fact, where the people could claim a bond with Britain - to give their lives against a dark and terrible enemy. Perhaps that was the purpose of the British Empire - to be there at that time, when the future could have gone another way. As a legacy, perhaps that will do.

Fungus
7th August 2006, 11:05
Get your head from up her smelly arse and you'll see she was a tyrant.

Not long now before we can celebrate her demise.

I think we see in your reply why so many 'socialist paradises' have been so evil. I detest the policies of Blair, Brown etc, but I woud not for one minute celebrate their death. Whereas you, ...

And isn't it odd how socialist harp on about how nice they are, and how unpleasant Tories are. Such hypocrisy.

benn0
7th August 2006, 11:44
I think we see in your reply why so many 'socialist paradises' have been so evil. I detest the policies of Blair, Brown etc, but I woud not for one minute celebrate their death. Whereas you, ...

And isn't it odd how socialist harp on about how nice they are, and how unpleasant Tories are. Such hypocrisy.

I won't be celebrating her death.

I'd just like to wish her well in the next life.

John Galt
7th August 2006, 11:47
I wont ask your reasons for your pathalogical hatred of Margaret Thatcher but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the politics of this country should be? I would think that you are a Bliarite but I wont make assumptions.

Fungus
7th August 2006, 12:06
Not long now before we can celebrate her demise.


I won't be celebrating her death.

I'd just like to wish her well in the next life.

So which is it?

Typical confused thinking from a socialist. How can you be taken seriously when you make contradictory statements in the same thread.

wendigo100
7th August 2006, 16:52
I wouldn't bother Fungus. You cannot reason with hatred.

bogeyman
7th August 2006, 17:25
I wont ask your reasons for your pathalogical hatred of Margaret Thatcher but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the politics of this country should be? I would think that you are a Bliarite but I wont make assumptions.

I think there's probably a bit of a clue in the name 'benn0'.

Take away a '0' and you get a Bennite. A head-in-the-clouds socialist born with a silver spoon in his gob and trying to assuage his guilt ever since. Goes around thinking he has the common touch, but actually has no idea about anything. :confused:

benn0
7th August 2006, 20:50
I think there's probably a bit of a clue in the name 'benn0'.

Take away a '0' and you get a Bennite. A head-in-the-clouds socialist born with a silver spoon in his gob and trying to assuage his guilt ever since. Goes around thinking he has the common touch, but actually has no idea about anything. :confused:

The above couldn't be further from the truth I'm afraid.

For what it's worth, my pathological hatred of twatcher, (not conservatism per se), is because of the way she rode roughshod over vast portions of the working classes. She had no qualms about destroying whole communities to suit her needs. She destroyed any sense of community this country ever had in favour of a 'me me me' mentality perfectly illustrated by the sad collection of geeks and nerds on this board.

That makes her a tyrant in my book and that of many many others.

Still, as long as you're alright then...

Cue a million posts telling me how we'd be a third world country if it wasn't for her. :moon:

Fungus
7th August 2006, 22:03
Gawd bless you kind Sir Benno, it's ever so nice of you to help us poor souls it is, wot wiv our pustulant skin due to lack of pwoper nurishment, and our blackened teeth, and smelly unwashed clothes, and our ignorant working class minds. You's a weal gen'ulman you's is.