An essay I wrote and am interested in hearing thoughts about. As a bit of a background I am a homeschooling HS sophomore and a rather large history buff.
The Leadership mistakes of Adolph Hitler

While acknowledging his obvious moral deficit, this essay is about the less obvious yet still important leadership mistakes he made and how we can learn from them.

The first was in not having sound moral judgment and allowing personal interests to dictate his governments’ actions, thereby misusing his supporters trust and, eventually destroying the lives of many of them.

The second was in not trusting his subordinates judgment in they’re own sections of expertise. This happened in many cases and an example would be during the war in north Africa where he did not allow his soldiers to retreat from the continent until it was far too late, for the reason of nothing more then his idea of national pride.

This lead to the destruction by death or capture of nearly his entire army in Africa. Another example was the case of Stalingrad where he did not let his generals to order a general withdrawal of the troops allowed an entire army to be surrounded and cut off insisting till far to late that the beleaguered air force could supply the surrounded troops. These were examples not only of letting his emotions guide him but also of micromanagement in cases where he did not know the entire situation.

A third was in being overtly authoritarian, and not allowing any contrary views to be aired. It helped initially in implementing his policies but eventually it became dangerous to even talk about ideas contrary to the official party line.
It consequently discouraged free thinking and honesty especially amongst his chief subordinates. This meant that the men who rose to power did so not based on ability or merit but on telling him things he wanted to hear.


The way to make sure that you do not make the same mistakes is by having oversight, listening to dissenting views and having a more balanced style. Being authoritarian all the time will get more things done but the lack of different views then the leader’s will hurt in the long run. As will your followers not being allowed to make independent decisions without having to worry about punishment.

It's incredibly short, but I'm guessing that's due to a very small word limit. It's been an obscenely long time since I've seen an essay even close to this short, so it's difficult to critique it the way I would an essay of the size I primarily deal with at university, but I'll try.

The introduction needs to be longer, and to mention what you will be discussing. Also, don't gloss over the moral deficits: mention them, they are important, due the havoc they played on his thinking. Point out how his beliefs affected his rationality, and how leaders need rationality.

Also, it would be best if you pointed out some of the positives, such as his successful political manouevrings and abilities as a public speaker. By contrasting this with his later mistakes, you make his fall seem farther, and give the illusion of deeper research, even if you haven't done any extra.

I'd advise referencing, even if it's not required by your system. Again, makes it seem like you put more work in. A few minor speeling and gramatical errors, but those are easy to fix, you should notice them yourself through a simple spell-check.

Also, I don't get why you mention how "you" can avoid mistakes in the conclusion. It's an essay, you should use formal English, always third person. If you need to refer to yourself, say "one" or "the author." Never refer to the reader. If you want to say "you can avoid these mistakes," write something along the lines of "these mistakes may be avoided." Unless the essay is for a wannabe dictator.

Nothing you say in the essay is outright wrong, but much of it simplified. This is probably necessary, due to the small size, but you should at least attempt to acknowledge that the situation is often not as simple as you've stated.

Have you already submitted this? What were the assignment requirements? Is there a rubric?

I think that you could relate the flaws you describe to the overall character of the man more effectively. At the moment they are a bit disconnected, acting as a list of shortcomings rather than contributing to a picture of the man. That's a task which is, perhaps, somewhat difficult in such a short essay, but it seems like it would be the most effective way of approaching the topic.