Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt shared many common characteristics in the way the lead. They both were know for their charisma, ability to arouse emotion, and rose to power during a national crisis. Even with these commonalities, the result of their power ended very differently. FDR was elected for a total of four terms while Hitler became a dictator killing 6 million Jews, 40 million Russians, and countless others.

There are many similarities, of both leader and the German and American public, that are depicted through FDR and Hitler's inauguration speeches. At the time of each rulers' rise to power, their country was in a time of crisis. This is a critical factor in charismatic leadership. Conger writes that "a time of crisis or situational stagnation...tend to be more conductive to charismatic leadership" (161) . Germany had experienced huge inflation, unemployment, and had to pay a large sum of money to France after WWI. This is similar to the situation that was occurring in the United States because there was a massive unemployment problem due to the fact that the stock-market crashed. In this stock-market crash, many people lost their whole life savings and had to be reassured that it was safe to put their money into banks. It is true that these countries did not face identical problems, but it is interesting how similar situations draw similar leaders.

FDR promises several things in his inauguration speech. He says that while he is president he will make jobs, "make better use of the land", allow for the "strict supervision of banking, credits, and investments", and create a "sound currency". These promises are similar to Hitler's. Hitler states that he will rescue German farmers and help them to produce more, reduce the number of unemployed, create a compulsory labor-service, and provide for the sick and old. The goals of each leader are alike because each leader was faced with similar problems and thus had to fix, and each led with a similar hand.

FDR and Hitler demonstrate several results of leadership. FDR exemplifies the use of charisma to blindly lead his followers, but yet a good outcome is still able to occur. Hitler's leadership showed the devastating results of a charismatic's ability to blindly lead his followers to a genocidal goal. One could say that Hitler's ability to blindly lead his followers is not necessarily bad, but the fact that he created an Aryan race by killing off his own followers, shows that he wasn't blindly leading in his follower's best interests. Each leader had to come to an agreement of submission between the leader and the follower. FDR and Hitler settled with different levels of submission between themselves and their followers. FDR was the president of a democracy, so he wasn't as able to hold all of the control of the United States. This is different than the situation of which Hitler ruled. Since Hitler was the Furher of Germany, there wasn't a strong senate to balance his powers. The Reigstag, could be considered as a balancing power, but after Hitler had it burned so that it would be blamed on the communist party, it's power became lessened.

My definition of a leader is someone who seeks out another for the exchange of goods or services or the completion of a goal, there is a balance of manipulation between the leader and the follower, and the leader must influence the choices made by the follower in some way. I think that if these are not exchanged between the leader and follower, there isn't a true leadership relationship between the leader and follower. FDR, like Hitler, sought out their follows. Through this connection, FDR and Hitler both received votes in exchange that both leaders would improve the lives of their followers through change. FDR was able to lead his followers in a manner where they were manipulated to a certain extent, but he was able to kept them from feeling cut of from this decision making process. In his inauguration speech FDR states, "compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered... we still have much to be thankful for". This told the American public that what they were facing was hard, but that their forefathers had dealt with problems much worse. This gave his people a sense of hope because it caused them to believe that they could overcome the hardship of the stock-market crash, unemployment, and many other jobs.