Hitler, Moralism and Me

Hitler wrote:

"These clerics! All I need is to see such a black inferiority come walking by! The brain was given to man to think with; and when he then wants to think, such a black grubby little bug goes and burns him at the stake! I can see the building before me, classical, as beautiful as anything: the astronomical observatory on the Pöstling hill in Linz. The temple of idolatry already there I will remove, and put this up there instead. On future Sundays tens of thousands of people will go through and all will be entranced by the vastness of the universe. As an inscription I can imagine only this: 'The Skies Praise the Honour of the Eternal!' With this we will educate the people to a religion, but an anti-cleric one, we educate them to be humble."

from Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann, pp. 333. (Incidentally, if anyone is interested in a book describing what National Socialism was to Hitler, I would recommend this one. The work takes Hitler seriously as a thinker and is completely free of any soppy self-righteousness. On the other hand, it's very dry and some sections are overlong/repetitious.)

Origins of War

Aside from functioning as a handy substitute for beelzebub, Hitler's name is most often associated with two things: the capital-H Holocaust and the responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War. It's the latter with which I concern myself here.

For most, the issue is simple: Hitler's Germany started WWII by her invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939, thereby forcing Britain and France into aiding Poland. That is clear enough; but this simple explanation, which, no doubt, contains some truth, is ultimately parochial and fails to consider the whole situation. We might make this clear by putting forth a different, oppositely-parochial explanation: It was actually France and Britain who first declared war upon Germany, and thus they began WWII. There's undoubtedly some truth in such a statement as well; but most people would probably raise a little finger here and complain that I'm being unfair by ignoring the reasons for why Britain and France declared war.

I would agree; but then why, in this rather common and, I think, recognizable conception of how the war got started, are the mitigating factors and reasons accepted, even emphasized, in the "Allied" case and yet completely ignored in the case for National Socialist Germany?

Indeed, that Hitler had revisionist aims for Europe is generally understood and admitted; but there remains in popular imagination some notion that the "Allies" went to war to save some particular nation-state. Really, they went to war due to their anti-revisionist aim for Europe. Attention should be paid to the fact that Britain's March 31st, 1939 guarantee to Poland (the point at which Britain made a commitment to go to war) finds its origins not in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia, but in the concern that Hitler would gain access to Romanian oil and resources. Economic blockades were a vital part of British war strategy; thus it was imperative to keep Germany away from establishing a resource base in south-eastern Europe. [For these issues see Chap. 6 in Newman, S. (1976) March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland. Oxford University Press. Also, Strang, G. B. Once More unto the Breach. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 721-752]

Thus an understanding of the actions of all involved, and an understanding of the origins of WWII, will be best achieved by thinking of the historical situation as a complex of competing interests and historical continuities, rather than being taken in by the fevered image of an irrational, self-aggrandizing monster who holds unique responsibility for everything that took place c.a. 1933-1945 (hardly even an exaggerated estimate of how some people conceive of the early-mid 20th century).

We claim that what was at work during the period leading up to war was who should/would hold the dominant position on the European continent.

Quote :

"The Fuhrer replied that [...] he had laid down a very simple rule for himself. Whenever reasonable and well-founded claims which he had put forward in the past, had been rejected, he had not acted immediately, but had merely said to himself that all the normal methods of procedure to realize these demands were exhausted and that it was useless to handle the respective problem any longer through the diplomatic channels. He [Hitler] then awaited his moment when, without further discussion, he could quickly carry through his intentions."

[March 20th, 1939] Documents on German Foreign Policy, Series D/Vol. VI, pp. 57, No. 52

Moralism

The last section finished on various powers' concerns over territorial dominance. As we noted earlier, the "simple notion" of the war's origin is that a certain state exercised her power (presumably "unjustifiably", whatever that is supposed to mean) in order to alter the reigning states of affairs. What is often implicit in many discussions of this exercising of power, and attacking another, is the notion that it is somehow a moral failure and a cause for some unique blame.

It is demanded, with copious amounts of distasteful sanctimony, where the "aggressor" aquired the "right" to attack this “innocent victim”. But I should like to know where the victim aquired the right to not be attacked! Or, to put it in another way, where the opponents aquired the right to stop the aggressor from attacking.

