sites.gsu.edusites.gsu.edu/.../files/2015/03/English355PropagandaArtic… · Web viewHe then...
Transcript of sites.gsu.edusites.gsu.edu/.../files/2015/03/English355PropagandaArtic… · Web viewHe then...
Harlan 1
Rhetorical Analysis of Hitler’s Persona, Influences, and Propaganda
Figure 1 source: kenraggio.com
By: Kacey A Harlan
Description
Adolf Hitler’s incredible persuasive personal power is legendary, especially in regard to
his public speeches. In order to effectively persuade an entire country to fully engage and believe
in an ideology and course of action that is inarguably extremist in its entirety, it is fore mostly
necessary to have a thorough mastery of the art of persuasion, charisma, and rhetoric. In this
article rhetorical tools utilized by Hitler will be analyzed in order to gain a more cohesive
understanding on why he was so successful through the medium of his speeches. Perhaps the
most well known example of Hitler’s successful employment of such tactics is in his Declaration
of War on the U.S., or Reichstag, speech in which he uses powerful rhetoric and an engaging
persona to both mask and communicate a veritably psychotic point of view and, more
importantly, bring its goals to fruition. However, in order to truly understand why Hitler was able
Harlan 2
to declare war on the biggest World Power and have support for it, earlier texts must be
examined. Accordingly, I have chosen two documents which clearly demonstrate the rationale
that Hitler possessed while highlighting his strengths as a persuasive orator—a speech given
before the infamous Reichstag address in 1939 and a speech given to the National Socialist
Women’s Organization in 1934. In the latter half of the article, the connection between Adolf
Hitler and Joseph Stalin will be examined in order to comprehend the incredible influences that
they had on one another, as well as where these influences manifested.
Occurring on September 1, 1939, the speech before the Reichstag in its entirety provides
an insightful glimpse into the extremist perspective on the period of history following the
Versailles Treaty. This treaty forced Germany to pay astronomical reparations for its
involvement in the First World War, crippled Germany’s military and economy, as well as
stigmatized the entire population of Germany as being volatile and extremist. Although heavily
critiqued thanks to hindsight, the treaty was seen as the best course of action at the time, given
both the strained state of all countries involved and their exhausted leaders. Given these factors it
is understandable that many German citizens would feel disgruntled and discriminated,
especially those who did not support the war in the first place. The speech demonstrates Hitler’s
innate understanding of people’s general mindset during crises by enumerating on the injustice
of the treatment of Germany after the First World War and inciting any already present feelings
of injustice into a national desire for all out war. The second speech to the women’s organization
depicts Hitler’s uncanny ability to understand people and relate to them, while still being able to
use these skills in order accomplish his goal.
From even an objective perspective, it is difficult to remain completely unbiased in
evaluating not only this particular speech and the rhetorical strategies being employed within it,
Harlan 3
but also in evaluating the rhetor himself. Speeches such as these two directly resulted in the mass
genocide of millions of innocent people and the Second World War. Subsequently, this paper is
written with the unstated, understood assumption that the majority agrees with this perspective.
This being said, it is impossible to truly remain objective in an approach which evaluates the
ethics, pathos, and morality involved in this act. However, it is almost possible to remain
objective when evaluating the exceptional rhetorical ability that Hitler possessed in conveying
his ideals and intentions. He displayed his tendency towards direct, harsh, and powerful
discourse even in his own Mein Kampf where he states in regard to the Vienna government’s
ultimatum in the First World War:
…for in the eyes of the broad masses the tone of the ultimatum was far too gentle
and by no means too brutal, let alone too far-reaching. Anyone who today
attempts to argue this way is either a forgetful blockhead or a perfectly conscious
swindler and liar. (Hitler 161)
As previously stated, in order to actually bring such hate-fueled, dehumanizing acts to fruition,
Hitler possessed an intimidating and cohesive understanding of people’s thought processes in a
time of conflict and uncertainty. More importantly, Hitler understood how to manipulate them.
