Those who have seen
the film "King's Speech" directed by Tom Hooper understand that King
George VI (Colin Firth)'s stutter made it very difficult for him to generate
the support of masses. There's even one scene where one of Hitler's propaganda
clips were shown, one of him delivering a speech. The King's daughter asks him,
"What's he saying?" The King responds, "I don't know... but he
seems to be saying it rather well."
What interests me the
most was that Adolf Hitler was not an original thinker, but a mass mobilizer.
What started as small groups of people quickly transformed into crowds flocking
to hear Hitler speak, even if his theories weren’t very refined. Hitler
did not instill anti-Semitic beliefs in people; he reflected the brewing hatred
that was already widespread across the country, especially in Munich. “One
vicious comment – “All [the Jews] deserve to be hanged. They are guilty of the
war” – made in a Munich tram met with the approval of all other passengers”
(124). Finding common ground and
appealing to the Germans' interests during a time of national humiliation
(after the War) and economic turbulence were essentially why people became
Nazis, a question we started but left unanswered during our last recitation. Was
his oratory skills just so impeccable, emotional, moving, and inspiring to
captivate the entire German nation? Was Hitler simply the right man at the
right time? Could the same be said about leaders such as Martin Luther King
Jr., former President Bush, or President Obama?
In order to
understand why citizens of Germany congregated to listen to Hitler, it is
crucial to understand that the German people were yearning for a solution out
of their despair during and after World War I. “The German Revolution arose out
of massive disaffection and mounting popular protest demanding an end to the
war, and end to the hunger and misery at home, and the removal of a monarchy
capable of bringing about neither” (110). As Professor Ertman said today, there
was widespread malnutrition and a tremendous a mount of antagonism towards
those who had access to food, the farmers. Growing inequality resulted, and
people were becoming quite desperate for a way out of their suffering. People
were looking for a leader. Hitler was a very eloquent and persuasive orator.
People listened to Hitler because he promised them what they wanted – no – what
they needed to hear. “For them, simple slogans, kindling the fires of
anger, resentment, and hatred, were what worked” (137). It was easy to shift
the blame of all the problems to the Jews, utilizing them as a scapegoat for
all that was wrong in Germany. A common enemy brings people together – it
unites them. The question of Pan-Germanism would be answered. During that
specific time period, it made sense to provide an explanation, but Hitler did
more than that. He promised people that Germany would rise again and be a proud
nation. It's a no brainer that people would be swept in such charismatic
fervor, one preaching about rising from the ashes. Moreover, Hitler promised
something for everyone in society. For the middle class, he promised to restore
the profits of small businesses and the value of savings. For those who were
unemployed, he promised jobs like building roads or stadiums. For the farmers,
he claimed to provide a higher price for their produce. His driving force was
his “mission” to “rescue” Germany – his focal tool in mobilizing the country.
Similarly, Martin
Luther King Jr.'s mission was to rescue African Americans from the prejudice
and segregation that plagued America during the 50s and 60s. Mr. King didn't
create the civil rights movement; he simply reflected the sentiments of all the
African Americans. He gave everyone the dream of a better and more equal
tomorrow. People needed change.
Take President Obama
in 2008. His dynamic, persuasive, and stylish speeches won the hearts of many
Americans because we were at a point in time where we needed immediate change.
Bring our soldiers home from war, fix the health care system, reduce the
national debt. People needed a new leader to rebuild what was torn away from
them since September 11 (which created a common enemy as well).
I guess what I'm
trying to say is that during the early 1900s, people were vulnerable and eager
for a solution that would help them out of post war difficulties. I understand
the feeling of getting caught up in political victories (where were you when
Obama was sworn into presidency?), but I am still trying to figure out what
demons could possess a society to act on its hatred and execute six million
individual people, just for the sake of "unity" and maintaining a
"pure" race...
I believe that Sheri has a great point in addressing the big question that is often associated with Hitler, "why did people listen to him." For a society that is displaced in both context and time, it is hard to imagine why on earth a whole group of people would place their hope and trust in someone like Hitler. It is simply inconceivable. However, looking at the context in which all of this happens, we see a clearer picture of reasoning behind this.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, even before WWI had begun, there was a widespread patriotism that was seen in Germany. And so after their defeat, the Germans were left in a state of wanting to find someone to blame. The obvious candidate for this was their past enemy, the Jews. This allowed for a uniformity that was pushed as Hitler rallied the German people and their superiority as a race. Additionally, Hitler’s influential speaking ability added to the multitudes of people holding onto each word that he said. As opposed to saying things that were realistic, Hitler spoke about a hope. It was a hope that was lost and a hope that he would be at the center of. More so than we like to admit, I feel that the human race needs something to place their hope in. It just makes people feel better. Yes, Hitler was an amazing speaker and the current state of their socio-economic/political situations all had their share of influence, but it is the hope that he brought that really acted as the catalyst of this movement. Hitler’s arguments were not particularly unique nor his background the most noble, but especially at a moment when a country is down on their luck, Hitler knew what the most powerful way to reach his people was, and he used it “only as tools of mobilization” (137).