I know the history, but I want perspectives.
The Political, Social, and Religious Ideology of Hitler
Posts
Total:
44
I would say that his political ideology was government totalitarianism while putting effort to win popular support.
Hitler wanted for masses to support his decisions.
He spent lots of money on propaganda and did lots of speeches himself just to brainwash masses.
While he did have unlimited power on paper, he didnt rely on that alone to rule. He did everything to win support not just from military, but from majority in society.
He took over all media, and even had a propaganda minister.
Its kinda like in North Korea today.
When it comes to religion, its really hard to tell if Hitler was religious, or just pretended to be religious. This is the guy who would pretend to be anything just to win popular support.
Oh, sorry I thought this topic was about Trump.
Maybe Hitler just believed in survival at all costs? Which is understandable. Of course, there's more to it than that, of which made Hitler so detestable
-->
@Best.Korea
Masses bleat and do as they are told.
Same old format.
-->
@Best.Korea
If he wasn't religious in the common sense, I think it's reasonable to believe that he at least believed in divinity since I cannot imagine a person putting as much effort into his pursuit without a belief in divine fulfillment.
-->
@Critical-Tim
What do you mean by divinity?
National Socialism wasn't so much a hard ideology as it was the personality of Hitler and his cronies; or in other words, whatever the sales pitch for NSDAP and its leadership to stay in power was at a given time. There were consistent elements like ultranationalism and antisemitism (neither of which was a unique innovation of this government), but otherwise it was prone to waffle on a lot of issues.
Sometimes they spoke the language of "survival of the fittest" corporatists and other times they were economic populists promising to take care of the little guy. Sometimes they claimed to be the saviors of Christendom and other times they flirted with Germanic neopaganism. Young German women were part of government programs where they'd be encouraged to bang soldiers and get pregnant; other times, this same government extolled traditional family values. Hitler railed against urban cosmopolitan values and had a "back to the land" movement, while also engaging in building projects to make world-class modern German cities. At times Hitler even tried to sell himself as a champion of anti-colonialism, so far as concerned British and French colonies (apparently, even Gandhi bought into this act).
One could even go so far as to say that neo-Nazism doesn't truly exist, since there's no fixed set of uniquely Nazi principles to endure beyond the original context of Nazi Germany.
Same as Juche; ideologically a nothing-burger that couldn't really be exported, but it makes sense in describing the reign of Kim Jong Un over North Korea. Or Putinism in 21st century Russia.
-->
@Lemming
When I said a belief in divinity, I meant the belief that certain things have greater inherent significance, of or relating to the divine.
Aka, he wasn't a nihilistic atheist.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Nihilism and atheism are two separate issues.
Nihilism in itself is a contradiction.
Professing to be nihilistic, is purposeful.
So:
Hitler was conditioned and driven by the events of his life, particularly WW1 and nationalism.
Though:
Like most dictators, was Hitler also driven by a desire for power and wealth?
Or were these just the consequential trappings of his overwhelming nationalistic desires?
-->
@Critical-Tim
What do you mean by,
"the belief that certain things have greater inherent significance"
The way I'm reading this is either as,
Some law/rule/cycle that one expects in existence,
Or some arbitrary X held in highest value to maximize/hold to.
-->
@Lemming
Belief in divinity is the acceptance, conviction, or faith in the existence of a higher, supernatural power or force that transcends the natural world. It encompasses a profound conviction that this divine entity holds significance, authority, and influence over the universe and may be attributed with qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. This belief often forms the basis for religious and spiritual frameworks, shaping individuals' understanding of existence, morality, and the purpose of life.
I was implying that even if Hitler wasn't religious in the common sense, he probably still believed in something similar to manifest destiny, in that he found great meaning and purpose in the pursuit of his divinity, while if he believed there was no such thing as divinity, such as nothing matters, than he wouldn't have found meaning or the drive needed to fuel his efforts towards overcoming the tramendous obsticales he did.
-->
@Critical-Tim
I don't understand what it means to transcend the natural world?
Even if one has a high regard of nature, destiny, or some law of existence,
It is still 'part of existence, not above it,
I would think?
-->
@zedvictor4
Professing one's nihilism is not a contradiction in itself.
Nihilism is the philosophical perspective that posits the absence of inherent meaning, objective purpose, or intrinsic value in the universe. It contends that traditional beliefs, moral values, and societal structures are ultimately baseless and without objective foundation. Nihilism often asserts that life lacks inherent significance, and any assigned meaning is a subjective and arbitrary construct rather than an inherent truth. This worldview challenges conventional notions of purpose and meaning, suggesting a fundamental emptiness or lack of inherent order in existence.
