Part III.
We continue now with a closer look at Hitler’s peculiar strain of
anti-Marxism, equated in his strange mind not with the professed ideology of
the Soviet state, but rather with Western financial capitalism. Why was he then
so intolerant toward domestic anti-capitalists, the “leftists”? Anti-Semitism
can be seen as the main reason, but such an answer would be too vague. Hitler’s
totalitarianism had no tolerance for a multi-party system, and he persecuted
German leftists primarily as unwanted competition. Curiously, though, when the
German communists flocked to join the Nazi Party, he became suspicious of them
and treated them harshly, to say the least. Thus, his fight against his leftist
rivals, like his merciless extermination of his own, but not entirely his own,
Brownshirts, was more practical than ideological in its nature. Wikipedia,
though, together with other sources, misses this nuance. Continuing now with Wikipedia
in teal, proper quotations in blue, and my occasional in-text comments in red
---
Because
of this view, the leftist political dissidents were the first victims to be
targeted by the Nazi regime much before Racial discrimination was applied, on
the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree. The
following quote comes from Hermann Göring’s March 3, 1933 Directive
to the Prussian Police Authorities:
“All
other restraints on police action, imposed by the Reich and Land Law, are
abolished, in so far as this is necessary to achieve the purpose of the decree.
In keeping with the purpose and aim of the decree, certain additional measures
shall be directed against the Communists in the first instance, but then also
against those who cooperate with the Communists and against those who support
or encourage their criminal aims. [...] I would point out that any necessary
measures against members or establishments of other than the Communist,
Anarchist, or Social Democratic parties can only be justified by the decree if
they serve to help the defense against Communist activities in the widest
sense.”
Persecution
and extermination of these political groups was systematic in Germany and the
occupied zones during the War.
By and
large Hitler is a Pan-Germanic hyper-nationalist, whose ideology was built
around a philosophically authoritarian (sic!
– see my next comment…), anti-Marxist,
anti-Semitic, anti-democratic Weltanschauung. There are strong connections
to the values of Nazism and to the anti-rationalistic tradition of the romantic
movement of the early nineteenth century in response to the Age of
Enlightenment. Strength, passion, frank declarations of feelings, and deep
devotion to the family and to the community were valued by the Nazis, albeit
first expressed by Romantic artists, musicians, and writers. German romanticism
in particular had expressed these values. For instance, Hitler identified
closely with the music of Richard Wagner, who harbored anti-Semitic views as
the author of Das Judenthum in der Musik. Some claim that he was one of
Hitler’s role models, a disputed comment of Kubizek’s. The Nazi idealization of
German tradition, folklore, volkisch culture, leadership, exemplified by
Frederick the Great and eventually instantiated in the Führerprinzip,
their rejection of the liberalism and parliamentarianism of the Weimar
Republic, and calling the German state the Third Reich, has led many to
regard the Nazis as reactionary.
(Those
who identify Hitler’s philosophy as “authoritarian” tend to disregard the basic
difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The FührerPrinzip is
not an authoritarian, but an essentially totalitarian concept. It is true that
human nature is susceptible to the temptation of power, and a totalitarian
leader can become an authoritarian despot, but not for long. Authoritarian tendencies
in a totalitarian leader mark him for destruction. Totalitarianism is not about
despotic rule, but about being the selfless leader of society. We have a
perfect example of such a leader in Stalin, who never cared about personal
gain, which is the ambition of mediocrity. Stalin had a far larger ambition. He
wished to represent the will and striving of the totality of the Soviet nation.
It is obviously hard for a mediocre social scientist or a politician to grasp
the sheer magnitude and intensity of personal gratification in a totalitarian
leader, as opposed to an authoritarian ruler. This is probably the main reason why
political science is so much confused about these two types. Hitler was a
totalitarian, but of a weaker sort than Stalin. Like Mussolini, Hitler was an
ebullient showman, which may be good for an aspiring populist, but bad for a
seasoned totalitarian. Hitler’s biggest mistake was that he was not keen enough
to see Stalin for what he was: the consummate totalitarian leader, and to see
Russia for what she was: a functioning totalitarian society. In other words,
Hitler badly underestimated the USSR, and Germany paid the ultimate price for
disobeying Bismarck’s testament regarding Russia. Bismarck had advised against
a confrontation with Russia, not just to avoid Germany fighting a losing war on
two fronts. Like the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville before him, and Friedrich
Nietzsche shortly after him, he must have sensed the immensity of the inner
strength of the emerging global giant. Bismarck’s hallmark advice to Germany,
so recklessly disregarded by Hitler, equated attacking Russia with "committing
suicide.")
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment