Did Hitler "beleive in his own rectitude?" (Trevo

[kiwi123]

I've just finished Ron Rosenbaum's book, "Explaining Hitler: the search for the origins of his evil". In this book, Rosenbaum interviewed Hugh Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock on their apparently opposing views on Hitler's "thoughtworld".

Trevor-Roper's view was that Hitler "believed in his own rectitude" - ie, he honestly beleived that what he was doing was right, that the attrocities he set in motion were justified. He went to his death without guilt, or any sense that his acts of gross inhumanity were in any way wrong.

Bullock believed (initially) that Hitler was not a true beleiver, that Hitler hitched his wagon to the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of the times purely for his own political gain. Thus, his acts were all the more abhorant because he would have been aware that the 50-odd million deaths he precipitated were some cause for shame. (Bullock later modified his views).

The danger with Trevor-Roper's view is that Hitler could be in one sense excused, because he was true to his convictions, however misguided. The question is, did Hitler beleive that what he did was right? Or could there have been some tiny spark of concience in him that could not fail to acknowledge that murder is murder? What do people think?

[SteveFBS]

I truly think that Hitler died believing he was right in what he did, and with his egocentric view of the world and the way he viewed his role in World History he felt he had been betrayed and let down by the people he had given the tasks of implementing his "programs" to. I do not believe he felt guilty in any way and I'm sure he died feeling only that he had been betrayed and let down by the very people he was trying to help make great. (Not that I can get inside his mind, but that's just the sense I get of his thinking when I consider his opinions of himself and his self believed role of "Great Man Of History").

[gavmeister13]

I'll second sstcb - I think AH said something along the lines of "the Germans deserve to be defeated as they have proved themselves unworthy of life/me" or something similar. It sounds a little bitter and unrepentant...

[kiwi123]

We also know that Hitler vascilated at times, espcially during the last days in the bunker. That quote is attribued to Albert Speer I think, words to that effect appear in "Inside the Thrid Reich". This was at a time when Hitler was making comments along the lines that everything is lost, and discussing the most effective way to commit suicide. The next day he would be pinning all his hopes on Wenck and Busse and discussing plans for building projects in Berlin and Linz.

Murder is murder in any society, including Germany prior to Hitler's coming to power. I am no antrhopologist, but I know of no culture that does not in some way punish murder socially and/or legally. He could not have grown to adulthood without some small awareness that it might be wrong to seek a "war of anniliation." His awareness of how the church would view his policies must at least point to this.

[Penn44]

I've just finished Ron Rosenbaum's book, "Explaining Hitler: the search for the origins of his evil". In this book, Rosenbaum interviewed Hugh Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock on their apparently opposing views on Hitler's "thoughtworld".

Trevor-Roper's view was that Hitler "believed in his own rectitude" - ie, he honestly beleived that what he was doing was right, that the attrocities he set in motion were justified. He went to his death without guilt, or any sense that his acts of gross inhumanity were in any way wrong.

Bullock believed (initially) that Hitler was not a true beleiver, that Hitler hitched his wagon to the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of the times purely for his own political gain. Thus, his acts were all the more abhorant because he would have been aware that the 50-odd million deaths he precipitated were some cause for shame. (Bullock later modified his views).

The danger with Trevor-Roper's view is that Hitler could be in one sense excused, because he was true to his convictions, however misguided. The question is, did Hitler beleive that what he did was right? Or could there have been some tiny spark of concience in him that could not fail to acknowledge that murder is murder? What do people think?

First, you should not concern yourself too long with concerns of whether a historian's views are "dangerous" or not; just concern yourself with whether the views are historically valid. There will always be those who will misuse history for their own ends.

Hitler certainly believed in his own moral rectitude, and apparently, did not compromise his goals over moral qualms. For tactical reasons, Hitler occasionally hesitated or slightly changed his course when goals when the course of action undertaken threatened his power. In different ways and to different degrees, both Trevor-Roper and Bullock are correct.

Penn44

.

