- the Nazis brought together a number of ideas and preoccupations which had emerged in the 19th and early 20th Cs, mixed them together in a way that reinforced them to greater extremes. We have discussed some of these already:
extreme, exclusive nationalism had emphasised the idea of a homogeneous ‘German nation’;
we have discussed the growth of racism and noted that it was often linked to the idea of the nation. We shall examine this linkage in greater detail;
anti-Semitism was linked to racism and became more virulent, especially with the facade of being ‘scientific’.
social darwinism argued that the supreme fact of life was the constant, unremitting struggle and conflict of groups (nations, races) for survival.
- there were other notions as well:
Geographical Determinism
- political geography was one of the newly emerging social sciences. Its proponents were convinced that geography was a crucial determinant in the creation of nations and in international affairs; they were trying frantically to raise consciousness of geography and its vital role.
Friedrich Ratzel (1844-1904)
- he was a major force in developing political geography in Germany.
- Ratzel was a determinist. He believed that the land moulded the people who lived there and produced commonality of interests, needs etc which led to the creation of nations.
- as with other political geographers, he was concerned with nation/states. In fact, he argued that national states were organisms and as such were subject to the same darwinist pressures, requirements etc. as other living organisms. This model carried many ramifications: nations were born, grew and matured; nations could also die. As with all organisms, nations require land, space, in order to survive. It was Ratzel who first coined and used the term ‘lebensraum—living space’ in 1897.
- the feeling among Germans that they were overcrowded had become widespread. This had a couple of ramifications: the capacity of the agricultural land to carry population had been reached and this was causing migration into the cities, a trend that was regarded as very bad as agrarian life was thought to be the real source of German culture, vitality and strength (we shall return to this agrarianism in our discussion of the Volkish tradition). Alternately, people were migrating to other countries (the U.S. especially); they were being assimilated and lost to the fatherland.
- on the question of acquiring ‘lebensraum’ Ratzel came down on the side of colonies rather than a drive towards the east in Europe.
- moreover, he was opposed to incorporating all Germans into Germany just because they were Germans. This led him to oppose some of the more far-reaching claims of the ‘Greater Germany’ nationalists who felt that any area in Europe that had Germans should become part of Germany. Ratzel helped to found the Pan-German League in the 1890s; however, he was soon alienated by the racists who took over, and he dropped out. However, his term, ‘lebensraum’, was adopted by these others and given a rather different meaning than he ever intended.
- Ratzel was not a racist, nor a ‘volkisch’ fanatic. He did not accept the idea that a ‘nation’ should be based solely on the homogeneous ethnic group (i.e., tribe). As a young man, he had taken an extended tour of the U.S. (in the 1870s) and this greatly influenced his thinking. He was impressed by the advantages and vitality of mixing people of different origins in the U.S. Besides, he argued that what really bound people together and made them a nation was the connection to the land and the specific space that they occupied, not genetic ties. He used the example of Switzerland to point out that people of several different ethnic and genetic heritages nevertheless were moulded into a nation by their geographical position and the effects that their environment had. People could not escape their geography.
- however, a number of his ideas were more or less hijacked by racists and in this form transmitted to the Nazis. Something similar happened with regard to Haushofer’s theory of geopolitics.
General Karl Haushofer (1869-1946)
- he had been a general in WW1; he turned to academic life after the war and especially made geopolitics his life’s work. In his development of geopolitics, he brought together the ideas of Ratzel, Kjellén and Mackinder.
- he saw geopolitics as being applied geography; he thought that a major cause of Germany’s defeat in World War 1 was the lack of geographical knowledge and geopolitical awareness; because of this lack, Germany found itself in that war with its particular alignment of allies and enemies, and this brought its defeat.
- to try to correct this lack, Haushofer founded a geopolitical institute at the University of Munich. Rudolph Hess was a student and they became close friends. Haushofer came to be seen later in the 1930s and during the war, as providing many, perhaps most, of the geopolitical ideas for the Nazis. As a result, his influence was greatly exaggerated.
- Haushofer did publicise the concept of lebensraum, but that term was used by many others, including the Volkisch fanatics and racists who were much more direct connections to the Nazis.
