What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler's National Socialism
Examining the reasons why Hitler was able to gain power so quickly in Germany, Rainer Zitelmann demonstrates how the programmes set out by Hitler were seen to be right by the majority of German people, however much they might deny it now.
887 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 1987
83 people are currently reading
692 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 27, 2021
Hitler: The Policies of Seduction Review.
Before I begin, I think its important to explain exactly how I heard about this book. I watch a youtuber who goes by the username “TIK”, and he produces a lot of videos talking about World War Two, and quite a few about the Third Reich itself. One of them is a 6-hour video about Hitlers “racial socialism” (I highly recommend watching this, it is eye opening, and he has so many sources and so much material), another was about Hitlers reasoning for declaring war on the United States, and another about the differences between Fascism and Nazism. I decided to write him a comment asking for book recommendations and he kindly wrote me back and gave me many recommendations for various topics, but for studying Hitler he recommended this book. He forewarned me that it is very pricey and hard to find, and that is true because currently this book is at $600 on Amazon. I didn’t think I would get to read this book because it was at a library 118 miles away from me, and that is a long drive to and back to check out this book. Luckily, my library is in a program where I can get a book delivered from another library In any part of the state, so I got it.
Without further ado, here is my review:
If there is one book that people should read about Hitler, I would say this book should be it. Adolf Hitler was an enigma of a man, and his mark on history will never be forgotten, however, many historians tend to focus only on his foreign policy, Anit-semitism, and military strategy. They leave out his domestic, economic, and social policies, and claim he had no interest in them whatsoever, and this book proves that is false. This book takes a look at Hitler through his writings, monologues and some of his speeches and gives the reader a new outlook at his economic, social, and political policies.
For me, the main historical idea I got from the book was this: Hitler viewed the world in a lens of social Darwinism, and his ideology was based around this and the belief in a “racialized” version of socialism that was a “third position”, which was different from the other political groups in Germany. Hitler was a revolutionary, and viewed himself as one. National Socialism did not exactly achieve a revolution through violence, but it achieved its revolution through the ballot box, and by Hitler’s rhetoric. Hitler was against monarchism; he viewed the idea of people in various social positions based on nobility, instead of their abilities as absurd. Hitler did not view the 1918 revolution as a revolution because he held contempt for the fact the Social Democrats decided to sign the Versailles treaty; Despite this, he did hold a high regard for the Social Democrats as a movement, and for the fact they kicked out the monarchy. Hitler did talk about how the revolution of 1918 would’ve been a true revolution had the social democrats decided to continue the war. Hitler talked about many times how he would not support the monarchy, and how he criticized the reactionary and conservative forces in Germany that called for its return. On page 39 Zitelmann quotes Hitler as saying “The most daring concept of our large bourgeois parties was the recreation of the former condition, in the field of domestic policy the recreation of the monarchy, the reinstatement of all the individual reigning princes, reinstatement of the German Kaiser, but naturally also reinstatement of the German parliament, the Reichstag of former times, that shall all remain as it has formerly been…. And it was self evident that with such backward-looking concepts, such backward objectives, they would never be able to face up to a forward-storming concept (meaning Marxism – Rainer Zitelmann).” He talks about how “the wheel of history never ran backwards” (pg 39).
In Hitlers mind, a revolution was the implementation of a new “Weltanschauung” (world view) that replaced an old system, and radically changed the social, political, and economic system in a country. In this book we get to read about Hitlers views about the French Revolution, the 1848 revolution, and the 1871 revolution in Paris. Hitler believed that a nation had a right to rebel if its citizens felt its government was not serving the interests of “the national community” (aka the racial community) and that it should replace that system with a government that did so. He viewed government as a “means to an end” not an “end in itself”, because the end in itself for hitler was “the national community”. We also get to read about Hitlers beliefs on various social classes. He hated the bourgeois and middle-classes, and viewed them as “weak” and “cowardly”, and in various written works and monologues he expresses his contempt of them, and the nobility. He views them as being “egoistic” and “materialists” whom he claims have misused the term “nationalism” in that their individual interests are supplanted above the community. Hitler made his party a pro-workers party. He talks about how he put together his party in such a way to disinterest them from joining, and later, he talks about how he views democracy as a way for bourgeois interests to only be represented and supported.
