Elijah Sutton

Period 2 Modern World History

March 21, 2016
A well-respected German historian has a radical new theory to explain a nagging
question: Why did average Germans so heartily support the Nazis and Third
Reich? Hitler, says Goetz Aly, was a "feel good dictator," a leader who not only
made Germans feel important, but also made sure they were well cared-for by the
state. He gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today
anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a single
German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his 12 years
in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also in great contrast
to World War I particularly pampered soldiers and their families, offering them
more than double the salaries and benefits that American and British families
received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a "warm-hearted" protector, says
Aly, author of the new book "Hitlers Peoples State: Robbery, Racial War and
National Socialism" and currently a guest lecturer at the University of Frankfurt.
They were only too happy to overlook the Third Reichs unsavory, murderous
side. Financing such home front "happiness" was not simple and Hitler essentially
achieved it by robbing and murdering others, Aly claims. Jews. Slave laborers.
Conquered lands. All offered tremendous opportunities for plunder, and the Nazis
exploited it fully, he says.
And might you think that the German soldiers always followed orders? In
Auschwitzthere is not one case in the records of an SS man being prosecuted for
refusing to take part in the killings, while there is plenty of material showing that
the real discipline problem in the camp from the point of view of the SS
leadership was theft [from arriving Jews and others]. The ordinary members of
the SS thus appear to have agreed with the Nazi leadership that it was right to kill
the Jews, but disagreed with Himmlers policy of not letting them individually profit
from the crime. And the penalties for an SS man caught stealing could be draconian
almost certainly worse than for simply refusing to take an active part in the
killing.
Why did the Germans elect Adolf Hitler, thereby unconditionally linking their fate to
his person? Why did they go to war for him? Why did some even become
murderers? Rafael Seligmann's book, "Hitler. Die Deutschen und ihr Fhrer (Hitler.
The Germans and Their Fhrer)," shows that Hitler could only win power, because
he had made himself the spokesman of German fears and longings. He led a war
against modernism. Adolf Hitler is the dominant figure of our age. He outshines
Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Mao Tse-tung and Saddam Hussein as a politician,
strategist and villain. The ramifications of Hitler's doings were so far-reaching that
they continue to affect the emotions, thoughts and activities of humankind, and
especially of the Germans. Hitler's life and deeds have been more thoroughly

investigated than those of anyone else in recent history. Respected historians and
journalists have dedicated lifetimes to examining his world view and his politics and
the atrocities and wars they led to. In their zeal, some biographers have included
Hitler's private life in their investigation. Even his dogs have been written
about. Given the numerous publications about Hitler, they have generated little
insight. Some of the most crucial questions about Hitler have only been addressed
tangentially and still need to be answered adequately.
How did this Austrian immigrant manage to captivate the Germans? Why did 17
million people vote for him in free democratic elections? What moved the German
people to choose him as their leader? Why did the Germans fight and kill in the
name of Hitler, Nazism and their country; even sacrificing themselves in the end,
long after it was indisputably clear that their leader was going down and would take
the country with him over the cusp of the abyss? And how could it reach the point
where the Germans committed collective genocide against the Jews? Those
questions alone prove that Hitler's power could only have blossomed in
collaboration with the German people. On his own, the mediocre postcard illustrator
and would-be artist would have remained forever a nobody. And that is the crucial
difference between Hitler and the other dictators mentioned above. Those leaders
dispensed entirely with any kind of democratic legitimization. Popularity was
secondary for those men. Hitler, by contrast, enjoyed the broad support,
confidence, admiration - indeed the love - of the Germans until the very end of his
days. Hitler's power was based on the unconditional allegiance of the
population. The Germans put their trust in Hitler. And that is how he was able to
make his worldview, his politics, his hate, his war, and his crimes those of an entire
nation. Niccol Machiavelli said that love or fear were the most effective tools in
securing power. But "perhaps it is best," the Florentine political theorist said, "to
wish to be both loved and feared." It was that amalgamate of feelings that bound
the Germans to Hitler. But why? What did this man from the small Austrian town
Braunau convey so effectively to his people? Hitler's appeal has always been, and
continues to be, attributed to his charisma.
Hitler himself used the term providence, as if there was a mythical bond between
the Fhrer and his people. But there was nothing heavenly about the Germans'
entanglement with Hitler. As in every lasting relationship, it began with a
spontaneous connection, which emerged from shared cultural and mythological
legacy. But there were also tangible elements. His charisma was a pretext, masking
the joint interests of the Germans and Hitler. What connected the Fhrer and his
people was fear of the modern age, or in other words, the future. Modernism meant
the endeavor to subject all thought and action to reason, thereby making decisions
and actions comprehensible and verifiable. This is an attitude that requires the
rejection of any metaphysical rationalization. Modern thought was never able to
develop as fully in Germany as it did elsewhere in Europe. The baby of the
Enlightenment, epitomized by Kant, Lessing and many others, was thrown out with
the bathwater of the anti-Napoleonic Wars of Liberation. The vast majority of the
German bourgeoisie was more interested in aligning itself with the nationalist

