Introduction
Operational code has been a widely used methodology in analysing the decision-making process of political leaders. The model was developed in the middle of the twentieth century when the American government needed to evaluate the potential conduct of and choices made by Soviet leaders and political elites (Dyson and Parent, 2018). The operational code is often referred to as a set of diagnoses and perceptions affecting an individual’s choice of tactics and strategy (Dyson and Parent, 2018). The model encompasses a person’s philosophical beliefs concerning the political universe and instrumental beliefs related to the norms and standards shaping the individual’s choices and behaviour (Walker, Schafer and Young, 1998).
The framework proved to be effective for both qualitative and quantitative analysis, which made it applicable in diverse settings. The approach has also undergone certain changes based on the transformations that have taken place in international relations throughout decades. In the late 1970s, a typology based on six and later four major categories of operational code was introduced (Özdamar, 2017). The four types of operational codes differ in terms of the nature (permanent or temporary) and the source of conflict (a person, society or the system). Although some weaknesses of the paradigm can be found, the framework has proved to be an effective tool to examine individuals’ mindsets and the choices they make.
Literature Review
The role of individuals in foreign relations remains one of the relevant topics for researchers exploring the peculiarities of geopolitics. Such figures as Hitler and Stalin have attracted considerable attention in the academic world as the roles in the course of the history of these leaders can hardly be underestimated. Diverse studies have been published regarding different aspects of these two persons, including but not confined to their biographies, psychological portraits, and worldviews. This literature review provides a brief analysis of the available literature on the aspects mentioned above, as well as certain theoretical frameworks that guide the present research.
The Two Leaders’ Backgrounds
The vast amount of literature on biographical facts regarding different leaders and historical figures is available. The biographical approach has been widely used in political science research, but it has gained more popularity rather recently (Goeschel, 2018). It has been acknowledged that people’s backgrounds largely shape their behaviour and decisions they make (Husain and Liebertz, 2019). At the same time, researchers also consider the limitations linked to this approach as such controversial figures as Hitler or Mussolini, as well as other dictators including Stalin, tended to facilitate the development of alternative biographies (Goeschel, 2018; Meyer, 2017). Hence, it is critical to ensure the utilisation of reliable sources and valid data when using biographical information.
Biographers analyse the most meaningful details, often trying to draw parallels between historical figures’ backgrounds and their choices that affected their further lives as well as the lives of other people. Ascher (2016) paid considerable attention to Stalin’s childhood stating that the future Soviet leader had a difficult childhood with an abusive father and negative education-related experiences. At the same time, Kotkin (2014) emphasised that Stalin’s deprivation in his childhood was not severe compared to the rest of his contemporaries. For instance, having been the only surviving child in the family, he received an education, and the family had a house and certain financial security (although minimal). His young adulthood and adulthood receive more attention as this was the period of his involvement in the struggle against the political regime that existed at that time. Stalin’s involvement in terrorist acts, diverse unlawful activities, and his travels are regarded as important building blocks of his leadership and the choices he made during his time in Kremlin (Kotkin, 2014). Kotkin (2017) also provides numerous facts about his decisions during the 1930s and his interactions with other political leaders and his subordinates.
Similar attention has been paid to Adolf Hitler, who is often juxtaposed with the Soviet dictator. It is noteworthy that recent studies sometimes provide a revisionist account of Hitler’s biography and the role his background played in his interactions with other people. For example, Simms (2019) attempted to explain and justify Hitler’s attitudes towards the German history, other countries and nations, as well as other aspects, by analysing his birthplace and his early years. On the other hand, Kaplan (2017) stated that Hitler’s life and legacy were rather biased due to the attitude of his contemporaries and later researchers, so thorough analysis and caution were needed to consider Hitler’s biography and his role in history.
Irrespective of the bias and attempts to create a certain image, historians manage to provide facts regarding the German dictator’s life. Longerich (2019) presented rich details and carried out an in-depth analysis of Hitler’s life. The biographer stated that Adolf Hitler’s childhood was marked by the authoritarian rule of his father and, later, the young man’s search for his place in the world in his early adulthood. Spielvogel and Redles (2016) concentrated on Hitler’s way to power through the prism of the political and socio-economic situation in the country of that period. The researchers tried to explain the impact of external factors on Hitler and the new leader’s influence on the development of Germany, as well as possible reasons for Hitler’s and his ideas rise.