There is so much in this book I could talk about, but I think some of the points to talk about are the fact that Hitlers economic views changed drastically as time went by and that he began to admire the Soviet economic system more and more and while he had a hatred for America, he admired their industrial system and wished to model Germany after it. We see over time that Hitler began to let the economy be controlled by the state, and his contempt of industrialists grew. He didn’t just threaten to nationalize, he did nationalize certain aspects of German industry. One of the debates about Hitler and the Nazi party was their pro-private property beliefs, and while they believed in competition (social Darwinist principle for hitler) and while they had no qualms with private property, your property and competition had to not be in defiance of the state, or against the interests of the national community. So I ask people, is it really private property if you can have it revoked at any moment by a government? Anyone can lose their private property with that thinking because in an environment that is so totalitarian, government officials could view anything as being against the state and revoke your property.
The last part I thought I would mention is that this book talks about Hitlers stance towards the Weimar constitution, the centralization of the German states, his admiration for Stalin, and his contempt of Fascism and Franco. When it came to the Weimar constitution, the concept of private property, and a free market, Hitler wanted to let it decay and erode until it was eventually replaced. Hitler also was firm in his belief in centralizing the German states so as to eliminate any independence movements that could pose a threat against his rule. What really interests me is the fact that Hitler began to admire Stalin by 1940, and even talked about wanting to emulate Stalin in order to defeat him. Some of the people who were around Hitler during this time wrote about how he began to gradually lose his old views and, in this book, we hear Hitler talk about how he wants to emulate a lot of Stalin’s policies in Germany. Hitler also held contempt for how Mussolini, and Franco allowed pro-capitalistic elites into their society, and did not try to create a new revolutionary elite like he did, and this developed over time. He even regretted not supporting the Republicans in Spain.
This book really shatters any idea that Hitler was either a pro-capitalist lackey or a right-wing reactionary. In fact, Hitler seems to have encountered the most resistance from the reactionary and conservative elements in Germany. He later regretted not getting rid of them. I really wish that historians would read this book and that the academia would reexamine it’s outlook on Hitler and the Nazi Party, because in reality, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and basically every Authoritarian movement is based around collectivism, not individualism.
Before I begin, I think its important to explain exactly how I heard about this book. I watch a youtuber who goes by the username “TIK”, and he produces a lot of videos talking about World War Two, and quite a few about the Third Reich itself. One of them is a 6-hour video about Hitlers “racial socialism” (I highly recommend watching this, it is eye opening, and he has so many sources and so much material), another was about Hitlers reasoning for declaring war on the United States, and another about the differences between Fascism and Nazism. I decided to write him a comment asking for book recommendations and he kindly wrote me back and gave me many recommendations for various topics, but for studying Hitler he recommended this book. He forewarned me that it is very pricey and hard to find, and that is true because currently this book is at $600 on Amazon. I didn’t think I would get to read this book because it was at a library 118 miles away from me, and that is a long drive to and back to check out this book. Luckily, my library is in a program where I can get a book delivered from another library In any part of the state, so I got it.
Without further ado, here is my review:
If there is one book that people should read about Hitler, I would say this book should be it. Adolf Hitler was an enigma of a man, and his mark on history will never be forgotten, however, many historians tend to focus only on his foreign policy, Anit-semitism, and military strategy. They leave out his domestic, economic, and social policies, and claim he had no interest in them whatsoever, and this book proves that is false. This book takes a look at Hitler through his writings, monologues and some of his speeches and gives the reader a new outlook at his economic, social, and political policies.
