Power of Crowd by Hitler and Saddam - Coursework Example

Power of Crowd by Hitler and Saddam Name: Institution: Institution: Course Code: Date: Power of Crowd by Hitler and Saddam Introduction Hitler and Saddam Hussein are notably the biggest tyrants in the recent history. These were loved as much as they were despised, and they were mainly able to have power due to their skill in selling their ideas, concepts and beliefs to the crowds. From this, these two were able to gain immerse power to carry out various heinous acts against the people they ruled and also in trying to seize power in other regions. Notably Hitler was able to spread his ideologies and persuade the Germans that they were a superior race and needed to rid of other races which they considered inferior. He was also able to convince the masses that all the economic hardships and problems experienced at the time were all the fault of the Jewish people. Hitler’s audience manipulation tactics that saw millions of people buy into his ideology, believe every word he said and idolized him resulted to a massacre of over 17 million and the near annihilation of the Jew race with more than 6 million having perished at the hands of Hitler’s followers (Kershaw, 2001). Hussein on the other hand also instilled fear into crowds by eliminating all those who opposed hi regime or reign. When Saddam took over power in 1979, he had over five hundred people killed from military officers, loyalist to the previous regime, to even some of his close associates and friends. He built his ruler-ship based on intimidation, power and terror, and ensured his survival to power by creating fear in the crowds. In both these scenarios, the crowd is a significant factor in the manner that these two leaders consolidated their power. Coop (2011) contends that when individuals join crowds for a common cause they often tend to be led to committing into what they would normally not commit were to contemplate on this on their own. People in crowds tend to become excitable over the issues that they together fight for, and may tend to be heroic, violent and impulsive. An individual in a crowd loses their rationality and give in to the purpose of the crowd. In this sense, a crowd is different from an individual and tends to have its own personalities. From this it follows that there would always be people who would tend to manipulate crowds and bend them to their own will as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Elias Canetti in his historic book the Crowds and Power reiterates that a crowd factor is often within an individual and most would seek to survive by crowding up where upon such people give their rationality up to the crowds phenomenon and loss the control of being rational. A crowd develops into a peculiar organism different from the individuals in such a manner that it has its own waves of dynamism which often tend to expand (Páll, & Roberts, 2009; McClelland, 2010). These two dictators who are considered the most ruthless of the 20th century, were able consolidate their power using the psychology of the crowds. Where upon Hitler appeased the huge masses and convinced over 70 million Germans at the time of why they need to establish their dominance worldwide and eliminate inferior races, Saddam Hussein used fear by publicly demonstrating all that would happen to those who would dare oppose his regime. It is in light of the power that these two leaders were able to have over the people and crowds that this paper seeks to focus on how these two leaders used the power of the crowds to weaken the people and make the people do as they wish unopposingly. This paper seeks to develop further the concept of crowd mentality and behavior by theorizing that with a clear focal point of blame or scapegoat, a crowd no matter how big tends to grow smaller, and individuals within the crowd become weaker, worthless, and nothing but elements of the crowd expression and followers of its leaders. This will be analyzed using the case examples and study of both Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Discussion In order to be able to understand and analyze how Hitler and Saddam Hussein were able to make the masses buy into their ideas and propaganda, and how Hitler and Saddam were able to harness the power of the crowd by making each individual within weaker to the concepts that these leaders introduced, it is imperative that a clear understanding on crowd behavior and a discussion of these leaders be done. Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein Adolf Hitler is said to be one of the people who greatly accelerated the pace of history in the 20th century. He is ranked third in history as one of the greatest annihilators of civilians, having killed about 21 million people during his reign, and he is also ranked as one of the mass movers of all times (Loebs, 2010). Appointed in 1933 as the chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler’s 12 year reign went beyond his title, he was to the Germans a revolutionary leader who would restore Germany back to glory especially after the depressing circumstance that Germany was in after the Great depression of the 1930s, their defeat in world war one and the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty of Versailles which imposed heavy penalties on German for the world war one in terms of paying up reparations for the war, not only greatly hurt the German economy and resulted to economic misery of the masses in German, but also hurt German pride. Such bad economic conditions provide wide discontent with the German government and the way it was handling the issue and instead sought radical change. Upon such background did Hitler build his propaganda and convinced the masses of his ideological Nazi concepts that Germans were a superior race and should not be degraded and the fact that the Jews were to blame for all the economic hardships that German’s were facing (O'Shaughnessy, 2009). Saddam Hussein just like Hitler is among one of the long reigning presidents in Iraq who maintained his power and ruler-ship through propaganda and consolidation of the crowding power. During his rule he got involved in two major wars and he adopted an aggressive behavior towards the neighboring countries in order to establish his dominance. A common denominator between these two leaders was their capability of moving crowds into believing the various propaganda and ideologies that they passed across. Despite these two being the biggest tyrants of the past century, they were able consolidate their power using the psychology of the crowds, and manipulating people to do their bidding. Where upon Hitler appeased the huge masses and convinced over 70 million Germans at the time of why they need to establish their dominance worldwide and eliminate inferior races (O'Shaughnessy, 2009), Saddam Hussein used fear by publicly demonstrating all that would happen to those who would dare oppose his regime and often garnered public support using conspiracy theory and manipulating the public into thinking that without him they face an uncertain threat and insecurity (Chapter 2, 2003). Theories in crowd behavior Over the past century scholars have put much thought in studying the manner in which crowds react to various changing conditions. Thus the various theories that try to explain the behavior of crowds not only have to look at such changing behaviors, but also look at the social situation that influenced such behavior. There are a number of theories put forward to explain the behavior of crowds (Coop, 2011; Kiss, 2004; Lindner, 2000; Mack, 2008; Pettman, 2010). One of the earliest most important theories is Le Bon’s theory (Coop, 2011; Páll & Roberts, 2009) which showed that people were in a crowd they tended to go through three stages. The first stage is anonymity where be as a person joins a crowd to protest to demonstrate about an issue, they tend to lose their sense of self awareness and responsibility and tend rather to feel hidden within the crowd. In this stage the person level of reasoning capacity falls and everyone in the crowd would tend to behave in a similar manner, with people feeling invincible, powerful and would tend to be not accountable for the way they behave and react. In the second stage, which Le Bon referred to as contagion, beliefs and emotions within the crowd would tend to spread faster than an infection with the individuals in the crowd believing one thing and their power of being rational or critical having been stripped from them. In the last stage of crowd behavior, the crowd becomes open to various suggestions given by the crowd leader and would without thinking much about immediately act and accepts the ideas and suggestions put forward by the leader, especially if they are repeated over and over again like a mantra (Coop, 2011). Numerous scholars have borrowed from Le Bon’s theory on crowd behavior to develop their own theories. Wilfred Trotter for instance developed his own herd mentality from this theory and theorized that often within a crowd, inborn predisposition tended to favor the will of the group over an individual’s will (Coop, 2011; McClelland, 2010). Swarm theory was also developed out of this theoretical basis and tended to show that even without a leader, a crowd can effectively coordinate similar to a flock or herd (Páll & Roberts, 2009). Though Freud agreed with Le Bon’s view regarding crowding behavior where people in a crowd behave differently than if they were individuals, he contested Le Bon’s idea that the crowd became collective in mind was not true in its entirety as there are different kinds of crowds, from leaderless ones to those with leaders. Another theory put forward was that of Edward Barney in which Barney argued that one had to understand the motives and mechanisms of the group mind, only then could the person potentially control a crowd and manipulate public opinion. Berney’s theory though brought with it a dark side as he noted that crowds could easily be manipulated and molded by experts in social patterns and mental processes of the masses to bid to the will of these experts (Coop, 2011; McClelland, 2010). It has widely been suggested that Hitler developed a personality cult where he was able to manipulate the German masses making them believe what he wanted and making then commit atrocities. This when applied to coup such as in Saddam Hussein’s case, it