Throughout all the readings we have done, the image of Hitler was not one of a leader but more of an agitator. Even though he wished to invoke the image of a “great man” such as Bimarck he was far from it. His lack of intelligence and crude behavior is often cited by Kershaw in a variety of ways including the “ramblings” that made up Mein Kampf.
This caused me to think how is that someone who seems so incompetent and lacking in many key aspects of leadership develop the kind of following that the Nazis had. I think that what I failed to understand before was that it was the emotion that he invoked in people and his followers unquestionable devotion in him that was more important than his actual ideas. I think a perfect example of this is when a former Russian aristocrat hears one Hitler's speeches and “The content of the speech evidently left no mark on him. But by the end he was crying with emotion: 'a liberating scream of purest enthusiasm discharged the unbearable tension as the auditorium rocked with applause.” (295) His ability to be that “consummate actor” and subtly change the way he conveyed his message also was incredibly important as seen in his interaction with the bourgeois crowd in Hamburg.
His ability to invoke this type of response in a crowd was clearly not the defining factor in his rise. The fact that he was surrounded by capable propagandists Strasser and Goebbels definitely enabled his “Fuhrer Cult” to form. The fact that Germany was undergoing major upheavals during the period after World War 1 and after 1929 also contributed to this. However, in trying to understand how a seemingly incompetent man was able to build up a cult as strong as 'Fuhrer Cult' in a relatively well educated country like Germany can be attributed to his 'feel' for inciting raw emotions of hatred in his followers.
The paragraph on page 295 describing Hitler’s followers after hearing his speeches stuck out to me during my reading as well. I agree that Hitler evoking emotion in others was clearly the reason they trusted him so deeply. I put a lot of the emotion Hitler’s followers felt towards him into perspective when I read one party member’s describe Hitler as evoking “the feeling of every good German. The German soul spoke to the German manhood in his words…I saw his unlimited faith in his people and the desire to set them free” (295) Hitler’s speeches alone gave off such a vibe of confidence and assurance to the people that they were willing to do whatever he told them. He could clearly make them feel passion for things they hadn’t been emotionally invested in before. He could transform into a different role or character every time he spoke. Hitler was very aware of his audience and knew just the way to make them want to fight for his cause, by making it into their cause as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this talent was not what gave way to the rise of the Nazis, and that many other factors put together made this group really form and grow, but it is certainly another aspect to understand.
I was intrigued with the notion of loyalty, specifically how the unity and functioning of the party was enveloped in Hitler’s person and how many attributed “the leader as the focus of unity” (289). I found it telling that Kershaw repeatedly asserts how Hitler had no real plan, no strategy for how his plans would be realized, but he was nonetheless steadfast in their completion, “Hitler himself had no concrete notion. He just had the certainty of the fanatical ‘conviction politician’ that it would be attained,” (290). In much the same way Hitler charted no path to the distant utopia he spoke of, Hitler’s audiences directed their admiration not to what he said, in fact some didn’t really agree with what he proclaimed at all, but were still captivated by “the person of the speaker,” (293). This disconnection and blind allegiance seems somewhat foolish to me, that a party should be solely consumed by one person, that all its hopes be vested in one incompetent man, is appalling. As the previous comment points out, Hitler most certainly had a way of getting people emotionally invested in something they previously had no connection with, and it’s this ability to incite hatred in people that propelled him to success. I, too, was taken with the quote from page 295 regarding how Hitler had a way of speaking to the German soul and how in doing so he fostered in the people a sense of iron faith in him and an unyielding loyalty, a loyalty which served to perpetuate his “Leader” figure. Like this blog post said, it wasn’t all just about his ability to captivate, but also the fact that he was surrounded by people like Goebbel, who were not only profoundly moved by his figure, but had a way of promoting that feeling and in effect getting more people on board with the movement, with Hitler.
ReplyDeletePerhpas the biggest questions we are faced with are How were Hitler and the Nazis able to come to power? How could something like this happen? In terms of Hitler's personal popularity, I have really come to see that it was not what Hitler had to say that influenced people, but how he said it. This seems to be the conclusion that most of us are coming to, but I'm interested to read that a couple of my classmate's agree that Hitler's talents in manipulation of an audience were not the defining factor of his rise to power. It seems to me that without these talents it would have been impossible for Hitler to be successful as a leader. The German people were desperate to feel proud of themselves and love their country in the aftermath of World War I, and as long as Hitler could evoke that within them, it didn't matter what he told them. They would follow.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that it was Hitler's skills as a passionate and emotional orator, not just the message he was spreading, that contributed to his rise to power. I think that the devastated economic and political atmosphere in Germany after World War I set up perfect conditions for someone as radical as Hitler to take power. The German people were not looking for a leader who was similar to the leaders they had seen before, because clearly, that only led them into desperate conditions. Hitler's radical and revolutionary way of thinking, and way of projecting his thoughts, was what made him so successful in capturing Germany's attention.
ReplyDelete