Adolf Hitler's Machiavellian Strategy

656 Words2 Pages

Adolf Hitler's Machiavellian Strategy

Machiavelli’s The Prince outlines tactics for a leader to seize and maintain lands under his power. His tactics have been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, and though his approach is hardly ethical or idealistic, one cannot deny the fact that it has proved to be effective. Hitler is an example that exemplifies the accuracy of what Machiavelli said would bring success in the acquisition of new provinces.

One topic Machiavelli focuses on, especially in Part II, are different types of troops. Had he seen Hitler’s army, he would have classified the troops as "native," and would have applauded Hitler’s choice in troops over "mercenary" (men who fight for money,) "auxiliary" (foreign borrowed troops,) and troops combining all three types. Mercenary troops are described by Machiavelli as "disorganized, undisciplined, ambitious and faithless" (47). Auxiliary troops are "useless" (50) because they do not have the strong loyalties to the nation as native troops, and fight only due to alliances which usually prove temporary. Finally, because mixed troops include useless mercenary and auxiliary troops, they are less than effective. Native troops, whose will were particularly strong in Hitler’s time due to the strong feeling of nativism that was sweeping through Europe, fight stronger due to loyalties to their nation, and the feeling of defending their home and their freedom. According to Machiavelli, "no state, unless it have its own arms, is secure" (53).

In Part I of The Prince, Machiavelli speaks of different types of principalities, or lands governed by a prince or leader, and how to maintain them. Hitler sought to gain two different kinds of principalities: "mixed," and "new". ...

... middle of paper ...

...rm, and was adroit at public speaking. However, he was still a ruthless leader whose cruelty helped him maintain order, and "find a greater security in being feared than in being loved," as Machiavelli says anyone would.

Hitler almost flawlessly mastered Niccolo Machiavelli’s strategies that are set forth in The Prince. One might point out the fact that he lost World War II. However his failure to win the war was due to military blunders, and not his failure to control his lands. There were no successful uprisings or rebellions within Hitler’s Reich. He was also never betrayed by one of his officers, proving the effectiveness of the fear he instilled in those fighting for him, and those under his rule. Throughout the years of his rule, Hitler had almost complete control over his lands, and it is proof of the effectiveness of the policies set forth in The Prince.

Open Document