idealism of German philosophers Fichte and Arndt, or Richard Wagner's newly

invented world of Germanic myths. Indeed, they veritably fled to those comforts,
instead of subjecting their political, social and cultural awareness to objectively
verifiable criteria. That attitude gained currency following the trauma of defeat in
World War I and the socio-economic crisis it brought in its wake. Instead of rationally
tackling and overcoming the difficulties that loomed at the beginning of the 1920s,
the Germans sought escape in an intoxication of chauvinism - the same jingoism
that had already contributed so much to their misery during World War I and
thereafter. The Germans felt, and indeed were, threatened by modernism, since
they had, to a great degree, closed their eyes to the principles of lucid reason. Hitler
also considered himself a victim of modernism and blamed it for his early failures to
that point. Hitler and his National Socialist movement gave true voice to the fears of
the German middle class. He told the Germans that the Jews were the one and only
cause of all their misery. And the Jews were, in fact, the undisputed beneficiaries of
modernism, whether as democrats, capitalists, intellectuals or communists. But
Hitler was not satisfied just to denounce the Jews. His goal was to lead his people
into a war of liberation from the Jews, activating the anti-Semitism dormant in
Germany. Indeed, more than any other group, the Jews embodied and cultivated
modernism. Although it's rarely discussed these days, back then there were
significant economic, social and intellectual differences between the German
Gentile and the Jewish communities. The Nazis fueled those conflicts until they
escalated into a majority war against the minority, which found its ultimate
expression in coldly executed mass murder. The Germans were not murderous antiSemites contrary to the claim of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. But they looked the other
way, tolerated and even profited from the genocide. Hitler waged war with modern
tactics. The enthusiasm he and his cohorts showed for the newest techniques in
propaganda, mass mobilization and weapons of war has long obscured the fact that
the Nazis and their Fhrer availed themselves of those tools only as a means to an
end, and that end was a campaign to exterminate modernism and its adherents.
Hitler's ultimate goal never changed - a return to the earth, to "blood and soil", to
the idealized world of the Teutons. The "total war" the Nazis proclaimed in 1943 was
the brainchild of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Millions of Germans
participated enthusiastically, steadfast until the bitter end in their loyalty to Hitler.
What resistance there was, made up largely of elite army officers, lacked all support
among the masses. So Claus von Stauffenberg and his comrades-in-arms who made
an attempt on Hitler's life, on July 20, 1944, were forced to dissimulate and pretend
to defend the authority of the state.Nazi propaganda claimed a supranatural unity
between the Fhrer and the people: "Germany is Hitler, and Hitler is Germany."
While the totality of that alliance may be exaggerated, there is no doubt that Hitler
could not have done what he did except by joining forces with the Germans. Rafael
Seligmann is an editor in chief at The Atlantic Times. After the publication of his
book, "Hitler. Die Deutschen und ihr Fhrer (Hitler. The Germans and Their Fhrer),"
the following statement met with fierce opposition: "The continued prohibition of
Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf' in Germany is counterproductive. It is evidence of a lack

of democratic self-confidence. Unrestricted access to Hitler's writings would not

produce new Nazis. On the contrary, it would serve to dismantle a myth." The
paperback edition of Seligmann's book will be published this month.
When one hears the word evil, Adolf Hitler is usually the first face that comes to
mind. However, if he was so wicked, how was he able to get the people of Germany
to back him? The answer lies within his manipulation of the people through
persuasion in his engaging speeches and strategic propaganda techniques. Hitler
was quite aware of his skills as well. He was once quoted as saying, I am conscious
that I have no equal in the art of swaying the masses, according to Herman
Rauschning, a Nazi politician. (Dufner 66) Adolf Hitlers statement may have been
accurate back when he claimed it and, quite possibly, remains applicable today.
Hitler was also very aware of the situations that surrounded him. In the early
1920s, Hitler used the failures of Germanys preceding government, the Weimar
democracy, to his advantage in order to win over the people of Germany. When the
Nazi Party took over, he and other officials of the Nazi regime made it point to
appeal to the issues that their citizens were feeling at the time. According to Frank
McDonoughs Hitler and the Rise of the Nazi Party, Nazism built its support by
tapping into the negative feelingstowards such things as the harsh terms of the
Versailles treaty, high inflation, the instability of democratic government, the
economic position of Jews in a German society and the growth of a vibrant
communist movement. (51) While this approach was not uncommon for politicians
and is still tactically used currently by various parties, Hitler had an uncanny ability
to tap into his listeners emotions through his sincere excitement and provide them
a vision of a promising future in a time of despair.
Adolf Hitlers pride and character put him in prime position to attempt to take on the
role of resurrecting a disorganized country. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitlers
closest accomplices, referred to Hitlers oratorical skills as having the ability to
express things so clearly, logically and directly that listeners are convinced that that
is what they have always thought themselves.
(http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ahspeak.htm) While some Germans may
have had similar thoughts before Hitler preached his visions, many of the German
citizens were just in search of some sort of leadership. Hitler took little time to
illustrate to his people what an idealistic Germany and world should look like.
Hitler always attempted to stay consistent with his message of national unity, as he
knew that without the German citizens support his mission would be a complete
failure. However, in reality, he may have been intentionally creating the opposite of
unity, unknown to the people. Hitler set out to supplant the personal, physical love
of a husband with an immaculate love of the Fuhrerchildren were to be given an
ersatz Father. (LeBor & Boyes 52) Hitler recognized that without the youth of
Germany, the nations reign would only last as long as he was alive so he held Hitler
Youth rallies and created schools to create strong, courageous children for the
future. According to Frank Capras Why We Fight, every day these students would
sing the following tune:

Adolf Hitler is our savior, our hero

He is the noblest being in the whole wide world
For Hitler we live, for Hitler we die
Our Hitler is our Lord
Who rules a brave new world