MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART III.

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…

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART II.

An important note. Although the difference between Hitler’s Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two gets a comprehensive treatment in my History section, a short reminder is certainly advisable. The reader must by no means confuse Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two with the 1^st and 2^nd volumes of Hitler’s infamous book. In my treatment, Mein Kampf One is the first edition of Mein Kampf (1925), consisting of a single volume. The later second edition (1926) consisting of volume 1 and the newly written volume 2 presents a radically revised version of the original book. For this reason I call both volume 1 and volume 2 of the second edition “Mein Kampf Two.”

The following are a few instructive details on the sorely confused political beliefs of Germany’s Man of the Prinzip, which obviously belong to his “Mein Kampf Two” period, when his motivated anti-Soviet and pro-Western handlers put him on a collision course with the USSR... I am condensing here a modern Western source in Wikipedia, which ought not to be completely trusted, not because it is Wikipedia, but because all Western sources (and the Russians assist them by keeping silent on this crucial matter) do not seem, or do not wish to understand the key difference between Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two amply discussed in the History section.

In a nutshell, Hitler originally regarded international capitalism as the greatest enemy of German national-socialism. On the other hand, he believed that Russian socialism could be an ally of German socialism, but only on the condition of its purification from the “communists.” The question of Lebensraum, a glaring contradiction, was not an issue in Mein Kampf One, but became a compelling issue in Mein Kampf Two.

In Hitler’s mind, Communism is the primary enemy of Germany. (Western capitalism had been the actual enemy in Mein Kampf One, but this fact is habitually disregarded by Western historians. What really unites MKI and MKII, what rides strong through them despite their otherwise diametrical opposition, is Hitler’s morbid anti-Semitism. In both cases, financial capitalism in the first, and “Marxist communism” in the second, are attributed to Jewish influence. Try to figure that one out!) The following is quoted from Mein Kampf Two:

“…In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which have now become members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated… In this manner, the struggle against the present State had been placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle, on behalf of a Weltanschauung, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms…” (Clearly, to Hitler, Western financial capitalism is the most distinctive “shape and form” of Marxism. Let’s keep that in mind before we carelessly equate Hitler’s anti-Marxism with anti-Sovietism. In fact, the only issue putting Hitler on a collision course with Russia is Lebensraum!)

“In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public, but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defense against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.”

According to Hitler, Marxism is a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the World:

“For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance. (Communism in the service of capitalism?! Isn’t that a little bit confusing?. But we can clearly see from this weird sentence where MKI meets MKII.) Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against Germany that take place in any part of the world, the Jew is always the instigator. In peacetime, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press had systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own people. The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes perfectly clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say the extermination of patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labor to bear the yoke of the international Jewish finance-- that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule.” (Observe how Hitler makes indistinguishable “communism” and financial capitalism. This is obviously not exactly the raving of a lunatic, since most of the German nation would eventually embrace this kind of “Weltanschauung.” Take notice, however, that Hitler’s rhetoric here, a strong echo of Mein Kampf One, is decidedly more anti-capitalist than anti-Soviet, for what it’s worth.)

To be continued…

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2016

Happy Fourth of July to the American readers of our blog!

May this day always remind the American people of the true foundation of this nation’s greatness.

Galina and Alexander.

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART I.

What is political correctness? It is a refusal to face and discuss uncomfortable things. It is an enthusiastic adherence to outright clichés and platitudes which nobody would quarrel with, and extreme fear of any kind of political terra incognita.

As a result, political correctness amounts to philosophical and political impotence, business as usual, if you like, but at a terrible hidden cost to the nation that practices it.

Staying out of politics and not holding a politically-charged job, I enjoy the luxury of having flushed political correctness down the drain. This  is also a tribute, with the Fourth of July approaching, to the great country where free thought is still allowed, although it does not pay much, or rather, not at all.

And so, my treatment of sensitive subjects continues.

The series on Italian fascism is inevitably followed by the series on German fascism. General entries on the nature of totalitarianism can be found throughout my blog postings over the last decade, and some more of them will follow later.

***

For obvious reasons, I used to find Mussolini and the fascist regime in Italy theoretically far more interesting than the Nazi German counterpart. After all, Italy takes precedence over Germany in that respect, and her philosophical study of the nature of totalitarismo and fascismo (both originally-coined Italian words), plus the international stature of their chief philosophical proponent Giovanni Gentile, makes it a no-contest comparison.

