Why did Nazism thrive in Germany?

  • Thread starter JerryClower
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Germany
In summary: By the end of 1933, 40% of the workforce was unemployed and the Nazi party had grown from a tiny 12 seat party to the most powerful in the Reichstag. The German people were desperate for a solution to their economic problems, and Hitler's propaganda and promises of a strong, united Germany appealed to them. In summary, the rise of Nazism in Germany was a result of the state of chaos and economic turmoil after WWI, Hitler's aggressive tactics and promises of a better future, and the desperation of the German people for a solution. While there were rumors of Hitler's actions against Jews, there was not widespread knowledge. It is unlikely that something like Nazism could thrive in Germany
  • #1
JerryClower
68
1
Why did Nazism rise to power so quickly before and during World War 2 in Germany? Did Germany as a whole know that Hitler was killing Jews? Do you think something like Nazism will ever be able to thrive in Germany again?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Isn't that like asking whether Americans knew (after fire-bombing scores of Japanese cities and nuking Hiroshima) that their government would nuke Nagasaki? Whether they knew Bush would attack Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan without waiting for UN direction?

In your country, are people more encouraged to fly a national flag rather than to think of themselves as citizens of the world?
 
  • #3
Oh, Good point.
 
  • #4
JerryClower said:
Why did Nazism rise to power so quickly before and during World War 2 in Germany?
Every biography of Hitler addresses the question of how he could possibly have come to power and the answer mostly lies in the state of chaos Germany was in after WWI. He didn't have the general support some people assume. There were substantial parties like the Social Democrats and the Communists who were a serious threat to the Nazi's power base. Hitler was more savagely aggressive than either of those parties and he eventually crushed his competitors for political power using every means at his disposal.

Hitler came off as exceptionally dedicated, organized, nationalistic, and he offered a clear cut enemy to destroy. For many people he was the "Man With The Plan" who could stop the political and economic chaos and get Germany back on it's feet, pull it out of the quagmire of post WWI chaos. With this image, he was able to acquire a large body of willing, even fanatic, followers and, once he had, he used them to beat down (often literally) his potential rivals within Germany. The first country he conquered was, really, Germany itself. The early Nazi Party was like an exceptionally well organized street gang taking over turf: Communists, Social Democrats, and Jews were cornered on city streets and beaten up.

Did Germany as a whole know that Hitler was killing Jews?
There were widespread rumors that every German had heard.

Do you think something like Nazism will ever be able to thrive in Germany again?
No. I think there's an erroneous notion that there was a particularly strong strain of anti-semitism in Germany always waiting to be tapped. In fact, back then, a political party with anti-semitism as a major point of policy could have arisen in Poland, France, Russia, maybe even in the US. There was a lot of low-grade anti-semitism all over the place. Today Germany is too well fed and satisfied to find a fanatic of any ilk appealing.

That is small comfort since there are plenty of 'Nazi-like' groups all over the world, in that they're essentially violent, power hungry, and have singled out racial, ethnic, or ideological enemies to exterminate. Since Hitler there's been Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, to name a few.
 
  • #5
zoobyshoe said:
He didn't have the general support some people assume. There were substantial parties like the Social Democrats and the Communists who were a serious threat to the Nazi's power base.

That's true. Hitler was defeated by the incumbent 83 year old Paul von Hindenburg in the April, 1932 presidential election. In Germany, at that time, the chancellor (prime minister) and cabinet required presidential approval to hold office; something Hitler had been unable to get. The Nazi Party spent millions on the election, while Hitler traveled all over Germany in an American style campaign. Hindenburg stayed home and gave a few interviews. Hitler got about 37% of the vote while Hindenburg got 53%. The party was nearly broke, and lost financial backers. The Nazis lost seats in the Reichstag later that year. It looked as if Nazi fortunes had peaked and were now receding. Hitler himself apparently thought so.

In early January, 1933 a group of politicians led by former chancellor Franz von Papen called on Hitler in Munich and proposed a power sharing deal. They were reluctant to give Hitler the chancellorship in a new government (von Papen wanted that for himself), but gave into Hitler's demands. Faced with a majority coalition, von Hindenburg had no choice but to appoint Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

EDIT: In the second paragraph, I'm apparently wrong about Hindenburg "being forced" to appoint Hitler. It seems that even with his deal with von Papen, the coalition lacked a clear majority. So Hindenburg could have refused to appoint Hitler chancellor as he had done in the past. It appears the old man simply caved under heavy pressure from a variety of quarters. The point is that Hitler came to power by a series of backroom intrigues by people who thought they could control him and had no expectation of what actually would happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
SW VandeCarr said:
That's true. Hitler was defeated by the incumbent 83 year old Paul von Hindenburg in the March,1932 presidential election. In Germany, at that time, the chancellor (prime minister) and cabinet required presidential approval to hold office; something Hitler had been unable to get. The Nazi Party spent millions on the election, while Hitler traveled all over Germany in an American style campaign. Hindenburg stayed home and gave a few interviews. Hitler got about 37% of the vote while Hindenburg got 53%. The party was nearly broke, and lost financial backers. The Nazis lost seats in the Reichstag later that year. It looked as if Nazi fortunes had peaked and were now receding. Hitler himself apparently thought so.