Therefore, a person can openly claim to be nihilistic and find subjective value in doing so, meanwhile not contradicting their stance of nihilism.
I used nihilistic atheist to describe an atheist who is nihilistic, knowing they are two seperate terms, necessitating my use of both for precision. I described him as not a nihilistic atheist upon my theory that being nihilistic he would not believe in true purpose or meaning to fuel his motivation, and atheist in that he would also need to believe his efforts were a path of righteousness that must be fulfilled, such as in manifest destiny.
-->
@Lemming
I believe we are touching on a bit of metaphysics, which asks the question about the nature of what reality we are describing.
I believe the strongest argument could be held that there is only one relavent reality, intersubjective phenomenological reality, aka, common human experience.
In the idea that we are positing a reality whose nature is the common human experience, We couldn't consider dreams, concepts, and ideas as examples of real aspects of reality that transcend the natural world, physical world.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Alright, that satisfies me.
As for the topic,
My view is that Hitler was an Atheist and a Nihilist,
Yet being human, set upon the German nation, history, and blood as his paperclips to maximize,
As well as using science and nature (Survival of the fittest) as part of his yardstick and appreciation for what it 'meant to maximize the German people.
I think he went crazy from some mix of his genetics, upbringing, and drug use.
Crazy people can be inconsistent.
I think he had an interest or rut in politics and power,
Political statements can be inconsistent/liars.
Survival of the Fittest,
I think was one of Hitlers pillars.
Though on another hand,
People views can change in time and situation.
Even in the course of a day,
Some individuals 'stated views can change.
As with the change of what they are might have changed,
Power at all costs can be important to one holding power,
But make them a prisoner,
And different values can emerge.
New formed, old buried, or partially submerged.
-->
@Lemming
I agree and like that you highlight beliefs and values evolve, especially after influential events.
Survival of the fittest was one of Hitler's slogans, he claimed that in order to prepare humanity against future disasters inevitable in our infinite future we must find the strongest and smartest by combative elimination in order to reproduce and evolve the populus to be stronger and smarter genetically.
-->
@Lemming
I think it's also important to gain both perspective and perceived introspection.
What was Hilter's political view could become:
How did Hitler see his political group?
How did Germans see Hitler's political group?
How did other nations see Hitler's political group?
An example of this could be related to Thanos.
People often see Thanos as genocidal.
Thanos saw himself as a utilitarian martyr.
I think in the case of Thanos, both perspectives are correct.
In the long-term the sum of happiness was increased, along with a decrease in suffering, but he was also a mass murderer.
This doesn't help us answer the question of what is right, but it does give us a clearer understanding of the situation, such as how Thanos could believe he was a savior, and how others could dislike him despite his results.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Well, I imagine after losing WW1,
Germany getting saddled with the blame and debt,
He and many Germans were rather stung on their pride.
'Wanting war, some of them,
Even if gains could be made in peace,
Viewed their defeat in war could only be made right 'by war.
"There is evidence to suggest Hitler had started mapping out his plans as early as 1926. The two postcard-sized sketches he made then of the Great Arch, which he envisaged as a reinterpretation of Germany’s defeat in the first world war and was to have been engraved with the names of Germany’s 1.8 million war dead, he handed to Speer in the summer of 1936."
. . .
While fronts cracked, while thousand of German troops took themarch into the grave, while the vapor trails of powerful enemy bomber formations patterned the sky over Germany, Hitler whipped himself up into a pathological impotent hatred, which allowed the demoniac side of his personality to emerge, the side which had remained hidden in thedays of his success. The change took place in the course of a few months.My father told my mother that one evening at the end of July 1943,he was witness of a second utterance by Hitler on the subject of the end of the war, which he had found no less shattering.
" If the German people are incapable of winning the war," Hitler had said, " then they can rot." In any case, the best were already dead. If he was to be beaten, he would fight for every house, nothing would be left. A great people must die heroically—it was a historic necessity. " Sometimes you feel that he's no longer quite normal," my father commented, when he spoke of this incident.
- The Rommel Papers
Hitler was fond of Wagner and his epic operas as I recall.
I vaguely recall claims of Hitler being beaten as a child by his father,
Of his parents deaths early in his life,
Of his niece killing herself,
He had a sister, but bit estranged I think.
. . .
Hitler was claimed at various times, to state an understanding that the war was lost,
Yet was he speaking honestly?
Did he realize Germany might survive if he declared peace, or gave up leadership?
Or was this an unacceptable risk to his person?
Risk to Germany, if it was dismembered after the war?
