When we think we meet a charismatic person, what do we actually mean by charismatic? Who’s the most charismatic individual we’ve ever met? And is a person still charismatic once we know them intimately or is charisma reserved to distant leaders? All these questions lead us to a positive connotation of the word “charisma”: the charismatic person is impressive in its speeches and the image it leaves in the audience’s mind.
The Oxford dictionary defines charisma as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others. Yet, to describe the leadership of politicians such as Stalin and Hitler in the 21st century, we have no other way than to be horrified by their actions. Thus, in my exposé, I will try to keep an objective point of view in my analysis of their influence to separate their charismatic leadership and its consequences. If we take charisma as a value neutral quality, we can attach it to people we despise, and yet recognise that they have particular qualities.
Recalling my problématique, Were Stalin and Hitler charismatic leaders?, we realise that it …show more content…
First, what made both Stalin and Hitler charismatic leaders, is that they encouraged before hand prejudices, thus saying out loud what most of the population was thinking in a whisper. According to me, this is an essential tool of charisma: the manipulation of the masses. Secondly, Hitler and Stalin’s influence grew during interwar years and reached its climax during the Second World War, and thus based their ideology on the hatred of another country. The context and situation of a country (economic or social) has a great impact on the degree of influence one leader can have. Finally, the charisma of these two leaders lies in the fact that despite the atrocities they committed, their success still impresses us
The Oxford dictionary defines charisma as a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others. Yet, to describe the leadership of politicians such as Stalin and Hitler in the 21st century, we have no other way than to be horrified by their actions. Thus, in my exposé, I will try to keep an objective point of view in my analysis of their influence to separate their charismatic leadership and its consequences. If we take charisma as a value neutral quality, we can attach it to people we despise, and yet recognise that they have particular qualities.
Recalling my problématique, Were Stalin and Hitler charismatic leaders?, we realise that it …show more content…
First, what made both Stalin and Hitler charismatic leaders, is that they encouraged before hand prejudices, thus saying out loud what most of the population was thinking in a whisper. According to me, this is an essential tool of charisma: the manipulation of the masses. Secondly, Hitler and Stalin’s influence grew during interwar years and reached its climax during the Second World War, and thus based their ideology on the hatred of another country. The context and situation of a country (economic or social) has a great impact on the degree of influence one leader can have. Finally, the charisma of these two leaders lies in the fact that despite the atrocities they committed, their success still impresses us