Running head: LEARNING 1
Learning from Genocide
Krystine Elaine Mattey
Florida Gulf Coast University Approval page: Florida Gulf Coast University Thesis
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Krystine Mattey
Approved: December 2015
Committee Chair / Advisor:Dr. David Thomas
The final copy of this thesis [dissertation] has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. LEARNING 2
Abstract
Genocide has occurred many times throughout history, for various reasons. When a leader becomes a dictator and commits crimes for reasons that do not serve humanity, we have to ask
why this dictator was allowed to come to leadership. The following pages will examine just
what factors the dictators Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Slobodan Milosevic had going for
them that they were able to commit such horrible crimes in their time of leadership; and if
figured out, what can be done to prevent them from happening again? LEARNING 3
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………5
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..5
Background of the Study………………………………………………………………..5
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………..6
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………….....7
Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………….7
Hypothesis.…….………………………………………………………………………..8
Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………….8
Definitions of Terms……………………………………………………………………9
Assumptions and Limitations…………………………………………………………11
Organization of the Remainder of the Study…………………………………………..11
Chapter II: Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………..12
Hitler…………………………………………………………………………… ……13
Political Propaganda……………………………………………………………...13
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess……………………………………………..14
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs……………………………………………………15
Stalin………………………………………………………………………………….16
Political Propaganda……………………………………………………………..17
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess…………………………………………….17
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs…………………………………………………...18
Milosevic………………………………………………………………………………19 LEARNING 4
Political Propaganda……………………………………………………………..19
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess…………………………………………….21
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs…………………………………………………...21
Comparison of Hitler to Stalin and Milosevic………………...... …………………….23
Chapter III: Methodology………………………………………………………………………..42
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………42
Description of Methodology Selected………………………………………………...42
Design of the Study…………………………………………………………………...42
Sample and Population………………………………………………………………..42
Data Collection………………………………………………………………………..43
Chapter IV: Presentation and Analysis of the Data……………………………………………...44
Change in Societal Paradigm…………………………………………………………45
Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations…………………………………….48
References………………………………………………………………………………………..51
LEARNING 5
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction
The United States of America has agencies specifically designed with the purpose to protect our country’s welfare. Going along this line, we are taught constantly that if we do not learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it. Unfortunately, there are some parts of history that we still do not know about. In school, when we are taught about genocide, we learn about it from the American perspective, and the tragedies that were brought upon the victims. However, we are not taught about what the local people were being fed psychologically by the head of their country. Because of this, when we assess the tragedies, although they are rightly-so called, we do not understand the thoughts behind the actions that allowed the soldiers and citizens under the leader’s rule to commit such atrocities. Without knowing the psychology behind these actions, our nation cannot begin to try to prevent other possible similar atrocities from occurring, such as suicide bombings or other acts in which a leader of a country psychologically manipulates his people into committing crimes for the sake of a higher power or bigger picture.
The following pages will be a comparative study of three dictators in the last hundred years: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Slobodan Milosevic. All three of these men committed crimes of great magnitude. What will be studied in the following pages is how they were able to perpetuate their crimes without their respective followers rising up against them, and what factors they had supporting them to allow their rule.
Background of the Study
There is a variety of literature written about genocide in different contexts. There are many different angles one can study, as the size the crime needed makes it important enough to want to learn from. For this study’s purposes, there is literature by different authors, which will LEARNING 6
be discussed, that talk about the psychology behind how a dictator rises to power and keeps his country under his control.
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Slobodan Milosevic all rose to power in times of great need for change in their countries. For Hitler, the people of Germany were dealing with the humiliating effects of World War I. The eyes of the world had no pity on them, and through the
Treaty of Versailles Germany had to pay back reparations they did not feel they were guilty of.
Overall, circumstances were very dismal for the Germans economically, politically, and socially.
Stalin continued Lenin’s legacy, and inherited a war and a mindset of people hungry for equality and change—communism was at its height in the USSR. Stalin was not one for pretending to be a man of the people though—he was not someone who delighted in giving great speeches to try to woo his citizens. He wanted power, and to enforce his political ideals, and saw anyone who disagreed with him as an enemy and not to be trusted. His crimes were committed out of sheer show of power.
Milosevic came to power in a time when Socialism under Tito was in reign. When Tito passed, the society did not want to change how things operated, but Milosevic worked his way around these wishes within the government. The people did not necessarily put emphasis on staying united as one country, but rather the specific republics within Yugoslavia each argued for larger reparations and bigger clout. Milosevic saw problems within and used them to divide the greater country by taking sides with Serbia, and switching his form of rule from socialism to nationalism. He saw what his people were looking for, and under the guise of doing better for them committed crimes against their supposed enemies. For him, everything was political and about power.
Statement of the Problem LEARNING 7
The main problem that this study will address is: what was going through the minds of citizens in genocide-ridden countries that allowed them to justify the crimes being committed?
And based on this, how does it impact people in today’s society to make it possible again?
Purpose of the Study
With all of the different kinds of crimes that take place in the world, when it comes to connection with the United States, it is in our best interest both for our government and our citizens to have intelligence about what crimes occur. The purpose of this specific study is to provide knowledge about motives that allowed past horrific crimes to happen, so as to hopefully be able to prevent future crimes of the same motive from occurring. People, specifically leaders, can do wonderful or horrible things with psychology. It can be used to bring out the best in people or, as the subject of this study it can be used to twist minds into thinking that unethical, horrible acts are justified for some reason. If we can figure out how psychology was used to influence events in crimes, we could possibly use that knowledge to identify and prevent future crimes using those methods from occurring.
Theoretical Framework
This study will be based on the theoretical framework of a few ideas connected to a few types of people:
1. Genocide- in this study, it will refer to the mass killings, degradation, and
imprisonment of peoples. Although there have been various reasons throughout
history, for this study it will be focused on genocide for religious, political, and/or
racial reasons. LEARNING 8
2. Dictator- Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic specifically as this term will be
compared to Adolf Hitler in similar respect; relating leadership qualities and their
effects on their people and countries.
3. Psychology- this as a presence and idea and how it is/was used will be studied,
because when it comes down to it, psychological manipulation to commit crimes is
the focus point here.
Hypothesis
This study poses the hypothesis that the psychological methods that Adolf Hitler used to fuel his propaganda and get his citizens to support him can and have also been used in similar ways by other leaders, such as Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic, to manipulate people into committing their crimes. These psychological strategies and techniques used to employ them can be studied, identified, and hopefully prevent future crimes of the like. Therefore, we aim to answer the following question: based on the elements present in their countries at the time, along with their personalities, can dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic be examples of leadership behavior in which we can try to learn from, and therefore be able to implement measures to identify these personality types to present them from rising to power?
Significance of the Study
The significance of all this is to help not only prevent crime but also to aid in understanding of why people commit these crimes. Of course, our justice agencies are always trying to protect and serve the country and its people. The researcher believes that the best way of doing this is to prevent these crimes from ever happening, or at the very least learn from past crimes. Since there is research out there to be understood and ways to prevent these crimes by LEARNING 9
this understanding, there is no reason these crimes, in the future, should not be able to be completely preventable.
This study is unique because there does not seem to be any studies of this like currently out there. The researcher is a college student, so although the framework may not be new, the ideas presented may be. Also, because the study is done by a student with limited resources, it data sources are limited to internet searches of peer-review articles, journals, and books.
Definitions of Terms
In this study, the terms used will be genocide, dictator, Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, propaganda, manipulation, religion, race, politics and people. They are important to know as they together encompass what is important about this study, and are defined in the following paragraphs.
Genocide is a common term known today to the world. In this study, it is defined as a series of crimes committed against a large amount of people, including physical and psychological torture. For the purpose of this study, genocides committed for racial, religious, or political reasons will be specifically compared to understand the reasoning behind Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic’s the crimes.
For many people, the word dictator conjures images of a person ruling a people or country with an iron fist, being the only person that is allowed to make laws and rules. In this study, a dictator will refer to a leader ruling his country in such a manner that is oppressive and hurting his people by way of such leadership.
Hitler is the leader of Nazi Germany who caused the horrific atrocities of the Holocaust, including crimes occurring as a result of occupying other countries. LEARNING 10
Stalin is the past leader of Soviet Russia, or the USSR, who was in rule after Lenin. He perpetrated mass crimes through great purges, and imprisoned many people in his rule.
Milosevic is the past leader of the former Yugoslavia, after Tito’s rule. He committed mass crimes, especially against Bosnians and Muslims, in the name of doing right by Serbia.
Propaganda in this study will refer to a dictator’s materials and methods used to teach people his message, what they should know and the difference between “right” and “wrong”.
