The similarities of Hitler and FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Hitler: two leaders whose legacies are discussed in nearly every history class and even in some everyday conversations. They’re seen as distinct opposites in many narratives; however, Stivelbush’s chapter “Leadership” presents a comparison of these two charismatic leaders. This idea is one that has not been presented very frequently, but it is an interesting way to view this point in history. The aspect of the argument that specifically stuck out was the one about them both being no bodies who had the chance to be political heroes (Stivelbush 50). They got their charisma through having radical ideas that seemed just crazy enough to work to bring their countries out of the tough times they were in. This sparked a light in many to follow them to create a better economy. They also did not have too much of a background that people could disregard them as just being washed up politicians or that they had already unsuccessfully attempted to execute their ideas. However, they both used this power of the unknown along with their determination in two very different ways.
Another large aspect of the argument is the comparison of the method of public speech that was used by both Hitler and FDR. Both FDR and Hitler used public speech in order to gain the trust and support of the public. As Stivelbush says, “their speeches were personal, almost intimate” (54). The charisma of each of these leaders could be felt by the public during these speeches as each person felt like the leader was talking specifically to them. This also comes from the fact that they each marketed themselves as being just another person, which fed into the first idea that they came from nowhere. Hitler and FDR influenced their public in similar ways but believed in very different forms of the perfect government which can be seen through the traditional telling of this historical time period.
Schivelbush, Wolfgang. “Leadership.” Three New Deals. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 49-72.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats
Before taking this course I’ve never thought about comparing Hitler and FDR. I’ve always seen them as so different, but in reality their rise to power had the same foundations. Like you said, they gained support of the public through similar avenues. FDR’s “Fireside Chats” were a new idea very accepted by the public and Hitler’s rallies were too. They found a new way to gain public support. I think we can compare that a lot to whats happening in society today. Politicians are not well accepted and trusted by society. Therefore, they need to come up with new ways to gain public support. It will be interesting to see what tactics they use next for the upcoming election.
To piggy back off of what Sara commented; I agree that before this reading, I would have never thought to compare Hitler and FDR. It almost seemed wrong to compare one of America’s heroes to one of the most diabolical humans in all of history. Hitler and FDR had a charismatic way that they presented themselves and spoke to the public which connected them to their audience in unbreakable ways. Although not to the extreme of Hitler and FDR, I can also see the connection of charismatic leaders being made with John F. Kennedy. Despite the fact that he served about 30 years later, he captivated America with his personality as well.