- Haushofer did try to influence the Nazis, and Hess was a pipeline into the Nazi inner circles. As the Nazis gained influence and then came to power, Haushofer tried to soft-pedal the areas where his ideas differed from the Nazis. The Nazis set up their own ‘geopolitical’ think tanks and organisations, and probably with Hess’ influence, Haushofer was given a role and some leadership positions. But the Nazis wanted to Nazify everything and that included ‘geopolitical theory’. They began to point out the shortcomings and ‘errors’ of Haushofer’s geopolitics; increasingly, he was shoved out. In fact, by the war, he was really out of it completely.
- Haushofer was not a racist. In fact, his wife was half Jewish. As a result of Hess’ intervention, she was given ‘honorary German’ status, but that was not very acceptable to the anti-Semitic fanatics in the Nazi party.
- Nazi geopoliticians rejected Haushofer’s geopolitics because it failed to incorporate the ‘race principle’ adequately. Like Ratzel, at base Haushofer was a geographical determinist and argued that people cannot escape their geography. The Nazi racists, on the other hand, argued that the major determinants of history and almost everything was ‘race’ (i.e., genes and genetic heritage); ‘race’ could even nullify geography. Like Ratzel, Haushofer had some of his ideas hijacked by racists.
Volkish Thought
- Volkish thinkers felt that Germans were animated by a higher spirit than that found in other peoples. They believed that the Enlightenment and parliamentary democracy were foreign and corrupted the pure German spirit. With fanatical devotion, Volkish thinkers embraced all things German—the medieval past, the German landscape, the simple peasant, the village— and denounced the humanist tradition as alien to the German soul.
- Volkish thinkers abhorred almost everything about modern society—industrialisation, urbanisation, materialism, party politics, and class conflicts. Capitalism, impersonal and rationalised, destroyed ancient social forms and virtues and alienated people from themselves and each other. Liberalism fostered materialism, individualism and a rational-scientific outlook all of which separated Germans from the true genius, the peculiar character, the soul of the German nation.
- the peasant, in close touch with the soil, was believed to be most in touch with this German soul. Urbanisation was breaking this link with the soil and thus was a grave danger to the future of the German nation. Germans who lived in cities were urged to return as often and as much as possible to rural areas to get in touch with this real source of German identity and distinctiveness. The idea of lebensraum and the settlement of German farmers in the east, which was picked up and amplified by the Nazis, was based upon this idea of returning as many Germans as possible to agriculture and the connection with the land.
- Volkish thinkers yearned to restore the sense of community that they believed existed before industrialisation. Only by identifying with their sacred soil and sacred traditions would Germans escape from the rootlessness and alienation of modern industrial society. A return to roots would restore authenticity to life and stimulate creativity. Only then could the different classes band together in an ‘organic’ unity.
- Volkish thinkers were strongly attracted to racist doctrines which held that race was the key history. A race retained its vigour and achieved greatness when it maintained its purity; intermarriage was a contamination that resulted in genetic, cultural and military decline. Volkish thinkers claimed that the ‘German race’ was purer than, and therefore superior to, all other races. They claimed that the Germans were descendants of ancient Aryans, the only descendants who had maintained their purity.
- at the same time, anti-Semitism was a very prominent feature of Volkish thought. Volkish thinkers regarded Jews as the antithesis of Germans and everything German; thus, just as Germans embodied everything good, Jews were depicted as embodying everything evil, wicked and depraved. Because of this, Jews were accused of being malignant destroyers of everything German. Jews came to personify everything that threatened German people, German culture and the German nation.
- some Volkish thinkers wanted a German religion, different from Christianity. Others wanted to harmonise Christianity with ancient Germanic traditions; this was linked with a determination to expunge ‘Jewish’ elements from Christianity.
- Volkish thinkers looked back longingly to the Middle Ages as a period of social and spiritual harmony. They glorified the ancient Germanic tribes which overran the Roman Empire, comparing these vigorous Germans with the effete and degenerate Romans. They argued that this genetic heritage meant that Germans were not only different from other peoples, including the French and British, but better and more heroic. German people and culture had a special destiny and mission.