This term is very important because it is used widely in politics and manipulation of people.
Manipulation in this study will refer to the psychological tactics dictators employ to coerce people into doing what dictators want them to do or feeling a certain way about specific people.
In this study, religion refers to specific faiths, such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.
People practicing specific religions are important here because genocide by reason of religious purity is a common theme in the German Holocaust, and also a factor in Milosevic’s crimes.
Race in this study refers to a classification of people defined by their skin color, ethnicity or background. Genocide for reasons of racial purity is additionally a common theme in the genocides that will be discussed here.
Politics can be understood here as the system of reasoning which governments and leaders maneuver decisions and changes for a country and people based on specific ideals and wants for such countries. These may be economic, social, military, or other changes. Politics and maneuverings of people by way of politics is very important here and should be understood as an additional reason for genocides talked about in the coming pages. LEARNING 11
People in this study are the citizens and victims under Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic. The general term people is used instead of citizens because in some respects the people also include people of other native nationalities that were overtaken by Hitler, Stalin and Milosevic.
Assumptions and Limitations
This study and the researcher continues upon the assumptions that the crimes committed by Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic were not ethical, the behavior of the people were not normal according to codes of ethics, and that based on these two assumptions, it is therefore understandable to want to know what was going on inside the minds of the dictators’ people that they could excuse such unethical treatment of people.
Also, this study continues upon the assumption that manipulation, for personal or political gain of any kind, of a leader’s followers is not ethical; and therefore when two or more leaders display similar patterns of behavior in their crimes it is in academic and human interest to find out the link in such behavior.
Because this study is being performed by a student, research and findings are limited to what is found on the internet and other local sources. In sum, the researcher is not able to, unfortunately, travel abroad to find out the possible full extent of the German, Russian, or
Yugoslav point of view.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The rest of this study will consist of a review of the literature that there is about this topic, methodology, presentation and analysis of the data, and then the researcher’s summary, conclusions, and recommendations.
The literature review will consist of the three ways the researcher believes Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic were able capture their people’s will and effectively prevent them from LEARNING 12
overthrowing him or stopping the atrocities of their crimes. Additionally, it will support these proposed methods with examples of specific psychological and sociological theorists whose theories can show why such methods have validation. Lastly, the literature review will then show the findings of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist the researcher performed on Adolf Hitler,
Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic, giving a detailed psychological account of all three dictators to show factors in the crimes and understanding of hatred throughout the past century.
The methodology will describe how the researcher partook in this study and what methods of research she utilized. Included in this will be the process she went about to collect information on all three dictators.
The presentation and analysis of the data will analyze the findings the researcher accumulated, and detail out what can be understood from such findings.
The summary, conclusions and recommendations will then culminate all the researcher’s findings into what can and should be said about the research and findings, and propose following possible actions or suggestions for the field or community at large.
Chapter II: Review of the Literature
Popular topics of conversation concerning Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Slobodan
Milosevic include the victims of their crimes and what happened to the perpetrators involved.
Museums, film, television specials, and other media programs have been made to depict and educate people on what happened and why this topic is so important and sensitive to people involved.
Not so popular a topic in this same genre is why exactly local citizens and soldiers as a majority supported the dictators. People have free will, so why did the people follow Hitler,
Stalin, and Milosevic, their governments enforce their followings, and ultimately lead to LEARNING 13
allowing their crimes of humanity? Some studies have been done that talk loosely about this.
Also, many people know about theories common to psychology, especially to group psychology and history that automatically provide a reasoning of thought to why these crimes happened.
However, as is commonly heard, “if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.”
Our world, nation after nation, does not seem to learn from history’s mistakes. The reasons for them need to be summed up, made known and popular, and reiterated so that people may learn what it takes for mass atrocities to occur. Such lessons are exactly what the literature following seeks to discuss.
Adolf Hitler
Political Propaganda
At the time of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, Germany was in a very negative place.
World War II had taken its toll on the people, and they were looking for someone to take them back to their former glory, as any country would after experiencing what Germany just had. This opened the people up to accept any promise of a better future for their country.
Knowing what the people want is the very first step toward leading them in the direction a leader wants. Hitler knew this, writing in his Mein Kampf, “the art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses” (Welch, 2007, p. 8). He also argued “the function of propaganda […] was ‘to see that an idea wins supporters…it tries to force a doctrine on the whole people’. To achieve this, propaganda was to bring the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., ‘whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision’” (Welch, 2007, pp. 11-12). Hitler obviously had no respect for the integrity of his people, stating: LEARNING 14
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence, all effective propaganda must be
limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of
the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan’ (p. 165) Adolf
Hitler. Mein Kampf (1925). (Cull et al, 2003, p. 319).
Such words show that Hitler knew he had to give the people information, but only enough at a time that what he wanted heard would stick in their minds. He did not want them to know too much and be suspicious of him. What this all shows most of all is that he saw the people as stupid and easy to manipulate.
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess
A great public speaker can achieve many things. He can excite a crowd, make them believe all that he says, and the best ones can twist minds so much that usually horrible ideas seem amazing to the listener. Hitler was one of these kinds of public speakers. His ability to speak to a crowd about subject matter about discrimination of types of people as a good thing shows that he was able to manipulate people into thinking whatever he wanted. This is dangerous because when enough people believe and support a cause, mob psychology results.
Grant & Sloniowsky (1998) provide an excerpt that perfectly describes what mob psychology has the power to do:
Reich studied the 1932 voting statistics in Germany and learned that “it was precisely the
wretched masses (i.e., the lower middle class) who helped to put fascism into power”
(10). But why would millions of people affirm their own suppression? The answer lies
in what Reich called “complete identification with state power” (46). In short, feeling at
one with the authoritarian father figure makes a person feel at one with the fatherland. LEARNING 15
Such emotional identification with the stern and decisive father produces “the self-
confidence that the individual derives from the ‘greatness of the nation’” (Reich 63)2.
(p. 100).
Learning about and knowing his people’s interests, Hitler was able to touch upon their emotions. As soon as he was able to connect with them at a personal and emotional level, he had them at their very core. At this point, getting them to believe what he said was of no difficulty.
Understanding his people’s needs was very important because, once he saw what his people felt was important, good, and right for them and their country, he could learn how to skew it. He could emphasize to them what the enemy was doing, how they were a threat to the people and the country, and therefore why his plan of action or intentions were for the greater good.
When people are able to connect a change in what is right for them and their society, something changes in the world: perspective. Here, Hitler utilized Robert Merton Anomie Theory with
Emile Durkheim’s deviance furtherance.
Anomie Theory, also referred to as Strain Theory concerns itself with the balance of one’s individual and societal needs and how it attain them according to the current social norms and laws. It postulates that people look to fit the societal mold. When the overall goal of society is good, but an individual is not able or willing to perform the accepted way of achieving the goal, deviance occurs (Merton, 1938, pp. 673-676). Hitler changed what was considered
“deviance” in German society by creating new laws and propaganda. In essence, he completely shifted his people’s and culture’s view of right vs. wrong by claims he made against his enemies and claims he made for the better of his country. This shift in view allowed his people to re- think crime and what was considered humane.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs LEARNING 16
In life, every person makes decisions according to their needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs (Poston, 2009, p. 348) shows us that, in general, certain needs are higher priority than others. For example food, water, warmth, and rest are the most basic needs, with security and safety following. When these basic needs are jeopardized by the possible outcome of a decision of whether or not to follow what a person says, people will innately choose what will fulfill these needs. Sometimes, individuals will put their safety in jeopardy for sake of something they believe in-for instance, signing up to fight in a war where there is a good chance of being killed or otherwise injured. However, people that choose to do this are the exception to Maslow’s rule.
The idea to consider here is that citizens following Hitler had to consider what was best for themselves and their families, where safety and security, food, rest, water, and warmth come first. Considering this, it would only make sense to follow Hitler if doing the opposite would mean danger. For example, in an interview between Dr. Gilbert and Speer in The Nuremburg
Trials, Speer explained how empty platitudes and slogans were the tactics that brought the party to power. “Even the well-educated had fallen for these appeals to vanity and national pride, because they had enabled everyone to project their own hopes and feats on to the leadership.
Such generalizations allowed everyone to hear whatever they wanted to hear” (Roland, 2012,
Empty Slogans, para. 2). When people of a country are in need, and their country is in turmoil like Germany was at the time, they will easily fall for empty platitudes that promise to quench their needs. It makes basic sense-people will seek to find solutions to their problems, and are unfortunately ripe for manipulation of politicians and will put their hope in the ones who make the best offer of a better future. Plain and simple, Hitler knew exactly what he was doing and what the people needed at that time.
