Harlan 1

Rhetorical Analysis of Hitler’s Persona, Influences, and Propaganda

Figure 1 source: kenraggio.com

By: Kacey A Harlan

Description

Adolf Hitler’s incredible persuasive personal power is legendary, especially in regard to

his public speeches. In order to effectively persuade an entire country to fully engage and believe

in an ideology and course of action that is inarguably extremist in its entirety, it is fore mostly

necessary to have a thorough mastery of the art of persuasion, charisma, and rhetoric. In this

article rhetorical tools utilized by Hitler will be analyzed in order to gain a more cohesive

understanding on why he was so successful through the medium of his speeches. Perhaps the

most well known example of Hitler’s successful employment of such tactics is in his Declaration

of War on the U.S., or Reichstag, speech in which he uses powerful rhetoric and an engaging

persona to both mask and communicate a veritably psychotic point of view and, more

importantly, bring its goals to fruition. However, in order to truly understand why Hitler was able

Harlan 2

to declare war on the biggest World Power and have support for it, earlier texts must be

examined. Accordingly, I have chosen two documents which clearly demonstrate the rationale

that Hitler possessed while highlighting his strengths as a persuasive orator—a speech given

before the infamous Reichstag address in 1939 and a speech given to the National Socialist

Women’s Organization in 1934. In the latter half of the article, the connection between Adolf

Hitler and Joseph Stalin will be examined in order to comprehend the incredible influences that

they had on one another, as well as where these influences manifested.

Occurring on September 1, 1939, the speech before the Reichstag in its entirety provides

an insightful glimpse into the extremist perspective on the period of history following the

Versailles Treaty. This treaty forced Germany to pay astronomical reparations for its

involvement in the First World War, crippled Germany’s military and economy, as well as

stigmatized the entire population of Germany as being volatile and extremist. Although heavily

critiqued thanks to hindsight, the treaty was seen as the best course of action at the time, given

both the strained state of all countries involved and their exhausted leaders. Given these factors it

is understandable that many German citizens would feel disgruntled and discriminated,

especially those who did not support the war in the first place. The speech demonstrates Hitler’s

innate understanding of people’s general mindset during crises by enumerating on the injustice

of the treatment of Germany after the First World War and inciting any already present feelings

of injustice into a national desire for all out war. The second speech to the women’s organization

depicts Hitler’s uncanny ability to understand people and relate to them, while still being able to

use these skills in order accomplish his goal.

From even an objective perspective, it is difficult to remain completely unbiased in

evaluating not only this particular speech and the rhetorical strategies being employed within it,

Harlan 3

but also in evaluating the rhetor himself. Speeches such as these two directly resulted in the mass

genocide of millions of innocent people and the Second World War. Subsequently, this paper is

written with the unstated, understood assumption that the majority agrees with this perspective.

This being said, it is impossible to truly remain objective in an approach which evaluates the

ethics, pathos, and morality involved in this act. However, it is almost possible to remain

objective when evaluating the exceptional rhetorical ability that Hitler possessed in conveying

his ideals and intentions. He displayed his tendency towards direct, harsh, and powerful

discourse even in his own Mein Kampf where he states in regard to the Vienna government’s

ultimatum in the First World War:

…for in the eyes of the broad masses the tone of the ultimatum was far too gentle

and by no means too brutal, let alone too far-reaching. Anyone who today

attempts to argue this way is either a forgetful blockhead or a perfectly conscious

swindler and liar. (Hitler 161)

As previously stated, in order to actually bring such hate-fueled, dehumanizing acts to fruition,

Hitler possessed an intimidating and cohesive understanding of people’s thought processes in a

time of conflict and uncertainty. More importantly, Hitler understood how to manipulate them.

