World War II broke out in 1939 due to a series of factors, including, but not limited to, the Great Depression in the United States and the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. During the war, several important figures were involved, such as Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi party; Franklin Roosevelt, President of the United States of America; and Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister.

Scholars have made various comments on these historical figures. One of them was Bertrand Russell, who claimed that, “Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill of Locke” (Russell, 1945/2004). To understand this statement, it must be comprehended in two parts: the first part analyzes the relationship between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Hitler, while the second part explores the ideals of Roosevelt, Churchill, and John Locke. Although Hitler’s idealism and Rousseau’s The Social Contract might appear similar, the initial purpose of Hitler’s ideological aims was completely contrary to Rousseau’s idealism. Furthermore, there was a practice difference. As for the second half of the statement by Russell, Churchill and Roosevelt could indeed be seen as the outcome of Locke’s philosophy. Thus, Russell’s statement holds true to a large extent.

Rousseau drafted The Intuitions of Politics and later extracted some of its contents to produce The Social Contract in 1754. In The Social Contract, he proposed the idea of a collective will, writing, “Each of us gives in common his person and all his force under the supreme direction of the general will; and we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau, 1762/1994). Essentially, he claimed that all individuals should make such commitments to the well-being of society as a whole. A similar idea could be found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925/1943), in which he asserted, “The individual is transitory, the people is permanent. As long as a person lives, the individual must be prepared to sacrifice himself for the community.” In this text, he emphasized the importance of establishing a unified German nation. This could also be seen in his expansionist policies in Sudetenland: “In February 1938, Hitler launched a public case against Austria and Czechoslovakia by declaring to the Reichstag that Berlin’s duty was to protect the approximately ten million Germans living in both states” (Setton, 2005). Based on this, it could be inferred that Hitler indeed had a will to rebuild a unified German nation. Through his expansionist policies, he also tried to seek the support of the Germans living in neighboring countries. Through this, a unified nation containing all Germans could be established. 

Secondly, in the Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, Rousseau criticized how society corrupts natural human goodness. He claimed that, “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, thought of saying ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society” (Rousseau, 1755). Rousseau claimed that private property marked the beginning of moral decay and social injustice. Hitler had similar claims in Mein Kampf, where he attacked the impotence of the Weimar Republic. At his time, the republic was constantly printing new Notgeld, which, according to Vossische Zeitung, a national Berlin newspaper that represented the interests of the liberal middle class, was simply. “The exploitation of our currency for the purpose of creating money for the [government] by a fictional increase in our total revenue” (Smith, 1973, p. 166). This made the lives of the Germans more and more desperate. Thus, Hitler sought to establish a party capable of overthrowing the Weimar Republic. These criticisms from both Rousseau and Hitler demonstrate a degree of similarity in their ideas. 

However, we cannot neglect that Hitler’s version of a unified German nation included only the German race. In Mein Kampf, Hitler attributed many of the social dilemmas to the Jewish people. He strongly believed in the Jewish conspiracy, which he claimed threatened German society (Lorenz, 2018). This shows that, although their ideas seemed to be alike, where they all attacked the impotence of a society and how an individual should sacrifice for the whole of a nation, Hitler only imagined a German nation with only one race and especially without the Jews. His idealism was not entirely the same idealism of Rousseau’s collective will in The Social Contract. 

Furthermore, Hitler’s idealism was heavily influenced by his teenage experiences, and he acted primarily on his personal beliefs instead of any commitment to the common good of the nation. To understand why he developed such dreams, an in-depth analysis of his early life is necessary. Hitler was born in Braunau, Austria; he claimed that destiny appointed him to be born there (Hitler, 1925/1943). This suggested that Hitler believed a lot in personal fate and personal heroic traits. Additionally, his father was a violent alcoholic who abused Hilter and his mother. A sense of violence started to grow within his heart. The only thing that could comfort him was his mother’s warmth and care. 

However, things changed in 1907 when his mother died of breast cancer, and he was denied admission to the Vienna Academy of Art: “Unable to come to terms with his failure to get into the Academy, Hitler conceived a violent hatred for the bourgeois convention, the establishment, rules and regulations” (Evans, 2003). He started to nurture a sense of nationalism, partly due to the harsh reparations pressed on Germany after WWI. His later ideas were largely based on his hatred for the other countries that placed the burden of war and guilt on Germany and how the Jews “stabbed the Germans in the back.” Due to these experiences, Hitler started to act in accordance with what his teenage years shaped him to be. 

What Hitler believed came mainly from his experience instead of the influence of Rousseau. Furthermore, Hitler’s idealism was not as self-sacrificing as he portrayed in his propaganda for the Nazi party. Instead, he only acted on behalf of his ulterior motive. Therefore, it could be concluded that Hitler’s ideals were not truly the outcome of Rousseau’s philosophy, even though they might seem to align with each other. Hitler was merely acting on behalf of his hatred and his own life experience instead of the goodness of the whole society. Thus, we should disagree with the first part of Russell’s statement to a large extent.