[Penn44]

…Murder is murder in any society, including Germany prior to Hitler's coming to power. I am no antrhopologist, but I know of no culture that does not in some way punish murder socially and/or legally. He could not have grown to adulthood without some small awareness that it might be wrong to seek a "war of anniliation." His awareness of how the church would view his policies must at least point to this.

But Hitler did not conceive of his war of anniliation as “murder.” In a sense, Hitler conceived of this war as “justifiable homicide.” Shaped by a deterministic, social-biological Darwinist worldview, Hitler believe that the Aryan race was engaged in a life-death war of survival against Jews and other subhumans. In that life-death struggle, Hitler believed that any measure required for survival for the Aryan race was justified. Hitler knew full well what the Christian attitude was against “killing,” but in his case, it fell on deaf ears. Hitler, like a number of other Nazis, felt that Christian compassion seriously threatened to undermin Aryan will and commitment in the life death struggle of the races.

Penn44

.

[Truthseeker]

I firmly believe that Hitler was utterly convinced that what he was doing was right. He was quite intelligent enough to differentiate between good and evil, but in his Darwinian mind the ends always justified the means. Therefore, if the end was a higher form of humanity - stronger, more intelligent, more creative, then the mass murder and/or sterilisation of entire races was quite acceptable. I think we have to appreciate the fact that Hitler's mindset was profoundly affected by the thoughts of Darwin and Neitzsche. Of course, this does not excuse or diminish his crimes, but the fact remains that Hitler did not murder for the sake of personal pleasure or material gain, but for a higher ideal that existed only in his twisted mind. In everyday life, Hitler was quite a pleasant, even gentle man; many witnesses have testified to this. And this makes his evil actions all the more difficult to understand.

[Truthseeker]

I've just finished Ron Rosenbaum's book, "Explaining Hitler: the search for the origins of his evil". In this book, Rosenbaum interviewed Hugh Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock on their apparently opposing views on Hitler's "thoughtworld".

Trevor-Roper's view was that Hitler "believed in his own rectitude" - ie, he honestly beleived that what he was doing was right, that the attrocities he set in motion were justified. He went to his death without guilt, or any sense that his acts of gross inhumanity were in any way wrong.

Bullock believed (initially) that Hitler was not a true beleiver, that Hitler hitched his wagon to the prevailing anti-Jewish sentiments of the times purely for his own political gain. Thus, his acts were all the more abhorant because he would have been aware that the 50-odd million deaths he precipitated were some cause for shame. (Bullock later modified his views).

The danger with Trevor-Roper's view is that Hitler could be in one sense excused, because he was true to his convictions, however misguided. The question is, did Hitler beleive that what he did was right? Or could there have been some tiny spark of concience in him that could not fail to acknowledge that murder is murder? What do people think?

I don't think Hitler could be blamed for the 50 million odd deaths of WW2 any more than the Kaiser can be blamed for all the deaths of WW1, or President Bush for all who have died in the Iraq conflict. This is a gross fallacy. I share AJP Taylor's view that when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 he genuinely believed the British and/or the French would not intervene. Hitler wanted a limited war to eliminate Poland as an opponent and regain the territories lost by Germany in 1919; he certainly did not want to fight the Western power so soon. But Hitler was also an opportunist and all that followed, including the attack on the USSR and the declaration of war on the USA were decisions made because opportunities presented themselves. There is also some evidence that points to the possibility of a Soviet attack on Germany in 1941, had this not been forestalled by the German invasion.

As I stated before, Hitler's sense of morality was radical. In his mind, killing civilians was quite acceptable in war - he clearly believed in total war as a Darwinian struggle between races in which you either exterminated the enemy or yourself perished. As for the Jewish question, he clearly placed the blame for the world war on the Jews and representatives of Jewish interests. Infact, in a 1939 speech he specifically warned that the Jews would be exterminated if they ever started another world war.

