Review: Hitler: Hubris (1889-1036)

16 Nov

-Ian Kershaw

By any reasonable definition, Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil men ever to walk the planet. One may argue – many do – that men like Stalin and Genghis Khan killed more people and made a longer-lasting impact on human history than Hitler, but it cannot be denied that Hitler changed the course of human history forever. Europe, already battered by the First World War – the ‘war that made Hitler’ was left in ruins by the Second World War, the ‘war that Hitler made.’ Hitler simply does not have the excuses that can be offered – and even accepted – for the men who decided to go to war in 1914. The Second World War would not have happened, certainly not in the form it did, were it not for Hitler.

And yet, who was he? And what made him?

The story of how an unemployed – and possibly unemployable – street artist from a largely unknown family (although nowhere near as poor as Hitler would later claim) rose to become the supreme leader of one of the most advanced and cultured states in Europe is explored in Hubris, the first volume in Ian Kershaw’s two-part biography of the Fuhrer. It is both a study of Hitler himself, perhaps the finest to be written (so far), and also a study of his life and times. Ian Kershaw spares no expense to point out just how far luck – and simply being constantly underestimated – took Hitler as he rose from the ashes of defeat to lead Germany to a far greater defeat. There were times, even at the last moment, when Hitler could have been stopped. He wasn’t.

Ian Kershaw discusses, at some length, the possibility that Hitler’s background included either Jewish roots or incest. There was certainly no question that Hitler’s father was illegitimate. However, Kershaw largely dismisses the concept of both. Hitler was nothing more remarkable than any other young child, born to a reasonably normal (for his time) family. There was little trace of the monster he would become as he grew up, rebelling against his teachers and – eventually – deciding that he would become an artist. He applied for an art scholarship, in Vienna, only to fail the exam twice. How much different would history have been if he’d been accepted?

The young Hitler was a prideful stubborn man, and yet unformed. He dreamed big – he planned to be an architect – and yet he lacked the ability to turn his talent into a career. His political ideals were equally unformed. Indeed, it seems that he was on good terms with a number of Jews! (Hitler’s own account of his conversion to anti-Semitism, Kershaw says, should be regarded with extreme suspicion.) He was unwilling to admit to his family, or even to his closest friend, that he’d failed the exam. Instead, he stayed put until lack of money forced him into the dosshouse. Surprisingly, he seems to have been a local hero to his fellows during that time. They certainly tolerated him more than most people would have done.

And yet, even then, there was something a little off about him. Kershaw describes a man who could only have a friend on his terms, a friend who he could dominate. (Perhaps not in the sense of bossing someone around, but in the sense of someone who would listen and never disagree.) Hitler’s relationships with women were much the same. His sex life was apparently non-existent until the 1920s – the myth that Hitler only had one testicle is apparently nothing more than malicious rumour – and even then, he sought girls he could dominate. His niece may have been one of them. She certainly rebelled against his constant supervision of her life before, finally, killing herself. It may have been the only way she could escape.

The First World War made Hitler. He rushed to join up – a picture exists of him amongst the cheering crowds during the outbreak of war – and he found he loved the army life. His regiment may well have been his first real home. And Hitler made a good impression on many of his fellow soldiers and commanding officers. There is no question that Hitler was personally brave – a dispatch runner had the average life expectancy of four weeks – nor of his loyalty to the regiment itself. It also exposed Hitler to the harsh realities of the trenches, then disillusionment at how the war came to an end. He was desperate to stay in the army, surprisingly enough, because it was the only place he’d ever felt comfortable.

It was shortly after the war that Hitler joined the Nazi Party and discovered, for the first time, his true talent. Hitler could – and did – stir a crowd into a frenzy. This, combined with a certain degree of wolfish cunning, allowed him to make his way to the top – although, oddly enough, it would only be later that he would take the title as well as the power. The Nazis grew rapidly, to the point where they thought they could mount a coup; this failed, but – ironically – it worked out in Hitler’s favour. It made his name known throughout Germany and, perhaps more importantly for the future, allowed him to stay above the fray while the remainder of the leadership fought over the party’s future direction. When he was released, he simply took back the reins and headed on. His enemies believed he was finished.