For me, the main historical idea I got from the book was this: Hitler viewed the world in a lens of social Darwinism, and his ideology was based around this and the belief in a “racialized” version of socialism that was a “third position”, which was different from the other political groups in Germany. Hitler was a revolutionary, and viewed himself as one. National Socialism did not exactly achieve a revolution through violence, but it achieved its revolution through the ballot box, and by Hitler’s rhetoric. Hitler was against monarchism; he viewed the idea of people in various social positions based on nobility, instead of their abilities as absurd. Hitler did not view the 1918 revolution as a revolution because he held contempt for the fact the Social Democrats decided to sign the Versailles treaty; Despite this, he did hold a high regard for the Social Democrats as a movement, and for the fact they kicked out the monarchy. Hitler did talk about how the revolution of 1918 would’ve been a true revolution had the social democrats decided to continue the war. Hitler talked about many times how he would not support the monarchy, and how he criticized the reactionary and conservative forces in Germany that called for its return. On page 39 Zitelmann quotes Hitler as saying “The most daring concept of our large bourgeois parties was the recreation of the former condition, in the field of domestic policy the recreation of the monarchy, the reinstatement of all the individual reigning princes, reinstatement of the German Kaiser, but naturally also reinstatement of the German parliament, the Reichstag of former times, that shall all remain as it has formerly been…. And it was self evident that with such backward-looking concepts, such backward objectives, they would never be able to face up to a forward-storming concept (meaning Marxism – Rainer Zitelmann).” He talks about how “the wheel of history never ran backwards” (pg 39).
In Hitlers mind, a revolution was the implementation of a new “Weltanschauung” (world view) that replaced an old system, and radically changed the social, political, and economic system in a country. In this book we get to read about Hitlers views about the French Revolution, the 1848 revolution, and the 1871 revolution in Paris. Hitler believed that a nation had a right to rebel if its citizens felt its government was not serving the interests of “the national community” (aka the racial community) and that it should replace that system with a government that did so. He viewed government as a “means to an end” not an “end in itself”, because the end in itself for hitler was “the national community”. We also get to read about Hitlers beliefs on various social classes. He hated the bourgeois and middle-classes, and viewed them as “weak” and “cowardly”, and in various written works and monologues he expresses his contempt of them, and the nobility. He views them as being “egoistic” and “materialists” whom he claims have misused the term “nationalism” in that their individual interests are supplanted above the community. Hitler made his party a pro-workers party. He talks about how he put together his party in such a way to disinterest them from joining, and later, he talks about how he views democracy as a way for bourgeois interests to only be represented and supported.
There is so much in this book I could talk about, but I think some of the points to talk about are the fact that Hitlers economic views changed drastically as time went by and that he began to admire the Soviet economic system more and more and while he had a hatred for America, he admired their industrial system and wished to model Germany after it. We see over time that Hitler began to let the economy be controlled by the state, and his contempt of industrialists grew. He didn’t just threaten to nationalize, he did nationalize certain aspects of German industry. One of the debates about Hitler and the Nazi party was their pro-private property beliefs, and while they believed in competition (social Darwinist principle for hitler) and while they had no qualms with private property, your property and competition had to not be in defiance of the state, or against the interests of the national community. So I ask people, is it really private property if you can have it revoked at any moment by a government? Anyone can lose their private property with that thinking because in an environment that is so totalitarian, government officials could view anything as being against the state and revoke your property.
The last part I thought I would mention is that this book talks about Hitlers stance towards the Weimar constitution, the centralization of the German states, his admiration for Stalin, and his contempt of Fascism and Franco. When it came to the Weimar constitution, the concept of private property, and a free market, Hitler wanted to let it decay and erode until it was eventually replaced. Hitler also was firm in his belief in centralizing the German states so as to eliminate any independence movements that could pose a threat against his rule. What really interests me is the fact that Hitler began to admire Stalin by 1940, and even talked about wanting to emulate Stalin in order to defeat him. Some of the people who were around Hitler during this time wrote about how he began to gradually lose his old views and, in this book, we hear Hitler talk about how he wants to emulate a lot of Stalin’s policies in Germany. Hitler also held contempt for how Mussolini, and Franco allowed pro-capitalistic elites into their society, and did not try to create a new revolutionary elite like he did, and this developed over time. He even regretted not supporting the Republicans in Spain.
