Hitler+Statements


 * // Mia Anderson //**
 * // 1.Yes, Hitler was a leader. He may not have been a leader of a moral cause, but the qualities he held and the influence he gave affected some people and they supported him. At one point, he led Germany in a huge expansion of industrial and civil greatness. //**


 * // 2.Hitler shares some qualities Sun Tzu held. Both men were military geniuses and used their capabilities to influence others. They both had many followers. //**


 * // 3. Hitler displays some of the exact opposite characteristics that Martin Luther King did. Their “fights” were for different things, MLK’s being racial equality and Hitler’s being “racial hygiene.” Luther was peaceful in his way of spreading his message, while Hitler killed millions. Leaders have different beliefs, and leaders are all different. //**
 * // I believe Daft would refer to Hitler as one of the “great man styles.” After imprisoned, Hitler knew where he stood and went on from there. He also may be referred to as more of a manager during the holocaust. He had the Nazi soldiers kill millions of people. He was the mind behind all of it, however I believe the influence to do such a thing stemmed from his as well. //**


 * // 4. Morality is a very important part of leadership. However, it depends on where the moral line is crossed. Hitler may not have thought he was being cruel or immoral, and neither did his followers. The whites during the segregation may have thought Martin Luther King was being immoral because it was against their own beliefs. Leaders all have their own definition of morality, it is individually looked upon by everyone. //**


 * // 5. Studying Hitler and other leaders help people see the good and bad things some leaders are and do. Without looking at the past we cannot make the future any better. //**

=**Jesse Lerner**=
 * 1. Yes Hitler was a leader. He was a leader because of the way that he influenced people and practically single handedly transformed a nation. That being said, just because he is a leader doesn't mean that he lead for just causes.**


 * 2. Hitler does share some characteristics with some of the leaders that we studied. For example he and Barack Obama we both excellent speakers. Also he and Sun Tzu both had great mastery of the military and were able to influence others. Hitler like both of these men had many followers.**


 * 3. Hitler is very different from the leaders that we have studied for one distinct reason, he influenced people to do bad things. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired people to end racism in a non violent way, Sun Tzu was military influence in China and overall an influence to Asian culture, and Obama has influenced people in America to change their ways for the better. Hitler influenced people to kill almost 6,000,000 Jews, and almost 17,000,000 civilians total. That should be enough said.**


 * 4. Morality and ethics is extremely important when it comes to leadership. Hitler had no morals or ethics or at least a very skewed view of what was morally or ethically acceptable. Hitler may have believed that what he was doing was morally acceptable but the idiots who followed him should have known better. Hitler was a good leader in the sense of manipulating people, but leaders with strong moral and ethical values will always prevail.**


 * 5. Studying Hitler allows to understand that all leaders aren't good people. If we don't look back and try to learn from our mistakes, we are more susceptible to make the same ones again in the future.**


 * Manuel Lugo**
 * 1.) Hitler was a leader indeed. He influenced many people to believe in his cause and they followed him. Even if his cause is seen as morally wrong, he still led many people throughout his life.**


 * 2.) Hitler and MLK both definitely had good speaking skills. That is a large way on how they got people to join their cause, by persuading with words. Sun Tzu and Hitler were both good leaders in the military.**


 * 3.) Hitler was different than the leaders we have studied because of his values and his goals. His goals were opposite of MLK's, Obama's, and Sun Tzu's. He led people and persuaded them that bad things were the good. MLK did not do anything through violence, however, Hitler was a violent man.**
 * Hitler contains the "Influence Theorem" because he was able to influence many people to be on his side. Even if he had a bad influence, he had an influence none the less. He influenced people through his speeches and his actions.**


 * 4.) Morality is very important regarding leadership because your morals is what tells you what is right and wrong. If you have bad morals, like Hitler, you will lead people to do bad things. If you have good morals, like MLK, then you will lead people to do good things.**


 * 5.) Hitler helps us understand that some people are good leaders, but traits can be used for bad. Just like looking in the past for the beneficial things, we must pay attention to the things that were bad so we won't do them again. Tom Huffsmith works out.**

1. 1.Hitler was definitely a leader. He had influence over many people with his speeches and thoughts. Even though what he wanted wasn’t good, it still proved to be leadership. Hitler used a lot of propaganda throughout his campaign and won many people over.
 * Jake Kreamer**

2. 2. Hitler was smart and won people over through his speeches, much like Obama or MLK. He was in charge of military like Sun Tzu, however he didn’t know as much as some of his generals about leading armies since he was just a messenger in the First World War.

