What is Realpolitik?

Public domain cartoon of Bismarck and Pope Pius IX during the Kulturkampf

---

I always looked up to Bismarck as the greatest statesman ever—a foreign policy genius who knew exactly what political moves to make, how to calculate each move, and how each move would play out. A part of me read the books in hopes that I would understand the “secret sauce” that made him such a foreign policy genius, and I found it.

The reason why Bismarck was such a foreign policy genius was because he was a man who lacked political principles. As a matter of fact, Bismarck began his political career as a Prussian conservative. A conservative in the 1800s was one who believed in most of the following principles: first, in the obedience to the political authority of a monarch, second, in the opposition to individual rights or elected representatives for governments, third, that revolutions were a political evil, and fourth, that organized religion was crucial to order in society.

Public domain illustration of the execution of King Louis XVI during the French Revolution

---

Bismarck believed in the first principle, in the political authority of King Frederick Wilhelm I. But later in his career, he did not care for the other three. It was he who introduced universal suffrage in Germany, it was he who separated church from state and replaced clerical supervision in all public and private schools with state supervision, and it he who went so far as to defend political revolution. Here is Bismarck in his own words:

How many existences are there in today’s political world that have no roots in revolutionary soil? Take Spain, Portugal, Brazil, all the American Republics, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Greece, Sweden and England which bases itself on the consciousness of the Glorious Revolution of 1688…. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 132)

This lack of principles eventually caused many of his fellow conservatives to distance themselves from him toward the latter half of his career. And it’s this lack of principles that makes Realpolitik possible. Here is a perfect illustration of this:

When Bismarck served as Prussia's envoy to the German Confederation in Frankfurt, he wrote to his conservative friend Leopold von Gerlach that it should be in Prussia’s interest to ally with the revolutionary France of Napoleon III. For a conservative of the 1800s, an alliance with a revolutionary republic—with an “illegitimate” emperor such as Napoleon III—was nothing short of scandalous. Gerlach, representing the Prussian conservatism of the day, wrote the following to Bismarck:

My political principle is, and remains, the struggle against the Revolution. You will not convince Napoleon that he is not on the side of the Revolution. He has no desire either to be anywhere else…. You say yourself that people cannot rely upon us, and yet one cannot fail to recognize that he only is to be relied on who acts according to definite principles and not according to shifting notions of interests, and so forth. (Bismarck: A Life, pgs. 131-132)

Bismarck, being no true conservative as Gerlach hinted at above, did not make decisions by any conservative principles. As a matter of fact, allying with revolutionary France was nothing but a rational calculation, one possible chess move among many for Prussia’s rise to dominance over Austria. And in a game of chess, it’s important for the player to have as many moves open to him as possible. As Bismarck observed years later:

My entire life was spent gambling for high stakes with other people’s money. I could never foresee exactly whether my plan would succeed…. Politics is a thankless job because everything depends on chance and conjecture. One has to reckon with a series of probabilities and improbabilities and base one’s plans upon this reckoning. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 130)

This kind of cold, rational calculation lies at the heart of Bismarck’s Realpolitik, which has “nothing to do with good and evil, virtue and vice; it had to do with power and self-interest.” (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 130) The power of Prussia and the self-interest of Prussia is, in a nutshell, is how Bismarck conducted his foreign policy. And France was just one chess move among many to increase the power of Prussia and to destroy the power of Austria. As Bismarck wrote to Gerlach:

You begin with the assumption that I sacrifice my principles to an individual who impresses me. I reject both the first and the second phrase in that sentence. The man does not impress me at all…. France only interests me as it affects the situation of my Fatherland, and we can only make our policy with the France that exists…. Sympathies and antipathies with regard to foreign powers and persons I cannot reconcile with my concept of duty in the foreign service of my country, neither in myself nor in others…. As long as each of us believes that a part of the chess board is closed to us by our own choice or that we have an arm tied where others can use both arms to our disadvantage, they will make use of our kindness without fear and without thanks. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 131)

This is Realpolitik. Whereas a conservative guided by conservative principles would not ally with France, thereby closing a space in a game of chess that would otherwise be open to him, a man who lacks principles has this space open as a possibility, thereby making him a more versatile and dangerous player in the international system.

---

Review of Mein Kampf, Volume Two by Adolf Hitler

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, biography, memoir, politics, history, political philosophy
Translator: Ralph Manheim
Page Count: 317 (First Mariner Books Edition)
Year of Publication: 1999
Rating: 1/5
10-Word Summary: Adolf Hitler’s political philosophy and foreign policy for Germany’s future.

---

About Mein Kampf, Volume Two

Whereas Volume One of Mein Kampf follows Hitler from his youth as a boy in his native Austria to his early career as a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, Volume Two is about the political philosophy and guiding principles of the party. It begins with a general philosophy of the state and its citizens and ends with recommendations for German foreign policy.

