Hitler's Revolution: Ideology, Social Programs, Foreign Affairs

279 Pages·2014·14.34 MB·English

by  Richard Tedor

Copyright © 2014. All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof
in any form, except for the inclusion of brief passages in an article, book or review.
ISBN 978-0-9883682-1-7
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Ideology
Introduction
The Rise of Liberalism
Democracy
The Authoritarian State
The Struggle for Labor
Socialism
Nationalism
Racial Hygiene
Racism Versus Marxism
The Nation as One
Chapter 2 The New Germany
Germany Prostrate
The Road to Recovery
The Social Renaissance
Strength Through Joy
Rearming the Reich
The Adolf Hitler Schools
Chapter 3 European Diplomacy
Africa
Geneva
France
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Chapter 4 Europe in the Vice
Balance of Power
The Unwelcome Alliance
The “Number One Enemy”
Chapter 5 The Mission of the Reich
The Waffen SS
Germanic Volunteers
Negative Nationalism
The European Mission
Chapter 6 Revolution Versus Reactionary
Fatal Diplomacy
The Early Campaigns
Betrayal in the East
Normandy
The “Good Germans”
A Contrast of Motives
The Legacy
Chapter 1
Ideology
Introduction
Certain historical eras are timeless in their facility to inspire curiosity and imagination. Ancient
Egypt and Rome recall grandeur and power while the Renaissance stands as a marvelous expression
of human creativity. Napoleonic France demonstrates that one man's purpose can define an age, and
the American Wild West personifies the ruggedness and adventurous spirit of the pioneer generations
that conquered a continent. There is much to be learned from milestones of civilization, though people
interpret events differently, conforming to their particular beliefs and interests.
A comparative newcomer to the chronology of significant epochs is National Socialist Germany.
Richly intriguing and not without arousing a sense of awe, she exerted tremendous influence in her
time. The antithesis of democratic values in a century witnessing the triumph of democracy, Germany
went down fighting. The task of recording the history of the period is therefore largely in the hands of
the country's former enemies. One of the flaws in their annals is the superficial assumption that
National Socialism was a rootless political program and the product of one man's world view. There
was in fact a conscious endeavor by the National Socialists to align policies with German and
European customs and practices. They believed their goals corresponded to the natural progression of
their continent and found the diametrical Western-democratic concept to be foreign and immoral.
A political creed advocating freedom of choice, democracy ascended not through popular appeal,
but through overwhelming economic and military force. This in no sense diminishes its claim to moral
leadership in the realm of statecraft. Against somewhat novel democratic beliefs in multiculturalism,
majority rule, feminism, universal equality and globalization once stood social and political
conventions of Europe that had matured over centuries of conflict and compromise, of contemplation
and discovery. The conviction that a nation possesses its own ethos, a collective personality based on
related ethnic heritage and not just on language or environment, has no merit in democratic thinking;
nor does the belief in a natural ranking within mankind determined by performance.
During the first half of the 20th Century, two world wars ultimately imposed democratic
governments on European states that had been pursuing a separate way of life. One of the most
successful weapons in the arsenal of democracy was atrocity propaganda. It demonized the enemy,
motivating Allied armies and promoting their cause abroad. It justified the most ruthless means to
destroy him. It defined the struggle as one of good versus evil, simplifying understanding for the
populations of the United States and the British Commonwealth. The atrocities that Allied
propagandists attribute to Germany, the backbone of resistance against Western democracy, remain
lavishly publicized to this day. Conducted more zealously by the entertainment industry than by
historians, this is largely an emotional presentation. The lurid appeal negates for the future a logical,
impartial evaluation of political alternatives. This is unfortunate, since comparison is one of life's
best tools for learning.
