The not-so-great theory of great men
The original incel, Adolf Hitler, doing poses in 1925
There is one issue that has been bugging me for quite some time, and that is the tendency to call terrible people in history great, if not outright, then as a partially explanation for their rise to power (it is mostly power-people that get this label).
Even when there might be broad consensus that the person up for discussion was horrible, we tend to rationalize how such a beast could succeed by saying that certain traits to them that were exceptional, otherwise how would they have ever come into such power in the first place, right?
While very human, this is an error of thought, in my humble opinion, and I am as guilty as anybody. Nothing about you need to be great to become leader of a nation for example. Let me explain.
In one way this way of thinking is linked to the so-called “Great man theory”, a theory that roughly asks the question: Would world history have been more or less the same without extraordinary individuals, or are the individuals merely seen as extraordinary because of the surroundings they were in that allowed them to take their places in history? (Although I know that this is not exactly how it is defined in academic circles).
One of those related questions commonly debated is: Would World War II have happened without Hitler, or was the situation in Germany so flammable in the 1920’s and 30’s that some other person would have taken the role of Hitler and we would have more or less had the same situation anyways?
Just to deal with the standard question first, the premise for that question is not the best: If you take it to the one extreme and say that it is all the individual that does it, that means that you think that Hitler could have risen to dictatorship through a democratic process in a un-traumatized, peaceful country with no history of war and no racial biases and basically no fundamental wounded pride and hatred and feelings of injustice – basically you would think that Hitler could rise to power in the Smurf’s village.
This is clearly wrong, Hitler was famously a nobody up until the first world war, he wasn’t particularly young either at the time, so he had time to fail and fail again – he is very much a result of his circumstances (we discuss this in the episode The Year That Changed Hitler).
But taken to the other extreme saying that individuals don’t matter in history is also clearly wrong – of course individuals can change the course of history, either it is individual stupidity or genius, one moment of brilliance or recklessness, that of course can have enormous impact, especially if you are a person with a lot of power.
No, the real purpose of this post is to discuss the language we use – me included – and that we tend to fall into the trap thinking that there must be something there – I mean, you don’t manage to rise to be the leader of an entire people if you are a complete schmuck, right?
Let us rewind a bit: The “Great” people in history are often political leaders, be it presidents, monarchs, emperors, prime ministers, dictators and so forth. That means that we should measure them as such. And don’t get me wrong: A lot of political leaders have been fantastic; I am of course not saying that all political leaders are horrible.
The question we really should ask ourselves is: What is the measurement of success for a political leader - is it the amount of stability? Is it the happiness of your people? Is it wealth? Is it being able to keep the peace? Is it level of individual freedom? The right to worship what religion you like?
It probably depends on who you are, but to be fair – for most people living under a leader I would think these KPI’s would be high up on the list. And at the bare minimum, you would expect a good leader not to get you and your family killed.
What annoys me is when we fall for the temptation and say about for example Hitler: “He was a great opportunist”. And I realize that opportunist is not necessarily a positive word, but still I sense that we here are implying that – “of course Hitler was horrible, but boy could he rile up those German crowds” or “boy could he take a chance when he saw it”.
That is in my mind not only misunderstanding Hitler, it is also our own bias shining through, it is the all too human tendency to think that because someone is standing on a pedestal you automatically draw the conclusion that they must have somehow earned it or must somehow be - if not great – then at least have some talent.
I find that to be a very dangerous misconception indeed. We so easily fall in love with the person on the big stage, no matter how they stumbled up there.
Today I see polls of people in social media (albeit being on the quite far right) thinking that Hitler is made up to be worse than he really was (by that bloody mainstream media, right!?) or people saying that “yeah, he was bad, but he got stuff done”.
It is similarly disturbing to see people on the American far right admiring Putin for having such a tight grip on power. There is one thing that we tend to forget with so-called “strong” dictators like this: They are always terrible to their neighbors, but they are even worse to their own populations.
Putin’s Russia is gravitating towards another of the top losers in world History, Josef Stalin, at least by our mentioned success parameters of what makes a good leader.