Risk to Germanies honor?
. . .
Hitler lied and set his underlings against each other,
Lied to foreign leaders,
Such a person perhaps sees lies 'everywhere,
Perhaps Hitler thought the war 'not lost, that people were exaggerating or lying.
. . .
Hitler had an exaggerated notion and hatred of the Jews and their influence/effects I think.
(The Holocaust)
Yet,
"Eduard Bloch (30 January 1872 – 1 June 1945) was an Austrian physician practicing in Linz, who, for many years until 1907, was the family doctor of Adolf Hitler and his family. When Hitler's mother, Klara, was dying of breast cancer, Bloch billed the family at a reduced cost and sometimes refused to bill them outright. An Austrian Jew, Bloch was awarded special protection by Hitler who personally intervened to ensure his safety following the German annexation of Austria in 1938.[1] Following Kristallnacht and the escalation of anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany, Hitler allowed Bloch to emigrate to the United States, where he lived until his death in 1945, succumbing to stomach cancer.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bloch#:~:text=Eduard%20Bloch%20(30%20January%201872,refused%20to%20bill%20them%20outright.
Not that racists are incapable of individual exception,
But one laments that such (Possibly) empathy could not have included so many more millions.
-->
@Lemming
The quote by the Rommel Papers seem to be accurate with his publicly announced belief in fighting to leave a dominant nation. By recognizing that Germany may lose, he understood it meant Germany was not the worthy champion by his own terms of a supreme nation.
-->
@Lemming
Hitler claimed his hatred for the Jews was because he blamed them for Germany's loss in World War 1, mainly because the US weapons supplier was a Jew and said he foresaw a war with Germany and wanted to be a part of it.
-->
@Lemming
I have not heard of his exemption and that is fascinating. It begs the question of why.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Claimed, hard to see his heart however.
. . .
Still,
A higher percentage of German Jews fought in World War I than of any other ethnic, religious or political minority in Germany; around 12,000 died in the fighting.[41][42]
Many German Jews supported the war out of patriotism; like many Germans, they viewed Germany's actions as defensive in nature and even left-liberal Jews believed Germany was responding to the actions of other countries,
Many German Jews supported the war out of patriotism; like many Germans, they viewed Germany's actions as defensive in nature and even left-liberal Jews believed Germany was responding to the actions of other countries,
In October 1916, the German Military High Command administered the Judenzählung (census of Jews). Designed to confirm accusations of the lack of patriotism among German Jews, the census disproved the charges, but its results were not made public.[52] Denounced as a "statistical monstrosity",[53] the census was a catalyst to intensified antisemitism and social myths such as the "stab-in-the-back myth" (Dolchstoßlegende).[54] For many Jews, the fact the census was carried out at all caused a sense of betrayal, as German Jews had taken part in the violence, food shortages, nationalist sentiment and misery of attrition alongside their fellow Germans, however most German-Jewish soldiers carried on dutifully to the bitter end.[48]
-->
@Critical-Tim
(Shrug) Who can say?
Empathy, people sometimes hate 'group, more than individual they know.
Duty, the Jewish man gave care to his Hitlers mother free of charge, a favor is returned.
Obligation, to his own mothers memory, and to keep from her memory, the horrors Hitler allowed.
Embarrassment, that others might hear of it, easier to just let the man emigrate away quietly.
Social Standing, others might look down on Hitler for a lack of the various other values such as empathy or duty.
Irritation. perhaps Hitler did not care, and just wanted the problem quickly solved and no longer bothering him.
Though some argue that a fear of Communism,
And a large Jewish representation (real or simply 'presented) in it and some other revolutionary ideas,
Added to the fuel of anti-semitism after WW1.
And there was 'some book on Nuremberg,
Where I vaguely recall Hermann Goering complaining about the number of Jewish owned businesses,
Course that doesn't mean there 'were 'that many Jewish businesses, but might mean many Germans 'thought that.
(Though there 'could have been a fair amount of Jewish businesses)
-->
@Critical-Tim
Inherent meaning.
A. Inherent metaphysical meaning, as in the transfer of abstract concepts.
B. Or physical meaning, as in the transfer of DNA and cognition.
Though both are the providers of inherent meaning.
As they are inextricably linked by human data processing.
For everyone who hasn't the time to read a full book, here is a detailed summary generated by Bing.
This part of the current page is an introduction to the book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
Part 1 of 7:
- The author’s background and motivation: The introduction gives a brief overview of Hitler’s life, from his birth in Braunau on the Inn, a border town between Germany and Austria, to his rise as the leader of the Nazi Party. It also explains why he wrote the book, which was to assert his authority, to settle accounts with his rivals, and to expound his racial and political ideology.
