Compares Adolf Hitler to Machiavelli’s “The Prince” Essay

Adolf Hitler, the self-proclaimed savior of the German people. He was an insecure, egotistical man, who ominously controlled the German people. Hitler thought that he could change affaires with force, which soon got him into trouble, and landed him in jail. During his time in jail, Hitler had turned over direction of the Nazi troupe to Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg edited the partys newspaper, the Vlkischer Beobacter (Popular Observer), simply had no administrative ability. As a result, Hitler easily resumed complete control of the party upon his chuck up the sponge in December 1924.In the years from 1925 to 1930 Hitler built up a internet of local party organizations over most of Germany, and reorganized the SA. At the very(prenominal) time he organized the SS, to protect him, supervise and control the party, and f ar police tasks. Hitlers mass of chaseers began to grow, and soon those who didnt follow him soon became the minority. Hitler gained political position soon after and his reign of threat began, ending with the deaths of over 6 million Jews that were persecuted by the Nazis, because they were supposedly the job in Germany.Hitler indiscriminately followed some of Machiavellis principles as depict in The Prince. Whereas he embraced Machiavellis ideas concerning homosexual nature, and separation of politics and morality, he treat Machiavellis concept of military power, which led to his ultimate downf on the whole. As described in Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince, to be a winning ruler, you essential(prenominal) check the principles or guidelines he sets in this pamphlet, lead of the most important being, his concepts of homophile nature, his ideas about separation of politics and morality, and the reality of military powerIn chapters XV, XVI, XVII Machiavelli devotes a long time describing aspects of human nature that a prince must(prenominal) understand. Machiavelli says it is human nature to praise certain qualities and blame opposite s. fit to human nature certain qualities are considered worth of praise, for fount generosity, courage, and mercy. early(a) qualities would be considered worthy of blame miserly, cowardly, and treacherous. But according to Machiavelli And I take for it away that everyone will admit, that it would be a very praiseworthy thing to find in a prince, the qualities mentioned above, those that are held to be good but since it is n either possible to have them or to observe them all completely, because the human condition does non permit it, a prince must be judicious enough to know how to escape the bad reputation of those vices that would loose the put in for him, and must protect himself from those that will not use it for him (Machiavelli, 52).In other words Machiavelli says that human nature praises certain qualities and blame others, but he says there is no way that human can do all the good things and avoid, and that a prince must figure out how to not production so much bla me when he does wrong, and try to do as many good things as he can. For example regarding generosity and miserliness, Machiavelli says to be truly generous, one must be miserly at times.A prince, therefore, being unable to use his virtue of generosity in a manner which will not harm himself should, if he is wise, not hassle about being called a miser for with time, he will come to be considered more generous (53) In one finally contrast, according to Machiavelli in regards to courage and cowardice, mercy and treachery he says That every prince must passion to be considered merciful and not cruel never the less, he must take care not to misuse this mercyTherefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty, when it is a matter of retentiveness his subjects united and loyal (55). According to Machiavelli, there are times when you dupet worry about doing the rightly thing, if it leads to the end you are seeking. This gracious of thinking is the basis for his ideas con cerning the separation of politics and morality.In essence, Machiavellis doctrine concerning politics and morality is this In order to achieve political artistic creation (i.e. power, glory, fame) you may need to break the rules, or be immoral. In chapter octad and IX, Machiavelli describes the ways a man can become a prince. In addition to gaining a fortune, and political prowess, criminal acts and popularity contests can help a mans rise to power. Machiavelli uses pansy Agathocles of Syracuse as an example of a man who rose to power through crime (30). King Agathocles rose to power through cruelty, and didnt care about what wasright or wrong (morality). As described in Chapter IX, another marrow of achieving your political goals is When a private citizen, not through wickedness or any other intolerable violence, but with the favour of his fellow citizens, becomes prince (33)He goes on to say I maintain that one reaches this princedom either with the favour of he common peopl e or with that of the nobility (33). Machiavellis idea was that a prince needs to please both sides, the rich and the poor, by any means possible. Even if that means telling them what they want to hear, lying, doing some(prenominal) is necessary. Machiavelli suggests that it is acceptable to be immoral, if it gets someone what he or she wants. This appears on the climb up to be very harsh and cruel, but he tempers his position by saying the one who gains power by treacherous means, may not gain as much glory as the one who gains power by virtuous means. Understanding human nature, and manipulating politics and morality are fine, but the true measure of a prince, is in his ability to profit war.Machiavelli measured the success of all principalities on their ability to gather an soldiery. Machiavelli judged a prince on whether he could protect himself, or needed the protection of others. I say that I judge those princes self-sufficient who, either through teemingness of serviceman or of money, are able to gather together a suitable army and fight a good battle, once morest whoever should attack them (37). A strong prince must build strong armies, and there are three types of armies. The princes own troops, mercenaries, and auxiliary troops. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous (42). According to Machiavelli, these troops are undisciplined and disloyal. Machiavelli concludes that the only good army is one that is make up of your own countrymen (48). So important is the waging of war, and the building of a shocking army, Machiavelli suggests that this is the only thing a prince should think about. A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession, but war, its institutions, and its disciplineit is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state. (49)For Machiavelli a prince must devote a considerable amount of t ime in developing an army by use of any means possible, (once again playing on human nature) training in war time, and in peace time.The true measure of a successful prince as seen by Machiavelli, is in his ability to manipulate human nature, which involves a balance of contradiction in terms and hypocrisy, achieving your political means morally or immorally, and securing your success by the establishment of a strong army. And if anything you must build a strong army first, in order to use the other two concepts to your advantage. Perhaps if Hitler had adhered to these principles in the correct measure, he too would be seen as a successful prince.