Joseph Stalin LEARNING 17
Political Propaganda
When a leader wants his people to think a certain way and only believe certain things about him and his administration, he censors the information given to them. That is exactly what
Stalin did in his administration. “[He] took no stock in man’s alleged unconscious mind, but believed that men act in accordance with stimuli form their environment. […] He placed great faith in the ability of his propaganda machine to influence the Soviet population on his behalf”
(Randall, 1965, p.107). Every aspect of the media, written and electronic, was filtered through political propaganda in order for USSR citizens only to know what Stalin wanted them to know.
Political propaganda can be used for various purposes, but Stalin used it for the sole purpose of curbing public opinion to the Soviet communist view, and thinking only the best of himself and communism. Randall (1965) explains Stalin’s position on it in the following:
He never took the common Western position on propaganda—that its effects are usually
limited, and that overmuch exposure stops up the ears of the hearers, including
skepticism and apathy. Therefore Stalin went to enormous lengths to see to it that the
environment of the Soviet population was suffused with stimuli toward loyalty to the
Communist cause, and utterly sterilized against contrary stimuli. Propaganda and
censorship were never more intensely employed than in Stalin’s hands. (p. 107)
Such tactics are why, for the longest time, if not still today, it was extremely difficult for researchers studying him and the USSR to access reliable and accurate information—all official documents were done to portray the USSR in the best light. Facts and figures would even be skewed to make crimes look smaller than their true extent. Stalin did all this for control, plain and simple.
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess LEARNING 18
There is more than one way to capture people by the spoken word. Some leaders possess great oratory skills, and others do not. Stalin knew how to speak to crowds, and speak firmly.
However, his methods of speaking were mainly put into practice through meetings and politics.
He made sure everyone knew that his word was law, and not to be questioned.
Stalin was very good at, and greatly believed in, manipulating the people. He saw manipulation as a tool to further his career and political agenda, which was everything to him.
Randall (1965) depicts this in the following:
[Stalin] and the other Bolsheviks were scientific optimists. They saw nature and man as
more plastic, more susceptible to scientific and political manipulation and improvement,
than most outsiders would agree to. They wanted to believe that living things could be
profoundly changed by changes in their environment, because this gave promise of quick
improvement in human nature, life, and society, once scientists and socialists came to
control them. (pp. 69-70)
Understanding this way of thinking is paramount to understanding just why Russian citizens and soldiers alike did Stalin’s bidding. When a dictator like Stalin thinks of his people, and people in general, this way and designs the entire external environment to enhance such thinking, freedom of thought has no chance in society.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
As already touched upon, Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs describes people’s habit of following their needs, from the most basic up to the trivial. In this respect, Stalin always preyed upon one most essential need— a person’s safety and security. He knew how to strike fear in people in order to get them to do what he wanted. Randall (1965) provides a perfect example of this in the following: LEARNING 19
In Stalin’s day, the mere speculation would have been fantastic. Stalin prevented anyone
on any level of the Party from even speaking about a motion to replace him, save for a
maudlin moment in the collectivization crisis, when he offered to resign and was urged
not to by the rest of the Politburo. If some foolhardy member of the Politburo or the
Central Committee had broached the subject, he would have been silenced by his
colleagues in the fulsome show of loyalty. A lower official or common member of the
Party would have been howled down by the outraged or frightened members of his
apparatus-packed Party unit. The apparatus would have been instantly informed, and
would have ended his Party career with ever-increasing swiftness from the mid-1920s on.
From the beginning of the great purges any such madman would have disappeared into
the police dungeons within the hour. (p. 128)
What this shows is that Stalin’s use of fear upon every rank of person in the USSR was extraordinary. People knew not to disobey him, or do it at their own peril. Fear ran so deep, colleagues and friends would easily give each other up for their own self-preservation. By these measures, no one would dare act, or even speak, against Stalin and his crimes without basically having a death wish.
Slobodan Milosevic
Political Propaganda
Milosevic was no stranger to propaganda. He understood its power and what it could be used for. Growing up in a socialist Yugoslavia under Tito’s rule, he saw how it could be employed, and with the help of his wife Mira Markovic, he learned just how advantageous it could be for him. In the following, Djilas (1993) describes how Milosevic used it:
He […] allowed his adversaries to speak freely. He had discovered that nationalist LEARNING 20
propaganda could control and manipulate the masses even if its information was not
completely cut off. The media did not have to be censored so long as the major television
network and the largest newspaper were under his control. […] Finally, he realized that
most intellectuals would be reluctant to oppose a leader who appeared to be fighting for
national goals. […] Milosevic seems to have allied himself permanently with the politics
of fear. (p. 88)
Using propaganda to gain rule and put himself in a position of power, from none at all, was one thing; keeping in power and making sure all his citizens believed in him was an entirely different game. Once again though, Milosevic knew exactly how to do this:
In 1988/9, ‘unified’ Serbia resembled a shop window with only one item for sale—a
photograph of a grim-looking man with a smooth face, grey hair, blue suit and blue bow
tie. In the picture, Milosevic’s brow was serenely unfurrowed [sic] and his and his gaze
was fixed on the middle distance. The image could be seen everywhere—on cars, trucks,
buses, trains and walls of houses, in cafes, pawn shops, school and universities. Old
women carried it in their purses next to their make-up and love letters. Churches sold it
together with the icons of Saint Sava. Milosevic had made himself far more than a
president in the minds of his supporters. One author and a later member of the Academy
wrote of the ‘passionate outcry of the nation’s soul: Sloba-Sloboda.’ In a frenzy of blind
belief, the masses chanted these two words. The real man had vanished overnight to be
replaced by a myth. In Montenegro, people sang ‘Slobodan, even though you’re a
communist, I’ll love you as I love Jesus Christ’. (Stevanovic, 2002, pp. 42-43)
Slobodan Milosevic, by the time he was in full power in his nation, had full trust of his people, all because of the information he made sure was put out about him. This ensured that LEARNING 21
none of his citizens would ever know the crimes being committed under his regime, and if they did, would mentally justify them by reasons also given through propaganda.
Manipulation and Speaking Prowess
Manipulation came second nature to Milosevic. His “method was simple: attack, deceive, provoke. The Belgrade intelligentsia, comfortable in its tepid communism, did not see him as an adversary and he was able to gain their confidence through strategy and manipulation”
(Stevanovic, 2002, p. 25). This strategy worked well for him because he was not naturally someone who liked to put his personality out there, unlike other dictators. He was a chameleon of sorts, using his voice for speeches when he knew a crowd needed to be swayed toward his goals; but his greatest use of manipulation was in back-room deals.
When a man like Milosevic understands how to manipulate and deceive without always being on show, an interesting personality is created. “[He] was a great illusionist because, despite his hands always being empty when he took them out of his hat, his audience remained convinced that they saw the results that his propaganda machine had promised” (Stevanovic,
2002, p. 96). The best comparison the researcher believes to be made of this man is to a snake.
His manipulation made it so that his people, and victims, never saw his actions coming, thinking everything was fine based on what they knew.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
People follow leaders for many reasons: faith in them, believing what the leader is doing is right, but also fear. When one follows a leader out of sheer fear, it is usually because they feel they have no other choice. This is exactly what Milosevic preyed upon: his people’s fear.
However, in his case, it was not fear of him, but of other national groups. Milosevic’s crimes were not against outsiders, but rather against people in his own country of Yugoslavia. The fear LEARNING 22
that he created was that against neighboring groups in other parts of Yugoslavia, such as
Bosnians, Albanians, and specifically Muslims. “Milosevic welcomed the Serbs’ increased sense of insecurity and was only too glad to plunge them into a war in which they would have only him for protection” (Djilas, 1993, p. 88). He used his people’s hatred of their past oppressors, believing they had suffered more than other groups from previous wars, and used it to make them believe he was the only person who could protect and avenge them. The following instance, told by Stevanovic (2002), is a prime example of this fear used:
The older generation’s fears were reawakened and propaganda filled the young with false
beliefs and fantasies. Pictures and memories of the war that had ended 40 years before
were a convenient introduction to this new war, which would pick up where the last had
left off. But before any actual battles could be fought, the ‘war between collective
memories’ needed to be waged and won. Each side despised the ‘collective memory’ of
the other for endlessly magnifying the number of its own victims and calling for revenge.
(p.67)
This strategy is disgusting, but not uncommon, and certainly understandable. When thought in terms of Anomie theory, like previously explained, it makes sense. A leader uses one’s own fear against them, changes the definition of right vs. wrong because of what others have supposedly done, and therefore the dictator is suddenly the savior. It makes sense that
Milosevic utilized this tactic because “[…] Milosevic’s politics consisted mainly in identifying victims. Although the identity of the victims would change, hatred of them would continue to grow, since Milosevic’s nationalist ideals could never be realized. The Serbian national question was, and has always been, insoluble” (Stevanovic, 2002, p. 42). LEARNING 23
What this all shows about Milosevic is that he absolutely knew his people, knew what they wanted, and how to manipulate such wants and fears against them.
The most interesting thing, the researcher believes, about these similarities and differences between dictators is that they show that similar tactics and application of behaviors were used throughout, no matter the time periods or differences in people or the politics of the region. These contrasts show that even when the overall goal and reasonings might be different per leader, the wants of the people and the ability of the leader to manipulate them through such wants are what is most important to look at. All three dictators came to power in times of turmoil and desired change by their people: Hitler and the effects of World War I; Stalin and the revolution; Milosevic and the overall changing political atmosphere caused by Tito and the
USSR before him. All three of these men saw vulnerable people and times, and they took advantage of it all in the worst ways.
To understand even further into their exact differences and similarities, the following pages will detail down to the psychological minutiae.
Comparison of Hitler, Stalin and Milosevic
Who, why, and how
An important aspect in understanding Hitler and why his people behaved the way they did is knowing the psychology behind him. As a man who committed many crimes in the name of racial purity, one could wonder if his crimes and personality added up to something larger in psychological terms, namely Psychopathy.
As Hitler was not the only leader to commit mass atrocities in the name of something greater, the researcher conducted an assessment of the Hare Psychopathy checklist on Adolf
Hitler and two other past leaders-Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic. This was performed in LEARNING 24
order to understand if these leaders who committed or sanctioned mass atrocities fit the profile of a Psychopath, and therefore we can understand the crimes based in something more mental; or if not, what they have in common so we may learn from these mistakes in leaders.
Both Joseph Stalin and Slobodan Milosevic committed or sanctioned mass murder of people in the name of “ethnic cleansing” or other term used to perpetrate genocide. They, like
Adolf Hitler, committed such crimes in order to “cleanse” their countries of people of specific
“races”, religions, political ideologies or nationalities which they believed posed a threat to their countries.
Stalin himself never actually committed any murders by his own hands. All his crimes, like Hitler, were perpetrated through orders to people below him-all through political structure.
His many crimes were all committed for political “cleansing” reasons. Every single victim of his regime was chosen because they posed a threat to his socialist agenda and ideal for the USSR.
Milosevic committed crimes in the same way as Hitler and Stalin-through political structures and commands. He never actually got his hands dirty. But, like Hitler and Stalin, he committed crimes of genocide or ethnic cleansing for racial, political, or religious reasons.
Milosevic’s victims were mainly Muslim or Bosnian. He wanted to cleanse his country of non-
Serbs-Armenians, Bosnians, etc. In this way, his genocide was a combination of racial, religious, and political reasons.
Results Found
Based on the criteria the PCL-R uses to diagnose Psychopathy, combined with the minimal score needed to classify as a full Psychopath (min=30), Adolf Hitler does not fit the full profile. This, however, does not mean that he lacks traits of a psychopath. The following will detail where Hitler fits the profile, as well as what traits research shows he lacked. LEARNING 25
The main characteristics of a psychopath that Hitler fit are: Glibness/Superficial Charm,
Grandiose Sense of Self Worth, Pathological Lying, Conning/Manipulation, Lack of Remorse or
Guilt, Callousness/Lack of Empathy, Poor Behavioral Controls, and Failure to Accept
Responsibility for Own Actions. All of these traits showed prominence in research conducted, and therefore earned a score of two, the highest score of positivity one can reach on the PCL-R scale.
The traits Hitler is seen to have only possibly had or completely lacked are as such: Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom, Shallow Affect, Parasitic Lifestyle, Promiscuous Sexual
Behavior, Early Behavior Problems, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Many Short-term Marital
Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, Revocation of Conditional Release, and Criminal
Versatility.
Like Hitler, Joseph Stalin does not fit the profile for a full psychopath. The following traits are the ones he fit by a score of two: Grandiose sense of self-worth, Pathological Lying,
Conning/Manipulative, Lack of Remorse or Guilt, Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own
Actions, and Revocation of Conditional Release. The traits he is seen to have scored only a one or zero are as follows: Glibness/Superficial Charm, Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom,
Shallow Affect, Callous/Lack of Empathy, Parasitic Lifestyle, Poor Behavioral Controls,
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior, Early Behavioral Problems, Lack of Realistic Long-term Goals,
Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Many Short-term Marital Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, and
Criminal Versatility.
Slobodan Milosevic, like Hitler and Stalin does not fit the profile of a full Psychopath.
He also scored less than a minimum 30. The following traits are what he fit fully for a LEARNING 26
Psychopath: Grandiose sense of self-worth, Conning/Manipulative. These are the only psychopathic traits research show he absolutely portrayed.
The following traits Milosevic only sometimes portrayed or not at all, scoring him a one or zero: Glibness/Superficial Charm, Need for Stimulation, Pathological Lying, Lack of
Remorse, Shallow Affect, Callous/Lack of Empathy, Parasitic Lifestyle, Poor Behavior Controls,
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior, Early Behavior Problems, Lack of Realistic Long-term Goals,
Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Irresponsibility, Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions,
Many Short-term Marital Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, Revocation of Conditional
Release, and Criminal Versatility.
Comparison/Contrast
Even though none of Hitler, Stalin or Milosevic scored high enough on the PCL-R checklist to be considered a full Psychopath, they all had specific traits in common they fully met, ones none of them met, and ones they each scored differently on the scale. These similarities and differences are important to note, which will be the focus of the following paragraphs. Additionally to be noted following, a good amount of the traits they do share are hallmarks of Narcissism.
Like Hitler, both Stalin and Milosevic scored a full two in the traits of Grandiose sense of self-worth and Conning/Manipulative. These two traits are the only ones the researcher assessed all three dictators to fit fully. It is not surprising, however, given how all three men lived and conducted themselves as leaders.
Adolf Hitler had a fantastical view of himself. It was not one in a way of necessarily being better than other people, but in the sense that he was special and destined for greatness. He always saw himself as destined to be a “great something”. When his original goals of being an LEARNING 27
artist of some kind did not pan out, he refocused and aimed his career goals towards politics. He truly believed that he knew what was best for his country, and politics was his way of achieving his dreams. Bullock (1992) describes one important moment regarding this in the following:
[…] it was Hitler’s initial success in the campaigns of 1939 and 1940 that it was he and
not the General Staff ‘who was the realist and who had foreseen actual developments
more clearly, precisely because he had taken into account the incalculable.’ From that
time on, Jodl concluded, Hitler became convinced of the infallibility of his judgement in
war as in politics and required nothing more of his staff than the technical support
necessary to implement his decisions and the smooth functioning of the military
organization to carry them out. (p. 674)
Hitler’s sense of conning and ability to manipulate was beyond compare. He not only was incredible at it, but he fully believed in the power of it as a weapon at his disposal. Waite
(1998) portrays this perfectly here:
Hitler manipulated his charisma adroitly and used personal appeal with consummate
artistry. As the occasion or audience demanded, he could be charming or brutal,
generous or vicious. He was adored by housewives and artists, peasants and architects,
professors and plumbers, children and generals. He was a ruthless opportunist with an
almost perfect sense of timing, knowing instinctively the precise moment to strike. (p. 30)
Stalin had a grandiose sense of self-worth which was shown in the way he treated people other than his family and how he carried himself. His sense of conning and manipulation scored a full two because of how good at it he was and how much he believed in using it. He “saw men’s minds as rather plastic and manipulable [sic]” (Randall, 1965, p. 107). LEARNING 28
Slobodan Milosevic had a grandiose sense of self-worth as well, but his was exhibited differently than Hitler’s or Stalin’s. He thought so much of himself that he could not stand for people to tell him he was wrong, or to tell him no. Sell (1999) illustrates in the following a perfect depiction of this:
He [preferred] to surround himself with yes men, and he [did] not deal easily with
criticism. During the late 1980s, as a U.S. embassy official, I accompanied a delegation
of American religious leaders to a meeting with Milosevic, who waxed long and eloquent
about how wrong the United States was to prop up Albania, which he Washington
intended to use as a kind of unsinkable aircraft carrier against Serbia. At the end of the
meeting, I told Milosevic politely that his understanding of American policy was wrong.