But of course there is a big difference between politico-philosophical theory and political practice, and here the situation is dramatically reversed. Whereas politically the Mussolini regime proved to be rather shaky, even without the misfortunes of getting drawn into World War II terminally, Hitler’s Germany displayed a remarkable staying power, and, had it not been for a series of lethal blunders on Der Führer’s part, the biggest of them being his 1941 invasion of Russia, the Third Reich might have come triumphant out of WWII, with consequences of unimaginable nature. It is, therefore, not so much a question of subjective interest (mainly from the politico-philosophical point of view, to be sure) as it is of objective geo-political importance, and it is in this latter respect that Germany of the Third Reich is unquestionably more important than Italy of the Last Imperium.

There are several entries relating to Hitler in my History section, and even more on him in my unpublished book Stalin, and Other Family. The rationale for this entry is to provide some additional information on him, for the purpose of further study. The title here is Man Of The Prinzip, which is, of course, not a unique feature of the Nazi regime. The Führerprinzip, although a German word, identifies the most characteristic element of the nature of all totalitarian societies, and as such equally applies to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin before him; Mao, Kim, and Ho after him, not to mention numerous other lesser cases. In a well-refined and somewhat humanized form it is present in the Putin cult in today’s Russia, and I do not see anything wrong with that, as long as the particular national psyche demands a heroic leader now. It is only the abuse, which often comes naturally, of the office of the Leader, that leads the society away from healthy totalitarianism toward unhealthy authoritarian excesses, which ought to be condemned and delegitimized.

Hitler’s initial excesses were ostensibly legitimized by Germany’s mistreatment after the Great War (World War I). No such abuse was done to Germany after World War II, even though the German nation may have deserved it the second time around to a far greater extent than in the first instance.

But Hitler’s later excesses on all fronts revealed a very high level of political inconsistency which weighed the state down, and eventually made the lethal mistakes of the regime inevitable.

To be continued…

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART VII.

The informative Mussolini sketch concludes.

This time it’s mostly about Mussolini, gleaned from formal sources of information. I wish these sources had been more involved, more “subjective,” to tell the truth. Mussolini demands more scholarly attention than he is getting. More than anything else, he demands an honest assessment with direct reference to our modern times.

Except for a short closing remark, the bulk of Part IV of the Mussolini entry consists of important reference material highlighted by the teal font, with my occasional interjections done in red. I am quite aware that all of this material can be dug up by a diligent reader from reference sources, but I consider being pointed to this material of greater value than keeping an enormous encyclopedia of facts and figures at hand without a special incentive to open it.

Please keep in mind that I do not automatically subscribe to the teal-fonted text below, whenever I leave it without any comment. In fact, I disagree with much in it. I recommend that the reader go through the information contained here with some attention, but take all opinions expressed with a rock of salt.

Hopefully, I have presented my rationale for quoting it at such length with sufficient adequacy. This is my scholarly pitch in support of further study, whereas my scholarly view of this matter is scattered throughout the entirety of this very important and extremely current multi-parter.

***

But Mussolini’s ‘axis’ with Germany was confirmed when he made the “Pact of Steel” with Hitler in May 1939. Clearly the subordinate partner, Mussolini followed the Nazis in adopting a racial policy which led to the persecution of the Jews and to the creation of ‘apartheid’ in the Italian empire. Formerly, Jews were not specifically persecuted by Fascism. Jewish leaders were high members of the Fascist Party. Later, he would refuse to allow Jews to be deported to concentration camps up until Germany occupied Italy during the war. Members of TIGR, a Slovene anti-fascist group, plotted to kill Mussolini in 1938, but this was unsuccessful. (When with Berlin, don’t do as the Romans do? A bitter lesson for Mussolini! Forgive me, but how can I restrain myself from having some cruel fun over modern times: When in EU, don’t do as they’d like to do in your paltry village…)

The term Axis Powers was coined by Mussolini in November 1936, when he spoke of a Rome-Berlin axis in reference to the treaty of friendship signed between Italy and Germany on October 25, 1936. In May 1939, Mussolini would describe the relationship with Germany as a Pact of Steel, something, which he had earlier referred to as a Pact of Blood. (As for Japan, a presumably Axis power, she never followed Hitler’s bidding, but fell on entirely her own [?] Samurai sword.)

As World War II approached, Mussolini announced his intention of annexing Malta, Corsica, and Tunis. He spoke of creating a “New Roman Empire,” which would stretch from Libya to Palestine; and from Egypt to Kenya. In April 1939, after a brief war, he annexed Albania. This campaign strained his military. His armed forces were unprepared for combat at the time when Germany invaded Poland leading to World War II. He thus decided to remain non-belligerent until he was quite certain which side would win. (A classic example of strategic indecision. Italy tied herself to Hitler at the time of his success, and next shared his debacle. Alas, Mussolini was not as smart as Franco. In fact, he wasn’t too smart, after all!)

On June 10, 1940, as the Germans under General Guderian reached the English Channel, Italy declared war on Britain and France. In October, Italy attacked Greece, in what is generally seen as a failure. In June 1941 it declared war on the Soviet Union and in December on the United States. (From now on, Hitler’s impending doom becomes Mussolini’s impending doom, and Mussolini’s story becomes as predictable as the story of a stone tossed up high into the air and then returning back to earth.)

Following Italy’s defeats on all fronts aggravated by the Anglo-American landing in Sicily in 1943, most of his colleagues (Count Galeazzo Ciano, foreign minister and Mussolini’s son-in-law included) turned against him at a meeting of the Fascist Grand Council on June 25, 1943; this enabled the king to dismiss and arrest him. On July 8, 1943, King Victor Emmanuel III called Mussolini to his palace, and stripped the dictator of his power. Upon leaving the palace, Mussolini was swiftly arrested. He was sent to Gran Sasso, a mountain recovery in central Italy, in complete isolation.

Mussolini was substituted by the Maresciallo d’Italia General Pietro Badoglio, who immediately declared, in a famous speech: “La guerra continua a fianco dell'Alleato Germanico!” (“War continues at the side of our German allies”), but was instead working to negotiate a surrender. In a few days (on September the 8^th) Badoglio would sign an armistice with the Allied troops.

Rescued by the Germans several months later in a spectacular raid led by Otto Skorzeny, Mussolini set up the Italian Social Republic, a Republican Fascist state (RSI, Repubblica Sociale Italiana) in northern Italy, with him living in Gargnano. But he was now little more than a puppet under the protection of the German Army. In this Republic of Salo, Mussolini returned to his earlier ideas of socialism and collectivization. He also executed some of the Fascist leaders, who had abandoned him, including Galeazzo Ciano. During this period he also wrote his memoirs, entitled My Rise and Fall.

On April 28, 1945, just before the Allied armies reached Milan, Mussolini, along with his mistress Claretta Petacci, were caught by Italian partisans as he headed for Chiavenna to board a plane to Switzerland. They were both shot on the spot along with their sixteen-man escort. The next day the bodies were hung in Milan along with those of other fascists to be abused by the crowds. Mussolini’s body was then taken to Predappio and to the family chapel. Mussolini was survived by his wife Rachele Mussolini nèe Guidi, by his two sons, Vittorio and Romano Mussolini, and his daughter Edda, the widow of Count Ciano. A third son, Bruno, had been killed in an air accident, testing a military plane. Mussolini’s granddaughter Alessandra, daughter of Romano, is a deputy in the Republican Chamber.

Thus ends the story of Mussolini without ever providing us with a clear answer as to why Italy first saluted him, then destroyed him and abused his body. The explanation of his rise and fall by, first, his nation’s high hopes, then, its bitter disappointment, is obviously true, but too generic and non-specific. The short answer which has to suffice for the moment is Vae Victis! A more interesting question is why the Axis Powers lost World War II? My firm answer gives the only reason that makes sense to me. They lost the war on the day, June 22, 1941, when Hitler attacked Russia.

The End.

IL DUCE OF THE LAST IMPERIUM. PART VI.

The informative Mussolini sketch continues, with my comments in red.

***

At various times after 1922, Mussolini personally took over the ministries of the interior, foreign affairs, of the colonies, of the corporations, of the army and the other armed services, and of public works. Sometimes he held as many as seven departments simultaneously, as well as the premiership. (It was his political and administrative misfortune, rather than an ego trip on his part, that he was unable to delegate these high responsibilities to competent and reliable agents.)

He was also head of the all-powerful Fascist party (formed in 1921) and of the armed local Fascist militia, which terrorized incipient resistances in the cities and the provinces. In this way he succeeded in keeping power in his own hands and preventing the emergence of any rival. But it was at the price of creating a regime that was over-centralized, inefficient, and corrupt. (It may be reasonably argued that diversity results in higher efficiency. But can diversity be allowed in wartime even in democratic societies?)

Mussolini was a passionate public speaker. Most of his time was spent on propaganda, whether at home or abroad, and here his training as a journalist was priceless. Press, radio, education, films,--- all were carefully supervised to manufacture the illusion that Fascism was the doctrine of the 20^th century, replacing liberalism and democracy. The principles of this doctrine were laid down in the article on Fascism written by Giovanni Gentile and signed by Mussolini, which appeared in 1932 in the Enciclopedia Italiana. (This is a terribly important document which needs a very careful study. But how many political scientists of today are even aware of its existence and availability for study?)

In 1929, a concordat with the Vatican was signed by which the Italian state was at last recognized by the Roman Catholic Church and the independence of Vatican City was recognized by the Italian state. (How ironic that the modern city-state of Vatican formally owes its existence to Mussolini’s Fascist regime!)

Under the dictatorship, the effectiveness of parliamentary system was virtually abolished, although its forms were publicly preserved. The law codes were rewritten. Teachers in schools and universities had to swear an oath to defend the Fascist regime. Newspaper editors were all personally chosen by Mussolini himself, and no one could practice journalism who did not possess a certificate of approval from the Fascist Party. The trade unions were also deprived of any independence, and integrated into the so-called ‘corporative system.’ The aim inspired by medieval guilds but never completely achieved, was to place all Italians in professional organizations, or corporations, all of them under governmental control. (It can be argued that this situation amounts to a normal pledge of allegiance carried too far. But doesn’t it go without saying that such a situation ought to be carefully studied and meaningfully applied to modern times?)

Mussolini at first ingratiated himself with his financial backers by transferring several industries from public to private ownership. But by the 1930’s he was moving back to the opposite extreme of rigid governmental control of industry. A lot of money was spent on highly visible public works, but the economy suffered from his taxing efforts to make Italy self-sufficient. There was too much concentration on the heavy industry, for which Italy lacked the basic resources. (It is most illuminating to compare this effort under Mussolini in Italy with the parallel effort in the USSR. For several reasons the comparison ought not to be expanded to include other countries of the same time frame.)

In foreign policy, Mussolini quickly shifted from the pacifist anti-imperialism of his lead-up to power, to an extreme form of aggressive nationalism. An early example of this was his bombardment of Corfu, in 1923. Soon after this he succeeded in setting up a puppet regime in Albania and in ruthlessly consolidating Italian power in Libya, loosely a colony since 1912. It was his dream to make the Mediterranean a mare nostrum. In 1935, at the Stresa Conference, he helped create an anti-Hitler front in order to defend the independence of Austria. (What a delectable irony! The original Fascist-in-Chief helping create and even participating in, even if for a fairly short time, what would become known as the anti-Fascist coalition, more accurately described, of course, as the anti-Hitler coalition.)

But his successful war against Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935-1936 was opposed by the League of Nations, and he sought an alliance with Nazi Germany, which had withdrawn from the League in 1933. (Could the League of Nations have acted differently, I wonder, just to prevent Mussolini’s alliance with Hitler? Not by condoning Italy’s Ethiopian war, but by somehow luring El Duce away from Der Führer?.. Difficult, but perhaps not impossible, to paraphrase a Godfather line.)

His intervention in 1936-1939 on Franco’s side in the Spanish Civil War ended any possibility of reconciliation with France and Britain. (Here’s to the late Generalissimo Franco’s staying power! “Franco’s side” lost, but Franco won…)

As a result he had to accept the German annexation of Austria in 1938 and also the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, in 1939. At Munich, in 1938, he posed as a moderate working for peace in Europe. (Nota bene! Once again a sorely lost opportunity for a serious anti-Hitler coalition. I have a feeling that the Western powers had their wishes set on a Hitler-Stalin confrontation, and did not want to do anything to prevent what would become known as World War II…)

To be continued…

JUNE 22, 2016... SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO

This solemn day marks the 75^th anniversary of Germany’s attack on the USSR in World War II. The day that put Russia to the greatest test in her modern history, which she passed with the flying colors of victory. The day that would destroy Hitler’s Third Reich and make Russia a world superpower. Yes, it was this dark day, the day of Hitler’s greatest folly, that made the great day of Victory, on May 9^th, 1945, inevitable.

For the sake of world peace, and to avoid a World War III, let us make sure that this day is never forgotten.

Galina and Alexander.