Although the way to the power of the two leaders in question was quite different, certain attempts to draw parallels have been made, and they have been successful. Husain and Liebertz (2019) compared the lives of the two dictators and found many similarities that could be seen as the basis for these people’s authoritarianism. Some of these reasons are found in the leaders’ childhood and their social status.
Psychological Profiles
The comparisons of psychological profiles of Hitler and Stalin are more frequent as compared to the comparison of their backgrounds. Haycock (2019) implemented a comprehensive psychological investigation of the major traits and psychological profiles of several dictators, including Hitler and Stalin. The author claimed that a set of traits influenced by the environment and experiences made the two leaders’ authoritarian rulers with controversial ethical codes. Such traits as narcissism, Machiavellianism, neuroticism, and introversion were typical of a dictator, and they were characteristic features of the German and Soviet leaders.
Zoja (2017) expressed his ideas regarding the psychological states of Stalin and Hitler in his deep account of paranoia and its role in the development of human society. The author stated that people were prone to this mental state due to both external and internal factors, and many leaders tended to radiate and facilitate the spread of universal paranoia in their countries and on the global scale. Researchers also pay attention to the features that seemed impossible and displaced. For instance, Haffner (2019) mentioned Hitler’s shyness in some aspects and his fear of commitment. Ascher (2016) noted that Stalin was indecisive and insecure at some points of his life, which seemed inconsistent with the figure who is responsible for terror across a large country and millions of deaths.
Again, it is stressed that certain precautions should be made when analysing the data associated with the two leaders’ psychological profiles due to the biased nature of many primary and secondary sources (Goeschel, 2018; Marsh, 2017). The data regarding the two historical figures’ traits need additional considerations due to the interpretive nature of the information related to people’s psychological states and the way they are manifested or instrumental in shaping individuals’ choices. The analysis of valid data regarding the psychological profiles of Stalin and Hitler is critical for understanding these people’s beliefs, mindsets, and personal codes.
Worldviews, Beliefs, Personal Codes
The examination of the life and legacy of dictators suggests that these leaders tend to have similar worldviews with certain cultural peculiarities (Haycock, 2019). For example, Hitler and Stalin concentrated on the creation of new entities in the global political arena. For instance, Hitler tried to create Grand German Empire that would combine all German people even though that would mean the change of the borders that existed at that time (Malchow, 2020). Stalin, in his turn, was committed to the idea of Global revolution that encompassed the establishment of Communist governments in other countries that would be loyal to Moscow. In simple terms, the Soviet leader tried to set a Communist block that would become the staging area for further expansion.
They both placed a specific group in a privileged position (the Germans in Hitler’s case and Communists in Stalin’s situation). They wanted to prove the superiority of those cohorts in diverse ways in their national contexts and the global setting. Both tyrants saw the conflict as inevitable and the most appropriate method to achieve their goals.
Hitler shared the view of thousands of German people regarding the end of the First World War. His revanchist attitude guided his entire life after 1918, when he accepted Germany’s loss in the war as his personal humiliation (Longerich, 2019). The dictator believed that the Treaty of Versailles was an unfair and humiliating event, so the countries that signed the document had to be punished for that humiliation. The idea of German Reich that was superior to other nations was central in terms of Hitler’s set of beliefs.
Researchers have paid considerable attention to the religious beliefs of the two leaders that were quite similar. Both were baptised Christians coming from families where religion was practised. Nevertheless, in their adult life, the two dictators were not practising Christians. Both dictators contributed to the “ritualisation of the political process and leader cults completed the striking similarity with the veneration of the divine” (Van Ree, 2016, p. 143). Hitler and Stalin tried to create a new religion that would be more consistent with their political goals than traditional Christian values.
Hitler believed that Catholicism, as well as Christianity in general, was over, and a new religion was to replace old beliefs (Bear, 2016). Clearly, Hitler saw his political agenda (the Nazi ideology) as a new religion. At the same time, he understood that religious beliefs could be an effective platform for promoting the ideas of National Socialism (Berger, 2017; Van Ree, 2016). In public, he referred to Christian values and even Biblical motifs, but still there was hardly any place for Christianity in new Hitler’s Germany (Weikart, 2016).
