Question

¿Que podria mejorar de mi ensayo?

In the next essay I will talk about how dictators most of the time enter into power because of the previous failure of presidents and how they demonstrate how ruthless they can be only for getting power or “Saving” his country. Dictators really enter power by conflicts or maybe in a different way like orientals? All dictators are ruthless and have the idea to get the most power they can or are different? I will also talk in a more explained way about how hitler rose to power and his dictatorship is the inspiration of many posterior dictators. There are exceptions, like in the oriental countries where most of the time the dictators got into power simply because of the dynasty they are in to get more power and have more respect among countries.

The famous European dictators rise into power all in a very similar way, they enter after serious failures of the previous governments. Hitler is one of them we can see that him enter to power after the weimar republic fail to solve all the economic and social problems Germany had, So hitler started to get support of the german society and in a “strategy” of the President Paul Von Hindenburg, they convert Hitler into chancellor and in a personal opinion, they “gift” Hitler all Germany in a way because the power of Hitler started to raise massively after this. Another example is Stalin in Russia. We saw that Russia was in a terrible situation, with massive starvation and with a giant amount of people dying, Stalin appeared and with famous quotes like “The leaders come and go, but the people remain. Only the people are immortal“, These phrases make Stalin just like hitler started to rise in terms of power and the failures of the government make Stalin enter into power. We can saw that their are some exceptions just like oriental countries for example Japan with Hirohito, Hirohito didn't need to have a conflict with anyone, no need to get the people support, only need to wait the death of his father for him to get into power, other example is Kim-Jong-Un in the modernity because he entered into power identically like Hirohito, waiting the dead of his father, the difference between oriental dictators and rest of the world ones are clear they’re could be some exception but few ones.



Dictators Most of the time are Ruthless and the only meaning of being the head of a country is getting power but they’re are other dictators that want to transform a country but with not the better ways or maybe be a mix of both, for example could be Hitler, that is maybe a mix of both, Hitler started with the quote of saving Germany That make him started to get support but after we saw a different Hitler, that with the wish of make Germany great again started with terrible ways of do it, with the hunting of jews or with the camps during the war, other example is Hirohito, him entered into power, firstly he started everything normal, with Japan being one of the most strongest countries in terms of army and economy, the war started, Hirohito led the power of Japan to the military, the military started taking control all over Japan and started doing some illegal things that made that japanese started to dislike the army and start the support to Hirohito, even that hirohito was something of giving their “permission” to the army for doing the thing they wants. After the war Hirohito incredibly finished without any political or criminal charge, and stayed with the support of Japanese society because they saw that the guilty for the loss of war were the army. This could tell us that Dictators will try to do everything to get to their goal and if someone tries to argue with them they will end up with a big conflict, for example like Apra during Militarism in Peru, or Communism in Spain or Germany.

I could conclude that Dictators all over the world have similarities, that may be how they act or how they get into power. Dictators like Hitler or Stalin are the best ways to explain this, how i said in the last paragraphs both enter into power in very similar way and started with almost the same speech that was trying to save the country but after getting into power they’re acts and ideas started to be more inhuman and pass what everyone knows, other ones are less ruthless but also had their interest on top and no one can discuss with them because that may cause serious conflicts, like the different examples that were mentioned before, this is a clear example of lack of freedom in dictatorships. So finishing i can say that dictators will do everything they can to finish the goals and only the society press or an attempt of murder will stop them.

Answer 1

Respuesta:

para mí está bastante bien,no le cambiaría nda