Kershaw argues that World War I would be a deciding factor in Hitler turning into the man he would turn into. It was important to Hitler in many ways. One way relates back to one of the discussions we had in recitation about Hitler failing in most things he did in his early life. Kershaw describes Hitler being elated when news of the war broke out. He joined the army quickly and finally found himself part of a group where he was accepted and where he could contribute successfully. He did find success in the army and even earned some medals. It seemed like Hitler finally found a place for himself after failing many times to live up to the standards he and his family set for him.
This feeling of belonging to the German Army and all it stood for would only strengthen his pride in Germany. Kershaw describes this pride becoming fanatical during this time and carrying over when he would be injured and hospitalized. It is in the hospital that beliefs he developed in Vienna would be strengthened. Of course Hitler was devastated when news of Germany’s loss reached him in the hospital. Kershaw says, “The prejudices and phobias carried over from the Vienna years were now plainly evident in his embittered rage about the collapse of the war effort- a cause to which, for the first time in his live, he had totally bound himself, the summations of all he believed” (102). Hitler cried for the first time since his mother died. It was after the loss of the war that Hitler decided to enter politics to restore Germany to glory.
The reaction of the rest of the world would also have an effect on Hitler taking power. The revolution and the reaction of the rest of the world by the punishment of Germany would pave the way for Hitler to gain the amount of power he did. WWI strengthened Hitler’s pride in Germany and his detest for anything that he deemed as un- German. The Revolution would become a personal attack for Hitler, something unforgivable. WWI would become a very important factor in Hitler entering politics and being able to later become the absolute power that he did.
-Katherine Carvin
I agree that Germany losing WWI strengthened Hitler's Vienna ideas, but that due to his personality, he took the national defeat as a personal failure. Kershaw notes that Hitler has attempted and failed throughout his life, and becomes embittered with rage and seeks to rationalize. He rationalized his rejection from art school with the notion that his path was to pursue a career in architecture instead, and he "chose" to do poorly in school because he was too smart to be held to the same standards as the other students. He reacted to WWI in sort of the same way, except he was way too invested in the war. Finally, he was a part of something supporting the country he loved, had sense of national purpose, and was provided adequate food and shelter for doing so. Hitler had never known victory, and saw the war as a viable way to achieve something for once, for himself and his favorite country. Faced with yet another defeat, Hitler chose not consider the poorly thought out plans of the German military or the fact that Germany was fighting a war against multiple enemies. He sought solace in scapegoats: Marxists, Jews, etc. Germany's defeat was due to internal sabotage. As Katherine says, "…Hitler decided to enter politics to restore Germany to glory." His political mission was kind of like his architectural mission, except he was actually successful politically, convincing others of a central struggle. Without the German national crises brought about be the loss of WWI and revolution, I doubt Hitler would have had the motivation to do anything besides sulk, read in coffee shops, and try to free-load off the government.
ReplyDeleteBuilding off of Lila’s comment that Hitler, in seeking to rationalize his way out of yet another defeat in his life by finding scapegoats such as the Marxists and Jews, it was quite fortunate for Hitler that this personal need for a scapegoat was shared by so many around him, and very soon became the most viable solution to cope with their feelings of disillusionment and humiliation. This ties back in with Kershaw’s notion of “great men” being a product of a combination of both their personal traits and the historical/structural circumstances surrounding them. Kershaw mentions the fact that the speeches that Hitler would become so well-known for amongst the growing German ‘National’ Socialist movement were in fact not at all original or innovative, but rather regurgitations of deep-seated prejudices and bitterness shared by the disillusioned masses of Germany. In a way, Hitler’s timing was impeccable, and he was in fact the perfect spokesperson for these base emotions and hatreds of the public. The convictions of his speeches were based on a vague idea of “German national glory”, and in no way addressed the fundamental issues surrounding Germany’s loss, such as the challenge of a two-front war and poor planning on the part of the German military that Lila mentions. Thus, what was Hitler’s own sense of resentment at the outcome of the war fit perfectly with the desperate need of the German masses to find a way out of their sense of national humiliation. Hitler’s personal need for a scapegoat reflected the nation’s own need for a scapegoat. As Kershaw states, without the particular political climate of post-war Germany at the time, “Hitler would have found himself in any case without an audience, his ‘talent’ pointless and unrecognized, his tirades of hate without echo, the backing from those close to the avenues of power, on whom he depended, unforthcoming” (131).
ReplyDelete