It is a common trait of human nature to often judge the validity of an argument less by what is said
than by who is saying it. Casting doubt on the personal integrity of an opponent can be more
influential than rational discussion to refute his doctrines. In Adolf Hitler, Germany had a wartime
leader whose concept of an authoritarian, socialist state represented a serious challenge to
democratic opinion. Indignant that anyone could harbor such views in so enlightened an age, and
especially that he could promote them so effectively, contemporary historians provide a myriad of
theories for his dissent. Thus we read that Hitler’s obsession with black magic and astrology
impelled him to start the war, he was mentally deranged due to inbreeding in the family, he was
embarrassed by his Jewish ancestry, he was homosexual, he had a dysfunctional childhood, he
became frustrated by failing as an artist, he was born with underdeveloped testicles and so forth.
It would be more useful for the authors of such legends to question for example why, after the
victorious Allies established democratic governments throughout Europe in 1919, this state form
became practically extinct there in 20 years. Russia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Austria,
Germany, Greece, Spain, Slovakia, and soon thereafter France adopted authoritarian regimes. Several
of these countries closed ranks with Germany. Hitler gave viable, popular political form to a growing
anti-liberal tendency on the continent. Volunteers from over 30 nations enlisted to fight in the German
armed forces during World War II. Only by the sword did the Western democracies and their Soviet
ally bring them to heel. Surely the motives of such men merit investigation. Simply dismissing the
leader who harnessed and directed these dynamic human resources as a demented megalomaniac is
no explanation.
During the 1990’s, Russian historians gained temporary access to previously classified Soviet war
archives. In recent decades, the British government has gradually released long-sealed, relevant
papers to the Public Record Office. Their perusal provides a more balanced insight into the causes of
the war and the aims of world leaders involved. This study draws on the published research of
primarily German historians, minimizing sources in print in English. This is to provide readers in
America and in the United Kingdom with material otherwise unavailable to them.
Liberally quoting from German periodicals circulated during the Hitler era will acquaint the
student of history with essential elements of National Socialist ideology just as it was presented to the
German public. No one can accurately judge the actions of a people during a particular epoch without
grasping the spirit of the times in which they lived. The goal of this book is to contribute to this
understanding.
The Rise of Liberalism
National Socialism was not a spontaneous phenomenon that derailed Germany’s evolution and led
the country astray. It was a movement anchored deeply in the traditions and heritage of the German
people and their fundamental requirements for life. Adolf Hitler gave tangible political expression to
ideas nurtured by many of his countrymen that they considered complimentary to their national
character. Though his “opposition” party’s popular support was mainly a reaction to universal
economic distress, Hitler’s coming to power was nonetheless a logical consequence of German
development.
True to the nationalist trend of his age, Hitler promoted Germany’s self-sufficiency and
independence. His party advocated the sovereignty of nations. This helped place the German realm,
or Reich, on a collision course with a diametrical philosophy of life, a world ideology established in
Europe and North America for well over a century: liberalism. During Hitler’s time, it already
exercised considerable influence on Western civilization. It was an ambitious ideal, inspiring
followers with an international sense of mission to spread “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” to
mankind. National Socialism rejected liberal democracy as repugnant to German morality and to
natural order.
Liberalism had been crucial for humanity’s transition into the modern age. During medieval times,
feudalism had prevailed in Europe. Local lords parceled land to farmers and artisans in exchange for
foodstuffs, labor and military service. This fragmented political system, void of central government,
gradually succumbed to the authority of kings. Supported by narrow strata of noblesse and clergy, the
royals became “absolute monarchs", supposedly ruling by divine right. Common people found little
opportunity for advancement. Only those choosing a career with the church received an education.
Kingdoms provided the basis for modern central governments but contributed little else to progress.
The Revival of Learning, with its interest in surviving literature from the Ancient World, led men
to contemplate alternatives to the socially and politically stagnant royal regimen. The Renaissance
was Europe’s intellectual and cultural rebellion against “absolute monarchy” and its spiritual ally, the
clergy. Defying religious superstition and intolerance, the great minds of the age exalted reason above
all. Awareness of the common man’s latent mental aptitude animated respect for the individual.
Liberalism emerged as his liberator from the bondage of absolutism. It defined the state’s primary
role as guarantor of one’s freedom and right to realize full potential in life.