Terms
In this paper three specific rhetorical terms will be used in order to better understand the
rhetoric behind these speeches: kairos, rhetorical situation, and exigency. The first term, kairos,
can be understood as simply rhetorical timeliness, such as knowing when to present ideals at the
most opportune time in order to have the highest probability of ensuring desired results
(www.technorhetoric.net). The second term, rhetorical situation, can be defined as any given
Harlan 4
situation in which there lies an area of dispute which can be altered via either one rhetor’s
testimony or debate. The term, originally coined by Lloyd Bitzer, argues that such situations are
always present and that they offer constraints that a rhetor must essentially work around to
effectively convey his point. However, for the purpose of this paper the alternate understanding
of the rhetorical situation argued by Richard Vatz will be used in regard to Hitler, which states
the opposite. Vatz contends that it is not a given situation that maintains the utmost control and
provides constraints, but that it is the rhetor themselves who have the ultimate power in
manipulating a situation which they deem “rhetorical”. The exigency is perhaps the key
component of a rhetorical situation and is the third term which will be used. The exigency is the
part of a rhetorical situation which is in need of some “positive modification”, as described by
Bitzer. For example, the exigency for Hitler in his particular situation was Germany’s condition
post-World War One and his view that things needed to be changed in order for Germany to
prosper. What makes Hitler’s version of the exigency in this situation radical is that he chose
mass murder and totalitarianism as the ideal positive modification.
Kairos
The term kairos ties directly not only to Hitler’s speeches, but also to the timing of his
agenda in general. The origins of the term kairos lie in ancient Greece, where it was used as one
of two general terms, the other term being chromos, used to refer to time. However the term
kairos held a more qualitative meaning and alludes more to ethics in regard to this “timeliness”
(www.technorhetoric.net). Hitler knew very well that if he were going to be able to enact his
ideals on a mass scale, he needed attempt to employ them in a time of veritable national crisis. At
this point in time between the end of the First World War/beginning of the Second and before the
United States had officially entered; Germany was heading towards veritable national disaster.
Harlan 5
As previously stated, Germany had been forced to give up most of their military, industrial
products, and was also being forced to pay massive reparations—all of which proved crippling to
the economy post-Treaty of Versailles.
Hitler emphasizes this state in his pre-Reichstag speech in the first line when he states,
“For months we have been tormented by a problem once imposed upon us by the Dictate of
Versailles and which, in its deterioration and corruption, had now become utterly intolerable”
(Moeller 110). The German people felt a dire need for both vindication and empowerment in the
form of a powerful leadership figure in whom they could put their trust and ambitions entirely.
By using his own anger towards the state of Germany and even by using it as the attention
grabber in his opening line, Hitler shows here that kairos was a necessary component to his
agenda. Hitler chose perhaps the most opportune time and the most fitting persona to effectively
carry out his plan for an all out war. He used time as a convenient tool to acquire loyalty through
mutual interest, and then essentially enforced mass murder on the Jewish people for an entirely
personal reason all while instigating the Second World War. Without this eerie sense of kairos,
the majority would have probably never accepted Hitler’s radical ideals.
Rhetorical Situation
Using Richard Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation as being primarily controlled
by the rhetor enables a comprehensive analysis of Hitler’s point of view during this period.
According to Vatz, it is the rhetor that creates these situations from their own observations and
thoughts, and is therefore the primary controlling factor in rhetorical situations. In terms of
Bitzer’s concept of positive modification, Vatz argues that there is no universal base on which all
situations rest. Therefore the idea of positive modification is both relative and subjective,
Harlan 6
negating the need for tying some ethical meaning to the phrase “positive modification”. Indeed,
it appears as though Hitler himself veritably created the entire “situation” regarding the Jews and
in essence made a situation out of them. Hitler’s ideal positive modification was to send an entire
people to work in extremely harsh, potentially lethal conditions, and away from the general
populace. Although this idea of positive modification has the wide effect of nausea in modern
day review, at the time it seemed appropriate.
When viewing this portion of the situation, it is easy to observe here that Hitler’s positive
modification was certainly slavery to an extent, but beyond that façade and at its core—it was
simply genocide. Without once using the term, Hitler was able to effectively persuade an entire
population that genocide was indeed the right, reasonable course of action. He was able to
inflame people not only with his rhetorical skills employed in speeches, but also through his
talent at using propaganda rhetorically. For example, examine these two Nazi propaganda posters
concerning Jews:
Fig. 2 & 3
Sources: www2.needham.k12.ma.us and elderofziyon.blogspot.com
Harlan 7
Hitler instilled in the German people a deep fear of Jewish domination and a hard hatred
towards their supposed greed. In Figure 2, a rather stereotypical Jew is depicted holding objects
and symbols associated with the very things that Germans were learning to fear and hate. In
figure 3, dehumanization is employed by making a Jew an octopus and showing that Jews have
enough “legs” to take over the world’s economy, here through the acquisition of precious oil.