They might have been right, if the Great Depression hadn’t sent Germany tumbling back into the abyss. Economic collapse led to rioting on the streets, followed by massive political unrest as the Right and Left battled for dominance. The Nazis did well enough in elections that they could not be ignored – and Hitler, as opportunistic as ever, declined to offer his support to any of the more acceptable candidates. Attempts to limit his power, in the event of the Nazis joining a coalition government, were treated with the contempt that they (for once) deserved. He wanted the powers of the office as well as the title. Eventually, Hitler became Germany’s leader. He moved fast to destroy all opposition.

It was a bumpy time for Germany. A normal leader might have been thrown out of office within weeks. Hitler survived, at least partly because his gift for judging the right moment to act was still acute. He allowed a wave of violence against his political enemies, judging that the public would support him; he made alliances with the Catholic Church and others that neatly neutered any opposition individuals might offer. And, after unleashing the first wave of attacks on Jews and Jewish properties, he struck at the SA and eliminated them as an independent force in their own right. And when he sent troops into the Rhineland, without a peep of protest from the Western Allies, his position appeared unchallengeable. No one saw the horror to come …

Hitler is – and will always be – immensely difficult to understand. It is possible, as many speculated, that he had a major inferiority complex for most of his life, leaving him strikingly unsure of himself when faced with his social superiors (or even people who might outshine him at the dinner table). He was never as cultured as most of his opponents, and very few members of Germany’s upper class liked him, but he made up for that by being able to raise the masses and turn them against his chosen targets. Kershaw makes it clear that Hitler was never in complete control – mobs are very hard to control, once raised – and he was permanently on the edge, but that was where Hitler thrived. Indeed, being underestimated helped him. The people who thought they could control Hitler had made a deal with the devil.

Indeed, it wasn’t until his trial that Hitler started to consider himself the leader. Previously, Kershaw insists, Hitler had seen his role as laying the groundwork for Germany’s future leader, a man who would lead Germany back to greatness. Perhaps Hitler would have stepped aside, if a better candidate appeared, but I doubt it. By then, Hitler was well-used to manipulating the party to keep himself in power. (Although, in his worldview, the superior candidate would have no trouble getting and keeping the party on his side.) His inferiority complex had flipped into a massive superiority complex.

He was certainly no intellectual, although he read – and read widely. His political ideas were crude and half-formed, even when he put them down on paper. Kershaw wryly notes that there are no figures for how many people actually read Hitler’s first book; his second book was never actually published. This may have led to a certain contempt for the academic elite, as well as the military, political and other elites; Hitler was certainly never interested in the nuts and bolts of practical administration, to the point where his regime was threatened by corruption and infighting right from the start. When he did intervene, it was often with half-baked ideas that were impractical. Sometimes, he had to back down. He was still feeling his way into supreme power as 1936 came to an end and he knew it.

This sometimes had its absurd side. The Nazis spent ages trying to determine exactly who was a Jew and even they found some of their supporters to be beyond the pale. (One prominent anti-semantic was so awful that even the Nazis banned his newspaper.) It is sickening to realise that Hitler may well have been a moderate, by Nazi standards. Some of his party were far – far – worse. And yet, Hitler had no qualms about a program that would eventually lead straight to mass slaughter and effective genocide. Kershaw makes it clear that Hitler knew what was happening, even when (in the case of early attacks on Jews) it wasn’t something he had authorised personally.

How did this man win supreme power? Luck played a large role, as I noted above. But so did the weakness of democracy and the belief – by many – that they could control him. This was a deadly mistake. Hitler was not, and never was, one of them. He was no aristocratic politician, no genteel democrat unwilling to break the rules: he was a wolf who intended to gain supreme power in support of his mission, as ill-formed as it was. And so many opportunities to stop him were simply missed. A show of strength, even as late as 1936, would have stopped him. Even Hitler himself conceded the point.

