All of Hitler's political ideas had their origin in the Enlightenment. These included the concept of the nation as a higher historical force, the notion of superior political sovereignty derived from the general will of the people, and the idea of inherent racial differences in human culture.
These were distinct derivations from Enlightenment anthropology which rejected premodern theology and the common roots and transcendent interests of mankind. The cult of the will is the basis of modern culture, and Hitler merely carried it to an extreme. The very concept of National Socialism as the "will to create a new man" was possible only in the twentieth century context as a typically modern, antitraditional idea.
The same may be said of the Nazi search for extreme autonomy, a radical freedom for the German people. Hitler carried the modern goal of breaking the limits and setting new records to an unprecedented point. For no other movement did the modern doctrine of man as the measure of all things rule to such an extent.
Thus Daniel Bell has judged that all self-centered, subjective modern culture stresses the "triumph of the will"--one of the most common Nazi concepts--and that Hitler is another typical product of modernity.
This also holds with regard to social and economic programs. No ruler in modern times has gone to such lengths as Hitler to acquire, among other things, the natural resources necessary for a modern economy. Nazi Gleichschaultung ["co-ordination", the process by which NSDAP control extended throughout society] and the effort at status revolution tended to unite German society and overcome class distinctions for the first time in German history.
Though Nazi antiurbanism is said to have been inherently reactionary, radical antiurbanism has become a major trend of the late twentieth century. In fact, though the German war economy promoted de facto urbanization and greater industrialization, rather than the reverse, an ultimate Nazi economic goal was to balance farm and industry. When sought by liberals, this is frequently deemed to be the height of enlightenment and sophistication. Finally, Hitler was well in advance of his times in his concern about ecology, environmental reform, and pollution.
Truly large-scale genocide or mass murder is a prototypical development of the twentieth century, from Turkey and Russia to Germany, Cambodia and the countries of Africa. The unique Nazi tactic was to modernize the process, to accomplish the mass murder more efficiently and surgically than other great liquidators in Turkey, Russia or Cambodia have done. Nor was Hitler's genocidal program any more or less "rational," since the goal of mass murder is always political, ideological, or religious and not a matter of practical economic ends, pace Stalin or Mao Tse-Tung.
--Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, pp. 203-204 (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1995).
Professor Payne perhaps missed the genocide perpetrated in the Americas in the 19th century and prior. A look at the whole picture can be helpful.
ReplyDeleteYou perhaps missed the "Truly large scale" qualifier.
ReplyDeleteThat brackets 20th Century genocide and the term as it has been understood from the atrocities of ethnic cleansing and slaughter in previous centuries. E.g., what happened to many American Indian nations and the Vendans of the French Revolution, to name but two prior cases.
Natives of this continent might beg to differ on "truly large scale." I have no problem bowing to their judgment, from those who suggest A.H. got his motivation from Andrew Jackson. I think Americans have been far more clumsy and inept than the Nazis, but it does colonialists no credit to say so.
DeleteThey might.
DeleteAnd then I would ask the unspecified them a couple of questions:
1. Given what we know, how many Jews did Hitler intend on leaving alive within the borders of his nation? Again, ethnic cleansing is an atrocity, but it's not genocide. It is not a matter of execution, it is a matter of intent--since genocide is extermination in toto, brutal, bloody resettlement within one's national boundaries is not the same thing.
2. Jackson, for his atrocious sins, did not march natives into mass graves. To the extent that most second-rate of minds acknowledged inspiration, the failed Austrian artiste expressly cited what the Turks did to the Armenians as the model for genocide.
And while yes, Hitler occasionally gestured to American brutality, he bewailed the defeat of the Confederacy and also called America a mongrel nation whose impurities would invariably lead to its defeat. This last was due in no small part to the fact there were plenty of non-whites resident there.
"... brutal, bloody resettlement within one's national boundaries is not the same thing."
ReplyDeleteIt was, at times, a bit more than that. It was lining up elders, women, and children with men and murdering them in cold blood. Were there whites who thought the US would be better off if there were no natives on the continent at all? I sure don't want to do the "research" to find it out. Clearly, the US military acted as such at certain moments of vengeance.