Using the rhetoric employed in person as well as using propaganda mudslinging as illustrated in
these posters, Hitler was able to mold a country into exactly the form he wished to see it take.
Through the hate he was able to generate via both the Jews and post-World War I reparations, he
was able to use his charismatic, strong-willed persona to express in just the right discourse why
Germany should not only accept, but rejoice in going to war with the biggest world power. This
is all due to Hitler’s take on a situation which he deemed rhetorical in that it required immediate
attention while providing a striking example of Richard Vatz’s interpretation of the rhetorical
situation.
Hitler was also quite adept at handling those rhetorical situations which did offer
constraints. For example, in his speech to the National Socialist Women’s Organization he
proves effective when in a situation where his rather misogynist view on a woman’s place in
society is called into question. During the Weimar Republic, which was in place in Germany
after the Treaty of Versailles and prior to the Nazi takeover, women began to advocate their
equality and rights. Once the Nazis came into power, however, these aspirations were crushed
and all groups were conglomerated into the National Socialist Women’s Organization which held
little to no standing. Hitler offers an interesting vindication for these actions, claiming that a man
is “psychologically too erratic… to know what exactly his responsibility is” and that the National
Harlan 8
Socialists opposed women in the political spectrum because it is a “life in our eyes that is
unworthy of her” (Moeller 80). He furthers this argument when he states:
A woman once said to me: “You must see to it that women get into the
parliament, because only they can ennoble it.” “I do not believe,” I replied, “that
we should ennoble something inherently bad. And the woman who gets caught in
this parliamentary machinery will not ennoble it; instead it will dishonor her. I do
not want to leave something to woman that I intend to take away from men.
(Moeller 81)
In essence, Hitler is stating that women should be prevented from entering the political
circle because their natural piety would be soiled. The counter-argument here would
naturally be put the pious in power and there is no conflict—but that is not what Hitler
wanted. This particular passage illustrates Hitler’s skill at handling any kind of rhetorical
situation, as he is able to confidently tell a hall of feminists that their desire for equality in
the workforce actually goes against nature.
Interestingly, Hitler also uses this occasion to attribute Jewish qualities to the
movement of women’s liberation. The first line of his speech reads, “The phrase
“women’s liberation” is a phrase invented only by Jewish intellectualism, and its content
is shaped by the same spirit” (Moeller 80). Here Hitler demonstrates his ability to
attribute qualities he wants to whatever group he wants. Not only is he successful in
convincing the populace that Jews are subhuman and greedy beings, he is equally
successful in creating a negative connotation with even the word “Jew”, making it
something no one wants to be equated with. Basically, it is better to be repressed in the
Harlan 9
true patriotic fashion than fight for a belief system which may coincide with the Jews.
After examining rhetorical situations and how Hitler manipulated them, it is crucial to
examine the term “exigency” and how it functions in this context.
Exigency
Relative to the idea of the rhetorical situation and its being controlled in this instance by
the rhetor, is the term exigency. Coined first by Aristotle, the term exigency refers any given
thing present in a given rhetorical situation which requires debate, immediate attention due to
flaw, or anything that poses a kind of conundrum which a rhetor may speculate/act on. Bitzer
provides his definition of exigency as, “an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an
obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 7).
