Carisma e poder: Líderes que moldaram a Europa moderna

by Ian Kershaw, Paulo Geiger (translator)

Até que ponto um único líder pode alterar o curso da história? De Hitler a Stálin, de Churchill a De Gaulle, de Thatcher a Kohl, Carisma e poder explora — com exímia capacidade de análise histórica — como doze figuras surpreendentemente diferentes governaram quase sem restrições e marcaram a vida de milhares de pessoas.

O novo livro de Ian Kershaw, autor da biografia definitiva de Hitler, é uma tentativa convincente, lúcida e desafiadora de compreender os governantes que forjaram e destruíram a Europa no século XX, tanto os que impactaram a cena global (Vladímir Lênin, Ióssif Stálin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini) quanto os restritos ao palco nacional (Josip Broz Tito, Francisco Franco). Nesta análise magistral, Kershaw equaciona personalidade individual e contexto político para compreender a atuação desses dirigentes na história europeia recente — e como e por que outros países encontraram melhores caminhos.
Como apontado pelo historiador Dominic Sandbrook, talvez a lição contemporânea de Carisma e poder seja mostrar que as sociedades são provavelmente mais felizes e saudáveis quando seus líderes são menos importantes.

"Iluminador… Uma série perspicaz de ensaios sobre doze líderes excêntricos que estiveram no centro do século XX na Europa." — Financial Times

"Como sempre, Kershaw se mostra um esplêndido miniaturista, esboçando habilmente personalidades e filosofias em linhas precisas e sensatas." — Sunday Times

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, European History, Biography, Audiobook, World History

658 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 29, 2022

About the author

Ian Kershaw is a British historian, noted for his biographies of Adolf Hitler.
Ian Kershaw studied at Liverpool (BA) and Oxford (D. Phil). He was a lecturer first in medieval, then in modern, history at the University of Manchester. In 1983-4 he was Visiting Professor of Modern History at the Ruhr University in Bochum, West Germany. From 1987 to 1989 he was Professor of Modern History at the University of Nottingham, and since 1989 has been Professor of Modern History at Sheffield. He is a fellow of the British Academy, of the Royal Historical Society, of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung in Bonn. He retired from academic life in the autumn semester of 2008.

Reviews

[Great-O-Khan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw beschreibt in diesem lesenswerten Buch zwölf politische Führer, die in Krisenzeiten im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts agierten. Es handelt sich nicht um Biographien. Es geht vielmehr um die Umstände und die Persönlichkeiten, die diese Menschen zu Machtmenschen mit einer derartigen Wirkung innerhalb Europas machten. Die Frage, welchen Einfluss der Einzelne auf die Geschichte hat, wird untersucht.

Die einzelnen Fallstudien folgen einer einheitlichen Struktur. Zunächst wird die Persönlichkeit und ihr politischer Aufstieg beschrieben. Dann werden die Umstände, die dazu führten, dass der Mensch an die Macht kam beleuchtet. Im Mittelteil geht es anfangs um das Wirken, um direkt danach das Ende der Macht zu betrachten. Der Schlussteil beschäftigt sich mit der Hinterlassenschaft.

Kershaw hat sich als Beispiele politische Schwergewichte herausgegriffen. Die folgenden Machtmenschen werden in den einzelnen Kapiteln behandelt: Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, de Gaulle, Adenauer, Franco, Tito, Thatcher, Gorbatschow und Kohl. Für mich waren die letzten beiden Fallstudien besonders interessant, da ich diese Zeit sehr bewusst miterlebt habe. Es hat mich fasziniert, dass selbst ein Kapitel über Kohl, in dem es kaum Neuigkeiten für mich gibt, aufgrund der Struktur der Analyse nichtsdestotrotz spannend zu lesen war.

Die Fallstudien sind gelungene Mischungen aus Kurzporträt, komprimierter Chronik und Interpretation. In gewisser Weise entsteht durch die Summe dieser Texte eine kurze Geschichte Europas, wenn auch mit Einschränkungen und Auslassungen. Es ist nicht das beste Buch von Ian Kershaw, aber es ist immer noch ein sehr gutes Buch und eine klare Leseempfehlung für jeden, der sich für Europa im 20. Jahrhundert interessiert.

[Jill H. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am a great fan of Ian Kershaw's writings but am rather on the fence with this book. So I will keep this review short.

There is no doubt that the book is well written as are all of Kershaw's works but, if one has read European history of the 20th century, there is not particularly anything new in this book. He devotes each chapter to 12 European leaders/dictators, their rise to fame/infamy, their background, and influence on history. Because I am an avid reader of European history, I felt that is was just repetitive.

I think this would be an excellent starter book for those who are interested in the subject and learning more about each of the individuals; therefore I would recommend it to those readers only.

[Boudewijn · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Personality and Power, Ian Kershaw looks at how leaders have shaped modern Europe. He examines different leaders like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher (amongst others). Kershaw asks interesting questions: How did these leaders affect Europe? What were their key personality traits? And did they shape history, or did history shape them?

The book is organized into chapters, with each one focusing on a different leader. While the impact of leaders like Hitler and Stalin on European history is clear, Kershaw also looks at less-discussed but important leaders like Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Kohl, and Margaret Thatcher. Did these leaders have as much impact on Europe as people think?

This way of organizing the book has good and bad points. On the positive side, the chapter format is easy to read, allowing readers to focus on one leader at a time. I found it convenient to take breaks after each chapter and come back later. However, this approach can sometimes make the main argument less clear. The central question—what role did these individuals play in shaping European history?—can get lost. A single, continuous story might have made the book’s points stronger.

For readers new to the topic, this book is a great introduction and can lead to further reading, like detailed biographies of these leaders. But for those who already know a lot about European political history, Personality and Power may not provide many new insights.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

TL;DR

Personality and Power examines the most influential leaders of twentieth century Europe to determine whether it was their personality or the circumstances that surround them that made them ‘great.’ Kershaw’s compelling writing carries a well thought out argument. Highly recommended.

Disclaimer: The publisher provided a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Any and all opinions that follow are mine alone.

Review: Personality and Power by Ian Kershaw

Do individuals drive history? Or are events made up of a number of complex underlying circumstances? Does those who have shaped history possess qualities that the rest of us are lacking? Or are they simply the right people in the right time and place? Ian Kershaw seeks to answer these questions in Personality and Power.

Kershaw returns to twentieth century Europe for Personality and Power but widening his scope a little more than the German and Hitler focused work for which he’s known. Here he’s interested in exploring and laying to rest the Great Man theory of history. Under this theory attributed to Thomas Carlyle, the course of history is driven by “highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect.” Kershaw looks at twelve Great Leaders from twentieth century Europe to find whether their greatness shaped history or if their greatness allowed them to ride out the underlying forces occurring during their time in power. To be clear, these twelve are exceptional leaders; Kershaw doesn’t deny that. But what makes the difference between them and other European leaders from the twentieth century? Kershaw posits that it’s the exceptional preconditions that allows these exceptional leaders to exercise their own power. The twelve leaders are Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Francisco Franco, Konrad Adenauer, Josip Broz Tito, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Helmut Kohl. Kershaw has chosen a balance of dictators and democratic leaders that had outsized effect on the history of Europe. Some may be more well known than others, but each shaped the course of their nations and the world in specific ways.

