Who is closer to being Machiavelli's Prince?

>>17899080 (OP)
Me

>>17899080 (OP)
FDR not only built a massive political coalition that survived until the 1970s, but his New Deal programs like Social Security are still in force today and are incredibly important. He also won the greatest war in human history and literally wrote the charter of the New World Order (United Nations). All while being a cripple. Where's Hitler's global order? Where is his Reich? What is his legacy except for the Holocaust, Volkswagen, and the Autobahn? It's not even close.

>>17899080 (OP)
Hitler, no question. Plus FDR is ineligible due to being the leader of a functional republic.
>>17899088
How succcessful you are in the long-run is irrelevant to this question.

>>17899088
>Where's Hitler's global order? Where is his Reich?
In our hearts dummy.

>>17899101
Why would political outcomes not matter when these were two of the best case studies from this era? Hitler had more aura than anyone on the earth at this point if that's what you're after.

>>17899101
>How succcessful you are in the long-run is irrelevant to this question.
It absolutely is. FDR was a masterful politician. You're comparing two democratically elected leaders to an ideal person Machiavelli speaks of in the context of principalities! I would consider both demagogues, but it is not the same thing.
>I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
>Thus it will be a double glory for him to have established a new principality, and adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good allies, and with a good example; so will it be a double disgrace to him who, born a prince, shall lose his state by want of wisdom.
FDR has a lasting legacy, Hitler is disgraced.

>>17899106
Well, because long term success is not really a necessary pre-requisite to embody "the Prince". Cesare Borgia was more Prince than any Doge of Venice.
Hitler vastly outclasses FDR in virtú.
>>17899111
> You're comparing two democratically elected leaders
Hitler was appointed chancellor year after the German Federal Election because the moderate parties could not form a Coalition without including either them or the communists. He was not elected democratically, though his party was popular. Also he quickly dissolved the democratic order so your point is moot.
Hitler behaved as a prince. FDR harangued congress and dispensed pork barrels to re-elect himself. They are not comparable.
>I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.
Quite rightly! National Socialist Germany was a principate, and the U.S was a republic.
>Thus it will be a double glory for him to have established a new principality, and adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good allies, and with a good example; so will it be a double disgrace to him who, born a prince, shall lose his state by want of wisdom.
This quote is irrelevant because it speaks of Glory and disgrace, rather than how close one follows this ideal model.

Easily Hitler

>>17899080 (OP)
FDR

One of them checks almost every box, the other ruined Germany so bad it nearly got them all genocided, Hitler not just made an entire segment of the political spectrum unviable for decades but got half of Europe under the control of an asian empire.

They were both socialist retards so,
Neither

>>17899088
this

>>17899080 (OP)
Hitler was a revolutionary hero who rose from nothing to liberate his nation and make last stand of Western Civilization, FDR was was a literal retard fail-son of a corrupt plutocratic elite picked out by parasitic kikes to be their sock-puppet.
>He’s really a beautiful looking man, but he’s so dumb”, was the damning verdict of the financier James Warburg’s mother on the young Franklin Roosevelt.
https://www.the-tls.com/lives/biography/becoming-fdr-jonathan-darman-fdr-iwan-morgan-book-review-tony-badger

>>17899665
>it nearly got them all genocided
Source? I thought the plan to genocide Germany was a conspiracy theory?

>>17899080 (OP)
Hitler almost point by point followed Machiavelli's advice. The fact he lost if anything is a blow to Machiavelli's theory

>>17899671
shitler shoot himself in the head after destorying his country

>>17899101
>How succcessful you are in the long-run is irrelevant to this question.
Of course it is! According to Machiavelli the only sin a prince can commit is losing.

>>17899088
This, what a pointless question

Should have added stalin, he seems like the embodiment of the Machiavellian prince

>>17899088
>FDR
FDR didnt build it lol.
It was an entire network of Good Ol Goys working hand in glove with Confederate jews and English jews.
"his" programs only exist because boomers would go absolutely ballistic if they stopped receiving free money from the state every month.

>>17899234
>Cesare Borgia was more Prince than any Doge of Venice
I had more thought of Ferdinand II as the archetype, rather than any Borgia, though their stories are fascinating. My real gripe with FDR is that he either was a communist or was used by communists, and he has evil communists among his direct descendants. For all his faults, Hitler sought to purge the world of this disease, at least.

>>17901772
>Being le epic princeman is being anti-communist
That's not how it works, retard. Stalin would probably be counted as a masterful statesman by Machiavelli due to both his immense rise to power and his longevity.

>>17901744
>>17901783
Stalin surrounded himself with sycophants and suck-ups which is the opposite of Machiavelli's advice

>>17901792
And Hitler didn't? Guess that's why he was so successful.