[Penn44]

I don't think Hitler could be blamed for the 50 million odd deaths of WW2 any more than the Kaiser can be blamed for all the deaths of WW1, or President Bush for all who have died in the Iraq conflict. This is a gross fallacy. I share AJP Taylor's view that when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 he genuinely believed the British and/or the French would not intervene. Hitler wanted a limited war to eliminate Poland as an opponent and regain the territories lost by Germany in 1919; he certainly did not want to fight the Western power so soon. But Hitler was also an opportunist and all that followed, including the attack on the USSR and the declaration of war on the USA were decisions made because opportunities presented themselves. There is also some evidence that points to the possibility of a Soviet attack on Germany in 1941, had this not been forestalled by the German invasion..

The endless “blame games” we play on this forum are tedious, and for the most part, ahistorical. Day after day we retry Nuremberg over and over again.

Fact: Hitler started the war in Europe on 01 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland. This was not a defensive war, but an aggressive war of expansion. To prove this point, we have in existence literally tons of historical material to prove that point. In starting the war, Hitler deserves the lion’s share of the responsibility for all the deaths, injuries, and property damages that ensured. Whether Hitler believed that the British or French would intervene in September 1939 or the possibility of a Soviet invasion nearly two years later is mute point from a moral-legal perspective. Bottomline: Hitler started the war. The selective and/or twisted presentation of history is frequently used as "apologetics".

BTW, Kiwi123’s initial point was whether Trevor-Roper’s statement regarding Hitler’s sense of moral rectitude was “dangerous” in that this view could be used by some to justify Hitler’s actions is a histriographical question regarding the uses (and misuses) that we can make of history, and not a historical question about what did or did not happen.

Penn44

.

[kiwi123]

I would not call it a "blame game," and I don't find it tedious to debate the issues of responsbility. There are lessons to be learnt in this process. Perhaps this is not a new process for you, hence the tedium, but it's relatively new for me, and I seek learning from reading other peopel's points of view. Eg, I was uncertain which side I agreed with in the apparently opposing views of Bullock and HTR. I now find I agree with you - "In different ways and to different degrees, both Trevor-Roper and Bullock are correct." I feel I've found the answer I wanted now.

And BTW, I also agree with your point, Hitler chose to start a war that resulted in the deaths of 50 million (or so) people. That doesn't mean the allies were innocent, but it does mean, he started it. I have no qualms about assigning such blame to him.

[Truthseeker]

I don't think Hitler could be blamed for the 50 million odd deaths of WW2 any more than the Kaiser can be blamed for all the deaths of WW1, or President Bush for all who have died in the Iraq conflict. This is a gross fallacy. I share AJP Taylor's view that when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 he genuinely believed the British and/or the French would not intervene. Hitler wanted a limited war to eliminate Poland as an opponent and regain the territories lost by Germany in 1919; he certainly did not want to fight the Western power so soon. But Hitler was also an opportunist and all that followed, including the attack on the USSR and the declaration of war on the USA were decisions made because opportunities presented themselves. There is also some evidence that points to the possibility of a Soviet attack on Germany in 1941, had this not been forestalled by the German invasion..

The endless “blame games” we play on this forum are tedious, and for the most part, ahistorical. Day after day we retry Nuremberg over and over again.

Fact: Hitler started the war in Europe on 01 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland. This was not a defensive war, but an aggressive war of expansion. To prove this point, we have in existence literally tons of historical material to prove that point. In starting the war, Hitler deserves the lion’s share of the responsibility for all the deaths, injuries, and property damages that ensured. Whether Hitler believed that the British or French would intervene in September 1939 or the possibility of a Soviet invasion nearly two years later is mute point from a moral-legal perspective. Bottomline: Hitler started the war. The selective and/or twisted presentation of history is frequently used as "apologetics".

BTW, Kiwi123’s initial point was whether Trevor-Roper’s statement regarding Hitler’s sense of moral rectitude was “dangerous” in that this view could be used by some to justify Hitler’s actions is a histriographical question regarding the uses (and misuses) that we can make of history, and not a historical question about what did or did not happen.

Penn44

.

Hitler started the war against Poland, and only Poland - then Britain and France declared war on Germany. These are the facts. Stating that Hitler merely 'started the war' is a highly inaccurate and sweeping statement. Infact, there is much to suggest that Hitler had no intention of fighting the Western countries at all; his book 'Mein Kampf' explicitly stated that Germany's main aim was to conquer the East, meaning Poland and the USSR.