This book really shatters any idea that Hitler was either a pro-capitalist lackey or a right-wing reactionary. In fact, Hitler seems to have encountered the most resistance from the reactionary and conservative elements in Germany. He later regretted not getting rid of them. I really wish that historians would read this book and that the academia would reexamine it’s outlook on Hitler and the Nazi Party, because in reality, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and basically every Authoritarian movement is based around collectivism, not individualism.
September 24, 2022
I am about to make a statement that may seem a bit histrionic: I truly believe that Hitler's National Socialism by Rainer Zitelmann is one of the most consequential books ever written. "Why is this?" you may ask. Adolf Hitler was, is, and will continue to be the subject of many books, each providing their own interpretation of the Führer's weltanschauung (i.e philosophy) of National Socialism. The myriad of books written on the man has often lead people to have an incomplete, opaque, and many times, a considerably inaccurate portrait of Germany's most famous dictator. Impassioned folks have a preconceived notion of Hitler due to their own personal biases and immediately resort to knee-jerk emotionally-charged reactions. This will often result in ignorant statements such as: "Hitler was a capitalist!", or "Hitler was only an opportunist and never had an original thought!", or "Hitler was a reactionary!"...and the list goes on. These people usually have already set their mind on the conclusion and will find the pieces of evidence to fit that conclusion, instead of using evidence to come to an eventual conclusion. At the beginning of this astounding book, Rainer Zitelman criticizes a fellow historian and makes an intriguing observation:
According to Mommsen, as far as Hitler is concerned, National Socialism had ‘no unambiguous and substantive objective ... The patchwork of National Socialist ideology was borrowed, served primarily as a vehicle for propaganda and was, inherently, purely destructive.’ Ultimately, these – unsubstantiated – assertions stem from the fact that historians such as Mommsen simply were not willing to subject Hitler’s ideas to closer examination. Indeed, some historians even went as far as to firmly reject any form of engagement with Hitler’s ideas and goals. This is an extremely unusual approach for historians to adopt, particularly as the science of history normally focuses on the thought processes and worldviews of central figures in historyFor the people who have managed to get this far in the review, no, we are not talking about Hitler's blatant anti-Semitism and his thirst for a systematic murder and bloodshed of innocent people. There have already been enough books written about those subjects and the evidence for the Holocaust and Hitler's plan for the complete genocide and/or subjugation of peoples to the east of Germany is so insurmountable that only a complete idiot would think otherwise. What Mr. Zitelmann is referring to in this quote is the inability of many historians to objectively, precisely, and accurately describe Hitler's political philosophy known as National Socialism. Why is it that National Socialism, the very weltanschauung behind the Nazi state, is not studied more in-depth? I believe Zitelmann hit the nail on the head once again:
One has the impression that, in Hitler’s case, excessive standards are applied – originality and novelty of ideas, social policy for its own sake, an understanding of economic theories – in order to deny in the end that he had developed a consistent body of ideas at all.People forget that Hitler was a human being AND a politician. All of us have had life experiences that have caused us to change our outlook on life and change our overall philosophy, sometimes to a radical degree. All of us are influenced by the material we consume, whether that be prose, poems, movies, music, and more. One could technically argue, there is not much room for purely "original" thought (i.e. ideas that are completely original and without influences from other people). We are all influenced by these mediums, but that does not mean that we cannot have influenced original thought. Hitler was very much a product of his time, but that statement applies to many people in world history. The Founding Fathers of the United States never had purely original thoughts; the philosophers that they read (such as Montesquieu and Aristotle), however, greatly influenced their debates in how to structure our secular, liberal, federal constitutional republic, which lead to influenced original thoughts/writings. No one would deny that just because Stalin and Mao were influenced by Marx that they were not "original" or not worth studying. Once again, Mr. Zitelmann states:
