Tag Archives: Hitler

Hitler’s Speech: 3, 2, 1

Posted on by

3 Points:

– “The Jew has suffered no privations!”. Hitler is attempting to rally the Christian population (many of those who are very poor) by blaming the Jews as the reason the majority of the populace is suffering economically. He states that the Jews go to a doctor’s office to “lose his fat” instead of going to get healthy, like a good, hard working German. He slanders them in order to rouse public disdain regarding these people, which would make it easier to expel them from the country/commit anti-semitic acts.

– Hitler pushed the idea of a “nationalist, socialist party” (Nazi). In this creation he would emphasize the state empowering characteristics of each wing, and minimize the radicals sitting on each end of the spectrum. The people on the “Right” and the people on the “Left” would bring the country to ruin if they were able to take control. If the party of compromises was not the one in power, there would be only two possibilities: “the victory of the Aryan or the annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.”

– Since there would be only one race in his ideal Germany (Aryan), Hitler wishes there to be no class system. “Class means caste and caste means race”: ipso facto if there is only one race, then there is only one class, meaning there is no traditional “class system”.

2 Questions:

– In his last lines, Hitler says that he is creating this party (and everything that goes on within it) because he wanted to build an institution that people can take solace in in order to “bring calm to their hearts”. Knowing what you know about how this party system ended (WWII), what would have been a better way about calming his people down?

– In this passage Hitler makes it quite clear that he opposes the Treaty of Versailles. Given what he states in this speech, what part of the treaty do you believe he disliked the most?

Interesting Observation:

– Hitler uses the fears and concerns of the people to his advantage. Germany at this point in time was a country without a strong leadership; they needed someone to take control and lead them into the next chapter of their history. Hitler saw that they were a weak people, and took advantage by implanting his thoughts into their minds. By offering the populace the answers they sought, he was able to get the whole country on his side, making it much easier for him to impose his will.

Fascism

Posted on by

Main Points:
1. “Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.” Perpetual peace is not a realistic goal, nor is it a useful one. Fascism holds that problems and conflicts can only be ultimately solved by war, and that all other solutions to problems are only substitutes for war. War is not necessary detrimental, and pacifists have unrealistic world views.
2. “…Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.” Economics have little bearing on the history of man. History cannot be explained by social and economic issues or differences between estates and classes. Class warfare has no real effect on politics and conflict and cannot be the primary mechanism for change in society.
3. “After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….” Fascism maintains that the majority cannot be held to be correct based solely on the fact that it is the majority. Universal suffrage is a useless practice, since the majority opinion does not matter. Not all individuals are equal, and therefore cannot have equal political standing; Fascism outright denies the democratic principles of political equality and perpetual progress.

Questions:
1. Why is it that fascism and socialism are thought of as being related by many people, when in actuality they are opposites?
2. Why does Fascism get its name from ancient Rome, the government of which is the inspiration for many of the world’s modern democracies?

Observation:
“…The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…” Mussolini’s definition of fascism includes the stipulation that the Fascist despises suicide and knows nothing of it, yet Adolf Hitler, one of the foremost fascists in history, took his own life.

Triumph of the Will, Failure of the Imagination

Posted on by

As I watched Triumph of the Will (1935) I quickly began to experience a sensation of excruciating boredom not unlike those you might expect to feel at an award ceremony dedicated to an obvious fraud and criminal (e.g Henry Kissinger receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in what our descendants will either remember as a moment of comedic brilliance on the part of the Nobel committee or as an intellectual crime against humanity). Their every word sounds contrived and derivative at best, pornographic at worst. The smiling guests strike you as pathetic and obsequious in their premeditated happiness, their every attempt at ingratiating themselves with the award’s recipient further reinforcing the event’s glumly parodic nature. By the forty-five minute mark you would give anything to see the whole affair go up in flames.

It appears that Triumph of the Will earns much praise for its “technical” brilliance. I suppose this means its skill in using film and sound to portray the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, regardless of its message. However, the film did not succeed in engaging my interest whatsoever. It contains no unexpected shots of Hitler or his officers. The camera films them from a low angle, exaggerating their height in comparison with the adoring masses shot at wide, sweeping angles. The filmmaker plays exactly the kind of music you would expect at the exact moments you would expect them. Worst of all, the film presents almost no information about the people attending the rally. I understand this serves the purpose of showing Nazi Germany as a collective body of true believers utterly devoted to Hitler, but I think a more talented filmmaker would attempt to show what makes an ordinary German fall in love with such a figure.  This would make for a truly powerful documentary about ordinary people touched by a charismatic individual, rather than what appears as an extravagant soap opera for sentimental brownshirts. For all those unrepentant YouTube Nazis looking for reactionary works of true brilliance, I suggest Wagner and Drieu La Rochelle.