- The book’s content and style: The introduction describes the main themes and topics of the book, such as the German nation, the Jewish question, the struggle for power, the foreign policy, and the methods of propaganda and violence. It also comments on the book’s style, which is characterized by hatred, personalism, illogic, and bombast. It points out some of the changes and inconsistencies between different editions of the book.
- The book’s impact and significance: The introduction evaluates the book as a kind of “satanic Bible” that reveals Hitler’s plans and ambitions, and that influenced millions of followers and helpers. It also notes that the book was a source of Hitler’s private fortune, as it became a best-seller and a compulsory gift in Nazi Germany. It concludes that the book is a phenomenon that the world will ponder for centuries to come.
Part 2 of 7:
- Hitler’s rejection from the Academy of Art. He wanted to become a painter, but he was told that he had no talent for painting and that he should study architecture instead. He was shocked and disappointed by this verdict.
- Hitler’s loss of his father and mother. His father died when he was thirteen, and his mother died two years later after a long illness. He was left alone and poor, and had to struggle for his existence in Vienna. He had no formal education or training in architecture.
- Hitler’s social and political awakening. He witnessed the economic misery, moral coarseness, and intellectual lowliness of the Viennese workers. He also learned to hate the Austrian state, which he blamed for the degeneration of the German people. He developed a nationalist and anti-Semitic worldview, based on his historical studies and personal experiences.
- Hitler’s artistic and philosophical aspirations. He continued to pursue his dream of becoming an architect, despite the hardships and obstacles. He also read a lot of books and formed his own philosophy, which he regarded as the foundation of his future actions. He claimed that he had acquired all the essential knowledge and ideas in his youth.
Part 3 of 7:
- The author’s views on the French education system. The author criticizes the French education system for instilling a subjective and biased view of the greatness of France, and neglecting the objective facts and values of other nations. The author claims that this education is limited and superficial, and does not foster a genuine sense of patriotism or respect for other peoples.
- The author’s experiences with the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions. The author recounts how he was exposed to the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions as a building worker in Vienna, and how he was repelled by their doctrines and methods. He argues that the Social Democrats are a destructive force that uses lies, slander, terror, and violence to undermine the national economy, the state, and the culture. He also accuses them of exploiting the workers and preventing any real social improvement. He contrasts the trade unions as a legitimate means of defending the social rights of the workers, and the trade unions as an instrument of the class struggle. He blames the bourgeoisie for failing to recognize the importance of the trade unions and allowing the Social Democrats to take over them.
- The author’s discovery of the Jewish question. The author describes how he became aware of the Jewish question as a result of his political discussions and his study of the Social Democratic literature and press. He claims that he was initially indifferent or sympathetic to the Jews, but later he came to see them as the enemies of the nation and the driving force behind Social Democracy. He asserts that only by knowing the Jews can one understand the true aims and nature of Social Democracy, and that the Jews are a parasitic and corrupting people that must be eliminated.
Part 4 of 7:
- The author’s political awakening: The author describes how he became interested in politics and developed his anti-Semitic views after living in Vienna and observing the Jewish influence in various fields. He claims that he was acting in accordance with the will of God by fighting against the Jews.
- The author’s admiration for Joseph II: The author praises Joseph II, the Holy Roman Emperor, as the only one of the Habsburg dynasty who tried to unify and modernize the Austrian Empire by imposing a central and German policy. He laments that Joseph II died too soon and his successors were incompetent and weak.
- The author’s analysis of the Austrian state: The author argues that the Austrian state, composed of different nationalities, was doomed to fail unless it adopted a ruthless and persistent policy of centralization and Germanization. He criticizes the Habsburg rulers for neglecting this task and allowing the centrifugal forces of the individual peoples to grow stronger. He contrasts the Austrian state with the German Reich, which had a common cultural and racial foundation.
Part 5 of 7:
- The revolution of 1848 in Austria was driven by national rather than social or political causes, and it weakened the German dominance in the monarchy.
- The parliamentary system of the Austrian Reichsrat was based on the British model, but it was corrupted by the influence of the Jewish press and the lack of responsibility and ability of the deputies.
- The author criticizes the democratic principle of majority rule and the manipulation of public opinion by the press, which he considers to be a Jewish tool to undermine the German nation.
- The author contrasts the parliamentary democracy with the Germanic democracy, which he defines as the free election of a leader who assumes full responsibility for his actions.