In early January, 1933 a group of politicians led by former chancellor Franz von Papen called on Hitler in Munich and proposed a power sharing deal. They were reluctant to give Hitler the chancellorship in a new government (von Papen wanted that for himself), but gave into Hitler's demands. Faced with a majority coalition, von Hindenburg had no choice but to appoint Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.
Exactly. He did not get into power by popular vote. After his appointment as Chancellor he sprang what he called the "Nazi Erhebung" (Nazi Uplifting): nine months of internal terror during which all the remaining opposition leaders and spokespeople were killed or taken to the camps. After he had thoroughly intimidated all possible opposition he then held another election which he won by an overwhelming majority. No one dared vote against him at that point.
 
  • #7
Someone told me that after Nazism was taught at her school, some of the kids started identifying a certain teacher as being a nazi. They had to explain to the kids that ganging up on that teacher was very similar to what nazism was about.

Although many people found national-socialism offensive as a result of depictions of nazi attrocities, it is ironic that much of the post-WWII reaction against nazism came in the form of feelings of national superiority over Germany. People identified themselves as victims or innocents on the basis of national identity, and identified nazism with Germanness, which was the same kind of ethnic stereotyping that was so offensive about nazism to them in the first place.

Ironically, when people are pointing their finger at someone else, they are often unaware or even resistant to acknowledging the same thing in themselves. To use Christian language, "the one without sin casts the first stone."
 
  • #8
zoobyshoe said:
No. I think there's an erroneous notion that there was a particularly strong strain of anti-semitism in Germany always waiting to be tapped. In fact, back then, a political party with anti-semitism as a major point of policy could have arisen in Poland, France, Russia, maybe even in the US. There was a lot of low-grade anti-semitism all over the place. Today Germany is too well fed and satisfied to find a fanatic of any ilk appealing.
More to the point, imo, the very concept of Nationalism has fallen out of favor in the western world.

...though yes, general stability is key too.
 
  • #9
JerryClower said:
Did Germany as a whole know that Hitler was killing Jews?
Just a point of order: Jews are a popular target of holocaust accounts, so many people do not know that millions of Russians, Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and myriad other groups suffered the same fate.

When accounting for these other groups, the number of holocaust victims rises well above the common "6 million" number to between 11 and 17 million.

Carry on.
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
More to the point, imo, the very concept of Nationalism has fallen out of favor in the western world.

Yet there is resistance to globalism, migration, and ethno-national integration at the global level.

Interestingly, one of the stereotypes of Jews that was pushed by nazism was that they were not loyal to any nation. I wonder if this wasn't mainly strategic to generate solidarity among different brands of nationalists for unifying Europe.

I.e. if all nationalists could be unified in solidarity against Jews, they would not fight each other, which nationalists tend to do, no?

I even think there is a similar ideology in anti-globalization against the US as the demon cultural-imperialist. This creates solidarity among distinct ethnic identity-groups in preserving cultural traditions against "globalization"
 
  • #11
brainstorm said:
it is ironic that much of the post-WWII reaction against nazism came in the form of feelings of national superiority over Germany[..] which was the same kind of ethnic stereotyping that was so offensive about nazism to them in the first place.
In a similar vein, one would think that if there were one group of people who should have learned from all this never to force another ethnic group into walled ghettos (and then shower them with a chemical weapon) ...

russ_watters said:
imo, the very concept of Nationalism has fallen out of favor in the western world.
I'd like to share that opinion, do you have evidence to base it on?
 
  • #12
cesiumfrog said:
I'd like to share that opinion, do you have evidence to base it on?

He's right that some governments have made laws against nationalist expression as an attempt to prevent populism similar to that of nazism. I think this happens mainly in NW Europe, but it may occur elsewhere as well.
 
  • #13
cesiumfrog said:
I'd like to share that opinion, do you have evidence to base it on?
The existence of NATO, the EU and UN.
 
  • #14
Nazism is banned in Germany.

Hitler was actually a very stable man leading up to the invasion of Poland and the campaign shortly there after. Against Rommels will Hitler would ride with the troops on the front line, which gained him huge respect from the Wehrmacht. It wasn't until later that he turned into a sorry excuse for a human being.

Germans needed someone to blame for the mess, and the "degenerates" were the ones that the Nazi party blamed.
 
  • #15
russ_watters said:
More to the point, imo, the very concept of Nationalism has fallen out of favor in the western world.