Clearly not used to hearing that kind of remark- at least in Serbo-Croation- he stepped
back almost as if he had been struck, a look of horror on his face. (p. 27)
Milosevic thought so much of himself, he actively worked to put down those who saw the real him:
He extended his hospitality to anyone except the liberals, anti-nationalists and pro-
Westerners who wanted his support as little as he did theirs. This small minority viewed
Milosevic as an arrogant manipulator and incompetent leader who would destroy
everything that had been created in Yugoslavia and in Serbia. For his own part,
Milosevic feared their capacity to see through and understand him, and he did his best to
degrade, humiliate and restrict them. (Stevanovic, 2002, p. 36)
Milosevic, like Hitler and Stalin, was also very good at, and greatly believed in, manipulation and conning people. Specifically, he believed in manipulating the masses, like LEARNING 29
both other leaders, for his political gains. Doder & Branson (1999) show this manipulation in the following:
Milosevic also began learning another skill which he would later use with success on a
series of powerful people, including western leaders. He discovered that he had the
power to charm and flatter, to disguise his true intentions and ambitions. […] He played
his roles well: he talked liberal economics to one audience while he emphasized the need
to maintain Marxist orthodoxy to another. (p. 26)
The only trait all three dictators scored a one on is Shallow Affect. The reason for this is that research show all of them to portray this and be unemotional most of the time. However, this cannot be said for all times, nor around all people. In response to an accusation, Stevanovic
(2004) states “not a single line moved on [Milosevic’s] rigid face. He already wore the famous mask that revealed nothing.” (p. 33)
Just as important as what traits all three dictators fully exhibited are which ones they completely lacked: Parasitic lifestyle, Promiscuous Sexual Behavior, Many Short-term Marital
Relationships, and Juvenile Delinquency. The researcher finds this similarity interesting because much can be said about a person not only from what they do, but also by what they do not do.
Adolf Hitler did not fit the parasitic lifestyle because research shows that, although he did at some points in his life take assistance from others (financial help from his mother, the Home for Men), he did not seek out others intentionally to live off of their means; intention being the primary reasoning for displaying this trait. He slept on park benches at times, and used this down and out period as fuel for his goal-striving. But he cannot be said to have lived off people like a parasite. Bullock (1992) illustrates Hitler’s reasonings here:
Hitler stayed in the Home for Men not only because it provided him with much better LEARNING 30
living conditions but also because it gave him much-needed psychological support. He
was one of a small group of permanent residents whose position was recognized (for
example, in the use of the reading room, where he painted), and who referred to
themselves as the ‘intellectuals,’ sharply distinguished from the transients, whom they
treated as their social inferiors. (p. 19)
He earned a zero for Promiscuous Sexual Behavior because research shows Hitler never showed any interest in a particular woman as any kind of companion until Eva Braun later on.
He looked down upon promiscuity in general and especially women who threw themselves at him. It is clear that the only possible sexual relationship he ever had was with Ms. Braun, if that.
Hitler’s score of zero for Many short-term Relationships goes hand-in-hand with his
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior. He never had any romantic relationships, except for maybe Eva
Braun, as supported by no sign of relationships in any found research.
Lastly on this topic, he scored a zero in Juvenile Delinquency because research shows he did not perpetrate any crimes until later in his life, absolutely in his adult years.
Joseph Stalin, like Hitler, scored a zero for Parasitic Lifestyle. For him, this is because, although he did have to rely on help from others throughout times in his life, it was never because he wanted to take advantage of them. He had to for career or financial purposes. For example, he “had to depend on comrades and sympathizers for support, a place to sleep, a place to hide” (Bullock, 1992, p. 26). The intention is, like Hitler, once again what is missing which made the researcher determine it a zero.
He scored a zero for Promiscuous Sexual Behavior because he never acted promiscuous.
The determinants for this trait list everything research shows he was not or did not do: more than LEARNING 31
one relationship at a time, many one-night stands, etc. He only ever had two intimate relationships, with his two wives, at two separate time periods.
Stalin’s score of zero for Many Short-term Marital Relationships only compliments that of his for Promiscuous Sexual Behavior. Stalin only ever had two marital relationships. He was with his first until she dies, and only the second after her because of the 1st’s death. The length of his marriages is unknown through research, but it does show him to be the happiest when with his first wife and their children.
Lastly on Stalin, he scored a zero for Juvenile Delinquency because research shows he did not start committing crimes until his adult years. Any that he had done around this time were revolutionary agitator crimes which he had not been caught for.
Slobodan Milosevic, like Hitler and Stalin, scored a zero for Parasitic Lifestyle. This is because research shows that Milosevic relied only himself for living.
Milosevic was also not sexually promiscuous in any way, like Hitler or Stalin, earning him a score of zero. He never showed any interest in females intimately except his girlfriend, then wife, Mirjana Markovic. “Former friends and associates of Milosevic point knowingly to the fact that Mira is the only girlfriend he ever had” (LeBor, 2003, p. 30).
Milosevic also scored a zero for Many Short-term relationships, for the same reasons as promiscuous sexual behavior. He only ever had the one marital relationship, which lasted from when he met his wife in high school to throughout his life.
Lastly, Milosevic scored a zero for Juvenile Delinquency because all throughout his childhood and early adult life, he never got into any trouble. He was a good student, good son, and respected by his teachers. There were no signs in his early years that he would become what he did. LEARNING 32
People’s differences are just as important as their similarities. Between Hitler, Stalin, and
Milosevic, their differences are important in telling what kind of person they were, just how psychopathic or not they were, and what kind of leaders they were. The following pages will detail these differences.
The only trait all three dictators scored differently on was Glibness/Superficial Charm.
Hitler scored a two. This comes as no surprise to the researcher because this trait is part of what attracted the masses to him. He liked to come off as knowing many things, but it was all for show. “The overt charm in his personal life consisted of superficially adopted traits were not truly part of his emotional life in spite of his efforts to be perceived as being a caring, providential, and cultured person with the best interests of civilization in mind, certainly that of
Germans” (Schwaab, 1992, p. 26).
Stalin, conversely, scored a zero in this trait. He never tried to put on an act of being nicer than he was. He was a loner by personality, and only tried to gather people by his knowledge of policy, and then by fear.
Milosevic was right in-between, scoring a one, because at times he was known to put on charm and act more polite than he was, usually during diplomatic affairs. But at other times he would show the cold-hearted person he was. Djilas (1993) describes a situation showing this:
He appeared robust and masculine and conspicuously self-confident; he hid his vanity
and self-importance under a façade of modesty and austerity. This exaggerated pretense
of Roman gravitas worked well with the Serbs only because the intelligentsia had
previously imbued them with intense nationalism, and they were seeking an omnipotent
leader. (p. 94) LEARNING 33
Hitler scored a one in Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom. He only scored this because research shows that while he was figuring out what he was best suited for, before he absolutely decided on politics, he went from job to job. He wanted to be an artist, then a soldier.
In the war, he could not get close enough to the action for his taste. Once he found politics, he found his passion and was set on his goal that the world later on suffered from. Bullock (1992) shows this in the following:
[…] Hitler claimed that it was then and there, in the hospital at Pasewalk, that he decided
to take up politics and devote himself to reversing Germany’s defeat. In fact, it took the
best part of another year, during which he drifted from day to day, with no clear ideas
about his future, before he turned to politics and found an outlet for the energy that had
been latent for so long. But it is true enough that it was the shock of defeat followed by
the experience of revolution that finally crystallized his decision and provided the
permanent background to his career. (p.48)
Both Milosevic and Stalin scored a zero for this trait because research shows neither of them jumped from one relationship to another. Also, Stalin only went from one job to another for the needs of the political party he supported; and Milosevic seems to have done the same, except with his wife Mirjana controlling more of the decisions with him. Milosevic was offered the position of organizational secretary to Popov in the Communist Party at the law faculty. After being excited about this new position, LeBor (2003) describes what happened:
Popov and Milosevic soon divided up the work. The relationship between the two men
was broadly like that of a regional company president and his chief executive officer. As
party secretary Popov was responsible for implementing the instructions issued by the
Communist hierarchy, and keeping things on the right political track. Milosevic’s job LEARNING 34
was to sort out the day-to-day business of organizing the administration. Although Popov
was theoretically his superior, Milosevic controlled the minutiae of organization. (p.24)
Hitler and Stalin both scored a two for Pathological Lying. Hitler fit it because he was known for making up huge stories to audiences, just for the sake of making himself look better and more knowledgeable. Stalin went about lying differently. He would have facts and figures about himself and his administration changed for the sole purpose of making him look better.
Milosevic only scored a one in this trait because, although he is absolutely shown through research to have used lying as a weapon, it is unsure whether it can be considered pathological.
His lying more fell in the way of manipulation in politics. “Milosevic’s method was simple: attack, deceive, provoke. The Belgrade intelligentsia, comfortable in its tepid communism, did not see him as an adversary and he was able to gain their confidence through strategy and manipulation” (Stevanovic, 2002, p. 25).
