Leadership -HitlerEssay Preview: Leadership -HitlerReport this essayIntroductionKnown as the FĂźhrer of the Nazi Party, Hitler was an Austria-born German and was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany during the 1900âs. As a dictator of Germany, he was the center of World war-II. Under his leadership, he handled the genocide of nearly 6 million Jews who he and his followers considered âsocially undesirableâ. In addition to this, he was also responsible for killing around 50 million more civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers during World war-II. It is considered as one of the most deadly conflicts in human history. But in spite of being responsible for so many deaths across the globe, he was able to inspire/force many people to follow in this cruel path. If we look over the fact that he killed 6 million Jews, his dedication, and spectacular leadership led to him becoming the dictator. He had a strong will in not giving up till the very end.
He is a great example of how a common man brought up with difficulties was able to become âThe Leaderâ. To understand this, we first look at a brief timeline of Hitler and then analyze the inflection points. We also analyze how the environment around him led to his qualities. Reflecting on the same, we go on to understand the key leadership qualities in Hitler, comparing them with famous leadership theories. In the end, we compare Hitler with some of the world renowned leaders/failures to see how the leadership qualities have culminated and taken shape in these individuals.
Brief timelineLeaders influence and mentor people under them to influence/inspire them to follow a better path as envisioned by the leader, be it good or bad! The qualities he gains through tribulations or the environment eventually leads to him to stand apart from the rest and be remembered throughout history. Hitler born in a normal family underwent a lot of familial problems which led him to leave school. Like many Austrian Germans, Hitler had German Nationalist ideas from a very early age that led him to express loyalty only to Germany and considered anyone in the path of a glorious Germany as he imagined, as an enemy. He joined the army during World War- I and served more than half the time in the front lines of the army. This marks an interesting phase in the life of Hitler, where he openly expressed his hatred towards the âTreaty of Versaillesâ. With no education, he had no career aspects and,
hence led to his foray into politics. There are a couple of distinct eras in his timeline which throw a light on how the socio-economic factors shaped his qualities. The first was his rise to power and the second was the World war-II era.
The socio-economic and political environment behind the rise of Adolf HitlerWe will examine Hitler in two separate and quite distinct periods. One was before he assumed the dictatorship of Germany, the other during the Second World War. We will explore the surrounding environment that firstly helped Hitler attain power in Germany and secondly enabled him to lead his nation to a war of unprecedented scale. During both phases of the Adolf Hitler saga, opportunism will emerge as a key theme â something leaders must sometimes engage in.
Part I – Rise to PowerTo understand the socio-economic and political environment that engendered and sustained the rise of Nazism and Adolf Hitler, we must begin at the end of World War I in 1918. Specifically, we must look at the famous Treaty of Versailles that was signed to mark the end to the âGreat Warâ as the First World War was known.
The treaty, among other things, had the following key tenets:⢠Placed responsibility for initiating World War I on Germany⢠Imposed heavy restrictions on military capabilities of Germany⢠Dispossessed Germany of vast swathes of its territoryThe key issue to be highlighted here is that the Germans were never invited to the negotiation and was presented with a stark choice: To sign the treaty or be invaded. But from the very start of this treaty it caused anger and revulsion in many parts of the German society. At the same time, famous economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh, and the repayment was huge and counter-productive. This has been a key debate topic between historians and economists ever since. Many argue that Hitler would never have taken the power without the economic depression that struck the world after the World war-I. Treaty of Versailles appended to this depression, and Hitler used this along with the military to gain the support of those on the right.
As a result of these humiliating terms of the Treaty, there was widespread discontent in the psyche of the German nation. Hitler himself was a bitter veteran of the First World War, and the degrading defeat had no doubt been deeply personal to him as well; so he identified easily with the collective German angst. He capitalized on these sentiments to gain popular support and promised to undo these great âwrongsâ done to the Germans. The simmering resentment in the German public provided the ideal environment for Hitler to outwit his liberal political rivals using his nationalistic propaganda and promise of retribution. His captivating speeches to his party cadre and the public always played up this latent sentiment of Germany. Garbed in Hitlerâs powerful oratory, the idea of restoring German honor proved powerfully attractive for millions of his pro-Nazi followers.
The Treaty of Versailles, also known as the Munich Accords, also extended an umbrella of postwar German rule over the German people to a second set of nations. The Treaty had a specific aim that it was intended to uphold: the rule of law. If the U.S.-German relationship ended, the Treaty would be replaced by a two-state relationship, which would give Germany a single sovereign authority in all spheres of the world. These two countries would each be held responsible for dealing in accordance with the Treaty. But as of 1941, the American Constitution included an automatic, unconditional, and mandatory treaty that the U.S. could impose upon any such future conflict. Under this treaty, the U.S. would retain full sovereignty over the entire nation, unless a future conflict resulted. This also included a fundamental right provided to American citizens. For the first year in the treaty they would be forced by law to comply with a “permanent rule of law,” regardless of whether the nation was a part (German) or a part (Western) State. (In a later treaty, this would have been interpreted as a right that allowed for a citizenry to seek the right to participate in a future state-sponsored political party.) Under the treaty, the U.S.’s military strength would be guaranteed, including a defense establishment in Germany and the United States. In addition to the “permanent rule of law” clause, each of the two states would also be liable under the U.S.’s “permanent obligation to keep the country secure through war.” In the U.S.A., the U.S. would take the first step in this process: surrender the German sovereignty over its own government, even if this would mean abandoning its military and economic independence. This was achieved by “presumption of German national sovereignty in all spheres of the international community.” Under this doctrine, any U.S.-German conflict could take place.