I found it much more difficult to get through Volume Two than Volume One, and this is coming from someone who majored in philosophy as an undergraduate. I suppose the main reason for why it was difficult to get through it was because Hitler continues the same pattern of writing as in Volume One—ranting on the same political point for pages on end. Hitler could have summarized the philosophy of his political party—the NSDAP—in about thirty pages, fifty maximum. The fact that he took 317 pages to tell the reader the same things over and over again makes the reading experience dreadful.

Political Philosophy

One thing that does upset me is that most people, because they have never bothered to read Mein Kampf, are misled. Most people believe the Nazis were right-wing. The Wikipedia page for the entry “Nazi Party” claims that the party was far-right. Well whoever did the entry for the Wikipedia page didn’t take the time to read Mein Kampf, otherwise they wouldn’t have said that, as the Nazi Party was neither right nor left but somewhere in the center. Let’s break down the name of the party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in two parts:

National

There is no doubt that Hitler was a nationalist. The whole purpose of the party is to rally the Germans to first eliminate the threat at home—the Jews—and then to set its sight on the enemy abroad: the Soviet Union. Overturning the Treaty of Versailles, building a great military, and destroying France were but means to these ends but not ends in themselves: The strength of a nation lies primarily, not in its weapons, but in its will, and that, before foreign enemies are conquered, the enemy within must be annihilated. (Page 682)

Socialist German Workers’ Party

In Chapter VII, “The Struggle with the Red Front,” Hitler discusses the NSDAP rallies and the struggles to win the German workers over from the Marxist/Communist camp to his Socialist party, highlighting the strategic use of the color red during the rallies:

The red color of our posters drew them [Hitler’s political opponents] to our meeting halls. The run-of-the-mill bourgeoise were horrified that we had seized upon the red of the Bolsheviks, and they regarded this as all very ambiguous. The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. (Page 483)

Hitler makes it clear in the passage above that there is a difference between socialism and Marxism, and that he was not a Marxist but a socialist. This is why, in Chapter XII, “The Trade-Union Question,” he is still in favor of trade unions, wants employers to make sure that workers are treated fairly, and envisions a classless German society united under a strong German nationalism—similar to his experience in the German army:

As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life…. The National Socialist State knows no ‘classes,’ but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights….The National Socialist employer must know that the happiness and contentment of his workers is the premise for the existence and development of his own economic greatness. (Pages 598-601)

Foreign Policy

Hitler’s foreign policy makes sense. That is to say, he understands that alliances form when there is a common interest between nations. Hence, he believes the best alliance for Germany is England, as it would be in England’s interest to keep France, their historic rival, from dominating the European mainland, and Germany can be their ally to check France’s power:

Anyone who undertakes an examination of the present alliance possibilities for Germany from the above standpoint must arrive at the conclusion that the last practicable tie remains with England…. A necessary interest on the part of England in the annihilation of Germany no longer exists today; that, on the contrary, England’s policy from year to year must be directed more and more to an obstruction of France’s unlimited drive for hegemony. (Page 618)

Though, for Hitler, an alliance with England could serve a greater purpose: It would defend Germany’s rear while Germany focused on destroying its greatest enemy—the Soviet Union, home of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy for world domination:

In Russian Bolshevism, we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination. (Page 661)

Points of Agreement

In Chapter Two, “The State,” I agree with much of what Hitler said about education. For example, he said that the youth should not be given too much head knowledge, but rather that education should consist primarily in teaching students character, will, and determination through physical activity (pages 408-412) with the final stage of education for all German males being mandatory military service (page 428). He also believed that education should be useful, and that schools were doing a bad job of teaching students useless information that they end up forgetting as adults (not much has changed). And he desired an education consisting of the classics: the Roman and Greek civilizations:

Especially in historical instruction, we must not be deterred from the study of antiquity. Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time. The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty. (Page 423)

Probably the point that resonated most strongly with me was Hitler’s rejection of hedonism and material pleasure as the most important principle of life:

It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. Many things today may owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer…. This, too, is a task of our movement…. Uphold the principle that man does not live exclusively for the sake of material pleasures. (Page 436)

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, Mein Kampf’s thesis is one rooted in deep conspiracy theories that have long been proven false. To say that the Jews are trying to take over the world is already a wacky theory, but to say that they are planning on the takeover via a communist plot rooted in the Soviet Union is beyond ridiculous. On top of that, the book is heavily Darwinist and Malthusian in its economic outlook, ideas that have since been discredited. (If you are a atheist, however, then I’m sure you might agree with many of Hitler’s Darwinist conclusions.)

Should You Read Mein Kampf?

