Hitler

[monkeydust]

This thread isn't about Hitler per se, but rather uses him as an illustrative example to discuss how much individuals impact upon history.

The notion that "great men" make history has long since been discarded. No one serious believes that change and progress generally occur through the will and actions of a select few men and women. But can this ever happen? Can it ever be the case that, in exceptional circumstances, an individual is able to impact upon events in a vastly influential way, leaving an indelible mark on the world that would not have been there had they not existed?

I personally think that the example of Hitler shows that it can. It seems true to say that without Hitler Germany would still have abandoned democracy, rearmed, abolished the restrictions of Versailles and so on. But it seems to me that had Hitler not existed we would never have seen the Final Solution, or a world war on a scale not seen before or since.

I think in Hitler's case we see that individuals, in extreme circumstances, are able to change the world in profound ways. But these circumstances seem to be very rare, and occur none too often. It would take a long time to objectively ascertain what the necessary conditions are. In Hitler's case, at least, they seem to encompass economic deprivation, international isolation, alienation of large sections of the population and a willingness of the population to accept "charismatic" authority.

Any thoughts? I realize this is all a bit rambly at the moment. But then it's very in the morning right now. I'll expand on it later, but I'd be interested to see what people think on this issue first.

[Led Zeppelin]

I agree with this:

"Ludwig: Marxism denies that the individual plays an outstanding role in history. Do you not see a contradiction between the materialist conception of history and the fact that, after all, you admit the outstanding role played by historical personages?

Stalin: No, there is no contradiction here. Marxism does not at all deny the role played by outstanding individuals or that history is made by people. In Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of his you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But, of course, people do not make history according to the promptings of their imagination pr as some fancy strikes them. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born. And great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will land themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Thus it is precisely Marx's view that people must not be counterposed to conditions. It is people who make history, but they do so only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions that they have found ready-made, and only to the extent that they understand how to change those conditions. That, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years.

Ludwig: Some thirty years ago, when I was at the university, many German professors who considered themselves adherents of the materialist conception of history taught us that Marxism denies the role of heroes, the role of heroic personalities in history.

Stalin: They were vulgarizers of Marxism. Marxism has never denied the role of heroes. On the contrary, it admits that they play a considerable role, hut with the reservations I have just made."

[Roses in the Hospital]

I don't think you can really put everything that happened in the Third Reich down to Hitler anyway, many of the extreme actions taken were polocies of his leitenants, rather than of Hitler himself, though Hitler undoubtedly approved. For example Kristalnacht, the Nurembeg Laws and much of the domestic institution was brought about by Goebels. Similarly, the Final Solution was drawn up by Himmler and, I think, Heydrich, along with other members of the top brass. Obviously Hitler takes responsibility for these historical events because if he hadn't come to power they likely wouldn't have occured, but, if Hitler had come to power surrounded by a different enterage it's possible that they wouldn;t have happened anyway, or at least. not happened in the way they did. So even with Hitler, you can't blame one amn for everything, though obviously he still deserves a significant part of it...

[DarthVader]

I think it is obvious that individuals have massive impacts on history. Imagine what the world would look like if Caesar Augustus never lived and formed the Roman Principate. Western society as we know it would be fundamentally different, probably unregonizable.

Or, imagine if Jesus Christ never existed. Regardless if whether or not you believe in Jesus or his teachings, his ideas and person have been hugely influencial in world history and the Church has had a massive impact on political, social and cultural elements of society since AD 33.

Just two examples, I can think of many more.

[cubalibra]

Hitler = Bush

[DarthVader]

It is obvious I am not speaking with someone who has a very good grasp of History.

[redstar2000]

Permit me to disagree with "Comrade Stalin" on this issue.

It seems to me that "great men" appear to "loom large" because we don't have access to what the situation would have been like in their absence.

A materialist understanding of historical change is based on "deep causes"...geography, climate, technology, relations of production, etc.

"Great men" are entirely peripheral to such an understanding. The rise and fall of various empires, world religions, civilizations, etc. are "froth"...petty details based on chance occurrences.

Augustus was a "big deal" in the rise of the Roman Empire; "Jesus" was a "big deal" in medieval Europe; Hitler was a "big deal" in the 20th century.

But Rome was already an empire before there was an emperor. Religion of some sort (perhaps Islam) would have prevailed in medieval Europe. Germany had a whole shitbox full of wanna-be führers.