Moving on from the obvious example of the Jews in Hitler’s view, exigency is more applicable
here in regard to his actual philosophy. He successfully argues that war with the United States is
the only true way to allow Germany to reach its full potential. As Norman Rich aptly states in
Hitler’s War Aims:
All policies would have to be based on the consideration of the future security of
the German race. To guarantee this security, and with it the future of world
civilization, any and all means were justified. One had to make clear to oneself
that this goal could only be achieved through fighting, and quietly to face the
passage at arms. (Rich 9)
Hitler illustrates this view in his pre-Reichstag speech when he states:
As a National Socialist and a German soldier I enter upon this fight with a stout
heart! My whole life has been but one continuous struggle for my people, for its
Harlan 10
resurrection, for Germany, and this whole struggle has been inspired by one single
conviction: faith in this people… As for the rest of the world, I can only assure
them that November 1918 shall never occur again in German history. (Moeller
111)
Hitler’s rhetoric here is striking. Here Hitler first establishes his credibility by reminding his
audience that is he a true patriot by being both a National Socialist and a German soldier, adding
further emphasis by implying that it is these qualities which enable him to enter with a “stout
heart”. He then touches his audience’s heartstrings by using the word struggle repeatedly in
conjunction with phrases such as “for my people” and “faith in this people”. Finally he ends with
a powerful reference to the exigency of the situation, the Treaty of Versailles.
Examples such as this one are littered throughout Hitler’s rhetoric, demonstrating a keen
understanding of progression in discourse in order to really emphasize the exigency at hand.
Hitler evaluated his rhetorical situation, established his goals, and then decided the exigency in
this particular situation that required the most persuasive discourse was the act of going to war.
While the annihilation of a certain group of human beings proved a relatively easy subject to
impose, people were even less willing to actually take the full stride and start another World
War. The fact that Hitler was so adept at handling this situation through rhetoric certainly
illustrates just how talented this man was at the art of both persuasive discourse and channeling
an audience’s biases to his own advantage.
Connections
Certain theoretical connections certainly jump to mind when examining the rhetoric
behind Hitler’s ideology expressed in his speech. Namely, the idea of critical race theory strikes
Harlan 11
true and is unavoidable when examining his rationale. While critical race theory usually is in
relation to African Americans, it actually originated in Germany. Jane Gilgun explains this
interesting history in her article “Critical Theory Stands Up to Abuses of Power” in which she
explains, “Critical theory originated in Germany in response to the rise of Hitler, who embodies
the abuse of power through manipulating the fears of German citizens and German social and
economic systems” (Gilgun 6).
Critical race theory in practice refers to the attempt to change the dichotomy between
race and power; in this case the well known theory of Hitler’s concerning the “Aryan race”.
During this period, Hitler is desperately trying to unite Germany in many ways to create his ideal
human unit, but a crucial factor in this unification is belief in the idea that true Germans are part
of this Aryan race and, therefore, are superior. And while the target in Hitler’s theory was
predominately the Jews he also targeted other peoples including African Americans as depicted
in Nazi propaganda posters such as this one:
Figure 4 Source: Moeller
Harlan 12
Yet another applicable theory is what is known as cognitive anthropology which attempts
to understand how people created their identities not only internally, but with the objects and
people around them during a period of time. It examines the complex interplay of a person’s
point of view with their cultural, economic, and racial position at the time (Robertson). Hitler
clearly felt slighted by a large number of countries, peoples, and conflicting ideologies and so
constructed a radical, charismatic, and somewhat imperialist persona that he both consciously
and subconsciously believed to fit the bill.
Conclusion
Studying the rhetoric behind Hitler’s public speeches and persona is essential to examine
because it allows a glimpse into the mind of what most modern day psychologists classify as a
psychopath and how someone of such a mindset is able to rise to power, especially in regard to
the time period. Using the knowledge gained from such research, it becomes easier to understand
how comparable figures are and were able to manipulate massive amounts of people. Perhaps the
most striking modern examples are Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin, who all
rose to seats of power which they abused in similar fashions. By studying the rhetoric behind
such figures and understanding why they have appeal during their relative eras, it may become
easier to spot such figures before they can reach positions of leadership and widespread conflict
may be avoided entirely. Next, Joseph Stalin’s rhetoric will be examined in order to understand
the influence that he had on Hitler during this time period.