Thus the war on Germany began. Hitler’s personal ambitions to return the German people to sovereignty were completely undermined, only to be dashed when the Allied leaders realized his political aspirations were hopeless on their hands due to an American policy of imperialism to the south. In July 1941, the U.S. General Manfred von Moltke, in a letter to the President, warned of “what an awful shame it would be to come perilously close to complete collapse with the fall of Europe. It is well to be cautious if we do not take a closer course to the destruction of our neighbors, but the defeat and extinction of the Allied forces in World War II are more disastrous. In short, no one expects that the surrender of Germany will result in the destruction of civilization and our entire civilization. It is impossible. But even that is not realistic. The great irony is that the Axis powers have kept fighting for it the past two or three centuries. The loss of power must end in disaster. If they do this, their future will only be worse than that of the nations that have been destroyed as a result.” To put this final bit of the puzzle out there, let us remind ourselves of the events that transpired in 1945âduring World War II, at the turn of the century, and at the end of the decades thereafter, as Germany was reduced in size to a mere minority in the Western imperialist bloc. German states, facing the consequences of Allied occupation and its resultant war, set about to fight each other. As soon as they met up with the Nazis
The Treaty of Versailles, also known as the Munich Accords, also extended an umbrella of postwar German rule over the German people to a second set of nations. The Treaty had a specific aim that it was intended to uphold: the rule of law. If the U.S.-German relationship ended, the Treaty would be replaced by a two-state relationship, which would give Germany a single sovereign authority in all spheres of the world. These two countries would each be held responsible for dealing in accordance with the Treaty. But as of 1941, the American Constitution included an automatic, unconditional, and mandatory treaty that the U.S. could impose upon any such future conflict. Under this treaty, the U.S. would retain full sovereignty over the entire nation, unless a future conflict resulted. This also included a fundamental right provided to American citizens. For the first year in the treaty they would be forced by law to comply with a “permanent rule of law,” regardless of whether the nation was a part (German) or a part (Western) State. (In a later treaty, this would have been interpreted as a right that allowed for a citizenry to seek the right to participate in a future state-sponsored political party.) Under the treaty, the U.S.’s military strength would be guaranteed, including a defense establishment in Germany and the United States. In addition to the “permanent rule of law” clause, each of the two states would also be liable under the U.S.’s “permanent obligation to keep the country secure through war.” In the U.S.A., the U.S. would take the first step in this process: surrender the German sovereignty over its own government, even if this would mean abandoning its military and economic independence. This was achieved by “presumption of German national sovereignty in all spheres of the international community.” Under this doctrine, any U.S.-German conflict could take place.
Thus the war on Germany began. Hitler’s personal ambitions to return the German people to sovereignty were completely undermined, only to be dashed when the Allied leaders realized his political aspirations were hopeless on their hands due to an American policy of imperialism to the south. In July 1941, the U.S. General Manfred von Moltke, in a letter to the President, warned of “what an awful shame it would be to come perilously close to complete collapse with the fall of Europe. It is well to be cautious if we do not take a closer course to the destruction of our neighbors, but the defeat and extinction of the Allied forces in World War II are more disastrous. In short, no one expects that the surrender of Germany will result in the destruction of civilization and our entire civilization. It is impossible. But even that is not realistic. The great irony is that the Axis powers have kept fighting for it the past two or three centuries. The loss of power must end in disaster. If they do this, their future will only be worse than that of the nations that have been destroyed as a result.” To put this final bit of the puzzle out there, let us remind ourselves of the events that transpired in 1945âduring World War II, at the turn of the century, and at the end of the decades thereafter, as Germany was reduced in size to a mere minority in the Western imperialist bloc. German states, facing the consequences of Allied occupation and its resultant war, set about to fight each other. As soon as they met up with the Nazis
This underscores Hitlerâs ability as a leader to be cognizant of ripe opportunities. While the term opportunist has overwhelmingly negative connotations, it is a crucial dimension to many a successful leader. Hitler epitomized this by firstly reading the mood of the nation accurately post 1918 and secondly to cash in on the chance to play up nationalistic sentiments to gain political mileage.
Hitler would demonstrate this trait time and again throughout his political career. This became particularly clear in the case of Hitlerâs use of the ambitions of military man General Kurt von Schleicher. Schleicher harbored plans to become the sole political leader of Germany. He wanted to dismantle the German republic that had been in power since the end of World War I, led by Chancellor Heinrich Bruening. When he approached Hitler for support, Hitler realized that their goals were aligned though Schleichers version involved Schleicher as the supreme leader at the end of it all. Hitler realized Schleicher could do a lot of the dirty work for him and remove all political obstacles