Tag Archives: Nazi

A Crisis of Leadership

Posted on by

Gorlizki and Mommsen along with Schivelbusch present information regarding the political rise and eventual control of the Nazi Party in Germany under Hitler, and the Communist Party in the USSR under Stalin. Mommsen and Gorlizki conclude that, in addition to a variety of economic, agricultural, and social reasons, Stalin and his party maintained control over its subordinates so well through the “centralized and institutionally integrated party” ((Gorlizki and Mommsen, 85)) which essentially formed the core of the state. Gorlizki and Mommsen go on to discuss the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany, and they contend that “the state
and ideology relied to a far greater extent for what coherence they had on the
cult of the Fuhrer.” ((Gorlizki and Mommsen, 85)) This concept of a “cult of the Fuhrer” is a concept touched upon (and explained in detail) by Schivelbusch. In Schivelbusch’s chapter entitled “Leaders”, he contends that Adolf Hitler had an extraordinary ability to “speak to the soul of the people” ((Schivelbusch, 54)), which (as Gorlizki and Mommsen mentioned) helped create the “cult of the Fuhrer”, or, in more simple terms, the love of the German people for their leader contributed greatly to the success garnered by Hitler and the Nazi party; the people of Germany, (unlike the people of the USSR, who as pointed out by Mommsen and Gorlizki became infatuated with, and allowed for the development of “the party”), allowed Hitler to become larger than life.

The idea of leadership and its evolution and importance in the USSR and Germany is an important area to look at in order to bring context to our class, but since Schivelbusch touched on Roosevelt, it would be interesting to bring more context to the American political sphere of that time, and see how closely the opinions of Roosevelt held by the American people parralled with the opinions of German and Soviet citizens with regard to their respective rulers.

Dictators… Aren’t They All The Same?

Posted on by
Hitler and Mussolini standing together during a visit to Munich

Hitler and Mussolini standing together during a visit to Munich

Dictators. We tend to think of Hitler and Mussolini as having similar ideals and regimes based on the sole fact that they are both dictators. However, when analyzing their doctrines’ theories, one can see their goals and philosophies were not similar. In Hitler’s The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program the focus is on the purification of Germany. Contrastingly, in Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, the focus is on the State’s importance exercised through expansion.

Mussolini’s fascist state focuses on the State’s absolutism, expansion, and emphasis on man’s character. Mussolini came from a socialist background as an editor for a socialist newspaper. Once appointed Prime Minister in 1922, his career began in state leadership. In Mussolini’s What is Fascism he placed an emphasis on heroism of the man. He, as the spokesperson of the Fascist regime, believed man should not have any economic motive but rather see life as “duty and struggle and conquest”. For what purpose should man be dutiful and charismatic? The State, of course! Mussolini believed the State was the foundation of Fascism. As man provides ethics (discipline, duty, sacrifice), the State is able to expand.

Hitler’s philosophy focuses on maintaining the German population in all aspects. From the formation of a national army to restrictions on immigration, the Nazi program aimed to unify the Germans into one single ideal of biology, culture, policy, and geography. They attained this by an emphasis on nationality. Although in The 25 Points there is a demand of land and/or colonization for the German people, the physical land is not a central point. Rather, the significance is this sense of German priority. Contrasting to Mussolini and Fascism, the Nazi party placed an emphasis on economy. Hitler demanded nationalization of some industries and a division of profits for others.

The collective priority of the State over the individual is shared between both Mussolini and Hitler. Although they achieved “common good” differently through their individual philosophies and actions, the overarching concept of commonality is evident in both regimes.

Mussolini demands the deprivation of “all useless and possibly harmful freedom” but the retention of essential liberty. What are some examples of “useless freedom”? Do you think it is possible to place such a specific margin of liberty on a population?

 

Nazism or Fascism

Posted on by

Today we categorize the regimes of the Nazis and Mussolini as both being a Fascist state. In the early years of their regimes however if one looks closely would find that there is a stark difference in ideals of the two Dictators. One’s early ideals were to create the genetically perfect populace. While the second’s focused on empowering the individual and expanding to create a vast territorial empire.

Reading the Fordham university article The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program It could be understood that the Nazis viewed the well fair and purification of Germany as their main objective. Within these 25 points there is no mention of territorial expansion. At an early glance of these points and the lack of any territorial policies one could not categorize the early Nazi party with the regime of Mussolini.

In 1932 in order to put a defining definition of fascism Mussolini sat down with Giovanni Gentile and wrote Bento Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932. Mussolini argues that Fascism believes in that the support of the individual takes priority over that of the state. However it is also mentioned within his article that the growth of an empire where during this expansion the people can be invigorated.

While today it is easy to say that these two leaders were similar it is not completely true. Mussolini believed that Fascism is the system to invigorate a people and expand to become an empire. The early Nazi belief was much different in that they only believed in a genetically pure country. It can be argued that the two eventually merged into one and the same but the early parts of the regimes had a different idea of what it meant to be a Fascist.

 

The Gulag- Labor Camp, Cultural Divider, and Implement of Mass Murder

Posted on by

Wilson Bell presented multiple interpretations of the Gulag (a soviet work camp) in his article. These interpretations ranged from describing the Gulag as a simple work camp, to the extreme of comparing the death and destruction wrought by the institution to be on the same level as the Nazi Final Solution. The comparison between the Gulag work camp system during the Second World War, and the infrastructure driven Holocaust which occurred at the same time, made me reconsider the role of the Soviet Union in the conquest of Nazi Germany.

