preview

Comparing Machiavelli And Hannah Arendt

Decent Essays
Open Document

There were two concepts when it came to the holocaust and how it was governed. Hannah Arendt believed everything was possible and went into her theory of totalitarianism and total domination. She reveals obscurity and questioned whether the Nazis really achieved total domination. Machiavelli’s concept was The Prince, and how as a leader, one should only have the authority that would finalize every facet and put in action a policy, which would adhere to his best likings. In my concept, I agree with Machiavelli and Arendt when both state a prince should be “feared” and how totalitarianism was used for total domination.
Machiavelli’s discussion on The Prince reveals the qualities of a prince and goes into depth on how it is better to be feared than to be loved. Machiavelli discussed how fear conserves leadership better. Men are afraid of punishment when it comes to fear and in the concept of love, man’s interests break because of the ties of obligation. When these two statements are being compared to the Holocaust, Machiavelli would side with Hitler. He states how a leader should make …show more content…

In the older times, the laws were stricter and the people were more loyal to the sense where they were not executed for being human, they were executed for committing a crime or not abiding by the law. When in 1933-1945, one would be executed for having characteristics of humanity without actually committing a crime. In a way, Machiavelli would and would not agree with Hitler’s form of execution. His intentions were not to dehumanize a population but to have a better structure. Arendt would also disagree with Hitler’s form of leadership because she believed Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but a substitute in the reason for it. Once he became in charge of Germany, she moved to

Get Access