Gandhi vs.

Hitler
Mara Dreiser
Due: Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thesis: Both Gandhi and Hitler used charismatic leadership to influence their followers
or persuade potential followers. Although they had many similarities, they used their
charismatic leadership in polar opposite ways; Gandhi used his in a moral and ethical
way as Hitler used it in an immoral and unethical way.

Leadership is defined as a process by which a person influences others to

accomplish an objective and directs them in a way that makes it more cohesive and
coherent. (1). Many people think that people are born with leadership qualities, yet good
leaders are made if and only if they have the desire and willpower to follow it through.
Leaders must portray confidence and it is imperative that their followers trust and respect
them, as well as leading by example in order to remain one of the “people”. Two leaders
that possess these traits, albeit in different ways are M.K. Gandhi and Adolf Hitler.
Gandhi and Hitler have contradictory leadership styles yet share a single
commonality, charisma, rooted in what they believed. Charismatic leadership is having a
clear understanding of where one wants to go, how to get there and having articulation
prowess to express this vision and inspire others to follow. These leaders are often known
to take great risks in order to reap greater rewards through opportunities that other may
shy away from (2). Gandhi and Hitler were familiar with their surroundings and the needs
of their people and their unconventional behavior attracted those initial followers.
Charismatic leaders are also known for superior interaction with their followers, they pay
great attention to people and easily persuade to change their beliefs on a variety of topics
at hand (3). These leaders are trusted greatly by their followers and can either use this
power in a positive way like Gandhi, or a destructive way, like Hitler. The term charisma
doesn’t distinguish between moral/ethical or immoral/unethical leadership and it can
either be beneficial and self sacrificing or dangerous and destructive (3).
Gandhi chose the moral, ethical and self-sacrificing charismatic leadership where
he gained power and served others. He did this in multiple ways.
One of the first situations that had occurred was Gandhi being thrown off a South African
train for sitting in his first class seat. This was when Gandhi came to the realization that
South African laws were discriminatory towards Indians. This would be the spark that
began his non-violent protest for the rights of Indians in South Africa (4).
Gandhi’s charismatic leadership was then shown during the “burning of passes”.
Gandhi was fighting with civil disobedience when he refused to follow the laws that were
unjust. He found that the pass law was unjust because it was discriminatory against
Indians, where they had to carry passes while white British citizens did not need them.
Gandhi decided to have a protest, and informed the media. Not as many people as
expected showed up, but the key to this protest was the media, who were there to report
it. The police beat Gandhi because he refused to stop burning the passes; this was the first
influential protest that Gandhi had led (4). Although Gandhi did not have as many
followers as he expected, it was the start of a new beginning for the Indian people where
Gandhi’s actions and strength of non-violence after being brutally beaten and gained the
trust of the people who soon began following him. This movement Dreiser 1eventually led to
the government recognizing the rights for Indians in South Africa.
After the courageous fight in South Africa, he was invited back to India, now
known locally as a hero. Gandhi was seen as such to the people of India because he stood
up to the British government in regards to the discrimination of Indians. When he
returned home, he wanted to be like his own people and began showing self-sacrifice. He
started to dress and act like the Indian people, for he was trying to show his followers that
he was no different than them, he himself was too a regular peasant Indian man, they
were all equal (4). This was another significant indicator of Gandhi as a charismatic
leader.
Britain was governing India during the time of Gandhi’s re-entrance and political
leaders demanded “home rule.” Home rule in this instance would be where the British
government would lose power of rule and the Indians would be in control of their
country. Gandhi then took some time traveling to re-discover his country and realize it
was gripped by poverty. Shortly after, Gandhi spoke at the Congress Party Convention
where attendees barely paid attention. Gandhi was more known as a leader for his self-
sacrificing actions rather than his speeches, but shortly into the speech, people started to
pay attention. They were moved when he started talking about liberty, equality,
democracy, and sent the message that the Indian people will have a non-violent civil
disobedience with Britain’s unjust rules equal (4).
Gandhi was also charismatic because he was constantly being jailed for disturbing
the peace. This showed strength to the people of India because Gandhi was not afraid to
fight for his rights. Other ways that Gandhi used self-sacrifice was by burning his British
clothing and using “homespun clothing.” This was a non-violent protest that Gandhi
ordered in order to boycott the British economy. This led into a revolt of the Muslim
soldiers where they beat the Hindu marchers. Once again, Gandhi made an impact on his
people by fasting. He felt that an eye for an eye makes the world blind. He fasted twice,
once against the violence his followers used against the soldiers during the march and
again when he tried to bring peace between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi was able to
sacrifice his health to continue civil disobedience and create equal opportunity equal (4).