Terms

In this paper three specific rhetorical terms will be used in order to better understand the

rhetoric behind these speeches: kairos, rhetorical situation, and exigency. The first term, kairos,

can be understood as simply rhetorical timeliness, such as knowing when to present ideals at the

most opportune time in order to have the highest probability of ensuring desired results

(www.technorhetoric.net). The second term, rhetorical situation, can be defined as any given

Harlan 4

situation in which there lies an area of dispute which can be altered via either one rhetor’s

testimony or debate. The term, originally coined by Lloyd Bitzer, argues that such situations are

always present and that they offer constraints that a rhetor must essentially work around to

effectively convey his point. However, for the purpose of this paper the alternate understanding

of the rhetorical situation argued by Richard Vatz will be used in regard to Hitler, which states

the opposite. Vatz contends that it is not a given situation that maintains the utmost control and

provides constraints, but that it is the rhetor themselves who have the ultimate power in

manipulating a situation which they deem “rhetorical”. The exigency is perhaps the key

component of a rhetorical situation and is the third term which will be used. The exigency is the

part of a rhetorical situation which is in need of some “positive modification”, as described by

Bitzer. For example, the exigency for Hitler in his particular situation was Germany’s condition

post-World War One and his view that things needed to be changed in order for Germany to

prosper. What makes Hitler’s version of the exigency in this situation radical is that he chose

mass murder and totalitarianism as the ideal positive modification.

Kairos

The term kairos ties directly not only to Hitler’s speeches, but also to the timing of his

agenda in general. The origins of the term kairos lie in ancient Greece, where it was used as one

of two general terms, the other term being chromos, used to refer to time. However the term

kairos held a more qualitative meaning and alludes more to ethics in regard to this “timeliness”

(www.technorhetoric.net). Hitler knew very well that if he were going to be able to enact his

ideals on a mass scale, he needed attempt to employ them in a time of veritable national crisis. At

this point in time between the end of the First World War/beginning of the Second and before the

United States had officially entered; Germany was heading towards veritable national disaster.

Harlan 5

As previously stated, Germany had been forced to give up most of their military, industrial

products, and was also being forced to pay massive reparations—all of which proved crippling to

the economy post-Treaty of Versailles.

Hitler emphasizes this state in his pre-Reichstag speech in the first line when he states,

“For months we have been tormented by a problem once imposed upon us by the Dictate of

Versailles and which, in its deterioration and corruption, had now become utterly intolerable”

(Moeller 110). The German people felt a dire need for both vindication and empowerment in the

form of a powerful leadership figure in whom they could put their trust and ambitions entirely.

By using his own anger towards the state of Germany and even by using it as the attention

grabber in his opening line, Hitler shows here that kairos was a necessary component to his

agenda. Hitler chose perhaps the most opportune time and the most fitting persona to effectively

carry out his plan for an all out war. He used time as a convenient tool to acquire loyalty through

mutual interest, and then essentially enforced mass murder on the Jewish people for an entirely

personal reason all while instigating the Second World War. Without this eerie sense of kairos,

the majority would have probably never accepted Hitler’s radical ideals.

Rhetorical Situation

Using Richard Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation as being primarily controlled

by the rhetor enables a comprehensive analysis of Hitler’s point of view during this period.

According to Vatz, it is the rhetor that creates these situations from their own observations and

thoughts, and is therefore the primary controlling factor in rhetorical situations. In terms of

Bitzer’s concept of positive modification, Vatz argues that there is no universal base on which all

situations rest. Therefore the idea of positive modification is both relative and subjective,

Harlan 6

negating the need for tying some ethical meaning to the phrase “positive modification”. Indeed,

it appears as though Hitler himself veritably created the entire “situation” regarding the Jews and

in essence made a situation out of them. Hitler’s ideal positive modification was to send an entire

people to work in extremely harsh, potentially lethal conditions, and away from the general

populace. Although this idea of positive modification has the wide effect of nausea in modern

day review, at the time it seemed appropriate.

When viewing this portion of the situation, it is easy to observe here that Hitler’s positive

modification was certainly slavery to an extent, but beyond that façade and at its core—it was

simply genocide. Without once using the term, Hitler was able to effectively persuade an entire

population that genocide was indeed the right, reasonable course of action. He was able to

inflame people not only with his rhetorical skills employed in speeches, but also through his

talent at using propaganda rhetorically. For example, examine these two Nazi propaganda posters

concerning Jews:

Fig. 2 & 3

Sources: www2.needham.k12.ma.us and elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Harlan 7

Hitler instilled in the German people a deep fear of Jewish domination and a hard hatred

towards their supposed greed. In Figure 2, a rather stereotypical Jew is depicted holding objects

and symbols associated with the very things that Germans were learning to fear and hate. In

figure 3, dehumanization is employed by making a Jew an octopus and showing that Jews have

enough “legs” to take over the world’s economy, here through the acquisition of precious oil.

Using the rhetoric employed in person as well as using propaganda mudslinging as illustrated in

these posters, Hitler was able to mold a country into exactly the form he wished to see it take.

Through the hate he was able to generate via both the Jews and post-World War I reparations, he

was able to use his charismatic, strong-willed persona to express in just the right discourse why

Germany should not only accept, but rejoice in going to war with the biggest world power. This

is all due to Hitler’s take on a situation which he deemed rhetorical in that it required immediate

attention while providing a striking example of Richard Vatz’s interpretation of the rhetorical

situation.

Hitler was also quite adept at handling those rhetorical situations which did offer

constraints. For example, in his speech to the National Socialist Women’s Organization he

proves effective when in a situation where his rather misogynist view on a woman’s place in

society is called into question. During the Weimar Republic, which was in place in Germany

after the Treaty of Versailles and prior to the Nazi takeover, women began to advocate their

equality and rights. Once the Nazis came into power, however, these aspirations were crushed

and all groups were conglomerated into the National Socialist Women’s Organization which held

little to no standing. Hitler offers an interesting vindication for these actions, claiming that a man

is “psychologically too erratic… to know what exactly his responsibility is” and that the National

Harlan 8

Socialists opposed women in the political spectrum because it is a “life in our eyes that is

unworthy of her” (Moeller 80). He furthers this argument when he states:

A woman once said to me: “You must see to it that women get into the

parliament, because only they can ennoble it.” “I do not believe,” I replied, “that

we should ennoble something inherently bad. And the woman who gets caught in

this parliamentary machinery will not ennoble it; instead it will dishonor her. I do

not want to leave something to woman that I intend to take away from men.

(Moeller 81)

In essence, Hitler is stating that women should be prevented from entering the political

circle because their natural piety would be soiled. The counter-argument here would

naturally be put the pious in power and there is no conflict—but that is not what Hitler

wanted. This particular passage illustrates Hitler’s skill at handling any kind of rhetorical

situation, as he is able to confidently tell a hall of feminists that their desire for equality in

the workforce actually goes against nature.

Interestingly, Hitler also uses this occasion to attribute Jewish qualities to the

movement of women’s liberation. The first line of his speech reads, “The phrase

“women’s liberation” is a phrase invented only by Jewish intellectualism, and its content

is shaped by the same spirit” (Moeller 80). Here Hitler demonstrates his ability to

attribute qualities he wants to whatever group he wants. Not only is he successful in

convincing the populace that Jews are subhuman and greedy beings, he is equally

successful in creating a negative connotation with even the word “Jew”, making it

something no one wants to be equated with. Basically, it is better to be repressed in the

Harlan 9

true patriotic fashion than fight for a belief system which may coincide with the Jews.

After examining rhetorical situations and how Hitler manipulated them, it is crucial to

examine the term “exigency” and how it functions in this context.

Exigency

Relative to the idea of the rhetorical situation and its being controlled in this instance by

the rhetor, is the term exigency. Coined first by Aristotle, the term exigency refers any given

thing present in a given rhetorical situation which requires debate, immediate attention due to

flaw, or anything that poses a kind of conundrum which a rhetor may speculate/act on. Bitzer

provides his definition of exigency as, “an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an

obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 7).

Moving on from the obvious example of the Jews in Hitler’s view, exigency is more applicable

here in regard to his actual philosophy. He successfully argues that war with the United States is

the only true way to allow Germany to reach its full potential. As Norman Rich aptly states in

Hitler’s War Aims:

All policies would have to be based on the consideration of the future security of

the German race. To guarantee this security, and with it the future of world

civilization, any and all means were justified. One had to make clear to oneself

that this goal could only be achieved through fighting, and quietly to face the

passage at arms. (Rich 9)

Hitler illustrates this view in his pre-Reichstag speech when he states:

