The Role of Individuals in International Politics: Hitler and Stalin Proposal

Abstract

The role of individuals can hardly be overestimated in international relations as foreign policy is a set of actions of individuals that influence the development of countries and the entire human society. Although many world leaders influenced international politics in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin could be seen as some of the most prominent actors. The focus of this dissertation will be on the personalities of the two leaders and their opinions on war and peace.

The theoretical basis of the present study will be a cognitive model that implies the analysis of the way individuals shape or create political agendas. The operational code approach will also be utilized to consider the two people’s traits and beliefs. The quantitative method and statistical analysis of data collected from diverse sources will be instrumental in identifying the trends and peculiarities of the viewpoints of Stalin and Hitler.

Introduction

The role of an individual in foreign policy has been analyzed from different perspectives, and there is hardly a universally accepted approach to the matter. In the nineteenth century, the theory of the Great Man was rather popular, and it was assumed that great leaders were the primary driving forces of major historical events (LeRoy Malchow, 2015). This approach was highly criticized later, and more attention was paid to other actors, such as the masses.

Some researchers placed rational choices first while others concentrated on discourses and meanings. The role of an individual in international relations is undoubtfully considerable. The examination of the events of major significance can help in explaining the role an individual plays, and the Second World War is one of such episodes in the history of humanity. This study will dwell upon such key figures as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin with a focus on their views regarding war and peace and their personalities.

Literature Review

The political figures mentioned above have attracted substantial attention in academia, and numerous researchers have explored different aspects of these leaders and their legacy. These men had quite different perspectives, backgrounds, political agendas, but they had to interact at a certain point in history (Groom, 2018). These two persons have also been in the lenses of historians, but their worldviews and some aspects of their personalities remain under-researched.

Although the relationships between Hitler and Stalin could hardly be referred to as political (or any other kind of) friendship, their interactions have been explored in detail. The alliance between Germany and the USSR is seen as one of the central premises for the start of the war (Kotkin, 2017). For the contemporaries, the close collaboration between the two dictators came as a surprise, which now seems, nonetheless, logical (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016).

The two dictators tried to create new empires based on the political views they developed during their early years and had a different perspective on the future of the world. Finally, Communism and Nazism were very different political systems, and their leaders often criticized each other heavily at certain periods (Ascher, 2016; Reynolds & Pechatnov, 2018). Nevertheless, the two systems also shared certain similarities that made Hitler and Stalin allies for a short period.

One of the primary prerequisites of this alliance was the fact that the leaders of the two countries opposed the democratic values of the rest of the world and wanted to control vast territories (Kotkin, 2017). The personalities of these two historic figures have been explored in many works and certain similarities can be found. Ascher (2016) claims that Stalin’s features of character enabled him to gain power. This man who adopted a new name ‘made of steel’ (Stalin) sought power and tried to create a specific image of himself (Ascher, 2016). At the same time, he was, in some ways, insecure, anxious, and indecisive.

Kotkin (2017, p. 341) named Stalin as a “self-centered, intrigue-prone” person. He used various ways to achieve his goals, including terroristic acts, murder, bribery, blackmail, torture, intrigues, and so on. Ascher (2016) noted that the past of the Soviet leader had a significant impact on his personality and his behavioral patterns. His relationships with his parents, as well as his studies in the religious school, affected his development.

The personality of the German dictator also had such traits. Hitler, as well as millions of German people, was dissatisfied with the world order based on the Treaty of Versailles that was regarded as unfair and ineffective (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016). Adolf Hitler dreamt of building the mighty state described in the stories of the past. Hitler was quite insecure, anxious about the way people saw him, and affected by a messianic complex (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016, p. 125).

It is noteworthy that the psychological state of the German leader was questioned by his contemporaries, and many psychiatrists analyzed Hitler’s personality (Kaplan, 2017). Kaplan (2017) stressed that researchers had a biased attitude towards the German dictator, which affected the quality of their studies. Therefore, the conclusions of many researchers, especially Hitler’s contemporaries, will be taken with the necessary caution. Spielvogel and Redles (2016) agreed that the past of the German dictator was also instrumental in his personal development. He also had quite difficult relationships with his father, and Hitler’s participation in the First World War became one of the pillars that shaped his personality.

In his turn, Joseph Stalin was absorbed with the ideas of the world Communist revolution as he saw this political system as the only possible for humanity. Another significant contributing factor was the nature of the two dictator’s power in the late 1930s (Kotkin, 2017). They both could hold power by making their citizens believe that they were surrounded by enemies who would defeat them without the wise rule of their leaders. Therefore, the war became almost inevitable due to the worldviews of the two leaders.