Hitler and Stalin both scored a two for Lack of Remorse or Guilt. This is because research shows that both leaders felt absolutely no remorse or guilt in their crimes or how they went about their leadership. “[Hitler] experienced no guilt about his actions, no remorse, no second thoughts. He saw himself as a divine gift to humankind-an extraordinary man-beyond any flaw or reproach.” (Schwaab, 1992, p. 21)
Schwaab (1992) shows in the following why he felt no guilt in his crimes:
Like Pasteur and Koch, Hitler saw himself as a benefactor of humankind. Just as a
physician kills bacteria and viruses through applying medication to restore health, Hitler
felt justified in killing people to save human civilization. Killing, in the last analysis, was
to Hitler an affirmation of life. He ‘knew Jews had proven to be a vital threat to the
cultural survival of people and had to be combated through removal or control, or the LEARNING 35
radical method of killing. In planning for the Final Solution, Hitler thought he was
rightfully applying the procedures of modern medical technology on a massive scale as a
health-restoring program to assure human existence in the future. (p. 57)
Stalin felt remorseless for a different reason, and Bullock (1992) describes why here:
There was no sense of guilt in his socialism. No doubt he felt some sympathy with the
class into which he had been born; but his hatred of the possessing and ruling classes
must have been much stronger. The class hatred preached by the revolutionaries from the
upper classes was a kind of secondary emotion that was cultivated theoretical conviction.
In Stalin class hatred was not his second nature, it was his first. Socialist teachings
appealed to him because they seemed to give moral sanction to his own emotion. There
was no shred of sentimentalism, in his outlook. His socialism was cold, sober, and
rough. (p. 32)
Milosevic only scored a one in this trait because research shows he lacked appreciation for the extent of his actions, but he did not seem cold about it.
Hitler alone scored a two for Callousness/Lack of Empathy. This is because research showed he had zero concern for the welfare of others. When it came to his victims, he saw them as not worth emotion over. He viewed the Jews as vermin and saw his actions as making a better
Germany. Everything he did was for his own reasons, or his views of what was right. Bullock
(1992) shows his exact feeling about his victims and his actions in the following:
Far from repelling, the daily contact with death and destruction in their most hideous
forms not only reinforced Hitler’s beliefs but afforded him a deep psychological
satisfaction. In all that he said and wrote about war, in Mein Kampf, in his speeches, and
in his table talk, he never expressed the revulsion that the majority of those who served in LEARNING 36
the trenches felt at the sickening waste of millions of human lives, the destruction of
every form of civilized existence-towns, villages, houses-and every vestige of organic
life. Hitler’s reaction was pride that the experience not only toughened his body but
hardened his will, that he did not flinch, that the callow young man had become a veteran
whom nothing could shock, impervious to any appeal to pity or compassion. ‘War,’ he
declared, ‘is for a man what childbirth is for a woman’- in effect a declaration of his
inability to distinguish between death and life, but one that, as the endless repetition of
images of violence, hatred, and destruction in his speeches shows, had a greater appeal
than most people were for a long time willing to admit. In Hitler’s refusal to take leave,
in his frequent references to the First World War as the happiest years and the greatest
experience of his life, there is the first clear evidence of that fascination with destruction
that became his ruling passion in the second World War, without restraint after the attack
on Russia. (pp. 46-47)
Stalin and Milosevic only scored a one in this trait because, although toward the public and most everyone else in their lives they were callous, with their families it was different. Both men, unlike Hitler, had wives and children. To these individuals they showed love and understanding, but to no one else. “Stalin only knew vengeance, and to answer blow with blow.
He did not know mercy or forgiveness” (Radzinskii, 1996, p. 26).
Adolf Hitler absolutely portrayed a two in Poor Behavioral Controls. This is because research shows that one moment he would be fine and calm, then the next he would fly off into a fury of yelling for no reason. Just as fast he would be calm again, acting like nothing had happened. “Kubizek was uneasy at his’s friend’s abrupt alternation between moods of exaltation, in which he talked wildly, and periods of despair in which he denounced everything and LEARNING 37
everybody. Compared with their Linz days, Kubizek describes Hitler in Vienna as ‘completely out of balance’” (Bullock, 1992, p. 10).
Conversely, Stalin and Milosevic only scored a one in this trait because they were more inward about their anger. Stalin was known to have a bad temper, but he was more the type to take note of wrongs done to him and personal slights, and seek revenge over time. Also
Milosevic was more the type to easily get offended with people if they told him he was wrong.
When scoring Early Behavior Problems, Hitler was the only real outlier of the three dictators. He scored a one because he had such problems at school. He was kicked out of one school, and is said to have shown idle, willful and disrespectful behavior (Bullock, 1992, p. 8).
He did not get along with his father, but research does not show behavior problems in the family other than minor disagreements related to Hitler’s unwillingness towards his father to obey his wishes toward a career path.
Stalin and Milosevic, however, have no behavior problems to show. Stalin did not live with his family long enough to have behavior problems, his mother sending him to seminary school early. And his revolutionary ways started later in his school days than can be considered early years. Milosevic also had a very good home and school life, never any early behaviors of acting out or being disrespectful.
For Lack of Realistic Long-term Goals, Hitler scored a two, and Stalin and Milosevic both scored a zero. The researcher gave Hitler a two because it took him years to actually determine what he fully wanted to do with his life. When he finally decided on politics, the size and plans for his goals did not, in the researcher’s opinion, seem realistic.
Stalin and Milosevic both scored a zero because, from what research shows, they were both planners with definite goals. The goals looked to be long-term for both men as well. The LEARNING 38
question of whether or not the goals were considered realistic is relative, but in the writer’s view, they did not math criteria enough for even a one, hence the given score. “Even as teenagers
Slobodan and Mira courted those with power” (LeBor, 2003, p. 21). Lebor also describes in the following how Milosevic went about going after his goals:
Milosevic’s diligence at school, and loyal espousal of the party line had been well noticed
by the party grandees in Pozarevac. The Markovic connection certainly helped. In post-
war Yugoslavia the partisan generation were both kings and king-makers. Milosevic
became a full Communist Party member in January 1959, at the comparatively early age
of seventeen. This was unusual and an honour, granted only to the most promising
school students. (2003, p. 21)
Only Hitler scored a one for Impulsivity. This decision was made because research shows he was impulsive when he was younger and before he set his mind to his career, especially during his years living in Vienna. Once he decided on politics and his plan for his country and the world, he had a one-track mind.
Stalin and Milosevic, however, were not impulsive at all, earning ratings of zero for this trait. Both men were incredibly organized and big planners. Stalin had a one-track mind for his political goals and thought everything through. Milosevic was very career driven and, especially with his wife Mirjana help guiding him, nothing was impulsive. Doder & Branson (1999) show this in the following:
Milosevic had come to understand that to rise in the party one must gain power over
others, but that one must do so patiently and unobtrusively, without exposing oneself to
attacks. He had seen how talented men and women who exposed their ambitions were
promptly sidelined by the party. He had to work within the party. (p. 22) LEARNING 39
Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic were all for the most part responsible. However,
Hitler and Stalin only acted on responsibility when it came to their causes or families. Toward others, they showed no care of what happened at all. They truly only thought in terms of their own and families’ best interests. This earned them both a one.
Milosevic, however, was very responsible. His family and political causes especially, but he acted responsible in his career as well. He was deceitful, but responsible, earning him a zero.
For Failure to accept responsibility for own actions, Hitler and Stalin were easily found to both be twos. Hitler never accepted responsibility for any of his actions or crimes. He felt everything he did was justified by a perceived wrongdoing done to him by someone or some group. Stalin was the same in that he saw his actions and crimes as justified for the cause, and that he did what he needed to do for the party and country. He saw others as guilty in their crimes against him, and therefore he was not responsible.
There was not enough research to be found for this trait on Milosevic to make a positive answer. Therefore, the researcher omitted this item for him.
Revocation of Conditional Release is a trait that is interestingly different between Hitler,
Stalin, and Milosevic. Hitler scored a zero, Stalin a two, and the item was omitted for Milosevic.
Hitler scored a zero because, although he was jailed after the November putsch, he never tried to escape. He did his time, wrote Mein Kampf while in there, and decided to change up his tactics after release and went about assuming governmental control in a way he could not be arrested.
Stalin scored a two because he was arrested at least seven times, and he escaped from prison at least five of those time, per research.
Milosevic was omitted for this because prior to his war crimes, he was never arrested. LEARNING 40
For Criminal Versatility, all three dictators had something in common. They all sanctioned or were behind a mass amount of crimes, but the types of crimes were not varied. For this reason, the researcher gave each of them a one.
