I don't understand Hitler

[mlees]

@Frank

While you have a point there–a good point and, yes, the times were ready and right for a Hitler–that doesn’t mean that a Hitler was inevitable. Those things would never have occurred under Strasser, or even Goering or Rohm or Drexler.

Wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In Kershaw’s book you mentioned, he too points out that at several points in Hitler’s life, events could have been changed somewhat simply.

After Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch, if Hitler (on trial for high treason) had been sentenced to the fullest extent of the law, as well as held as an accomplice to the 20 deaths (4 police/16 Nazi) that resulted, and the millions(?) of Marks that were stolen from some government building seized by the Nazis, Hitler would not have been able to politically become Chancellor.

Later, there were struggles within the party. From 1925-1930, Hitler was able to edge out other possible leaders, for one reason or another, and effectively made it a party of (one) personality, his. Instead of being loyal to an “ldea”, he made “the Idea” synomonous with “The Leader”. Some of the other leaders of this period had radical ideas of economics (anti-private property/class struggle types, like Rohm, even though Rohm himself would probably never have been made The Leader) that would have forever kept the Nazis on the kook fringe as far as the voters were concerned.

Finally, in '32, had President Hindenburg granted the Chancellors (Bruning, Papen, Schleicher) the powers and “reforms” they requested, the same stuff he later granted Hitler, Hitler may not have ever achieved high office.

In a majority of cases, the opposition consistantly underestimated Hitlers (instinctive?) political skills and passion for what he believed in. (He toughed it out longer than most other folks. Most others eventually “compromised” to obtain power. He was much more stubborn.) They may have underestimated him because of his lower-class origins.

I get the impression from the book that Hitler’s main ability to sway people (with his public speeches) was through his sincerity and passion for the (somewhat vague) ideas and ideals he espoused. In private meetings, he stymyed some people with his stubborness and obstinacy, or he charmed them with his manners (looking them in the eye, overly long firm handshake, making the guest feel that Hitler cared about them personally or, at least, sincerely shared their concerns), depending on his mood and his read for what the situation called for.

Hitler’s speeches had always had the undertone of violence in them, both at the Jews, and at Marxists. (They were not mentioned in every speech, but when they were, it was not with affection.) The SA were street punks, roving gangs attacking folks; not all the time, but often enough that it should have been clear to anybody paying attention that the Nazis where NOT all about rainbows and ponies for everyone. Part of their allure was that they may have been seen as a way to “stability”, that post-WW1 Germany definately lacked.

I think the “moderates” of Germany at that time never truly believed that the Holocaust could happen, but it did. I can’t believe that it was Hitler’s idea alone, and one that only he alone could have made possible. There are too many other variables (people with influence with Hitler, or within the party or state system) for one man to be solely responsible for something that developed and profound. One woman or man may convince others that it’s nifty to put a yellow ribbon on your car to memorilize the war dead, but (according to wiki) 11 death camps? Rearranging railroad schedules?

To simply state that it’s all Hitler’s fault (especially since he’s safely dead and can’t implicate anyone else or even defend himself) that the Nazis came to power, that the war started, that the death camps happen is way too simplistic (Like saying man landed on the moon because JFK ordered it.), almost to the point of being useless. IMO.

I am no scholar, and all I state above has been gleened form the Kershaw book that I am still reading. If I misunderstood some parts, let me know.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Miller

Well, for starters, he was fucking crazy. So you have to take that into account.

Hitler was evil, but in no way was he mentally inferior. I have read that he had an IQ of 141. He had a lot of insight into social psychology and human nature. He would not have achieved what he did without it.

He did not begin to hate Jews until he failed in his efforts to become an artist and an architect. Because Jews tended to be more prosperous than Gentile Germans, a lot of Germans resented them during the inflation of the 1920s and the Great Depression.

[Kobal2]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Hitler was evil, but in no way was he mentally inferior. I have read that he had an IQ of 141. He had a lot of insight into social psychology and human nature. He would not have achieved what he did without it.

Crazy != retarded. John Nash was brilliant. He also happened to be more cuckoo than a Swiss clock factory.

[mlees]

To me, part of the definition of being insane is to be divorced from reality.