Kershaw, writing in 1998, makes no reference to Donald Trump. And yet, these days, it is impossible to write about Hitler without making some reference to Trump. However, it is clear that the two men have very little in common. They also live(d) within very different worlds. Hitler had far more in common with his archenemy, Stalin, or the more modern Saddam than he ever did with Donald Trump. Indeed, the persistent overuse of the ‘X is Hitler’ claim has devalued it; a dangerous trick, in my view, when Hitler was a monster beyond easy compare.

Curiously, Hitler and Trump do have at least one thing in common – something Trump’s enemies have rarely mentioned. Both men rose to prominence, and then power, because vast numbers of people felt that they and their interests were either being ignored (at best) or actively under attack (at worst). Three years of crippling depression had left Germany a far more intolerant society. Hitler would never have been elected if the German government had done a better job of protecting the interests of its people, although it is questionable if they could have done anything like enough; Trump would never have been a serious candidate if there hadn’t been millions of Americans who felt discontented, deprived and ultimately threatened. And both men realised that they could use this sentiment to their advantage.

Indeed, the problem is epidemic across the West.

The problem is, I think, that our current society – and our current crop of politicians – simply aren’t coping very well with social change. Some people have done very well out of it – London did very well out of the EU, for example – but others haven’t done so well. To borrow a line from a remarkably insightful CRACKED article, “the rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying, and [liberals] smirk and say what they really mean is that blacks and gays are finally getting equal rights and they hate it. But I’m telling you, they say their way of life is dying because their way of life is dying. It’s not their imagination.”

Winning the masses, as Hitler pointed out, meant recognising their social concerns; in America, with regular elections, it also meant doing something about them. This was not done. Hilary Clinton lost because she could not command the affection of large swaths of America; Jeb Bush didn’t even get to be Candidate Bush because the GOP wanted a genuine leader, not another elitist in a nice suit. It also meant merely being better than one’s opponents, rather than being the ideal candidate. Hitler managed to present himself as better than his opponents, as did Trump. The bar was not set very high.

I’ll let Kershaw have the last word (Hubris pp.335)ubrisH, before I proceed to read the second volume:

“There are times – they mark the danger point for a political system – when politicians can no longer communicate, when they stop understanding the language of the people they are supposed to be representing. [SNIP] Hitler had the advantage of being undamaged by participation in an unpopular government, and of unwavering radicalism in his hostility to the Republic.”

And that, perhaps, is why Hitler was able to take supreme power and set Germany on a course to Hell.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Review: Hitler: Hubris (1889-1036)”

  1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard November 16, 2018 at 5:21 pm #

    Ah Chris, shouldn’t that be “1936” not “1036”? 😈

  2. sam57l0 November 17, 2018 at 12:05 am #

    (One prominent *anti-semantic* (anti-semitic????) was so awful that even the Nazis banned his newspaper.)
    “Both men rose to prominence, and then power, because vast numbers of people felt that they and their interests were either being ignored (at best) or actively under attack (at worst). ” Given that Hillary called Trump supporters “deplorables” and the Democrats seem/do hate those of us outside the metro areas, I’d class that as “actively under attack”.

  3. Bewildered November 17, 2018 at 2:35 am #

    This interpretation would seem to clash with AJP Taylor’s explanation for WW2 which is that it was an accident, and that Hitler was little different to Chamberlain or any other Western leader..

    • chrishanger November 17, 2018 at 7:30 am #

      He wasn’t anything like Chamberlain or any of his counterparts. He scented weakness and attacked.

      Someone said that, if Hitler had been a honourable man, Munich wouldn’t have been a bad deal from the West’s point of view. The Czechs would not have agreed, of course, but they were expendable. However, Hitler was not a honourable man. WW2 was only a mistake in the sense that Hitler thought that the West would let him take Poland without a fight.