It is without a doubt that Adolf Hitler is another one of the most charismatic
leaders in the history of the world. To understand how and why he was one of the most
violent figures in history, we must look at his character. Additionally, we can look upon
his struggles and successes along the way that developed him as a person.
Hitler’s frustrating and troublesome childhood showed him nothing but defeat.
Being on his own, not being successful at anything and never able to really find his way
showed him that the world is a tough place. Alone, he was weak and could be pushed
around. The established order was great and strong. His subsequent experience in WW1
afforded him the opportunity to be part of the strong army and learn personality structure.
Having nothing to lose, he fought hard and progressed through the ranks. He got more
and more powerful during WW1 by displaying an iron will to always do better. His
unyielding determination to do what was required, as things got worse and worse for
Germany, resulted in him becoming more forceful and cruel with each day.
With the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, and the War coming to an end,
Germany was forced to accept full responsibility without even having a member at the
table to discuss the treaty. The people of Germany took this very personally. They were
very upset, bitter and furious and they began looking for someone to take control and
show them what to do next (5). German soldiers wanted to get revenge for WW1 for it
was them who were ready to execute military strategies at a whim. Hitler was an officer
in the newly formed Nazi party. He would see the troops daily and discuss with them
what they wanted to next. This war intermission was the rise to Hitler’s power. The only
success he had was in war scenarios. Seeing everyone ready for war scenarios, led him to
take his speeches to new, more extreme levels. The people needed a leader; Hitler was in
a leadership position, so they followed him.
Another factor that contributed to Hitler’s progression of aggression and violence
is attributed to his exposure to mustard gas and other chemicals in WW1. Mustard gas
and other war chemicals used in WW1 attack every part of the body. Damaging and
deteriorating the skin, eyes, respiratory and digestive system puts stress on the entire
body and mind, in addition to the brain damage (6). Once people started following him he
was recognized as their leader and there was no turning back. He had to continue to lead
with an iron fist. When Hitler was in charge, he had a personal doctor who observed him
every day. In addition to the fearless iron will Hitler showed the world, his doctor saw
another side of him day to day. The other half of Hitler’s split personality reviled him to
be very uncertain, depressed and shy (7). He was a man that portrayed power and
narcissism but was very vulnerable to Jews. He blamed his failures on their race and
personally blamed them for his rejection from Vienna’s Fine Art Academy where he then
used his evil intentions to get back at them
All of these contributions allowed for Hitler to become one of the most influential
immoral and unethical charismatic leaders of all time. He used his power for his personal
impact where he promoted his own personal vision into his leadership style. Hitler’s
charisma was based primarily on absolute power (8). Hitler had a deep hatred for
socialism and the Jewish religion. Hitler saw Jews as sub humans that were inferior to
the Aryan race for Hitler believed that the Aryan race was the purest and most superior
race that was capable of achieving world rule. Hitler’s vision was to create a supreme
Aryan race in Germany and to rid socialism, as it was a Jewish conspiracy. was a German
politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from
Hitler’s charismatic leadership started in 1919 when he went to observe a group called
the German Worker’s Party (9).) He attended a public meeting held by the party and
ended up getting upset by a statement made where he couldn’t restrain himself by
invalidating the statement. This drew much attention by the leaders of this party, they
asked him to join the party and become a speaker. This point in his life was the start of
his charismatic leadership and the persuasion of the German race.
Hitler portrayed the “evil” charismatic leader very well. He was self-absorbed and
portrayed himself as the “god-like figure” to the people in Germany where he would take
care of them from the “cradle to the grave.” Unlike Gandhi where he used promises and
his own personal actions, Hitler used terror and threats to continue to grow from a leader
to a dictator. His followers were affected by motivation for reward or avoidance of
punishment. This motivation or avoidance was responsible for the death of about 6
million Jews, almost 1/3 of the total world Jewish population and about 2/3 of the
European Jewish population. Hitler’s main goal was the extermination of the Jewish
followers and he later stated in the 1942 speech to the Reichstag “Instead, the result of
this war will be the destruction of Jewry. For the first time other will not bleed alone.
For the first time the genuine old Jewish law will be applied: “An eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth” and the more this war spreads, the more anti-Semitism will spread. This may
be said to world Jewry. Anti-Semitism will be nourished in every prison camp, in every
gamily which must be informed why they must sacrifice to the bitter end. And the hour
will come when the most evil world enemy of all times will have played out its role for
perhaps a thousand years at least.” Hitler had the personal belief that the Aryan race was
superior and the Jews were insignificant and he used his power for this personal agenda.