Comparing Dictators Psychopathic Traits to Other Related Syndromes-Narcissism and Paranoid
Personality Disorder
When conducting the Psychopathy assessment on Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and
Slobodan Milosevic, the researcher noticed something interesting. Not only did none of them fully meet the minimum score for a psychopath, but the traits they mostly scored highly on had in common are also traits in Narcissism.
Paulhus and Williams (2002) conducted an interesting study, comparing what they termed “The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopath.” This study in particular reaffirmed the researcher’s view that psychopathy shares certain traits with
Narcissism as well as pointed out that it overlapped a bit with Machiavellianism as well.
The importance that the researcher took from this study, and reaffirmed her beliefs, is that a subject may have a trait or two that falls in line with one disorder, as well as with another. This does not, however, mean that the subject fully fits the description of such disorders. Hitler,
Stalin, and Milosevic all display some traits of a psychopath; but none of them scored high enough for a minimum diagnosis of one. Some of their traits also overlapped with either
Narcissism and/or Machiavellianism, but further testing and analysis would need to be conducted to give absolute results.
Stalin specifically also exhibited traits comorbid with Paranoid Personality Disorder: extreme paranoia. However, this does not mean that he fits that personality disorder exactly; to find that out, more research and study would need to be conducted specifically for that. LEARNING 41
The point being made here is that dictators, and leaders in general, can highly exhibit trait(s) of one or more psychological disorders without fully fitting any of them. Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic all highly meet some traits for that of a Psychopath, but lack others; to many they may outwardly seem like psychopaths after studying them. By the same token, some of these same traits peg them as obvious Narcissists, but more study may reveal this to be false as well.
Although these leaders cannot be here labeled as possessing any of these disorders, the traits they all have in common, ones they completely lack, and ones that make them stand apart from the others can give thought to what to be aware of in future leader behavior.
Connection of Key Personality Traits to Theory
As research has demonstrated, there is a correlation between certain personality traits a leader possesses and the impact it can have on people and their country. Whether the leader can be classified as a Psychopath, Narcissist, or Paranoid is another factor all together; and although this classification would help many people understand what is going on psychologically with the leader, this is not always the case.
What we can see for sure is that certain important traits—psychologically--are common in leaders that have perpetrated or sanctioned mass casualties, such as: the ability to manipulate or con, glibness or superficial charm, a grandiose sense self-worth, lack of remorse or guilt, callousness or lack of empathy.
Said traits also seem to have a correlation with the three main tactics the researcher believes Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic utilized in influencing their people: Political propaganda,
Manipulation and speaking prowess, Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. The fact that all three men knew the power of manipulation, how to work in politics, and the need to show people a strong leader is too connected to actually be considered coincidental-- they knew what they were doing. LEARNING 42
They knew exactly what they had going for them, learned how to play the political game, and committed crimes using that method, never letting their own people see them as the enemy.
Chapter III: Methodology
Introduction
The methodology for this study was really very simple because of the limited resources, but still produced great results. Descriptions of how this study was done follow in the next few paragraphs.
Description of Methodology Selected
For this project, the researcher used qualitative methods. These included unobtrusive methods limited to internet and online library searches of articles, books, journals, and other peer-reviewed sources of information that are free to the public.
Design of the Study
This study was designed to collect information by the most unobtrusive means. This included internet searches of proposed reasonings of the hypothesis, with the literature expanding upon such points and delving further into the reasonings. The result, the researcher hoping, provides thought about how Hitler captured so many minds; hopefully provoking awareness of patterns of the like in the future as well.
Sample and Population
The author decided to study a sample of individuals who include citizens and soldiers under Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic who followed Hitler and did not fight back. The sample of people studied followed them whether because of fear or any other reasoning. The sample is out of an entire population consisting of people who followed all three dictators, whether they fought back or not, citizens and soldiers alike. LEARNING 43
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of reading various pieces of literature through previously described methods and determining whether or not such data fit with the study’s objective.
All of these dictators were researched by the writer, and tested by the PCL-R scale to see if their actions and crimes fit the personality of a Psychopath. The PCL-R is normally conducted in a two-fold way: collecting collateral information via official records for the second part of the test, and conducting an in-person interview with the subject for the first part. However, the test can also be conducted another way-via full archival research for information-which is how the researcher conducted the test because all of the subjects were unavailable for interviews.
Once the research was finished, the researcher went through a list of twenty traits, assessing whether or not the subjects fit such traits based on the research. When assessing the traits, the researcher gave the subject a score ranging from zero through two. A score of zero meant the subject did not fit the trait at all, in any way or at any time. One meant the subject might possibly have fit the trait sometimes, but not all the time or it wasn’t an exact fit. Two meant the subject fit the trait perfectly, all the time. The traits were divided into two factors, grouped by different sets of behavior, and the scores for all traits in both factors were added up and combined in the end for a final score. The traits assessed were as listed: Glibness/Superficial
Charm, Grandiose Sense of Self Worth, Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom,
Pathological Lying, Conning/Manipulative, Lack of Remorse or Guilt, Shallow Affect,
Callous/Lack of Empathy, Parasitic Lifestyle, Poor Behavioral Controls, Promiscuous Sexual
Behavior, Early Behavioral Problems, Lack of Realistic Long-term Goals, Impulsivity,
Irresponsibility, Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions, Many Short-term Marital LEARNING 44
Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, Revocation of Conditional Release, and Criminal
Versatility.
Once the scores for these traits were added up to a full score, the researcher made a decision of whether or not the subjects fit the personality of a psychopath at all, fully, or only somewhat, given the diagnostic cutoff for a full psychopath is a score of a minimum thirty.
Chapter IV: Presentation and Analysis of the Data
Through the literature review, the data shows that the citizens and soldiers of Germany, the USSR, and the former Yugoslavia were subjected to many forces (some intentional and others unintentional) that led them to accepting and embracing the dictators’ ideas and plans.
Political propaganda, pressures on the people to conform, verbal manipulation and the men’s speaking prowess, and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs all played a role in controlling the people.
All three dictators and their advisors knew that propaganda and talking to the people in a certain way would put him in the perspective he wanted in the people’s minds. Groupthink and the power of conformity has shown to work on many, and it worked on this population. They knew exactly how to sway the masses, and that once the people heard him speak, he could manipulate them any way he wanted. Lastly, when citizens are looking for a way out of turmoil and strife, their inner core of needs listen closely to any offer, and a person has to really understand what the end possibilities are to resist giving in.
It is disgusting to see such blatant manipulation of human beings when all they are looking for is help. To see a leader not only take advantage of people like Hitler, Stalin and
Milosevic did, but also be completely cognizant of what they are doing and try to be better at it shows that they were truly evil. Too many leaders take advantage of people’s hope and faith for a better future and look only for opportunities to gain power. LEARNING 45
Change in Societal Paradigm
Before WWII started, Germany had a very different state of mind, both at a personal level as well as societal. WWI and the humiliation Germans undertook afterwards as a result of the war completely decimated any sense of a positive outlook for their country. Any pride
Germans had after the war was in spite of what the rest of the world thought, and people became open, whether they knew it or not, to altering what they could do to put their country’s name back on the map. Unfortunately, when one is looking to satiate their pride, morals and the idea of right and wrong are open for skewing. This is exactly what Hitler took advantage of.
Once the German people were so open to change in the name of building back pride, this meant that practically anything could be considered morally right in the name of what was good for the country. Not all people were seen as equal-Jews especially were blamed for the country’s downfall in the war. With their title of Germany’s weak link and cause of humiliation, they were left open to common feelings of hatred from other citizens; and with hatred and blame for failing comes wanting of retribution. Germans understood and believed anything Hitler said against
Jews, then following Gypsies and other people blamed for Germany’s demise. Anyone who classified as an enemy of Germany’s prosperity was hated and then seen as less than human, and therefore unworthy of people’s love, trust, and kindness. With the people backing Hitler and believing he could lift Germany to the state it had once been, minds and morals were open to shifting to whatever Hitler said would help the country. This meant treating certain people as less than human because they were now seen as undeserving of dignity and the rights afforded to humanity. This meant excusing any decisions or laws Hitler put into place with the thinking that either the victims deserved it, it really was not that bad, or that Hitler was doing it for the country and that is all that mattered. True meanings of human rights and the difference between good LEARNING 46
and evil was forgotten for the sake of fixing Germany. In essence, a country’s and people’s personal ego got in the way of basic humanity-they were blinded.
When people know something wrong is happening, they may want to speak up or they may not. Either way, if they initially know or come to find out that something would happen to them if they express their views, they are more likely to keep quiet. Fear has a big impact on people.