Harlan 13
Stalin’s Influence on Hitler’s Persona
Figure 5 source: http://anbie.com/data/joseph-stalin.html
Description
The rhetoric and ideologies of Adolf Hitler do not exist in a vacuum. There are countless
instances in history as well as ideologies of other famous figures that influenced both his
speeches and persona. Many of these influences, namely Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard
Wagner, have been sufficiently analyzed. Instead, the focus here will be on the Soviet Union and
a figure that Hitler may have not consciously been inspired by, but certainly was aware of and
had to pattern his movement in accordance with—the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. During
World War Two, Joseph Stalin was the dictator of Soviet Russia and the tense, convoluted
relationship between he and Hitler is infamous. Indeed, without the presence of Stalin, Hitler
would certainly have had an easier time in terms of being able to comfortably engage in war with
the Allies as well as convincing Germany that war was in their best interest and that their fellow
Axis powers would not betray them.
Harlan 14
Like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin provided a powerful persona that the people of Russia,
while totally captivated by, felt powerless against. Subsequently, it is unavoidable that Hitler was
influenced by Stalin and probable that he used his knowledge of Stalin’s political identity to
shape his own. The focus in this section is how Stalin used specific rhetorical skills to influence
his audience—ethos, rhetorical situation, and exigency. This analysis is primarily through the
medium of speech he delivered to voters at the Bolshoi Theatre in 1937, as well as including his
rise to power in conjunction with Hitler’s. Stalin’s persona will then be analyzed in terms of how
it affected Hitler’s own political tactics.
Terms
In examining the rhetoric behind Joseph Stalin and the influences that he invariably had
on Hitler’s own rhetoric, three terms must be examined. The first term, ethos, refers to basing
one’s appeal to the audience on personal credibility and persuasiveness (Burton). Aristotle was
the first rhetorical philosopher to emphasize this tool, stating that in order for one to remain
credible and thus appealing to an audience, a personal platform must be established which can be
referenced to determine one’s agenda. Stalin, who was anti-intellectual and slightly deformed
from a smallpox encounter as a child, understood the importance of establishing his credibility
with both the people and his peers. He also understood that in order for him to do this effectively,
he must assert his dominance in other, more creative ways than simply lineage and education. In
his speech, he consistently makes references to the merit of the working class and commends the
people for their loyalty and devotion
The second term to be examined is rhetorical situation, which always applies when
analyzing politics and is by no means less relevant here in analyzing influences between political
Harlan 15
leaders. Bitzer, being the originator of this term, contended that these situations are constantly
present and that they provide constraints which a rhetor must essentially work around to
effectively convey his point (Bitzer 5). The third term, exigency, ties directly with the rhetorical
situation. In Bitzer’s essay “The Rhetorical Situation” he offers a clean definition of exigency as,
“an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a
thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 7). Clearly, both Stalin and Hitler saw their own
respective exigencies but where the intent in this section lies is in how they relate, which will be
explained further. In order to establish a concrete understanding of Stalin’s persona so that it may
be applied to Hitler’s, the term ethos must first be explored.
Ethos in the Rise to Power
Aristotle was the first rhetorical philosopher to place special interest in the three appeals:
pathos, logos, and ethos. He places a particular emphasis on ethos, claiming that in order for an
audience to even consider listening to a rhetor, a clear and impressive credibility must be
established. Furthermore, he contends that one must appear benevolent as well as competent
about one’s chosen field. Joseph Stalin, like Hitler, came from an unimpressive family lineage
and was famous for a slight inferiority complex, possibly resulting from a lack of serious formal
education and the deformity resulting from his brush with smallpox. Unlike Hitler, Stalin
transformed this feeling of inferiority into a deep rooted hatred for all things highly intellectual
and a strong desire for power and respect.
Stalin rose to power by slowly and methodically flushing out who the big political
players were, gaining their trust through his vitality and ambition, and then promptly replacing
them when he had gained enough leeway to do so. By the time the rest of Lenin’s regime
Harlan 16
realized what was going on, Stalin had effectively replaced an entire political regime with people
who owed their positions to him; Lenin was already on his deathbed (PBS). He used this talent
for gaining people’s trust even more effectively through his speeches to the general populace, as
he was better able to connect with the commoners as a result of his upbringing. And like Hitler,
Stalin was able to gain affluence for his own interests by first capturing the devotion of the
audience through perceived empathy. An excellent example of this tactic presents itself in his
speech in the Bolshoi Theatre when he states, “is it worth while indulging in amusing things just
now when all of us Bolsheviks are, as they say, "up to our necks" in, work? I think not” (Stalin
10). Stalin had a strong desire to maintain a tightly controlled conservative culture (like Hitler)
and this quote illustrates how effectively Stalin is able to use ethos in order to manipulate. Since
Hitler also used this type of tactic with the German population, it is likely that the two
“frenemies” were all too aware of each other’s successes and failures with it.