Hitler also used propaganda and persuasion to gain followers. Hitler knew the
value of good propaganda and only allowed followers of the Nazi Party to read, hear and
see what they thought was appropriate. Joseph Goebbels, a German politician and Reich
Minister of propaganda in Germany stated “The essence of propaganda consists in
winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it
utterly and can never escape from it.” This showed that Hitler used persuasion and
propaganda in order to gain followers and use it to his benefit. Hitler’s magnetism and
persuasion engaged members to perform horrific methods of torture to those that were in
superior to his kind.
Gandhi and Hitler were both charismatic leaders in very different ways but they
also had the same grounding of leadership that made them successful. They were similar
in the aspects where they were historical in their leadings and led two of the largest
movements in history, allowed for hope of their people and had complete determination.
Both Gandhi and Hitler led dramatic historical movements. Gandhi wanted to
overturn the discriminatory South African laws that were used against Indians. He used
persuasion by leading from example. He believed in ahimsa, or non-violence, which
required discipline and practice, and used this as one of his main teaching methods.
Although non-violence is a goal to be achieved, and isn’t the absolute standard, it was
Gandhi’s main standard. Gandhi also believed in satyagraha or the welfare of all. This
was used dramatically when Gandhi first started to fast during the dispute between the
mill-owners and laborer (10). Many people thought that this was going against satyagraha
because Gandhi wasn’t taking in the welfare of all, but it was justified that Gandhi’s
decision was for the best where it showed non-violence and self-sacrifice in order to
continue to make his points and continue on with his movements. Other dramatic ways
that Gandhi served for his people was when he committed to be a vanaprasthin where he
decided to devote himself to his community and abandoning possessions (10). The
burning of passes, where Gandhi was beaten in order to remove the pass law for Indians
was another example of his dramatic leadership styles. Gandhi was beaten for burning his
pass and other Indian passes that were to be held while in South Africa. This was one of
the first dramatic statements made during his revolution. Another example would be the
numerous times he spent in jail. In one instance he was arrested for agitation and sedation
of the British government. He was arrested after a protest turned violent, killing about 20
police officers. Gandhi himself admitted to all of the charges, and asked Broomfield to
“either resign your post, or inflict on me the severest penalty” this penalty being 6 years
of imprisonment (11). Gandhi was then convicted of all charges and jailed for 6 years.
Hitler on the other hand used his time in prison to create Mien Kampf, a book that
chronicled and solidified Hitler’s demented obsession, and thus allowed him to brainwash
an entire country.
Gandhi and Hitler also offered the symbol of hope to their followers. Gandhi
allowed for the hope of independence for India as Hitler created the hope of a world wide
Aryan race. The bipolar hopes of both leaders allowed the respective countries to achieve
personal forms of revolution.
Persuasion and power of speech were also ways that both of these leaders
manipulated the masses. Both Gandhi and Hitler gained the respect of their followers in a
short period of time due to the power of speech. They both knew the importance of going
out and speaking to their followers would create an advantage and therefore be a tool for
success. Gandhi used a more quiet yet very persuasive way of speech. He spoke to those
around him as equals that allowed for them to be easily persuaded to his views. Gandhi
knew how to speak to his followers because he knew what they wanted. He would
engage them in his speeches by using words like “we” which allowed for listeners to feel
as if it was about them rather than Gandhi’s opinion. Hitler on the other hand used
propaganda. Propaganda was used to blame the Jews for everything and create an idea
that Hitler was Germany’s last hope. Hitler had created propaganda that stood out to the
masses. It was able to send a message and capture the audience’s attention about a topic
at hand. Hitler also introduced the swastika, which represented the Aryan race and the
German history. The Nazi party was in need of a design for their flag, one that
symbolized their struggle. In Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, he described the Nazi Flag as:
“In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the
swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and by the same
toke, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and will be
anti-Semitic.” (Pg. 496) After the creation of the Nazi flag, the swastika is now a symbol
of anti-Semitism, violence, death, murder and hate. Persuasion and power of speech
allowed for both of these leaders to continue on in being successful with their goals.
As you look at these two culturally significant leaders, you wonder if their
leadership styles would work for one another. Considering that they both have two
completely different motives it is hard to say that they would have been capable of
transforming their styles to take after another but it is most defiantly possible. Personally,
I feel as if Gandhi could have turned into violence much easier than Hitler could turn to
nonviolence.
