Most will sway from discussing the legitimacy of the Holocaust. I believe the Holocaust occurred. I think it was an unjustified atrocity that paralyzed the relationship of the Jewish Religion with the rest of the world. After reading the Prince, I became interested in evaluating how Machiavelli might assess Adolf Hitler’s actions. While I understand Machiavelli specifically addresses principalities, many of the arguments he poses apply to any head of state. I will only address such issues. I hope to prove that Machiavelli would endorse Hitler’s actions given the time.
Machiavelli argued that both fear and love are desirable for a leader. It is difficult to unite constituents with love, and fear better conserves leadership. Machiavelli argues, “…Fear restrains men because they are afraid of punishment, and this fear never leaves them,” opposed to love, which, “…attaches men by ties of obligation…which they break whenever their interests are at stake” (Wootton 36). When I first learned of the Holocaust, Hitler became an icon for evil. Hitler is indeed in contention for the world’s most dreaded man.
Machiavelli would give Hitler an A+ for those actions at that time to draw attentiveness towards his willingness to produce horror. Machiavelli explains how a leader, “should make himself feared” (Wootton 36). Fear will produce followers because people typically fear those that may harm them. It is astounding the amount of supporters Hitler gained to conduct such outrageous deeds. Adolf Hitler did an astonishing job at instilling fear in both his enemies and allies.
In chapter 19, Machiavelli explains how it is better for a leader to declare commitment on the side of one force, and against the other. Because one group will endorse that leader, while the other fears him. The latter is entirely more preferable than being neutral, because neutrality does not guarantee committed support. Hitler orchestrated a Nazi campaign, and completely abolished its enemy. By doing such, he gained overwhelming support from the Nazi regime, and was an effective leader because he had a committed army. However, Machiavelli would reconsider his assessment after seeing Hitler’s implications.
Once seeing what Hitler did, Machiavelli would give him an F. Firstly because Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of stability. After Hitler’s reign the German economy collapsed, a sign of instability. The government restructured and the nation was in utter turmoil. Secondly, Machiavelli argued that being feared is good, being hated is undesirable because people are encouraged to betray you. Hitler had a Nazi populous behind him when in power, however, once people saw the implications they concluded differently. Hitler is now revered as a horrific symbol. Furthermore, Hitler was smart because he preserved his munificence by ordering inferiors to execute the “enemy” instead of publically doing ALL of the killings himself.
Hitler’s actions in the Holocaust did two things that Machiavelli says are most significant. Hitler took the side of one group, exploited their wants, and magnified them by eradicating their enemy. Further, Hitler used that extermination to instill fear in his enemies and his allies. Machiavelli would certainly argue that Hitler’s actions were those of a good leader at the time, but caused instability as a result and were ultimately poor decisions.
Sources:
Machiavelli. The Prince. (Translation source listed below.)
Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought…Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Second Edition. 2007.
I completely agree with this post. Machiavelli would give Hitler a thumps up for maintaining his position and power through fear. I also believe Hitler maintained power by not making decisions based on what was the ethical thing to do. In chapter 15 of The Prince, Machiavelli writes ” So it is necessary for a ruler, if wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use knowledge” (33). Hitler needed to remove himself of any moral values ( such as unjustly killing masses of people) and do whatever it took to maintain his high authority. To preserve his position, he thought of what needed to be done rather than what was right to do. For this strategy, Machiavelli would be proud of Hitler.
I think that obviously WE believe Hitler to be an evil, dictatorial murderer, but that Machiavelli would have seen Hitler as the perfect sovereign. You mention that Hitler caused great instability after WW2 ended, but you must remember that Hitler ultimately committed suicide and Nazi Germany was destroyed. Prior to the war and actually during the war, Germany flourished under Hitler. During the Weimar Republic Germany went into super-inflation and was dying as a country. Hitler brought Germany from these ashes and established a stable economy. Hitler also was both feared and loved by his people. Feared for the consequences of being sent to a concentration camp, but loved for his ability to cause economic stability and redefined nationalism to Germany. You must remember that history is often written by the victor. Had Germany won WW2 Hitler may be viewed as one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world. One who brought a stable, prosperous, German super country to Europe. Machiavelli would be proud of what Hitler did in Germany, but would have been disappointed that Germany ultimately lost WW2.