It's easy to imagine "what if's" that would superficially change most or all of the details of the human world as we know it.

But the real causes would continue to operate. Some country would have developed the idea of industrialization and the emergence of modern capitalism. Someone would have figured out the communist critique of capitalism in the course of its development.

The people who emerge to lead the first successful communist revolution will probably be regarded afterwards as "great men"...but presuming they understand materialism, they will know themselves that if they had never born born, someone else would still have done it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:24 PM
Hitler = Bush
"Not only does it degrade yourself when you compare bush to hitler, but it degrades hitler, he worked to hard at being evil to be compared to any joe off the street." Jon Stewart, Daily Show

[monkeydust]

Roses in the Hospital, your point is not quite right. You're correct to say that Hitler generally took a "hands off" approach to rule; he didn't orchestrate Kristallnacht or work out the specifics of the Final Solution. But this is to miss the point. These measures, especially the Final Solution, would not have existed in the way that they did had Hitler not himself been around, for at least two reasons.

In the first place, the Lieutenants, though not always directed specifically by the Fuhrer, tended to appeal to his interests in order to gain favour. In others words, they did what they knew he'd want, and indirectly put his desires into action (in most major things he had to approve proposals anyway).

Secondly, although Hitler didn't work out the "nuts and bolts" of procedures, he did create the initial motivation. In the case of the Final Solution, for example, it's not the case that Hitler drew out plans for how many extermination camps and where, when and how, but that does not mean that he was not the impetus behind the plan for extermination of some sorts in the first place.


Redstar, I agree with your analysis to some extent and in most cases. However I think you give too little weight to what you call "superficial".

To go back to the original example, Germany probably would have become authoritarian in the 1930s without Hitler; it perhaps would have taken an aggressive foreign policy without Hitler; it's also a fair possibility that Germany may have gone to war without Hitler.

But the Final Solution and the extermination of 6 million Jews in Europe probably would not have occurred had he not existed, with his bizzare ideological obsessions and equally odd personality. 6 million dead is hardly "superficial", in my view.

I'm not saying that "great men" make history per se. In fact I agree that it's those "larger" forces which effect change most of the time. However I think, with Hitler as an example here, that in exceptional circumstances individuals or small groups can make a massive difference - in a way that many Marxist historians prefer to gloss over (those who used to blandly claim that Hitler was a servant of Capital, for instance).

[viva le revolution]

If you read european history, you will find that anti-jew( i will not say anti-semitism because it's an inappropriate term) feelings were rampant. Nationalistic fronts cropped up all over Germany after world war1. The brown shirts and so on.
The final solution wasn't the brainstorming of Hitler himself, this is evident in the fact that not only were Jews killed off but Russians, poles, gypsies and homosexuals, and mentally handicapped as well. This was not the result of one man's hatred or a select elite, but an trait of Militarism in German society in general. That kind of militarism and the concept of Aryan purity were not formed all of a sudden but were evident in Germany's aspirations to greater roles in the world and events. The concept of German superiority to other nations, like say France, with which they had many conflicts and wars to undermine french society and vice versa. The creation of the Vichy regime and prevailing rise of anti-juddaism in France continues to this day, not out of Hitler's policies but due to inherent social attitudes latent in those countries.
The leutenants were not trying to act to 'please the fuhrer' but were acting out traditional social viewpoints and attitudes inherent in German society in that time. Nazi Germany was not a product of Hitler, Hitler was the product and personification of Nazi values already present. Why do you think he was able to arouse such euphoria at his speeches, beacuse he was catering to people's conceptions and attitudes.

[monkeydust]

There's no doubt that anti-semitism was present in Germany, and all of Europe, long before Hitler came in ascendancy. Poland, the country whose invasion sparked the war, was notorious for antisemitism. But what is important is the range and extent of that antisemitism, not just its existence in itself. Most pan-German nationalists wanted to deprive Jews of their current legal and social status, or at most to force their emigration (the Nazis were initially interested in this option, wanting to ship all Jews off to an island - probably Madagascar). Few considered their utter extermination. Yet this is what happened, and to a large extent it must be ascribed to Nazism and Hitler's fanaticism as a something more specific and extreme than simple nationalism.

There is a big difference between simple anti-semitism and the Final Solution.