There is no place in this world which is neutral, in the sense of being unhampered by any power relations. As we have said, our existence as such is one big seething complex of power relations. Thus, a state which cowers and fails to attack an enemy is not transported into some imaginary sphere where it can live how it pleases. No, such a holding back means that the expanding state in question compromises on its ideals and submits to the reigning status quo; a status quo which has most often been scrupulously fortified by the foregoing self-righteous garbage and other refuse produced by snake-tounged moralists quick to extoll the wonders of peace in the face of an intractable problem of shifting power structures, precisely because it affords them the opportunity of holding on to what they have gained by the methods now being threatened against them.

Even as a youngish teenager, I was suspicious of the above kind of humanitarian moralism. Efforts towards peace mean efforts towards stability and diminished opportunity to effect change, which means the solidification of the existing condition. Attempts to revise the condition will then always draw disapproving clucks from those who would benefit most from leaving well enough alone. The "cluck" could range from being called an asshole for making waves, to having your country invaded and split in two. Moralists and pacfists are delusional lackeys first and hypocrites second.

Another element to consider is whether fighting defensively is really all that different from fighting offensively. In a 1v1 war, both state powers have some purported claim to some amount of material property. The simple fact that the property was first in the other guys' hands doesn't strike me as at all pertinent; the successful conclusion of the actual war will ultimately decide the issue. As we saw above, the fact that the property is "owned" by "state A" means solely that "state A" has organized itself to take advantage of the land, exactly what the intruding "state B" is attempting to do - at the former owners' expense, of course.

I see no virtue in following regulations nor in shaking one's head and castigating men greater than oneself simply because they didn't or don't adhere to some petty laws that protect the filthy runt of humanity, or because they didn't or don't respect paper treaties that elongate the sun tanning session of those that bask in the status-quo.

I used to wonder whether I might be a National Socialist; but, aside from harbouring some residual admiration for Hitler, I've since realized that I'm really not one of those devilish Nazis. A large part of what attracted me to Nazism was that wonderful, wonderful schadenfreude -- and, of course, its use as a source of identity, etc: in a broad sense, my Nazi sympathy was an outlet for my resentful reaction to the stale humanism, or genteel polite hedonism, of most people I came in contact with and the self-satisfied way in which they accepted certain "obvious", socially safe, opinions. After understanding that, the colour in the whole thing started to fade.

Brilliant!!!

I would say the image of Hitler, like that of Stalin, goes through the usual emotional grindstone, is pulverized into a digestible meal for the masses to digest, feeling fuls9illed and that they've thoroughly dealt with the phenomenon of war or of "evil".

Hitler can only be understood through the prism of that period's economics and social pressures.
To dismiss him as mad or as evil is what imbeciles do, to shelter themselves from a world they wish was different.

Hatred for the Jews was not irrational, even if it was marketed to the passes using irrational arguments.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:

Crowds exhibit a docile respect for force, and are but slightly impressed by kindness, which for them is scarcely more than a form of weakness. Their sympathies have never been bestowed on easy-going masters, but on tyrants who vigorously oppress them. It is to these latter that they always erect the greatest statues. It is true that they willingly trample on the despot whom they have stripped of his power, but this is because, having lost his strength, he has resumed his place among the weak, who are to be despised and not feared. The type of hero dear to crowds will always have a semblance of a Caesar. His insignia attracts them, his authority overawes them, and his sword instils them with fear…Should the strength of an authority be intermittent, the crowd, always obedient to its extreme sentiments, passes alternately from anarchy to servitude, and from servitude to anarchy.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:

Ideas being only accessible to crowds after having assumed a very simple shape must often undergo the most thoroughgoing transformation to become popular. It is especially when we are dealing with somewhat lofty philosophic and scientific ideas that we see how far-reaching are the modifications they require in order to lower them to the level of the intelligence of crowds.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:

This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence. The decisions affecting matters of general interest come to by an assembly of men of distinction, but specialists in different walks of life, are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles. The truth is, they can only bring to bear in common on the work in hand those mediocre qualities which are the birthright of every average individual. In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated. It is not all the world, as is so often repeated, that has more wit than Voltaire, but assuredly Voltaire that has more wit than all the world, if by "all the world" crowds are to be understood.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:

The fundamental characteristics of the race, which constitute the unvarying source from which all our sentiments spring, always exert an influence on the irritability of crowds, their impulsiveness and their mobility, as on all the popular sentiments we shall have to study. All crowds are doubtless always irritable and impulsive, but with great variations of degree. For instance, the difference between a Latin and an Anglo-Saxon crowd is striking. The most recent facts in French history throw a vivid light on this point. The mere publication, twenty-five years ago, of a telegram, relating an insult supposed to have been offered an ambassador, was sufficient to determine an explosion of fury, whence followed immediately a terrible war. Some years later the telegraphic announcement of an insignificant reverse at Langson provoked a fresh explosion which brought about the instantaneous overthrow of the government. At the same moment a much more serious reverse undergone by the English expedition to Khartoum produced only a slight emotion in England, and no ministry was overturned. Crowds are everywhere distinguished by feminine characteristics, but Latin crowds are the most feminine of all.