- Richard Wagner (1813-1883) was one of the most influential promoters of Volkish ideals in his writing and his operas. He glorified an imaginary pre-Christian Germanic past; he called for a spiritual redemption of German society through art rooted in German tradition, especially heroic legends and myths. Modern society lacked soul. A cultural rebirth inspired by the heritage of the volk would unite the German nation and overcome the mediocrity, materialism, philistinism and atomisation of modern life. He wanted a Germanised Christianity, purified and centred on sacred Germanic myths. He was strongly anti-Semitic.
- Wagner inspired many fervent disciples who helped to popularise Volkish ideas. He also became far and away the Nazis’ favourite composer.
- Volkish thought brought together quite a few elements which were passed on to the Nazis; it supplied a large portion of Nazi race ideology and nationalism. The Nazis carried this race fixation to its logical extreme. Their objective was to purify the German nation/race of all non-German aspects and ‘contamination’. Much of this focused on the Jews because the Nazis tended to attribute almost everything they hated (and their hatreds were many—internationalism, cosmopolitanism, communism, etc.) to Jews as well as genetic ‘pollution’ by sexual depravities and intermarriage; however, the Nazis wanted to purge everyone who did not measure up to their standards of German racial perfection or who failed to conform sufficiently to their racial/national ideology. Thus, they incarcerated tens of thousands of German trade unionists and political rivals; they instituted sterilisation and ‘euthanasia’ programmes for those they considered mentally or physically unfit. They set up the education system to be an intensive indoctrination of the young into Nazi race and nation theory; the mass media were used in a massive propaganda campaign with the same objective.
3 Programme of Action
- Hitler originally was involved in an attempt to acquire power via a coup d’état (the Munich ‘putsch’). After this failure, he decided that it was necessary to achieve power within the law. Mussolini too managed to come to power without resorting to an extra-legal seizure of power; the March on Rome certainly seemed to be heading in that direction, but the politicians and the royal court in fact turned over power to Mussolini before the fascists had actually carried out a violent overthrow of the government and political system.
- once in power, both movements strove to dominate their societies completely. Mussolini in fact used the term totalitarian to describe his party’s control; however, like much else about which Mussolini boasted, his control was less than total. The Nazis were significantly more so. (We’ll return to evaluate this aspect of totalitarian control.)
- both movements eliminated all political alternatives once in power and used intimidation and even terror to stifle most dissent. Both had large gangs of uniformed rowdies for this purpose and in the case of the Nazis, a political police with few restraints on its powers and its techniques. The Nazis went further in this regard by rounding up and imprisoning tens of thousands of their political opponents in concentration camps.
- both movements attempted to organise all of society around their movements, almost from the cradle to the grave, by establishing a succession of organisations for different age groups and sexes. In the case of the Nazis, they attempted to eliminate almost all alternatives. Having thus eliminated alternatives and opposition, they felt that they would be able to remould society completely into what they wanted; everyone in society would either be remoulded or eliminated.
- both movements made heavy use of mass media (newspapers, radio and movies) for propaganda and for moulding opinion. The Nazis were especially explicit about this. In Germany, special attention was paid to the education system in turning it into a medium of indoctrination.
Italian Fascism and Totalitarianism
- in spite of Mussolini’s boasts, the Fascists were never able to establish complete control. Several alternative centres of influence and power remained:
The monarchy. Even though the monarchy did not have enormous prestige or popular support, the Fascists were never able to get rid of it.
- the monarchy had little power except in military affairs where it tried to guard its prerogatives. Also, on state occasions and on receiving ambassadors, the court insisted on preeminence being given to the king; much to his irritation, Mussolini was 2nd banana.
The military. Like military groups in other countries, the Italian military was seduced by fascist promises to build up military power and influence. However, their loyalty was always more to the monarchy rather than to Mussolini.
The Church. The Lateran Treaty in 1929 had actually secured and strengthened the Church’s niche.
The mafia. Mafia groups in southern Italy and Sicily were never suppressed. These had often been perceived as opponents of far away governments in Naples before unification and then in Rome after unification. Government officials who got too vigorous in trying to extend government authority and/or to collect taxes might very well be attacked and even assassinated.