would involve character assassination of a leader before the military completes the work. This is also quite similar also in Hitler’s case, where through character assassination of the Jews, the crowd bought into Hitler’s views of the need to eliminate the enemy. A key crowd behavior theory that deviates from Le Bon’s view that the crowds determines the actions of the individuals is the convergence theory which contradicts this view and rather shows that people with similar believes and views would tend to form a crowd and behave in a similar fashion due to the convergence of the ideas for which they are fighting for. In this sense, it is the people who dictate the crowd behavior. These theories though do not give a clear picture of crowd behavior as does Canetti’s insights in his book crowds and power. Canetti noted that the essence that drove both individuals and crowds was survival. Above everything else people whether in a group or individual seek to remain alive and to survive (Páll & Roberts, 2009). Canetti distinguished between open and closed crowds where he noted that closed crowds were those whose members were determined and definite such as racial groups or professional groups. Open crowds on the other hand are those in which people can free join. In analyzing crowd behavior, Canetti noted that often within open crowds, there is often a blurring of both levels or ranks held by a person or even social distinctions, people tend to feel as one and often come together as a form of protecting from an outside attack or as a form of survival. In such crowds, Canetti noted that people tends to act without regard for personal gain as it often happens when an individual is alone, and in extreme circumstances people may develop bizarre characters different from their own (McClelland, 2010). In Hitler’s period for instance, people of all intelligence and walks of life who were previously peaceful citizens in German behaved in extreme ways ranging from torture to murder in droves. Analysis From the above discussion on the manner in which the two leaders consolidated their power of ruler-ship through gaining favor with the masses even though they were among the most ruthless of leaders in the world and through an understanding on the theories that influence the behavior of the masses, an analysis of how they were able to weaken the crowd and bent them to their will carried out staring first and foremost by a look at the theories that define crowd mentality and behavior, and then analyzing how these theories explain the Hitler-Saddam phenomenon and using this to by theorize that with a clear focal point of blame or scapegoat, a crowd no matter how big tends to grow smaller, and individuals within the crowd become weaker, worthless, and nothing but elements of the crowd expression and followers of its leaders. Adolf Hitler: Power and Crowds In building his Third Reich, Hitler used mass persuasion and propaganda in order to convince the German masses of their cause. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler acknowledges that propaganda should be focused, repeated and directed to the crowd for the highest impact. He noted that the ability of the crowd to receive an idea is very limited since when in a group they have a lower intelligence to receive a heavy ideology and they have the tendency of forgetting (Loebs, 2010; Coop, 2011). In essence, therefore, Hitler reduced high rhetoric to only a few basic repeated points which he integrated into a slogan and repeatedly harped for the mass crowd until the last person in the crowd got to understand what he wanted them to understand by the slogan, and they got to buy this ideology as the real truth. This reflects Le Bon’s theory where beliefs and emotions within the crowd would tend to spread faster than an infection with the power of crowds being rational or critical having been stripped from them. In such instances the crowd becomes open to various suggestions given by the leader and would without thinking much about immediately act and accepts the ideas and suggestions put forward by the leader, especially if they are repeated over and over again like a mantra, just as Hitler did. O’Shaughnessy (2009) in his analysis of how Hitler sold the Nazi ideology to the public notes that Hitler was also not only able to read the atmosphere of the masses and what they wanted but was also able to develop strong suggestion of what they needed to do in order to change the situation that they were in. this strongly reflects Barney’s theory that crowds could easily be manipulated and molded by people who have knowledge in social patterns and mental processes of the masses so as to bid to the will of these experts (Coop, 2011; McClelland, 2010). Scholars have extracted great lessons in the manner in which Hitler exploited the crowds and instilled his Nazism ideologies of restoring Germany to greatness (Waite, 1977; Abel, 1986; Degrel, 2009; Glad, 2002; Kershaw, 2001). Loeb notes that Hitler relied on the support of the whole nation of German to consolidate his power. In his campaigning streak, he limited his key points to a few repeated words that could be clearly absorbed and understood by the crowds, words