Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Dictators are very much a creation of circumstances that obtain in a particular country. The rise of Dictators such as Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany and Stalin in Russia after the end of World War I have their roots in the socio-economic conditions of those times. This essay aims at comparing and contrasting the leadership styles of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in governance of their respective countries.
Discussion
Europe at the end of World War I was a continent in ruins. According to Pollard, “Italy in the early 1920s suffered from serious economic problems, —- The failure to resolve these problems undermined the Italian people’s faith in the political parties and in democracy itself”(2). Mussolini exploited this opportunity and became the Prime minister of Italy in 1922. German defeat in WWI coupled with the humiliating terms of the treaty of Versailles was exploited by Adolf Hitler to gain power.
The great depression of 1930s further helped consolidate the political acceptability of Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany who promised to lead their respective countries to prosperity. In Russia, the excesses of Czarist Russia was sought to be replaced by an egalitarian system and economic reforms, a promise exploited by the Bolsheviks whose leaders Lenin followed by Stalin used this popular discontentment to full effect. Thus all three leaders used the anti-incumbency factor, poor socio-economic conditions and political ferment to consolidate their power over their respective countries.
The leadership styles of the three dictators gravitated towards centralized planning for governance. All economic planning was planned and executed by the central ministries in each country. In Italy, Mussolini propounded that “the forming of labour unions, are emphatically recognised by Fascism and are given their full expression in the Corporative System, which conciliates every interest in the unity of the State (Swallow 8).” In Germany, Battersby states that “Hitler believed in the leadership principle, in the “master in his house” principle”(15). Beliefs in this principle lead to central planning of large scale public projects which gave employment to a large number of Germans.
Unlike Mussolini, Hitler encouraged select German industrial groups to flourish and did not try to control the reins of industry in the manner Mussolini had tried to do. Stalin in contrast sought absolute control over everything and executed this control through the Central Committee. According to Tomita, “Politburo of the Central Committee (CC) played a key role in the decision-making process under the conditions of a one-party state and democratic centralism”(2). This central planning conceived the concept of five year plans which were a success. Thus all three leaders initiated real economic reforms and economic activity to improve the lot of their people.
All three leaders used propaganda to further their aims and increase their control over their peoples. Braunbeck affirms that “Hitler was a master at the use of the spoken word and a genius at the art of manipulating mass propaganda for his political ends”(7). Old German tales of valor and pride propagated through the medium of theatre and movies, impressive rallies and striking use of Aryan symbolism became tools of Nazi propaganda. So effective was his propaganda that “Hitler convinced a critical mass of Germans that things must change. “Germany awake!” was emblazoned on Nazi banners” (Clabaugh 2).
Mussolini too tried to copy the same formula in strengthening his control over his people with moderate success. In Russia, Stalin used government propaganda with sinister connotations. The Russian propaganda machine used the press, theatre, movies with great effect, always accompanied with a hidden threat of violence. Thus use of propaganda by Hitler and Mussolini was more positive compared to the negative approach of Stalin.
Intimidation of the masses by the governmental agencies was very much a tool for control of the people and was used by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in varying degree. In Germany, the use of intimidation on people of Germanic origin was much more subtle. The ‘Brown shirts’ and the Gestapo targeted political opponents and dissidents but generally left the common German alone. Jews, of course were persecuted with a ferocity overmatched only by Stalin in Russia.
Mussolini used the ‘Black Shirts’ to intimidate his opponents and at times, the population, but his use of intimidation on Italians was also muted. Stalin on the other hand used terror as a primary weapon for controlling the vast Russian hinterland. It is estimated that during the Stalinist purges, over 23 million Russians lost their lives. Terror was, according to Stalin, both necessary and unavoidable in administering Russia.
Summary
In summary it can be concluded that the dictatorships of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin gained acceptance due to the prevailing socio-economic conditions in Europe where people wished a change for a better life. Their styles of governance were very similar with each resorting to centralization of economy and administration in varying degrees to strengthen their hold and bring up their respective country’s national power. Propaganda and intimidation was used in generous amounts by all three though, Stalin stands out for the excessive use of terror as a means of exercising control over the populace. In their glorious years, each dictator achieved a fair amount of success in uplifting their respective countries.
Works Cited
Battersby, James Larrat. 1952. “The Holy Book of Adolf Hitler”. Electronic edition. Web.
Braunbeck, Paul A. 1997. “ A Military Leadership Analysis of Adolf Hitler”. Web.
Clabaugh, Gary K. 2001. “Looking for Leadership: Longing for a Führer”. educational HORIZONS. Web.
Pollard, John. 2004. “The Many Problems and Failures of Liberal Italy led the Establishment to Turn to Mussolini.” Web.
Swallow, Alan. 2004. “Readings on Facism and National Socialism. Project Gutenberg. Web.
Yomita, Takeshi. 1994. “Stalin, Politburo, and Its Commissions in the Soviet Decision-Making Process in the 1930s”. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.