Gandhi used his charismatic leadership for civil disobedience and Ahimsa or non-
violence that is put into action. Gandhi never fought back, which would have been an
easier decision. I think that if Gandhi chose Hitler’s route in leading by using violence he
would still have been successful.
Considering all of the altercations that Gandhi had encountered within his years as
a leader, it would have been very easy for him to get angry and retaliate with force and
violence rather than peace.
Using physical force is something that humans almost instinctively turn to when
others challenge them. From defending personal space to defending property, it is natural
for tempers to flare and a fight to break out. Gandhi knew that if he fought alone, he
would lose fast and probably die. Let’s take for example the incident on the train to South
Africa. He was there alone and was being forced out of first class because of his race.
Had he attempted to fight them, they would have subdued him almost immediately, jailed
him and we may never have heard from him again. He took a huge gamble and bet that if
he didn’t do anything, physical action against him wouldn’t not last long or be life
threatening. He stared death in the face many times but continued to challenge it every
day. His hopes were to show that Indians, who were viewed as lower class, were not a
threat to anyone. He thought if he could just talk to people, they could intelligently figure
out a solution to a misunderstanding.
Followers of Gandhi were frustrated and angry at the discrimination as well.
Some of them wanted to take a violent approach, but Gandhi showed them that their
efforts would not yield the best results. He knew that if they fought, they would be killed
and nothing would change. Gandhi was trying to change the laws not only for his time,
but also for all future generations.
Indians were very careful in South Africa. They knew that if they did anything out
of line, they could be beaten, jailed, or killed. Most of them just did what they were told
and tried to keep a low profile. Once they saw someone who was trying to change how
they were viewed, it was easy to follow. Nobody wants to be the first to say something,
but they’ll quickly join a group of people who are already saying it. If there was ever any
trouble, they could just say they were not in charge and point the person who was,
keeping him or her safe.
With all of these followers, Gandhi could have organized attacks and people
would have been happy to fight for their rights. This goes back to nature. Once there were
strong numbers of people, had they stood up to the injustice they would have surely killed
some officers, but where does it end? They might win a battle here and there, but South
African officials were strong. They would have come back twice as hard, with more guns
and taken everyone out. Easiest way to solve a problem is get rid of it. Gandhi knew this
would be the case as it had happened in history many times. He didn’t want his people to
be killed; he wanted to see equality for everyone.
Gandhi could have talked his followers into violence, which would not have been
difficult. People would have followed him almost no matter what he said. He was a voice
for change. He spoke and people believed that he could make things happen. Being part
of a growing group gave the people confidence and as the numbers got larger, Gandhi’s
confidence in what he was doing grew. If more and more people were following him for
what he was doing, not fearing what would happened to them as individuals, but thinking
of the end result, he thought what was doing must have been right.
Hitler was infamous for his unbelievably brutal and violent actions. Like Gandhi,
he was fighting for his country and his people. The difference was, Hitler was in his
home country and he was trying to regain power and respect for Germany. Being blamed
for WW1 did not sit well at all with Germans. They were upset want wanted to do
something about it. Their anger and frustration came because of a war, so their first
thoughts went right to that. If they came back bigger, better and stronger, they could
demand respect and take what they wanted. Through WW1, Hitler became popular with
soldiers and other military officers by advancing through the ranks. This is another
example of someone realizing they have an audience that is ready to listen. People are not
often the first ones to say something even though they believe it. They would however,
join a group of people already saying it. While being a part of what is happening, but not
responsible is very appealing. Along with that, many people don’t know what to do in
situations, so they look to someone who knows what they are doing for direction. The
German people saw that Hitler had vision to reestablish Germany as a power and they
wanted to be a part of that.
Had Hitler and Germany prevailed in WWI, the outcomes across the world, along
with the Treaty of Versailles and saw that violence was not a good idea, he could have
preached a different approach and people would have followed. It’s interesting that non-
violence was not Hitler’s approach actually. Knowing the epic failure of WW1, why
would anyone want to lead, or follow for that matter, someone who is going to lead them
right into another war? Had Hitler told his people, “See how bad that turned out, let’s find
another way to get Germany respected.” It would have worked. Being an officer of
WW1, he could have organized military leaders and gotten them to meet with delegates
from other countries and just talk. Had something like this happened, views from other
world leaders would have been voiced, heard, and discussed. They might have figured
out WW1 and why things got so bad. They may have been able to rewrite the Treaty of
Versailles and Germany might not have taken blame for the war, and there wouldn’t even
have been a second war.
