Two Comparable LeadersEssay Preview: Two Comparable LeadersReport this essayIntroductionThe term leadership can be seen in many common vocabularies, which is then taken and used in many different contexts, however, without being properly redefined. In a result, an ambiguity of meaning is created. A common definition of leadership is “the behaviour of an individual, directing the activities of a group towards a shared goal” (Hemphill and Coons, 1957). Nevertheless, Researchers today generally define leadership according to their own concepts and views on this matter. Theories of leadership back in the old times focused on qualities that distinguished leaders and their followers (Yukl, G. 2013). Today, theories are more complex and involve variables such as situational factors, and level of skills. Taking all these factors into consideration, majority of theories can be classified into 8 major types. Great Man Theories assume that great leaders are born and not made and that the capacity for leadership is inherent. Trait Theories assume that some qualities of great leaders are inherited, however, a common characteristic is often identified in all the leaders. Contingency Theories assume that no leadership style is suited greatest in all situations. Situational Theories assume that the actions a leader should take depend on the situation where in some cases authoritarian style is more appropriate compared to democratic style. This can depend on the skills of the members of the group or knowledge. Behavioural Theories believe that leaders are made, not born. Mental qualities of a person are generally ignored, and it implies that leaders can learn to be a leader through observations and education. Participative Theories encourage communication and contribution of other members of the group; commitment and relevance are prevalent in this theory. However, the leader still controls what input is made in decision-making. Management Theories can be referred to as transactional theories is all about rewards and punishments. This is usually used in business. Finally, Relationship theories or transformational theories focus on relationship between leaders and followers. Leaders usually have high moral standard and ethical considerations. In this essay, two notoriously renowned leaders will be compared, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. For a start, both of these men ruled their countries approximately around the same time, which, consequently, makes it easier to compare in terms of economic stability and leadership effectiveness. Another reason why I chose these two leaders is that they played a major role in writing the history of the 20th century, especially during the period of the Second World War. I believe that, it is the differences and similarities in leadership style and organisation of these two men that played a role of what the world and its economy are like today.
BackgroundAdolf Hitler was a German leader during the Third Reich (1933-1945). He was the main initiator of the Second Word War in Europe and is also responsible for the mass murder of Jews, who were enemies to the Aryan ideal. Hitler was born in Austria, in 1889. He volunteered to join the army during World War I and subsequently, joined the National Socialist German Workers Party, known as the Nazis in 1920 (Housden, K. 2000). He became the leader of the Nazi party, quickly building up membership mainly due to his powerful speaking qualities. When World War 2 in 1939 began, Hitler invaded Poland in his conquest of creating a perfect nation and unifying all German-speaking people. He was eventually stopped in 1945; however, 12 million people were already executed by this time. Adolf Hitler committed suicide in 1945, and Germany had no choice but to surrender, 7 days later.
JFK-Criminalization:
JFK – The War and its Implications
Following the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Western Pacific on August 20, 1941, the American media attempted to use stories of atrocities against the Japanese people as further proof of a war crimes prosecution and the Soviet Union’s culpability. This effort is very similar to the one President Reagan used on his campaign speech following the Korean War.
In February of 1988, President Clinton used this speech as a rallying cry and spoke of the need to stop any and all wars which would serve the ends of peace and liberty.
The US government had stated after the war that any use of force against the Japanese would amount to war crimes because all Japanese were the enemy of the American people. The speech in question was not a military attack upon the Japanese people, but a military-grade attack on innocent civilians. The Soviet Union was responsible for the “Rugby War,” which resulted in mass murder and murder of people living under a Nazi regime. As evidence, all Japanese are “Mugnaes.” The UN Commission on Human Rights has estimated that there are approximately 400,000 “Mugnaes” and that the majority of them were murdered for no other reason than for possessing Nazi ideology. While this does not seem clear, at least in principle, it is clear that the UN commission on the human rights of the human rights of the Japanese were right.
