• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich

Just to touch upon something Raspunsel said: From the book (Rise & Fall) I came away with the feeling that Hitler WAS intensely patriotic toward Germany which appears odd at first glance because he was actually born in Austria. While reading this book and taking everything into account regarding the information provided by William Shirer I came away with the sense that early in his life Hitler needed to be devoted to something he could look up to with respect - ANYTHING; however, he was contentious toward authority in every form from the time when he was a small child. In elementary school he insisted that the other children refer to him as Herr Hitler rather than Adolph which leads me to believe that even at this young age he had delusions of his own greatness and was possibly making himself the object of his own worship. He had a terrible relationship with his father (another authority figure) who was a minor civil clerk in the town they lived in. His father had pulled strings to reserve a job for Hitler when he became of age but Hitler defied him telling his father that he would not work in this capacity. He intended to become an artist.

It is interesting to note that Hitler had one very unlikely friend of his own age who was a model student and a generally well-liked member of the community by one and all. This boy's name escapes me at present but he did survive the war and provided some insights regarding Hitler's personality as a youth. This boy was going to be an architect and Hitler, quite taken by both the boy himself as well as this boy's chosen vocation, never forgot that. When he was Chancellor he was obsessed with the architectural transformation of Berlin for which Albert Speer became the designated, primary architect. The point I am trying to make is that Hitler drew upon his past experiences after he achieved power.

Touching further upon this, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts, Hitler was obsessed with Germany from the time his history teacher beguiled him with legends of the Aryan race, Teutonic knights etc. and he wanted desperately to BE German. As we all know he eventually made his way to Germany where he lived the squalid life of a bum. His artistic "talent" during this period was reduced to painting menus for restaurants and signs for local businesses in the town he lived in. At the start of WWI he joyfully joined the army to contribute to Germany's war effort. During this period he was assigned as a runner. A runner was a soldier who delivered messages by literally running from one outpost to another. This was a very, very hazardous duty. Other runners would sometimes feign sickness or other physical infirmity to get out of duty, but Hitler always volunteered for such duty. It is my opinion that Hitler had transferred what would have been a boy's natural respect for his father to an obsessive respect for Germany and was doing everything he could do, including risking his life, to become worthy of Germany. He was awarded the Iron Cross first and second class for his war duty. He was once shot in the leg and was convalescing from an intake of mustard gas in hospital when the war ended. As the story is told, a priest made the announcement of Germany's surrender to the hospital ward Hitler was in and there was a unanimous outcry among the patients of anger and dismay. Hitler was beside himself with anger that those who he later referred to as "The November Criminals" had sold out Germany, and as Chancellor found them (don't remember if it was some or all of them) and had them executed for treason.

A book written in 1951 by Eric Hoffer called The True Believer describes the psychology of mass movements. In it Hoffer makes the case that many people who join movements do so to compensate for what they perceive to be the worthlessness of their lives. By joining a mass movement one is absorbed into a group, a group which values your participation; provides you with an identity; and a cause to fight for - a cause which brings a sense of meaning to your life which was heretofore absent. It is my belief that Germany was the equivalent of this with regard to Hitler. Germany provided Hitler with the equivalent of the authority figure he could love and devote himself to which had been lacking in his early years. I agree with Raspunsel that he WAS patriotic with regard to Germany, but rather than a natural patriotism it was the misguided and warped fulfillment of a psychological neurosis.

Once again, I encourage you to read this Pulitzer Prize winning book if you have any interest at all in this subject. It is not only very informative but the writing "style" is excellent in my opinion.

.
 
~A book written in 1951 by Eric Hoffer called The True Believer describes the psychology of mass movements. In it Hoffer makes the case that many people who join movements do so to compensate for what they perceive to be the worthlessness of their lives. By joining a mass movement one is absorbed into a group, a group which values your participation; provides you with an identity; and a cause to fight for - a cause which brings a sense of meaning to your life which was heretofore absent.~

I remember this concept from my collegiate days. During my first two years my major was in R&P, so it was presented to us by a professor while we were discussing the snake handlers of Appalachia. Our general reaction was that it was a bunch of nutters that deserved their fate (not uncommon for any group defining itself as "normal"). He, being a teacher, took exception to our summarily dismissing them as less than people and focused on this aspect of human psychology for what seemed an interminable period of time. I remember him quoting from and recommending a then 25 year old book which I believe may be the same one you reference. I am glad he brow beat us. It stuck.

And just for fun, because discussions should be fun:

hitler.jpg
 
And thank you for your answers to my afterthought question. I don't think I'll bother you again on this thread (but who knows?).
I'll just leave a link to 10 pages of citations which will clarify the topic that was on my mind, since I see I was not as clear as I should have been.

https://www.google.com/#q=trivialization+of+holocaust

Thanks all for your consideration.
 
