We want this people to be peace-loving,but at the same time to be courageous.And you must for that reason, be both peace-lovingYou must be both peace-loving and strong.-Adolf Hitler in a speech to the Nazi youth
Throughout Triumph of the Will and this week's reading of Kershaw's "Hitler Myth," the motif of peace and being peace-loving reoccurs time after time again. I don't know about you, but that screen capture of Hitler doesn't exactly scream "peace-loving." I thought this might better supplement the other posts for this week.
Anyhow, I am more interested in Weber's classification of legitimate domination of authority in Professor Ertman's lecture today.
Hitler's rise to power makes so much sense under the scope of Weber's authority structure. This is even more remarkable after realizing that Weber came before Hitler's time, but the criteria still holds fast. In fact, Hitler's image that was projected to the people fit to a tee under Weber's criteria for this legitimizing power: Hitler, with the help of Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda, appealed to the public through his ability to bring more stability to Germany. Goebbels made sure that Hitler's successes were highlighted to the public, which in turn obviously helped Hitler at the ballots.
Propaganda had made Hitler into the Gandhi of Germany: he was a national hero, a religious mogul, and a leader who could bring immediate change (except Gandhi followed through on his beliefs regarding peace). Hitler had been elevated to a flawless stature after the public was convinced that Hitler had specials powers. Electoral successes reflected and reaffirmed the public's opinion of his authority. People saw the economy meet better times while such previous disillusionment and suffering catapulted people to believe in the luck and a higher faith in Hitler. It was best that people not jinx the times by opposing those like Hitler who made miracles happen.
Propaganda had made Hitler into the Gandhi of Germany: he was a national hero, a religious mogul, and a leader who could bring immediate change (except Gandhi followed through on his beliefs regarding peace). Hitler had been elevated to a flawless stature after the public was convinced that Hitler had specials powers. Electoral successes reflected and reaffirmed the public's opinion of his authority. People saw the economy meet better times while such previous disillusionment and suffering catapulted people to believe in the luck and a higher faith in Hitler. It was best that people not jinx the times by opposing those like Hitler who made miracles happen.
Still, I cannot believe that Hitler's popularity would have been as substantial if it were not for the works of Goebbels. His traits were not remarkable enough. Not too long ago, his image did not surpass 'drummer boy.' Did Hitler really command the authority that he held? Or rather did the authority that was thrust onto him hold him in command?
I agree with this post, you brought up a very interesting point while talking about Weber’s idea of charismatic authority. Hitler had a way about himself that was loved by the people. The German people looked at Hitler to be their “savior.” The propaganda surrounding Hitler was also a contributing factor to his success. Goebbels made the people believe that Hitler could save Germany and make it even better than before.
ReplyDeleteYou pose the question, "did Hitler really command the authority that he held? Or rather did the authority that was thrust onto him hold him in command?" I think it goes hand in hand. One needs the other, Hitler needed Goebbels as much as Goebbels needed Hitler. Goebbels made it so the people of Germany saw Hitler as a God and were told over and over again how great he was. Without Hitler Goebbels would be out of a job. It was a give and take relationship even though Hitler was the one that was taking a lot more.
Along those lines, the importance of Goebbels, as well as other people, to the Hitler campaign fits nicely under Marx's fifth and sixth features of charismatic authority. There is this natural harmonious relationship that is seen, just as Alexa had mentioned, which without would bring an end to the gripping authority that Hitler had over Germany. The important thing to highlight here is the fact that it was because of people like Goebbels who had an undying level of loyalty unto Hitler that this power was sustained. This is something that Hitler probably had realized, but there are so many factors to consider which could be attributed to this cyclical relationship of give and take. Without the ability to know the thoughts of Hitler and his disciples directly, we must look at the external evidences that are given to us. One of such examples is with how Hitler was like a father figure to Goebbels and how there was this level of acceptance that Goebbels had not experienced elsewhere. This level of trust and loyalty could only be broken if the leader started to fail in his upholding of this 'savior-like' image. This is mirrored in Kershaw as he writes, "According to Max Weber's 'model' 'charismatic leadership' could not survive lack of succes." (200)
ReplyDeleteWe get a glimpse of this breakdown even in Hitler's closest of disciples. "... Goebbels referred around this time not just to a 'leadership crisis', but to a 'Leader crisis'. Party reports--usually more coloured and 'loyal' than any other type of report in their avoidance of criticism of the leadership--from all parts of Germany confirmed the 'especially dangerous' signs that people were now 'daring to express open criticism of the person of the Fuhrer and to attack him in hateful and mean fashion'." (Kershaw 193) Hitler had failed to live out this image that Goebbels and so many other followers had of him. And so to answer the original question of whether Hitler commanded authority or if the authority held him in command, I think it definitely is on the part of Hitler that we see a clear act of authority. However we also see that he failed to hold onto it... it was simply just too big for him to handle.