such as: “dictates of Versailles”, “weak and corrupt Weimer government” which had been the preceding government, “stabbed Germany in the back”, referring to those who signed the Versailles treaty, “most diabolical creature in existence” referring to the Jews. Hitler focused on attacking one particular enemy, the Jews, so that the masses objective reasoning would not kick in and they start questioning whether all the many enemies were right and Hitler wrong. In this sense therefore, Hitler primarily focused on one whom the crowd’s anger could be swayed to. For instance he proclaimed that the enemy of German’s was “always and only the Jew” (Waite, 1977). As he claimed that most of the leaders in the Soviet Union were Jews, he would reiterate and ask “Who stabbed Germany in the back?”, “who signed the treaty of shame?”, “ who is responsible for the great depression and inflation?” and the response to this was always clear to the masses as being the Jewish fault (Waite, 1977). Through this strategy, Hitler was able to maximally ignite the outrage of the crowds and to harness the power that comes with the crowd. The crowd adhered to Canetti’s view of survival instinct, and the crowd saw that Adolf Hitler was the best chance for the survival of the German race against its oppressors. It is against his leadership that the crowd solidified and crystallized. Saddam Hussein: Power and Crowd Saddam Hussein just like Hitler is among one of the long reigning presidents in Iraq who maintained his power and ruler-ship through propaganda and consolidation of the crowding power. During his rule he got involved in two major wars and he adopted an aggressive behavior towards the neighboring countries in order to establish his dominance. After assuming power Saddam Hussein exaggerated some details about his earlier life in order to enhance his image and portrayal to the public as a powerful and ruthless leader. He mostly instilled fear among the crowd by publicly executing those considered as conspirators in order to spread fear among the crowd (Chapter 2, 2003; Gray, 2010). One notable strategy that he used in weakening the public and crowds in order to remain in power is based on conspiracy theory. Gray (2010) argues that Saddam created and used conspiracy themes as a tool in his political language in order to make people in the crowds believe that there were bad people out there to get them. Notably, Saddam is noted to have constantly been giving warnings of conspirators and how he would get them before they did him. Through a wide array of brutality, Saddam Hussein inspired the crowds to remain loyal to him and his government (Chapter 2, 2003). This conspiracy concept he adopted is what he used to justify the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and to garner public support for several of his actions. Though Saddam was a ruthless ruler and mostly hated for his tyranny, the masses on the Middle East saw him as the redemptory and strong force that did not bow or fall to the enemy. Using conspirator fear, Saddam often focused in instilling collective fear as shown by Canetti’s survival Just like Hitler, Saddam Hussein also used propaganda to consolidate his power and position in the Iraq community and to sway the crowds into accepting his policies, and ideologies. In Bengio’s (1998) analysis of Saddam’s words, he noted that through “value loaded” words, Saddam Hussein was able to present and a black and white ideology to the crowds on what is acceptable and permissible in society and what is not. Similarly, just like Hitler who invoked religion on the purity of the Aryan race, Saddam Hussein also invoked religion to emotionally get the support of the masses to justify some policies or to respond to some attack or nullify some policies (Long, 2004). Bengio (1998) notes that Saddam used conspiracy tones to sway the public in his support and also creates fear among the crowds of his power and violence. He notably cites propaganda as a major tool used for mind numbing the Iraq masses through distortion of the reality, to make the Iraq’s see him as the protector of the crowd. For instance, just before invading Kuwait, Saddam build up propaganda on conspiracies by Kuwait and some other Arab gulf countries and the west to lower oil prices which would have grossly impacted the country’s economy as it heavily relied on oil revenues. Just like Hitler Saddam focused on one enemy: Kuwait, and accused the country of stealing Iraq oil by drilling horizontally oil from Iraq’s Rumaila oil which is located near border of the two countries (Wingate, 2004). Through such propaganda and a focus on the Kuwait as the enemy, the Iraq masses supported the invasion of Kuwait believing it was for the survival of the Iraq people. Theorizing that a crowd grows smaller with individuals tending to get weaker In seeking to up crowd concepts by theorizing that people become weak against their own will within a crowd, an analysis on the impact of Hitler’s and Saddam Hussein’s crowd tactics to in order to maximally influence the masses clearly shows that people within the crowd are weaker and rather tend to give up their strength to the crowd to make the crowd stronger in its convictions and