If you've never had the opportunity and have the means take a walk about any one of the preserved internment camps from the Nazi period. Any thoughts about trivializing any of the evils mankind is capable of rather fades away whilst looking at those ovens and visualizing their purpose.
 
Just to touch upon something Raspunsel said: From the book (Rise & Fall) I came away with the feeling that Hitler WAS intensely patriotic toward Germany which appears odd at first glance because he was actually born in Austria.
.

The germanic peoples were in Austro-Hungary and the Sudetenland, Dato, therefore Hitler was German.
If you look at the beginning of WWI you will see that as soon as the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia, Germany had to back them up.
As has been already said in this thread, WWI was the chief cause of WWII.
As a race they are very intelligent and hard working, after all they gave us Einstein, Mozart(German born in Austria) and the brilliant Beethoven. Without Von Brown, the Americans would never have reached the moon.
Whilst in the services I spent a great deal of time in Germany and they are mightily impressive.
I think the point made earlier about a united Europe in our time, is well made, if we assume Operation Sealion had been a success, then all of Europe would now be very united and it would have proably proved benificial in the long run. That is not to say I condone what the nazis did, but I am looking at the bigger picture.
Eventually once England was theirs, they would have calmed down and we would all be part of the admirable Green Party by now, no Sellafiled, but tidal and wind power, totally free fuel. The Germans were always ones to consider future innovations.
Have you read Robert Harris - Fatherland?
I think given your interest you would enjoy it?
 
If you've never had the opportunity and have the means take a walk about any one of the preserved internment camps from the Nazi period. Any thoughts about trivializing any of the evils mankind is capable of rather fades away whilst looking at those ovens and visualizing their purpose.
Sneezy, Thank you for the suggestion. I have no doubt it would be an overwhelming experience which, as things stand, I doubt I shall ever be able to fulfill. However, the Holocaust and WWII museums appearing here and there in various countries may possibly spread the access more broadly and, hopefully, with similar emotional impact. IMO it is enormously difficult to keep a vivid memory going but I believe that the Holocaust was such a blot on the history of mankind that it deserves every effort at preservation.
Sincerely
Peder
 
Roxbrough - I have not read Fatherland by Robert Harris. Thank you for calling it to my attention.

Sneezy - Eric Hoffer, who may have been the author your professor was quoting, is a very interesting case study in his own right. He was entirely self-educated and supported himself as a produce picker and longshoreman; yet his seminal work (The True Believer) went on to be quoted by an American president and opened a floodgate of sociological study regarding the psychology of mass movements.

sparkchaser - Thanks for the picture. Quite interesting to finally see one of his paintings.
 
~ the Holocaust was such a blot on the history of mankind that it deserves every effort at preservation.
Sincerely
Peder

On that, sir, we entirely agree.

sparkchaser - Thanks for the picture. Quite interesting to finally see one of his paintings.

It really is awful, isn't it? I admit that my hatred for the man prejudices my judgement, but I stared at that image for several minutes and could make no sense from it. Hard on the eyes.
 
@ Sneezy - I am not much of an art critic. It's better than I can do but that is certainly not saying much.

Another interesting fact I learned from the book was that though Hitler's school marks were atrociously bad a university (I think it was) in Vienna offered the equivalent of a scholarship to potential students who could prove that they had a special talent which was worth developing. This is as it perhaps should be for there are often people of extraordinary talent who simply are not good at basic school work and it would be a shame to not allow them to perfect their talent simply because their academic aptitude was lacking in other respects. Hitler applied and was turned down twice for such a scholarship when he presented his art work for evaluation. If the evaluator had just been drunk that day, or a mistake had been made which would have allowed him entrance to the school literally tens of millions of people's lives would have been saved, and the entire course of world history would have been different.

There were so many flip-of-the-coin situations like this in Hitler's life revealed in the book where, had the coin just come down differently ONCE, his whole life would have been changed as well as the course of world history. It was like he called "Heads" and GOT heads about a dozen times in a row which was the basis of one of my earlier statements that while reading this book I got the feeling that some supernatural and diabolical hand had been directing his destiny against all the rules of probability.
 
Nor I, but look at how the staircase runs relative to the wall, and the roofline of the building the staircase is attached to relative to the building behind it. It is full of these unnatural lines and junctions. I had the notion that there must be a micro black hole near the center of the painting.

So there we have it, proof positive that Hitler predicted the impending Cern LHC disaster.

I should say that I find Picasso equally dumbfounding, so what do I know?
 
[QUOTE="DATo, post: 374635, member: 25782
I got the feeling that some supernatural and diabolical hand had been directing his destiny against all the rules of probability.[/QUOTE]


When using the special system to find out the numeric value of Hitler's name; like Nero, Alexander and Napolean before him, it adds up to 666!
Strangely though Thatcher's does not?!
 
I agree with you on Picasso's cubist output, if you look at his earlier work however you will discover that he could paint beautifully.
I agree with Roxy. Picasso was a excellent artist in the classical tradition but later, as we know, became most famous for his abstract, cubist art. What is written below is a bit off-topic but speaks to the transition from "literal" artistic rendering to the abstract.