- in rural areas (i.e., outside large cities) mafia groups might have more influence on behaviour and in maintaining order; if someone felt badly used or their daughter had been seduced, he didn’t go to the police or a judge; he went to the local don. Fascists did not change this in a significant way. In fact it is said that in many areas they observed informal agreements or tacit understandings not to infringe in each other’s realm.
[This is interesting because it seems that many politicians since 1945 (especially Christian Democrats) have done the same thing. The recent (last 10 years or so) efforts to break the power of the mafia appears to be the first really concerted such effort since the creation of a united Italy in 1870.]
Trade unions and other types of voluntary associations (youth organisations etc.) The Fascists could get rid of these, but that did not get everyone to join or get enthusiastic about the fascist replacements.
- popular participation and enthusiasm was limited; in fact large portions of the population were very cynical. The fascists and Mussolini were often regarded privately as ridiculous, including all the military swagger. While most Italians were not prepared to run the risks of showing or engaging in open opposition, it seems that the majority did not get caught up in the enthusiasm. While some might be pleased with the idea of Italy becoming a more powerful, influential power, most did not want wars with the costs and sacrifices that would entail.
- even the relatively short and inexpensive Ethiopian war was not wildly popular in Italy. Participation in the Spanish Civil War was even less so. These 2 wars, even with the limited scope of each, put significant strains on the Italian economy. Inflation was up while the effects of corporatism and the sell-out fascist union leaders meant that wage rates were kept down; as a result, large proportions of the population were experiencing declining real wages.
- when war came in 1939, Mussolini, in spite of strong pressure from his ally Hitler, kept delaying Italian entry. Only in June 1940 as the collapse of France was clearly immanent did Mussolini declare war on France and invade. By that point he was suddenly afraid that he was going to miss out on a chance to grab a piece of France. This little gambit went badly; even though French forces were losing badly to the Germans, they held off the Italians and inflicted lots of damage and casualties.
- Hitler was irritated that Mussolini had been so blatantly opportunistic, like a vulture trying to pick up a big chunk of the carcass even though he had done nothing until the defeat of France was certain. Hitler refused to give Mussolini much more than Italian troops had been able to capture (not very much).
- except for the fascist and nationalist fanatics, the war was not popular with most Italians. Even the military and naval troops were often half-hearted in their participation and many were willing to quit when things went badly. As a result, once the war turned against the Axis powers in 1943, support for the war and for the Fascists dropped precipitously; the monarchy and the military began to try to negotiate a surrender and even to switch sides.
- Mussolini was overthrown. The Germans rescued him and tried to restore him, but quite clearly from that point until he was captured and executed by Italian partisans, he was totally dependent on the Germans.
Germany and Gleichschaltung
- the Nazis achieved much higher levels of domination and control. In the early days, Hitler admired and sought to emulate Mussolini who had achieved power over 10 years before the Nazis. However, in dealing with rival political parties, trade unions and similar organisations, the Nazis went beyond simply abolishing them; tens of thousands were arrested and and placed in detention camps which became concentration camps.
- moreover, the Nazis were determined to take over all aspects of German life and society. They called this Gleichschaltung —Nazi organisation and values taking over and permeating every aspect of society.
The state
. In the wake of the Reichstag fire, Hitler had demanded and been given enormous emergency powers. This had largely freed him from any accountability or dependence on the Reichstag. He never did away with the Reichstag, but it increasingly became irrelevant. Eventually, it was not recalled and became moribund.
- initially, the President was an independent power. However, with Hindenburg’s death and Hitler’s election as president (he was already Chancellor—prime minister), Hitler became both head of state and head of government. The military had looked to the president; thus, becoming president brought Hitler more into control of the one body that could threaten his and the Nazis domination and control of Germany.
The civil service
. The Nazis used the excuse of ‘aryanizing’ (i.e., to purify) as a means of getting rid, not only Jews but also anyone who did not give complete obedience. Eventually, all civil servants (this included teachers and university professors, even some clergymen) were required to swear an oath of personal allegiance to Hitler.
- however, Nazi control of the bureaucracy was never complete. What the Nazis did was to build up the Nazi Party bureaucracy; the Gauleiters were always pushing to increase their power. This diverted power away from the civil service. This was also a Nazi technique of creating confusion about where power lay and prevented any buildup of consolidated opposition.
Judicial system
. Actions were similar to the civil service. Judges were also forced to take the oath of allegiance to Hitler. Also, new, separate tribunals (especially new tribunals to define who Jews were and to enforce anti-Jewish laws.) were set up headed by rabidly racist Nazi Party members. Of course, similar people were appointed to regular courts whenever the opportunity arose. Thus, independence of judges was whittled away.
- of course, another means was to change the laws themselves and to give judges little leeway in enforcing and interpreting these new laws. If the laws are blatantly discriminatory, judges are supposed to enforce the law. The movie, “Judgment at Nuremburg,” dealt with the dilemmas of this situation.
Education. Again the anti-Semitic laws were the foundation, but they also moved against opponents. In addition to the loyalty oath to Hitler, all tenure was ended and any teacher could be dismissed any time with no cause being given and with no appeal. Not only teachers who were not ‘Aryan’ but any who were not sufficiently ‘nationalist’ or in line with Nazi race theories were hounded and later dismissed. Members of the Nazi children and youth organisations were encouraged to denounce teachers in this regard.
- in universities, the Nazis used students and faculty who were Nazis to raise a fuss and then the Nazi authorities would step in and get rid of the professor.
- in place of organisations such as boy scouts and girl guides, Nazi organisations were established for boys leading up to Hitler Youth and for girls leading up to Order of German Maidens. These were intended to absorb energies and to reinforce the racial, national ideology.
Local and state governments
. These were reduced to almost nothing. Gauleiters often usurped much of their power and functions.
Arts and cultural organisations
. Most museums, orchestras and many arts organisations received money from the government and the people were treated as civil servants.
- the Nazis set out to purge everything that was ‘un-German’ or ‘un-Aryan’. They staged burning of books; ‘degenerate’ art (virtually all modern art) was attacked; Wagner was glorified and Jewish composers like Mendelssohn were outlawed.
[These actions did not always have the results that the Nazis hoped and intended. A huge and well publicised exhibition of ‘degenerate’ art (intended to vilify modern art) was hugely successful and extremely well attended! Also, jazz and jive were denounced by the Nazis as ‘Negro’ music and therefore inferior; however, some young people played and danced to it as an act of defiance.]
Military
. The Prussian officer corps had a long and proud tradition. A large proportion came from an aristocratic background. They were professionals and most held the Nazis in great contempt. Once the Nazis had control of the police and established a special political police (later the Gestapo), the army was the only group which could stop the Nazis and overthrow Hitler. However, Hitler had come to power by legal means (although once in power, he threw legality to the winds); army leaders continually dithered about whether or not they should overthrown a ‘legal’ government.
- moreover, the Nazis did a great deal to neutralise the military. First, they immediately launched rearmament and rebuilding of the army. This greatly delighted the officer corps. Then, when the army was concerned about statements by Strasser, the leader of the SA (the brown shirts), indicating that he wanted to turn his SA from a paramilitary organisation into a more military organisation alongside the Wehrmacht, the Nazis mollified the officers by murdering Strasser and a number of top SA (The Night of the Long Knives) and very greatly reducing the SA. [This was not really a benefit for the Wehrmacht because the Nazis immediately began to build up Himmler’s SS, a much more dangerous organisation. In fact, later, the Waffen SS was created as a second army outside the Wehrmacht including most branches—infantry, armoured units, artillery, etc. Hitler hated and was contemptuous of the officer corps; that hatred grew as the war progressed. It seems likely that he intended to reduce and perhaps even eliminate the Wehrmacht as soon as he could.]
- all officers were required to take an oath, on their honour as officers, of absolute loyalty to Hitler. This concept of ‘honour’ the Nazis thought ridiculous, but they knew the officers were prepared to die by it. Most officers felt bound by it no matter what Hitler did.
- then when the war started, there were dilemmas of patriotism. Could the army overthrow Hitler in the middle of war, especially when he was leading Germany to such unparalleled success as country after country was defeated and occupied? Even when the tide had begun to turn and defeat was clearly the likely outcome, most officers felt bound by their oaths or bound by duty to continue to the end in the path that the Nazis had driven the country down. Also, in view of the atrocities that the Nazis had perpetrated, they knew that if defeated, Germany was going to face a reckoning.