This argument...


The final solution wasn't the brainstorming of Hitler himself, this is evident in the fact that not only were Jews killed off but Russians, poles, gypsies and homosexuals, and mentally handicapped as well.

...simply doesn't make sense to me. You're saying that more than just Jews were killed and therefore the Final Solution wasn't the product of Hitler. The first point doesn't follow from the second.


The leutenants were not trying to act to 'please the fuhrer' but were acting out traditional social viewpoints and attitudes inherent in German society in that time.

This point is also rather odd. A large number of National Socialism's values diverged from German traditionalism; others converged, admittedly, but what made Nazism so appealing at the time was its blend of tradition and modernity, old values and a modern economy, the old and the new.

It's also notable how Hitler's "lieutenants" failed to carry out many of the things they wanted which contravened the Fuhrer's wishes. Yes, they could certainly act independently in areas where he wasn't too bothered. But if they, for example, wanted to stop a policy of hostility against Gypsies (Himmler did precisely that, thinking them a "pure" race), they wouldn't get very far.

Their power bases rested largely on Hitler's favour. Goring, the "second man in the Reich", ended up losing almost all power after losing Hitler's liking from about 1942 onwards.


Nazi Germany was not a product of Hitler, Hitler was the product and personification of Nazi values already present.

That's a much larger question, and I expect you're largely right in the absolute sense (although the process is more reciprocal and the two aren't mutually exclusive). But I'm not talking about Nazi Germany, with its social interactions, values, economy and so on as a whole, but rather a few specific and vastly important events - the Second World War, the Final Solution, the eventual destruction of Germany, perhaps even the partition of Europe - for which Hitler was largely responsible.



Why do you think he was able to arouse such euphoria at his speeches, beacuse he was catering to people's conceptions and attitudes.

You've touched upon another point here, which you didn't intend to.

Hitler's charisma and personality was a major integrative function in the Third Reich, and he was able to arouse far more support than National Socialism itself. When I say far more, I mean, literally, about twice as much. His personality was therefore vastly important in the structure of the whole regime.

The most compelling study I've read to attest to this point is Professor Ian Kershaw's "The Hitler Myth". Some folks on here like to avoid the argument with such views by writing it off as "bourgeois history"; but I think in this case the evidence speaks for itself.

[Anarcho-Communist]

Hitler orchestrated most of what happened during WWII, when he got gassed in WWI they didn't get him enough! :lol:

[monkeydust]

It seems you fail to recognize the distinction between "largely responsible for" and "orchestrated the entirety of". Perhaps your knowledge of grammar suffers from the same lack of originality and variety as your username. But why let the details get in the way of a bad joke?

[Anarcho-Communist]

I'm sorry monkeydust!

[monkeydust]

It's ok lol. I'm just in a bad mood and have work tomorrow.

[Led Zeppelin]

Stalin says:

"In Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy and in other works of his you will find it stated that it is people who make history. But, of course, people do not make history according to the promptings of their imagination pr as some fancy strikes them. Every new generation encounters definite conditions already existing, ready-made when that generation was born. And great people are worth anything at all only to the extent that they are able correctly to understand these conditions, to understand how to change them. If they fail to understand these conditions and want to alter them according to the promptings of their imagination, they will land themselves in the situation of Don Quixote. Thus it is precisely Marx's view that people must not be counterposed to conditions. It is people who make history, but they do so only to the extent that they correctly understand the conditions that they have found ready-made, and only to the extent that they understand how to change those conditions. That, at least, is how we Russian Bolsheviks understand Marx. And we have been studying Marx for a good many years."

Was that also Marx's view?


Permit me to disagree with "Comrade Stalin" on this issue.


Yes, you may disagree, but was Stalin's view also Marx's view?

[Roses in the Hospital]

Nazi Germany was not a product of Hitler, Hitler was the product and personification of Nazi values already present.

That's simply not true. While there undeniably was anti-sematism in Germany it's a myth that it was as widespread as is often calimed, hence why the Nazi boycott of Jewish buisness in '33 and Goebells' other domestic anti-semetic measures were regarded as a failure, there was simply not enough support to implement them. Similarly, whilst most Germans understadably wanted the terms of the Versailles treaty reversing there would have been few who without the Nazi influence would have independantly developed and support the concept of Lebensraum.
Onviously to a certain extent Hitler was a product of German opinion, he wouldn't have been elected otherwise, but to say he was a personification of them is foolish. He and his leitenants were far more extereme than all but the most radical pan-Germans...

