Hitler's Historical Significance

[flamingopoo]

Hi, i am currently doing research for my ALevel coursework with the title: 'Assess the historical significant of hitler' and i was interested in what everyones views were in regards to his historical signicance in terms of politically, economically, military and socially and culturaly? And something else i was interested in is, does anyone think that his rise to power was merely to do with chance? i've thought hard about that one, but was wondering what everyone else thought. i'd appreciate any replies... thanks!
jenny

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Flamingopoo and the community as a whole. Well Jenny, in reference to your introductory posting of Tuesday - February 01, 2005 - 7:53pm, old Uncle Bob will refrain from interjecting any personal commentary on Adolph Hitler's historical significance. My knowledge (or what might pass for knowledge) on the personage of Adolph Hitler and his overall impact on events would clearly not do your research project any justice. In lieu of my shrinking acquiescence on the subject, I will defer your pointed inquiry to one this neighborhood's learned professionals. The professional of which I speak is a Doctor Dwight Messimer. The good professor has been kind enough to make himself available through his publically listed electronic mail address at [email protected] not to mention the gentleman's availability through the Axis History Forum's private messaging system. There are also other lettered professionals within the forum and hopefully they will also offer their technical insights on your subject of interest. Beyond exploiting the scholarly knowledge of the forum's intelligentsia, I would be very wary about the "information" that you might glean from the rank and file membership of the forum. Remember, the vast majority of the forum's contributors (myself included) are little more than well read amateurs. As amateurs, we ALL have our peculiar biasses, bigotries and prejudices. In short, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. It's just some friendly food for thought. My best of luck to you with your 'A' Level course work. In anycase, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day over in merry old England. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Best Regards From The Wayward And Upstart Colonies!
Uncle Bob 8)

[Matt H.]

The question about whether his rise to power was by chance or design is an interesting one. As with most A Level coursework questions, you'd be best off taking some sort of middle ground. By all means find an argument that matches yours, but don't come down exclusively on one side of the fence. I studied the command of Douglas Haig, so this was especially important for me, but it does apply to all.

What emerges for me from Hitler's rule is his opportunism, and the way in which he was able to mould circumstances into assets. There is more detail on the matter in the "intentionalist" versus the "functionalist" debate, which still remains to decide whether Hitler's intentions were at the heart of Nazi government, or whether he was in fact an unhappy mediator between warring quasi-bureaucratic empires. Look for authors such as Broszat, Mommsen and Hildebrand.

Hope that helps.

[drmessimer]

The member who started this thread contacted me by email and this is, in part, my reply. I am posting it here because I think she has raised a very interesting topic, and I hope that my reply to her will stimulate further discussion. In writing my reply I applied my definition of what constitutes historical significance. Others may have a different definition. There are certainly many definitions for what constitutes historical significance.

For example, this is the standard that I generally apply:
The historical significance of an event or a person is not based on the fact that the event simply occurred or the person simply existed and became well known or famous. Historical significance is measured by the long-term change[s] that resulted from the event or the person's presence in history. The question to be answered in each case is; would history have been measurably different had the event not occurred or the person not existed?

Military: Hitler had little, in fact I think it's safe to say no, historic military significance. He was not a brilliant tactician or strategist, had no understanding of the battlefield management of large military formations, and utterly failed to understand the importance of logistic support. He dabbled and interfered in military matters, but he offered no meaningful leadership. You will not find Hitler's name ranked with someone like Karl von Clausewitz.

Social:
This is a thorny question, much too broad an area for a short answer, and one that can be answered in many ways. Many people take the position that Hitler's war changed Europe's map and finished the social revolution that had started with WWI. That is a valid position, but one that needs specific examples to support it. Many people cite the emancipation of women under the Nazis, but that was more image than reality. However, it can be argued that the huge male losses in WWII coupled with the grim postwar conditions in Germany, placed women in the postwar position of assuming many of the formerly male roles.
The question is; was Hitler the cause of those changes, and thus significant historically? If one argues that Hitler was the cause of the war, it would follow that he, at least indirectly, was the cause of the results. That is an oversimplification that ignores the many outside factors involved, but it is an argument that can be developed.

Cultural:
This is, in my opinion, the area in which he was historically significant. There is no doubt that Hitler has become the historical standard for evil. Despite the rise and fall of other dictators who were as, or even more, brutal and murderous, Hitler and the Nazis remain the personification of pure evil. There exists worldwide, an enormous cult based on Hitler. I believe that it is safe to say that no other historical personality has ever generated such a following. Make a brief exploration of the web and you will find dozens, maybe hundreds, of websites devoted exclusively to Hitler and the Nazis. People around the world dress in Nazi costume--including a member of the British Royal Family--and even organize hate groups that posture themselves as Nazis. I know that in the United States, where I live, there are dozens of pseudo-Nazi groups. There are websites here on which the members identify themselves by absurd titles such as Reichsmarschall or Obergruppenführer, and an assortment of other adopted titles.

Economics:
There is no historical significance to Hitler or the National-Socialists in this field. Hitler and his Party provided no new economic thought or solutions. In this case it would simply be a matter of comparing Hitler to someone like Karl Marx.

Political:
I suppose one could say that Hitler set a new standard for political pragmatism and mass manipulation. Joseph Goebbels receives the credit for being the master of propaganda, but Hitler certainly recognized its power. And he was certainly one of the first political leaders to capitalize on the power of radio to reach the masses. Another master of that political tool was the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt who was President from 1933-1945, the same period as Hitler. And Hitler certainly demonstrated the political strength that lay in developing the power of the so-called Führer Concept.

Religious:
There is no historical significance to be attributed to Hitler in this area. At least there is none according to the standard that I use. He tried to create the German Church, but it was an artificial thing and vanished along with the Third Reich. There was the mystical cult of the SS that Himmler presided over, and Hitler had the mystical Blood Order, but those too vanished in 1945.

Dwight R. Messimer

[ChristopherPerrien]

I believe Hitler was the "personification" of what can be called German Nationalism.

As to exactly who or maybe what Hitler was, I suggest Gustave LeBon's " The Crowd", which has a chapter on Hitler called "The Leader". It can be read/found online.
This book was written in 1893.

[drmessimer]

Hitler was certainly a German nationalist, but I don't think that made him historically significant. He certainly wasn't the first German leader whose extreme nationalism led to war. Wilhelm I and his Chancellor, Otto von Bismark were German Nationalists and their nationalism resulted in the Franco-Prussian War [1870-71] and the unification of northern and southern Germany with Wilhelm I becoming the Kaiser [1871]. Kaiser Wilhelm II was just as much a nationalist whose foreign policy led to war in 1914. So Hitler, as Germany's leader, did not exhibit a unique form of German nationalism. Extreme, yes; but unique, no. It could be argued that Hitler's excesses ended seventy-four years of German nationalism as expressed through war and aggression. In that case he could be considered historically significant in conjunction with Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II.
But the historical fact remains that despite intense vilification during WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II is not universally viewed as a bad person today. The emblems and the titles of the Hohenzollern government are not banned anywhere today. Hitler and the Nazi Party on the other hand continue to be vilified and their emblems and titles are banned in many places throughout the world. The fact is that in many cases Hitler and modern German history have become synonymous, so much so that the mere image of the German coalpot helmet evokes a perception of evil. Look at the fictional Darth Vader. It isn't Hitler's nationalism that makes him historically significant, it's the enduring perception of his evil that has made him a worldwide icon of all that is hateful. Dwight R. Messimer

[ChristopherPerrien]

Hello Dr. M.
Yes of course there were German Nationalists with a tinge of anti-semitism long before Hitler,
I think Father Jahn is a much better example than Wilhelm II.

I will come at it from a different and more base angle now.

I can state without a doubt that Hitler is of great historical and religious significance to the Hebrews. Although there have been cases of mass-antisemitism in the past ( the inquisition) , none will ever be memorialized or put into religious canons quite like the "Shoal" (sp?) or Holocaust. In a ironic way the more that is done by some groups to insure that the Holocaust will not be forgotten, only serves to immortalize the cause of it, Adolf Hitler.

[drmessimer]

Christopher: You are absolutely right and I am glad to see another historical approach taken to the subject of Hitler’s historical significance because it demonstrates that there are more ways than one to view history. Another perspective from which to view Hitler’s historical significance is to examine his role as a motive force. That broader view assumes that history is a series of dynamics, each one replaced in turn by a different dynamic. In that perspective Hitler and his actions created a dynamic that lasted from 1933 to 1945. That dynamic created the next dynamic, which was the Cold War, which has itself created a new dynamic that we don’t yet understand. Working with this model, Hitler and his actions have enormous historical significance. It can be argued that had Hitler not come to power in 1933, all the subsequent events would not have occurred, at least not to the degree that they did. Had the events of 1933-45 not occurred, there might not have been a Cold War, and so on.
You have raised another topic that warrants examination, which is an objective history of anti-Semitism. Dwight R. Messimer

[Benoit Douville]

Professor Messimer,

First of all, it's great honor to have you on this forum, your contribution is really appreciated, it really raised the level of discussion.

The point I want to discuss is about the economics because you said that there no historical significance to Hitler and the Nazi. Well, what do you think about the facts that Hitler bring back people to work in Germany when the unemployment was really high, you can argue that it was a War economy but still it was an amazing accomplishment by Hitler I believe.

Regards

[drmessimer]

Benoit:
Thank you for the kind words. I am impressed with the quality of the posts that appear throughout this Forum and I enjoy working with its members. You have an excellent point. With respect to the German economy, Hitler’s recovery program, 1933-1939, worked. In fact, it worked as well or better than the American president’s so-called New Deal recovery program in the United States. When I said that Hitler had no historical significance with regard to economics, I was talking about global economic theory. The NSDAP offered nothing new in that field.

The original post in this thread approached the question of Hitler’s historical significance from a narrow topic-oriented approach, which is what I tried to address. Another approach, equally limited in scope, but equally valuable, would be to assess his impact with respect to Germany—or to Western Europe. The possibilities are limitless. No one can deny that the man cut a wide swath in history, and in doing so he proved the fact that because a person or event is historically significant doesn’t per se make that person or event good or bad.
Dwight R. Messimer

[Matt H.]

Well, at least with a topic so widespread you won't have trouble reaching the word limit. If what you're doing is an extended essay, then don't go over 3,000 words - the examiners will most probably not even glance at the points you make past the 3,000 word mark - no matter how relevant and important they are.

One way you could approach the question is to evaluate the sides of the debate over whether Hitler was an abnormality in German history, or whether Nazi rule was the logical conclusion of the governance that had preceded Nazism. Professor Messimer raises some very important points about Hitler's significance to German nationalism, in which parallels can drawn with the likes of the Kaisers and Bismarck. A.J.P. Taylor argues also, that Hitler's foreign policy was not an abnormality, rather it reflected a similar mentality expressed by the likes of Wilhelm II and Bethmann-Hollweg. Hitler of course, took such a policy to it's furthest extremes ...