Historical agents of change have shaped our world based on a combination of factors that have affected them and their physical, psychological, philosophical and spiritual world. More so, these remarkable individuals have presented their unique makeup of qualities and shortcomings into the political and social world in such a way that they had the ability to truly and ultimately present themselves publicly where even entire empires are experiencing the nature of who they are. Not simply experiencing the agent’s political beliefs, ideologies or ambitions, but the individual’s ego, existing self, and own unique being at that particular time. Napoleon and Lenin have proved this as agents of revolutionary change, just as Bismarck and Hitler expressed this as instruments of counterrevolutionary change.
Napoleon and Lenin both were men of action. They prided on their own ways of doing and had a deep drive to fix their own injustices and they both saw themselves as men of destiny. Napoleon was a nationalist and an absolutist. He was indeed influenced by the ideologies of Machiavelli and Hobbes, where one power is the absolute one and power is generated primarily by fear and used as the sole instrument to gain control. He relied heavily on military action for this philosophy, although his own power must be grasped through any means necessary. He was an egotistical man who did not know his limits, which ultimately led to his downfall.
Lenin on the other hand, was a socialist and a strong believer in Marxist theory. He was more of a radical when it came to executing and implementing his own thoughts into action- it was all or nothing for him. Being an elitist, Lenin strongly endorsed in the highly organized, close-nit and secret revolutionary group that had one main objective- the fall of the Russian autocracy. He was the classic model for the modern political professional revolutionary. Lenin was, nonetheless, driven by hatred of the Russian parliamentary system.
Both revolutionaries had direction, a strong vision and extreme perseverance when it came to dealing with getting their goals met. They intuitively knew how to captivate the masses in order to use them as weapons for their will of political and social change, and thus, it was their main instrument in orchestrating their methods. They both knew the art of timing and used it to their advantage. Napoleon being present at the right time just at the beginning of the third phase of the Revolution, and Lenin knowing the right moment to execute the whole Tsar family when World War I ended. It was a war of the masses, just as it was shown in Sergei Eisenstein’s film Oktober, where long shots of masses of people running through St. Petersburg when the Bolsheviks were in the process of their coups d’Etat.
They both chose these political issues as important to their own psyche for various reasons. Napoleon had a profound need for domination, which sprung primarily from his complex of being very short and the fact that he came from a modest background in Corsica and was made fun of when attending French institutions. He also saw the opportunity to invoke his own vision because he recognized how at that particular time, people desperately needed a strong leader, accompanied by glamorous drama. In his eyes, the people of France needed Napoleon. Such as in Napoleon’s documentary, we saw how that portrayed his strong sense of discipline and streak of dramaturgy especially with his military men- the men he relied the most upon.
Lenin grew up educating himself, and hence, was constantly exposed to the chronic depressive and dissatisfied mood of the people for a century, since the proletariat was repressed by the Russian autocracy and would express their unhappiness in literature and the arts. On top of that, Lenin’s brother was executed in front of him due to a failed attempt to overthrow the Tsar, and then Lenin was convicted to prison and exiled numerous times for many years. Lenin recognized a strong need from the people to follow an organized and fully committed leader if any revolution was to take place.
Both agents had many similar qualities that brought them to where they knew they should be. When both revolutions are looked at from a general perspective, it is evident that not only did both men influence these revolutions in their way, but actually became the revolutions themselves- or the revolutions were a mirror of who these men truly were. The French Revolution is synonymous with Bonapartism- a pompous, rich, charismatic and emblematic era full of glory that was so self-centered in the end it forgot to foresee the true nature of the root of the problem- the poor French working class! And this is who Napoleon truly was. Lenin’s revolution (and Bolshevik party) also precisely described his true nature- a professional, committed and organized, ambitious, educated man who wanted so badly to get revenge for what the autocracy did to him and many others. A charismatic and emblematic revolution as well, it just as much reflected Lenin’s own self, just as much as it reflected him physically- known to look like any other man (having no distinguishing features) but incredibly charismatic.
