What makes a leader

**wendigo100** · 4 August 2006, 15:53

In Hitler's case, it's because his name is an anagram of "a hot, ill Fred".

He never got over that.

**Lucifer Box** · 4 August 2006, 16:00

Originally posted by John Galt

Having a quiet musing to myself which will probably be of no interest to you lot but thought I'd share it with you anyway. It occured that the deaths in the 2nd world war could, pretty much, be laid at the door of Mr Hitler. It then further occured - how the hell can one man create so much devestation. There have been a few over the years - Stalin, Chairman Mao etc Any opinions from the panel on what made them what they were? I believe that such force of will and appetite for disaster has to stem from a sociopathic nature but, if that is the case, how the hell did they get so many followers? You can only go so far on charm

There is no simplistic answer to this sort of question. For example you say all the deaths of WWII can be laid at Hitler's door. Some might say would those deaths have occurred had Chamberlain and Deladier honoured their treaty committments to Czechoslovakia, a stable central European democracy with a modern, well-equiped army and defences easily the match of the relatively weak Wehrmacht of 1938, rather than cave in and agree to its brutal dismemberment without a fight? It is likely Hitler would not have survived the humiliation of defeat, so is failure to act to prevent subsequent actions as much to blame as the subsequent actions themselves? Who knows?

This is not in any way an attempt to be an apologist for Hitler (renknowned humanist that he was

), but to illustrate that simplistic thinking applied to complex problems gives simplistic and inadequate answers.

**ferret** · 4 August 2006, 16:02

Also an anagram of "Fart Held Oil", this was actually true - why else would the UK and US invade him? The stuff about concentration camps and other atrocities were all made up, we actually secretly hid him under the north sea, the oil rigs are used to suck up his natural secretions.

**Fungus** · 4 August 2006, 16:47

I suspect that such people do not prosper in stable societies, and that it is only when there is considerable turmoil and discontent that radicals gain support. Germany had massive economic troubles, and Hitler claimed to be able to sort out the country. Hence he was made dictator. Russia had problems with a semi-fuedal system, and simmering discontent. It was not surprising that an uprising occurred. There were after all several competing groups. China was an Imperial nation with a poor underclass, and underwent a Nationalist revolution in 1911, followed by a Communist revolution in 1949. The Chinese Communists succeeded because of financial and military backing from the Soviet Union. Otherwise they probably would not have won, and I believe they did not have much support.

And I suppose that once a dictatorship arises, the nastiest and most ruthless rise to the top. Paranoia and absolute power are not happy bed fellows.

Hitler and Stalin were known to have finished off political adversaries. I suspect that Chairman Mao was no different.

Looking at Bosnia, Milosovic appealed to the nationalism of the Serbs, directing anger at others, a classic trick of an evil politician. Hitler used the same trick. Stalin demonised the kulaks (smallholders). I would argue that some Arabs and Israelis are demonising their adversaries. It's always easier to kill if you think the enemy are foul, evil and out to get you.

And I do suspect that most politicians are sociopaths and are only held in check by a stable society and a free press otherwise their egos would lead to mass bloodshed.

Fungus

**Board Game Geek** · 5 August 2006, 01:57

One man cannot commit mass murder (at least not on the apocalyptic scale you mentioned). He can ony incite and motivate others to do it for him.

I feel a touch of Alf coming on here...

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Donovan's "Universal Soldier" pretty much hits the nail on the head. Without the Universal Soldier (or the human instrument to commit the killing), all you are left is with a deluded lunatic ranting at the walls in his padded cell. (That reminds me, any one seen Chico recently ?)

The problem is, one of the first steps in creating "The Enemy(tm)" is a process of dehumanisation, making them so far removed from our own cultural beliefs and mores, that we view them with distrust and suspicion.

This allows manipulative leaders to further drive an ice pick in the crevasse and enlargen the hatred, stoking the fires of public outrage, condemnation and mass hysteria, until we have reached a point of no return. Again, a leader on his own cannot achieve such a sea-change in public opinion, hence control of at least part of the media is a salient move.

The word "terrorist" is an emotive one, that conjures up all sorts of negative imagery, possibly even first hand emotions and pain.

But "terrorist" is a just a word. To the Germans in Occupied France in the 1940's, the French Resistance were "Terrorists". The fact that they were trying to fight the Germans and were, in this case, righteous and legitimate to defend their sovereign nation, would hardly have been trumpeted in "Die Welt" back in Berlin. They would have been called "Terrorists".

Sorry...I digress. Back to the original observation, and it is a well-made one.

Power means Control, and Control means Exertion of Will Over Others.

It is when this Exertion of Will (or the craving to attain it) becomes near-absolute that Power-Crazed people redouble their efforts to effect greater Control, as they are increasingly paranoid that they will suffer removal of power.

As long as human beings continue to allow their existences to be governed by others other than themselves, the opportunity for those to exert control will remain.

Democracy was supposed to be the "check and balance" to such exerted will, however I think most people will agree, we are now a Democracy only in name in the UK.

Xog....2 years ago, you wrote on here about your army of slug minions making their gallant march to Number 10. What's their progress so far ?

**hyperD** · 5 August 2006, 09:29

Misdirection, propaganda and ignorance of a population on a national scale.

**wendigo100** · 5 August 2006, 11:18

Originally posted by Board Game Geek

Donovan's "Universal Soldier" pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Actually it is Buffy Sainte-Marie's "Universal Soldier".

Bit pedantic I know, but credit where credit's due.

**sasguru** · 5 August 2006, 11:58

Interesting that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all had fathers who they hated and who beat them.
I suspect you'll find a dysfunctional family behind all tyrants.

**benn0** · 5 August 2006, 14:07

Originally posted by sasguru

Interesting that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all had fathers who they hated and who beat them.
I suspect you'll find a dysfunctional family behind all tyrants.

Not all.....

"Margaret Thatcher's father was a grocer who was also heavily involved in local politics. He was a powerful influence on her and later became the Mayor of Grantham."

What makes a leader