As a National Socialist and a German soldier I enter upon this fight with a stout

heart! My whole life has been but one continuous struggle for my people, for its

Harlan 10

resurrection, for Germany, and this whole struggle has been inspired by one single

conviction: faith in this people… As for the rest of the world, I can only assure

them that November 1918 shall never occur again in German history. (Moeller

111)

Hitler’s rhetoric here is striking. Here Hitler first establishes his credibility by reminding his

audience that is he a true patriot by being both a National Socialist and a German soldier, adding

further emphasis by implying that it is these qualities which enable him to enter with a “stout

heart”. He then touches his audience’s heartstrings by using the word struggle repeatedly in

conjunction with phrases such as “for my people” and “faith in this people”. Finally he ends with

a powerful reference to the exigency of the situation, the Treaty of Versailles.

Examples such as this one are littered throughout Hitler’s rhetoric, demonstrating a keen

understanding of progression in discourse in order to really emphasize the exigency at hand.

Hitler evaluated his rhetorical situation, established his goals, and then decided the exigency in

this particular situation that required the most persuasive discourse was the act of going to war.

While the annihilation of a certain group of human beings proved a relatively easy subject to

impose, people were even less willing to actually take the full stride and start another World

War. The fact that Hitler was so adept at handling this situation through rhetoric certainly

illustrates just how talented this man was at the art of both persuasive discourse and channeling

an audience’s biases to his own advantage.

Connections

Certain theoretical connections certainly jump to mind when examining the rhetoric

behind Hitler’s ideology expressed in his speech. Namely, the idea of critical race theory strikes

Harlan 11

true and is unavoidable when examining his rationale. While critical race theory usually is in

relation to African Americans, it actually originated in Germany. Jane Gilgun explains this

interesting history in her article “Critical Theory Stands Up to Abuses of Power” in which she

explains, “Critical theory originated in Germany in response to the rise of Hitler, who embodies

the abuse of power through manipulating the fears of German citizens and German social and

economic systems” (Gilgun 6).

Critical race theory in practice refers to the attempt to change the dichotomy between

race and power; in this case the well known theory of Hitler’s concerning the “Aryan race”.

During this period, Hitler is desperately trying to unite Germany in many ways to create his ideal

human unit, but a crucial factor in this unification is belief in the idea that true Germans are part

of this Aryan race and, therefore, are superior. And while the target in Hitler’s theory was

predominately the Jews he also targeted other peoples including African Americans as depicted

in Nazi propaganda posters such as this one:

Figure 4 Source: Moeller

Harlan 12

Yet another applicable theory is what is known as cognitive anthropology which attempts

to understand how people created their identities not only internally, but with the objects and

people around them during a period of time. It examines the complex interplay of a person’s

point of view with their cultural, economic, and racial position at the time (Robertson). Hitler

clearly felt slighted by a large number of countries, peoples, and conflicting ideologies and so

constructed a radical, charismatic, and somewhat imperialist persona that he both consciously

and subconsciously believed to fit the bill.

Conclusion

Studying the rhetoric behind Hitler’s public speeches and persona is essential to examine

because it allows a glimpse into the mind of what most modern day psychologists classify as a

psychopath and how someone of such a mindset is able to rise to power, especially in regard to

the time period. Using the knowledge gained from such research, it becomes easier to understand

how comparable figures are and were able to manipulate massive amounts of people. Perhaps the

most striking modern examples are Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin, who all

rose to seats of power which they abused in similar fashions. By studying the rhetoric behind

such figures and understanding why they have appeal during their relative eras, it may become

easier to spot such figures before they can reach positions of leadership and widespread conflict

may be avoided entirely. Next, Joseph Stalin’s rhetoric will be examined in order to understand

the influence that he had on Hitler during this time period.

Harlan 13

Stalin’s Influence on Hitler’s Persona

Figure 5 source: http://anbie.com/data/joseph-stalin.html

Description

The rhetoric and ideologies of Adolf Hitler do not exist in a vacuum. There are countless

instances in history as well as ideologies of other famous figures that influenced both his

speeches and persona. Many of these influences, namely Friedrich Nietzsche and Richard

Wagner, have been sufficiently analyzed. Instead, the focus here will be on the Soviet Union and

a figure that Hitler may have not consciously been inspired by, but certainly was aware of and

had to pattern his movement in accordance with—the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin. During

World War Two, Joseph Stalin was the dictator of Soviet Russia and the tense, convoluted

relationship between he and Hitler is infamous. Indeed, without the presence of Stalin, Hitler

would certainly have had an easier time in terms of being able to comfortably engage in war with

the Allies as well as convincing Germany that war was in their best interest and that their fellow

Axis powers would not betray them.