Stalin managed to kill off 9 million of his own people, and at the time of his death had about 3 million more in Gulags. Add to that that he played a huge role in starting the entire second world war with the Nazi’s through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact you get one of the biggest human disasters in history.
“But he was a great father of the Soviet Union”, some might say. No. He absolutely was not. That was what he got printed on posters, showing him smiling with kids. He was a very sad, paranoid man that spiraled into a pattern where he could trust no-one and frequently had to kill off people just to keep himself in power, and essentially keeping himself alive.
Back to Hitler. He was a politician. He was awful at it by all possible key parameters you would use on what makes a political leader great, he is up there with the very, very worst. That shouldn’t be very controversial.
Focusing on other qualities other than those needed to be a good leader is absurd, and is a bit like saying that the swimmer finishing 150th out of 150 at the Olympics, that almost drowned halfway in the pool and had to be pulled up, isn’t all that bad – in fact: did I tell you that he is pretty good at knitting mittens? Frankly – it doesn’t matter.
But what matters is what language we use, because language and wording hold a lot of power. And I think I might be at fault for calling Hitler both a good gambler and possibly also a good orator, I now think neither.
Let us derail to what is going on now, let’s talk Donald Trump. Trump gathers thousands of supporters for rallies; gatherings where he mumbles, talks about absurdities, asks people to do directly harmful things to themselves (bleach!), talks about his golf and makes stuff up that even those in the crowd would know to be wrong – would you call Trump a great orator because he has thousands standing there with red baseball hats on?
Trump of course think Putin is smart, he has said so straight out. Putin, that now has tarnished every trade link to the Western World, has to sell his raw materials at highly discounted prices, in practice is about to make Russia an economic vassal of China, which international partners are quickly getting reduced to Iran and North-Korea and some smaller countries in Africa, that has killed, wounded raped and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians – but has yet killed far more of his own people in the process, and has some out-bombed strips of land in Eastern Ukraine to show for it, that also sooner or later will be lost to him as foreign help is finally coming back to Ukraine again.
“The smartest one gets to the top” Trump said in 2022.«I mean, he’s taking over a country for two dollars’ worth of sanctions, I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country – really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in.”
Again, by all parameters available to us, economy, employment, foreign politics, ability to keep peace (January 6th for example) … Trump is another horrible, horrible politician. They can’t be measured by the number of fanatics believing their lies (and boy - we can all easily become fanatics). And like with many of these other players it is worth asking the question: Are they doing a lot of this because they feel they have no choice? That they are too deep in? That they know that if I stop now I will either be in jail or killed?
Trump clearly understands he will be imprisoned if he loose, Putin knows he will likely get killed if he doesn’t keep on pushing his glorious plans – because he himself has started this spiral of killing people not “being up for it”. Hitler had basically a point of no return after the Night of the long knifes (if not long before) and Stalin … don’t get me started. Once you’ve gone down that path you’ve created the rules of your own game, and if you stop playing – that will mean someone else will likely pick it up. Our perception of them might change quite a bit that instead of being “strong” we realize that their driving force might be fear.
The sad reality is that even with the so-called “great men”, that all of a sudden find themselves on the big stage, is that from time to time some huge dimwits will be stumbling up there, and surprisingly many people might still applaud that. And sometimes these terrible leaders will of course also grab a lot of attention.
Not only do you not need to be smart to get your hands on vast amounts of power, but you can also be surprisingly stupid. You might also need to be ruthless and evil, with a whiff of psychopathic personality disorder in order to get there, and you might need a lot of “luck” and the cards stacked just right for you.
The point is: let us from here on try to be more careful before we allude to that the biggest monsters in world history have anything “great” about them. Let’s not be Donald Trump thinking that “the smartest one gets on the top”, let’s make “great” great again.
Other related listening: The Nazi-Soviet Conspiracy
Explaining fascism
After listening to History on Fire’s Danielle Bolelli’s excellent podcast about fascism it inspired me to discuss this topic myself. And whereas Bolelli gets it spot on, as always, I want to further ponder this topic as there might never have been a more important time to understand this concept as it is now. I have already touched upon this a little bit in the series about Vidkun Quisling - so check that out if you haven’t already - and my point is not to get all political all of a sudden, but more trying to dig into the ideology and describing how it can be seen in a historical context.
One of the reasons for fascism being a bit of a blurry concept is that there is no written fascist manifesto, in many way you can argue that it is an ideology that is just emerging organically in Italy. Whereas Marx and Engels wrote the Communist manifesto and Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, fascism does not have any sort of founding document. In fact, when the father of fascism Benito Mussolini at one point was asked what his ideology was, he said that something like that his only ideology was to take power in Italy, but what does fascism mean in practice and how is it different from its close cousin Nazism? Let’s try to find out.
The first important factor is nationalism - you can of course have nationalism in many forms without it being anything close to fascism – but you simply cannot have fascism without nationalism.
Identity is key here, and in that regard, I can strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama’s book called precisely that – Identity – because for most people politics is also about emotion, it is about belonging and unity. In fascism you are often chasing back to an earlier identity, you mythologize a glorious past and are yearning to bring that back. The fact that the past might not at all have been that glorious, objectively speaking, is not important – fascism is relentlessly poking into people’s lack of a secure identity, dreaming of a past where things were better, easier, simpler – happier times without the complexity and uncertainty that modern society brings to the table. It is not a coincidence that Mussolini’s fascism emerged in a climate where industrialization and social change was rampant, much like the technological revolution in today’s world is rapidly changing the rules regarding employment, status and opportunity.
For Mussolini the glorious past was the Roman empire, he was in many ways the embodiment of the classical roman emperor that would once again bring order and structure and not least – a feeling of pride – amongst people that felt they had lost theirs in an ever more confusing world. While fascism and Nazism is different in some key areas, this is definitely something that they have in common. If you have heard my series on Vidkun Quisling you will remember that he also to a very large degree had this trait - for him it was of course not about the Roman empire, it was the Viking age that he wanted to bring back; the time when the Norwegians raided the shores of Europe and had power and were militarily superior. He took this to the comical extreme and had his home decorated in old Norse style and would go to the old Viking burial mounds to hold political rallies and so forth. Hitler and his accomplices also stayed on the same path, yearning back for a time where the Germanic tribes roamed free, and even spent lot of resources on mock archeology that would support their views of a superior Germanic race.
To relate this to today’s politics – which is of course a hornet’s nest that I am now going to place my hand in the very middle of – few things exemplify this one specific element of fascism better than the Make America Great Again movement. I am not necessarily saying that the MAGA republicans or Donald Trump are fascist (that is a different discussion – and as you will see if you continue reading there are elements that clearly goes against classical fascism) but regardless of what you call it, “Make America Great Again” is the perfect example of yearning for a past that was likely not that glorious, but that is perceived as simpler, more honorable times. Again – not stating that this is necessarily a fascist thought on its own, but if we are to look for modern parallels this is a very clear one: it is the archetype of longing to the past. You could easily see Mussolini, Quisling or Hitler using exact the same slogan, just replacing America with their countries, of course. “Bring the good times back, the times we were all great, and I am the man that can make that happen!”
It is also worth noting that people of extreme ideologies will rarely label themselves as such even though they might fit the bill perfectly – for example: The Nazis did not particularly like the word Nazi and would never identify as such. Still – it should be an obvious red political flag when movements start yearning for this mythological past, be it Reagan or Augustus, because as we all know deep down, turning back time is always impossible – so creating a myth around this is rarely little more than manipulating people that feel lost in a current whirlwind of change – it is not a real, fruitful political standpoint because the objective is impossible.
Let’s move on to another key component of fascism: the idea of the strong man (or woman), the strong leader that can take control – that can carry the population, one man to lead. Often the movement is entirely centered around this person - after all, what was fascism in Italy without Mussolini? What was Nazism without Hitler? In many ways the person becomes the ideology, you have the same with Stalin, molding the communism into his image, and this concept with the strong man is something that differentiates these extreme ideologies from most others. They are all in essence anti-democratic and totalitarian, even though they will often gain power through democratic processes – Hitler did that, and Vidkun Quisling tried to do that, before undermining these democracies from within. You can easily argue that many modern far-right leaders are doing the same, Hungary currently being a prime example.
As Danielle points to in his brilliant podcast (it’s on his Patreon feed, so you better pay the man! It’s worth it!) there are some other very typical fascist traits: It is a movement that often brands itself on being revolutionary, at the same time as being ultra conservative – it is an ideology that in general does not allow for many different people types, it prefers a streamlined population where people that are different are often looked on as outcasts, delinquents and perverts. Women are supposed to have traditional roles, often being housewives and not sexually frivolous (so obviously also anti-abortion), everything going outside of the “normal” such as having a different sexual orientation or other things that breaks with traditional gender roles is looked down upon, and there is a sense that embracing differences or uncertainty is a sign of weakness. Fascism is actually about unity – not in the meaning of collaboration – but in the sense of one people living in a clear hierarchical society. But while fascism desire a homogenous population, here is a very important point: Fascism does not necessarily involve racism, even though it often ends up like that when the nationalism goes overboard, but this is in my humble opinion one of the most important differences with Nazism.
Whereas Nazism is strongly about believing that there are different human races where some races are more valuable and better and pure than others, often including pseudoscientific theories with elements of social-Darwinism, this does not have the same standing in classical fascism, nor does outright antisemitism. This is where a lot of people go wrong – saying that someone is not fascist because he or she does not want to exterminate Jews, this is in my opinion irrelevant. It is true that Mussolini adopted this stance towards the end of the war and implemented Nazi laws regarding race, but that was only because he was forced to by Hitler after the Germans had to come to fascist Italy’s help – this was never really a part of fascist ideology. Other things that differentiate the two are different is the relationship with religion, Mussolini embraced the catholic church that also had very conservative views in terms of what we today will call woke, whereas Hitler’s men never really got comfortable with the church. They even tried to create their own Nazi church that never took off, but there is something about blatant antisemitism and Jesus that is hard to combine – Jesus of course being a Jew. So this would be another big difference.
Also while being forced into adopting Nazi believes the ideal of the blonde Arian was something that was a little awkward for Mussolini as most Italians do not fit this description, but that is of course not to say there was not racism also in play here and there – but while completely essential in Nazism, it is not essential in fascism in the same way.
Another big thing about classical fascism is connected to militarism and to the display of so-called strength, and in many cases this also include some form of imperialism. Italy did a horrible job at trying to invade Ethiopia of all places, but they did try that, and since I already mentioned MAGA republicans and Trump (likely pissing some people off, I promise that was not my intention) this is an area where it is harder to argue for similarities of fascism, at least as long as Donald Trump does not start invading others should he regain power. So if you are to argue about the ever more far-right Republican party is turning fascist, this is likely one point where you might struggle, although there can be arguments to be made here also I suppose.
For Vladimir Putin’s Russia on the other hand, this pattern of behavior is very much up the ally of fascism – recreating glory of old through military might and annexation, also trying to use history as a propaganda tool, which is interesting but also completely futile. That brings us to another typical trait: propaganda. There is no freedom of speech, you will be shot down if you criticize people in power, jailed or even killed – Vladimir Putin’s Russia fits this like a glove, the biggest opposition leader being in jail, and several political opponents mysteriously killed.
There is much more that can be said about this, but I’ll limit myself to saying that fascism does not understand the need for democracy and views it as a nuisance, a complicating factor. Quisling, that is not the clear cut Nazi Hitler was and was also heavily inspired by fascism, called his party National Unity because he thought he would save Norway from the bickering of party politics that in his view only led to chaos. He wanted order, and paradoxically enough didn’t believe that he did anything wrong, even though he will be remembered by history as one of the worst traitors to ever have lived.
I think we can conclude that when we use the word “fascist”, we often use it incorrectly, but at the same time there can also be little doubt that there are clearly fascist elements emerging in modern politics – and these are elements that we should be aware of, they are red flags that should make us stand up and take notice because fascism or totalitarianism never ends well for anybody. I think Winston Churchill’s famous quote is still pretty much spot on: “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”.