I agree with Kyle Eggerding in that while Hitler was indeed alive, he was exactly what Machiavelli wanted in a ruler. The latter was out of Hitler’s control. If he were alive, who knew what Germany could’ve been like or could’ve done?
As mentioned earlier, Hitler utilized fear to instill loyal followers (good, according to Machiavelli). Hitler also attempted to completely abolish all that he felt was of the ‘Old Germany’ – i.e. the Jews and all other minorities, which Machiavelli would give him a high five for because he states you MUST get rid of all the old regime in order to successfully implement your own. Thirdly, Hitler didn’t have any guilt, which Machiavelli would absolutely be proud of. Machiavelli felt that a ruler must do what he believes is necessary in order to rule efficiently (ends must justify the means) and you better bet Hitler did not care about the horror within concentration camps or the gas chambers.
Although looking back, we view the Holocaust as a horror that should never happen again, if Hitler were still alive and continuing his reign, Machiavelli would deem him a role model that other nations should follow in the sense that he was persistent, a perfectionist and cold hearted.
This blog does a very nice job of juxtaposing Hitler’s actions with Machiavelli’s suggestions for good ruler. I agree that Machiavelli would have graded Hitler’s ability to mobilize a following very highly. I next began to consider how Machiavelli may have viewed other fascist leaders like Mussolini. I’m sure that like Hitler, Mussolini’s ability to instill fear and create a cult of personality would have resonated with him. Part of the cult of personality that developed in European countries during early 20th century involves the attributes that Machiavelli encourages in a leader like being feared and loved. It’s incredible how powerful these men became through their ability to manipulate and instill fear. It is worth noting that Mussolini’s inability to establish any sort of real stability in Italy unlike Hitler in Germany would not have been applauded by Machiavelli. I think Machiavelli would have approved of Mussolini’s tactics, but not his ability to execute his strategy for power/stability.
As much as I hate to admit it, I agree that Machiavelli would have supported Hitler’s actions. While I myself am disgusted by Hitler’s eradicating of 6 million Jews for selfish reasons, Machiavelli would have been proud of the way Hitler accomplished his goals, which were to instill fear in everyone’s hearts and to keep his position as supreme ruler, because of the cunning and forceful way he did so. He was willing to sacrifice all morals and risk not being loved to get what he wanted, which are aspects that Machiavelli would have been proud of.
I agree that Machiavelli would easily consider Hitler a great leader. By Machiavelli’s standards, the end justifies the means. Sadly, if a leader bases their policy through simply Machiavellian terms, the leader ends up possibly causing a lot of suffering.
One interesting way that Machiavelli may disagree with Hitler’s actions can be found in The Prince when he states that “if you take control of a state, you should make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once. That way you will not have to commit new atrocities every day and you will be able, by not repeating your evil deeds, to reassure your subjects and to win their support by treating them well.” By committing new crimes every day over a period of several years, Hitler did not act according to Machiavelli’s advice. This is perhaps why, towards the end of WW2, many of those who were not a target of Hitler’s plan of ethnic cleansing became disenchanted with the Third Reich. They may have seen Hitler’s actions as never-ending, constituting an enormous obstacle to peace and security.
I think Madeleine makes a very good bringing in Machiavelli’s notion that one must, “make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once.” While it is hard to say that Hitler was not a great leader, in the sense that he was able to take control and at least start to get done what he wanted to, the fact that his goal was simply perpetual “crimes” certainly contributed to his ultimate failure. While Machiavelli did say that peace was only the breathing time between war, I would not consider perpetual “ethnic cleansing” to be war. Also, once he made it a worldwide conquest, his actions were not simply over his “subjects” in Germany; if he had succeeded who is to say he wouldn’t have been hated by most of the world? Ultimately history has shown us overambitious plans of world domination are usually flawed and unrealistic – while Machiavelli may have seen the Holocaust as a necessary step towards a goal, he would not have thought Hitler’s overall plans were realistic or sustainable.