Hitler could have talked his followers into non-violence, which would not have
been difficult. People would have followed him almost no matter what he said. He was a
voice for change, in this case, redemption for Germany. He spoke and people believed
that he could make things happen. Being part of a growing group gave the people
confidence and as the numbers got larger, Hitler’s confidence in what he was doing grew.
If more and more people were following him for what he was doing, not fearing what
would happened to them as individuals, but thinking of the end result, he thought what
was doing must have been right.
Leadership is much needed in my personal and organizational life. In regards to
the type of behavioral leadership, I would stay away from Hitler’s autocratic style where
unlimited power and authority exists and where decisions are made without the input of
others. If I disregard the feelings of those around me like loved ones and co-workers, than
relationships will be ruined. In my personal life, you cannot use this theory because you
will push those around you away. In an organizational setting, this is a top to bottom style
where the boss tells those below her what to do and how it should be done. It’s a “my
way or the highway” situations that creates stress and demolishes any kind of relationship
with employees. This way of leading also makes those below them feel inferior and could
place a hinder on ideas from those individuals.
I would try to use Gandhi’s transformational leadership where motivation and
trust is key to success. In my personal life, trust is very important to be successful and
important, as for integrity and moral values. In an organizational setting, I would also use
transformational leadership where I have specific goals at hand. I would try to lead by
example, as Gandhi did and set goals for myself personally and in a career setting. I
would treat others as equals and listen to their input and ideas rather than discouraging
them. I would try to motivate those around me to do their best, and that if there is success
it is because of everyone and if there is failure, it is also because of everyone. Not one
person would be better than another. I would try to inspire people to reach our common
goal, and try to motivate on group interest rather than personal self-interest.
I would also use charismatic leadership like both Gandhi and Hitler. I would like
to use inspiration and charisma in order to gain interest in those around me. I would like
to be able to build a family or business group and captivate them by making them feel
important and help the group succeed. Having a charismatic leader in the work place will
attract others around me and inspire them to help with situations at hand and strive for
success.
 Works Cited
1. "Concepts of Leadership." Colocation | Broadband Wireless | Dedicated Servers |
Web Design & Development | DSL | Web Hosting | Infinity Internet. N.p., n.d.
Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html>.
2. Kurnik, Edi . "Define Leadership." HubPages. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
<hubpages.com/hub/Define-Leadership]>.
3. Money-Zine. "Charismatic Leaders." Careers, Finance and Investing : Money-
zine.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.money-zine.com/Career-
Development/Leadership-Skill/Charismatic-Leaders/>.
4. Gandhi (Widescreen Two-Disc Collector's Edition). Dir. Richard Attenborough. Perf.
Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, Edward Fox. Sony Pictures, 1982. DVD.
5. "Why was the treaty of Versailles so significant? - Rise of Hitler and the Nazi party -
Year 9 - SchoolHistory.co.uk." SchoolHistory.co.uk - online history lessons,
revision, games, worksheets, quizzes and links.. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year9links/versailles.shtml>.
6. "Mustard gas (PIM 354)." IPCS INCHEM. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.7. "Hitler had
split personality | 1940-1949 | Guardian Century." Guardian Century. N.p., n.d.
Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://century.guardian.co.uk/1940-
1949/Story/0,,127827,00.html>.
7. "The Rise of Hitler." Schoolshistory.org.uk - online lessons - GCSE study aids -
Teachers resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/hitlergainspower.htm>.
8. Victor, George. Hitler: the pathology of evil. Washington, D.C. : Brassey's, 1998.
Print.
9. "The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Hitler Joins German Workers' Party." The History
Place. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/joins.htm>.

10. Glyn Richards, 1982. 'Satyagraha,' in The Philosophy of Gandhi, NY: Curzon Press
pp. 48-63
11. Glyn Richards, 1982. 'Truth and Ahimsa,' in The Philosophy of Gandhi, NY:
Curzon Press, pp. 31-47.
12. Courts, Sir Thomas Strangman in his book "Indian, and Characters".. "TRIAL OF
MAHATMA GANDHI-1922." Bombay High Court Official Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 24
Mar. 2011.
<http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/historicalcases/cases/TRIAL_OF__MAHATMA_
GANDHI-1922.html>.
13. "The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Hitler's Book "Mein Kampf"." The History Place.
N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm>.
14. "The History Place - Rise of Hitler: Hitler's Book "Mein Kampf"." The History Place.
N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011.
D