Purpose and Contribution to Literature

The purpose of this study is to examine the views on war and peace and the personalities of the two individuals. Although the input of each of these persons has received the necessary attention of researchers, the role their relationships shaped by their worldviews played in the international relations of that period remains obscure. The utilization of quantitative methods will be instrumental in tracing the most relevant trends regarding the matter.

This type of methodology is not common, although also used, so the contribution of the present study will be considerable. At that, the major contribution of the present study will be the focus on this topic that will enrich larger literature regarding the role of the individual in foreign policy. The research questions guiding this study can be formulated as follows: What were the worldviews of Stalin and Hitler on war and peace? How were the personalities of these people similar, and in what ways were they different? How did the personalities of the two leaders affect the interactions of the two countries in the 1930s?

Theoretical Framework

As mentioned above, different approaches to exploring the role of an individual in international relations exist. The cognitive model will be utilized to address the research questions mentioned above. The model is based on the assumption that decision-makers do not always (or rather seldom) make rational choices due to the concentration on their beliefs, as well as the way they perceived data (Carlsnaes, 2016). This model is instrumental in addressing the set research questions and can help explain the decisions made by the two people in question. The cognitive peculiarities of Hitler and Stalin could explain the reasons for their collaboration and the fact that Hitler decided to start the war in 1939.

This approach is often employed by researchers who have examined the personalities, choices, and impact of Stalin and Hitler (Ascher, 2016; Kaplan, 2017). These two person’s beliefs and ideas regarding diverse topics have been considered to explain their behaviors and decisions that had a substantial effect on the development of their countries and the entire world.

Methodology

The present research will be based on the quantitative research method and case study design. Two case studies (Hitler and Stalin) will be developed, and the two leaders’ personalities and perspectives concerning war and peace will be central to the research. The case study design enables the researcher to explore diverse aspects of the personality of a particular figure (Bernard, 2017). Quantitative analysis is rarely employed to explore people’s features and worldviews as qualitative methods often offer more opportunities to explore different aspects (Bernard, 2017). Nevertheless, quantitative data are instrumental in detecting the existing trends. For instance, the prevalence of some codes in the leaders’ accounts will help in developing these person’s profiles.

The operational code approach will also be utilized to profile the two leaders’ personalities and their worldviews. The operational code model involves the analysis of philosophical beliefs and instrumental beliefs towards the politics of particular people (Dyson & Parent, 2018). Diverse sources are often used for this type of analysis, including but not confined to speeches, interviews, as well as secondary sources such as biographies, monographs, and peer-reviewed articles. The collected data will be used to identify the prevalent ideas and beliefs, as well as the traits of the characters of Hitler and Stalin. Statistical analysis will be employed to evaluate the data taken from these sources.

Ethical and Confidentiality Issues

The focus of this study is on historical figures and their worldviews. No sensitive information will be disclosed or utilized as published works will be employed. The project will not include the personal life of the two leaders and their relatives will not be in the spotlight. Therefore, the chance of facing any confidentiality issues is minimal. Since no human subjects will be involved, gaining people’s consent regarding the use of the data they provide is not necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that this study will attempt to describe the views of Hitler and Stalin on war and peace. The analysis of the personal traits of these two political leaders will be implemented. The 1930s, and especially the late 1930s, will be the major focus of this study. The utilized theoretical frameworks will be the cognitive model and operational code scheme due to their basic premises regarding the reasons for humans’ and political leaders’ decisions and actions.

The underlying assumption is that the interactions between Hitler and Stalin based on their personality traits influenced the onset of the Second World War, so individuals play the leading role in international relations. The quantitative research methodology will be employed as it ensures the identification of the most apparent trends associated with the personalities of the two historic figures in question.

Reference List

Ascher, A. (2016) Stalin. London, England: Oneworld Publications.

Bernard, H. R. (2017) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

Carlsnaes, W. (2016) ‘Actors, structures, and foreign policy analysis’, in Smith, S., Hadfield, A. and Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford, England: Springer, pp. 113–130.

Dyson, S. B. and Parent, M. J. (2018) ‘The operational code approach to profiling political leaders: understanding Vladimir Putin’, Intelligence and National Security, 33(1), pp. 84-100.

Groom, W. (2018) The Allies: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and the unlikely alliance that won World War II. Washington, DC: National Geographic Books.

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.

Kotkin, S. (2017) Stalin: waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941. New York, NY: Penguin.

LeRoy Malchow, H. (2015) History and international relations: from the ancient world to the 21st century. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Reynolds, D. and Pechatnov, V. (ed.) (2018) The Kremlin letters: Stalin’s wartime correspondence with Churchill and Roosevelt. New York, NY: Yale University Press.

Spielvogel, J. J. and Redles, D. (2016) Hitler and Nazi Germany: a history. 7th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.