Hitler

Adolf Hitler and The National Socialists: A Case Study in Political Constructivism ABSTRACT Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained and maintained power by adopting the philosophy of constructivism and applying it to political leadership. The Nazi leader took advantage of every situation which made his approach to morals and politics dependent on the climate of public, national, and international opinion at the time. This situational relativist approach can be considered constructivist in nature. Therefore, by selectively exploring the coups of Hitler and his henchmen the constructivist, unstructured nature of National Socialism will become apparent. By Mark Mraz Mark Mraz is an assistant professor of education at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania. He holds a PhD in C& I Social Studies Education from The Pennsylvania State University. Mark teaches social studies methods and foundations courses at Slippery Rock. Prior to coming to the University, He taught history and social studies for 29 years at the St Marys Area School District in St. Marys, Pennsylvania. Assistant Professor of Education Slippery Rock University Secondary Education Department 208D McKay Hall Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Email:mark. [email  protected] edu Phone: 724-738-2288 0 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1126363 Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists: A Case Study in Political Constructivism Introduction Adolf Hitler and his national socialist movement gained and maintained power by adopting the philosophy of constructivism and applying it to political leadership. The Nazi leader took advantage of every situation which made his approach to morals and politics dependent on the climate of public, national, and international opinion at the time. An example of this contrived policy can be seen in the Nazi’s attempt to create a religion, the Reich Church. However, the general German public adhered to their Christianity and Hitler was forced back down when faced with severe prevalent resistance, thereby allowing the people to keep their religious beliefs (Goldenhagen). Undoubtedly, this situational relativist approach can be considered Constructivist. Therefore, by exploring a selective array of the major coups of Hitler and his henchmen; the constructivist unstructured nature of National Socialism is apparent. According to Hitler, in one of his many private diatribes to his inner circle of disciples, the ultimate goal of his whole policy was quite clear. Hitler’s employment of Machiavellian tactics can be seen as implied constructivism. Hitler stated: Always I am concerned only that I do not take a step from which I will perhaps have to retreat, and not take a step that will harm us. I tell you that I always go to the outermost limits of risk, but never beyond. For this you need to have a nose more or less to smell out; â€Å"What can I still do? † †¦ In a struggle against an enemy, I do not summon an enemy with force of fight. I don’t say: â€Å"Fight! † because I want to fight. Instead I say , â€Å"I will destroy you! And now. Wisdom, help me to maneuver you into a corner that you cannot fight back, and then you get the blow to the heart. (Rosenbaum, 382). This passage suggests that Hitler had a goal in mind but the means to the end 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1126363 involved a series of constructed scenarios to back his opponents into a position of weakness by giving them no room to maneuver. This is exactly what he did when he took over Austria, the Rhineland, and Czechoslovakia. Hitler harangued, browbeat, and got a vast territory without firing a shot. This weaving and bobbing like a prize fighter on the world stage of geo-politics is dangerous for both the winner and loser. Because the relativity of the circumstances can be misconstrued as vital to the national interest.. This situational contrived metaphysics of the whole history of the National Socialist Workingmans Party’s rise to power can be interpreted as Machiavellian. Machiavellianism, is by its very â€Å"Realpolitik-politics void of ethics† nature is a process that is constructivist due to the solipsistic beliefs of its adherents always laboring for the welfare of one’s state at the cost of others countries. This ultimately leads to means that are built to real goals by situational circumstance and contrived ethics. According to Claudia Koonz, Professor of History at Duke Univesity: Hitler was a keen judge of his constituency’s desires and needs, which allowed him to fashion his state around principles of secular racism which were void of religion. Basing their notions of ethical behavior on the civic virtues of the ethnic Germanic community and hatred of outsiders, the national socialists; had an amoral compass (Koonz). This moral construction, based on underlyin g prejudices was seen by the majority of Germans as being proper and ethical, are another example of the constructivist philosophy of the Third Reich. Hitler and his disciples gave the masses what they wanted security from outsiders. Many Germans were xenophobic about Bolshevism and other alien ideologies; that if adopted would destroy the socio-political cultural fiber of Germanic Teutonic society. All 2 ideas counter to the Nazi Utopia of Aryan supremacy in all socio-cultural-geo-political spheres were perceived by the masses as a threat or a wart on the body politic which had to be removed. Thus creating a surgical mind set about the elimination of undesirable Non-German elements in society. This whole outlook of the reign was conditioned by this contrived metaphysics which made murders out of learned people who under normal circumstances would be humane. Constructivism as a Philosophy in Theory and Practice Constructivism is a philosophical perspective that contends that all truths or facts are â€Å"constructed. † Therefore, truth is contingent on situational, social experience and individual perception. Constructivist philosophy in education