>>17901802
Hitler surrounded himself with other ambitious men, but was very good at keeping them at odds with one another and making his position as autocrat clear. He made himself the only vessel for which his subordinates could wield power and deprived them of the incentive to betray him.
The fact he was able to maintain power to the very end even while his empire collapsed shows how secure his position was.
Whereas Stalin was poisoned by his doctors most likely on Beria's request

>>17901772
I specifically chose Cesare Borgia because his time in power was ephemeral. Of course, Ferdinand of Aragon is the archetypal prince.
I just wanted to emphasize that FDR does not qualify because his "Virtú" was getting congress to do what he wanted and demagoging to the American public. Hitler was a Prince, and FDR was a Doge. Look at the achievements >>17899088 lists off: Social security, party coalitions.
>>17901783
He most definitely would. And more succesful than Hitler. However the question is between the eternal re-election cripple and Hitler. Not between Hitler and Stalin. FDR just was not a Prince. He was a low rent pseudo-dictator at most.

>>17901994
Another tiny difference between Hitler and FDR: Fuhrer gave himself absolute power and reshaped the government to be centered around one man (Fuhrerprinzip).
FDR fired a government employee once over policy disagreements and then he lost a courtcase; preventing him from doing so ever again.

>>17901998
>>17901994
Just say you're a Nazi and let's get this over with.

>>17902020
What does thathave to do with anything you blithering idiot.
FDR simply wasn't much of a despot. Hitler was.

>>17901772
Imagine being an anti communist in 2024

>>17902027
Just admit that you made this thread to say that Hitler was the greatest ruler ever and you got mad when no one agreed with your insane beliefs.

>>17901823
Literally all of Hitlers guys betrayed him in one way or another, Hitler was a retard

>>17901823
> Whereas Stalin was poisoned by his doctors most likely on Beria's request
One of the most retarded and historically illiterate things I’ve read this month

>>17902030
I did not make this thread, though. You guys are just wrong.
I guess I just forgot sober discussion about Nazism is nearly impossible, even eighty years on.
You either get Neo-nazis (and friends!) mindlessly glazing his cock eternally and treating him like the second coming in what I can only conclude is the closest thing the post-war liberal world has to Satanism, or the more normal position where Hitler and the NSDAP was a demonic legion of horrible animal men and you can't have any further thoughts about it lest you accidentally cause the holocaust to happen again. It's borderline shamanistic superstition.
Maybe in seventy years people will be able to approach this more soberly, I hope.

>>17902062
You literally did make this thread. You know how I know? Because when you made this post the thread didn't go to the top page, it stayed in the same position. You made this thread thinking your little idol Hitler would be glorified and got BTFO within three posts. Just give up.

>>17902084
I herb my posts because this a shit thread, retard.

>>17902087
A liar AND a Nazi. Congratulations.

>>17902084
Nope. I made the thread and I'm not him

>>17902097
You bumped the thread, so no you didn't.

>>17902033
Only Speer denounced him and was able to keep his life. Even Goering and Hess refused to denounce Hitler and that was after they had been kicked from the party by him

>>17902101
You can bump threads that you make. It only doesn't bump if you post twice in a row I think

>>17902097
Don't listen to this guy. I made the thread. I'm trans by the way.

Hitler obviously but that's not a good thing

>>17899080 (OP)
>Machiavelli's Prince
It's a guide book on how to be an effective ruler, but Machiavelli's ideas are obviously already common sense in our time. Machiavelli looks incredibly outdated when you compare it to newer political works, because he mostly only commented on Ancient Rome and the Italy of his day. Bureaucracy is what dominates politics and rules over the populace today. Read Weber instead, Foucault's D&P is also a good read.

In Machiavelli's zero-sum game, Machiavelli implies that the ruler's morality shouldn't be tied to their own code of honor nor Christianity, but rather in service to a separate type of morality concerned with maintaining power. Killing innocent civilians is wrong, but killing somebody who has undermined the foundation of one's power, a rebel or a criminal, is the right thing to do because their executions will strengthen the veracity of the ruler's laws. Now with this kept in mind, it's obvious that both Hitler and FDR are close to being Machiavelli's Prince.

The Prince is not a tyrant. Hitler was self-consciously Machiavellian in his conception of the world as 'struggle.' In his conquest against bourgeois scruples, or what he termed 'international jewry', he attempted to gain the sympathy of Eastern European populations predisposed against Russia and using that to his advantage rather than immediately subjugating them.

FDR propelled America to greatness. The war put America to a position of global economic and military dominance, and it ended the Great Depression by creating massive wartime production, leading to full employment and increased wages.

So to say who is more akin to being 'Machiavellian', it's hard to say. Playing by the book is effective but it's not a guaranteed win for you when everybody already does the same thing

>>17902029
Fuck off thirdie.

>>17902144
I disagree. While FDR was a political forc ein his own right, I don't think he necessarily operated on a logic of Virtú ala Machiavelli like Hitler consciously did. He was beheld to the laws of the republic over which he presided, and worked through the constitution. He was the Commander in Chief, but his actions had to be approved by other bodies. A lot of his brilliant politicking was just navigating and bending the systems of the American Republic to attain his ends.

P.S: While most of Machiavellis examples are from antiquity or recent Italian History, he has a few sections where he speaks about Moses, Muhammad, and the Ottoman turks as other examples of Virtú to be emmulated.