Hitler believed in some kind of bullshit economic/class theory, and in some ill defined ethinic destiny (or racial darwinism), but otherwise I don’t think he was divorced from reality. (At least, not until 1945. )

Can you elaborate on what makes you think he qualifies for the “insane” descriptor, Kobal2? (I haven’t had my coffee yet.)

[BrainGlutton]

@mlees

To me, part of the definition of being insane is to be divorced from reality.

Hitler believed in some kind of bullshit economic/class theory . . .

Not exactly. That’s not what Nazism was about. It was about “The Will” as something with power over such blind, impersonal things as the supposed laws of economics. Which, put that way, sounds kinda Marxist to a modern reader, but it is really the diametric opposite of Marxism, with its material and economic determinism.

Early in his political career, Adolf Hitler regarded economic issues as relatively unimportant. In 1922, Hitler proclaimed that “world history teaches us that no people has become great through its economy but that a people can very well perish thereby”, and later concluded that “the economy is something of secondary importance”.[1] Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration. Hitler went as far as to blame all previous German governments since Bismarck of having “subjugated the nation to materialism” by relying more on peaceful economic development instead of expansion through war.[2]

<snip>

Hitler’s views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that “we are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system”,[6] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism “has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism,” saying that “Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”[7] At a later time, Hitler said: “Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.”[8] In private, Hitler also said that “I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative”.[9] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[10] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party’s strengths, saying: “The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all.”[11] While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism (“Jewish Bolsheviks”) and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[12][13] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted “superior individuals” to higher positions in society.[14]

Now, there was a more leftier, class-struggling tendency within the Nazi movement, it was called Strasserism, but Hitler put that down once and for all in the Night of the Long Knives.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Not exactly. That’s not what Nazism was about. It was about “The Will” as something with power over such blind, impersonal things as the supposed laws of economics.

John J. Reilly again:

Fascism would not have been possible without Friedrich Nietzsche. There has been no lack of anti-theistic philosophers both before and after Nietzsche, but he is almost alone in honestly facing the consequences of living in a world in which everything is permitted. Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God, and so they appeal to reason or history or science. Nietzsche would have none of it. If the skies are really empty, then there are no imperatives. There is, however, life, which in the case of human beings expresses itself not just as biology but as the will. Now Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer and unlike many of his own followers, recognized the will is itself a composite entity. It is not a primary physical force, and it is not a god. It does, however, actually exist, and its exercise is all the meaning that life can ever have.

The proposition that the meaning of life is the exercise of the will leads to two kinds of conclusions. The most obvious, and the most popular, is the cult of cruelty. Naturally, the street-fighters who normally figure in the public activities of successful fascist parties are rarely well-read in the literature of philosophical nihilism. Nevertheless, even the nihilist violence of the German SA and the Italian “squadristi” chimes with high theory. Fascism promotes ruthlessness for the same reason that it promotes conspiracy theories: for a fascist, nothing is going to happen unless some will makes it happen. One suspects this consideration is also a factor in the usual fascist suspicion of free markets.

The other conclusion to which an ontology of the will leads is the transformation of politics into art. Whole societies become instruments for the expression of the will of elites, or often of a single great individual. In fascist theory, this is all that politics ever was, no matter what purportedly disinterested purposes the ruling elites of the past believed they served. The difference that Nietzsche made was that this reality could become conscious.

Fascism is not quite coincident with the great man theory of history. Since human beings are social animals, the will is to some extent a social phenomenon. Thus, reality is an intersubjective construct, a fable that people make up amongst themselves. The construct is not entirely arbitrary. Most fascists have also posited a strong racial or biological element conditioning the way that leaders and their peoples behave. Still, even in highly racialized forms of fascism, the leader stands to the people as the will stands to the individual. Politics, then, is not an arbitrary art, but an art whereby the leader makes the unconscious will of the people explicit.

Hmmmm . . .

Come to think of it, the exercise of the will is the only meaning life can ever have.

But, there is more than one way to exercise the will, and not all ways involve asserting power-over-others.