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:24 PM
Hitler = Bush
Hitler was a decorated war veteran, drank responsibly, refused to eat meat and wrote books. Therefor you cannot fairly compare him to bush.

But seriously, Bush is no where near as psychotic and degenerate as Hitler. Comparing them will just make younger people think that Hitler wasn't all that bad.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:24 PM
Hitler = Bush
You = Idiot

Never post on the subject again.

People who compare Bush to Hitler prove them selves to lack too vital attributes necessary to make a realistic jusdgement.

1. Understanding of modern day political figures and political alignment.

2. A basic idea of 20th century history, figures and ideologies.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:16 PM





The final solution wasn't the brainstorming of Hitler himself, this is evident in the fact that not only were Jews killed off but Russians, poles, gypsies and homosexuals, and mentally handicapped as well.

...simply doesn't make sense to me. You're saying that more than just Jews were killed and therefore the Final Solution wasn't the product of Hitler. The first point doesn't follow from the second.


The leutenants were not trying to act to 'please the fuhrer' but were acting out traditional social viewpoints and attitudes inherent in German society in that time.

This point is also rather odd. A large number of National Socialism's values diverged from German traditionalism; others converged, admittedly, but what made Nazism so appealing at the time was its blend of tradition and modernity, old values and a modern economy, the old and the new.

It's also notable how Hitler's "lieutenants" failed to carry out many of the things they wanted which contravened the Fuhrer's wishes. Yes, they could certainly act independently in areas where he wasn't too bothered. But if they, for example, wanted to stop a policy of hostility against Gypsies (Himmler did precisely that, thinking them a "pure" race), they wouldn't get very far.

Their power bases rested largely on Hitler's favour. Goring, the "second man in the Reich", ended up losing almost all power after losing Hitler's liking from about 1942 onwards.


Nazi Germany was not a product of Hitler, Hitler was the product and personification of Nazi values already present.

That's a much larger question, and I expect you're largely right in the absolute sense (although the process is more reciprocal and the two aren't mutually exclusive). But I'm not talking about Nazi Germany, with its social interactions, values, economy and so on as a whole, but rather a few specific and vastly important events - the Second World War, the Final Solution, the eventual destruction of Germany, perhaps even the partition of Europe - for which Hitler was largely responsible.



Why do you think he was able to arouse such euphoria at his speeches, beacuse he was catering to people's conceptions and attitudes.

You've touched upon another point here, which you didn't intend to.

Hitler's charisma and personality was a major integrative function in the Third Reich, and he was able to arouse far more support than National Socialism itself. When I say far more, I mean, literally, about twice as much. His personality was therefore vastly important in the structure of the whole regime.

The most compelling study I've read to attest to this point is Professor Ian Kershaw's "The Hitler Myth". Some folks on here like to avoid the argument with such views by writing it off as "bourgeois history"; but I think in this case the evidence speaks for itself.
Well if you take a look at german militarism present at that time it espoused efficiency and followed darwin's rule of 'survival of the fittest' to a t.German militarism consisted of getting rid of the weaker segments of society, ones that did not conform. Now Hitler hated Jews and Russian slavic people. however the final solution expanded to include homosexuals, communists, mentally hanidicapped etc. This indicates not personal hatred but the realization of the german militarism, 'weeding out the inferior'etc. I am not denying Hitler's importance and influence, but i am not stating that it was all his idea, those attitudes existed long before he did.
In dividual examples such as Goring do take place, but to say that most of the Leutenants etc. acted to please the fuhrer is rather simplistic, most did it due to their own beliefs, which gained a practical aspect under the regime. in that case yes the Nazi's were important, but as a source of inspiration but just allowing them to act out those beliefs and prejudices.
I intended to bring up that point, not to doubt his personal charisma or anything but to state that the reason he received such a large following was because he was merely giving voice to those prejudices, not because adhered to 'his' view, but because he adhered to 'their' view. Just as every leader is required to, The leader does not bring forth a prophetic vision or some wacko theory and expect everyone to toe the line, He has to cater to people's needs and sensibilities and address them in his 'vision'. Hitler did that and as a result got much support, by playing upon people's views and prejudices and merely giving voice to them.
In summation, yes Hitler did play a major role but due to his charisma and speech not due to his beliefs because those were already present.

