Flaws in Hitler's "Breakthrough"

This week I noticed the interesting effects Hitler’s methods and characteristics as an individual and party leader had on the events from the mid-twenties onward. It’s pointed out multiple times by Kershaw that the ideals of Hitler’s movement united Germans from quite different socioeconomic classes who were all affected by the struggling economy of the republic. He discusses how Hitler used the strong lingering feelings of unrest and distrust to create his movement out of those with seemingly different backgrounds. As Kershaw explains, “there was a common feeling of elemental, visceral hatred for the Weimar state itself, for the ‘system’ as it was so often called. Hatred, as Hitler had recognized, was among the most powerful of emotions” (316). The problem with this is that hatred can often lead people to become volatile and impulsive, so they need a leader who can present a clear, calm message that spurs them on without becoming a self-destructive tornado of emotion. Hitler was clearly not that man. While he certainly used these feelings to his advantage in gaining support, his leadership techniques could not sustain such recklessness and definitely contributed to his downfall in the end. More specifically, Kershaw describes Hitler in the following way: “Inaccessibility, sporadic and impulsive intervention, unpredictability, lack of a regular working pattern, administrative disinterest, and ready resort to long-winded monologues instead of attention to detail were all hallmarks of Hitler’s style as a party leader” (347). I don’t yet know enough about the particular details of Hitler’s demise, but I can definitely see how such qualities could not have been effective in creating a long-term change for the country. Hatred certainly demands attention, but lacking in reason and rational ideas, it rarely produces good. Still, I was intrigued to see how, as always, Hitler broke the mold of previous unstable leaders and dictators and managed to cause such tremendous upheaval so quickly. On 317 Kershaw points out that, “Economic crises frequently unseat governments. It is much rarer for them to destroy systems of government”. Through the already present dissatisfaction with the entire Weimar system and the bubbling hatred of the German people, more than just the leader of the republic was changed. Kershaw describes a majority of the German people as simply “tolerating” the government, so it seems reasonable that without active citizens to hold it up, the entire system would crumble (317). I do wonder though, how this specific case of economic downturn was different enough to lead to such a large-scale change; it surely was not the only factor involved.