The fact that Hitler’s ideas were neither ‘new’ nor ‘original’, but instead drew on elements from various theories, is, firstly, by no means unusual for a politician and, secondly, does not speak against the thesis that he had developed a consistent set of ideas. The argument that social welfare was not an end in itself for Hitler could also be rightly applied to many politicians. Was social welfare an end in itself for Bismarck, or did he use his social legislation as an instrument to push back the influence of social democracy?It really is a damn shame that Hitler's politics are not taken more seriously, because if people paid attention to his words (not just his speeches, but also his private letters, meetings, etc), one would realize that Hitler was not supremely radical compared to the other world powers of the day. The real award for insanely radical would be the Shōwa Statists in Japan, but that's another story for another day. In totality, Stalin and Mao murdered more people than Hitler ever did, yet, both the formers are treated by many as 'modernizers' and people who simply 'had to do what they had to do', while Hitler is simply brushed off as a reactionary (blatantly false) loser who was a pure opportunist with no actual political philosophy
In order to understand why Hitler came to power, one must understand the man's weltanschauung. Hitler did not rise up to power by simply espousing anti-Semitic rhetoric; the man advocated for policies that would have drastically restructured German society as we know it. Hitler was a modernizer first and foremost, and just how the revolution of 1918 by the SDP brought an end to the monarchy of Germany, so was Hitler's revolution intended to take Germany to the next step: to make Germany an industrial powerhouse the size of the United States (who Hitler aspired to be economically-speaking) through a mixed-economy and more lebensraum. We all view people like Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and many other brutal dictators with these traits despite their incredibly despotic rule, yet, why not Hitler?
Rainer Zitelmann seeks to answer these questions in this book by offering countless quotations of private meetings, speeches, personal letters, and many other fascinating primary sources. Zitelmann also often quotes historians who have tried to debunk him (often times in bad faith), but have failed miserably in their attempt. Zitelmann carefully dissects the weltanschauung of Adolf Hitler and leaves no stone unturned; once you finish this book, you will have an exemplary understanding of how and why Hitler came to power. This book by Zitelmann is actually a reprint of an earlier edition which was titled: Hitler: The Policies of Seduction. In the beginning of this book, Rainer Zitelmann advises on why he had decided to change the title of the book for this reprint; his reasoning remains completely valid after my reading of the text. The German people were not 'bamboozled' into supporting Hitler. Hitler did not "seduce" the masses. Hitler was a politician, and he was a politician who won votes because of the policies he advocated for, not in spite of them. In Hitler's own words, he used democracy's own system against itself. Hitler used democracy to end democracy, a choice that the German people approved and got behind with.
Once you get your head out of the gutter of typical right-wing and left-wing propaganda machines who try to paste a simple narrative on Hitler, it will be very easy to understand how Hitler came to power. Hitler viewed himself as a 'socialist'; he rejected Marxism and rejected capitalism, and viewed his ideology to be a striking balance between the two systems (though, as time went on, Hitler increasingly became infatuated with the Soviet-planning system and stronger state regimentation of the economy). Just because someone calls themselves a 'socialist' does not mean they are Marxists; a Marxist is a socialist, but a socialist is not necessarily a Marxist. A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are square. Hitler had his own vision for the "Nationalist" implementation of the socialist agenda through a complete transformation of Germany society, achieved through re-education, increased socioeconomic mobility for improved socio-Darwinistic competition, highly protectionist measures, the abandonment of the gold-standard, the systematic use of propaganda, the modernization of the German army, a stronger welfare state, a supernational Aryan state / lebensraum, the advent of the autobahn and car-centric / highway culture (which was the main inspiration behind United States President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway plan), and much more. Modernization can mean an uprooting of society and an economy; a revolutionary transformation of an entire peoples and industries through various government policies, none of which have to be liberal, pluralist, or democratic in form.