This concept acquired political form during the 18th Century. Discoveries by British and European
inventors provided a suitable compliment to the new emphasis on intellect. The American Revolution
of 1776 – 1783, waged against the English Crown, founded the first modern state based on liberal
principles. It represented a near reversal in the roles of government and governed: The United States
Constitution included a Bill of Rights that placed significant limitations on the authority of the elected
representatives rather than on the population. In theory the people themselves ruled. The French
Revolution introduced democracy to Europe and opened a promising field of opportunity for the
common man. The Declaration of Human Rights guaranteed the French citizen freedom of thought and
expression, private ownership and security. The new Republic released the French peasant from
bondage and dismantled royal restrictions on commerce.
Republican France fought a series of wars against European monarchies. The French army,
comprising all strata of society, mirrored the revolutionary spirit that dethroned absolutism. The
Republic’s minister of war, Nicolas Carnot, held military commanders to standards of conduct
toward their subordinates. When the elder General Philippe de Custine once threatened deserters
with the firing squad, Carnot rebuked him, explaining that “free citizens of France obey orders not out
of fear, but because of confidence in their brothers” in command.1
In a 1940 essay, the German historian Bernhard Schwertfeger analyzed the French army: “In the
absolutist state structure of the 18th Century, the population customarily regarded grand politics with
indifference. The revolution in France drew the people into its vortex. . . . One of the chief principles
of the French Revolution was that in case of war everyone had to defend the fatherland. The entire
resources of the nation were therefore available in an instant. While wars were previously just
private affairs of the princes, now they evolved into a question of survival for the entire nation."2
Napoleon Bonaparte became emperor of France in 1804, but retained liberal principles adopted by
the army. He arranged for soldiers demonstrating leadership qualities to be promoted regardless of
birth or status. Since two thirds of France’s imperial officers had left service from the time of the
revolution, positions of command became open to men displaying ability. Napoleon granted field
officers greater latitude in judgment calls during combat.
In October 1806, the French citizens' army routed Germany’s elite, the Prussian and Saxon armies,
at Jena and Auerstadt. The Prussian infantry was disciplined and obedient with a defined command
structure, while Napoleon made tactical decisions as the fighting developed and relied on the
initiative of subordinates to outmaneuver the enemy as opportunities arose. At Auerstadt, the German
frontline troops resisted bravely for hours, while 18,000 reserves stood idly by because there were
no orders from the commander-in-chief, the Duke of Brunswick, to advance. None of their officers
displayed independent judgment and led the men forward.
Witnessing the German defeat was the infantry Captain Neidhard von Gneisenau. His
recommendations for reforming the Prussian army, summarized the following July, maintained that not
superior strategy, but a new philosophy of life was the genesis of the enemy’s success: “The
revolution has awakened all the power of the nation and given each an appropriate field of endeavor.
In this way heroes came to lead the army, statesmen the loftiest administrative posts, and finally at the
head of a great people the greatest man among them. What limitless power lies undeveloped and
unused within the womb of a nation! . . . Why do the nobles not choose this source to increase their
power a thousand-fold, and open the portal of triumph for the ordinary citizen, the portal through
which now only the nobility may pass? The new age needs more than ancient names, titles, and
parchment. It needs fresh deeds and vitality!"3
Gneisenau defined how to overcome France’s control of Europe: “Should the other states want to
restore the balance, they must open the same resources and utilize them. They must embrace the
consequences of the revolution as their own."4 At the Treaty of Tilsit, Bonaparte had allowed the
Prussian king to maintain just 42,000 men under arms. This drastically reduced the number of active
officers; of 143 generals only eight remained in service. Gneisenau and General Gerhard Johann von
Scharnhorst restructured the armed service free from the interference of a professional military
hierarchy. Local militias became the nucleus of a national army. The broad participation of the public
unavoidably began shifting political power from the monarchy to the people. As the king reviewed the
first militia battalions, he remarked, “There below marches the revolution."5
At this time, German patriots such as Freiherr von Stein, Ernst Moritz Arndt and Gottfried Fichte
promoted civil reform, partially adopting liberal values. A populist revolutionary movement led to