...though yes, general stability is key too.

In the western world, yes. It is alive and kicking east of Germany. Nationalism was the driving force behind the break-up of the Soviet bloc, and the cause of all major conflicts there: Nagorno-Karabakh, Yugoslavia, Abkhazia, Baltic states ... Baltic states managed to separate relatively painfully because the Soviet government was weak and let them go without trouble. (However, to this day, 20 years after the fact, ethnic Russians are still persecuted and treated as second-class citizens in all three Baltic states.) Things were particularly nasty in Yugoslavia because there was a nationalist party in each subregion (Kosovans vs. Serbians vs. Bosnians, etc. etc.) and they all refused to deal with each other nicely.
 
  • #16
MotoH said:
Nazism is banned in Germany.

Hitler was actually a very stable man leading up to the invasion of Poland and the campaign shortly there after. Against Rommels will Hitler would ride with the troops on the front line, which gained him huge respect from the Wehrmacht. It wasn't until later that he turned into a sorry excuse for a human being.

Germans needed someone to blame for the mess, and the "degenerates" were the ones that the Nazi party blamed.

I've read differently. That Hitler was never particularly intelligent or good at his job but simply had drawn intelligent and effective leaders to him (or that they were using him as a figurehead depending on the source) and eventually began to distrust them and relied more on less intelligent and effective party members. He had the support of great strategists and leaders, which reflected well on him, until they began to point out the folly of his plans.
 
  • #17
Oh don't get me wrong, Hitler was a horrible military strategist. Rommel fought the whole African campaign with very little guidance from Hitler. If Hitler would have stayed out of the eastern front, it might have been a different story. Hitler had a lot of really brilliant men around him that did most of his work, and like you said, Hitler was the face of the organization. The big turn of Hitlers more intelligent men was around the time that Rommel came back to the European campaign, this was when Hitler was seen as the truly crazy man by his actual followers.

Rommel was actually going to surrender the Wehrmacht to the allied forces as soon as they got Hitler out of the way because he saw the war was already lost.
 
  • #18
MotoH said:
Nazism is banned in Germany.

Hitler was actually a very stable man leading up to the invasion of Poland and the campaign shortly there after. Against Rommels will Hitler would ride with the troops on the front line, which gained him huge respect from the Wehrmacht. It wasn't until later that he turned into a sorry excuse for a human being.

Germans needed someone to blame for the mess, and the "degenerates" were the ones that the Nazi party blamed.

Hitler showed signs of instability as early as his teen age years. He convinced his widowed mother to let him drop out of Mittleschule and go to Vienna to study art (paid for by her). He failed to gain admission twice, but never told his mother. He used her money to live a 'Bohemian' life style for close to two years, until his mother died of cancer in 1907. The money ran out and Hitler sank into virtual homelessness, doing odd jobs and selling post cards that he drew. During this period, some believe he contracted syphilis, and in later life may have been manifesting mental signs of late stage disease.

WWI got Hitler off the street and into uniform. He volunteered for solitary missions, and exhibited risky (or brave to a fault) behavior. He won two Iron Crosses, but was never promoted above Lance Corporal; a fact which deeply angered him. His superiors didn't mind that he took chances with his own life, but they didn't want him commanding other men.

After the war Hitler was able to exploit difficult conditions in Germany with his inflammatory and highly repetitious rhetoric. It could be said that Hitler gave basically the same speech over and over for a decade before coming to power.

He exhibited signs of manic-depression, paranoia, and megalomania all his adult life. Other than that, he was pretty stable.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
"During his three periods of temporary duty as the commander of the Fuhgrebegleitbataillon, Rommel's admiration for Hitler grew. The Swabian colonel witnessed none of the adverse reactions Hitler would later show to bad news. There were no temper tantrums, no unreasonable behavior, no fits. In 1939, Adolf Hitler still maintained control of all his faculties. He impressed Rommel with his actions under stress, his incredible memory, and his physical courage. The two liked and respected each other."

"Adolf Hitler in Poland in 1939 was far different from the shell of a man who died, cringing and almost completely mad, in a subterranean bunker in 1945. Rommel had a great deal of trouble with him because he liked to be up front with the forward troops, even when they were under fire. The Fuhrer went so far as to expose himself to Polish sniper fire, and to observe the storming of a river line by German infantry."

both from Rommel's Desert War

""There is no question of personal courage in this war; it is a business proposition where ever man bust be in his place and performing his part. Keep control of your reserve and supply, ho have no business in a Tank and I give you the order not to go into this fight in a tank." As Rockenbach told a postwar audience: "Patton obeyed his order, but saw his duty to go in the fight on top of a tank.""

Patton: A Genius of War

Hitler was fearless, and showed the Wehrmacht he wasn't afraid to get into the fight, and risk his own life.(mind you this was before he turned into a mad man) That gives the troops confidence in their leader. Patton did the exact same thing on many occasions, but the book I quoted is the only one I have on hand right now.
 