- The author blames the House of Habsburg, especially Archduke Francis Ferdinand, for pursuing a policy of de-Germanization and Czechization, and for using religion as a political instrument.
- The author praises the Pan-German movement in Austria, which emerged as a reaction to the threat of the German nation in the monarchy. He also expresses his admiration for the German Empire and its military achievements.
Part 6 of 7:
- The Pan-German movement in Austria: A political party that aimed to unite all German-speaking people in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and join the German Reich. It was led by Georg von Schonerer, a nationalist and anti-Catholic politician.
- The Christian Social Party: A rival party that emerged in the late 19th century and gained popularity among the middle class and the Catholic clergy. It was led by Karl Lueger, a charismatic and pragmatic mayor of Vienna who wanted to reform the monarchy and preserve its multi-national character.
- The comparison of the two leaders and parties: The author analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of Schonerer and Lueger, and their different approaches to the social, national, and religious issues of their time. He criticizes the Pan-German movement for being too radical, dogmatic, and isolated from the masses, and praises the Christian Social Party for being more realistic, flexible, and appealing to the people.
- The failure of both movements to achieve their goals: The author concludes that neither movement was able to save Austria from its decline and disintegration. He blames the Pan-German movement for neglecting the importance of the masses and the social question, and for attacking the Catholic Church without offering a religious alternative. He blames the Christian Social Party for being too late and too limited in its efforts to reform the monarchy and resist the Slavic domination.
Part 7 of 7:
- The importance of propaganda for the movement. Hitler argues that propaganda is essential to win over the masses and influence their opinions. He says that propaganda must be simple, emotional, and repetitive, and that it must address only one side of the audience. He also says that propaganda must be consistent with the goals and methods of the movement, and that it must not contradict itself or the facts.
- The role of the press and the picture in propaganda. Hitler criticizes the press as a tool of the enemies of the nation, and says that it must be controlled by the movement. He says that the press must not only inform, but also educate and mobilize the people. He also praises the picture as a more effective means of propaganda than the written word, because it appeals to the masses more easily and quickly. He says that the picture can convey a general world view and a sense of beauty and strength.
- The art of correct reading and writing. Hitler says that reading and writing are not ends in themselves, but means to an end. He says that reading should help to fill the gaps in one’s knowledge and to form a coherent world picture. He says that writing should aim at influencing and convincing the audience, and that it should be adapted to their level and nature. He says that a good speaker can write better than a good writer can speak, unless the writer practices the art of speaking.
I hope this is at least an interesting read, but perhaps it could spark further conversation.
The book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler has the following origin, time, and title:
- Origin: The book was written by Hitler while he was imprisoned in Landsberg am Lech, a town in Bavaria, Germany, after his failed coup attempt in Munich in November 1923. He was sentenced to five years in prison for high treason, but he was released after nine months. He wrote the book with the help of his secretary Rudolf Hess and his publisher Max Amann.
- Time: The book was written in two parts. The first part was written in 1924, and the second part was written in 1926. The first part was published in July 1925, and the second part was published in December 1926. The book was edited and revised several times, and different editions had different lengths and contents. The book was banned in Germany after World War II, but it was reprinted and translated in many countries.
- Title: The title Mein Kampf means “My Struggle” or “My Fight” in German. It reflects Hitler’s personal and political struggle to achieve his goals and to overcome his enemies. It also implies that his struggle is the struggle of the German nation and the Aryan race. The title was suggested by Hitler’s publisher Max Amann, who thought that the original title, “Four and a Half Years (of Struggle) Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice”, was too long and boring.
- Intent: Hitler’s intent for the book Mein Kampf was to present his political manifesto and autobiography, in which he reveals his plans and ambitions for Germany and the world. He also used the book to assert his authority, to settle accounts with his rivals, and to expound his racial and political ideology. He hoped that the book would run into many editions, thus enabling him to fulfill his financial obligations and to defray the expenses incurred at the time of his trial. He also wanted to influence and convince the masses and the elites of his worldview and his leadership. He believed that his book was a phenomenon that the world would ponder for centuries to come.
- Effect: The effect of the book Mein Kampf on Germany was significant and profound. The book became the bible of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany's Third Reich, and influenced millions of followers and helpers of Hitler's ideology and regime. The book also became a source of Hitler's private fortune, as it became a best-seller and a compulsory gift in Nazi Germany. The book also shaped the education and propaganda of Nazi Germany, as it outlined Hitler's views and plans for Germany and the world. The book also justified and foreshadowed Hitler's violent and oppressive policies against the Jews and other races, which led to the Holocaust and World War II.
40 days later
Trump kept a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.