No matter the circumstance, Hitler was always a proud man. He was always confidant in his own ability and never thought that he had to work hard to get somewhere in life. Hitler's pride in his ability as an artist clouded his judgement and caused him to squander his time and money.
Hitler's pride in his artwork was first shown when he went to Vienna to enroll in the Academy of Fine Arts. He never had a doubt whether or not he could make it in. Thus, when he was rejected, he was devastated. What shocked me the most was that he never took any initiative to hone his skills as an artist. Back in Linz, Hitler was given a recommendation to Professor Alfred Roller who was willing to talk to him when he reached Vienna. He kept continuing to apply to the Academy until they refused to even accept his application.
Pride caused Hitler to lie to his friends and family. He was ashamed that he was rejected at the Academy. While it made sense why he never reveled to his guardian that he got rejected from the Academy, he could have told Kubizek that he did not get in. As a result of his pride, he continued the façade that he was attending the Academy. Instead of trying to support himself, he was living off of his inheritance and squandered his money trying to live his life as an artist.
When Hitler hit rock bottom, what confused me the most was why he took his time painting the postcards. Working with Hanisch gave him the opportunity to make some money and allowed him to move to the Men’s House. What I did not expect was how lazy he was. He claimed that he was an artist and that he will produce art whenever he wanted to. It was through the help of his aunt and his business relationship with Hanisch, that he was able to climb out of the pit of poverty. It is hard for me to comprehend how he became such a powerful ruler when he was so lazy and could not focus long enough to write a play. If he thought of himself as an artist, why he did he not spend time honing his skills and making contacts to become a successful artist?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt would only make sense that pride is a central theme when the title itself contains “Hubris”. However, from my reading of Hitler’s early days in Linz, I gathered more of a fantasist “whose traits are recognizable with hindsight in the later party leader and dictator” (Kershaw 48). With Kubizek’s recollection, Hitler resembles not so much pride, but rather a person who was convinced that the whole world was wrong simply because he was right. Is this pride, or just a distorted sense of reality? His "artistic genius" was too "genius" for anyone to recognize, it seemed, and he held on to this belief: “The indolence in lifestyle but accompanied by manic enthusiasm and energy sucked into his fantasies, the dilettantism, the lack of reality...the diatribes of venom poured out on everyone and everything blocking the rise of the great artist” (Kershaw 48). This "lack of reality" is shown by his obsession with Wagner, his “winning” lottery ticket, and his "future as an artistic genius". When he was in his pit of poverty, he believed in the fantasy of his art, in his own world, where he was the hero and the whole world was against him.
ReplyDeleteReading Huberis, I was less so struck by Hitler's character, which was clearly depicted as disappointing before he went into politics. Throughout the descriptions of his time in Vienna, it was difficult to imagine a man with a strong, impressive personality, such as other great men of the time, such as Winston Churchill. Rather Kershaw's documentations depicted a very, very lucky citizen who happened to be in the right place in the right political and social climate. He was lucky that his political opponents were shy, lucky to attract such a disgruntled portion majority of the German population, and even lucky that his father had changed his birth name from Schickelgruber.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how the book did not try to sensationalize Hitler, but depicted him largely as a man who had a potential political image that would appeal to the unsettled masses. He was a man representative of his times, that also had an air of almost religious mystery, described in his earlier years as "polite but distant, self-contained, withdrawn, and apparently without friends (pg. 84)." With what I consider to be such an antisocial personality, his conjured feelings of deep hate, self-confidence, and pride amounted to far less than what I perceive to be the workings of a powerful leader.
Kershaw clearly acknowledges the unremarkable character of Hitler, and I think this is wise. Rather than focus on the man, it is more important to focus on the remarkable and scary situation in Germany that allowed for such a dictator, and in turn horrific events to occur. In reality, I believe that Hitler was playing a role that might easily have been filled by any German citizen of somewhat ordinary personality and outlooks. Hitler was just lucky, and turned out to have an extra 'kick' of insanity. What fueled the rise of the Nazi party was not necessarily Hitler himself, but rather the political and social climate at the time, which is what deserves analysis.