I also began to think of Hitler while reading Machiavelli. The mystique and character that Hitler exemplified only provided him with a stable platform to pursue his own personal goals. Machiavelli may have even said that Hitler was a prime example of just how powerful a charismatic leader can be. While we all agree that Hitler’s actions were completely wrong and unjust, it is interesting to point out that he could easily be one of the most influential people of the 20th century. Machiavelli was able to recognize the qualities of leadership and “The Prince” was his lesson book basically. I would never support Hitler’s values or actions but I think it is crucial that we look at the way he was able to win people over. If society’s leaders can accomplish the same influential power, then world peace and better legislation may not be too far in the distant future.
While I do agree that Machiavelli would have agreed and endorsed almost all of Hitler’s policies, I think that Machiavelli would have drawn the line in terms of the Holocaust. Machiavelli preached that the ends justify the means, but there were no ends in the Holocaust except the never ending process of exterminating more people, that also happened to be citizens of Germany, who also posed no real threat to Hitler. His means were sickening and I don’t think anyone in their right mind, even Machiavelli, would endorse his method. So although in principle Hitler was following in Machiavelli’s footsteps, he strayed too far from the path.
At their core, the leadership methods Machiavelli outlines in “The Prince” advise the reader to use any means necessary to achieve his goals. Also, even though most classical political theory tied political laws to laws handed down from God, “The Prince” does not. This suggests that Machiavelli did not have much of a conscience and could have lived with the decision to orchestrate a genocide like the Holocaust. So even though I could never justify the killing of four to six million innocent people, I think Machiavelli could see genocide as a means to an end. The example Hitler provides proves that humans have the capacity to take drastic action in order to get something they want.
Hitler certainly did follow a lot of the advice that Machiavelli laid out in The Prince. At the time and still today he remains one of the most feared and hated men of all time. However I think even Machiavelli might have cautioned Hitler about his extreme methods. He certainly flirted with the line between being feared vs. being hated and ultimately that seems to be his downfall. The hate he inspired sparked a violent reaction by most of the countries in the world against him and obviously he eventually lost the war and the German empire crumbled.
I, like the many posts above mine, would actually say that Machiavelli would view Hitler as a perfect sovereign. I think this post could have focused more on the moral vs. amoral aspect of Hitler and how he instilled fear and amoral actions for his principalities to keep complete control. I agree with Madeleine’s post that all the crimes should have been committed at once. I think that is the only place where Machiavelli would disagree with Hitler’s actions. Hitler’s armies were stable, but his one weakness was committing too many crimes over a long period of time, digging himself into a whole (for. example, the long deadly battle of Stalingrad, Russia that occupied more than half of his Nazi army). Things like that lead to his downfall.
I agree with Matt Blecker in that Machiavelli would have drawn a line at the Holocaust. The Machiavellian argument that “the ends justify the means” can not even rationalize the actions taken in the Holocaust, because the ends and means were one in the same. Millions of innocent people were murdered, but a concrete end did not exist in order to justify this. People were being slaughtered just for the sake of being slaughtered, and although I’m not the biggest fan of Machiavelli, I still don’t think that he would possess the sheer insanity required to support the Holocaust.
I hope I am not the only one who is alarmed by the tone and the basic premise of both the essay and the comments. I am writing this comment as a warning that I think we may be venturing too far into a revision of history that is never appropriate nor healthy. There are so many ways in which Nazi atrocities cannot possibly be evaluated in a political debate. While Fascism and Nazism as a political movement can and have continued to have a presence in ongoing political discourse, such as in Hannah Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” I find the above context in which Nazism has been placed to be inappropriate. To reflect on what Machiavelli may have thought of the Holocaust could be interesting, and I don’t wish to disparage the essay in any way. Some of the comments, however, seem far to extreme, both in their implications, and their digression from the original post’s thesis and arguments.
While Hitler suceeded in leadership under Machiavelli criteria. I dont think that Machiavelli would want his teachings to be used in such a way. I agree with Matt that Machiavelli would have drawn the line in terms of the Holocaust. It is a very intresting topic that should be further discussed.
