Difference Between Kissinger And Metternich

947 Words2 Pages

Kissinger, Metternich, Realism

Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State during the Nixon administration, sculpted his statesmanship from the realistic ideals of Prince Klemens von Metternich, who served as the Minister of Austrian Affairs nearly 160 years earlier. Although Kissinger has denied fashioning his ideas after Metternich, he believed the following to be true: legitimacy is one of the most important factors regarding revolution and war, and that disorder is far worse than injustice.

Revolution, by definition, is a dramatic change in ideas or practices. Kissinger and Metternich both agreed that, in the rare case that revolution was a legitimate idea, pacing was critical. Change needs to be gradual. A sudden change in either political …show more content…

A revolution is, in most cases, born out of fear, whether that fear is legitimate or not. Take the American Revolution, for example. King George III was over-taxing the colonists. They wanted to be free of British rule so they revolted. This was one of the few legitimate revolutions because it had a direct affect on the people. A new country was founded on the blood of many men, but it is important to remember that a nation can live forever. A revolution, no matter where and when it occurs, will almost always have certain similar outcomes. A successful revolution, whether legitimate or not, allows new powers to rise and allows for revolutionary chieftains develop. Napoleon is an example of this. He and his aggressive leadership was a product of the French Revolution. As realists, both Kissinger and Metternich understood different motivations for revolutions and war. They believed objectivity is difficult to achieve and that many factors enter a person’s decisions. Kissinger also felt that taking an idealistic approach to issues only resulted in disenchantment of the people. What starts out with good intentions towards hope of changing the world don’t always end up that way as was demonstrated by President Wilson’s unsuccessful try for democracy in the Muslim Middle …show more content…

They understood the importance of legitimacy in revolution and war and that it is better, but still not good, for a nation to be unjust than disordered. Countries like America have tried to bring order to places like Iraq, the Middle East, and Vietnam in hopes that someday, all of the world can show signs of order. They also understood that although public opinion may sway against their actions, it is more important to do what is right for the country despite what the opposition thinks. They tried to find a balance between making other countries fear them, while never showing any signs of fear themselves. Both realists, Kissinger and Metternich, attempted to balance what was just with what was possible and played their cards

Open Document