Satyr wrote:

Hatred for the Jews was not irrational, even if it was marketed to the passes using irrational arguments.

This is a good point.

Most of Europe was "anti-semitic" then anyway. Who doesn't hate the Jews?

Alan Dershowitz wrote:

How does one understand — not even forgive, simply understand! – the virulently anti-Jewish statements of intellectuals throughout history? Their numbers included H. L. Mencken (‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of’); George Bernard Shaw (‘Stop being Jews and start being human beings’); Henry Adams (‘The whole rotten carcass is rotten with Jew worms’); H.G. Wells (‘A careful study of anti-Semitism, prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritation they inflict’); Edgar Degas (characterized as a ‘wild anti-Semite’); Denis Diderot (‘Brutish people, vile and vulgar men’); Theodore Dreiser (New York is a ‘kike’s dream of a ghetto,’ and Jews are not ‘pure Americans’ and ‘lack integrity’); T. S. Eliot (a social as well as literary anti-Semite, even after the Holocaust); Immanuel Kant (‘The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning … They are a nation of swindlers.’) Other famous anti-Semites include Tacitus, Cicero, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, of course, Richard Wagner. This honor roll of anti-Jewish bigotry goes on, and included people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age. The answer to the question why? probably lies more in the realm of abnormal psychology than in any rational attempts to find understandable cause in history, or economics. Anti-Semitism is a disease of the soul, and diseases are best diagnosed by examining those infected with them.

There is no such thing as a morally acceptable war.
To give war a veil of acceptance is a very modern concept. It is nothing but a tool for the manipulation of populace. It is a consequence of non dictatorial regimes.

A modern concept? Bellum iustum?

If anything is modern, I'd put my money on it being the rejection and denigration of war. My limited understanding is that pagan Europe experienced a certain dearth of pacifist ideas.

In any case, you seem to have misunderstood the direction of the post. It's not a glorification of war; it's an acknowledgment of its abiding importance and reality, and a censure of the hypocritical, selective and partisan denouncing of it by others.

About as modern as christianity.

My post is a censure of hypocrytical et cetera as well.

I did not mean it as a criticism of your taste for blood. I find it quite yummy, myself.

Quote :

It is demanded, with copious amounts of distasteful sanctimony, where the "aggressor" aquired the "right" to attack this innocent victim. But I should like to know where the victim aquired the right to not be attacked!

Very very good...

If there is no right not to be attacked, there should be no need for a right to attack

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Hitler wrote:

"These clerics! All I need is to see such a black inferiority come walking by! The brain was given to man to think with; and when he then wants to think, such a black grubby little bug goes and burns him at the stake! I can see the building before me, classical, as beautiful as anything: the astronomical observatory on the Pöstling hill in Linz. The temple of idolatry already there I will remove, and put this up there instead. On future Sundays tens of thousands of people will go through and all will be entranced by the vastness of the universe. As an inscription I can imagine only this: 'The Skies Praise the Honour of the Eternal!' With this we will educate the people to a religion, but an anti-cleric one, we educate them to be humble."

from Hitler: The Policies of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann, pp. 333. (Incidentally, if anyone is interested in a book describing what National Socialism was to Hitler, I would recommend this one. The work takes Hitler seriously as a thinker and is completely free of any soppy self-righteousness. On the other hand, it's very dry and some sections are overlong/repetitious.)

Origins of War

Aside from functioning as a handy substitute for beelzebub, Hitler's name is most often associated with two things: the capital-H Holocaust and the responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War. It's the latter with which I concern myself here.

For most, the issue is simple: Hitler's Germany started WWII by her invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939, thereby forcing Britain and France into aiding Poland. That is clear enough; but this simple explanation, which, no doubt, contains some truth, is ultimately parochial and fails to consider the whole situation. We might make this clear by putting forth a different, oppositely-parochial explanation: It was actually France and Britain who first declared war upon Germany, and thus they began WWII. There's undoubtedly some truth in such a statement as well; but most people would probably raise a little finger here and complain that I'm being unfair by ignoring the reasons for why Britain and France declared war.