[monkeydust]

Well if you take a look at german militarism present at that time it espoused efficiency and followed darwin's rule of 'survival of the fittest' to a t.German militarism consisted of getting rid of the weaker segments of society, ones that did not conform. Now Hitler hated Jews and Russian slavic people. however the final solution expanded to include homosexuals, communists, mentally hanidicapped etc. This indicates not personal hatred but the realization of the german militarism, 'weeding out the inferior'etc. I am not denying Hitler's importance and influence, but i am not stating that it was all his idea, those attitudes existed long before he did.


Of course the views that Hitler embodied were present in German society before he came along. No more than anyone else did he get his beliefs "from the sky".

But his beliefs were not, as you portray them, standard right wing pan-German nationalist material. They were similar in many respects, but the Nazi vision of a volksich movement of national solidarity, their view to exterminate "inferior" elements instead of simlply let them die out, and especially Hitler's notion that the Jews and Bolshevism were one global consipiracy working to destroy the Fatherland, were not everyday views.

Hitler's belief that Bolshevism was a Jewish global conspiracy was hardly the opinion of old German nationalists and conservatives (though they did despise Communism), and this fact had far-reaching consequences: had a nationalist/conservative and not a National Socialist man taken power in Germany in 1933, the war against Russia might not have happened.

There are other examples to be made, but your ability to find points of similarity between Hitler's beliefs and traditional German beliefs does not prove that his beliefs were "just" those of the mass of Germans.


In dividual examples such as Goring do take place, but to say that most of the Leutenants etc. acted to please the fuhrer is rather simplistic, most did it due to their own beliefs, which gained a practical aspect under the regime. in that case yes the Nazi's were important, but as a source of inspiration but just allowing them to act out those beliefs and prejudices.


The beginning of this point was fine, but I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. Can you elaborate?


I intended to bring up that point, not to doubt his personal charisma or anything but to state that the reason he received such a large following was because he was merely giving voice to those prejudices, not because adhered to 'his' view, but because he adhered to 'their' view. Just as every leader is required to, The leader does not bring forth a prophetic vision or some wacko theory and expect everyone to toe the line, He has to cater to people's needs and sensibilities and address them in his 'vision'. Hitler did that and as a result got much support, by playing upon people's views and prejudices and merely giving voice to them.


You're right that Hilter did cater very much to what people already desired in his speeches. If you read excerpts from people's diaries at the time you'll commonly see such bromidic lines as "he told us what we wanted to hear".

But there was quite a wide gulf between what Hitler said and what he actually did. What he himself thought was not what he told the people he was talking to. He didn't speak of anti-semitism much at all until his famous 30 Jan 1939 speech; he never mentioned his desire to aggressively expand, instead proclaiming his peaceful intentions (most Germans didn't want war); he often voiced concerns for groups such as Christians and workers for whom he had no especial concern.

The point is that it doesn't follow from the fact that he told the people "what they wanted to hear" that he was compelled to do what they wanted. He wasn't bound by the wishes of the ordinary German populace. He was able to manipulate their popular backing for him, and then do something totally different. Such is the reason why as an individual he was of vast historical significance, and why he wasn't just "any old" German Nationalist.

[Dante]

Hitler was no mastermind, he simply represented the wishes of the German capitalist class, i.e. smashing the communists and social democrats, invading and taking over more colonies (Imperialism) and so on. Hitler only got 'big' because a significant section of the German capitalist class swung behind him, financed him and backed him. If he had not represented the historical interests of the capitalists in times of economic and social crisis in the 30's then he would have got no where - look at the Beer hall putsch in the 20's - he was too small and the capitalists did not need a fascist movement to annihilate the workers movement at that time. (They had Noske and the SPD leaders to do that for them!)

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:01 PM




But his beliefs were not, as you portray them, standard right wing pan-German nationalist material. They were similar in many respects, but the Nazi vision of a volksich movement of national solidarity, their view to exterminate "inferior" elements instead of simlply let them die out, and especially Hitler's notion that the Jews and Bolshevism were one global consipiracy working to destroy the Fatherland, were not everyday views.