When Lenin died and Stalin jumped into position, he was an inarguably intimidating
force both respected and feared for his cunning and unmatchable ability to manipulate people. In
this way Stalin provided a solid model for Hitler to observe, copy, and remedy where needed.
Thus, he provided the perfect frame for a potential usurper or extremist to follow. He paved the
way with his incredible persistence while leaving gaping potholes in his wake as a result of his
anti-intellectualism, which isolated large amounts of potential supporters. Hitler clearly took note
of this and modified Stalin’s errors in order to establish his own ethos of ambition, persistence,
but also intellectual charisma. After establishing his ethos and effectively landing a country,
Stalin took note of his own rhetorical situation and quickly acted upon it.
Harlan 17
Rhetorical Situation
Unlike Hitler, Stalin’s rhetorical situation mirrors Bitzer’s original description of the
situation exactly. Stalin was certainly faced with a set of constraints which, as previously stated,
stemmed predominately from his poor, unimpressive upbringing, serious lack of education, and
bearing the lasting marks of the disease smallpox. From an academic point of view, Stalin
reacted to his constraints precisely as was necessary. He recognized his constraints, acted
accordingly through innate cunning and an ability to manipulate the system, and successfully
defeated his given situation by becoming the dictator of the largest geographical country in the
world. He was also able to use his powerful persona to carefully outline the constraints of the
situation to his audience, but only the constraints he wanted them to know. For example, during
the same speech Stalin states in regard to the ever present question on state of the Soviet Union:
Our mills and factories are being run without capitalists. The work is directed by
men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in practice. In our
fields the tillers of the land work without landlords and without kulaks. The work
is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in
daily life, that is what we call a free, socialist life. (Stalin 13)
By emphasizing the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, while magnifying the
role of the people, and concluding with a steadfast insistence on freedom, Stalin shows
his impressive abilities at rhetorical persuasion.
However, Adolf Hitler used Richard Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation to
modify where Stalin made mistakes and became one of the most well known tyrants in modern
history. Richard Vatz describes his rhetorical situation as being primarily controlled by the
Harlan 18
rhetor. In essence, it is a tangible person who takes note of and therefore creates a rhetorical
situation, thus being able to modify and change it as they please (Vatz 3). Instead of using the
anger resulting from his mediocre upbringing and repeated rejections by institutions to take over
by malignant and cunning means, Hitler used his anger as a sort of catalyst. In effect, he used his
understanding of the human psyche and innate charisma to inflame the same hatred in others,
sweeping the nation through their own choice. This is where Stalin failed and created more
enemies than was necessary, and Hitler was not blind to the fact. After establishing one’s ethos
and using it to overcome their respective rhetorical situations, the next logical step in the life of a
dictator is to discover the exigency in their new regime, identify it to the people, and attempt to
fix the issue.
Exigencies and How to Respond to Them
As stated in the previous section, the exigency for Hitler was the state of Germany after
World War One and the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles that forced Germany to essentially
cripple itself via reparations and depletion of the military. He also used his already established
reputation with the German people to utilize his hatred toward the Jews and include them with
the list of problems which needed to be fixed in order for Germany to be a top player once again.
Interestingly, the main exigency for Stalin was capitalism. Since Stalin’s rise to power had a less
bandwagon-like effect than Hitler’s and he enslaved his own people, he encountered
significantly more rebellious citizens and political tension. He constantly had to make capitalism
itself an exigency and explain why the correct positive modification was socialism. He
illustrates this point in his speech when he states:
Harlan 19
Universal elections exist and are also held in some capitalist countries, so-called
democratic countries. But in what atmosphere are elections held there? In an
atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity, in an atmosphere
of pressure brought to bear on the electors by the capitalists, landlords, bankers
and other capitalist sharks. Such elections, even if they are universal, equal, secret
and direct, cannot be called altogether free and altogether democratic elections.
