Personality and Power: Builders and Destroyers of Modern Europe
My review of the book 'Personality and Power: Builders and Destroyers of Modern Europe' by Ian Kershaw, a renowned British historian and author specialized in the social and political history of Germany of the 20th century.
About the book
This book examines twelve European political leaders who probably had the most profound impact on the course of Europe—and, by extension, the world—during the 20th century. At its core, the author explains the extent to which these figures shaped historical events and developments, or conversely, to what degree they were products of the structural conditions of their time—conditions over which they had little or no control, but which enabled them to ascend to positions that cemented their place in our history books. It begs the question, whether they should be regarded as makers of history or as individuals who were made by history. For each of the following twelve political figures one chapter is dedicated:
1. Wladimir Iljitsch Uljanow «Lenin», Soviet Union
2. Benito Mussolini, Italy
3. Adolf Hitler, Germany
4. Josef Wissarionowitsch «Stalin», Soviet Union
5. Winston Churchill, Great Britain
6. Charles de Gaulle, France
7. Konrad Adenauer, Germany
8. Francisco Franco, Spain
9. Josip Broz «Tito», Yugoslavia
10. Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain
11. Michail Gorbatschow, Soviet Union
12. Helmut Kohl, Germany
Pictures from the book.
Pictures from the book.
In each chapter, the questions are analysed according to the following systematic approach:
It begins by giving a rough overview over the course of life, from childhood to adulthood, and sheds light on the personality traits of these people.
Then it elaborates on the pre-conditions, which enabled them the seizure of power.
Followingly, the text shows the process by they were able to get to their position.
It proceeds to explain, how, once they were in position of power, they exercised it and how they made sure to sustain it.
Lastly, it delineates the influence, legacy, and impact they had on the historical developments of their countries, Europe (and the world at large).
About the review
In this blog article, I will discuss the similarities between the twelve protagonists of the book. I will focus on the personality traits, interests, and abilities that these leaders mostly had in common, as I was fascinated by the parallels between them while I was reading the book. Analyzing and comparing the rest of the five points above did not seem purposeful to me, as they are very context-dependent, and thus depicted multi-variant backgrounds. This is by no means intended to convey the impression that the exogenous, structural conditions were not decisive in their development. For, the opposite was the reality in most cases, and therefore, at least as important as the personal attributes and achievements of these people. I was amazed at how similar they were in these three aspects, even though they had very different backgrounds.
Subsequently, I will cluster and categorize the personality traits as well as their abilities and provide for each of the points some concrete examples from the book. At this point, I would like to stress the fact, that – obviously – not all leaders shared the same characteristics and strengths (and weaknesses for that matter), but rather, that many of them shared a considerable amount of them. As I mentioned previously, it is a pattern that becomes clear while you read the book. Further, I do not intend to glorify, or conversely to ostracize, these characteristics, since in our modern times in the West, I sense, most of them will have a rather negative connotation to them. You must keep in mind, that firstly these were different times and conditions, in which these people lived. Secondly, the positions they held are by their very nature extremely competitive, and it seems logical, that these characteristics are to be considered as conducive to achieving their aims. Lastly, this shouldn’t be interpreted as a psychographic analysis, for I am neither a psychologist or psychiatrist, nor does this portray a complete representation of their personalities. Now that all disclaimers are out of the way (intended for the ones lacking critical thinking abilities and ill-intentioned interpretation of this article (while I was writing this soyjak came to my mind)) it is time to get down to the central information.
Personality
Self-confidence
extremely strong-willed, they did not let setbacks get them down
very self-assured, completely convinced of themselves
enjoyed being the center of attention
sometimes arrogant and overbearing
Dominance
very dominant, authoritarian demeanor
bossy, paternalistic towards underlings
necessitated a high degree of loyalty; one was quickly and easily accused of betrayal
Sense of superiority
self-opinionated, dogmatic, and know-it-all
intolerant of (strongly) deviating positions
impatient, brusque and sarcastic in dealing with dissenters
Aggressiveness
quarrelsome and choleric
fond of debate and discussion
ruthless pursuit of their goals by all means, including the use of violence if necessary
impulsive and moody
The chosen one
They felt they were called by destiny to fulfill and implement this task, mission, vision.
Often the feeling of this destiny calling reached far back into childhood.
Examples
Churchill's wife, Clementine, publicly criticized her husband for his " crude, sarcastic and overbearing manner" and his " irritability and rudeness".