No. Unless you are a scholar of Nazi Germany or have a deep fascination with Weimar Germany, the 1920s, the origins of the Second World War, Hitler’s political philosophy, and so on, there is nothing of actual substance in this book.

---

Review of The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, political science, national & international security, international relations, international diplomacy
Page Count: 352
Year of Publication: 2011 (Paperback Edition)
Rating: 5/5
10-Word Summary: Civilizations have replaced ideologies as the driving force of geopolitics.

---

About The Clash of Civilizations

Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order is one of the greatest books I have read in my life. Sometimes I would just shake my head and pause my reading because I had to think about whether Huntington was some sort of fortune teller given how eerily accurate his prediction of the 21st century geopolitical landscape was when he published his book back in 1996.

Huntington was the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University and chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies. He was also director of security planning for the National Security Council in President Jimmy Carter’s administration, as well as the founder and coeditor of Foreign Policy.

The Clash of Civilizations is divided into five parts: Part I covers the first three chapters where Huntington argues that the most important distinction between peoples in the post-Cold War world is civilization and not ideology. For example, World War II was an ideological war featuring German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Soviet Communism, while the Cold War was an ideological battle between the Communist East led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist West led by the United States. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the age of ideologically driven geopolitics had come to an end and was replaced with what Huntington proposes is the new paradigm of geopolitics going into the 21st century: civilizations. And the most important element of civilizations, that which divides nations and populations more than any other element, is religion.

Hence, in Part II, Huntington details that the upcoming geopolitical conflicts will be between civilizations due to the religious, and therefore political and cultural, differences. For example, the late 20th century featured the Islamic Resurgence, where Arab governments turned to Islam to enhance their political and spiritual authority and to gather popular support. The Iranian Revolution from 1978-1979 is the most famous example of this. Islamic law replaced Western law, Islamic codes of behavior, such as the banning of alcohol and proper female covering, replaced Western codes of behavior. But the interesting thing Huntington points out is that here in the West we call this Islamic “fundamentalism.” The irony is that these Islamic laws come from the prophet Muhammad himself, either from the Qur’an or from the hadith: the sayings and practices from the prophet Muhammad. If the Qur’an is supposed to be the literal word of God as Muslims believe it to be, then not following Islamic law is not following the will of Allah. All this to say that there is no middle ground: Western values inherently clash with the will of Allah.

Yet, the main idea in Part II is not necessarily the clash with Islam. Rather, the main idea is that the West is in decline—both in influence and military power. Henry Kissinger eerily says the same thing in Diplomacy, another famous book published two years earlier in 1994, where Kissinger also predicts how the geopolitics of the 21st century will be shaped.

Not only is the West in decline, but rapid economic development in Asia beginning with Japan in the 1950s and continuing into the mid-1990s with the rapid economic growth in China meant another threat to the West in the form of a Chinese-led world order in East Asia. Given Asian belief that Asia will surpass the West economically, growing Asian belief in the cultural superiority over the West, and the need for Asian nations to find common ground in Asia, it was clear to Huntington that Asia and its values will threaten the weakening Western-led world order.

This leads into Part III, where Huntington explains that the international relations of the 21st century will revolve around countries grouping themselves around the lead states of their civilizations. For example, the West, though in decline, will continue to be led by the United States, while East Asia will rally around the leadership of China, and the Baltic and Orthodox states will unite around Russia.

And in Part IV, Huntington explains that the West’s desire to maintain its military superiority through policies of nonproliferation and counterproliferation and the West’s desire to spread political values such as democracy and human rights will inevitably lead to conflicts with Islamic governments and East Asian governments. This is why Bill Clinton failed to halt the North Koreans from acquiring nuclear weapons and why the Japanese government distanced themselves from the United States’ human rights policies in the 1990s.

Part V ends the book on a somber note: The United States must affirm and preserve its Western identity and create stronger relations with other Western nations based on similar cultural and religious heritage. But the West must “Recognize that Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world”(Page 312). Hence, it’s best to leave China to East Asia and leave the Baltic states to Russia.

Should You Read The Clash of Civilizations?

I cannot do this book justice in a 1,000-word review. I have tried to summarize the book through the narrative of international relations, but this book is so much more than that. For example, Huntington discusses in great depth the civilizational conflicts that happen within the borders of one nation, such as the ones that happened in Yugoslavia—a conflict among the Catholic Croats, the Bosnian Muslims, and the Orthodox Serbs. And he discusses the problems that lead to decay within a civilization, such as the growth in crime, the growth in divorce, and the weakening of the work ethic.

If someone who knew nothing about geopolitics or international relations could only read one book to understand everything happening in the 21st century, I would say that this is the book to read. Huntington’s writing is great, he backs his assertions with great detail, but most importantly, his analysis is proving to be correct.

---