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

John J. Reilly again:

Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God

John J. Reily’s proof that all pre-Christian civilizations were fascist doesn’t seem to square with actual observations. :dubious:

[mlees]

Thanks for the correction, BG. I now remember reading that in the Kershaw’s book, but Hitler (as pointed out) was so muddled on economics that I get confused trying to follow along reading his rants. He definately saw economics/the economy as subbordinate to “politics”, however he defined politics. (He even told the heads of industry, like Krupp, during a meeting in Feb of '33, that he didn’t care about economics per se, except where it must serve the needs of politics (the State). He promised not to nationalise stuff, like some in his party wanted to, and that seemed to be enough for most of the big buisness leaders. (Buisness as usual, I guess.)

But he definately (consistantly) saw Marxists/Marxism as an enemy, so it’s still muddled for me. He also later (if I read correctly) will dismantle labor unions. (I haven’t got to that part in the book. Sorry.)

Point is: just 'cause he has incorrect theories on politics, the economy, racial theory, or even all three combined, doesn’t make him, by definition, insane. IMO.

Today, we have people stubbornly stinking to “9/11 truth”, UFO’s, moon landing hoax, and whatnot, but I don’t think that those theories alone is proof of insanity.

Of course, on the other hand, psycology is an inexact science. There’s lots of grey area.

[BrainGlutton]

@mlees

Thanks for the correction, BG. I now remember reading that in the Kershaw’s book, but Hitler (as pointed out) was so muddled on economics that I get confused trying to follow along reading his rants. He definately saw economics/the economy as subbordinate to “politics”, however he defined politics. (He even told the heads of industry, like Krupp, during a meeting in Feb of '33, that he didn’t care about economics per se, except where it must serve the needs of politics (the State). He promised not to nationalise stuff, like some in his party wanted to, and that seemed to be enough for most of the big buisness leaders. (Buisness as usual, I guess.)

But he definately (consistantly) saw Marxists/Marxism as an enemy, so it’s still muddled for me. He also later (if I read correctly) will dismantle labor unions. (I haven’t got to that part in the book. Sorry.)

This might help – this, at any rate, is how George Orwell saw the difference between Socialism and Fascism in 1941:

Socialism is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production”. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does NOT mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it DOES mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc etc) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it. In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

However, it has become clear in the last few years that “common ownership of the means of production” is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class system. Centralised ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government. “The State” may come to mean no more than a self-elected political party, and oligarchy and privilege can return, based on power rather than on money.

But what then is Fascism?

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and–this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathise with Fascism–generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere EFFICIENCY of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human INEQUALITY, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have “proved” over and over again that only Nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non Nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas! Therefore, while a species of war-Socialism exists within the German state, its attitude towards conquered nations is frankly that of an exploiter. The function of the Czechs, Poles, French, etc is simply to produce such goods as Germany may need, and get in return just as little as will keep them from open rebellion. If we are conquered, our job will probably be to manufacture weapons for Hitler’s forthcoming wars with Russia and America. The Nazis aim, in effect, at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the coloured peoples, the “semi-apes” as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery.

However horrible this system may seem to us, IT WORKS. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve_MB

John J. Reily’s proof that all pre-Christian civilizations were fascist doesn’t seem to square with actual observations. :dubious:

:rolleyes: His point, true or false, is that post-Christian civilization, or, if you prefer, post-Enlightenment Western civilization, lacks spiritual values/traditions inimical to the fascist will-is-all POV. He is not even suggesting that **pre-**Christian civilizations, nor contemporary non-Western civilizations, lacked such. There is a reason why fascism is a 20th-Century phenomenon with no real antecedents in history; it is similar to the reason why no philosophy similar to Marx’ was devised before the 19th Century.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Campion

One factoid I wasn’t aware of was that the government would essentially hold estate sales, often before the family was transported where their neighbors would walk through their house and bid on the linens, plates, etc. (“The Jews get all the best stuff.”) And yet these neighbors were the same people who later claimed that they didn’t know about the camps (and the same people who, years before the war, were friends with their Jewish neighbors).

It must be human nature. On the other side of the world, essentially the same thing was happening to the Japanese Canadians on the West Coast.

Their land and possessions were Confiscated and sold off at bargain basement prices to their neighbors. Often the government agent in charge of selling the Japanese-Canadian’s possessions would sell cheaply to someone he knew with little public notice.

This is how several current families on the Gulf Islands made their fortunes. By stealing their neighbors possessions.

