timschochet
Footballguy
I was thinking over the weekend about a theory I’ve questioned and pondered about over many years. It seems to me that how one feels about this theory goes a long way in determining how one looks at the world in general. There’s probably a formal name for it, but since I don’t know it I came up with one of my own: the “extraordinary man” theory.
Basically this theory holds that there are exceptional individuals out there who are capable of changing the world for good or evil, and without them history takes a different direction. For example, Winston Churchill alone saved England in 1940. If there was no Churchill England would have capitulated to Nazi Germany. Likewise, Adolf Hitler was necessary for the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II. Albert Einstein was vital to the creation of nuclear technology; if Einstein is not born, the nuclear age is delayed by decades or longer or maybe doesn’t happen at all.
This theory obviously places great value on individuals and affects decision making. During World War II we assassinated the architect of Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto, because Admiral Halsey stated that his mind was the equivalent of a squadron of battleships. Similarly, if the north had known the consequences and been capable of it, they would have no doubt begun the Civil War by assassinating Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing that this act alone would have shortened the war by 2-3 years and saved countless lives. Or would it?
There is an opposing argument. It is best expressed in Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece War and Peace. In that book, the protagonist, Pierre, regards Napoleon as a great historic figure, only to discover that Napoleon is simply in his position by happenstance and luck, and is no greater than anybody else. Tolstoy believed that history moved in inevitable waves and that individuals make very little difference. Another version of this argument can be found in the film The Battle of Algiers. In that movie French counterterrorists expertly infiltrate the FALN (Algerian terrorist group), discover who it’s most charismatic and capable leaders are, and kill them one by one, only to discover that by the end of the film all their efforts are wasted as the FALN is more powerful than ever. Again the message: when there is a wave of a movement, individuals don’t make any significant impact.
What are your thoughts on this?
Basically this theory holds that there are exceptional individuals out there who are capable of changing the world for good or evil, and without them history takes a different direction. For example, Winston Churchill alone saved England in 1940. If there was no Churchill England would have capitulated to Nazi Germany. Likewise, Adolf Hitler was necessary for the rise of Nazi Germany and World War II. Albert Einstein was vital to the creation of nuclear technology; if Einstein is not born, the nuclear age is delayed by decades or longer or maybe doesn’t happen at all.
This theory obviously places great value on individuals and affects decision making. During World War II we assassinated the architect of Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto, because Admiral Halsey stated that his mind was the equivalent of a squadron of battleships. Similarly, if the north had known the consequences and been capable of it, they would have no doubt begun the Civil War by assassinating Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing that this act alone would have shortened the war by 2-3 years and saved countless lives. Or would it?
There is an opposing argument. It is best expressed in Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece War and Peace. In that book, the protagonist, Pierre, regards Napoleon as a great historic figure, only to discover that Napoleon is simply in his position by happenstance and luck, and is no greater than anybody else. Tolstoy believed that history moved in inevitable waves and that individuals make very little difference. Another version of this argument can be found in the film The Battle of Algiers. In that movie French counterterrorists expertly infiltrate the FALN (Algerian terrorist group), discover who it’s most charismatic and capable leaders are, and kill them one by one, only to discover that by the end of the film all their efforts are wasted as the FALN is more powerful than ever. Again the message: when there is a wave of a movement, individuals don’t make any significant impact.
What are your thoughts on this?