Hitler believed that “...the youth were educated politically at a time when the citizens of a so-called national State for the most part knew little of their own nationality except the language.” The simultaneous occurrence of education and the political unrest and patriotism has been crucial to Hitler’s uprising.
This was a time of revolt, anger. Surely, HItler was not the only one of his generation to feel the tension in the air, the churning of revolt in their guts, their minds ablaze with the feeling of discontentment and undying patriotism. The times were changing: the Hapburg Empire had collapsed; the Germans were forced under the weight of war reparations, the loss of territories and colonies; the German people’s had been stripped of their status and strength and dignity, left emasculated. This patriotism cannot come without a reason, “attributing the cause of it to the historical training through which the individual Austrian Germans had passed.” It is no different in America, as there is a correlation that individuals that grow up celebrating patriotic holidays and events, will be more likely to side with a more patriotic political standing, as those of the GOP are.
Certainly, history cannot be written without a bias, as each country’s history is written to cater to that of the government. Newspapers, sentiments, ideas are fostered around the teachings that the government chooses to endorse. One country’s view of history certainly predisposes the youth of any nation. German youth was not any different. It is no mistake that Hitler regarded history as a quintessential art. History, as slanted or impartial as it may be, cannot be entirely omniscient. History is the impetus of reactions, thoughts, political standings and allegiance.
These hateful sentiments that rejected the alleged “poison of foreign races” in conjunction with the patriotic teachings and the “sacrifices of money and blood which [the Allies] had to make” coalesced into a movement of bitterness and resentment.
How far did Hitler’s own beliefs stray from the accumulating unrest from the heavily overburdened Germans? Had the youth been taught or exposed to different teachings, could this vengeful movement have been stopped in its tracks?
The title of your response caused me to think about the Hitler Youth, mandatory after the Nazi seizure of national power for teenagers. I think your title is apt; yes, surely these youth would have become socialized by the movement and caught up in the ideology it espoused. I imagine many young teenagers who spent years in the Hitler Youth and survived the war had many problems in post-war Germany coming to terms with the defeat of the ideal that had been inculcated in them. It is interesting to think of the anomie they must have felt.
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that the changing times and discontment flowing through German society affected youth is also an accurate one. In a society that prides itself on its character and patriotism, and instills these values in the young, where do the young turn in a time of political discontentment and upheaval? I think many would have turned to Hitler for the simple reason that he placed emphasis on national honor and valor, something lacking after WWI. Many young Germans were probably disenchanted with the fragmented political system and ready to put their hopes in a great leader who could restore their pride in Germany without closely examining him. I think the the simple power of a uniform, of belonging to a larger body, was enough to persuade many youthful Germans to take up Hitler's cause and only become reinforced in their faith in him by events.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that Hitler was elected to become Chancellor of the Weimar republic, that he did not merely seize control of Germany by force, Lan’s post becomes all the more relevant. I find it difficult to reconcile the disconnect between the way the German viewed Hitler during his rise to power and the horrific mass murderer he is viewed as today. How could a nation rally around this man? Georg Schott, as quoted by Kershaw, wrote “the secret [of Hitler’s] personality resides in the fact that in the deepest of what lies dormant in the soul of the German people has taken shape in full living features… That has appeared in Adolf Hitler: the living incarnation of the nation’s yearning” (224). How did the “nation’s yearning” get warped into the last legacy of the Nazi regime? Kershaw titles this period of Hitler’s life “Hubris,” and when read in the light that he was in some way the “soul of the German people” it seems as if the pride of the German people, manifested in nationalism, following WWI was what propelled Hitler to power.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Lan’s comment, was it the education of Germany that fostered this nationalist sentiment, or merely the effects of the Treaty of Versailles that occurred organically? And what specifically was this sentiment that such a strong majority ended up supporting Hitler for? If it was merely the desire to create a robust German nation consisting of a united people, then that seems quite understandable. This notion is in my opinion healthy for a country. So where did it become unification at all costs, the desire to create a single race at the expense of all others?