As far as the second half of the statement is concerned, where Russell claimed that Roosevelt and Churchill were the outcome of Locke, it could largely be considered true. Locke believed mainly in the resistance against tyranny and the right to freedom. In Two Treatises of the Government, he stated that, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom” (Locke, 1689). This quote reflects his belief that people should have the right to remain free, and that neither law nor government should constrain that freedom. He believed that freedom came not just from the government. 

This ideal is echoed in Roosevelt’s Four Freedom Speech, where he addressed that freedom should not just come from the government, but also be secured by it (Roosevelt, 1941). From both of their works, we could see that they all viewed freedom and human rights as a natural right that should be secured and has a higher importance than other things, such as the law. The law, in their view, should be something serving the purpose of human rights. Locke also believed in limited governance, stating,.“Men being… by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.” In this quote, we could see that Locke viewed human consent as the basis of the legitimate government, and that nobody could be excluded from equality without their own consent. This set the basis of freedom and equality for governance. The principle of governing with consent also helped set the foundation for liberal democracy, which was held strongly by both Roosevelt and Churchill. 

Moreover, Locke also called for resistance to tyranny. In The Two Treatises of the Government, he claimed that, “Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people… they put themselves into a state of war with the people.” From this statement, we could see how Locke urged people to resist the tyranny imposed by legislators or others who tried to deprive people of their legal rights. This principle of moral rights to resist tyranny is very commonly seen in the actions of leaders such as Roosevelt and Churchill—the former in his declaration of war to Japan, and the latter in his Never Give Up Speech at Harrow School. During his speech, Churchill repeatedly emphasized the importance of never surrendering and of fighting against the tyranny of the Nazi Germany. This not only shows Churchill’s attitude towards tyranny but also bears a great deal of similarity to Locke’s idealism. When facing tyrannies, his method of dealing with it was to fight back and resist instead of seeking cooperation with the Nazi party like Chamberlain during the Munich Agreement. We could see that both Roosevelt and Churchill had similar ideas as those of Locke: believing in the human right to freedom and the refusal of and resistance towards tyranny. Thus, we could agree to a large extent that Roosevelt and Churchill were, indeed, the outcome of Locke as they all believed in the resistance towards tyranny. 

However, we must keep in mind that Churchill’s idealism was influenced not only by Locke’s thoughts. In 1899, Churchill was imprisoned in South Africa. He had been sent to South Africa as a journalist to cover the Second Boer War, but he was captured by the Boers, who refused to release him because he had been carrying weapons and had participated in the war. This experience of captivity made him more empathetic toward other suffering people. His suffering in Pretoria also solidified his belief in individual freedom and democratic values. However, since he had long believed in British imperialism, his captivity during the war deepened his belief that most colonies remained uncivilized and barbaric. In his later works, he often depicted Boers as less civilized (Churchill, 1900/2013). Therefore, although previously we concluded that Churchill could be seen as the outcome of Locke, we still need to keep in mind that his worldview was actually influenced by a number of factors, with Locke’s ideas being only one of them. Churchill was also influenced by his own experience and his own era.

In conclusion, the statement made by Russell indeed offers insights into the similarities between figures of different times. However, it also has limitations and, therefore, should be evaluated by separating it into two halves. The first half, which claims that Hitler was the outcome of Rousseau, should be discarded for the most part. Although their idealisms intiially seemed to match each other, their core motivations and implementation were completely different. As for the second half about Roosevelt, Churchill, and Locke, it can be accepted to a large extent, as their ideals and actions do in fact align with each other. 

Nevertheless, we must not forget that some parts of Churchill were not quite similar to the idealism of Locke. When considering the relationship between historical figures, we must take into consideration that their ideas and the actual practice can differ significantly, since the ideas they express can be used as propaganda for their own party or a legitimacy for their actions. Furthermore, the historical era the figure was living in and their personal experience should also be examined as the background can influence a person’s thoughts. Such claims should always be evaluated critically.

References

Churchill, W. S. (2013). The Boer war: London to Ladysmith via Pretoria and Ian Hamilton’s march (T. Hartman, Ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. (Original work published 1900).

Evans, R. J. (2003). The coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books.

Hitler, A. (1943). Mein Kampf (R. Manheim, Trans.). Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published 1925).

Locke, J. (n.d.). Two treatises of government. (Original work published 1689).

Lorenz, D. C. G. (2018). The origins and conceptualization of Nazi figures after the first world war. In Nazi Characters in German Propaganda and Literature (pp. 14–54). Brill. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwts0.5

Roosevelt, F. D. (1941, January 6). Annual message to Congress on the state of the Union (Four Freedoms speech) [Speech transcript]. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-congress-the-state-the-union

Rousseau, J. J. (1755). Discourse on the origin and basis of inequality among men (M. Cranston, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Rousseau, J. J. (1994). The social contract (C. Betts, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1762).

Russell, B. (2004). The history of Western philosophy. Routledge. (Original work published 1945).

Setton, G. (2005). The “weekend crisis” of May 1938. iUniverse.

Smith, L. M. (1973). Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919–1922. Allen Lane.