Stalin had even a more peculiar attitude towards religion. He studied in a seminary and was to become a part of the clergy, so he was well aware of the major concepts and texts of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, Communism was the ideology of atheists, and, hence, Communist leaders, including Stalin, tried to destroy the religious tradition that was rather strong in the Russian Empire (Andrews, 2016). The clergy were prosecuted, tortured, and subjected to physical destruction, which was implemented at an unprecedented scale in the 1930s. During the war and afterwards, Stalin also acknowledged the potential benefits of using religion as a tool to make people more loyal to the regime (Bociurkiw, 2019).
As for the ethical codes the two dictators followed, their moral and ethical standards were different from the norms of democratic societies. Both leaders found thousands of deaths an acceptable cost for the attainment of certain goals. At that, Stalin was significantly less concerned with any losses, including people’s lives, compared to Hitler, who was not prepared to sacrifice millions of German people (McCauley, 2019). The conduct of the two authoritarian leaders was rather similar in terms of their attitudes towards subordinates. They did not trust anyone and could easily destroy any person they found dangerous to their power, as well as use those who could help them reach their objectives.
The Application of Cognitive Model in International Affairs Research
It is important to identify the major theoretical premises guiding the present research. The cognitive model is the theoretical framework that enables researchers to examine the reasons behind people’s behaviours and choices. This theoretical approach is based on the perspective that people’s decisions are not always rational due to the cognitive peculiarities of an individual (Jones, 2017). It is stressed that people have certain beliefs and backgrounds that shape their behaviour and the decision-making process (Zmigrod, 2020). Cognitive peculiarities of a person also define the way decisions are made since the speed of processing data, risk aversion levels, and other features influence the choices leaders make.
Researchers applying this approach pay specific attention to the ways individuals process and store, as well as utilise, information (Király, Köves and Balázs, 2017). It is believed that humans’ cognitive capacity is limited, which often results in irrational choices. Leaders make decisions that seem inadequate due to the limits of their cognition, mistakes they can make, and the overall availability of data necessary to make optimal choices (Volkan, 2018). It has also been accepted that leaders tend to ensure that the rational decisions they make are consistent with the set of beliefs and norms they have developed during their lives (Baumgartner and Jones, 2015). In simple terms, every person has their own reality that is formed by a range of views, norms, and biases. People perceive information and make choices within the scope of their realities, which makes others see their decision irrational.
The cognitive model is also based on the assumption that people’s traits have an impact on their decisions. It is accepted that psychological profiles of humans shape, to a considerable extent, the behavioural patterns and values they develop (Van Bavel and Pereira, 2018). On the other hand, cognitive model researchers believe that individuals’ cognitive peculiarities also shape the development of their psychological traits. Although people tend to behave in different ways and make rather diverse choices in similar situations, certain generalizability is apparent. People with a particular set of features tend to have some behavioural peculiarities and mindsets, shaping their decisions (Choma and Hanoch, 2017). Researchers also emphasise that individuals process information on the grounds of pre-existing beliefs and tend to neglect information that seems discrepant.
Operational Code
One of the effective methods to decipher political leaders’ worldviews and predict or explain their choices is the operational code model. While some theoretical paradigms place leaders’ decisions in the context with the focus on external factors, the operational code approach enables investigators to examine internal factors that have had an impact on certain decisions and choices (Kertzer and Tingley, 2018). This framework was developed by Nathan Leites, who attempted to analyse the political strategies of the members of the Soviet Politburo (Özdamar, 2017). This work was largely implemented to satisfy the needs of the American government to estimate potential behaviours of the Soviet decisionmakers in the post-war period (Dyson and Parent, 2018). The researcher managed to determine some of the Soviet ruling party members’ rules and mindsets, as well as the impact Stalin’s and Lenin’s works had on this cohort (Özdamar, 2017). This analysis enabled the investigator to make a number of generalisations regarding political decisions Soviet leaders made in particular settings.
Leites’s approach was effective but the instruments employed were not properly developed. Alexander George addresses this gap and introduces a set of clear questions and answers, concentrating on “the core beliefs that comprised the Bolshevik view of the nature of the political universe and the best way to advance Bolshevik interests within that universe” (Dyson and Parent, 2018, p. 85). The researcher referred to operational code as a “prism” that influences the way individuals create strategies and tactics when responding to particular situations (Dyson and Parent, 2018, p. 85). Importantly, George (1969) stated that although operational code provides insights into the decision-making process and unveils some probabilities, it should be regarded as one of a set of variables that should be analysed. The researcher stressed that real-time intelligence, as well as other instruments, are critical as diverse factors (including but not confined to individuals’ operational codes) affect the choices political leaders make.