  • #20
In 1939, Hitler had no reason to come unglued. He was living his psychotic dream! That doesn't mean he was sane.
 
  • #21
SW VandeCarr said:
During this period, some believe he contracted syphilis, and in later life may have been manifesting mental signs of late stage disease.

You might be interested in the chapter on Hitler in the book Pox: Genius, Madness, And The Mysteries Of Syphilis

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465028829/?tag=pfamazon01-20

According to this book there is excellent circumstantial evidence he did, indeed, have syphilis and knew it. The doctor he chose as his personal physician was not a GP, but a syphilis specialist. This doctor, Morel, kept careful records. When syphilis attacks the heart muscle the heart begins to produce a specific and characteristic sound that can be heard easily with a stethoscope. Morel checked Hitlers heartbeat with a regularity that betrayed deep concern about it, and his repeated description of the sound was precisely the description of the syphilitic heart, although he never uses the word in the records.

Hitler was crazy from the get go. Today he'd most likely get a diagnosis of Bipolar. But, from other sources we know there was a later-in-life twist on his natural craziness. After complaining to Dr. Morel of his depressions, periods of feeling profoundly tired and lethargic, he was treated by Morel with a daily injection of a "wonder drug" which was nothing other than one of the early forms of amphetamines. Hitler became a speed freak. The energy he got from these injections was such that he became completely loyal to, and dependent on Morel, and often credited the doctor with keeping him alive. The eventual mental degeneration was almost certainly due to years of these daily injections, and not, interestingly enough, from the syphilis (which had attacked his heart but not his brain. According to the author of Pox syphilis will settle exclusively on one of four major systems. A person with heart syphilis will not also have brain syphilis, and visa versa.)
 
  • #22
brainstorm said:
I.e. if all nationalists could be unified in solidarity against Jews, they would not fight each other, which nationalists tend to do, no?

Doesn't really work though. Hungarians hate gypsies. Slovaks hate gypsies. But the fact that both of 'em hate gypsies doesn't really do much to mitigate the fact that they also hate each other. Their differences are simply irreconcilable since the fanatical Hungarian nationalist's dream involves Hungary owning Slovakia, and the fanatical Slovak nationalist's dream involves kicking the Hungarians out.

I even think there is a similar ideology in anti-globalization against the US as the demon cultural-imperialist. This creates solidarity among distinct ethnic identity-groups in preserving cultural traditions against "globalization"

Well, without endorsing xenophobia (which is a different thing entirely), I still think there are some legitimate reasons to be concerned about preserving and promoting smaller languages and cultures. They have it tough because global-market-economy makes it hard for them to compete (e.g. a Dutch-language film has a smaller market, and cannot possibly compete with a Hollywood blockbusters, which can have much higher production values and still cost less due to the economy of scale)

But a lot of these extreme-right/xenophobic/populist movements are not actually genuinely interested in that. The proof is in the pudding: They complain loudly about muslims and other foreign groups 'threatening their culture', but you'd be 100 times more likely to find an ethnic-Dutch person going to a Halloween party than to find them celebrating Ramadan! If you're actually interested in foreign cultural influences (and that alone) then the US influence is in fact much much bigger than the pressure from immigrants. But the extreme-right parties don't complain much at all about American cultural influences.

The reason is simple: They're not into 'preserving their culture'. They just use it as a fig leaf to mask their intolerance and racism. People who are into preserving their culture are the ones who join historical societies, read the classics of their literature, etc.

But those right-wing-fringe parties did try to work together; they have their own voting block in the EU parliament.. It's hilariously disfunctional.. they don't get along at all.
 
  • #23
Remember:

"the urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken/ [Broken]

So like the OP states, here is a nation in distress and a dedicated strong looking man with the urge to save it. So which other state would not fall for that? and what else is needed to have a core of 'sieg-heil' shouting zombies commiting the worst possible crimes because they know it is the only thing and the right thing to do for the 'enlösung' and the holy 1000 years 'reich'.

Groupthink on a very large scale perhaps?

So who can say, which community in that condition, with a strong leader is immune for groupthink?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
alxm said:
Doesn't really work though. Hungarians hate gypsies. Slovaks hate gypsies. But the fact that both of 'em hate gypsies doesn't really do much to mitigate the fact that they also hate each other. Their differences are simply irreconcilable since the fanatical Hungarian nationalist's dream involves Hungary owning Slovakia, and the fanatical Slovak nationalist's dream involves kicking the Hungarians out.
I agree. I think if you talk to nationalists of differing European ethnic-national identity, you will find that they continue to share an attitude of ethnocentrism which includes excluding each other. A pro-France nationalist and a pro-German nationalist may both agree that it is good for both France and Germany to exclude Islam AND each other in the interest of ethno-cultural solidarity within "homogeneous ethnic societies." This is why I don't see the politics of ethnic pluralism as anything more than a kinder gentler fascism. Some people act as if pluralist multiculturalism is the opposite of fascist national socialism but I think it's just a variation of it. The basic value is to "ethnically cleanse" people into separat(ist) societies by relegating difference to segregated macro-territories.