Harlan 14

Like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin provided a powerful persona that the people of Russia,

while totally captivated by, felt powerless against. Subsequently, it is unavoidable that Hitler was

influenced by Stalin and probable that he used his knowledge of Stalin’s political identity to

shape his own. The focus in this section is how Stalin used specific rhetorical skills to influence

his audience—ethos, rhetorical situation, and exigency. This analysis is primarily through the

medium of speech he delivered to voters at the Bolshoi Theatre in 1937, as well as including his

rise to power in conjunction with Hitler’s. Stalin’s persona will then be analyzed in terms of how

it affected Hitler’s own political tactics.

Terms

In examining the rhetoric behind Joseph Stalin and the influences that he invariably had

on Hitler’s own rhetoric, three terms must be examined. The first term, ethos, refers to basing

one’s appeal to the audience on personal credibility and persuasiveness (Burton). Aristotle was

the first rhetorical philosopher to emphasize this tool, stating that in order for one to remain

credible and thus appealing to an audience, a personal platform must be established which can be

referenced to determine one’s agenda. Stalin, who was anti-intellectual and slightly deformed

from a smallpox encounter as a child, understood the importance of establishing his credibility

with both the people and his peers. He also understood that in order for him to do this effectively,

he must assert his dominance in other, more creative ways than simply lineage and education. In

his speech, he consistently makes references to the merit of the working class and commends the

people for their loyalty and devotion

The second term to be examined is rhetorical situation, which always applies when

analyzing politics and is by no means less relevant here in analyzing influences between political

Harlan 15

leaders. Bitzer, being the originator of this term, contended that these situations are constantly

present and that they provide constraints which a rhetor must essentially work around to

effectively convey his point (Bitzer 5). The third term, exigency, ties directly with the rhetorical

situation. In Bitzer’s essay “The Rhetorical Situation” he offers a clean definition of exigency as,

“an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a

thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 7). Clearly, both Stalin and Hitler saw their own

respective exigencies but where the intent in this section lies is in how they relate, which will be

explained further. In order to establish a concrete understanding of Stalin’s persona so that it may

be applied to Hitler’s, the term ethos must first be explored.

Ethos in the Rise to Power

Aristotle was the first rhetorical philosopher to place special interest in the three appeals:

pathos, logos, and ethos. He places a particular emphasis on ethos, claiming that in order for an

audience to even consider listening to a rhetor, a clear and impressive credibility must be

established. Furthermore, he contends that one must appear benevolent as well as competent

about one’s chosen field. Joseph Stalin, like Hitler, came from an unimpressive family lineage

and was famous for a slight inferiority complex, possibly resulting from a lack of serious formal

education and the deformity resulting from his brush with smallpox. Unlike Hitler, Stalin

transformed this feeling of inferiority into a deep rooted hatred for all things highly intellectual

and a strong desire for power and respect.

Stalin rose to power by slowly and methodically flushing out who the big political

players were, gaining their trust through his vitality and ambition, and then promptly replacing

them when he had gained enough leeway to do so. By the time the rest of Lenin’s regime

Harlan 16

realized what was going on, Stalin had effectively replaced an entire political regime with people

who owed their positions to him; Lenin was already on his deathbed (PBS). He used this talent

for gaining people’s trust even more effectively through his speeches to the general populace, as

he was better able to connect with the commoners as a result of his upbringing. And like Hitler,

Stalin was able to gain affluence for his own interests by first capturing the devotion of the

audience through perceived empathy. An excellent example of this tactic presents itself in his

speech in the Bolshoi Theatre when he states, “is it worth while indulging in amusing things just

now when all of us Bolsheviks are, as they say, "up to our necks" in, work? I think not” (Stalin

10). Stalin had a strong desire to maintain a tightly controlled conservative culture (like Hitler)

and this quote illustrates how effectively Stalin is able to use ethos in order to manipulate. Since

Hitler also used this type of tactic with the German population, it is likely that the two

“frenemies” were all too aware of each other’s successes and failures with it.