indeed also make the leaders of the crowd stronger and powerful. Though Canetti choose to analyze power and crowds separately not really determining what gives people like Hitler power over the crowd, this research contends that it is the oneness in purpose, and a focus against a certain evil that makes people in a crowd behave rather irrationally. The sense that they all agree on one point reduces the ability of the crowd to determine on exactly what points they agree with. In Hitler’s instance, the crowd agreed that indeed the Jew’s were bad for them, but the crowding effect could not allow them to think rationally on the next step to take, and therefore rather relied on the suggestions of the leaders. Indeed the lack of individuals within the crowd to wild their individual wills against the crowd itself is the manner by which totalitarian power is given and harnessed by leaders such as Hitler and Saddam from the crowd. Such crowd dynamics coupled with skilled rhetorical skills aimed at persuading, and propagating ideas such as using repeated short slogans, imagery, use of symbols or using threats and suppositions of insecurity that would tend to make people crowd up together in order to protect themselves, is the key with which people are easily influenced. Having the feeling of common purpose in their pursuit is the essence within which most people lose their ability to reason and rather leaves all the reasoning to the group or those within the crowd who can be looked upon by the crowd for guidance. In addition, the crowd’s ability to make suggestions to each individual member within the crowd through incitements goes beyond what a leader does in persuading the crowds. The crowds within themselves are powerful as they may also have a role in determining what an individual thinks. For instance, in a highly charged crowd, the people within the crowd would easily convince an unenthusiastic person within the crowd of the authenticity of the what the leader in the crowd is saying than would a leader easily convince the person. Such instances point to a weaker person in crowd vulnerable to ideas flowing within the crowd. Conclusion From the analysis above, it can clearly be noted that and concluded that in deed within a group a person adopts a character different from their own and tend to adopt the essence of the crowd that has been brought together for a common purpose. Having the feeling of common purpose in their pursuit is the essence within which most people lose their ability to reason and rather leaves all the reasoning to the group or those within the crowd who can be looked upon by the crowd for guidance. Comparing the situation of the weak people during Saddam Hussein time and those from Adolf Hitler’s time, it is noted that while those from Hitler’s time were faced with faced with hard economic times, depression, loss of pride and were for most parts dejected, those from Saddam Hussein’s time were mainly fearful with most seeking to ensure the survival of the economic prosperity that was in the economy. The crowd in Hitler’s time was overburdened with economic costs, needs and the humiliation endured after the First World War. The depressing circumstances in Germany after the Great depression of the 1930s, their defeat in world war one and the Treaty of Versailles all weighed down on the crowds and the masses and they found reason to believe in Hitler to bring change. The treaty of Versailles which imposed heavy penalties on German for the world war one in terms of paying up reparations for the war, not only greatly hurt the German economy and resulted to economic misery of the masses in German, but also hurt German pride. Such bad economic conditions provide wide discontent with the German government and the way it was handling the issue and instead sought radical change. The crowd in Saddam Hussein’s era was different from Hitler’s in that within this crowd there was prosperity of due to oil revenues and people as well as Saddam were flourishing. The crowds though were fueled as they feared due to a thread of lose of livelihoods were oil priced to reduce at a sharper. Therefore, where as Saddam’s crowd was faced with an economic uncertainty and threat on economy, Hitler’s crowd face dejection, slowing economic activities and, loss of pride and survival instinct due to tough Versailles terms. In view of such crowds it is noted that both Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein approached courting the masses in different ways. Whereas Adolf Hitler mainly build his strong support through campaign propaganda, expertise in rhetoric development, crowd moving strategies, and through reduced high rhetoric to only a few basic repeated points which he integrated into a slogan and repeatedly harped for the mass crowd until the last person in the crowd got to understand what he wanted them to understand by the slogan, and they got to buy this ideology as the real truth. Saddam on the other hand mainly used conspiracy as the basis to justify various decisions he made, and he also used conspirator theory to gain support for the crowd of the various actions he took. It can be noted from these that Saddam used conspiracy tones to sway the