[BrainGlutton]

@Euphonious_Polemic

This is how several current families on the Gulf Islands made their fortunes. By stealing their neighbors possessions.

“We made our money the older-fashioned way!”

[Little_Nemo]

@mlees

Thanks for the correction, BG. I now remember reading that in the Kershaw’s book, but Hitler (as pointed out) was so muddled on economics that I get confused trying to follow along reading his rants. He definately saw economics/the economy as subbordinate to “politics”, however he defined politics. (He even told the heads of industry, like Krupp, during a meeting in Feb of '33, that he didn’t care about economics per se, except where it must serve the needs of politics (the State). He promised not to nationalise stuff, like some in his party wanted to, and that seemed to be enough for most of the big buisness leaders. (Buisness as usual, I guess.)

The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party certainly sounds left wing enough but in reality it had a lot of right wing support. Corporate leaders donated lots of money to the Nazis (even in the early days before the Nazis had any political power) because they knew the Nazis would steer lower class unrest into “safe” directions. The Nazis didn’t point any fingers at the corporate leaders - they told the workers that all their problems were caused by Jews and foreigners.

As Kershaw pointed out, the Nazi party was based around the leadership principle. Their central tenet was that one individual was the leader and the role of the masses was to follow that leader. The masses were not supposed to make decisions on their own and had no political role in the Nazi program. The Führerprinzip was the manifestation of this in politics. But the same principle also applied in the economic world - the boss was the leader and the workers were supposed to obey not organize themselves into collective bargaining units. (And in turn, business leaders along with church leaders, military leaders, academic leaders, etc were not supposed to be independent. Their role was to obey the political leaders.)

[mlees]

@Little_Nemo

The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party certainly sounds left wing enough but in reality it had a lot of right wing support. Corporate leaders donated lots of money to the Nazis (even in the early days before the Nazis had any political power) because they knew the Nazis would steer lower class unrest into “safe” directions. The Nazis didn’t point any fingers at the corporate leaders - they told the workers that all their problems were caused by Jews and foreigners.

As Kershaw pointed out, the Nazi party was based around the leadership principle. Their central tenet was that one individual was the leader and the role of the masses was to follow that leader. The masses were not supposed to make decisions on their own and had no political role in the Nazi program. The Führerprinzip was the manifestation of this in politics. But the same principle also applied in the economic world - the boss was the leader and the workers were supposed to obey not organize themselves into collective bargaining units. (And in turn, business leaders along with church leaders, military leaders, academic leaders, etc were not supposed to be independent. Their role was to obey the political leaders.)

Yup, I see that more clearly now, thanks.

But I was still wondering what makes Hitler insane?

Towards the end of the war, he was clearly cracking under the stress (moving around fictional armies on some map). But in '32-'33, he was sane, wasn’t he?

[Little_Nemo]

@mlees

But I was still wondering what makes Hitler insane?

Towards the end of the war, he was clearly cracking under the stress (moving around fictional armies on some map). But in '32-'33, he was sane, wasn’t he?

He was always delusional (at least he was delusional all of the time he was a political figure). His beliefs that there was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Germany had no factual basis.

[mlees]

@Little_Nemo

He was always delusional (at least he was delusional all of the time he was a political figure). His beliefs that there was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Germany had no factual basis.

So… are all free market capitalists insane?

[code_grey]

I want to applaud BrainGlutton for the nice Orwell quote. The guy certainly gradually saw the light as he read Burnham and studied reports from Russia and Germany. He was not an irrevocably “enlightened” “born a Commie, die a Commie” type of person. Even though the Depression convinced him and many others of his time that normal capitalism for such nonsensical reason as “because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective.”

It’s pretty obvious that he forgot to mention the relative economic stability of other contemporary capitalist dictatorships - Portugal, Italy, Hungary, pre-1938 Austria, Brazil under Vargas etc. None of which had any master race or world conquest obsessions. But then, like I said, seeing the light is a gradual process.

[Stoid]

I just wanted to say how much the title of this thread makes me laugh.

[BrainGlutton]

@mlees

So… are all free market capitalists insane?

Do you mean the practicing capitalists or the theoretical capitalists?

[Cumberdale]

It’s my understanding that Hitler was a jerk.