Thatcher referred to people within the party and cabinet members who were not per se or generally hostile to her as "Wets", because they were often too conservative, cautious, and wary of the more radical reforms Thatcher sought. She gradually weeded out the Wets from her inner circle and replaced them with more conformist and loyal supporters. She took a very brusque and combative approach to some members of parliament and the government, as many would not respond to a woman in an equally aggressive and intimidating manner due to traditional upper class male courtesy, as it was felt that "...you cannot say anything back in the presence of others without appearing disrespectful to a woman and a female Prime Minister". She ruthlessly exploited this reluctance on the part of some traditionally minded men when she sensed weakness.
Lenin was known for his moody, occasional outbursts of anger when, for example, the desk was not properly cleared. At meetings he could come across as ideologically rigid, intolerant, uncompromising, brusque, egocentric, and arrogant. He didn't seem to care that he was making enemies along the way.
Hitler had few close friends and is said to have had no lasting, intimate relationships with women until he met Eva Braun in 1931. Like Mussolini and Lenin, he saw himself as called by fate to fulfill his vision and as one of the great men in human history.
Abilities and strengths
Rhetoric
Their debating skills made them unbeatable opponents in debates. They managed to electrify and win over large crowds with their powerful and convincing speeches. Their eloquence and quick-wittedness were decisive factors.
Charisma
They had the ability to fill a room; loved to be the center of attention; and managed to win over the audience emotionally. I think one of the main reasons for their charisma is that they were 100% behind and on fire for what they preached and advocated. After all, you can only light a fire in another person's chest if it burns strongly enough in your own. According to Max Weber, one of the most famous German sociologists of the 19th and 20th centuries, charisma is not brought about by objectively measurable or visible attributes of a person, but that a following of people (today we would speak of a fan base) ascribe charisma to certain people. But this is essentially a chicken-and-egg problem. Because for the protagonist to become one and be charged with charisma, he or she must first have outstanding, exceptional, attractive qualities that catch the eye of the audience. Ultimately, there is a positive reciprocal effect between personality and audience, so that the charisma builds up in the ideal case. The audience becomes aware of a remarkable person, the person notices this and intensifies the activities that led to it, and so on. This is how government and near-government media try to make certain politicians artificially attractive by creating an undeserved and untruthful cult of personality around them. These PR campaigns, also known as “astroturfing”, aim to make the image of the political figure to be valorized as attractive as possible, as they are inherently seen as too ordinary, interchangeable, boring and incompetent to generate an organically grown charisma. There are plenty of examples. The current German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and the Deputy Federal Chancellor Robert Habeck from Germany spontaneously come to mind.
Writing competence / literary skills
The ability to write captivating texts is also a skill that these people strikingly had. Many wrote and published texts before they became famous and many only afterwards. However, the ability to write seems to be an extremely beneficial skill as, I suppose, writing allows one to sort out thoughts, consolidate ideological ideas in a coherent and convincing way and to distribute them to the masses by way of publishing.
Examples
Lenin laid the substantive, ideological foundation of his Marxist-Leninist dogma during his time in exile in Western Europe (Zurich, Geneva, Munich, Paris, Krakow), where he sharpened his ideas in exchange with other ideologues, wrote texts, and devoted himself fully to his cause. Incidentally, this was only possible because he was kept afloat financially by wealthy sympathizers and did not have to secure his livelihood through wage work.
Stalin also proved to have a strong talent for propaganda and organization, as he was responsible for publishing the party newspaper, Pravda, within the Bolshevik Party.
Hitler also wrote his book “Mein Kampf”, which became an ideological cornerstone of the NSDAP, during his prison time, which he had to serve due to a failed coup attempt. Isolation seemed to furthering the incubation of his ideas and ultimately to consolidate them in a book.
Charles de Gaulle wrote his three-volume war memoirs in his modest country house after his first term of office in the Fourth Republic, hen he withdrew in disappointment from the world of politics. This book reinforced and underpinned his cult status as the savior of France after his return to resolve the Algerian crisis and established the Fifth Republic.
Mussolini began writing as a journalist for a socialist weekly newspaper at the age of 19. He made a name for himself in these circles with his provocative and inflammatory writing. At the age of 28, he became editor-in-chief of the major socialist newspaper, Avanti, which was published in Milan.
Like de Gaulle, Churchill wrote his four-volume book “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples” after his withdrawal from politics. He wrote well into old age and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953 for his extraordinary literary works.
Organizational talent, leadership skills and vigor
Before Tito became a military leader (Marshal), he attracted attention for his political and organizational skills. In the early Yugoslavia, leftists and communists were persecuted extremely repressively, which forced Tito to take his activities underground. At the age of 36, he rose to become secretary of the Zagreb communist party organization. Shortly afterwards, he and five colleagues were arrested for illegal political activities and he was sentenced to five years in a labour camp.
When Gorbachev took over the leadership of the Soviet Union, he was faced with the enormous task and urgent necessity of fundamentally reforming the system. Standing in his way were long-established, arch-conservative communist legacy members of the old guard, who stood in the way of most reforms. By deliberately appointing younger, reform-minded party functionaries to key positions, he was able to gradually overcome internal resistance and introduce the reforms. But time was against him.
Despite his advanced age, Helmut Kohl gave hundreds of campaign speeches to thousands of people during his last election campaign. He seemed to work tirelessly and campaigned vigorously for his policies and his party.
Willingness to take risks
The willingness to put everything on the line for their beliefs and visions was also a trait that struck. However, it must be remembered that the ‘survivorship bias’ is at play here, as they are the ones who managed to get off relatively scot-free and make it into the history books despite the irrational risks they took. Pure daredevilry is no guarantee of historical significance or legacy.
Tito, for example, was imprisoned for his convictions and political activities.
Lenin fled into exile to Western Europe for fear of political persecution and imprisonment by the secret police ‘Orchana’, who had already executed his brother, Alexander, as a result of a failed attempt to assassinate Tsar Alexander III.
Hitler was found guilty of high treason as a result of the failed coup attempt and only narrowly escaped the death penalty.
Konrad Adenauer was a thorn in the eye of the Nazis after they came to power, as he occupied the Christian centre-ground voter base, on which the Nazis were politically dependent. His long political career as Mayor of Cologne came to an abrupt end when the Nazis came to power. However, his straightforwardness, uncorruptibility and determination to remain true to his values and convictions enabled him to experience an accelerated reintegration into German politics in post-war Germany, as he was high on an Allied ‘white list’ of people who could become key figures in the rebuilding of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Helmut Kohl was instrumental in accelerating German reunification, even though two of the occupying powers, Great Britain under Thatcher and France under Mitterrand, were explicitly and openly opposed to German reunification, as they regarded a strengthening of Germany as a security threat. The USSR and the USA were initially rather undecided in this matter, but opened up to the idea relatively quickly. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the four occupying powers envisioned reunification after a quarter of a century rather than immediately afterwards. Kohl's efforts to push ahead with reunification prematurely could have significantly jeopardized his political career.
Conclusion
It seems that there are personality traits and skills that are useful for attaining and maintaining these powerful positions. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. There are certainly other personal factors that are conducive to the declared goal. However, it seems to me that the exogenously given, structural circumstances and contexts, to varying degrees from case to case, favoured the path to and maintenance of power at least as much as the personal characteristics mentioned here. For example, a Hitler would not have been able to rise to power as leader without the causal chain of the loss-ridden First World War and the associated dagger legend, the dictate peace through the Treaty of Versailles, the weak Weimar Republic and the World Economic Crisis of 1929. Even Lenin could not have come to power if the Tsarist Empire had not been so regressive, reactionary and exclusive and if the devastating economic, political, social and humane consequences of the First World War had not driven the Russian people almost into the abyss. Franco slipped into the role of dictator as one of the top militarists when the bloody civil war had already begun and he was one of the very few options left.
It is noticeable that those leaders who have risen to power through ideological demagoguery have left a longer-lasting echo than those who have fought their way up through existing power structures and filled these gaps (Appartschiks). Societies, nations, peoples and civilisations are guided and shaped by ideas, their ethos and their myths. In my opinion, the First and Second World Wars were in essence a struggle for the sovereignty of interpretation on the question of how people should live in the modern age, which was brought about by technological achievements in mobility, production, communication, medicine, the military, etc.
An attempt of mine to classify the discussed leaders in chart.
The battle of ideas between National Socialism / Fascism, Communism / Socialism and Liberal-Democratic Capitalism took place in the arena called Europe and was inevitable. Since then, the latter has established itself as the victor. The collapse of its antagonist, the Soviet Union, in the late 80s and early 90s validated its functionality and immensely boosted its global appeal. However, the ghosts of the former two are not completely buried and still linger in various places. Given the possibility of a suitable breeding ground, they could become a real threat again. The surest guarantee against them is economic prosperity. In recent decades, a serious opponent has emerged from the Far East and has become a lighthouse for more and more countries. Illiberal, totalitarian state capitalism of the Chinese model is becoming increasingly popular in the rest of the world, such as Russia, Turkey and Iran. In the West, the political and social centre seems to be eroding, leaving more and more room for the bipolar currents of populism to fight for supremacy. My desire and commitment is to promote human freedom and dignity. We must not lose sight of these two principles in all political changes. It is no coincidence that the Germans have chosen to emphasise the importance of dignity above all else, as expressed in the first paragraph of the first article of their constitution (Grundgesetz), which states that human dignity is of paramount importance and cannot be harmed. Dignity embodies and expresses the noblest of human ideals.