Presumably the unwillingness to describe National Socialism as a ‘revolution’, especially among historians such as Evans, who sees himself as decidedly left-wing, is connected with the fact that the term ‘revolution’ typically has numerous positive connotations. Even outside academia, the term ‘revolution’ is widely regarded as being loaded with positive associations, in contrast to the terms ‘reactionary’ or ‘counterrevolutionary’. No advertising agency, for example, would describe a new automobile as a ‘counterrevolution’ in car design, whereas ‘revolution’ certainly sounds like progress. The same is true for terms such as ‘social’, ‘egalitarian’, ‘welfare state’ and ‘social state’ – all of which I personally would have difficulty associating with purely positive connotations, but which are often used positively in political discourse and by many historians. The reluctance to associate Hitler and National Socialism with these terms is fed by their positive normative connotations – as already shown above with the example of the debate surrounding the term ‘modernity’If Hitler could not achieve all these goals during his time in power, it was not because he "didn't actually believe in them"; mind you, Hitler was at the helm from 1933-1945, a mere 12 years in which the majority of that time was spent on rearmaments and a world war. Hitler's vision for re-education was to be a state of continuous revolution:
Hitler already intended to re-educate his own generation but believed that this would be a very difficult undertaking because of its many internalized norms, prejudices and behaviour patterns. The ‘final implementation of the programme’ of the National Socialist movement would take ‘until we have brought up a new generation in Germany, which will then have gone through our school’. Hitler emphasized time and again that the task of re-educating the Germans to become a national community was still far from being ended. In his speech on 1 May 1937 he exhorted his audience: 'Do not say that this task has been solved and nothing now remains to be done. Life obliges each generation to fight its own fight for this life. And what the centuries have piled up in the way of prejudices and stupidity, that cannot be completely removed in only four years. That does not happen at once!' In his address to the DAF at the Reichsparteitag for Work in 1937 he spoke about the ‘many obstacles’ which lay in traditions, pet customs, beliefs and opinions ‘and above all always again the beloved old habits which number among the most lethargic things that exist on this earth’. It could be far easier to ‘overthrow governments’ than to overcome such habits, ‘because in that which has been overthrown, the old habits then again establish themselves all too easily’. These traditions, habits of thought and customs had to be done away with by constant education and re-education. This ‘mission of education’ was ‘an eternal one, one
that remained’.
Overall, this book by Mr. Zitelmann is a masterpiece. I just gave you a sneak peak of what to expect, but I will not spoil more. Please purchase the book; it is a must-buy for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the Führer.
June 13, 2022
A must read for students of WW2, this exhaustively researched information dense tome is finally available in English.
"Using a previously unparalleled range of sources, this book reconstructs Hitler's thought processes and objectives. It shows that Hitler developed a concept of 'NATIONAL SOCIALISM' in which anti-capitalist ideas played a far greater role than has previously been assumed. Zitelmann show's that Hitler's anit-capitalism became increasingly radicalized and that he eventually became an admirer of Stalin's Soviet planned economy."
"Using a previously unparalleled range of sources, this book reconstructs Hitler's thought processes and objectives. It shows that Hitler developed a concept of 'NATIONAL SOCIALISM' in which anti-capitalist ideas played a far greater role than has previously been assumed. Zitelmann show's that Hitler's anit-capitalism became increasingly radicalized and that he eventually became an admirer of Stalin's Soviet planned economy."
November 5, 2025
This book is 10 stars. If you have any interest in history, ww2, totalitarianism or political philosophy this is a must read. Our public understanding of Hitler is shallow and incredibly distorted for a variety of reasons. The religious myth making of atheistic Western Civ making Hitler the devil and the political war that erupted right after the war makes understanding Hitler very difficult.
One of the biggest revelations while reading this is confirming my suspicion that National Socialism and Fascism are different and possibly not even right wing. Marxism uses the state to destroy the Bourgeoise on behalf of the working class. The state becomes a tool for salvation and is supposed to disappear but never does. For Fascism the state is the mystical deification of the will of the people. So the state becomes God. Hitler's view of the state is that it is just a means to an end, the end being the preservation of the race. Fascism seems to be the antithesis of Communism, while National Socialism is the synthesis of left wing socialism with more conservative nationalism. There is not room in Fascism for racism since it unites all races and classes into the state. But NS unites the race by minimizing class differences and cleansing out the race of the Jews. Making National Socialism one of the most centrist totalitarian movements of the century by orders of magnitude.