public in his support and also creates fear among the crowds of his power and violence. Propaganda was a major tool used for brain washing the Iraq masses through distortion of the reality, to make the Iraq’s sees him as the protector of the crowd. Based on these two examples, it can be noted that through the use of crowds which tend to have a group think and group emotions were the key platforms upon which Hitler and Saddam Hussein developed their support and ideologies. Such crowd dynamics coupled with skilled rhetorical skills aimed at persuading, and propagating ideas such as using repeated short slogans, imagery, use of symbols or using threats and suppositions of insecurity that would tend to make people crowd up together in order to protect themselves, is the key with which people are easily influenced. Within crowds, there is often a blurring of both levels or ranks held by a person or even social distinctions, people tend to feel as one and often come together as a form of protecting from an outside attack or as a form of survival. This implies that people tend to act without regard for personal regard as they would when an individual is alone, and in extreme circumstances people may go out of their characters. An individual in a crowd loses their rationality and give in to the purpose of the crowd. In this sense, a crowd is different from an individual and tends to have its own personalities. A crowd develops into a peculiar organism different from the individuals in such a manner that it has its own waves of dynamism which often tend to expand. From this it follows that there would always be people who would tend to manipulate crowds and bend them to their own will as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. From the analysis, the paper concludes on a new theoretical construct that in deed as much as leaders of a crowd may be the main idea sources, the crowd’s ability to make suggestions to each individual member within the crowd through incitements goes beyond what a leader does in persuading the crowds. The crowds within themselves are powerful as they may also have a role in determining what an individual thinks. References Abel, T.F. (1986). Why Hitler came to power. New York: Prentice Hall. Bengio, O. (1998). Saddam's Word: Political Discourse in Iraq New York: Oxford University Press Borch, C. (2011). The politics of (Crowed) Atmospheres. Copenhagen Business School. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.fek.su.se/Global/Metropolitan%20Marketing/The_Politics_of_Crowded_Atmospheres_Borch_110601.pdf Chapter 2 (2003). Saddam Hussein’s rise to Power. New York: Gale Cengage. Retrieved from http://www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp665630.pdf Coop, D. (2011). Crowds and Leadership: The Art of influencing people. Retrieved from http://centreofthepsyclone.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/crowds-and-leadership.pdf Degrel, L. (2009). How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution. Institute of Historical Review. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p299_Degrelle.html Glad, B. (2002). Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power, Political Psychology, 23(1). Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.gohumanities.com/page1/page17/files/Malignant%20Narcissm.pdf Gray, M. (2010). Revisiting Saddam Hussein's Political Language: The Sources and Roles of Conspiracy Theories. Arab Studies Quarterly, 32(1), 28-46. Kershaw, I. (2001). The Hitler Myth: Image and Reality in the Third Reich. London: Oxford University Press. Kiss, E. (2004). Does Mass Psychology Renaturalize Political Theory? On the Methodological Originality of "Crowds and Power". European Legacy, 9(6), 725-738. Doi: 10.1080/1084877042000311581 Lindner, E.G. (2000). Were Ordinary Germans Hitler's 'Willing Executioners'? Idea Journal, 5(1). Retrieved April 10, 2012 from http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=31 Loebs, B. (2010). Hitler’s Rhetoric Theory. Relevant Rhetoric, 1; 1-10. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://relevantrhetoric.com/wp-content/uploads/Hitlers-Rhetorical-Theory.pdf Long, J.M. (2004). Saddam's War of Words: Politics, Religion, and the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait Austin: University of Texas Press Mack, M. (2008). On the Contemporary Relevance of Elias Canetti’s Theory of Power. Orbis Litterarum, 63(6), 487-509. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0730.2008.00940.x McClelland, J.S. (2010). The Crowd and the Mob: From Plato to Canetti. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=veFZI5xWBfIC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=Power+of+Crowd+by+Hitler&source=bl&ots=vyQ4db2ipa&sig=s7o0WS68XQ9-VPNMHf2ffkCD5MQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FqCDT53HIO-cmQXts-jFBw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Power%20of%20Crowd%20by%20Hitler&f=false O'Shaughnessy, N. (2009). Selling Hitler: propaganda and the Nazi brand. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891), 9(1), 55-76. Páll, A.J., & Roberts, D. (2009). Elias Canetti's Counter-Image of Society: Crowds, Power, Transformation. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=z3jCKJb74wcC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Power+of+Crowd+by+Hitler&source=bl&ots=AlJIxHbbbL&sig=mxxEx5tF-H_qSEV1Gh_MkFa83CE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FqCDT53HIO-cmQXts-jFBw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Power%20of%20Crowd%20by%20Hitler&f=false Pettman, R. (2010). Psychopathology and world politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(3), 475-492. Doi: 10.1080/09557571003739164 Umich (2011). Adolf Hitler (1889-1945). Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/fascistpersonalitycult/adolf_hitler Waite, R.G. (1977). The Psychopathic God, Adolf Hitler. New York: Dacono Press, p. 367. Wingate, B. (2004). Saddam Hussein. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=PA6cahzizeMC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=power+of+the+crowd,+Saddam+Hussein&source=bl&ots=y6AJNn0HZz&sig=VE0nsIsIQjjjVEl2XbtCjxLpeLY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WqeDT937NubImQXLoPjOBw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=power%20of%20the%20crowd%2C%20Saddam%20Hussein&f=false Read More

In this sense, a crowd is different from an individual and tends to have its own personalities. From this it follows that there would always be people who would tend to manipulate crowds and bend them to their own will as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Elias Canetti in his historic book the Crowds and Power reiterates that a crowd factor is often within an individual and most would seek to survive by crowding up where upon such people give their rationality up to the crowds phenomenon and loss the control of being rational.

A crowd develops into a peculiar organism different from the individuals in such a manner that it has its own waves of dynamism which often tend to expand (Páll, & Roberts, 2009; McClelland, 2010). These two dictators who are considered the most ruthless of the 20th century, were able consolidate their power using the psychology of the crowds. Where upon Hitler appeased the huge masses and convinced over 70 million Germans at the time of why they need to establish their dominance worldwide and eliminate inferior races, Saddam Hussein used fear by publicly demonstrating all that would happen to those who would dare oppose his regime.

It is in light of the power that these two leaders were able to have over the people and crowds that this paper seeks to focus on how these two leaders used the power of the crowds to weaken the people and make the people do as they wish unopposingly. This paper seeks to develop further the concept of crowd mentality and behavior by theorizing that with a clear focal point of blame or scapegoat, a crowd no matter how big tends to grow smaller, and individuals within the crowd become weaker, worthless, and nothing but elements of the crowd expression and followers of its leaders.

This will be analyzed using the case examples and study of both Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Discussion In order to be able to understand and analyze how Hitler and Saddam Hussein were able to make the masses buy into their ideas and propaganda, and how Hitler and Saddam were able to harness the power of the crowd by making each individual within weaker to the concepts that these leaders introduced, it is imperative that a clear understanding on crowd behavior and a discussion of these leaders be done.

Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein Adolf Hitler is said to be one of the people who greatly accelerated the pace of history in the 20th century. He is ranked third in history as one of the greatest annihilators of civilians, having killed about 21 million people during his reign, and he is also ranked as one of the mass movers of all times (Loebs, 2010). Appointed in 1933 as the chancellor of Germany, Adolf Hitler’s 12 year reign went beyond his title, he was to the Germans a revolutionary leader who would restore Germany back to glory especially after the depressing circumstance that Germany was in after the Great depression of the 1930s, their defeat in world war one and the Treaty of Versailles.

The treaty of Versailles which imposed heavy penalties on German for the world war one in terms of paying up reparations for the war, not only greatly hurt the German economy and resulted to economic misery of the masses in German, but also hurt German pride. Such bad economic conditions provide wide discontent with the German government and the way it was handling the issue and instead sought radical change. Upon such background did Hitler build his propaganda and convinced the masses of his ideological Nazi concepts that Germans were a superior race and should not be degraded and the fact that the Jews were to blame for all the economic hardships that German’s were facing (O'Shaughnessy, 2009).

Saddam Hussein just like Hitler is among one of the long reigning presidents in Iraq who maintained his power and ruler-ship through propaganda and consolidation of the crowding power. During his rule he got involved in two major wars and he adopted an aggressive behavior towards the neighboring countries in order to establish his dominance.

Read More