As for the rest of us, we should wonder why such a dull, unimaginative film continues to earn praise for its cinematography. Might it have something to do with a human penchant for totalitarianism and fascism? Do we gain such satisfaction from images of harmony, social and otherwise, that we can momentarily suspend our disbelief with the simple aid of overwrought music and shots of marching crowds? Do we love the notion of absolute power so much that we continue to find images of evil, no matter how petty and base their origin, fascinating and worthy of our leering, falsely offended scrutiny? For those interested in a film that proposes an honest depiction of fascism, I recommend Piero Pasolini’s Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom.

The Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

The Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl in 1935, is a Nazi propaganda film chronicling the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. Riefenstahl shows hundreds of thousands of children and adults saluting and cheering as they see Hitler. The film shows small portions of many Nazi leaders speeches at the Congress. It is very apparent the film is attempting to depict that Germany has once again risen to be a great power, all thanks to the glorious leader Adolf Hitler.

There are many things I found intriguing about this film, however a scene that caught my attention was at the very beginning. As Hitler is being driven down the street in a motorcade, the cars slow down so that a mother and daughter can shake Hitler’s hand and give him flowers. It is obvious that these people were specifically selected for this event, due to the fact that there were so many people lining the streets watching the motorcade and none were able to approach except for this duo. I began to think why they were selected and what is the significance of this? Well, for one it depicts the perfect Nazi-German mother-daughter role. The woman’s husband is not with them, and I would assume he is either in the army fighting the war or fulfilling his Nazi duties elsewhere. The mother steps up to raise her child on her own, and in a sense Hitler fills the now empty father role for the child. He is the male figure the daughter now looks up to, which is depicted through the young childs’ salute.  This act is met with loud cheers from the crowd. I believe they were selected based on their appearance. The daughter is a perfect example of an Aryan. Although it was hard to see her eyes, it is obvious she has light skin and blonde hair.

Although this scene depicted the role a Nazi party woman should have- taking care of her children and praising Hitler- there is a serious contradiction to that party thought regarding the film. Leni Riefenstahl, the director, is a woman. My question is, why would Hitler chose her to produce and direct his propaganda film? Doesn’t that go against his traditional party beliefs regarding women?

 

The Role of the Youth in Triumph of the Will

Posted on by

The 1935 documentary, Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl, portrays powerful propaganda images of the Nazi regime. It focuses in on speeches made by both high-ranking Nazi officers and Hitler himself. In between every scene change are minutes of marching and rejoicing in the German nation. The film encompasses many facets of Nazi ideology.

In one scene in particular, we see the mobilization of the children in the Nazi youth. There is a seemingly endless sea of kids, both boys and girls, in uniform listening to the Fuhrer speak. What Hitler was preaching was national unity, and the youth were the “vessels” for this: “We want to be a united nation, and you, my youth, are to become this nation. In the future, we do not wish to see classes and cliques, and you must not allow them to develop among you. One day, we want to see one nation” (Hitler). Hitler, in essence, was influencing the youth to make Germany the nation he wanted it to be, and to make sure the most important thing to them was the nation itself.

With this, were these youth told by their parents to attend these rallies, or were they drawn to them because of the the “power” Hitler was instilling in them?

Mazower Chapter 5

Posted on by

In chapter 5 of Mazower’s Dark Continent, he describes the various approaches and policies that Hitler implemented in an attempt to convert Europe into a functioning German empire. Many of Hitler’s policies were based upon the 25 Points of 1920 that the Nazi party created during their infancy.

Within chapter 5, Mazower used the heading “Living in Historic Times,” to emphasize the drastic changes that were taking place throughout this period. Germany had conquered an enormous land mass as a result of their revolutionary Blitzkrieg tactics. Politicians were then left with the difficult task of incorporating these diverse European populations into the “New Order.” Certain countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia were easily incorporated into the empire because they had immediate value to Hitler and also shared a common germanic ancestry. In these countries their national identities were removed. It was banned to reference them by there former namesakes. Others locations such as France and Scandinavia were difficult to incorporate because they did not share as many commonalities with Germany. These countries were given a greater amount of sovereignty compared to other more repressed regions. Many of the ultimate fates of these provisional states were not to be determined until the end of the war because Hitler did not have a explicitly defined plan in place at the moment.

Of the 25 points, a few of them seem contradictory. Point number two calls for land and expansion, while point number seven is in an anti-foreigner clause that states that only citizens can live in Germany. If Germany is to expand its land and territory, how would they incorporate these newly conquered citizens into their ranks? Wouldn’t they be considered foreigners? Does it matter which country theses people would be coming from?

Mazower, Chapter 5

Posted on by

In Chapter 5 of Dark Continent, Mazower details the ideology of Hitler’s new order and the policies that were implemented to bring it about. At the beginning of the chapter, he explains the appeal of German Fascism (Nazism) to other European countries at the outbreak of World War II. He
illustrates this change in sentiment and perspective using statistics.