      Chris

      • Bewildered November 21, 2018 at 6:22 am #

        Not that I disagree but it would appear that some scholars tend to see Hitler as the victim not the perpetrator – and no I’m not thinking Holocaust Denial quacks, at least initially.

  4. Rhino November 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm #

    Any comparison of Trump and Hitler is deliberately dishonest. Andrew Jackson faced similar hatred but Trump could not achieve the atrocities of either. Not today. Hitler has no redeeming quality or achievement and Jackson very few. Trump haters never bother with facts of lifting average America. They see an arrogant New Yorker with a big mouth, which he is. Can’t erase his record tho

  5. PhilippeO November 18, 2018 at 4:14 am #

    And what can be done ? Trump is blaming many things (immigrant, China, swamp in Washington) yet he didn’t actually do anything to help his voters.

    Trump voters (and Brexiters) engaged in nonpolitical journey. There are nothing realistic that they want can be granted by politics to preserve their way of life. If they ask for rural subsidy/welfare , some will be granted by Democrats. Preferred tax cut for rural areas, agricultural price subsidy, even limit to future immigration is not beyond Democratic politics. Yet what they voted is not any political solution : its blaming others, nostalgia, and politics based on affinity. Nothing Trump (or Brexit) could actually help their way of life. Just because you want something, didn’t mean there can be achieved in reality.

  6. Charles Harris November 18, 2018 at 2:02 pm #

    I see the Trump has managed to dominate the conversation already 😉 I’ll just throw in that Trump does not seem to have the totalitarian urge, his court appointments go quite the opposite direction, nor is he ruling by decree as Obama did. In many ways Trump is, surprisingly, non-totalitarian. I think his most unique features as a leader are his reliance on smart women and his contacts with black cultural figures. Both of those traits are completely at odds with the standard Democrat tropes, so are largely missed in the media coverage.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard November 18, 2018 at 2:42 pm #

      Trump lives rent-free in their heads. 😈

  7. Big Ben November 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm #

    Trump doesn’t have dictatorial impulses? Just a couple of weeks ago he stated emphatically and repeatedly that he could single-handedly alter the Constitution of the United States by executive order. Hubris is far too tame a word.
    God help every human on the planet if there was even the slightest chance of that.

    • Anarchymedes November 20, 2018 at 10:17 am #

      In fact, Putin is a lot–and I mean, a lot!–more like Hitler. He grew up on the mean streets of St. Petersburg; he was a loyal and dedicated KGB agent; and now he methodically, relentlessly destroys the West from within: exactly what the West did to his beloved USSR in 1991 (well, not in, but by 1991).
      When angry, frustrated, but weak and downright cowardly folks want revenge but don’t have the balls to even say it openly, let alone do anything about it, anyone with the balls to do it for them becomes their Pharaoh (life, blossoming, unity). That is the only–repeat, the only–thing Trump and Hitler have in common.
      Putin placed the Donald there to destroy America from within – and discredit it internationally, making it a laughingstock, while he’s at it. That is how he is different from Hitler – smarter. And so far, he is succeeding so marvelously the WW3 may not even be necessary.

  8. Rhino November 22, 2018 at 8:06 pm #

    Holy cow, reviewing email before deleting it and what do I see. Living proof that a lot of people should have taken a debate class or 3. Beliefs are bedrock of the spirit, but facts win. The fringe, left and right, have gotten away with outrageous conduct for so long, they see their position as a civil right. The vast majority in the center are pretty much fed up. Very ugly

  9. Zoe Brain November 26, 2018 at 4:55 am #

    Hitler was authoritarian, and evil. Stalin was not just Authoritarian but paranoid and tyrannical, as well as being evil.

    Trump is authoritarian, paranoid, invincibly ignorant… But lacks the evil. He’s Don the Con, not Adolf the Atrocious, or Dzugashvilii the Destroyer.

    For a glimpse of what Stalin would have been like as POTUS, read Turtledove’s ‘Joe Steel’. The differences between a dangerous predator and an incompetent clown will be obvious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: