On quote in Kershaw's book really stood out to me last week:
"Hitler acknowledged in Mein Kampf that there was no essential difference between the ideas of the volkisch movement and those of National Socialism. He had little interest in clarifying or systematizing these ideas. Of course, he had his own obsessions - a few basic notions which never left him after 1919, became formed into a rounded 'world-view' in the mid-1920s, and provided the diving-force of his 'mission' to 'rescue' Germany. But ideas held no interest to Hitler as abstractions. They were important to him only as tools of mobilization" (137).
What I want to focus on is the last line, mainly. It would seem strange that someone would devote their life to politics who has little interest in the abstractions, the actual policy objectives of their cause.
But I suppose Hitler was no ordinary politician. It appears that he was sucked into politics partly by luck, and party by the fact that he had no other means to survive. He was interested in being a propagandist, an agitator, but not someone involved in organization or policy. Mein Kampf was crafted as a story a of political awakening and triumph of the will, and at times is woefully inaccurate, as Kershaw points out. I think if there was ever anyone who was Machiavellian in nature, it was Hitler.
But this kind of assessment raises the question: Did Hitler believe what he said? I have no doubt that he was antisemitic, but Kershaw shows us that even in the early confusion of the Weimar Republic, Hitler seems to initially have sided with the SDP, even if just to save himself. He served on a council. He had Jewish friends in the men's home. He was good at making exceptions to his extreme ideology when convenient.
So when did his final ideology form? Was Hitler using far-right ideas to prop himself up, or was he the forceful ideologue depicted in Mein Kampf?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry about this:
"Ideas as Tools" resonated with me because I also questioned Hitler's intentions and beliefs based on his account in Mein Kampf and Kershaw's seemingly objective view. Hitler does seem to see politics as a way for him to rise up from a meaningless life. This chapter was devoted to Hitler as "the drummer", as seen by his desire not so much for political content he uses to mobilize the masses, but rather of the action itself:
ReplyDelete"Activists, as Hitler later acknowledged, could not be kept in a state of tension indefinitely without some release." (Kershaw 196) He knows that once he has stirred up his audience, they need action, and after the idea of playing the hero following the failure of the May Day attack, he "had to resort to his usual attacks on Jews, socialists, and the International, appealing, according to a police report, to the basest instincts of the masses in such an antisemitic tirade" (Kershaw 197). As for your question of whether Hitler was using far-right ideas to prop himself up, or whether he was the forceful ideologue depicted in Mein Kampf, I don't think it's an either-or question. He exaggerated in his own account to preserve the heroic savior image, and he definitely has been shown to believe in far-right ideas, but there are also so many blurred events and contradictions that I honestly don't know what to think. I believe Hitler was psychologically disturbed, but I truly hope it's the kind where he can plead insanity, because if he purposefully used genocide as a tool for mobilization, then he would be a psychopath. And the cat picture? i can haz mustache? Completely irrelevant.
In previous posts, I have stressed the remarkable passion that Hitler exhibits. I made connections with his passion for the arts in Vienna with his passionate speeches in beerhalls. Yet, this weeks reading has actually showed me that this passion is actually just a drive for power, at least starting in 1923. My main reasoning for this statement is due to Hitler’s reaction to national unity during the French march in the Ruhr. “Germany was gripped by an elemental wave of national fury that crossed all social and political divides. A ‘national unity front’ stretching from Social Democrats to German Nationals was founded” (p. 191). I recall Hitler being upset at the lack of moral and betrayal of individuals in the country during the latter half of WWI. Well now this moral had a short burst of reversal. A newly found nationalist spirit against the French sprung up. Yet, Hitler saw this not as a step to move the country forward, but rather as a threat to the Nazi party. As a result, Hitler chose to go on “a propaganda offensive” to break this unity. This propaganda involved depicted the Social Democrats as “the enemy within”. This event proved to me that Hitler truly did not care about ideology at all. Now with growing support, all he cared about was power.
ReplyDeleteAnother event which shows this is the fact that whenever Hitler recognizes that he has competition from other speakers on the poltical right, he reacts by trying to sabotage their success. For example, Hitler for a long time had preached the need to rid the country of democracy and committees, which are inefficient, and instead move towards a dictatorship. Well after the end of “passive resistnace” on September 26, Gustav Kahr was given “near-dictorial powers”. This step would have made Hitler’s idea of a dictatorship one step closer. Hitler, instead, reacts with fear and turned his propaganda to ruin Kahr’s career. To answer Peter’s question, I don’t think Hitler believed what he said. If he did believe it, he would have welcomed Kahr as General. Instead I believe that Hitler says what he says in the hopes to gain power.
If Hitler actually had genuine passion for the cause which he was fighting he would have acted differently while he was in Landsberg. He would not have appointed the dull Rosenberg as leader. Although Kershaw argues that Hitler was just in a hurry to pick a leader, I believe that in choosing Rosenberg, Hitler intentionally wanted the party to fail. This way, on Hitler’s release, he could look like the party savior.
I agree with Peter that Hitler is Machiavellian in nature, since Hitler shows clear signs of being power hungry, rather than hungry for the success of his party or ideology. If history had panned out a differently and the red republic would have remained in power, I believe that Hitler would have tried to reach power using those ideologies.
I agree with Jonah's statements about Hitler's hunger for power rather than the success of his ideologies. Hitler used the popular far right ideas as tools for his own success as a leader, and his skills "as a type of political instructor" to "whip up the feelings of the masses like no one else could."(200) He relied on his ability to speak instead of his passion for politics to climb upward on the political ladder and unfortunately was ultimately able to reach the top as ruler of Germany. Hitler as ‘the drummer’ was able to mobilize the masses toward destroying Marxism; he viewed the role of the drummer as “the highest there is...The rest is unimportant.”(219) And as Germany continued to weaken after the events of WWI and May Day, Hitler was more than ready to take this fallen country under his wing. As Kershaw puts it, “Crisis was Hitler’s oxygen. He needed it to survive. And the deteriorating conditions in Germany...guaranteed an increasing appeal for Hitler’s brand of agitation.”
ReplyDeleteIn response to Peter’s question about the formation of Hitler’s ideology, I don’t think there is a specific time when it was formed. On multiple occasions Kershaw has provided evidence of Hitler’s unreliable habits when it comes to his recollections, especially those made in Mein Kampf. Amongst all the confusion surrounding his formation of his ‘world view’ and his extreme anti-semitism, it is important to remember the idea that Hitler’s ideologies were mainly ‘tools’ to enable his rise to power. Though his ideologies held much gravity, the idea that he could excite these ideologies among the masses was of greater importance to Hitler’s rise to power.
(P.S. I love cats, and I think that picture is awful.)