I would agree; but then why, in this rather common and, I think, recognizable conception of how the war got started, are the mitigating factors and reasons accepted, even emphasized, in the "Allied" case and yet completely ignored in the case for National Socialist Germany?

Indeed, that Hitler had revisionist aims for Europe is generally understood and admitted; but there remains in popular imagination some notion that the "Allies" went to war to save some particular nation-state. Really, they went to war due to their anti-revisionist aim for Europe. Attention should be paid to the fact that Britain's March 31st, 1939 guarantee to Poland (the point at which Britain made a commitment to go to war) finds its origins not in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia, but in the concern that Hitler would gain access to Romanian oil and resources. Economic blockades were a vital part of British war strategy; thus it was imperative to keep Germany away from establishing a resource base in south-eastern Europe. [For these issues see Chap. 6 in Newman, S. (1976) March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland. Oxford University Press. Also, Strang, G. B. Once More unto the Breach. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 721-752]

Thus an understanding of the actions of all involved, and an understanding of the origins of WWII, will be best achieved by thinking of the historical situation as a complex of competing interests and historical continuities, rather than being taken in by the fevered image of an irrational, self-aggrandizing monster who holds unique responsibility for everything that took place c.a. 1933-1945 (hardly even an exaggerated estimate of how some people conceive of the early-mid 20th century).

We claim that what was at work during the period leading up to war was who should/would hold the dominant position on the European continent.

Quote :

"The Fuhrer replied that [...] he had laid down a very simple rule for himself. Whenever reasonable and well-founded claims which he had put forward in the past, had been rejected, he had not acted immediately, but had merely said to himself that all the normal methods of procedure to realize these demands were exhausted and that it was useless to handle the respective problem any longer through the diplomatic channels. He [Hitler] then awaited his moment when, without further discussion, he could quickly carry through his intentions."

[March 20th, 1939] Documents on German Foreign Policy, Series D/Vol. VI, pp. 57, No. 52

Moralism

The last section finished on various powers' concerns over territorial dominance. As we noted earlier, the "simple notion" of the war's origin is that a certain state exercised her power (presumably "unjustifiably", whatever that is supposed to mean) in order to alter the reigning states of affairs. What is often implicit in many discussions of this exercising of power, and attacking another, is the notion that it is somehow a moral failure and a cause for some unique blame.

It is demanded, with copious amounts of distasteful sanctimony, where the "aggressor" aquired the "right" to attack this “innocent victim”. But I should like to know where the victim aquired the right to not be attacked! Or, to put it in another way, where the opponents aquired the right to stop the aggressor from attacking.

There is no place in this world which is neutral, in the sense of being unhampered by any power relations. As we have said, our existence as such is one big seething complex of power relations. Thus, a state which cowers and fails to attack an enemy is not transported into some imaginary sphere where it can live how it pleases. No, such a holding back means that the expanding state in question compromises on its ideals and submits to the reigning status quo; a status quo which has most often been scrupulously fortified by the foregoing self-righteous garbage and other refuse produced by snake-tounged moralists quick to extoll the wonders of peace in the face of an intractable problem of shifting power structures, precisely because it affords them the opportunity of holding on to what they have gained by the methods now being threatened against them.

Even as a youngish teenager, I was suspicious of the above kind of humanitarian moralism. Efforts towards peace mean efforts towards stability and diminished opportunity to effect change, which means the solidification of the existing condition. Attempts to revise the condition will then always draw disapproving clucks from those who would benefit most from leaving well enough alone. The "cluck" could range from being called an asshole for making waves, to having your country invaded and split in two. Moralists and pacfists are delusional lackeys first and hypocrites second.

Another element to consider is whether fighting defensively is really all that different from fighting offensively. In a 1v1 war, both state powers have some purported claim to some amount of material property. The simple fact that the property was first in the other guys' hands doesn't strike me as at all pertinent; the successful conclusion of the actual war will ultimately decide the issue. As we saw above, the fact that the property is "owned" by "state A" means solely that "state A" has organized itself to take advantage of the land, exactly what the intruding "state B" is attempting to do - at the former owners' expense, of course.

I see no virtue in following regulations nor in shaking one's head and castigating men greater than oneself simply because they didn't or don't adhere to some petty laws that protect the filthy runt of humanity, or because they didn't or don't respect paper treaties that elongate the sun tanning session of those that bask in the status-quo.