3. 3.Hitler used his leadership skills and influence in a more negative way than that of MLK and Obama. Sun Tzu was a military general but wasn’t causing a genocide.

4. 4.Hitler definitely fits into the Contingency Theory category. He analyzed his situation thoroughly. He fits into Trait Theory and Influence Theory as well.

5. 5.Morality helps people become better leaders, however you can still be a leader without morals. I would say that people would become better leaders if they have good morals.

6. 6.By studying what Hitler did, we can see that some of it must never be repeated. However he set good examples of leadership and how one man can change the world forever.

Jon Knudsen 1. Yes, he was a leader, he was able to establish followers and have a following that bought into his cause.

2. Hitler is similar in that he could inspire leaders and capture peoples attention. He was also willing to do whatever was neccissary to accomplish his goal.

3. Hitler lead through fear. This is completely different then the other 3 leaders.

4. Daft would have said he was a leader. He greatly exemplifies Great Man theory as well as Trait theory.

5. Hitler was a leader, pure and simple. He expemplified leadership traits and had people follow him. Morality doesn't neccissarily relate to leadership even though it could be argued Hitler thought what he was doing was morally correct.

6. It allows us to examine how someone like him could come to power and never let it happen again.

**Nicholas Amend**

1. Hitler was a leader because he grabbed and held a mass of people into the palm of his hand thruogh a combination of fear and charisma.

2. Hitler and Sun Tzu both share military strength, in that Hitler successfully rounded up and murdered over 10 million people using brute mility force. Both men also had their ideas put in print. Both works would come to be seen as important works of "nonfiction." A common trait amongst Hitler, Obama, and King is captivating public speaking. Each man had/have audiences on their toes during a speech and presented/present their arguments in a convincing fashion.

3. The main difference between Hitler and the other men we have studied is that Hitler's actions were driven by hate. Hitler preached the superiority of the aryan race above all others, and blamed the Jews, Polish, and Czecks for Germany's social and economic problems. Sun Tzu by nature of the fact that he was a political leader surely possessed a sense of arrogance, but did not feel the same hatred against "others" that Hitler did. Hitler is the exact opposite of King in that King preached equality and brotherly love. Obama speaks about different nations working together also.

4. Daft would say that Hitler was a leader. He had a mighty influence on his followers, most of whom shared his goal to exterminate those who were not part of the aryan race. Great Man, Trait, Influence, and Relational theory all certainly apply to Hitler. He was self-educated, and instinctively possessed the tools to unify his followers as he did. During his rule he was essentially idolized by his followers.

5. Ethics are indeed a part of leadership in that one's ethics will determine their view on a situation and the way they lead in it. Hitler didn't bat an eye at the prospect of taking another life, and that is why killing and encouraging superiority were part of his leadership. King believed in peace and cooperation. That is why nonviolence was his method of leadership.

6. Studying Hitler can help us understand today's world by virtue of the fact that we know what a leader, no matter how cynical, is capable of and we can use the knowledge of Hitler's technique to promote progress and prevent digression.