Each leader gets a chapter examining their rise to and acquisition of power. Kershaw isn’t writing mini-biographies. Plenty of those exist outside this work. Instead, he focuses on the path to power for each individual, choosing specific moments rather than the entire life story. He provides context for those moments as well that indicate whether the leader had power firmly in hand or if circumstances were precarious. For example, Mussolini’s rise to power often meant appeasing the fascist groups that he supposedly led, and their in-fighting allowed him to stay atop the chaotic group. Each chapter builds upon his thesis, with an excellent conclusion. However, it isn’t necessary to read each chapter in order. I do recommend it for the first read because it builds elegantly towards the conclusion. His inclusion of Helmut Kohl, the last case study, works against the great man theory and shores up Kershaw’s thesis. Kohl isn’t the historical great figure that the rest of these leaders are. He is a politician and, by all evidence, a good one, who had greatness thrust upon him in order to re-integrate East and West Germany into a whole state. By reading about all the other leaders and then coming to Kohl’s chapter, Kershaw makes the case that it was unique circumstances that allowed these leaders to shine. Upon my own reread, I’ll probably skip around chapters and read out of order. I’m glad I went through in Kershaw’s intended order first, though.

Personality and Power is a brick of a history book. I read an electronic copy, but Edelweiss is saying it’s 512 pages long. Each chapter is packed with information and analysis. Kershaw is and remains one of my favorite writers in the History field. His writing is clear and concise without resembling a transcribed lecture. His writing is able to make me want to learn more about historical figures that previously I didn’t care about (Mussolini) or even know (Adenauer and Kohl). Kershaw makes history interesting, and he’s at peak form in Personality and Power.

The Great Man Theory

Can we say this theory has been put to rest yet? Kershaw is well known to reject the Great Man theory. He has argued that “it is more important to study wider political and social factors to explain the history of Nazi Germany” than to believe it was Hitler that drove it. Personality and Power furthers this argument by expanding it beyond the borders of Nazi Germany. This is not to say that these leaders had no effect on their nations. Remove any one of them and history is wildly different. What happened if Trotsky took over Russia instead of Stalin? Or Lenin? The point Kershaw seeks to make is that these individuals had the right characteristics in the right moment. This resulted in an outsized influence on history. Churchill’s qualities do not change if the war never happens; yet one can see that he wouldn’t have had the influence he did without the war. Maybe history needs a Great Moment theory wherein exceptional people rise to meet exceptional circumstances at opportunistic moments in history. Or maybe I should leave historical philosophizing to the historians. Regardless, Kershaw’s book shows that circumstances beyond each individual’s control lined up for them to have the effect that they did.

Kohl and Adenauer

Upon looking at the table of contents, I saw two names that I didn’t recognize: Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl. The other ten I knew a little (Mussolini, Tito, Franco) or a lot (Lenin, Stalin, Churchill, Thatcher), but I had recognized those ten names. Adenauer and Kohl, I didn’t recognize. It made me realize that other than WW2, I have no knowledge of German history – ancient or modern. (This is something I will have to remedy.) Kershaw excels at making me interested in subjects and people that I wasn’t before. The same goes for Kohl and Adenauer. Both men had to guide their countries through turbulent and dangerous times. Adenauer had to rebuild Western Germany after the war. Kohl had to rebuild Germany after the fall of the Soviet Union. He had to allay the fears of the world at reunified Germany while finding a way to re-integrate peoples with two very different levels of comfort and culture. But he didn’t stop there; he sought an integration of the whole of Europe.

For non-Germans, or, at least, for Americans, these two aren’t recognizable names; yet their impact is undeniable. They rose in very unique circumstances to apply their abilities to guide their nations. Kohl, in particular, is a great counter-example for the great man theory. He wasn’t a bad man, merely an average to good politician who stepped up in a moment of need to achieve greatness. Kershaw lays out well that it was the circumstances surrounding him that allowed his outsized influence to shape history.

I know I’m showing my own ignorance by not knowing who these men were. I’m okay with that. We can’t know everything. But prior to Personality and Power I didn’t find these times in European history interesting enough to seek out reading material on them. Kershaw has definitely changed my mind on that.

Good Guys and Bad

Looking at the list of case studies, one can see that Kershaw chose both dictators and democrats. This strengthens his rejection of the Great Man theory by showing that neither the ‘good’ guys or the ‘bad’ guys drive history. Kershaw shows that for a large enough portion of their contemporaries, each of these individuals were the good guys. For a time, at least. The lens of history alters the perception of these individuals. One has to wonder how history will look back upon the leaders of our own time.

Too often, lazy thinking attributes dictators to having a tight grasp on power that bends history to their will. Kershaw shows that’s just not the case. Dictators may try to bend history to their will, but it only does so if circumstances favor their despotism. A modern example is Trump. His base liked him because he projected power and wielded it however he could. Yet that perceived power didn’t have the circumstances needed to flourish and propel him to the dictatorship he so clearly desired. He couldn’t jail his political opponents like his base chanted at him; he couldn’t shut down the special investigation no matter how hard he tried; and he couldn’t build a majority acceptance of his stolen election theory. Yet he still had his attempt at a coup. He still wields power within the Republican party, and conditions continue to grow as fewer Americans reject fascism. The circumstances weren’t in his favor, but are they building in that direction?

Conclusion

Ian Kershaw’s Personality and Power is the final nail in the coffin of the Great Man theory of history. Through examining twelve of 20th century Europe’s most influential leaders, Kershaw shows that exceptional leaders also need exceptional circumstances. Kershaw’s examination of each leader is nuanced and backed up with compelling supporting evidence. Personality and Power is a must read for anyone interested in the political history of 20th century Europe. Highly recommended.

[Liam Ostermann · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw is a historian whose books I have read and admire; to call into question the quality of anything a man like Professor Kershaw writes seems a terrible lack of manners, never mind intelligence. But I didn't like this volume of essays on almost every level but primarily because I thought the profiles were simplistic and because I wasn't convinced by the selection of individual rulers nor that the underlying theme made much sense as anything more then a convenient marketing theme for selling a book.

There have been so many good, interesting, thought provoking and down right amazing histories of the twentieth century in the past twenty years that this collection of essays can't but seem rather nugatory. There is nothing very challenging, new or interesting in his essays. Some of them are down right disappointing (I am thinking in particular of his essay on Churchill which I will return to). Clearly his brief biographies have a use, not even the most avid reader of history will necessarily know or remember who or why people like Adenauer, Tito, Kohl, Thatcher or Gorbachev are important - in some cases it may be wondered, despite what Kershaw says, if they are that important in themselves, I have the feeling some of them were necessary to provide 'balance' so it was not all 'monsters' and 'destroyers' but builders as well.

But building is much more of a group activity; for example without Thatcher things in the UK would have changed, maybe in better ways or maybe not. But the changes that she was able to initiate came about when the established way of thinking in terms of economics, politics, etc. had come to an end, indeed many would say it was bankrupt - rather like the UK was at the time. Thatcher certainly understood the zeitgeist but she didn't create it. Adenauer helped build West Germany, but really it was the comprehensive destruction of and failure by all the old German elites - Prussian aristocrats, the army and the Nazi party which ensured that Germany post WWII did not go the way of the Weimar Republic.

The case of Stalin is somewhat different he was directly responsible for a great deal of what happened in the terror, the famines, etc. but he did not originate it - brutality was built into the Soviet system
from the very beginning in a sense it was embedded in its DNA. Clearly Stalin added a level of brutal, mindless paranoia that was unique but an alternative history of the USSR would have differed only in degree, not substance (of course if that alternative spared millions it would have been better but millions would still have died).

I did not feel challenged or enlightened by these essays and honestly I was disappointed. Perhaps my disappointment with his essay on Churchill, which I read first, ensured that I would approach the work in a critical way but the failings of his essay on Churchill is symptomatic of what is wrong with the rest of the essays. I didn't need or want another brief recap of his birth early and career, nor an examination of his role in WWII with a few warts thrown in. No one disputes that Churchill played a huge part in keeping the UK in the war long enough for Hitler to make all the mistakes necessary to ensure his defeat. But although Kershaw acknowledges Churchill's flaws and his racism he to easily excuses Churchill's responsibility for the Bengal famine and for the terrible bloodshed that came with India's independence. Churchill throughout the pre-war years did everything he could to sabotage every attempt to create a framework for Indians to play a role in their own governance. This failure played a significant role in driving the two communities apart, something Churchill didn't care about because such division would, he believed, make it possible to extend British rule almost indefinitely. That he didn't learn any lessons from his father's disastrous meddling in Irish affairs that the result was likely to be division and death is not surprising. Churchill's view of the empire was purely as adjuncts that made the UK powerful.

To explain Churchill's racist statements as typical of his time and culture is to ignore the that even at its height their were plenty of people amongst his class and background who disagreed with and found his views and attitudes repulsive and their number only increased over time, even within the conservative party. The unpleasant truth behind Churchill's attitudes is that India, Ireland, Palestine, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa or anywhere else within the British Empire only mattered in so far as they made the UK strong. Their various, needs, cultures, peoples, etc. never registered as of any concern and that was as true of white Irish or Australians as dark Indians or Orientals. Churchill regarded them all as inferiors - he disliked Indians more then the Irish or Australians but he didn't respect the Irish, who he wanted to invade at the start of WWII when the Irish government refused to supinely follow the 'home' country like the other 'white' dominions and declare war on Germany; and he didn't respect Australia who he abandoned all pretence of defending and left to what appeared almost certain invasion by Japan because the UK mattered more. Nothing and nobody mattered but the UK and its continuing existence as a great power mattered. His baleful influence and delusions continue to haunt British politics.

Maybe this book will be of use to those who know nothing of European history in the 20th century but if you have even a passing interest or knowledge then you are bound to find it disappointing. Reading his rather banal essays on figures like Franco made me want to reread Robert Preston's 'Spanish Holocaust' as a way of cleansing my mind from what ended being a white wash of a horrible man and a terrible regime.

This book is not for me and I can't think who it would be for. With so many better books of history and biography it is almost a sin to waste time on this rubbish.

[Ariannha · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5

“La cuestión del poder y la personalidad va por tanto más allá de los límites que imponen el marco biográfico, la predisposición psicológica y los atributos personales de un líder y se afianza también en las condiciones que rodean el propio ejercicio del liderazgo”.



Doce personalidades ๏ Un siglo turbulento ๏ Liderazgo o Poder


Este ha sido un completo descubrimiento, no conocía a su autor, quien según investigué es un destacado historiador especializado en el nazismo y la historia europea del siglo XX. En este libro realiza un análisis profundo de cómo ciertos líderes del siglo XX obtuvieron y ejercieron el poder, y cómo sus personalidades influyeron en la historia de Europa.
Se trata de una colección de doce ensayos biográficos de grandes personalidades como: Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, de Gaulle, Adenauer, Franco, Tito, Thatcher, Gorbachov y Kohl.
Aunque existen numerosas biografías de cada uno de estos líderes, lo que distingue este libro es su enfoque único. En lugar de limitarse a enumerar datos biográficos, el autor se centra en destacar los rasgos de personalidad de cada figura, explicando así sus acciones y decisiones. Además, otorga gran importancia a la coyuntura histórica que los rodeaba.

En cada capítulo se analiza en torno a las siguientes preguntas:
¿Cómo era la personalidad del líder y en qué contexto se desarrolló?, ¿Cómo fue su ejercicio de poder y qué estructuras lo hicieron posible?, ¿Cuál fue el legado que dejó el líder?, ¿En qué medida las acciones de estos gobernantes determinaron el curso de la historia?, ¿Fueron los líderes los que moldearon el turbulento siglo XX? o fueron los acontecimientos de esos años los que los moldearon a ellos?

Kershaw argumenta que las épocas excepcionales generan líderes excepcionales que hacen cosas excepcionales, que no necesariamente son positivas para la humanidad. Por tanto, el libro, además de aleccionar con un equilibrio extraordinario, es ameno, accesible y dispone de un ritmo narrativo excelente.

[Franzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw contrasts the most influential personalities of the 20th century in Europe with the prehistoric conditions of the respective time and sheds light on the actual influence of the individual on the course of history. Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, de Gaulle, Thatcher, Adenauer, Franco, Tito, Gorbachev, Kohl - you could probably fill the 500 pages with each individual figure, so the characterisation had to be quite concise. Even though I have to admit that some dictators and personalities interested me more than others, I learned a lot about Europes history and found Ian Kershaws style of writing and views to be quite differantiated.

[MJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ian, I love you, but this one was way more boring than the title led me to believe. Where you shine in portraying how European ideologies collided, this book felt surface level and unfocused. I'll catch you another time in a military history.

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gut lesbares und möglicherweise wichtiges Buch für Leute, die vielleicht ein bisschen von Hitler und Stalin, aber wenig oder nichts von Mussolini, Franco, Tito oder Thatcher wissen. Im Gegensatz zum eingangs von Kershaw erhobenen Anspruch, zu analysieren, wie historische Persönlichkeiten durch bestimmte "Umstände" (die leider in ihrer Natur nicht definiert werden) zu Macht (also der Möglichkeit etwas zu machen) gekommen sind, bietet das Buch wesentlich eine Sammlung von Kurzbiografien, die neben der Beschreibung günstiger Momente oder der Schwäche von möglichen Gegenspielern durchaus auf Charaktereigenschaften der Politiker/innen oder Diktatoren abheben. So sind diese samt und sonders "zweifellos intelligent", "von schneller Auffassungsgabe", "durchsetzungsstark" etc. Wen wundert's, dass keine bloßen Vollidioten den Lauf der Geschichte beeinflusst haben?