I used to wonder whether I might be a National Socialist; but, aside from harbouring some residual admiration for Hitler, I've since realized that I'm really not one of those devilish Nazis. A large part of what attracted me to Nazism was that wonderful, wonderful schadenfreude -- and, of course, its use as a source of identity, etc: in a broad sense, my Nazi sympathy was an outlet for my resentful reaction to the stale humanism, or genteel polite hedonism, of most people I came in contact with and the self-satisfied way in which they accepted certain "obvious", socially safe, opinions. After understanding that, the colour in the whole thing started to fade.

This post is too perfect, but chiefly the part in bold.

Like Advocatus, I too had long found something strange about modern moralizing over wars, but not to the level he did. I simply knew from experience how immoral in other areas, or how quick to try to expand one's own place in the world at others' expense, most people, including those who moralize against war, were. But, knowledge of that hypocrisy wasn't enough to allow me to shed delusions of the possibility and beneficiality of world peace.

The OP, especially the part Apaosha and Supra-Aryanist mention was very illuminating for me just over a year ago when I first read it. I had already basically rid myself of the aforementioned delusions, but I still saw the human world, with it's geography based on past conquests, in a static state.

There's only peace on the other side: in death.
The rest is only Power, even for humanists.
Thinking in terms of conquest, aimlessness, is victimizing oneself, ressentiment for becoming subverted: a way to place the blame, to moralize, on something other lacking, which is outside of one's Power, control, thereby never something oneself lacks.

How did Hitlers Ubermensch work? I suspect knowing that would give away all one would need in terms of morality and end-goal of the Third Reich. Perhaps even the whole reason for all the aggressiveness the Third Reich showed (internal, that severity with the people, as I understand it).


I have never understood what it meant, and trying to google it is , well, useless; lots of reference to Nietzsche and how he 'corrupted' Nietzsches Ubermensch/overman. That does not tell a whole lot about what Hitler & Co. really thought that their uberman was about.

I also dont understand Hitlers "Aryanism" at all. What is he even talking about , in reality?

Im sorry if this is not the thread, just delete this post if it is not. I have searched answers to these questions but its completely and utterly impossible with all the negative propaganda going on to find any thing that would resemble clarity.

Drome wrote:

I also dont understand Hitlers "Aryanism" at all. What is he even talking about , in reality?

Why dont you read Hitler's Mein Kampf directly?

And then the Taha book.

Drome wrote:

How did Hitlers Ubermensch work? I suspect knowing that would give away all one would need in terms of morality and end-goal of the Third Reich. Perhaps even the whole reason for all the aggressiveness the Third Reich showed (internal, that severity with the people, as I understand it).


I have never understood what it meant, and trying to google it is , well, useless; lots of reference to Nietzsche and how he 'corrupted' Nietzsches Ubermensch/overman. That does not tell a whole lot about what Hitler & Co. really thought that their uberman was about.

I also dont understand Hitlers "Aryanism" at all. What is he even talking about , in reality?

Im sorry if this is not the thread, just delete this post if it is not. I have searched answers to these questions but its completely and utterly impossible with all the negative propaganda going on to find any thing that would resemble clarity.

I remember reading that the Nazis were actually split on the subject of Nietzsche, which, had the Nazis been successful, would of been very interesting in terms of internal power struggles... How they would of "worked" toward Nietzsche's Overman...

A question to anyone who might know: In WWI copies of TSZ were handed out to German troops. Did this same practice carry over into WWII?

Lyssa wrote:

Drome wrote:

I also dont understand Hitlers "Aryanism" at all. What is he even talking about , in reality?

Why dont you read Hitler's Mein Kampf directly?

And then the Taha book.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It has been alleged that Nietzsche's sister in a sort of Machiavellian ploy tried to personally introduce the concept to Hitler.

I consider pacifism as highly immoral.
Moralism has a bad name, due to massive miss-use.
A dog would run away if it saw a guy holding up a stick, if the dog had been beaten before. To the dog stick = evil. So, if a human got burned by religion, for example, he might go hard core atheist.

Pacifism is disarming. It's like cutting off the goat's horns. It makes the masses easier to control, easier to use, etc. And it's sold as a countermeasure to evils.

The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France". HITLER.

Why Islam were closer to nazis than to france, was it to gain to support of arabs who were fighting the jews, or what else.

I suppose that what might have played a factor in that assessment is that Islam and Nazism are both patriarchal, authoritarian, socially conservative ideologies. So ideologically they are more similar, though Germany is obviously culturally more similar to France.

They were having bosnian muslims in their ranks in ss,and subhumans as they categorize them like blacks, jewish, russian, excluding the theory that only germano-aryan people belong to nazism.

Whats hitler religious and political views of ISIS?