So I would say that Hitler certainly deserves the blame for the war in the East, but not the whole of WW2. If Britain, France and the USA had stood aside, it is likely that Germany would still have lost the war while fighting the USSR as a purely nation-to-nation conflict. So blaming Hitler for 50 million deaths is ridiculous, especially as the objective of war is forcing your ememy to accept your demands rather than kill for its own sake. Of course the Holocaust is a thing apart, and needs to be considered as such.

[David Thompson]

Without putting the blame on one person for all the deaths of WWII, by 1937-1939, Hitler's point of view had changed considerably from what he expressed in Mein Kampf. His plans to fight in both eastern and western Europe are documented (in his own words) in these threads:

The Hossbach Memorandum (Text)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55420
Hitler's intent to wage aggressive war
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=63711

This thread is also instructive:

Grand Admiral Erich Raeder's reflections 10 Jan 1944
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61243

In regard to the murders of the Jews, Hitler was much less forthright. See the different accounts of conversations with Hitler on that subject in the links given in this thread:

Primary evidence about Hitler
http://forum.axishistory.com/v.....p?p=627237

[Penn44]

Hitler started the war against Poland, and only Poland - then Britain and France declared war on Germany. These are the facts. Stating that Hitler merely 'started the war' is a highly inaccurate and sweeping statement. Infact, there is much to suggest that Hitler had no intention of fighting the Western countries at all; his book 'Mein Kampf' explicitly stated that Germany's main aim was to conquer the East, meaning Poland and the USSR.

So I would say that Hitler certainly deserves the blame for the war in the East, but not the whole of WW2. If Britain, France and the USA had stood aside, it is likely that Germany would still have lost the war while fighting the USSR as a purely nation-to-nation conflict. So blaming Hitler for 50 million deaths is ridiculous, especially as the objective of war is forcing your ememy to accept your demands rather than kill for its own sake. Of course the Holocaust is a thing apart, and needs to be considered as such.

Hitler had broken agreement after agreement, understanding after understanding, and both Britain and France decided they had to do something about Germany's expansionism within Europe. Hitler is to blame for WWII.

Penn44

.

[Boby]

I think is important to note that Hitler's speeches in May, August and November 1939, not represent the early views of Hitler, and are of less value. The speeches (The Schmundt memorandum of 23 May are very, very dubious) represent Hitler's reinterpretation of the whole situation after the alliance England-Poland of end March 1939 and the subsequently enter to war of Britain and France. Until that date, the aim was to reincorporate Danzig, and sign an alliance with Poland.

See the note of the Conversation Hitler-Brauchitsch (25 march) here:

http://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/roadiv.html

As clearly see, Hitler do not express any agressive intention to Danzig or Poland in that date, and with that political situation.

In fact, in the Hossbach-memorandum, the Lebensraum is named Austria and Checoslovaquia. The Intervention of France and Britain are a reaction to this agressive moves.

[Truthseeker]

Without putting the blame on one person for all the deaths of WWII, by 1937-1939, Hitler's point of view had changed considerably from what he expressed in Mein Kampf. His plans to fight in both eastern and western Europe are documented (in his own words) in these threads:

The Hossbach Memorandum (Text)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55420
Hitler's intent to wage aggressive war
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=63711

This thread is also instructive:

Grand Admiral Erich Raeder's reflections 10 Jan 1944
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61243

In regard to the murders of the Jews, Hitler was much less forthright. See the different accounts of conversations with Hitler on that subject in the links given in this thread:

Primary evidence about Hitler
http://forum.axishistory.com/v.....p?p=627237

In my view the Hossbach memorandum is merely a rambling brainstorming session to explore possible future options, not a formal plan set in stone. I mainatin that Hitler had no fundamental hostility towards the West, and his objectives were directed eastwards. Of course, once Britain had abandoned appeasement, following Chamberlain's guarantee to Poland, the situation changed, but the reluctance remained. Evidence of this is the Dunkirk evacuation, which Hitler allowed in order to show the British that he could be magnanimous.