Immerhin wird auf diese Weise klar, dass Paranoia, Selbstüberschätzung, Empathielosigkeit oder was auch immer an psychischen Defekten den Charakter einflussreicher Machtmenschen prägt(e), nicht zu deren Unterschätzung führen sollte. Weniger klar wird, warum sich so strukturierte Menschen politisch durchsetzen konnten und immer wieder durchsetzen. Der allgemein geteilte Erfahrungsraum, in dem sich durch Einübung (Schule, Medien etc.) und/ oder Traumatisierung (die Diktatoren kamen nach verloren bzw. in Kriegen an die Macht) Verhaltensmuster herausbildeten, die sich als ansprech- und formbar erwiesen, verweist nur auf die psychologische Seite der Voraussetzungen von Machtergreifungen. Er kann aber nicht oder nur unvollkommen erklären, warum Menschen mit anderem Wissen und anderen Haltungen keine wirksame Gegenmacht entfalten konnten. Bezeichnenderweise kommt der Widerstand gegen Hitler (außer Stauffenberg & Co.) oder Franco kaum bzw. nur summarisch vor. Bei Mussolini ist es der König, der dem Spuk ein Ende bereitet habe. Personen gegen Personen. Die restlichen Erklärungen laufen auf die allgemein bekannten, durchaus nicht falschen Standardphrasen hinaus.

An sich sind die biografischen Skizzen, insofern sie die Voraussetzungen der Machtergreifung, die Wirkungen und Nachwirkungen fokussieren, also ganz lehrreich, zeigen sie doch strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten der Diktaturen bzw. des Wirkens starker Persönlichkeiten in Demokratien (Churchill, Thatcher, Kohl). Allerdings weist das weit weniger darauf hin, wie Diktaturen zu verhindern gewesen wären, als ich es mir gewünscht hätte. Dazu wäre es meiner Meinung nach notwendig gewesen, den objektiven und also nicht in den charakterlichen, politischen, massenpsychologischen und anderswie subjektiven Faktoren der Machtergreifung/ des Machterhalts liegenden "Umständen" mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Im Falle Lenins klingt an, inwieweit das Scheitern der NEP eine wie auch immer geartete diktatorische Durchsetzung neuer Produktionsweisen (Kollektivierung der Landwirtschaft als Voraussetzung der Freisetzung von Arbeitskräften für die Industrialisierung), wie sie Stalin dann zum Exzess führte, historisch unausweichlich (?) machte. Dazu wie auch zur Überforderung (Verschuldung) der deutschen Wirtschaft durch Autobahnbau und Aufrüstung, die aus Hitler einerseits einen Getriebenen des eigenen Erfolgs und andererseits einen willkommenen Kompagnon der nach billigen Rohstoffen und Arbeitskräften gierenden deutschen Industriebarone machte, hätte ich gerne mehr erfahren. Nach wie vor denke ich nämlich, dass nur ein sozialhistorischer Ansatz die Hypostasierung der Persönlichkeit verhindern bzw. ihre Bedeutung relativieren kann. (Und bei Stalin, Hitler oder Franco käme es genau darauf an, damit man diese widerlichen Figuren endlich vergisst, statt ständig an ihre "Rolle" erinnert zu werden.)

Männer oder Frauen machen keine "Geschichte", wohl aber ist diese Resultat des Handelns von Menschen, das sich mit Blick auf Geschichtsverläufe nur in überpersönlichen Strukturen erfassen lässt, die Tendenzen aus sich heraustreiben, denen bestimmte Persönlichkeiten entweder im Wege stehen, oder von ihnen getragen werden. In diesem Eingebundensein wären die Spielräume aufzuzeigen, die sich aus dem Wechselverhältnis objektiver "Bestimmung" (als Bestimmtheit) und subjektiver Willkür (Grausamkeit, ideologischer Verbohrtheit usw.) ergaben und die schwarzen Blüten zeitigten, die dann mit dem Namen einer historischen Figur unauflöslich verschmolzen sind und dieser ihr negatives (hoffentlich!) Angedenken sichern.

Diesen hier kurz skizzierten Anspruch, den Kershaw auch als seinen Anspruch benennt, hat er aus meiner Sicht nicht einlösen können. Davon ab bietet das Buch dennoch manch Einsicht und einen etwas anderen, mitnichten uninteressanten Blick auf die Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Auf jeden Fall ist es besser als gängige Heldenlegenden oder sich selbst beweihräuchernde Autobiografien und regt insgesamt zu einer sachlichen Beschäftigung mit den angesprochenen Prozessen an. Wer sich in dieser Weise einen biografisch gefärbten Zugang zur jüngeren Geschichte verschaffen möchte, dem sei das Buch empfohlen.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is History made by Individuals? Or are there mainly economic (or other) forces that are responsible for changes with individual figures as pawns that could easily have been substituted?

Kershaw was (unless my memory plays tricks on me) a historian leaning to the second view. And it came as a surprise when he published his (excellent) biography of Hitler paying at least implicitly tribute to the man-as-mover ideology.

With this book he presents short biographies and assessments of some of the most important protagonists of European history in the 20th century. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill up to Mikhail Gorbachev. And here, it seems they are all in his view personalities who shaped the world we live in. Without Hitler he says unambiguously there would have been no Holocaust. Without Churchill, nearly as unambiguously, England would not have won the war.

I saw him present the book talking lively about it that made me buy it. (I had it signed but could not bring up the nerve to ask him the question that interested me, namely wether in his opinion people during the Third Reich genuinely believed that the evil things happening were not done in the name of Hitler, as in: “Wenn das der Führer wüsste.”)

I liked the book but I felt that he was not equally at ease with his characters. The biographies of de Gaulle for example or of Mussolini were not nearly as interesting as the ones of Hitler or Churchill. And the ones about Tito and Franco I found quite boring. I did not know much about them and these should have been the most interesting.

The best one is the last about Gorbachev. I would really like to know how history will view him in a hundred years from now.

7/10

[Peter Van der Boom · Rating 4 out of 5]

Een mooie verzameling korte biografieën van de grote leiders van Europa. Schetst daarmee ook een goed beeld van de 20ste eeuwse geschiedenis van ons continent. Of leiders de geschiedenis maken of andersom blijft - de vraag van het boek - is ook in bredere context relevant (voor ons gewone stervelingen😊). Aanrader!

