4
Why history remembers some leaders as great and positive examples, while others as epitomes of evil? In my opinion, most great leaders are psychopaths. They all wanted great achievements (easy to get is not interesting) and it is naive to think they did things because of greater good and because they wanted better for humanity and their country.
We can all agree that Hitler is a negative example, in every conversation he is remembered as one of the most evil leaders history remembers. But why is that so? Don't get me wrong, I condemn things he did, but was he the only one? Imo, no. He did some great things for Germany (economy and raised military power), but he was a madman that lost control.
Churchill bombed Dresden, but in every movie and story he is that positive man smoking cigar. President Barack Obama got Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. But I hope we all know what happened in Iraq.
Difference between leaders that history remembers as positive is in their greater self control. They never go too far. When you ask Obama uncomfortable question, he laughs and continue his speech ignoring that question. He would never underestimate his enemy or take too big bite. He never used hate rethoric. And I'm sure he would even cheat a polygraph test.
With this thread, I don't want to say that Hitler was a nice man or that anything he did was justified, please don't get me wrong, I want to say that moral of some praised leaders is also questionable. They are praised because they had self control, they were calm speakers and they knew their limits. But many of them left great mess behind them many dead people.
Same things we see in our private lives, on work or on this forum. Self control makes biggest difference.
So who and why should be remembered as a good leader? Is mass killing ever justified? Why do we overlook what is done just because someone was a more calculated speaker or won the war?
Bookmarks