Without the fortitude shown by Soviet troops at Stalingrad, and various other points during Hitler’s failed assault on the eastern front, the allied effort certainly would’ve been slowed, if not halted all together. Learning that the Soviet mechanical machine was powered by labor akin to that used by the Nazis in work camps across occupied Europe puts a different spin on the contributions of the Russians to the allies. As Bell points out by citing Applebaum, the Holocaust and the Gulag system must be considered on equal playing fields, which makes looking at Russia and its Red Army as the saviors of Europe as they marched into Berlin difficult. The 27% mortality rate is certainly not as high as the numbers of dead from Nazi work camps, but the number of ‘incarcerated’ individuals in Gulags is higher, and the atrocities committed by those in charge (rape, ect) according to articles cited by Bell are astronomical in number. The enemy of my enemy is my friend- but when the enemy of your enemy and your enemy commit similar atrocities, the idea of marching into battle under the same flag becomes a lot more complicated.

Technology and Instincts: Modernizing Genocide

Posted on by

The Holocaust may not have been an unpredictable genocide in regards to the potential extremes of human nature, but when compared to other large scale pogroms it remains an anomaly through its modernized nature. The Holocaust does not elicit the usual genocidal imagery often characterized by a type of primitiveness and chaos, but is marked by a bureaucratic industrial system in which the organization of upscaled executions became reminiscent of a pragmatically scheduled business model. How should we expect our ethical values to progress relative to industry?

Zygmunt Bauman explores the pathology behind the Holocaust in Modernity and the Holocaust, an attempt to make sense of the psychology and behavior of modern constructs applied to genocide. Bauman concludes that science has become increasingly distinguished by a “self-imposed moral silence” (29) and that science seems to be making strides in efficiency while simultaneously abandoning morality. Bertrand Russell, a renowned British philosopher (1872-1970) came to a similar conclusion in his prediction of science’s relationship with ethics in his piece ICARUS or The Future of Science in 1924. Briefly put, Russell states that mankind can produce equal good with the power of science as potential harm, but there is a pattern between his observations of men’s passions revolving mainly around “evil” desires, which makes him highly wary of advance technology in the hands of mankind.

So far it seems as though humans have held onto our instinctual ethics while developing more efficient ways to pursue them. The Holocaust remains a perfect example of this. Oddly enough, calamitous events such as this provide short term devastation, but eventual enlightenment. Could it be argued that events like the Holocaust are actually societal building blocks to understanding human behavior and preventing genocide in the future? Or will violence always be as certain as death and taxes?

Nazi-Soviet Pact

Posted on by

1. The treaty was signed on August 23rd, 1939. Hitler’s Nazi Germany invaded Poland on September 1st shortly after. This pact was the final step the Nazi’s had to pursue in order to execute their expansionist agenda. Hitler knew if he had to fight a two front war, he would undoubtedly lose.

2. The treaty does not only take into consideration the emphasis on the non-violence/aggression aspects that were very important to avoiding a two front war, but considered the possibility of inadvertent war as a product of alternative foreign pacts.

3. The secret aspect of the treaty is the most significant aspect to understanding the motives behind its mutual signing. With a wink and a nod, the Russian’s signed this treaty with the secret hopes that they would regain territory in Poland and south east European nations. Germany would also gain Baltic lands and a portion of Europe as well.

Two questions

1. What could have been a potential result of World War II, had the Nazi’s not broken the pact by invading Russia in 1941?

2. Should Russia be held more liable for the invasion of Poland due to their acceptance of the Treaties obvious intentions?

It is interesting to think about how the two nations put aside their rivaling political ideologies in order to gain land. Would Russia rather have national socialism expand at the same time communism did than democracy?

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.

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?

 

Cinematography and Youth in Triumph des Willens

Posted on by

Triump des Willens (1935) succeeds in convincing the viewer that Adolf Hitler’s rise—and the rise of the Nazi party, was an enthusiastic national movement that served as the core of Germany’s ascension to dominance. The camera work is marvelous. The cameras spend the majority of time with their lenses pointed upwards at Hitler’s face or the structure upon which he stands, a subtle yet effective tactic to generate a larger than life feel. The long shots used in Trimph des Willens are the longest I have seen done in a film so aged, and are strategically placed to absorb as much of the parade or rally as possible. The music accompanying the shots in between the cuts of Hitler’s speeches are very upbeat, which exudes a type of happiness—almost eagerness that the Nazi’s are feeling at the opportunity to participate (although, many of them seem quite austere).

At the forty-five minute mark, Hitler addresses the young men of Germany, who are known as the Hitler Youth or Hitlerjugend. Males and females between the ages of 10-18 were indoctrinated into this program, which began in 1922 and ceased activity in 1945. The Hitler Youth were seen as the future of German purity, and had Nazi ideologies instilled on them at an early age, as well as physical training, military training, and academia. The Nazi Party also used them as spies in order to gain control over the Church to gain ground in the power struggle between the Church and state. Similarities can be drawn between the activities the Hitler Youth were involved in and American Boy Scouts, as they were trained in basic skills that could be very useful in dire situations. The Hitler Youth were groomed to be the next generation of the Schutzstaffel or SS, meaning protection squadron.

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?