[Pieta Päivänen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hesarin lukusuositus kyllä petti pahemman kerran. Ei oikein mitään uutta näkökulmaa vaan jälleen kerran klassikot (miehet) framilla, eikä esim. persoonallisuutta kyllä oikein edes analysoitu

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did Personality or Circumstance Shape the Rise of Leaders

What is the path to power? How much can a single leader alter the course of history? Those are questions posed by Ian Kershaw’s book, which profiles 12 leaders who shaped the course of European history in the 20th century.

The answer seems to be personality and circumstance are both important but the balance between the two varies when you look across a dozen examples. Sometimes an individual happens to be in the right place when circumstances open up a chance to seize power, and it’s not necessarily a predictable individual who rises to leadership. Other times, a strong personality can create his own opportunities and seize power.

I have admired Kershaw’s writing, particularly his books on the rise of Hitler and the circumstances and decisions that led to two terrible wars in Europe. But this book was disappointing. For those who have read quite a bit of history of Europe in the period, there is little new in a condensed biography of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Churchill. Similarly, Mussolini, Thatcher, and Gorbachev are likely to be well known to many.

I did find Kershaw’s profiles of lesser-known leaders added to my understanding of how they came to power and the influence they had on European affairs.

For example, Konrad Adenauer was a young, progressive, well-regarded mayor of Cologne in the Weimar Republic. He was pushed out of power by the Nazis. That positioned him to assume political leadership when Germany was defeated. The victorious allies needed competence and leadership untainted by Nazi connections and there weren’t many choices available. He thus became Chancellor in 1949 at the age of 73 and retired to acclaim in 1963 at age 87.

Adenauer was the right man for the time. He saw Germany’s integration with the West, especially with U.S. support, as crucial. Under his leadership, he prioritized political integration, was committed to democratic values, and pushed for a liberal economic policy rather than state control. Kershaw references a 1951 survey of public opinion in which a significant proportion of Germans still had a positive view of Hitler. By the mid-1950s that view was changing and by 1963 under Adenauer’s influence and the German economic miracle, the positive opinion had all but disappeared.

Based on a number of factors, General Francisco Franco would not have been expected to be a man who would seize power in a civil war and hold on to it long after other dictators had died or been deposed. He was indecisive, unprepossessing at five feet four inches tall, portly, and had a high voice. He had been banished to Spanish Morocco by the establishment to get him out of the way.

As civil war broke out in Spain, the Republicans, forcing change on a traditional power structure, had the Nationalists on the back foot and were on the verge of consolidating their control over the entire country. Franco, based in Spanish Morocco, was safely insulated from the developing war but was desperately needed by the Nationalist side. He was extremely cautious and only reluctantly crossed to the Iberian peninsula with Spanish army units based in North Africa to assume leadership. Ultimately, the Nationalists prevailed with military assistance of Germany. But again caution ruled and Franco, unlike Mussolini, avoided an alliance with Germany as Hitler started World War II and even after Germany’s defeat of Poland, France, the low countries, and Norway might have caused him to cast his lot with his fellow dictator. He stayed in power until his death from natural causes, 30 years after the end of World War II.

Helmut Kohl was another leader who, in Kershaw’s estimation, exhibited the virtue of being boring. In Kershaw’s telling, he “seemed to live down to the dismissive views of his political opponents” and indeed was viewed that way by much of the German public. This disguised his thirst for political power and his subtle strengthening of his party, the CDU, where he held together its liberal and conservative wings.

Kohl’s talents were exactly what was needed when the Wall came down and East and West Germany needed to be unified. Margaret Thatcher and the French were not so sure they wanted a unified and much more powerful Germany — and indeed many East Germans had their doubts about Western capitalism. Kohl cultivated the support of President George W. Bush, provided interest-free loans to the Soviet Union to buy the withdrawal of its troops from Germany, and renounced the pre-war German border as a means of reassuring other nations. He unified the East and West German currency and put a single hard currency in the hands of East Germans, buying devalued East German marks at a 1:1 ratio with the western currency. The resulting elections in East Germany were a triumph for Kohl. Only later, once unification had been achieved and this one-time stimulus had expired, did some disillusionment arise as East Germans felt themselves second-class citizens in the unified country.

As a banker living in London when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, I felt Kershaw’s portrayal of her was overly dismissive. He characterizes the market reforms and modernization of the British economy as being inevitable without the Thatcher policies. I do not believe that necessarily would have happened or at least not as quickly. Which is not to say that many of Thatcher’s decisions can’t be criticized, since they created new winners and losers in British society and reduced the social safety net. The long-term result has been the polarization of the country, especially between the prosperous south and much of the economically struggling north — something we have also seen as regional disparities have widened in the U.S.

Kershaw profiled Tito, whose rise to power was by no means predictable and whose achievement of creating the artificial nation of Yugoslavia lasted only during his lifetime. I found Kershaw’s review of his story and the way he rose to power to be less enlightening than the other profiles.

Many readers will find it productive to read Kershaw’s assessment of the leaders about whom they know less and to skip those whose biographies and rise to power are familiar.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I'm aware of most facts about Mussolini/Hitler/Stalin/Churchill, it's nice to have it summed up in one place. But while author seems to dislike them, I feel that he's Margaret Thatcher's fan. Might be just my point of view, but generally nice read.

[Jelle Mostien · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zeer sterk historisch werk.
Een must-read voor geschiedenismaniakken met een bijzondere interesse voor de 20ste eeuw.

[Igor Veloso · Rating 3 out of 5]

A personalidade dos líderes é um fator extremamente importante, mas Ian Kershaw é um estruturalista. Embora reconheça o poder de persuasão, os ditadores que a história teve não teriam sucesso sem as pré-condições políticas e sociais.

Numa democracia, é muito mais previsível devido à existência de eleições, onde as personalidades chegam ao poder através de maior escrutínio público, e a chance de serem eleitas ser mais transparente.

Kershaw evita fazer julgamentos e entrar na psicanálise, mas acho que não custava olhar para as personalidades escolhidas para o livro e sublinhar as condições familiares comuns aos ditadores que abordou e caracterizou: família altamente disfuncional, pais abusadores ou negligentes, e apegados às mães, geralmente submissas e crentes. O próprio Churchill tinha uma atitude tendencialmente autoritária e ambos os pais eram negligentes, se não mesmo psicologicamente cruéis, no entanto, ao contrário dos ditadores (que vinham de classes mais baixas), era um fidalgo e cresceu numa estrutura democrática, ambos fatores que lhe deram o conforto e segurança para atenuar o que poderia ser uma personalidade catastrófica. Ainda assim, foi uma personalidade para o tempo da guerra. No fim desta, o povo e os seus conservadores descartaram-no.

Ao fim do dia, independentemente de quem somos e da nossa identidade, somos também frutos dos tempos em que vivemos e do sítio onde nascemos. Há provavelmente muitas boas pessoas, ou bons políticos que mereciam melhor, e outros que não mereciam o que têm. Mas a política e os acontecimentos são ultimamente quem faz a escolha por nós, ainda que de vez em quando lá aparenta ter-mos um voto na matéria.