- even Nazi domination was not complete. It would be strange if Nazis could impose their control and ideology totally in so short a time (the regime lasted just over 12 years). The Nazis never won a majority in a reasonably free and fair election. The use of intimidation, terror and incarceration could silence most open opposition once they had control of the state and of the police.
- however, the Nazis were disappointed that many Germans did not actively support the anti-Semitism; e.g., early on when they called for a boycott of Jewish stores, many Germans ignored it and some even passed Nazi brownshirts outside trying to stop people from entering Jewish stores. We do have the images from “The Triumph of the Will” showing huge cheering crowds, but remember that most of those were Nazi party members who came to Nuremburg for the rally so that is an exaggeration.
- moreover, we would expect an ideological transformation to take a couple of generations. After they become adults, most people do not usually make massive changes in their ideology. Thus, indoctrinating the young over a couple of generations is the approach taken; this was the approach taken by the Nazis in Germany (and by the Communists in the Soviet Union as well). This obviously worked well with a great many young Germans who joined the Nazi youth organisations in substantial numbers. Also, when the Nazis were desperate in 1944 and 1945, they began to call upon younger and younger teenaged boys to fight, many of whom responded willingly and eagerly. Of course, teenaged boys especially can be easily seduced by guns.
- however, there is very interesting evidence that not all young people swallowed it so completely. Some resisted even if the resistance was a bit passive in some cases. Middle class young people, as we noted earlier, played and danced to jazz in spite of condemnation by the Nazis. They also sometimes wore zoot suits and used ‘jive’ talk. [Some people argue that something similar happened in the Soviet Union in the 1970s when teenagers became enamoured with blue jeans and rock and roll in spite of strong disapproval and denunciations of the authorities.]
- even stronger were the reactions of some working class youth (males especially) in Hamburg and elsewhere who took to attacking and beating up Hitler Youth members; this became more serious as the war went on and a number were executed for such attacks.
- one of the most courageous of resistance groups in Germany was a group of university students who formed the White Rose League. They put up posters denouncing the war and distributed handbills for some months. As the war became more serious (i.e., the tide turned), the Gestapo rounded up most of them and they were executed.
- this is very interesting evidence that intense indoctrination has limitations. As people become adolescents and young adults, they become sensitive to things being pushed down their throats. The Nazi experiment was short. [The Soviet Union may be a better example of failure in long term indoctrination. All indications are that the younger generation was, by the 1970s, completely cynical and had virtually no faith in the system; joining the party was almost entirely for selfish and career reasons. Another example comes from South Africa; the SOWETO riots of 1976-77 were a demonstration that the intense indoctrination of Bantu Education had failed to convince African youths to accept subordination and domination by the white minority government as decreed by apartheid.]
- in spite of intimidation and terror of the police state, Nazi control and domination were not complete. Moreover, although the Hitler and Nazis always put on a front of complete confidence, there was always an undercurrent of insecurity. The Gestapo and the police state could be justified on the basis of international conspiracies—the Jewish conspiracy or Communist conspiracy—but they were used mostly to keep the German people in line (if you trust your people, such means should be unnecessary).
- Hitler was always afraid and did not trust the German people. Even the campaign to get rid of the Jews was done gradually and with the real purpose and intentions concealed for a long time. After extermination began, substantial efforts were made to conceal what was really going on—e.g., right to the end the Nazis kept talking about ‘resettlement’ of Jews to the east.
- even more, Albert Speer (Inside the Third Reich) tells us Hitler refused to allow full war production for several years. He was afraid that as consumer goods became scarce and standards of living fell, the war would become so unpopular that the people would no longer support it. This was good for the Allies because by the time Germany did go to total war and full war production late in 1943 and 1944, the war was already lost.
- at any rate, the term ‘totalitarian’ should be understood in relative, rather than absolute terms. The Nazi state was massively authoritarian, but was less than ‘total’ in its control. However, absolute totalitarianism is probably impossible. Even Stalin’s totalitarianism in the Soviet Union was not absolute. Even in the fictional Oceania in 1984 contol is not quite absolute; Winston carries on a personal resistance for a while.