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

325 Pages·2014·10.56 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.