O livro justifica porque aborda só as doze personalidades, e faz somente aquilo que promete: descrever as personalidades e contextualizá-las no tempo e estruturas em que surgiram. Posto isto, não vai em muito detalhe, e às vezes ignora totalmente, certos acontecimentos históricos que alguns de nós estamos habituados a ouvir nos dias de hoje. Por exemplo, não vai em nenhum detalhe sobre o Holodomor quando fala de Estaline, e ignora completamente Hong Kong quando fala de Thatcher.

Mas o trabalho que faz acho que faz bem. Retirei dele o que queria.

[Lesefruechte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hitler, Stalin, Adenauer, Thatcher. Namen und Persönlichkeiten die unbestreitbar Spuren in der Geschichte hinterlassen und das letzte Jahrhundert und Europa positiv oder negativ geprägt haben. In seinem neuen Buch widmet sich der Historiker Ian Kershaw 12 europäischen FührerInnen des 20. Jahrhunderts und was diese an die Macht gebracht hat.
Dabei enthält die Fallstudie keine reinen Biografien, sondern widmet sich Charakterzügen, Umständen und Strukturen, die die jeweilige Machtübernahme ermöglichten. Ian Kershaw verfällt nicht in einen Historismus, der die Rolle Einzelner überhöht, sondern ordnet das Handeln ein, wobei er persönliche Eigenschaften nicht außen vorlässt, sondern sie als einer von vielen Faktoren einbezieht.  Gerade die Thematisierung der Bedingungen und Strukturen, die die Macht ermöglichten, hat mir sehr gut gefallen. Kershaw geht auf die Wirtschaft, Geographie, internationale Beziehungen und Konflikte ein, die Machtausübung befördert oder beschränkt haben. Er folgt der Annahme, dass Geschichte durchaus von Einzelnen geprägt werden kann, wobei aber Umstände dafür sorgen, dass sie überhaupt in der Lage sind, Macht auszuüben.
Die einzelnen Texte sind unabhängig voneinander lesbar und klar strukturiert. Die Analysen und Interpretationen des Autors waren interessant, differenziert und reflektiert. Nicht nur habe ich einiges über die thematisierten Personen gelernt, sondern auch über die politischen und gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse und welchen Einfluss diese hatten.
Ian Kershaw legt mit „Der Mensch und die Macht“ ein anregendes Werk vor, ohne in einen Historismus zu verfallen, hebt die Leistungen einzelner Persönlichkeiten hervor und ordnet diese ein. Eine Empfehlung für alle Geschichtsinteressierten.

[Sami Eerola · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book about some key state man/women or 1900 Europe that is not just a collection of stories, but a analyse of biographies of state man/women that tries to answer the question how much personality of one person can make history? Or even these powerful men/women are just cogs in a bigger historical rift?

The question is answered in a satisfactory manner. The only problem is in the end of the book, where the author praises liberal democracy as a more stable system than dictatorship. I have doubts of this assertion because South-America is rife with frangille and unstable democracies, since their independence from colonial powers. So in this regard Kershaw´s book is very Eurosentric.

[Aku Kelo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kirjana melko pitkä, mutta henkilöiden historia, toimet, vaikutukset ja perintö on saatu kätevästi noin 30 sivun paloihin. Teoksessa käsitellään 12:sta modernin Euroopan vaikutusvaltaista henkilöä, joihin liittyvät tarinat ovat kaltaiselleni milleniaalille osittain tuntemattomia. Lenin, Stalin ja Hitler ovat suomalaisen huippu peruskoulutuksen takia itselleni tuttuja, mutta myönnän olleeni tietämätön esimerkiksi Margaret Thatcherin historiasta ja aikaansaannoista. Oikein mukava kirja henkilölle, joka haluaa ymmärtää hieman pintaa syvemmältä nykyisen Euroopan vaikuttavia voimia.

[Jose Torroja Ribera · Rating 5 out of 5]

¡Interesantísimo! Mantiene el autor la tesis de la influencia en la historia de la personalidad de los dirigentes de cada momento, analizando doce líderes de la Europa del siglo XX.
En mi opinión sus referencias a la España democrática son desacertadas. Y su consideración hacia las figuras de Thatcher y Kohl es subjetiva y negativa. Pero es un libro que merece la pena ser leído si tienes interés por la historia del siglo pasado.

[Morgan Baliviera · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un’opera completa e con prosa chiara, nella quale Ian Kershaw (uno dei miei storici preferiti!) analizza le personalità di 12 tra dittatori e capi di Stato e governo dell’Europa del Novecento. Oltre a Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco e Tito, troviamo anche Churchill, De Gaulle, Adenauer, Thatcher, Gorbachev e Kohl. Come il carisma e la forza di un governante possono rendersi tali da plasmare la Storia? Kershaw prova ad analizzarlo.

[Tomás · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting scan through personality features of larger-than-life historical leaders.

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Personality and Power' asks whether the most influential characters of Modern European history were defined by their individual psychologies, or by the unorthodox circumstances which enabled their (in)famous reigns to, more often than not, wreak immeasurable havoc. Kershaw argues that while history would have surely played out differently without the particular strength of conviction found in each individual, that history's most dangerous tyrants were allowed to rule as much as, if not more than, they demanded to. To quote John Green's 'The Anthropocene Reviewed,' "We are at once far too powerful and not nearly powerful enough. We are powerful enough to radically reshape Earth’s climate and biodiversity, but not powerful enough to choose how we reshape them." We might apply the same logic to an individual's impact on social, political, and ideological movements, not to mention international conflict. Kershaw grapples with this paradox in each and every chapter, starting with the simple statement that "Lenin's full exercise of power over an enormous country was confined to an extremely short period between the end of the civil war in autumn 1920 and his partial incapacitation following his serious stroke in May 1922." Kershaw highlights this contradiction by demonstrating Lenin's semi-immortal status in the Russian imagination and the ideological shifts that continue to unfold with each new iteration of communist leadership. Reading 'Personality and Power' kept me interested by focusing on a clearly defined central question. The book helped me quickly brush up on modern European history, but also challenged my ability to keep up with such a relentlessly paced biography of titans. This book reminds me of 'Prisoners of Geography' by Tim Marshall in its ability to effectively boil vast amounts of information down to a digestible, and pungent, concentrate. Both serve as excellent geopolitical primers.

[Paul Waibel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw is a member of that elite group of British historians who combine impeccable scholarship with a very readable writing style. Kershaw’s books are read for information and pleasure, not to overlook his thought-provoking analysis and interpretation of historical events. He began as a medievalist but is best known for his modern German history books. His two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler is a “must-read” for anyone seeking an informed understanding of the Hitler phenomenon.

