I can’t help but view the destruction of the ‘Hitler Myth’ as a tragedy. Weber’s concept of charismatic authority applied to Hitler provides reason behind the German peoples’ transition from adulation to anger to their Fuhrer. Hitler’s initial popularity depended on his advocation for peace. However, the propaganda justification of invading Poland, the risk of seeming unpatriotic, and the prophesies that become realized in quick military victories (Paris), boosted the support of Germans. As long as they were unaffected, they would trust in the Fuhrer who acted in the best interest for their country. With the image of “selfless devotion, sacrifice, and passionate commitment to a national ideal...Hitler had become in a way the projection of national aspirations to greatness” (171). The newsreel shows Hitler promising a victory; a week later he makes a speech confirming that victory. He was the embodiment of charismatic authority to a religious level. Just his face or his voice provided and symbolized hope. He was the bringer of good news and concerned with the whole of the German people (Lebensraum), leaving everyday concerns to the Party. The blame and responsibility from direct interaction would not fall upon him.
Then came his invasion of Russia, which many Germans were weary about yet hopeful for success. Stalingrad was a major turning point in Hitler’s popularity, but I didn’t understand why Hitler was so adamant about Russia in the first place. Kershaw did not detail why Hitler would abandon a “decisive blow” on Britain and instead attack Russia, as we view from the citizens’ perspective. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/hitler_russia_invasion_01.shtml has a more comprehensible view of Hitler’s Russian invasion. Rees (BBC) explains, “Hitler did in fact order preparations to be made for an invasion of England, but he was always half-hearted in his desire to mount a large seaborne landing. Germany, unlike Britain, was not a sea power and the Channel was a formidable obstacle. Even if air superiority could be gained, there remained the powerful British Navy. And there was another, ideological, reason why Hitler was not fully committed to invading Britain. For him, it would have been a distraction. Britain contained neither the space, nor the raw materials, that he believed the new German Empire needed. And he admired the British...”
Hitler, under a tremendous amount of pressure, needed this miracle to maintain charismatic authority. Now he would be blamed for exploiting the people;s trust in him, he would have to take responsibility.
Hitler's failure in Russia is often compared to the same mistakes made by Napoleon, which led to the demise of the French.
ReplyDeleteHitler, fueled by the loss of WWI, was not a quitter. As expressed in his many speeches and his idea of the stab in the back theory, Hitler was neither going to retreat the way Napoleon did, nor leave his soldiers and surrender when there were still battles to be fought.
Hitler wanted to create a European empire, and was well on his way before his Russian invasion. However, Hitler also needed oil and supplies for his troops. His failing was the same as Napoleon in the way that he underestimated the time it would take to navigate through Russia and get his supplies. The soldiers were ill-equipped for the winter, and without the authority to retreat or surrender by Hitler, were pretty much left to die in the name of country.
Oil, even in WWII was a cause for destruction and invasion. Had Hitler had access to more oil, who knows how much longer he could have fought.