(Stalin 12)
He goes on to state in regard to elections under socialism:
Here there are no capitalists and no landlords and, consequently, no pressure is
exerted by propertied classes on non-propertied classes. Here elections are held in
an atmosphere of collaboration between the workers, the peasants and the
intelligentsia, in an atmosphere of mutual confidence between them. (Stalin 12)
Here Stalin offers a striking example of his unique ability to create exigencies out of what he
desired, a trait that he and Hitler shared. With a supportive population, Hitler was even more
influential in terms of controlling exigencies, as he was able to sculpt one out of the Jewish
people in similarly framed speeches.
Connections
When examining the connections between these two dictators, it is clear what influences
they had on each other. In particular, it is crucial to understand the influence that Stalin had on
Hitler and how Hitler was able to modify the problems that were observable in order to become a
much more formidable adversary to the Allies. Both figures endured an upbringing which would
Harlan 20
have understandably created certain resentment towards the world. Stalin used his resentment
discreetly but ultimately incorrectly. He created a support system that was mediocre and bought
at best and demonstrated his manipulative rhetorical skills in his 1937 speech analyzed here. In
contrast, Hitler used his ill feelings and experiences with rejection to identify with the German
people, who were feeling similar attitudes after the end of World War One. He knew that in
order for a new regime to flourish, it must first be established and rooted within the people
themselves. He therefore utilized all his knowledge of people’s behavior and values to create a
persona far different from Stalin’s, one which promised relief from suffering on the condition
that they simply indentify with him instead of obey.
It is impossible to say just how much of Hitler’s persona he modeled after Stalin but it
would be foolish indeed to assume that Hitler was not aware of both Stalin’s successes and
failures, or that he did not modify his own complicated persona after successful dictators before
him. In addition, through the analysis of rhetorical tactics in speeches by both dictators such as
this one by Joseph Stalin and the pre-Reichstag Speech by Adolf Hitler, it becomes discernible
how they were able to mirror and modify their respective skills.
Conclusion
In the last section of the text on Hitler, it was determined that the importance in
examining these sorts of tyrants lies predominately in their amazing ability to rise to power.
After the event the question on the world’s mind always seems to revert to “how was that
allowed to happen?” With the benefit of hindsight and educated analysis, it seems easy to spot
troublesome lines delivered in speeches or shady maneuvers in which people in government staff
positions suddenly disappear. The fact of the matter is that both Hitler and Stalin were able to use
Harlan 21
their respective rhetorical situations to manipulate huge amounts of people and start a world war.
By studying leaders who have come to be classified as psychopaths by most modern day
psychologists and their rise to power, it becomes much easier to recognize the cues and halt the
process before it is allowed to develop—avoiding war entirely.
Harlan 22
Works Cited
"Biography: Joseph Stalin." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm>.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Penn State Press 25 (1992) 1-14. JSTOR. Web. 10
Oct. 2010.
Burton, Gideon O. "Ethos." Silva Rhetoricae. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.
Gilgun, Jane F. "Critical Theory Stands Up to Abuses of Power." Www.scribd.com. Web. 9 Dec.
2010. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/26525728/Critical-Theory-and-Abuses-of-Power>.
Hitler, Adolf, and Ralph Manheim. Mein Kampf,. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943. Print.
"Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941." Institute for Historical Review. Web. 12 Oct.
2010. <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html>.
"Kairos: Layers of Meaning (Etymology)." Issue 15.1 (Fall 2010) - Kairos: A Journal of
Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.technorhetoric.net/layers/etymology.html>.
Mid-1921, By. "WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies .
Adolf Hitler | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.
<http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/biographies/hitler.html>.
Moeller, Robert G. The Nazi State and German Society: a Brief History with Documents.
Harlan 23
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. Print.
Rich, Norman. Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion. New
York: Norton, 1992. Print.
Robertson, Tara, and Duke Beasley. "Cognitive Anthropology." Home | College of Arts &
Sciences. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/>.
Stalin, Joseph. "Stalin's Speeches to Voters -- 1937." From Marx to Mao. Gospolitizdat, July
2000. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SS37.html>.
Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Retorical Situation.” Penn State Press 6.3 (1973): 154-61.
JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://rhetoric.byu.edu/persuasive appeals/Ethos.htm>. Web.