When Lenin died and Stalin jumped into position, he was an inarguably intimidating

force both respected and feared for his cunning and unmatchable ability to manipulate people. In

this way Stalin provided a solid model for Hitler to observe, copy, and remedy where needed.

Thus, he provided the perfect frame for a potential usurper or extremist to follow. He paved the

way with his incredible persistence while leaving gaping potholes in his wake as a result of his

anti-intellectualism, which isolated large amounts of potential supporters. Hitler clearly took note

of this and modified Stalin’s errors in order to establish his own ethos of ambition, persistence,

but also intellectual charisma. After establishing his ethos and effectively landing a country,

Stalin took note of his own rhetorical situation and quickly acted upon it.

Harlan 17

Rhetorical Situation

Unlike Hitler, Stalin’s rhetorical situation mirrors Bitzer’s original description of the

situation exactly. Stalin was certainly faced with a set of constraints which, as previously stated,

stemmed predominately from his poor, unimpressive upbringing, serious lack of education, and

bearing the lasting marks of the disease smallpox. From an academic point of view, Stalin

reacted to his constraints precisely as was necessary. He recognized his constraints, acted

accordingly through innate cunning and an ability to manipulate the system, and successfully

defeated his given situation by becoming the dictator of the largest geographical country in the

world. He was also able to use his powerful persona to carefully outline the constraints of the

situation to his audience, but only the constraints he wanted them to know. For example, during

the same speech Stalin states in regard to the ever present question on state of the Soviet Union:

Our mills and factories are being run without capitalists. The work is directed by

men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in practice. In our

fields the tillers of the land work without landlords and without kulaks. The work

is directed by men and women of the people. That is what we call Socialism in

daily life, that is what we call a free, socialist life. (Stalin 13)

By emphasizing the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, while magnifying the

role of the people, and concluding with a steadfast insistence on freedom, Stalin shows

his impressive abilities at rhetorical persuasion.

However, Adolf Hitler used Richard Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation to

modify where Stalin made mistakes and became one of the most well known tyrants in modern

history. Richard Vatz describes his rhetorical situation as being primarily controlled by the

Harlan 18

rhetor. In essence, it is a tangible person who takes note of and therefore creates a rhetorical

situation, thus being able to modify and change it as they please (Vatz 3). Instead of using the

anger resulting from his mediocre upbringing and repeated rejections by institutions to take over

by malignant and cunning means, Hitler used his anger as a sort of catalyst. In effect, he used his

understanding of the human psyche and innate charisma to inflame the same hatred in others,

sweeping the nation through their own choice. This is where Stalin failed and created more

enemies than was necessary, and Hitler was not blind to the fact. After establishing one’s ethos

and using it to overcome their respective rhetorical situations, the next logical step in the life of a

dictator is to discover the exigency in their new regime, identify it to the people, and attempt to

fix the issue.

Exigencies and How to Respond to Them

As stated in the previous section, the exigency for Hitler was the state of Germany after

World War One and the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles that forced Germany to essentially

cripple itself via reparations and depletion of the military. He also used his already established

reputation with the German people to utilize his hatred toward the Jews and include them with

the list of problems which needed to be fixed in order for Germany to be a top player once again.

Interestingly, the main exigency for Stalin was capitalism. Since Stalin’s rise to power had a less

bandwagon-like effect than Hitler’s and he enslaved his own people, he encountered

significantly more rebellious citizens and political tension. He constantly had to make capitalism

itself an exigency and explain why the correct positive modification was socialism. He

illustrates this point in his speech when he states:

Harlan 19

Universal elections exist and are also held in some capitalist countries, so-called

democratic countries. But in what atmosphere are elections held there? In an

atmosphere of class conflicts, in an atmosphere of class enmity, in an atmosphere

of pressure brought to bear on the electors by the capitalists, landlords, bankers

and other capitalist sharks. Such elections, even if they are universal, equal, secret

and direct, cannot be called altogether free and altogether democratic elections.