holds that pupils are not passive vessels of knowledge, but actively involved in the creation of knowledge through their experiences. The adherents to this philosophy believe that truth is made or invented, not discovered or learned (Ozmon). So if one would take this philosophy to the extreme, it would be easy to extrapolate that truth can be contrived to fit the need of the moment. Indeed a tactic, employed by the national socialists, was to learn from their experiences and invent the truth to fit the circumstances. This certainly was the case during the unsuccessful beer hall putsch of November 8-9, 1923. During the Nazi’s failed attempt to take over the government of Bavaria by force, Hitler gave several speeches to his followers acting like they had effectively made a coup and won the day. When in reality, they had lost, some were killed and Hitler and his entourage went to prison (Hitler). Out of this experience, Hitler stipulated that his goal was the same, to gain control of the government, but the means were different. The unsuccessful attempt to take over by brute force was replaced with legal constitutional 3 means to gain control. Hitler from then on used democracy to destroy the representative government in Germany. He would work the system to his advantage (Gordon). According to the British Historian, Bevin Alexander, even though Hitler was not aware of Sun Tzu, he subscribed to his axiom: â€Å"The way to avoid what is strong is to strike what is weak (Alexander, ix). † Between 1933 and 1940, the Fuehrer avoided the strong and attacked the weak with great triumph. Hitler and the Nazi’s had the uncanny ability to become protean when the circumstances called for it. He also had a huge talent for spotting and taking advantage of the insecurities and vulnerabilities of his opponents. Using these abilities, which might be called Machiavellian logic or simply constructivism, Hitler gained the upper hand in every situation beginning with his elevation to chancellor in January of 1933, and ending with the capitulation of France in July of 1940. However, after the invasion of Russia in July of 1941, he abandoned his constructivist geo–politics in favor of all out pursuit of a policy detrimental to his own country. Because of his hatred of Bolshevism and Jews, Hitler invaded Russia. He had been allied with Stalin and had gotten enormous amounts of oil as well as other raw materials needed for war from the Russians. The invasion put an end to these supplies. The Nazi’s gravely miscalculated the extent to which the Russians were fanatical about their land and not Communism. This â€Å"love of mother Russia† led to the most tenacious fighting in human history. Hitler was on the cusp of ultimate victory when in late 1940 and 1941 he changed that policy, and began to strike at the major powers of Britain, Russia, and eventually the United States. Hitler’s constructivist theory of â€Å"kicking in the 4 oor and the whole thing will collapse,† was a grave misinterpretation from which there was no retreat and deadly consequences (Alexander). Nazi Geo-Political and Socio-Cultural Coups as case studies in Constructivist Leadership During every phase of the development of the Nazi Reich, Hitler would ally with potential enemies to get what he wa nted. When Hitler was appointed chancellor, he was the head of a coalition government that contained people he did not like from both the left and the right politically. However, in a constructivist style all his own he embraced the arrangement to get to power (Evans 2005). Once Hitler became chancellor, he derailed all efforts for any opposition to gain a majority in parliament and on that pretext argued the demise of Reichstag representation. His own party had lost the majority so he was arguing to dissolve his own government. Hitler’s persuasive opinions caused President Hindenburg to acquiesce to the chancellor’s wishes and he dissolved the legislature. New elections were scheduled for early March, but before that could take place, the Reichstag building or the German Parliament burned down (Bullock). It is believed that Hitler’s confederates started the fire and blamed it on Communists. Once there was a perceived threat, the Nazi’s evoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which enabled the chancellor to do away with the civic liberties of the people to protect the nation from fanatical threats from either the left or right. By doing this, the Nazi’s gave the impression that they were the stable element in society and not reactionary radicals, which they actually were. Then as the prize fighter metaphor suggests he simply weaved, bobbed, and counterpunched his way to the Enabling Act. This act fused the office of chancellor and president together giving Hitler dictatorial control of Germany by legal means (Evans 2005). Another episode of Machiavellian constructivist philosophy would be the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Hitler hated the Soviet Union and Communism. But he hated the thoughts of a two front war more. In chameleon-like fashion Hitl er courts his most hated enemy in friendship to get what he wants, no counter-attack by the Soviet Union to save Poland. Once he consolidates his Eastern frontier by agreement with the Russians, he hits the Western Democracies (Bullock). Where constructivism really becomes apparent is when one looks at the â€Å"Final Solution. † The Nazi leader stated that if there were no Jews it would be necessary to invent them because the masses need a tangible, concrete enemy and not an abstraction (Fuchs). Since the war many historians have developed various historiographic theories for the policies that led to the Holocaust. Two historical schools of thought have developed: the functionalists and intentionalists. The intentionalists hypothesized that there was a plan for the genocide of the Jews since 1924 (Dawidowicz). Functionalists, also known as structuralists believe that the holocaust was the product of the structural rivalry within the Nazi government and it was functional circumstances that lead the Third Reich from deportation to destruction of the Jews (Browning). Hitler’s actions from 1933 to 1941 involved a policy for forced deportation and exile of Jews. This seems at odds with the planned extermination theory. If he had that plan in mind why would he allow them to leave? One would think he would keep them locked up till he could get the death camps functioning (Framer). 6 Accordingly, a clarification of lexicon may be in order. The functionalist and structuralist schools contend that: 1) Hitler was actually a weak leader who was dependent on governmental and party organizations. 2) Rivalry between four power groups: army, economy, state administration, and Nazi Party/SS lead to constructivist policy making (Browning). The opposite school of thought is the intentionalist which believes that: 1) Hitler was a strong leader and implemented his will. 2) Hitler had a long term plan primarily driven by ideology which he carried out (Marrus). Both interpretations have obvious flaws. The functionalists-structuralists paradigm overlooks the popularity of Hitler, as well as deliberate policy and put too much emphasis on the power and independence of various governmental agencies. The intentionalists ideas put too much emphasis on Hitler’ leadership and his development of a precise plan on paper which he ollowed from the 1920s onward. In recent years, there has been a synthesis of ideas on the Holocaust and a merging of the intentionalitists and functionalists interpretations which suggests that the policy that became the â€Å"Final Solution† was both a top down and bottom up structural construct that involved no master plan (Kenshaw). Clearly the functionalists and the synthesizers are in esse nce saying that the National Socialist policies can be seen as constructivist in that they developed more as a function of the state rather than from coherent plan devised in 1924. Hans Mommsen and Martin Broszat, historians, believe that the National Socialist State was not a modern government but a feudal state with under lords vying for power against others for Hitler’s approval. Accordingly, they contend that Hitler was a reactionary responding to situations rather than taking the lead in formulating policy. 7 Hitler had basic knee jerk reactions to problems that arose and this lead to the development of policy in a piecemeal approach. In addition, Hitler hated paper work so he formulated an idea and let an underling run with it to see what would happen. This constructivist, open ended approach permitted him to leave the minutiae of administrative paper work to others (Framer). His leadership style of constructivism caused a monumental degree of latitude for underlings from different institutions and different paradigms to develop policy. This leeway caused the innate conflicts to emerge within competitive governmental structures which lead to confusion and overlapping authority within the political system (Goldhagen). One can make a case that Hitler and his party developed situational ethics and along with it situational politics. These politics involved ideological ends with no means in place. So the function of the state was to develop the means to give them the end they had in mind as conceived by Hitler. Therefore by combining various historiographical schools of thought, functionalism, structuralism, intentionalism it is plausible that one gets constructivism. Lastly, there are the synthesizers who contend that both interpretations are correct but have flaws. It is my contention as an historian that Hitler was in total control but used a Machiavellian form of leadership that called for bold unches on the world stage. He had an overall goal in mind but no means to reach the goal. So using Machiavellian tactics and applying a constructivist philosophy he was able to successfully get what he wanted by a piecemeal approach, while letting underlings fight out the details at lower levels. This allowed him to take all the credit when things went right and to spread all the blame when things went wrong. 8 Works C ited Alexander, B. (2001). How Hitler could have won the world war II; The fatal errors that led to nazi defeat. New York: Three Rivers Press. Browning, C. R. (2000) Nazi policy, jewish workers, and german killers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bullock, A. (1962) Hitler: A study in tyranny. New York: Penguin Books. Dawidowicz, L. S. (1975) The war against the jews. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Dobry, M. (June 2006) â€Å"Hitler, charisma and structure: Reflections on historical methodology. † Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. 157-171. Draper, R. (February 8-22, 1999) â€Å"Decoding the holocaust. † The New Leader, 14-15. Evans, R. J. (2003) The coming of the third reich. New York: Penguin Books. Evans R. J. (2005) The third reich in power. New York: Penguin Books. Farmer, A. (September 2007) â€Å"The unpredictable past, hitler and the holocaust. † History Review, p 4-9. Flew, A. (1979) A dictionary of philosophy. New York: Gremacy Books Fest. J. C. (1973) Hitler. New York; Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich. Fuchs, T. (2000) A concise biography of adolf hitler. New York :Berkley Books. Goldhagen, D. J. (1997) Hitler’s willing exceutioners: Ordinary germans and the holocaust. New York: Vintage Books. Gordon, H. J. (1972) Hitler and the beer hall putsch. Cambridge: Princeton University Press, 1972 Hitler. A. (1975). Mein kampf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kenshaw, I. (2000) The nazi dictatorship: problems and perspectives of interpretation New York:Oxford University Press Koonz, C. (2003) The nazi conscience. Cambridge: Bleknap Press of Harvard University Press. Marrus, M. R. (1987) The holocaust in history. London: University Press of England. 9 Ozmon. H. A. (2003) Philosophical foundations of education. Columbus: Prentice-Hall. Rosenbaum, R. (1998) Explaining hitler: The search for the origins of his evil. New York: Basic Books. 10