Hitler's belief that Bolshevism was a Jewish global conspiracy was hardly the opinion of old German nationalists and conservatives (though they did despise Communism), and this fact had far-reaching consequences: had a nationalist/conservative and not a National Socialist man taken power in Germany in 1933, the war against Russia might not have happened.

There are other examples to be made, but your ability to find points of similarity between Hitler's beliefs and traditional German beliefs does not prove that his beliefs were "just" those of the mass of Germans.



The beginning of this point was fine, but I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. Can you elaborate?


I intended to bring up that point, not to doubt his personal charisma or anything but to state that the reason he received such a large following was because he was merely giving voice to those prejudices, not because adhered to 'his' view, but because he adhered to 'their' view. Just as every leader is required to, The leader does not bring forth a prophetic vision or some wacko theory and expect everyone to toe the line, He has to cater to people's needs and sensibilities and address them in his 'vision'. Hitler did that and as a result got much support, by playing upon people's views and prejudices and merely giving voice to them.


You're right that Hilter did cater very much to what people already desired in his speeches. If you read excerpts from people's diaries at the time you'll commonly see such bromidic lines as "he told us what we wanted to hear".

But there was quite a wide gulf between what Hitler said and what he actually did. What he himself thought was not what he told the people he was talking to. He didn't speak of anti-semitism much at all until his famous 30 Jan 1939 speech; he never mentioned his desire to aggressively expand, instead proclaiming his peaceful intentions (most Germans didn't want war); he often voiced concerns for groups such as Christians and workers for whom he had no especial concern.

The point is that it doesn't follow from the fact that he told the people "what they wanted to hear" that he was compelled to do what they wanted. He wasn't bound by the wishes of the ordinary German populace. He was able to manipulate their popular backing for him, and then do something totally different. Such is the reason why as an individual he was of vast historical significance, and why he wasn't just "any old" German Nationalist.
Equating Bolshevism with a worldwide jewish conspiracy was being done throughout the world in many hardline groups. The U.S and arab world in particular. During the sixties this view tok hold pretty substantially in writings and views of Arab extremist groups, not only restrcted to Nazi Germany or that particular time peroid. The U.S religious right too took this view during the peroid leading upto worldwar2. Except in this case it wasn't the fatherland in trouble, but the christian way of life and civilization.
The fact that Hitler's opinions were absolute in the regime do not account for the presence of Nazi generals who were sympathetic to soviet russia, such as Neidermayer who was believed to be a communist and nicknamed the 'red general'. The opening up of a Nazi mission in Moscow in the pre-war years and correspondence between high ranking german officials and soviet officials. No matterHitler's personal feelings, but at least then there was dissention and his rule was not absolute. It only became a neccessity during the war years, and his anti-bolshevism only took form with the start of war against soviet russia. In this instance it shows that the regime was not the brainstorm of hitler alone but dependant upon other individuals as well.
What i meant in that paragraph was that the German officers that took part in those atrocities did not do so out of awe or in efforts to please the 'fuhrer' but the fact that the nazi's came to power sort of gave them an ethical blank cheque to act out those prejudices.
As long as the german nationalist question is in place, anti-semitism was a major platform of many of the parties that came up after world war 1. Hypothetical situation: If you say:' i hate jews, they are responsible for our society crumbling, what should we do about it?' and i say:' let's round 'em up in camps and kill em off!', this is not a disagreement, true my way would be more extremist but just as an alternative to your question and a reaction to your percieved concerns. It would serve as an alternative. Likewise, the pan-german nationalists had anti-semitism but no plan of how to deal with that problem, Hitler merely gave a way to deal with that and provided a course of action to deal with that problem. Just because his way was more extremist doesn't negate the fundamental question posed by the german nationalists, and thus the camps were an extension of those views and questions not a separate issue or viewpoint.
In summary, my view was that true Naziism wasn't the same as german-nationalist parties but was merely an extension of those viewpoints. They went furthur than the german-nationalists but their fundamental message and beliefs were the same.

[Dante]

The qualitative difference between Nazism and German nationalism is that the Nazis mobilised terror gangs on the streets to physically impose their will through extra parliamentary activity - he defining feature of Fascism. The fact that they were clearly doing the business is what attracted so many German Nationalists to them, people who really before were just right wing bourgeoise.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
But the Final Solution and the extermination of 6 million Jews in Europe probably would not have occurred had he not existed, with his bizarre ideological obsessions and equally odd personality. 6 million dead is hardly "superficial", in my view.

