Influenced also by his avatars, Arthur de Gobineau
and to a greater degree by Austin Stewart Chamberlain, Hitler set forth a Manichean view of history as a racial struggle between two abstractions or
entities, mankind’s highest specimen, the Aryan and its lowest, the powerful
and satanic Jew. As the pied piper of a ‘pure’ race, he fulsomely praised the
odious fraud, The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion, convinced by the spurious logic that anyone who denied its
authenticity was proof of its veracity. If the Aryans should lose this apocalyptic
struggle between heaven and hell, “a bastardized and niggerized world” would
destroy all that was “humanly beautiful and sublime” and the “dark veils of an
age without culture will again descend on this globe.” It is significant that Hitler
attributed astonishing power to the Jews so that when he later embarked on his
systematic campaign of destruction against them, he continued to foster the
impression that they constituted anything but a weak hapless people who were
being needlessly persecuted. Traumatized by injuries that included gassing, the
humiliation of defeat and the postwar revolutionary upheaval, the aggrieved
zealot fastened his all-devouring rage on traditional images of Jews as
war-profiteers and international financiers, as clerks and agitators, whom he
held responsible for engendering a mood of defeatism. In keeping with his
frequent deployment of bacterial imagery, he warned and prophesied that in the
case of a future war, “If the best men were dying at the front, the least we
could do was to wipe out the vermin.”
By 1920 with Russian émigrés arriving in Munich and
the German publication of the Protocols, Hitler yoked familiar resentments of
Jews as bloated profiteers who machinate international finance and gaunt
sinister Bolsheviks. In his mind, they were polar twins of the same menace, and
developments in Russia demonstrated a dramatic breakthrough for Jews to achieve
world domination. In a vivid but unoriginal passage, he melded these fears of
the “devil” Jew by evoking the specter of the “blood-Jew[“s] tyranny in
establishing Bolshevism “where he killed or starved about thirty million people
with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to
give a gang of Jewish journalists and
stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.” But the Jewish rulers
would not be able to maintain their control over their Empire because Jews,
being an uncreative could not develop a state but only “a ferment of decomposition…ripe
for collapse.” Germany has been chosen to destroy “Jewish Bolshevism,” and at
the same time to provide the German people with living space, so that they as a
people would not vanish or serve “others as a slave nation.” Instead of pursuing
the policies of the Second Reich by extending its influence south or acquiring
colonies, in unmistakable terms, Hitler revealed his intention that the new
Reich would follow in the footsteps of the Teutonic Knights of the Middle Ages,
by “tak[ing] up where we broke up six hundred years ago” and acquiring soil “by
the sword” for the land-hungry Germanic peasants through conquering territory
in the East.
His brutal Social Darwinian view and his conviction that war revealed the ultimate truth about nations, when they were locked in an amoral struggle with the weak forced to the wall, mandated the destruction of the enemy. Bolshevik power over Russia permitted him to convince his audiences that Germany would be next. Surely the creation of a brutal, albeit short-lived, Soviet style government in Bavaria had provided sufficient evidence for this supposition. Whatever success the Bolsheviks had experienced he attributed to the power of the Jews, whom he had elevated to cosmic proportions, to the extent that they managed remarkably to be both Marxists and international capitalist financiers and the instruments that operated behind them. If this formidable foe were to be vanquished, Germans must be prepared to fight and win or they did not deserve to live, a threat that he tried to carry out in April 1945. In his apocalyptic (and presciently accurate) scenario, he averred that no diplomatic maneuvers resulting in a future treaty of Versailles with Jewish Bolshevism would occur: “There is no making pacts with Jews: there can only be the hard: either—or.” It is clear that these passages presaged a battle cry for war. The last one had been a godsend that rescued him from a miserable existence in which he parlayed his experience as a dispatch runner into medals and recognition. Having found his metier in the patriotic intoxication of war, he anticipated that the next one would help to satisfy his lust for greater prestige and power. No wonder he would compare himself to one of Wagner’s war-mongering gods. Perhaps he hoped that another war might still his perpetual restlessness in which the emotional intensity of a theatrical experience or one of his own public speaking performances offered only a temporary respite in peacetime. The future war that he fully expected and wanted Germany to fight would be like no other war; it would be one of extermination: “Germany will either be a great nation or there will be no Germany.”
The stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissar that was used to incite hatred against Jews in occupied territories |
The fusion of Jews and Bolshevism into a satanic
international force emboldened him by the end of Mein Kampf to spell out his homicidal fantasies when he thought
back to the lessons that should be learned from the recent war. “If at the
beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousands of these
Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to
hundreds of thousands of our best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of
millions at the front would not have been in vain.” Whether it would have
altered the course of the war was beside the point; according to Hitler, it
might have saved the lives of millions of "real Germans" and avoided the
revolutionary turmoil that followed because Jews had been its agitators. But
the important point is that he revealed in unambiguous terms his plans for the
Jews in a future war.
As he moved closer to achieving power, he attempted
with mixed success to become more circumspect donning the persona of a unifier
and statesman. The British publication Punch
perceptively captured this duality in Hitler with its cartoon entitled “Jekyll
and Hyde” where a sanctimonious exalted Jekyll remains in the background
balanced by a bestial unbridled Hyde lunging menacingly in the foreground. (The
cartoon is reproduced in Germany
Possessed by H. G. Baynes, London: Jonathan Cape, 1941.) Not until 1939
when he delivered an ominous speech did he state such a bold proposition
publicly.
Whether he was really interested in protecting the lives of “real
Germans” is problematic because from 1933 to 1945, there were few instances
that Hitler demonstrated the slightest concern for flesh and blood German lives
as opposed to the sufferings of the “German people” in the abstract. Even
during the height of the war when allied bombs rained on German cities,
according to Albert Speer, he evinced scant empathy for the casualties and the
subsequent human misery. Rather he was more upset about the destruction of
public buildings, especially the burned-out theatres that he demanded be
rebuilt immediately. As if to demonstrate how far he was out of touch with
ordinary Germans, he declaimed that “theatrical performances are needed
precisely because the morale of the people must be maintained.” Germans were
expendable and, as events unfolded, losing the war became secondary to him to
liquidating every Jew in Europe.
Underpinning the repellent content of Mein Kampf is paranoia and a
conspiratorial mindset that leaps from the pages. In its style and tone it
conveys the intensity of his all-consuming hatred that he bore during the
postwar years. His persistent deployment of the language of parasitology was
viciously designed to dehumanize his enemies and justify his rage. Combining
medieval associations and imagery drawn from modern science, he churned out
chimerical accusations against the “Jewish poisoners” the “eternal bloodsucker”
and a “typical parasite, a sponger who like a noxious bacillus keeps spreading
as soon as a favorable medium invites him.”
While this type of language reflected his
ideological stances towards Jews during the early 1920s, he found it expedient
to invent a narrative of the prewar years in Vienna to demonstrate that he
metamorphosed from “a weak-kneed cosmopolitan to an anti-Semite,” but recent
scholarship (Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s
Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship, translated by Thomas Thornton, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999) has challenged this view. True, he
retrospectively described his experience of Jews during the five years he spent
in Vienna as a visceral aversion, experiencing nausea “from the smell of these
caftan-wearers [who were] “a maggot in a rotting body,” and a “spiritual
pestilence, worse than the Black Death.” However, his personal relationship
with Jews during that time was generally positive. When he spent time in a
male shelter with educated Jews, he dismissed the then-popular blood libel
charge against a particular Jew calling it “absolute nonsense, a groundless
slander.” He even denied that Jewish capitalists were usurers, and asserted
that the major share of capital was in Christian hands. He depended upon Jews
to buy his mediocre postcard watercolours, and he was unstinting in his praise
of the Jewish born Gustave Mahler’s interpretations of his beloved Wagner. In no
discernible way did Hitler exhibit the seething monomaniacal fixation on the
Jews that appeared in the Viennese days’ account of his memoirs.
As of 2012 after a seventy-year ban, Germans can read this book as the Bavarian government is publishing an annotated version for schools, in part to repudiate neo-Nazi propaganda |
No comments:
Post a Comment