Art (in this case I am talking about painting) at one time was directed toward the rendering of reality in its "literal" or obvious appearance. It is hard for us to get our minds around this today because we are inundated with a plethora of gadgets which can capture images -both moving and static- as well as sounds; however, in the past it was the extent to which an artist could accurately capture reality and render it on a canvas which marked the measure of his talent and renown because there was no other way to "capture" an image suspended in time. But in 1839 Louis Daguerre announced the creation of the first of what later came to be known as Daguerrotypes. It did not take long for photography to supplant painting as the medium of choice for the capture of images of landscape, still life or portraiture. To be sure, old habits die hard and there was still a strong following of art and artists but Daguerre, in one stroke, rendered the medium of painting obsolete where the mission involved the "literal" image rather than an artist's rendering. No matter how talented the artist he could never hope to compete with photography in terms of objective accuracy.

It is my consideration that a group of artists who were acutely attuned, by virtue of their vocation, to the philosophy lurking just beneath the photography vs. painting dichotomy joined forces to present an entirely new take on art. Artists, including Cezanne, Renoir, Manet, Pissarro, Degas, Monet, Bazille, Morisot and 28 others formed a group which became known as The Impressionists, and the dedicated object of their work was to present art as it is seen through the eyes of the artist rather than the layman. They understood that the age of literal artistic rendering was over and hoped to baptize an entirely new approach to art appreciation. Their first exhibit in 1874 was held, interestingly enough, in the salon of a photographer. Their art was vilified by the critics as too outre' and the very term impressionist was originally directed as a pejorative. But by the end of the 19th century many of the original Impressionist painters had achieved a high level of success and acceptance by the public as well as some critics.

I believe it was the success achieved by the Impressionist art movement which opened the floodgates to the wilder and more abstract art which came to be known later as the cubist and fauvist movements. Talented classic-tradition artists found that there was more fame and financial success to be found by being first (or among the first) to initiate a new movement. This concept led to what we have come to know as the modern schools of sculpture, music, and literature which began to spring up in the early 1920s.

Had Picasso stuck to traditional painting I offer the considered opinion that we would never have heard of him.
 
[QUOTE="DATo, post: 374635, member: 25782If the evaluator had just been drunk that day, or a mistake had been made which would have allowed him entrance to the school literally tens of millions of people's lives would have been saved, and the entire course of world history would have been different..[/QUOTE]

"Different" maybe. But, better? Not necessarily. The Communists were a close contender for power in those days in Germany, and one of their strongmen might well have acceded to power, even if not some other Nazi. The more democratic parties were way down in the standings, IIRC.
So, we wish; but who does know what that future held?
Those were very bad times in Germany.
 
Last edited:
Peder, I ask you, in your conscience now, if you could go back in history and grant ANY of the parties opposed to Hitler, including the communist party, power in Hitler's stead, knowing what you know now of the history of Hitler's tenure as leader of Germany, wouldn't you do it? We can theorize all day about what MIGHT have happened if the communists or any of the other six contending parties achieved power but we already KNOW what happened under the Nazis and there is NO WAY that I can be persuaded to believe that any of those other parties could have been "necessarily no better" or worse for either Germany or for all of humankind than the Nazi party under Hitler. Dear God in heaven, how could ANY of them have possibly been worse?!!!
 
Peder, I ask you, in your conscience now, if you could go back in history and grant ANY of the parties opposed to Hitler, including the communist party, power in Hitler's stead, knowing what you know now of the history of Hitler's tenure as leader of Germany, wouldn't you do it? We can theorize all day about what MIGHT have happened if the communists or any of the other six contending parties achieved power but we already KNOW what happened under the Nazis and there is NO WAY that I can be persuaded to believe that any of those other parties could have been "necessarily no better" or worse for either Germany or for all of humankind than the Nazi party under Hitler. Dear God in heaven, how could ANY of them have possibly been worse?!!!
Well, I'll answer both your questions.
First, I'll offer you the Communists as a party that was as fully capable of exterminating people including Jews, as we have seen under the Soviet regime in Russia. Imagine an alliance of Stalin and the German Communists, from Dear God in Heaven.
Second, I would, of course, choose the surviving remnants of the Weimar Republic to continue to govern Germany, first and foremost.

My mention of the plight of Germany during its economic hard times was in no way meant to endorse Hitler's rise to power. If you wish further reading on the question of just how he achieved political power in the circumstances, I would suggest Germans into Nazis by Peter Fritzsche. With the popular vote apportioned as it was (~45%, ~35%, ~10%, crumbs, IIRC) it seems clear that either a National Socialist or a Communist regime was in the cards for Germany, no matter who the leader.

And "no better or worse" is not a phrase or thought of mine, so no comment. Please don't put words in my mouth.
 
Back
Top