The operational code model encompasses the focus on two clusters of beliefs. The first set of beliefs is related to the person’s views on the political world, its being friendly or hostile, as well as the perceived degree of control over this universe (Walker, Schafer and Young, 1998). The second cluster is associated with the leader’s guidelines and personal standards that affect their decision making. George’s model entails the identification of the leader’s mindset and the choice of a conflictual or cooperative strategy.
It has also been found that people’s beliefs tend to be stable with only some of them subjected to changes due to certain external or internal factors (Renshon, 2008). Renshon (2008) found that although some beliefs may transform during some period, the system of beliefs and norms remain consistent and largely unchanged. The factors triggering the change may be different, and the development of the new convictions often depends on the personality, cognitive peculiarities, environment, and the changes in the accepted norms and values in the society.
George (1969) also stated that the paradigm should be utilised to analyse individuals’ operational codes as the code of a group can be hardly scrutinised due to the abundance of different operational codes of the members of the group. When exploring an organisation’s operational code, the focus is still on their leaders’ codes as their decisions tend to be the most influential in their organisations’ agendas (Ayaşli, 2018). As far as the methodological peculiarities of the model, researchers tend to concentrate on speeches, writing, biographies, and other similar types of evidence (Dyson and Parent, 2018). Kim (2017) notes that speeches provide a wealth of data that can be utilised to quantify leaders’ philosophical and instrumental beliefs that define their attitudes and behaviour in their pursuit after certain political goals. Alexander George developed a set of questions to be responded in order to identify the operational codes of leaders and quantify their decision making (Dyson and Parent, 2018). These questions address the concepts grounded in the operational code paradigm, including pessimism, optimism, conflict, control, interest, action, impact, to name a few.
The operational code model has been widely used since the middle of the twentieth century and has undergone certain changes. For instance, several typologies have been introduced to provide researchers with an effective and valid instrument to assess leaders’ operational codes (Özdamar, 2017). Ole Holsti created six types of operational codes based on the nature of the conflict and its sources (Walker, 1983). The researcher juxtaposed permanent and temporary nature of the conflict and focused on such sources as international, societal, and individual systems as the sources of the conflict. Walker (1983) modified the framework by reducing the typology to four major types. The author pays attention to such concepts and pessimism and optimism and stresses that DEF codes can be regarded as one type.
Existing Gaps
This literature review suggests that various aspects of Hitler’s and Stalin’s personalities and decisions have been explored in detail. However, these leaders’ choices and worldviews have hardly been quantified. Although some attempts to compare the two dictators have been implemented, researchers tend to concentrate on narrow areas. For instance, Luck (1974) implemented a psycholinguistic analysis of Hitler and Stalin, as well as Liu Shao-ch’I and Mao. It is noteworthy that the author acknowledged the benefits of the use of the operational code framework but stated that it was inappropriate for his study. The scholar concentrated on psycholinguistic aspects and identified some of the primary differences between Hitler (and his loud articulation of certain needs) and Stalin (who quietly climbed the top of the political hierarchy and tried to occupy his place in the international arena).
Satterfield (1998) examines risk-taking and the political aggression of Hitler, Stalin, as well as Roosevelt and Churchill. The researcher employed the operational code approach, which provided researchers with insights into the ways this model can be effectively utilised. However, an in-depth examination and comparison of operational codes of Hitler and Stalin have not been implemented, especially in relation to their decision making in the period of the onset of the Second World War.
Reference List
Andrews, J. T. (2016) ‘Inculcating materialist minds: scientific propaganda and anti-religion in the USSR during the Cold War’, in Betts, P. and Smith, S. A. (eds.) Science, religion and communism in Cold War Europe. Oxford, England: Springer, pp. 105–126.
Ascher, A. (2016) Stalin: A beginner’s guide. London, England: Oneworld Publications.
Ayaşli, E. (2018) ‘United Nations secretary generals as liberal agents: an operational code analysis’, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), pp. 59-76.
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2015) The politics of information: problem definition and the course of public policy in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bear, I. (2016) Adolf Hitler: a biography. New Delhi, India: Vij Books India Pvt Ltd.
Berger, R. J. (2017) The Holocaust, religion, and the politics of collective memory: beyond sociology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bociurkiw, B. R. (2019) ‘Ukrainian autocephalous Orthodox Church and modernization’, in Dunn, D. J. (ed.) Religion and modernization in the Soviet Union. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 80–94.
