The Force of Hitler's Argument

By way of an anecdote, I want to make note of the particular nature of political violence in Germany between world wars and within the NSDAP, also noting the character of many of Hitler's followers. On August 26, 1921, Hitler forced the outcome of a speech in a meeting that a rival of his, the separatist leader Otto Ballerstedt, was about to make by making devious use of the willingness of his followers to use coercion, intimidation and violence to achieve their ends. “Hitler’s arrival in the packed hall was the signal for his supporters, many of them young thugs…to storm the podium, screaming ‘Hitler!’ continually in chorus, and prevent Ballerstedt from speaking (p.175).” When the speaker was assaulted and injured, he no longer wished to address the crowd. Of course, Hitler’s violent altercation did in fact result in a month spent in jail but this clash is indicative of his encouragement of violence throughout his reign. It reflects the brawny nature of his takeover of power, favoring brute manipulation and the triumph of physical strength over reasoned arguments or persuasive, thoughtful positions.

Rather than control his enthusiastic supporters, Hitler only wanted to unleash them on a target of his choosing. These targets changed over time although Jews and Bolsheviks always bore the brunt of Hitler’s hatred. Rather than exercise his power through disciplined, coordinated, and highly strategized actions that would have projected his ability and awe of him beyond the present moment, Hitler was happy to just send in his shock troops to cause mayhem and disruption in a general sense. Hitler would have been wiser to utilize brute antagonism more sparingly, intimidation and the threat of violent action nearly always being more successful than actually engaging in violence.

In a quick contrast that is somewhat distant in time and wholly out of context, I want to present a cinematic projection of another charismatic leader who exerted a highly disciplined and highly successful sense of control over his followers. All that is needed here is to look at is the movie clip, not the politics or history involved in it—the comparison is to the movie itself. Being a natural “cinema-phile,” this scene came to mind. By looking at this man, we see the kind of control over his followers that Hitler lacked and we see the general rabble that made up much of Hitler’s following as well; in large part, they were thugs and opportunists over whom Hitler could never have imposed a great deal of discipline and who would have attempted to grasp any fully thought out principles Hitler presented—that is if he had ever done so. They were certainly not highly motivated individuals acting in concert with larger philosophical positions they had carefully considered. Because of the membership of his following, in the absence of any ability to make a superior argument, we can see that all Hitler’s Reich could offer his opposition was political violence and the language of brute force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uoy6xy5AFM