Not so far off are the agents of counterrevolutionary change, Bismarck and Hitler, who were both in pursuit of an ethnic purity for a solid, nationalistic and unified German future. Again, they both saw themselves as men of destiny that were here doing the work of God. Interestingly, they weren’t too different in the means they sought to achieve their political objectives, since they both attained power legally. Bismarck believed in militarism and nationalism, and therefore one’s 1st priority must be to the prince and the state. He was a conservative, set in his ways and had a strong Machiavellic streak about the way he executed his work. Threatened by change, he became very suspicious of the growing cosmopolitan trends and ideas administered by much of the population and had one clear objective in mind: the unification of a nationalistic German state. He sided with the Kleinedeutsch solution of wanting to keep Germany a pure ethnic population. He was a manipulative man and played with his power over Kaiser Wilhelm calculatively to the Kaiser’s weaknesses and fantasies. Hitler on the other hand was much more of a radical. He was anti-parliamentary, anti-marxist, anti-democratic, strictly anti-liberal and secretly anti-socialist (although he advocated for the National Socialist party). Ultimately, he was a fascist. He completely viewed parliamentary movement as corrupt and put all his energy in creating the most powerful weapon of all: that of the masses. Since he saw his potential for unlimited power, he made sure he first got to power legally, so that it only benefited him when the time came to abuse it.
Their approaches to counterrevolution were not too far off either. Bismarck’s approach to implement his vision was through military force, because for him what mattered were results. He was a dedicated player of Realpolitik as well. Even though he was unscrupulous, this only deceived his planned manipulations over people and events as well. Overall, Bismarck’s method was very direct, yet dangerously sly just as was shown in his documentary when he plays on the Kaiser’s fantasies and manipulates him to make decisions that were solely Bismarck’s idea. He knew very well the Kaiser’s weaknesses and never hesitated to use them. Hitler’s way of achieving his political objectives revolved mainly around the power of the masses and how he could contrive situations to influence the masses to do what he wanted them to do. He knew they needed this sense of being under control and thus implemented it into their psyche through manipulation, his talent for oration, and radical action.
The political and social issues that topped their agenda fitted perfectly with who they were. Bismarck was raised in a provincial aristocracy, which influenced his thinking. He also was an egoist, and that in turn centered on his main objective for a unified- or egoist- Germany, because he had a strong sense of identity and wanted the same for the German people. Also, due to the timing of the situation, people were getting fed up of Napoleonic ideology and it became a rebellion against it, liberalism and a yearning for a more conservative and solid nation.
Hitler was well known to have a deep-rooted inferiority complex ever since his childhood. He grew a hatred of everything that was ‘un-German’, and in that case it was the Jewish population, because when he grew up, they were the aristocracy he very much hated. He had a strong will of order and discipline, interestingly contrasting with the way he was brought up. On top of that, due to the makeup of the humiliating Versailles Peace Settlement that the Weimar Republic signed for, it perfectly coincided with how Hitler experienced his past. The Weimar Republic tried becoming liberal democratic but failed due to being overthrown from radical parties. The people of Germany did not want a loose parliamentary structure at the time; or the Germans were not ready for it.
Bismarck and Hitler both were reflected in their counterrevolution era, just as Napoleon and Lenin were mirrored in their own revolutions. If one wants to get to know Hitler, they must get to know the makeup of the Third Reich and the Nazi takeover of Germany. Just as one must study and examine how the unification of Germany took place during Bismarck’s time. History is not just a series of events; it is the description of extraordinary individuals who saw the possibility to give their identity to their people, to their nation, and to their ideology. Their ego, in effect, is a revolution or counterrevolution.
The above essay was written by Hassiba Freiha and merely states opinions by a college student. However, if you feel strong about responding to the opinions stated, please write to articles@directorym.com and express your concerns.