Choma, B. and Hanoch, Y. (2017) ‘Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton’, Personality and Individual Differences, 106, pp. 287-291.
Dyson, S. and Parent, M. (2018) ‘The operational code approach to profiling political leaders: understanding Vladimir Putin’, Intelligence and National Security, 33(1), pp. 84-100.
George, A. L. (1969) ‘The “operational code”: a neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making’, International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), pp. 190-222.
Goeschel, C. (2018) ‘Biography, political leadership, and foreign policy reconsidered: the cases of Mussolini and Hitler’, ERIS – European Review of International Studies, 4(2-3), pp. 5-19.
Haffner, S. (2019) The meaning of Hitler. Lexington, MA: Plunkett Lake Press.
Haycock, D. (2019) Tyrannical minds: psychological profiling, narcissism, and dictatorship. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Husain, M. Z. and Liebertz, S. (2019) ‘Hitler, Stalin, and authoritarianism: a comparative analysis’, Journal of Psychohistory, 47(1), pp. 18-36.
Jones, B. D. (2017) ‘Behavioral rationality as a foundation for public policy studies’, Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 43, pp. 63–75.
Kaplan, R. M. (2017) ‘Adolf Hitler and the psychiatrists: psychiatric debate on the German dictator’s mental state in The Lancet’, Journal of Forensic Science & Criminology, 5(1), pp. 101-107.
Kertzer, J. and Tingley, D. (2018) ‘Political psychology in international relations: beyond the paradigms’, Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), pp. 319-339.
Kim, J. D. (2017) ‘Empirical study on South Korean presidents’ understandings on North Korea: comparing operational code beliefs of Kim, Roh, Lee and Park (1998-2016)’, Journal of Political Science, 1(1), pp. 1-15.
Király, G., Köves, A. and Balázs, B. (2017) ‘Contradictions between political leadership and systems thinking’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp. 134-143.
Kotkin, S. (2017) Stalin: waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941. New York, NY: Penguin.
Kotkin, S. (2014) Stalin. East Rutherford: Penguin Publishing Group.
Longerich, P. (2019) Hitler: a biography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Luck, D. (1974) ‘A psycholinguistic approach to leader personality: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Liu Shao-ch’I’, Studies in Comparative Communism, 7(4), pp. 426-453.
Malchow, H. (2020) History and international relations: from the ancient world to the 21st century. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Marsh, R. (2017) Images of dictatorship: Stalin in literature. London: Routledge.
McCauley, M. (2019) Stalin and Stalinism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meyer, G. (2017) ‘Joseph Stalin: revisionist biography’, Science & Society, 81(4), pp. 549-569.
Özdamar, Ö. (2017) ‘Leadership analysis at a “great distance”: using the operational code construct to analyse Islamist leaders’, Global Society, 31(2), pp. 167-198.
Renshon, J. (2008) ‘Stability and change in belief systems: the operational code of George W. Bush’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(6), pp. 820-849.
Satterfield, J. (1998) ‘Cognitive-affective states predict military and political aggression and risk taking’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(6), pp. 667-690.
Simms, B. (2019) Hitler: a global biography. New York, NY: Hachette UK.
Spielvogel, J. J. and Redles, D. (2016) Hitler and Nazi Germany: a history. 7th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.
Van Bavel, J. and Pereira, A. (2018) ‘The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), pp. 213-224.
Van Ree, E. (2016) ‘Stalinist ritual and belief system: reflections on ‘political religion’, Politics, Religion & Ideology, 17(2-3), pp. 143-161.
Volkan, V. D. (2018) Psychoanalysis, international relations, and diplomacy: a sourcebook on large-group psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Walker, S. (1983) ‘The motivational foundations of political belief systems: a re-analysis of the operational code construct’, International Studies Quarterly, 27(2), pp.179-202.
Walker, S., Schafer, M. and Young, M. (1998) ‘Systematic procedures for operational code analysis: measuring and modeling Jimmy Carter’s operational code’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(1), pp. 175-189.
Weikart, R. (2016) Hitler’s religion: the twisted beliefs that drove the Third Reich. Washington, DC: Simon and Schuster.
Zmigrod, L. (2020) ‘The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions’, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, pp. 34-39.
Zoja, L. (2017) Paranoia: the madness that makes history. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.