In his most recent book, Personality and Power: Builders and Destroyers of Modern Europe (New York: Penguin Press, 2022), Kershaw examines the careers of twelve leaders, all Europeans, who shaped European history during the twentieth century, whether for good or evil. The figures selected by Kershaw as the most significant national leaders who played vital roles in shaping the history of the twentieth century are no surprise for the historian who, like Kershaw, has studied twentieth-century Europe. The general reader interested in the twentieth century or one or more of the leaders chosen by Kershaw might wonder why this one was included or why another was not. Ultimately, ranking important historical figures and events is a historian's judgment, and historians often engage in friendly and sometimes unfriendly debates about such things.

Kershaw does an excellent job of defending each of his choices. He limits himself to how the actions of each leader played a role in shaping events during their active participation. These are not mini-biographies. They stay focused on the career of each leader.

Personality and Power is a scholarly book written for the general reader. It is not one of those difficult-to-read, ponderously footnoted books published by academic publishers meant to sit unread on university library shelves. I am a history professor emeritus. I taught history for forty-two years and have written several books on twentieth-century European history. Kershaw is one of the better historians who write books to be read for pleasure and information. I highly recommend, Personality and Power.

[Joshua · Rating 2 out of 5]

A surprisingly basic and boring series of case studies examining the impact of prominent European figures during the 20th Century (e.g., Thatcher, Stalin, Gorbachev, Hitler, etc.). The point of the book is to explore whether these figures directed the course of history or were simply swept along with it. The author concludes that while historical circumstances obviously impact how events transpire, the individual personalities discussed had a significant hand in guiding Europe's path to the present. My biggest issue with the book is how basic it is. It covers 12 figures in 418 pages and gives short shrift to each and their accomplishments (or depredations). Either Kershaw should have covered fewer people or lengthened the book. As it is, it will be a boring read for anyone who knows anything about Europe's bloody 20th century.

I should also note that Kershaw, like a good NPC, just had to squeeze in a "Trump bad" section at the end of a book about influential Europeans in the 20th century. He suggests that "the [American] constitution only just survived the battering Trump gave it" and compares Trump to the fascists covered elsewhere in the book. As an American who is not a Trump supporter, I find these comments obnoxious and facially absurd. And they call into doubt whether the rest of the text should be taken seriously.

There are many better books about the subject matter here - both for beginners and expert historians. So I recommend you pick one of those up instead.

[Eduardo Boris Muñiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw es un historiador británico destacado por sus biografías de Adolf Hitler pero que en esta ocasión nos trae una libro no tan especifico sino mas bien general sobre los personajes históricos que dieron forma a Europa (y porque no al mundo) durante el siglo XX.
El libro se publico el año pasado y llego a Uruguay de manos de @planetadelibrosuy que muy amablemente me hizo llegar un ejemplar, muchas gracias

El autor comienza el libro con una introducción sobre que hace a un líder político, y plantea preguntas que intentara de contestar al final del libro.

Entre medio se disecciona con bastante detalle la biografia de 12 personajes históricos que de una u otra forma estuvieron vinculados a el crecimiento o destrucción de Europa, y que sin ellos no tendríamos la Europa de hoy en día.

Respecto a la primera parte introductoria debo decir que es sumamente densa, se mete en derroteros demasiado detallados que a no ser que seas muy apasionado de la historia te puede generar tentación de largar el libro.
Y es que no solo es denso sino que es extremadamente larga como introducción.

Yo soy fan de la historia, y si les soy sincero por momentos me dieron ganas de abandonarlo pero me alegro de no haberlo hecho porque cuando dejamos la introducción y nos metemos de lleno en los 12 personajes no hay desperdicio.

Los personajes elegidos son europeos que tuvieron impacto en el siglo XX, 11 de ellos son hombre y una sola es mujer (lo que tiene sentido históricamente hablando ya que las personas en el poder en esa época fueron hombres).
Vamos desde personajes oscuros y terribles como Lenin, Stalin, Thatcher o Hitler a personajes con más luz como Churchill, Kohl o Gorbachov (que no es que fueran perfectos, pero por lo menos tuvieron un impacto positivo en el mundo).

Obviamente hay personajes que son mas entretenidos de leer, uno va a tener mucho mas jugo leyendo el capitulo de Hitler que por ejemplo leyendo sobre Thatcher o de Gaulle, pero ninguno es aburrido y todos me aportaron algo nuevo.

Ni que hablar los capítulos de personajes de los cuales sabia poco y nada, o que básicamente solo conocía de nombre (como por ejemplo Adenauer).

Destaco el capítulo en que se habla de Tito, un personaje que cuando estaba en el liceo me encantaba por como combatió a los nazis en Yugoslavia pero que realmente desconocía casi todo lo demás sobre su historia.

En la tercera parte, en las conclusiones, volvemos para contestar las preguntas que el autor dejo abiertas en la introducción.
Volvemos a ese corte académico y un poco denso pero ayuda el que es menos corto y se habla de cosas que ya se contaron en cada capítulo.

Es un libro que no es fácil de leer, a mi me tomo tres meses terminarlo (lo empecé el 5 de junio y lo estoy terminando el 3 de setiembre) y es porque me tome mi tiempo para disfrutar y entender lo que leía.
No estamos ante una novela, es un libro cuasi académico en el que si queremos entrar vamos a tener que poner nuestro cerebro a funcionar para poder absorber toda la información que se nos da.

Dicho esto es un libro muy bueno para entrar a conocer a personajes que a priori no son tan conocidos y para entrar a los grandes detalles de otros que son muy conocidos.

Obviamente si quieren leer en detalle sobre Hitler o sobre Churchill este no es el libro, acá van a encontrar generalidades que de todas formas para un publico no fan de la historia pueden ser demasiado detalladas.

Es un excelente libro para conocer nuestro pasado, para ver los errores y logros que se cometieron en algunos casos hace 100 años y en otros 30 o 40 años. Esta muy bien escrito y salvando la introducción se hace una lectura sumamente ágil y entretenida.

Es bueno que existan libros como estos que cuentan la historia de una forma que en mi humilde opinión es objetiva, porque si desconocemos nuestro pasado estamos ante la situación de llegar a cometer los mismos errores que otros cometieron antes que nosotros.

Nota 4 de 5

[Merlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ian Kershaw on tunnustatud briti ajaloolane, kelle sulest on ilmunud ja ka eesti keelde tõlgitud huvitavaid uurimusi 20.sajandi ajaloost. See eelteadmine andiski julgust kätte võtta seda sisult vastuolulist ja mahult toekat raamatut. Kui teadlane kirjutab raamatut laiale ringile, siis on oht langeda ühte või teise äärmusesse: kas anda ammendav, aga kuiv ülevaade uuritavast teemast või püüda ilukirjanduslikult lugejat köita. Ilmselgelt on autor seekord läinud seda teist teed pidi. Algus on paljutõotav - kas aeg ja olud vormivad poliitilise liidri või kujundab liider oma ajastu. Mis oli ennem - muna või kana? Ja ühest vastust sellest raamatust ei leia, sest mõnikord on nii ja mõnikord jälle naa. Minu suureks üllatuseks oli isegi Marxi teooria mängu toodud. Selline ümmargune ja korduv heietus läbi raamatu muutus veidi tüütavaks. Oleks nii väga tahtnud tunnetada autori isiklikku arvamust selles küsimuses.