(Stalin 12)

He goes on to state in regard to elections under socialism:

Here there are no capitalists and no landlords and, consequently, no pressure is

exerted by propertied classes on non-propertied classes. Here elections are held in

an atmosphere of collaboration between the workers, the peasants and the

intelligentsia, in an atmosphere of mutual confidence between them. (Stalin 12)

Here Stalin offers a striking example of his unique ability to create exigencies out of what he

desired, a trait that he and Hitler shared. With a supportive population, Hitler was even more

influential in terms of controlling exigencies, as he was able to sculpt one out of the Jewish

people in similarly framed speeches.

Connections

When examining the connections between these two dictators, it is clear what influences

they had on each other. In particular, it is crucial to understand the influence that Stalin had on

Hitler and how Hitler was able to modify the problems that were observable in order to become a

much more formidable adversary to the Allies. Both figures endured an upbringing which would

Harlan 20

have understandably created certain resentment towards the world. Stalin used his resentment

discreetly but ultimately incorrectly. He created a support system that was mediocre and bought

at best and demonstrated his manipulative rhetorical skills in his 1937 speech analyzed here. In

contrast, Hitler used his ill feelings and experiences with rejection to identify with the German

people, who were feeling similar attitudes after the end of World War One. He knew that in

order for a new regime to flourish, it must first be established and rooted within the people

themselves. He therefore utilized all his knowledge of people’s behavior and values to create a

persona far different from Stalin’s, one which promised relief from suffering on the condition

that they simply indentify with him instead of obey.

It is impossible to say just how much of Hitler’s persona he modeled after Stalin but it

would be foolish indeed to assume that Hitler was not aware of both Stalin’s successes and

failures, or that he did not modify his own complicated persona after successful dictators before

him. In addition, through the analysis of rhetorical tactics in speeches by both dictators such as

this one by Joseph Stalin and the pre-Reichstag Speech by Adolf Hitler, it becomes discernible

how they were able to mirror and modify their respective skills.

Conclusion

In the last section of the text on Hitler, it was determined that the importance in

examining these sorts of tyrants lies predominately in their amazing ability to rise to power.

After the event the question on the world’s mind always seems to revert to “how was that

allowed to happen?” With the benefit of hindsight and educated analysis, it seems easy to spot

troublesome lines delivered in speeches or shady maneuvers in which people in government staff

positions suddenly disappear. The fact of the matter is that both Hitler and Stalin were able to use

Harlan 21

their respective rhetorical situations to manipulate huge amounts of people and start a world war.

By studying leaders who have come to be classified as psychopaths by most modern day

psychologists and their rise to power, it becomes much easier to recognize the cues and halt the

process before it is allowed to develop—avoiding war entirely.

Harlan 22

Works Cited

"Biography: Joseph Stalin." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_joseph_stalin.htm>.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Penn State Press 25 (1992) 1-14. JSTOR. Web. 10

Oct. 2010.

Burton, Gideon O. "Ethos." Silva Rhetoricae. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.

Gilgun, Jane F. "Critical Theory Stands Up to Abuses of Power." Www.scribd.com. Web. 9 Dec.

2010. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/26525728/Critical-Theory-and-Abuses-of-Power>.

Hitler, Adolf, and Ralph Manheim. Mein Kampf,. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943. Print.

"Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941." Institute for Historical Review. Web. 12 Oct.

2010. <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html>.

"Kairos: Layers of Meaning (Etymology)." Issue 15.1 (Fall 2010) - Kairos: A Journal of

Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.technorhetoric.net/layers/etymology.html>.

Mid-1921, By. "WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies .

Adolf Hitler | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.

<http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/biographies/hitler.html>.

Moeller, Robert G. The Nazi State and German Society: a Brief History with Documents.

Harlan 23

Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. Print.

Rich, Norman. Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion. New

York: Norton, 1992. Print.

Robertson, Tara, and Duke Beasley. "Cognitive Anthropology." Home | College of Arts &

Sciences. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. <http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/>.

Stalin, Joseph. "Stalin's Speeches to Voters -- 1937." From Marx to Mao. Gospolitizdat, July

2000. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SS37.html>.

Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Retorical Situation.” Penn State Press 6.3 (1973): 154-61.

JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.

<http://rhetoric.byu.edu/persuasive appeals/Ethos.htm>. Web.