Well, without endorsing xenophobia (which is a different thing entirely), I still think there are some legitimate reasons to be concerned about preserving and promoting smaller languages and cultures. They have it tough because global-market-economy makes it hard for them to compete (e.g. a Dutch-language film has a smaller market, and cannot possibly compete with a Hollywood blockbusters, which can have much higher production values and still cost less due to the economy of scale)
I am very concerned with cultural and language diversity and conservation. The frustration I have is with promoting it without falling into the assumption that culture is synonymous with racialized ethnicity. Ethnicity gets racialized when people assume explicitly or implicitly that birth and childhood socialization are the only social mechanisms for attaining ethnic identity and cultural capital. Migration is also a means of attaining these things, but it becomes more difficult when people resist recognizing that people can be multi-ethnic, and that ethnicity is acquired throughout the life course through everything from media exposure to work and other social interactions, through various macro and micro migrations. Even people who learn multiple languages often identify one language as their "own" ethnic language and others they speak as simply "second languages." Why shouldn't people see any language they speak as ethnic-acquisition such that they acquire multiple ethnic identities through learning language and other culture?

But a lot of these extreme-right/xenophobic/populist movements are not actually genuinely interested in that. The proof is in the pudding: They complain loudly about muslims and other foreign groups 'threatening their culture', but you'd be 100 times more likely to find an ethnic-Dutch person going to a Halloween party than to find them celebrating Ramadan! If you're actually interested in foreign cultural influences (and that alone) then the US influence is in fact much much bigger than the pressure from immigrants. But the extreme-right parties don't complain much at all about American cultural influences.
All of these attitudes are culturally constructed through discourse. It is very confusing to come to the recognition that cultural oversight and management are themselves forms of cultural knowledge. So ideologies about the influence and spread of Islam, Christianity, or "Americanization" are all cultural discourses that lead people to have certain attitudes and view and treat people in certain ways. In one way, anti-Islam and anti-Americanization are little more than ammunition in a culture war between EU right and left. The strategy almost seems to be a division of labor in a general xenophobic fascism. Before it was "Americans" and "Muslims," it was "Capitalism" and "Communism." Before that, it was "Germans" and "French" or maybe "British." For the KKK is it "blacks" and "jews." The underlying motive seems to be that people want to differentiate themselves ethnically from multiple identities in order to create a middle-ethnicity that serves as a hegemonic center. I believe this goes back at least to ancient Greek culture of differentiation from the barbarians to the east and those to the west. It's just a method of defining collective identity through differentiation and thereby producing cultural pressure for people to conform culturally on the basis of common identity.

The reason is simple: They're not into 'preserving their culture'. They just use it as a fig leaf to mask their intolerance and racism. People who are into preserving their culture are the ones who join historical societies, read the classics of their literature, etc.
Probably intolerance and racism is the main culture that many people consider worth protecting. National socialism is essentially built on the mentality that an economy is not about productivity but about controlling the products. Once people come to see economy as mere distribution of a fixed supply of resources, they tend to fixate on 1) regulating distribution among individuals through equality or some system of meritocratic ranking and 2) increasing the ratio of benefits to beneficiaries. Intolerance and racism are means of doing #2 by reducing the number of beneficiaries who get access to available goods and services (including land/housing). It's a self-annihilating economic culture, imo.

But those right-wing-fringe parties did try to work together; they have their own voting block in the EU parliament.. It's hilariously disfunctional.. they don't get along at all.
Maybe, but when I look at these fringe right-wing parties gaining public attention, it seems to serve as a scapegoat for all those people who basically hold the fascist national-socialist values of ethno-social solidarity in economics and territorialism but don't like to compare themselves to nazis. So these seemingly neo-nazis get chastized publicly and it makes everyone else feel moderate and anti-nazi, which prevents them from having to reflect on the similarity between their political-economic attitude and that of nazism/fascism. As I said in another post, the striking thing about post-nazi reactions to nazism is that they have often involved scapegoating of German-ethnicity, similar to the way Jewish-ethnicity was scapegoated in nazi ideology/propaganda. Somehow, hating nazism makes the haters feel superior to nazis and distinct from them, even though hate, superiority, and ethnic differentiation were the ideologies that made nazism what it was.
 
  • #25
zoobyshoe said:
You might be interested in the chapter on Hitler in the book Pox: Genius, Madness, And The Mysteries Of Syphilis

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465028829/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I agree. Thanks for the reference. Hitler did not exhibit the classic neurological symptoms of neurosyphilis (ataxia, tabes dorsalis) and we was "crazy from the get go" in the loose sense of the word (although I don't think he was clinically psychotic until perhaps his very last days, when he was ordering massive counterattacks from his bunker by armies that no longer existed).

The big question is: How did someone like this get so much power and how did he achieve so much success before self-destructing and taking his country with him?
 
  • #26
SW VandeCarr said:
I agree. Thanks for the reference. Hitler did not exhibit the classic neurological symptoms of neurosyphilis (ataxia, tabes dorsalis) and we was "crazy from the get go" in the loose sense of the word (although I don't think he was clinically psychotic until perhaps his very last days, when he was ordering massive counterattacks from his bunker by armies that no longer existed).

The big question is: How did someone like this get so much power and how did he achieve so much success before self-destructing and taking his country with him?

Nationalist-socialist fascist citizenry sought a leader to give them what they wanted: a strong national hegemonic culture, racist art and culture, removal of "undesirables," etc. Hitler was one of many people who longed to give the people what they wanted without morally evaluating the will of the people or endeavoring to resist it by exercising critical authority.

Hitler was not a leader but a very strong follower. He was an appeaser of popular sentiments and will. Look at his art. He made pretty postcards. He catered to popular will and taste without questioning or criticizing it. His acting was was very skilled, but I don't really believe he was acting independently or masterminding everything. I think there were a lot of people who wanted to remain anonymous, who contributed their genius to the systems-engineers who implemented their ideas. I think the officers were just the specialized part of the division of labor responsible for producing leadership imagery to broadcast to the masses.

Every individual involved in any part of the systems, from officers to the wives and children of soldiers had the ability and opportunity to voice critical resistance to anything that was going on, but they had chosen to submit to a culture of imperative command where shame was expected and experienced of anyone who would criticize authority. People were simply embarrassed to question national-socialism and the nazi regime, and perhaps afraid of getting yelled at and hated for being oppositional.

Obviously, I wasn't involved, but this is the impression I have from study and reflection.
 
  • #27
brainstorm said:
Nationalist-socialist fascist citizenry sought a leader to give them what they wanted

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think we established the facts earlier in this thread. The Nazis only got about a third of the popular vote in the last relatively free elections of 1932. The majority of the citizenry were not National Socialist. It's hard to say what they were after the Nazis took power, since there was only one "game in town". You played along or else.

Hitler was not a leader but a very strong follower

Well, he managed to eventually grab absolute power, so I would say he was a very powerful leader. It's true, he appealed to the "masses" by offering simple solutions to complex problems, and successfully blamed their misery on Jews, Communists, and even international capitalism. Few people know that the Nazis professed to be anti-capitalist, hence "National-Socialist" (nationalism+socialism). The main issue with the Communists was that they were "internationalist" and of course, part of a 'Zionist world wide conspiracy'.

Every individual involved in any part of the systems, from officers to the wives and children of soldiers had the ability and opportunity to voice critical resistance to anything that was going on,

Maybe. It depends on where you stood with Der Fuhrer and how your opinions registered with his view of the world. Hitler had opinions on almost everything, and it was usually better to agree with him.

However, it's probably wrong to say Hitler was delusional because so many of his "delusions" came true. He told others that destiny had chosen him for great things while he was still a minor political figure. He took great risks and got away with it:1935 with in the Rhineland, 1938 in Czechoslovakia and 1939 in Poland. Had the allies acted decisively (by attacking from the west) in any of these situations, Hitler might well have been defeated. France alone had a larger army, and more tanks than Germany. Even the highly successful May-June 1940 blitzkrieg was risky. It required tanks to pass through the narrow valleys of the Ardennes Forest. Knocking out the lead tank would have halted an entire column and made them "sitting ducks" for airstrikes or ground action. But the allies didn't know the tanks were there. Only an idiot would send tanks through the Ardennes.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
SW VandeCarr said:
The big question is: How did someone like this get so much power and how did he achieve so much success before self-destructing and taking his country with him?
By "someone like this" you mean someone we both agree was essentially mentally ill by today's standards?
 
  • #29
SW VandeCarr said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I think we established the facts earlier in this thread. The Nazis only got about a third of the popular vote in the last relatively free elections of 1932. The majority of the citizenry were not National Socialist. It's hard to say what they were after the Nazis took power, since there was only one "game in town". You played along or else.
I think the appeal of national-socialism had to do with the way it appealed to popular nationalism/patriotism and racism, i.e. the belief that "German Volk" were superior to other races and therefore that only oppression/sabotage of the nation could be the cause of economic problems and resultant suffering. If you read the way Hitler and Mussolini wrote about fascism and national-socialism, "socialism" refers to social solidarity among individuals of a "volk" as a sort of natural extension of direct "blood" relations. This idea of "blood" ties between people with the same national-racial identity is popularity because it promotes a biological basis for solidarity, which is of course the main interest in fascism, which views independent individualism as weak and selfish. Community strength is the goal, sociobiology of the "volk/race" is the ideology for naturalizing it, and removal of "pollutants" goes along with suppression of individuality/non-conformity. The result is lots of people who avoid dissenting from each other's will and end up with a strong death-drive as a result of self-repression in the interest of the imagined "group/volk/race."

The nazi party may have only received a certain fraction of votes, but I think that nazism was drawing on something more culturally basic than other parties even bothered talking about. You can see the same thing with right-wing parties today in the EU. They garner strong hate and resistance, but it seems like the reason is that they are putting something up for discussion that's supposed to remain taken-for-granted and unspoken. I wish I could say that I don't think fascism is an unspoken desire among too many people, but it is basically a natural continuation of the hegemonic authoritarianism of medieval monarchism and empire.

Nazi fascism was nothing new, and Hitler or any other Nazi officer was certainly not its mastermind. The thing that made it so atrocious was access to modern technologies and bureaucratic efficiency, as well as new propaganda media. National-socialism was present before - it just got amplified, intensified, and institutionalized in new ways. Part of what stimulated it was the culture/politics of collective punishment created after WWI, I think.

Well, he managed eventually grab absolute power, so I would say he was a very powerful leader.
It's easy to claim he had absolute power because he was portrayed as such, but what evidence do you have that Hitler himself, the individual, had absolute power over others? What means of enforcing his will, assuming he had an independent will, did he have over the other officers?

It's true, he appealed to the "masses" by offering simple solutions to complex problems, and successfully blamed their misery on Jews, Communists, and even international capitalism. Few people know that the Nazis professed to be anti-capitalist, hence "National-Socialist" (nationalism+socialism). The main issue with the Communists was that they were "internationalist" and of course, part of a 'Zionist world wide conspiracy'.
It seems clear that he was a very effective actor. I don't know if he wrote his own speeches, or if he did whether he had consultants that convinced him of which issues he should address in those speeches.

Maybe. It depends on where you stood with Der Fuhrer and how your opinions registered with his view of the world. Hitler had opinions on almost everything, and it was usually better to agree with him.
It seems that everyone had their own ability to reference "Der Fuhrer" in the regime of nazism. I've worked in plenty of jobs where people do the same thing, i.e. any time they want to emphasize the importance of doing their will, they make reference to the manager who's not currently present. People would probably say to each other, "Hitler won't be happy if he hears you're doing that," etc. That way, people could draw on Hitler's strikingly angry personality to motivate others to do their will at any level.
 
  • #30
i think that it wasnt the idea of nazism that influenced the populous but actually the main idea was after WWI the general population of Germany was in a depression due to a recesion
with hitler blaming the jews for the loss of WWI and ultimately the recession he resumed power ensuring that he would 'return power to the German People'
but the main reason the nazis were popular was due to Hitler's economic 'magician' Hjalmar Schacht who improved the german economy many-fold
he did this by revolutionising the entire psyche of the german populous, by instead of scrimping and saving funds, encouraging the people to borrow (and businises also)
 
  • #31
brainstorm said:
It's easy to claim he had absolute power because he was portrayed as such, but what evidence do you have that Hitler himself, the individual, had absolute power over others? What means of enforcing his will, assuming he had an independent will, did he have over the other officers?
You really haven't read much about this subject, have you? The Roehm Purge made it abundantly clear that Hitler had life and death power over everyone and anyone in the Nazi party and Germany in general, answerable to no one. He could have had anyone taken out at any time: Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, anyone. He was not a figurehead. He was completely in charge and insisted on micromanaging everything from military operations to government architecture.
 
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:
By "someone like this" you mean someone we both agree was essentially mentally ill by today's standards?

Essentially yes. However, I don't think Hitler would have passed the present legal standard for being mentally ill in terms of culpability. I think he could have been held responsible for his crimes had he been captured and tried.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
zoobyshoe said:
You really haven't read much about this subject, have you? The Roehm Purge made it abundantly clear that Hitler had life and death power over everyone and anyone in the Nazi party and Germany in general, answerable to no one. He could have had anyone taken out at any time: Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, anyone. He was not a figurehead. He was completely in charge and insisted on micromanaging everything from military operations to government architecture.

I totally agree. The key was Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS. Himmler was nothing without Hitler to back him. Hitler sized him up very well. 'This man can't be a threat to me. He can't stand on his own'. So he gave Himmler and the SS virtually absolute power subject only to his own. The SS functioned outside any law. They could arrest anyone except Hitler himself. No one else was truly safe. So Hitler guaranteed his own absolute power by holding his attack dog on a leash that he could release at any time.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
You really haven't read much about this subject, have you? The Roehm Purge made it abundantly clear that Hitler had life and death power over everyone and anyone in the Nazi party and Germany in general, answerable to no one. He could have had anyone taken out at any time: Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, anyone. He was not a figurehead. He was completely in charge and insisted on micromanaging everything from military operations to government architecture.