I agree with Sam on this one. After reading the blog post and the comments, it was a little uncomfortable. To think that someone would promote Hitler’s action is a little extreme. I think that Machiavelli would draw the line before the Holocaust. I think that people did hate Hitler for what he was doing and if not, then they were close to getting there. Also, if I remember correctly, Machiavelli emphasized that the Prince’s actions should be done for the state’s benefit. Anything otherwise, would be considered a bad Prince. Hitler did not kill those 6 million Jews and others for the benefit of the state. He killed them because he believed that Jewish people caused the death of Jesus Christ or simply because he didn’t like them. The people who died during the Holocaust could’ve been very influential to society one day if they had the chance to live. There were hardly any benefits to society for killing off 6 million people. So I don’t think that Machiavelli would promote Hitler’s actions.
I do not completely agree with this post, but valid arguments are easy to identify with. First, though you did mention that Machiavelli would not approve that Hitler became hated, I believe that that should have held a bit more relevance within this posting. Machiavelli is avidly opposed to tyranny and I believe that he would have looked upon Hitler as a tyrant. Hitler’s basis of exterminating Jews stemmed from hatred, which is does not appear in The Prince. I definitely agree with Sam that there are aspects of Nazism that cannot and should not be linked with historical political theory.
I think that the few objections Machiavelli would have had to Hitler’s policies would be based largely on Hitler’s military strategy. The hatred Hitler later inspired in his people and the instability of the society he left behind can both be traced back to failed tactics, rather than unsuccessful social policies. Although objectively immoral, his extermination of the Jewish population did not inspire hatred from the majority of Germans. If anything, it inspired fear from the populations of other subjugated countries, an objective that Machiavelli valued.
As for Hitler’s military tactics, Machiavelli would have reprimanded him for his clearly illogical actions. Machiavelli would not have approved of rapidly subjugating nations whose cultures were radically different from that of Germany’s. A clear example demonstrating the validity of Machiavelli’s preferred strategy is the rebellious nature of the conquered French. They simply would not tolerate Germanic rule, and Machiavelli could have foreseen this. Although Machiavelli would likely have approved of Hitler’s acquisition of the Germanic Sudetenland and Austria whose citizens were likely to submit willingly, Machiavelli would not have commended Hitler’s attempts to conquer other cultures who despised the Germans.
Section 12
I think that Madeleine brings up a good point about what Machiavelli would say about Hitler’s actions. I also think that analyzing Hitler’s actions through a Machiavellian lenses is interesting because it shows how much the playing field for politics has changed from Machiavelli’s time due to globalization. Due to media and defined borders, we have a new player that the prince must be aware of: the viewpoint of the world.
We were constantly being reminded in Machiavelli’s piece that “the ends justify the means”. What could be Hitler’s case argued for the extermination of his own people while simultaneously trying to win a worldwide war? I think that because Machiavelli was an advocate for the well-being of the people and against tyranny, he would not have agreed with Hitler thus drawing the line. Hitler was a hated man by most and worshipped by few. Machiavelli did not aim to create a hated leader, but one that worked for the benefit of everyone.
I agree with this blog that Machiavelli would have initially supported Hitler’s decisions. Although they were very brutal, the fear that Hitler instilled in those around him is exactly what Machiavelli stresses in “The Prince”. Still, I believe Machiavelli does mention that the ends justify the means, and the ultimate decline of the Nazi regime and German economy would make him feel that Hitler’s actions were unjustifiable and that he was an unsuccessful leader.
Machiavelli believed in rezon d e’tat, which meant to do anything to further the cause of the state. While Machiavelli would have approved of Hitler’s aggressive military tactics, I do not believe he would have supported the Holocaust. While Hitler did talk openly about purifying the German race, he did not openly talk about the SS and concentration camps. This would not lead to the fear that he could have instilled, something Machiavelli preached. Hitler killed the Jews for his own petty reasons, not to further the cause of the state. In this respect I think Machiavelli would have disagreed with him.
Machiavelli wouldn’t have agreed with it at all. As you said, the Holocaust “paralyzed the relationship between the Jewish Religion and the rest of the world”. Machiavelli in his Discourses noted that he did not advocate violence or cruelty other than a swift, decisive means that would end sufferring. He noted that he considered cruelty in any form that would lastingly impact on a society “despicable.”