The Führer and the British Bulldog: Contrasting Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill as World Leaders

Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill
Photo by The Indian Express

The Führer and the British Bulldog 

            World War II, hailed as the deadliest war in history, also brought about two of the most powerful leaders the world has ever known: Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. From 1939 – 1945, the Second World War brought carnage on countries from Europe all the way to Northern Africa – virtually annihilating countries across the globe. (HISTORY, 2018). There are various claims on how World War II actually started such as the Germany’s resistance towards the Treaty of Versailles (BBC, 2018) or   Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, among others (HistoryNet, 2018). Theoretically, however, the Second World War was said to be caused by Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 01, 1939 (Grattan, 2016; BBC, 2018).  Hitler then, was the Axis forces’ Führer; while on the other hand, Churchill was The British Bulldog of the Allied forces. Not only were they on opposite camps during the war, both also have very contrasting and distinct styles when it comes to leadership. This paper, then, hopes to understand the differences on their emergence and effectiveness as leaders – all these, ultimately influencing the outcome of the war and the shape of history.

            The interactional approach is the best lens to look at how both these world leaders has emerged as it integrates both their personality traits and the situational context surrounding their rise to power. To fully understand the development of Hitler’s personality, it is crucial to understand how he was raised in childhood. In his autobiography (Mein Kampf, 1925), he recounts how his parents exhibited traditional German values. His father was a “dutiful civil servant”, albeit an unfeeling, alcoholic husband; while on the other hand, his mother was selflessly devoted to them. This made Hitler adore his mother and fear his father. His parents’ (particular his father’s) parental style was characterized by rigidity, obedience, and physical punishment; thus resulting to his “avoidant and anxious” feelings toward his father (Hyland, Boduszek, & Kielkiewicz, 2011).  All these then, defined his attachment style and personality.

Historically, Adolf Hitler was determined to be typically “impulsive, egocentric … aggressive, and non - empathic” (Hyland, Boduszek, & Kielkiewicz, 2011). This may mirror Hitler’s self-efficacy, assertiveness and dominance, which are traits more closely associated with leadership emergence (Forsyth, 2010). This means that Hitler had the strong desire to control his environment and other people and usually expressed himself forcefully (Smith & Foti, 1998, as cited in Forsyth, 2010). Hitler’s authoritarian personality may have also contributed to his high ethnocentric tendencies which led him to believe that his own ethnic and cultural group was superior above everyone else’s (Myers & Twenge, 2017). This can be seen when Hitler led the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers’ Party or Nazi Party) as his initial step to power on September 1919. This Nazi Party espoused Aryan Supremacy and anti-Semitic ideologies which discriminated the Jews, leading to the Holocaust killings (HISTORY, 2018). Erich Fromm (1973, as cited in Hyland, Boduszek, & Kielkiewicz, 2011) also characterized Hitler as intensely narcissistic due to his unconscious, unresolved issues with authority figures such as his father. This may mean that Hitler was more than likely to take on leadership during “turbulent situations” wherein fame is due to intense competition among rivals. This is evidenced by how Hitler is one of the major instigators of the Second World War. Furthermore, Hitler was characteristically “arrogant, self – absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident” (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006, as cited in Forysyth, 2010). Hitler’s initiative for leadership, then, can be seen as his grandiose desire of establishing the Third Reich to propel Germany from the threats and failures  it had endured during the First World War (Hyland, Boduszek, & Kielkiewicz, 2011;  HISTORY, 2009) - making this the situational context as to why Hitler took on the leadership role during the Second World War.

Winston Churchill, on the other hand, rose to power majorly due to the situation of Britain during World War II.  On 10^th May, 1940, Germany started invading the Low Countries and France and the Commons began to doubt the government’s campaign for appeasement. Thus, Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister at the time, resigned, and Lord Halifax (the choice of the Conservatives) declined to take his place. Inevitably, it was Churchill who took on the job as the new prime minister. In terms of personality, psycho-historical analysis characterized Churchill as a sensation seeker, which refers to a person’s “capacity and desire for variety, novelty, and intensity of experience” (Arnett, 1991). This can be interpreted as Big Five’s openness (or being “open to experience”) and a character strength such as bravery (Forsyth, 2011; Simpson, 2015). This is exemplified by the fact that for him, leading Britain at this time of great adversity was the “realization of his destiny” – the true measure of his worth as a leader and a politician (Best, 2011).  Churchill was also conscientious of his public persona and how he dealt with other people; thus, he was respected by the aristocrats and well –received by the masses who were suffering the consequences of the war (Howells, 2013). This can be interpreted as Churchill’s self-monitoring tendencies where he was concerned with enhancing his image and status, therefore adapting his actions to the current needs of the situation (Bedeian & Day, 2004, as cited in Forsyth, 2010). He did this by taking notice of his physical appearance, such as wearing sensible, practical outfits when working, thereby building their trust (Howells, 2013).  Finally, the character strength that was worth noting and perhaps the most salient one was his strong communications skills (Howells, 2013; Roberts, 2011).  In his speeches, he knew exactly what to say and when to say it – this adaptive character one of the hallmarks of a great leader (Forsyth, 2010).

Now that they were established as leaders, they must then work hard to become effective ones. Hitler and Churchill’s leadership effectiveness can be explained by participation theories. It argues that leaders “communicate with other groups, set goals, and have a command - and – control” leadership style; wherein leaders give the directions and the members or subordinates follow (Forsyth, 2010).

 Not surprisingly, Adolf Hitler was found to adopt an authoritarian or autocratic leadership style (Megargee, 2011). These leaders usually do not take inputs from others in making decisions and does not openly discuss long-range goals with the group. In other words, such leaders emphasized on their authority and assigned who would work in specific projects (Forsyth, 2010). For Hitler, this comes as the Führerprinzip (Leader Principle), wherein he wanted to command personally, with the ultimate authority resting in him and this led to his generals being overly cautious around him, limiting their communication.  He was also largely ignorant of “military affairs and foreign cultures” and often relied on instinct when making decisions. This “indecisiveness and stubbornness” in leadership, exemplified when he held off the military decision of attacking Kursk from April to July of 1943, and by that time, the Soviets were already prepared. Still, his subordinates followed him or were even apathetic toward these flaws, simply because they believed in his initiative in achieving the “national desire” of winning the war which other leaders have just attempted to do before. Thus, even though his subordinates had the military skills and expertise, Hitler still had the final say on who was assigned to specific tasks. This ultimately led to the downfall of the Germans in the Second World War (Megargee, 2011; Roberts, 2011; Hyland, Boduszek, & Kielkiewicz, 2011).

On the other hand, Winston Churchill characteristically adopted a democratic leadership style (Roberts, 2011; Best, 2011), which ensures that all members of the group were allowed to make their own choice and that major decisions were discussed by the entire group. Furthermore, democratic leadership “encourages an egalitarian atmosphere” (Forsyth, 2010) wherein all members are given equal rights and opportunities (Afolayan, 2015).  This is evidenced by his British Chiefs of Staff and chairman Field – Marshal Lord Alanbrooke  being able to stand up to him. Churchill was also considered as one of the most inspirational and transformational leaders in history (Roberts, 2011), his words boosting Britain’s morale in a time of great adversity and uncertainty.

Overall, both these world leaders were authentic (Forsyth, 2010) in their causes and beliefs, both having a strong sense of purpose (Roberts, 2011):  Hitler, the Aryan supremacy and Churchill, saving his country from the war. However, it was their differences in leadership styles which determined who will go down in history as the victor; or as Churchill had put it: “The price of greatness is responsibility.”

.

References

Afolayan, A. L. (2015). Egalitarianism. In Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_166-1} 

Best, G. (2011). Winston Churchill: Defender of Democracy. Retrieved from the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/churchill_defender_01.shtml on 12 September, 2018.

Forsyth, D. (2010). Group Dynamics. In Leadership (pp. 255 - 259). CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

Grattan, R. F. (2016). Management Research during World War II. DOI:  10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0021

HISTORY (2009). Nazi Party. Retrieved from HISTORY website: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nazi-party on 12 September, 2018.

HISTORY (2018). World War II. Retrieved from HISTORY website: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii on 11 November, 2018.

HISTORY (2009). Adolf Hitler. Retrieved from HISTORY website: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/adolf-hitler-1 on 12 September, 2018.

HistoryNet (2018). World War II. Facts, information and articles about World War II, 1939-1945 Retrieved from HistoryNet website: http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii on 11 September, 2018.

Howells, S.H. (2013). CHURCHILL, LEADERSHIP AND THE WAR(2) – The Leader as Communicator. Retrieved from https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finesthour/finest-hour-158/churchill-leadershipand-the-war-2-the-leader-as-communicator/ on 13 September, 2018.

Hyland,P., Boduszek, D., & Kielkiewicz, K. (2011). A Psycho – Historical Analysis of Adolf Hitler: The Role of Personality, Psychopathology, and Development. Psychology & Society, 4(2), 58 – 63

Megargee, G. (2011). Hitler’s Leadership Style. Retrieved from BBC History  website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/hitler_commander_01.shtml on 12 September, 2018.

Myers, D. & Twenge, J. (2017). Social Psychology. In Prejudice (p. 257). NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Simpson, J. (2015). Winston Churchill: How a flawed man became a great leader. Retrieved from BBC News website: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30934629 on 13 September, 2018.

Supply Chain News (2018). Six Leadership Traits of Sir Winston Churchill. Retrieved from Supply Chain website: https://www.supplychain247.com/article/six_leadership_traits_of_sir_winston_churchill on 13 September, 2018.