For the purpose of this post, please note that the first two paragraphs are in German, although these were apparently done in a different language.
“The Soviet Union was responsible for the “Rugby War.” During the World War II, the US used military force against the Japanese People’s Army, which also took part in Japan’s mass deportations. This was only the second time in over twenty years that non-Japanese troops were used against the Japanese for war crimes (I.B. & E.F. 1994: 482). During the same year, the US invaded Iraq and engaged the Nazis in their Operation Desert Storm (Ecoer, 1984). During Operation Desert Storm during the early years of the Cold War, the US war crimes prosecutor was the first to accuse the Japanese of violating human rights by shooting or killing the Japanese army. The US accused the Japanese of not providing sufficient evidence of their role in suppressing the population (Rearer, 1995). As a result, in the end the Japanese held the U.N. accountable for the genocide of their own people on a scale rarely seen in the aftermath of the invasion. However, in 1987, the Japanese government responded to criticism with a ruling that Japanese troops had been responsible for the massacres in order to justify an independent investigation into the crimes committed. The ruling overturned the previous Japanese constitution on October 4th of that year (P.H.L. 1997). In the course of this judicial victory, Japan was forced to issue its own declaration of war against the United States. The United States was to be involved in the invasion or seizure of Japanese islands to help the Japanese government settle their outstanding debts (I.B. & E.F. 194). The entire “Rugby War” was a complete failure, and the US government attempted to cover up the crimes committed by the US during this period. If this continued, Japan would be expelled from the US altogether and Japan would cease to be a member of the union.
However
Similarly, Joseph Stalin was a leader of the Soviet Union, from 1920s until 1953. He was born in 1879 in the Russian province of Georgia to a poor family. He became a devoted Marxist revolutionary, during his school life, and later on he joined the Social Democrats, a political party (Montefiore, S. S. 2003). After 1917, thanks to his outstanding ability as an administrator he was able to build up his own position under Lenin. When Lenin retired in 1924, Stalin was a Secretary-General of the Communist Party and a member of the sevenman Politburo. Stalin used his position cunningly. He was in power to appoint and promote important jobs such as secretaries of local parties organisations. He filled theses positions with his own supporters, while at the same time removing the supporters of other competition. Total state control was prevalent under Stalin and many revolutions took place in industry and agriculture. Even in the final years of his life, Stalin remained dangerous, until his death on March 1953.
Main BodyFirst of all, the economic instability at the time played a significant role in Stalins and Hitlers rise to power as they both took advantage of it. Nevertheless, their stories in how they specifically came to power varied. Joseph Stalin was a worshipper of Vladimir Lenin, who was at the time a leader of the Bolshevik Party. He tried to follow his every move, which is why, did Lenin favour him. It was in 1928 when Stalin actually achieved all of the success of his leadership. After Lenins death, Stalin continued to promote the work of Lenin in addition to his own doings. In my opinion, this is a clear example of behavioural theories. Stalin listened and observed Lenins leadership during theses years and clear characteristics of his leadership emerged which later on Stalin continued. Stalin throughout the First World War observed behavioural response of Lenin, which also supports the idea that great leaders can be made and are not born. Nevertheless, it can be argued that Stalin didnt just learn to become a leader from Lenin; he also became involved individually during his early life, e.g. rebellions against the religious order at the Georgian Orthodox Seminary, which he attended at the time. Here it can be said that clear personality traits e.g. self-confidence of Stalin were prevalent from the beginning of his life throughout his rule in Russia. He had the nerve to stand out and rebel even in his early life at the seminary, and this trait followed him to his later rebellions during the revolutions in Russia and the beginning of WW2. Here, trait theory is apparent in Stalins leadership style. On the other hand, Hitler, in my opinion, was a leader who was born. This can be supported by the facts such as his volunteering in the army, his determination, his bravery on the front line during the war and his commitment to