My question was how do you know if this account is accurate or whether it was just the mythology of Hitler that became popular as a means for anyone to threaten anyone else out of disobedience? It's easy for mommy to make up stories about how angry and punitive daddy is going to be when he finds out what the kids have been doing, but the fact is that it may be more mommy's threatening story than the reality about daddy.

I'm not claiming to have evidence either way. It's just that the propaganda that elevates Hitler to monster status is too effective for me not to think it's a quality of the propaganda-art less than the model. Hitler was unquestionably an effective model/actor. The question is how to ascertain what can be known about him outside of propaganda about him. Obviously some people wanted to build him up - so how do you know how much is really him and how much is propaganda imagery for the purpose of instilling terror?
 
  • #35
brainstorm said:
Obviously some people wanted to build him up - so how do you know how much is really him and how much is propaganda imagery for the purpose of instilling terror?

The Nazi regime was surprisingly open to the world. Moreover, they documented everything. Everything points to Hitler's absolute power. If he wasn't in charge, who do you think was?
 
<h2>1. Why did the German people support Nazism?</h2><p>Nazism appealed to many Germans because it promised to restore Germany's power and prestige after the humiliating defeat in World War I. Additionally, the Nazi party used propaganda and manipulation tactics to gain support and portray themselves as the solution to Germany's economic and political problems.</p><h2>2. Was Hitler solely responsible for the rise of Nazism in Germany?</h2><p>While Hitler played a significant role in the rise of Nazism, there were several other factors at play. The Treaty of Versailles, which imposed harsh penalties on Germany after World War I, created a sense of resentment and desire for revenge among the German people. The economic instability and widespread unemployment during the Great Depression also contributed to the appeal of Nazism.</p><h2>3. How did the Nazi party gain control of the government in Germany?</h2><p>In 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. The Nazi party had gained significant support through propaganda and promises of economic stability. After the Reichstag fire, Hitler used fear and intimidation tactics to pass the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial powers and allowed the Nazi party to take control of the government.</p><h2>4. What role did anti-Semitism play in the rise of Nazism?</h2><p>Anti-Semitism, or hatred towards Jewish people, was a central ideology of the Nazi party. Hitler and other Nazi leaders used anti-Semitic rhetoric to scapegoat Jews for Germany's problems and gain support from the German people. The Nazi party also implemented discriminatory laws and policies against Jews, leading to widespread persecution and ultimately the Holocaust.</p><h2>5. How did the Nazi regime maintain control in Germany?</h2><p>The Nazi regime used a combination of propaganda, censorship, and fear tactics to maintain control in Germany. They also established a secret police force, the Gestapo, to suppress any opposition or dissent. Additionally, the Nazi party created a cult of personality around Hitler, portraying him as a strong and infallible leader to maintain support from the German people.</p>

1. Why did the German people support Nazism?

Nazism appealed to many Germans because it promised to restore Germany's power and prestige after the humiliating defeat in World War I. Additionally, the Nazi party used propaganda and manipulation tactics to gain support and portray themselves as the solution to Germany's economic and political problems.

2. Was Hitler solely responsible for the rise of Nazism in Germany?

While Hitler played a significant role in the rise of Nazism, there were several other factors at play. The Treaty of Versailles, which imposed harsh penalties on Germany after World War I, created a sense of resentment and desire for revenge among the German people. The economic instability and widespread unemployment during the Great Depression also contributed to the appeal of Nazism.

3. How did the Nazi party gain control of the government in Germany?

In 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. The Nazi party had gained significant support through propaganda and promises of economic stability. After the Reichstag fire, Hitler used fear and intimidation tactics to pass the Enabling Act, which gave him dictatorial powers and allowed the Nazi party to take control of the government.

4. What role did anti-Semitism play in the rise of Nazism?

Anti-Semitism, or hatred towards Jewish people, was a central ideology of the Nazi party. Hitler and other Nazi leaders used anti-Semitic rhetoric to scapegoat Jews for Germany's problems and gain support from the German people. The Nazi party also implemented discriminatory laws and policies against Jews, leading to widespread persecution and ultimately the Holocaust.

5. How did the Nazi regime maintain control in Germany?

The Nazi regime used a combination of propaganda, censorship, and fear tactics to maintain control in Germany. They also established a secret police force, the Gestapo, to suppress any opposition or dissent. Additionally, the Nazi party created a cult of personality around Hitler, portraying him as a strong and infallible leader to maintain support from the German people.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
35K
Replies
59
Views
20K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
735
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
958
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
970
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
890
Back
Top