Well, it was not without precedent. Sometime around 1911, the Germans undertook the massive extermination of one of the tribes in one of their African colonies...butchering some 25,000 men, women, and children.

And German observers were present and commented upon the mass murder of over a million Armenians by Turkey in 1915.

It's customary now to say that the holocaust was Hitler's "personal responsibility" or that "no Hitler = no holocaust".

I'm not at all confident of that judgment; I think there were a fair number of Nazis who would have been quite proud (!) to "stand in" for Hitler on this matter.

Who would have done "just as he did".


However I think, with Hitler as an example here, that in exceptional circumstances individuals or small groups can make a massive difference - in a way that many Marxist historians prefer to gloss over (those who used to blandly claim that Hitler was a servant of Capital, for instance).

Well, that's a slightly different question. The initial Marxist reaction to Hitler and the Nazis did indeed concentrate on the usefulness of Nazism in "solving" the problems of German capitalism in 1933.

If some Marxist historians deserve reproach here, I think it might be due to overlooking the quasi-religious aspects of Nazism as a mass movement.

Nazism wasn't "just" a "capitalist conspiracy" -- though that aspect was certainly present and even directly responsible for Hitler becoming Chancellor. Nazism had a genuine popular appeal and many of its most ardent supporters really did believe that Hitler "had been sent by God to save Germany".

Would some other Nazi have done as well if Hitler had not existed?

Well, some of the other Nazis were also very passionate speakers...capable of arousing genuine enthusiasm in their audiences.

Perhaps the mistake here of the Marxist historians was an assumption that such quasi-religious mass movements "were no longer possible" in an "advanced country like Germany". If so, they were clearly wrong about that.

Had you asked me 25 years ago if Christian fascism was possible as a mass movement in the United States, I would have laughed.

And I'm not laughing now.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Invader Zim]

Hitler was no mastermind


Hitler only got 'big' because a significant section of the German capitalist class swung behind him, financed him and backed him.

I have to say I disagree with the former, and think that the latter is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy.

The fact is that these two statements are contradictory. Hitler was a mastermind; a political one. He managed to generate enough support from various different political movements, ideologies and class groups that he was able to bring a party of highly limited membership, to being the largest single party in the state.

Anyone who claims that any of the demagogues of the 20th century, were not masterminds, fails to understand the achievements of such individuals.

[Elect Marx]

I see Hitler as a catalyst; without him the Nazis wouldn't have become so powerful, or would they have? Can we really say someone else wouldn't have taken power and maybe would not have "lost it" from syphilis and left a much worse scar on the world?
The Nazis could have become more powerful if one of the many assassination attempts their beloved führer had been successful or they could have collapsed. I will admit I am no expert on Hitler but my sociological understanding is that such historical occurrences aren't so "black and white."

Hitler was a dictator but he was leading a movement and while he was the "spearhead" of it; spearheads can just be replaced, while movements cannot.


I would use a very different parallel for the idea of individuals making an impact. While Hitler became very useful to the Nazis, he was just one of thousands, if not millions of reactionary people capable of taking power.

Albert Einstein on the other hand, was someone striving to utilize knowledge and as such, had a great deal of understanding about physical reality. I cannot say that Einstein wasn't one of thousands or even millions of people that could have developed as he did with his opportunities but nonetheless, he did and would be “Hitlers” do not develop, they simply take a position by force (they might also have some predatory “skill”).

Basically, I am saying that individuals such as Hitler are all too common; it doesn’t take effort for them to be reactionary, it takes self delusion. Individuals like Albert Einstein on the other hand, are people that must thrive and develop in defiance of social conditions and must put forth effort, not to achieve status per say but to be fluent in their field.

All that said; I don't see why we couldn’t have a million "Einsteins" around if society really did foster that sort of development. The only reason Einstein was so exceptional, is because society is programmed to use "social Darwinism" and waste 99.9% of the people trying to achieve the place he is interested in holding. While our society is not "open" to intellectual development, social dominance is always a thriving "market."

[monkeydust]

I do have comments, but my internet's playing up so I won't be able to reply for at most 2-3 days. Just to let you know in case you thought I was gonna leave all those points alone.