In one instance, Mazower uses France to explain this type of change in 1940. In June of 1940, France suffered a humiliating defeat in six-weeks at the hands of the German Army. This humiliation dramatically shifted how the French as a whole responded to the Nazi’s invasion. Mazower wanted to illustrate that the French began to support the Nazi political ideology, believing that supporting the new governments (the occupying government and Vichy France) was better than continuing the fight.

To emphasize this evolution, Mazower cites an increase in the number of students at the Berlitz in Paris studying German, and the decrease in students taking English classes. Mazower does not explain these numbers, however. There is no explanation listed for why this change in classes at university is important to the larger perspective of the war, or the political and social climates in France.

Mazower compares in the Berlitz example the number of students in German classes in 1939 and 1941. He does not offer any more information. There is no interpretation of these numbers. No possible reasons for the increase in students in these classes. Did the school pressure students to switch from English to German so that the occupying Nazis would not closely scrutinize the school and its practices? Did the students do this to avoid trouble from other students, faculty, administrators and Nazis?

It is interesting that Mazower uses this example, followed closely by an explanation about how positive attitudes towards the Nazi occupations throughout Europe were quick to disappear, including in France. He cites a radical change in perspective occurring within two to three months of the Occupation.

The issue with the argument Mazower makes using the numbers is that he does not provide enough context to explain why the number of students taking German increases. These numbers are used in isolation, with no information about how other occurrences in France affected this and no comparisons to other institutions in Paris or France.

Why would so many students (939 increased to 7,920) have decided to take German after the Invasion and Occupation of France?

Germany and Pronatalism

Posted on by

fw6-20

 

(Image courtesy of “Politicizing Pronatalism: exploring the Nazi Propaganda of Women through the Lens of Visual Propaganda”, by Katherine Rossy)

 

This image, taken from the Nazi party’s magazine for women, Frauen Warte, depicts a mother taking care of her baby daughter while her husband goes off to war. This particular image is from a 1937 issue, two years before World War II began. At this point in history, Germany is Nazi-occupated and Hitler’s power is rising. The picture illustrates clear gender roles that show the woman as a loving creature whose duty it is to make children just as it’s the men’s duty to fight. The Nazi Regime preached pronatalism to those “worthy” enough to reproduce, which was the Aryan race in their eyes. It was these women’s duty to make good German children. While women were getting more and more involved in the workforce, it goes to show that their first and foremost priority, at least as taught by the state, was to heighten the birthrate of the German population. Because of the alarmingly high divorce rates, and this new “modern woman, the state became highly concerned about the now declining birthrate. While this sparked Pronatalism regimes across Nazi Germany, it wasn’t an isolated situation. Several other countries across Europe began to outlaw abortion and contraception to rebuild the importance of the family unit.

 

The Last Witness

Posted on by

Friday, September 6th, 2013; the second day of the Jewish new year called Rosh Hashannah. Today marks a day of new beginnings, and an end to the past. Today, Hitler’s bodyguard Rochus Misch, the last surviving witness of Hitler’s suicide, has died. I am Jewish, and my Grandpa Larry’s whole family was brutally murdered in Auchwitz during the “Final Solution.” For me, Mr. Misch’s passing brings a mixture of feelings. Of course I do not rejoice in the death of a human being; if I did so I am no better than Hitler himself. At the same time, I cannot help but feel a sense of closure for my family members that I never got to meet.

Now, Rochus Misch claims that he had no idea that 6 million Jews were being slaughtered  or worked to their deaths. To me, that is a completely absurd concept. There is no way that he being Hitler’s bodyguard never overheard a conversation or had any idea of what was really going on in Germany. He said that he was constantly by Hitler’s side; eating with him, living with him, protecting him. Misch obviously knew what Hitler’s agenda was, and the fact that Misch was never held accountable for any actions whatsoever dumbfounds me. He was never tried for crimes against humanity, even though in my opinion him simply protecting Hitler should be a crime in itself. Instead, Misch spent nine years in a prisoner of war camp in the Soviet Union (Rising).

All of my personal feelings aside, Rochus Misch’s life directly relates to Mark Mazower’s historical writing Dark Continent. In Chapter 1 of Dark Continent, Mazower speaks of Communism and Facism in the 1930s. When Misch was 20 years old, he said he joined the SS  because he saw it as a “counterweight to the threat of the left.” This exact point was made in Mazower’s writings. Misch was so anti-communism that he joined a Fascist group. Speaking about his decision to join the SS, Misch said “It (joining the SS) was anti-communist, against Stalin — to protect Europe.” He noted that thousands of other Western Europeans served in the Waffen SS. “I signed up in the war against Bolshevism, not for Adolf Hitler.”

Shanah Tovah ooh Metukah. Have a happy and sweet new year. The last witness to Hitler’s suicide is now gone. Never forget.

Bibliography: RISING, DAVID. “Hitler Bodyguard Rochus Misch Dies at 96.” Ap.org. Associated Press, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 06 Sept. 2013.