Iga peatükk on ühesuguse ülesehitusega: liidri isikuomadustest ja tema liidriks saamise eeltingimuste kirjelduselt liigutakse võimu elluviimisele ja kõige lõpuks on hinnang juhi pärandile.Ja ehkki autor ausalt ütleb, et tema tekstid põhinevad teiste teadlaste uuriimustel (v.a. Hitleri teemaga on Keshaw ise lähemalt tegelenud), siis esitatava infovaliku on ta teinud ise. Seetõttu ei keskendu ta mitte süsteemsele faktivalikule, vaid laseb sulel lennata. Mõnus lugeda ja seda ka tänu väga heale tõlketööle, aga meelde hakkavad lõpuks jääma täiesti ebaolulised faktid - oli nösuninaga või lühikest kasvu, armastas valitsemise asemel pigem jahil käia, oli küll väga julm, aga hoidis riiki koos 40 aastat jne. Iseenesest silmaringi laiendavad teadmised, aga mitte esimene valik poliitilise liidri kirjeldamisel. Samas - esimeseks tutvuseks selle temaatikaga täitsa sobiv - lood on ilmekad ja mitte tapvalt pikad.

Kirjeldatavate liidrite valik on kenasti põhjendatud ja nagu iga valik on see sügavalt subjektiivne. 20.sajand on valgete meeste sajand ja Euroopa-keskne. 20.sajand on verine ja julm ja see tingibki autori väitel ka suuresti vaadeldavate isikute valiku. Eks ole 20.sajandi inimliku kurjuse kehastused alati huvitavamad kui nn.head poisid. Head poisid lihtsalt satuvad õigesse ajahetke, aga on muidu tavalised.

12 kirjeldatava liidri seas on ainult üks naine - Margaret Thatcher, kellest autor ei saa mööda ega üle. Võib-olla olen ma Thatcheri fänn või reklaami ohver, aga autori väitega, et olgu Thatcheri korraldatud riigisiseste muudatuste ja ulatusega kuidas on, aga tema üleilmne mõju on üles puhutud, ei ole ma kohe üldse nõus. Aga suhtumine Thatcherisse pidigi olema väga individuaalne.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sir Ian Kershaw is the author of an unparalleled, two-volume biography of Hitler. His work on the workings of dictatorship in the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and twentieth-century European history is superb and has deeply influenced by thinking about these matters. He is one of my favorite scholars, and it's been a thrill having Ian Kershaw on my podcast, History As It Happens, several times in the past two years.

His latest book is less ambitious than some of his earlier studies but no less important, because it deals with an issue critical to understanding our own times: to what extent is history driven by individuals? Today we have Trump, Putin, Xi, among others. In Europe last century, there was Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler -- authors of sheer devastation -- but also Gorbachev, Thatcher, and Kohl.

Kershaw is not interested in "Great Man" theory which is impossible to define and therefore unhelpful as an analytical tool. Likewise, defining what it means to be a "charismatic leader" also misses the mark. Instead Kershaw gives us case studies of 12 influential European political leaders to determine how the prevailing conditions within (and sometimes outside) their countries made their obtainment of power possible, and then the ways in which these distinct personalities exploited opportunities to exercise their power. They both made history and were shaped by it; they expanded the realm of the possible while also being constrained by impersonal historical forces or the unique conditions of their time.

Some question whether any individual is capable of moving history in a certain direction. This idea doesn't withstand scrutiny in the case studies offered by Kershaw. Some people did make a critical difference. In other words, no Hitler, no Holocaust.

[Miguel Gouveia · Rating 4 out of 5]

O dia mais frio deste Inverno num domingo chuvoso criou as condições convidativas a mergulhar na leitura, tendo a escolha recaído neste 'Personalidade e Poder' de Ian Kershaw, tão somente um dos melhores escritores sobre a história europeia do sec. XX (não confundir com o Nik Kershaw, o músico da década de 80).

Um livro que percorre pela legado de uma dúzia de líderes que moldaram as sociedades que integravam, fazendo uma análise biográfica sobre as suas personalidades e discorrendo sobre as condições de ascensão ao poder e momentos marcantes na história da Europa.

Hoje, com o advento de populismos, o recrudescimento de intolerâncias e o aprofundar das desigualdades, a leitura desta obra, relembrando a crueldade de uns e a inspiração de outros, qualifica-se como uma terapia adequada à falta de memória que invariavelmente nos tem conduzido aos becos mais obscuros da humanidade.

As 12 personalidades escolhidas pelo autor são:
1. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenine): Cabecilha revolucionário, fundador do Estado bolchevique
2. Benito Mussolini: Ícone do fascismo
3. Adolf Hitler: Instigador de guerra e de genocídio
4. Josef Estaline: Terror do seu próprio povo, herói da <
5. Winston Churchill: Herói de guerra da Grã-Bretanha
6. Charles de Gaulle: Restaurar a grandeur de França
7. Konrad Adenauer: Construtor da Alemanha Ocidental
8. Francisco Franco: Cruzado nacionalista
9. Josip Broz (Tito): Rei sem coroa da Jugoslávia socialista
10. 10. Margaret Thatcher: A regeneração nacional
11. Mikhail Gorbachev: Destruidor da União Soviética, criador de uma nova
12. Helmut Kohl: Chanceler da unidade, motor da integração europeia

[Basil Bowdler · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who doesn't know that much about a lot of the figures in this book, I got a lot out of it. I'm not really convinced by Kershaw's plea that these aren't mini-biographies but essays, and they follow a pretty formulaic structure, but as a series of portraits of twelve individuals this book really worked for me. Concise, lucid overviews backed up with some nice details (Franco using his strong bladder in committee meetings has to be my personal favourite). Some places where more detail would definitely have been nice (vague references to the deadlock of the Soviet system under Gorbachev aren't really expanded upon) but that's only to be expected I guess when you only have 25 pages for each of these individuals.

I don't think this book works nearly as well as an attempt to understand the role of the individual in history. Some of Kershaw's conclusions just seem like common sense. Did I really need to read this book to learn that "concentration of power enhances the potential impact of the individual"? Others are pretty vague: "the individual leader's power and room for manoeuvre are in good measure dependent upon the institutional basis and relative strength of support". Overall, there's a gulf between the bold questions and claims Kershaw is setting out to explore, and the answers he gives. He's too nuanced a historian to give categorical answers; instead they're riddled with caveats and exceptions to the point where this book just feels ambiguous and fragmented.

TLDR: great as a collection of twelve mini biographies, not so great at answering the big questions it sets out.