Even for the German people who wanted help those being victimized by Hitler, there was strong reason not to, and those who did are even now considered very brave. Hitler had laws and enforcement in place that intimidated people into silence. It was known that if you tried to help those already victimized, one themselves might be put in a concentration camp. This was the
Nazi way of keeping order and doing what they felt was needed for Germany.
Unfortunately, intimidation into silence is a common tool used by politicians to fool many on the outside that nothing bad is happening or that nothing is going wrong. When this tactic works, many people are victimized and nothing is done to fix it until sometimes it is too late.
Both Stalin and Milosevic’s countries were going through all this as well when they came to power. The USSR lost Lenin, and then Stalin took over. However, the country was going through a societal change still of adapting to communism. In this instance, it was a very political change. People wanted to feel safe, just like Hitler’s Germany, but there was a strong sense of trying to right past wrongs of the social classes.
Milosevic’s former Yugoslavia was going through a similar transition when he came to power. His people had lost their leader Tito, and there was a strong feeling of need to right wrongs as well. When Milosevic came to power, his country’s social political system was LEARNING 47
socialist, but not as stark Communist as the USSR. Tito was a Marxist, but he was comparatively easier on his people than Stalin ever was. Like Hitler and Stalin, Milosevic’s people were looking for a strong leader to keep them safe and bring glory back to them.
However, Milosevic knew how to change with political tides, and went from socialism to the picture of Serbian nationalism. This switch worked for him because he was able to more manipulate his people’s desires under it. Djilas (1993) explains further:
Serbian nationalism, in the authoritarianism and exclusivism epitomized by Milosevic, is
very similar to the Croatian nationalism of Franjo Trudjman and the nationalism
combined with Muslim radicalism of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s President Alija Izetbegovic.
All three have contributed to the destruction of Yugoslavia. But Serbian nationalism
does have some distinguishing traits. First among them is historical nihilism. The Serbs,
more than any other nation of the former Yugoslavia, [were] fully convinced that history
has treated them unfairly. They [felt] that because they had the largest casualties in the
two world wars they deserve special credit for the creation of Yugoslavia in 1918 and for
its resurrection in 1945. Yet instead of being grateful, their non-Serbian fellow
Yugoslavs [had] conspired against them from the beginning, undermining Yugoslav
unity, often at the Serbs’ expense. Serbs firmly [believed] that the ultimate goal of
Yugoslavia’s other groups was always to create separate states, in two of which (Croatia
and Bosnia-Herzegovina) the Serbs would become persecuted national minorities.
This nihilistic view, that history has never rewarded the Serbs for their noble idealism,
but instead had punished them with humiliation and suffering, has been combined with
the conviction that international factors in the contemporary world have also conspired
to deprive the Serbs of their legitimate rights. (p.93) LEARNING 48
It is this exact outlook on life that the Serbs had developed that Milosevic knew, and knew how to manipulate and twist for his own agenda. The people had developed an attitude that they were owed their due from history, and Milosevic knew that if he played his role as the leader that would give it all back to them, they would support him.
It needs to be said that this is exactly what Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic had most in common. They saw what their people wanted, and they knew how to manipulate them through their desires to attain power.
Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendation
The lessons learned from this study are very important. Data shows that the German,
Soviet, and former Yugoslav people were subject to propaganda, manipulation, and most likely in their own need to just survive. What is most important here is to learn how easy it was for the people to fall to Hitler, Stalin and Milosevic without realizing it. Master manipulators like them take advantage of their people for their own gain.
As a society, America must learn that dictators were able to do this to their people because they were vulnerable. In order for other societies to resist falling to this kind of manipulation, they must keep an eye out for what their leaders are involved in, what exactly they say, and think about the possible consequences of the actions being proposed. Manvell &
Fraenkel (2007) state it perfectly in the following:
To us it seems best now to regard this black history as a warning. In our new world there
are many emergent states and many longer established nations without the natural self-
discipline to resist men similar in nature to the Nazi leaders should they emerge and
either stride or slip to power. Such men are not always easy to recognize for what they
are until it is too late. (Introduction, para. 12) LEARNING 49
We must learn from others’ mistakes or there will be another event like the Holocaust.
Man prevails only when the ideas of the heart work alongside with the wisdom of the brain.
What we have also learned is that Hitler was not the only leader of his kind. Stalin and
Milosevic also committed or sanctioned the same kind of crimes as him. They saw people as a threat based solely on their political class, nationality or religion; and because of these factors and how they personally had affected the leader, they decided such people must be punished or destroyed.
We see through research that no specific psychological condition is the reason for these insane crimes. Certain conditions, like Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Paranoid Personality
Disorder, and Psychopathy absolutely seem to be possibilities in the minds of such leaders, but no distinct one of these can be applied to all of the leaders to absolutely explain all behavior.
They all displayed especially psychopathic behavior in a few specific areas, but these areas also overlapped with the other conditions listed.
More than psychological conditions in common, all three dictators especially possessed certain traits in their leadership styles-specifically those listed as hypothesized by the researcher used by Hitler.
It seems that all three dictators knew exactly how to bend other to their will through manipulation, be it through their oratory skills or knowledge of the inside political system. They all understood the value of propaganda and influencing the public via the media and other sources; and they absolutely understood and used the value of fear and its uses in leading people, because they knew people would always follow someone who promised safety and protection. LEARNING 50
When leaders possess such qualities combined with the will to do anything just to gain power, that is exactly when these kind of crimes occur. And the drive for power is not an uncommon one; it is seen in many fields, private and public. In the researcher’s opinion, it is up to us--individuals, countries, humanity as a whole—to look out for these combinations of traits in would-be leaders in order to prevent future genocides. It may seem impossible to see such traits in advance, but the researcher believes there are steps we can take anyway: we can listen more carefully to what is being told to and offered to us; we can question what exactly it is that we want, and how can what is being offered benefits the leader; we can look at what is going on around us in society that might motivate the leader; and we can ask questions and look into their background for factors that may contribute to how and why they would lead us.
Genocide of any kind does not have to happen again; but we as a society must take an active role in assessing prospective leaders in order to prevent them.
LEARNING 51
References
Bullock, Alan. (1992). Hitler and Stalin: Parallel lives. New York: Knopf.
Cull, N. J., Culbert, D. H., & Welch, D. (2003). Propaganda and Mass Persuasion: A Historical
Encyclopedia, 1500 to the Present [Adobe Digital Editions version]. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=Byzv7rf6gL8C&pg=PA319&dq=%22The+receptivit
y+of+the+great+masses+is+very+limited%22+%22In+consequence,+all+effective+prop
Djilas, A. (1993). A profile of Slobodan Milosevic. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 81-96. Retrieved
from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fgcu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=38a49d01-
a881-482b-b249-2b8edd2ebdf4%40sessionmgr4001&vid=1&hid=4101
Doder, D., & Branson, L. (1999). Milosevic: Portrait of a tyrant. New York, NY: Free Press.
Grant, B. K., & Sloniowsky, J. (1998). Documenting the documentary: close readings of
documentary film and video. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=YFhiHHHJbUgC&dq=Hitler,+the+Orator:+A+Study
+in+Mob+Psychology.&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
LeBor, A. (2003). Milosevic: A Biography. London: Bloomsbury.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–
682. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2084686
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, Kevin, M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of research in personality, 36(6), 556-563.
Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The+Dark+Triad+of+personality%3A+Nar
cissism%2C+Machiavellianism%2C+and+psychopathy&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sd LEARNING 52
tp=
Poston, B. (2009). An Exercise in Personal Exploration: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. 347-
353. Retrieved from http://www.ast.org/pdf/308.pdf
Radzinskiĭ, E. (1996). Stalin: The first in-depth biography based on explosive new documents
from Russia's secret archives. New York: Doubleday.
Randall, F. B. (1965). Stalin's Russia: An historical reconsideration. New York: Free Press.
Roland, P. (2012). The Nuremberg Trials: The Nazis and Their Crimes Against Humanity
[Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Schwaab, E. H. (1992). Hitler's mind: A plunge into madness. New York: Praeger.
Sell, L. (1999). The (Un)Making of Milosevic. Wilson Quaterly, 23(3), 22-29. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fgcu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=21b53dfe-
2c17-45e2-a0c7-c6d5c5c5e81e%40sessionmgr110&vid=4&hid=125
Stevanović, V. (2002). Milosevic: The people's tyrant. London: I.B. Tauris.
Waite, R. G. L., & Mazal Holocaust Collection. (1998). Kaiser and Führer: A comparative study
of personality and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Welch, D. (2007). The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda [Kindle DX Reader version].
Retrieved from Amazon.com