Hitler was an aggressive, dominant leader who was revered by many Germans. He overtook Poland and other nations such as Norway with virtually no defense at all because they were unprepared and their leaders did not anticipate or approve of aggression and defense. They were wrong, and it cost them dearly. If these nations had put up a real fight, the war might have had a different outcome. The same is true of the Holocaust. For the most part, most victims did not fight back, and offered little resistance as they were moved first to Jewish ghettos and then concentration camps. Had they risen up as a group and defended themselves, their fate might have been different as well.
Hitler was not a hero, or even a respected world leader, but those around him were weak, and that led to their downfall. A good leader is defensive, but also prudent, and that is one thing Hitler was not. His dreams of world domination and his extermination of the Jews showed him to be inhumane and imprudent, which, even though he used aggression, led to his downfall and the downfall of the Nazi party. Machiavelli even addresses this situation. He writes, "But when the prince is with his armies and has under his command a multitude of troops, then it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat" (Machiavelli 44). This proved to be the case with Hitler, who lost control of the war and his army before the war in Europe ended. Hitler led his country down the wrong path, and he literally committed suicide in the end. He is proof that unbridled aggression is not the answer, but defense and preparation are indeed the way to manage a successful nation and lead effectively.
Machiavelli also makes an interesting observation that those who are defenseless are common, while those who are effective at war are not. A private...
It basically approves of just about any behavior as long as the company survives, and that is music to many people's ears. Machiavelli's advice has little to do with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He writes as a man of science and logic, rather than a man of ethics and morality. Machiavelli felt a prince or leader stood above others, and so, was above
MACHIAVELLI's THE PRINCE Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is one of the most controversial yet enduring political manifestos regarding the differing types of military affairs, principalities, and qualities of a great leader. The Prince has been referenced by academics, directors of corporations, and politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the essential
It is more about keeping ahead of your competitors, always staying ahead of the game, and playing all the positions adroitly. It is all about power and prestige, and it is fairly amazing that anything constructive gets accomplished when there is so much political posing going on. In that, it is quite difficult to think positively of politics and politicians after reading this book, but that was probably one
46). These ideas are actually in direct contradiction to the prevailing religious philosophies of the time. Machiavelli does not seed men judged by God, or even by other men -- but instead by whether the deed one sought was accomplished or not; and if that deed has eventual ramifications that may be good. This Prince may come to power through evil means from himself, from others, or through historical forces.
By giving benefits little by little, a ruler can close old wounds. (Chapter VIIII) 10. The injuries should be done quickly and swiftly. If a city must be destroy, it must be destroyed all at once. It should be done in such a way so as to ensure no unexpected circumstance pop up. This is despotic way of ruling in my opinion, and the people deserve better. (Chapter VIIII) 11. In
Mainly, the ideals of modern science and philosophy have allowed the religious humanists to meet the stresses of modern life and they would state that their philosophy is for the here and now. Religious Humanism offers a foundation in philosophy which includes moral values, ideals, coping methods and ways to deal with adversity such as flood, hurricane or famine. How would a person like Machiavelli feel about the modern
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now