** Elena Klein **
 * 1) Hitler was a leader because he was able to spread enthusiasm for his ideas of racial inequality throughout Germany.
 * 2) He was a military leader and published a book about his ideas like Sun Tzu and was a government leader of a powerful country like Barack Obama.
 * 3) He created mass genocide; he is recognized as immoral.
 * 4) Daft would say he was in fact a leader but not a positive one. I think he mostly follows the relational theory model because he convinced the Germans that he as Aryans were superior to Jews, the mentally handi-capped, and others. He made them feel like they were better, and so they believed him because that is something many people like to hear.
 * 5) Morality and ethics certainly should be upheld by leaders, but this is not always the case. Hitler was able to inspire others, create a relationship with his followers, and be the representation of Nazi Germany, but he was killing millions of people all the while.
 * 6) It helps us remember that not all leaders in the world are positive and that if the right person can communicate the wrong idea, very bad things are possible.

Grant Senne 1. Yes, Hitler was a leader even if it was for an unjust cause or brought upon many deaths. He proposed a new idea and brought his idea into power with the Third Reich. Being the totalitarian autocratic dictator you have little choice on whether to be a leader and that is what he strived to be.

2. MLK and Hiter surprisingly have many similarities in their leadership styles. Both employed the tactic of strong rhetoric and pushing their ideas through to the public through strong marketing some may call propaganda on both ends.

3. Unlike the three other leaders we have studied Hitler punished his followers if they did not adhere strictly to his decrees. An example of this was the intellectuals in Germany were sent to concentration camps to keep them secluded from polluting the other people in Germany and Nazi party which Sun Tzu, Obama, and MLK would have lived with their critics and kept working around them.

4. Hitler definately fits the description of the old paradigm qualifications listed in Daft. He definately serves as a managerial type leader looking to punish and enforce rather than foster new ideas.

5. Morality and ethics are a definately necessary to be an effective leader because without them no one will trust you and you will have no credibility to be a good leader. If you have morality and ethics it sets the standard for everyone you are leading.

6. Hitler teaches us the power that can be given to a man if we chose the wrong leader to follow and let ourselves be too easily persuaded by propaganda. I'm sure Nazis did not seem rediculously radical at first but when given all the power Hitler began mass executions and genocide of thousands of people. 6. 6

3.3 **Kiley Rossetter**

Yes, Hitler was a leader. He held such an influence in Germany that hundreds of thousands followed his every order; they were even convinced to put aside all ethical values they had once held. Similarly to the other leaders we studied, his charisma was a key part of his rule. Unlike them, he did not follow clear logic or moral guidelines that define the other leaders’ careers. Morality/ethics are important parts of leadership. Ethical standards or the lack, or thereof are used to unify followers in a way that charisma alone cannot, similarly to the way hope and fear are used to control people. Through the study of Hitler we can understand the motivation of nearly all people, even the worst of the worst, and how those people can sink to such depths.

Jon Jon
 * N **


 * Parker Brown **
 * 1.) Despite having a cause or reason that is rightly questioned and frowned upon today or as much as everbody hates hitler, the man was a leader. Hitler had the qualitites of a leader and used those ideas and the third reich into power. **
 * 2.)i believe hitler had some similiarities wit MLK, like the fact that they could both effectively get people to listen andbuy into their ideas. they were both good public speakers and thy really helped gain their forces behind them as time went on. **
 * 3.)Hitler was different from the leaders that he had studied, but simply for being a bad man and having bad motives and doing bad things. he tried to to the same thing MLK did and Obama did which is to get people behind you, supporting you, and following out on things that need to be done. it just so happened that Hitler did some much worse things than MLK and Obama. While Sun Tzu obviously is related to hitler in a militaristic way, i dont believe the way they led their respective "groups"was very similiar. **
 * 4.)I believe that hitler does fit into daft's characteristics of a leader, ergo, daft would say hitler was a leader, because of the way he fits into the great man theory and somewhat into the trait theory **
 * 5.) one importance of being a leader is having good ethics and morals and personally i don't believe hitler had either. hitler was a good leader but would have been a great leader if he had any sense of morals or ethics in his life. **
 * 6.) Hitler gives us a prime example that a good example of a leader can be a leader who has done bad things or was not everyone's favorite person. it tells us that not all leaders are good. **