After reading this it seems clear that Hitler admired and respected both the Communists and Social Democrats and to a much lesser extant the Jews. He admired them both for their strengths but that also meant that they were threats he had to destroy. The Communists because they had a strong Weltanschauung and how Stalin had carried forward the revolution and modernized Russia while purging it of capitalistic forces. The Jews were one of the strongest and most resilient races and were thus a competitor to the German race in the Darwinian fight for survival. Groups like the conservatives or monarchic nationalists he saw as silly and weak thus did not see them as a threat. He latter came to regret this after the assassination attempt and blamed his defeat on not purging them as well.
One of my retired philosophy Professor friends had a very bright colleague who supposedly read everything on this topic and concluded that Hitler started the war to eradicate the Jews. While this book talks very little "about the Jews" this thesis seems absurd and reveals a near total lack of understanding of Hitler's philosophy and Weltanschauung or reveals an over idealization of the Jews which both anti-Semites and Zionists seem extremely susceptible. Another common misconception about Hitler is from especially British enlightenment advocates who see NS as a result of the German romantic counter enlightenment. The Marxists have a whole host of absurd ideas such as Hitler was not a revolutionary, he was a counter revolutionary and a reactionary, he was a tool of capitalism, and many more. And there are so many more. No historical figure is talked or studied more or more misunderstood.
The writers purpose in this book is to understand why Hitler was so popular. He does not believe Hitler's anti-Semitism or goal to conquer Lebensraum in the east explain this. For example east Germany under the Soviet's had 2-3 hundred thousand secret police while Hitler had 7k Gestapo. Hitler's regime was not based on coercion but on mass popular support. He also shows Goebbels diary entries after the plebiscites in 1934 and again in 1936 of the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Goebbels and Hitler's circle were disappointed with 89% approval in 1934 and felt crushed especially by the results in Berlin and like they had failed. But in 1936 they celebrate that they had united the country although a figure is not given.
In reading this it becomes clear why Hitler has become THE Devil in the Western mind besides just filling the atheistic vacuum which plays a major role as well. Far from being a reactionary or regressive, Hitler is probably the most modern man of the 20th century. He is a great admirer of the Enlightenment and saw himself as it's continuation and he loved Voltaire. One of his desires was to replace religion with a telescope and have people line up to view the universe through it in order to dispel their religious convictions. He though reason could replace religious superstition. His nationalism is clearly influenced by Romanticism as well as social Darwinism and 19th century romanticism. His two main ideals that shape all his thought are Darwinism and Socialism. He was also heavily influenced by eugenics and socialism and was very impressed with the Social Democrats and the Communists as well as Stalin. The affect of the Romantic cult of genius on Hitler is obvious. I also see a very obvious influence of Rousseau's general will and some Hegel as well. Hitler was a man of his times who was honest enough to draw conclusions others were unwilling to deduce. Hitler combines so many modern ideas that modern man is unwilling to recognize or see it for if he did he would see those faults in himself, so we create a taboo around it and banish it from our consciousness. It also might have to due to the fact that he was so insanely popular in ways no Communist or bourgeoise could ever achieve.
One thing I really liked about this book is he refuses to do the obligatory renunciation of Hitler that anyone who reads or writes about this topic feel compelled to do. People can read about Stalin and no one feels compelled to renounce it. So instead of an emotional disavowal this book is a very cool analysis of Hitler's thinking represented in his Weltanschauung that guided all of his actions.
Citations:
pg. 12 The Nazi party was a multiclass party and had more working class people then previously assumed having 40% membership from the working class. Hitler emphasized the anti-Semitism less towards the end of the 20s then he did earlier in the decade and started emphasizing his social promises.
pg. 15 The only thing holding the top Nazi leaders together was the belief they were making an entirely new epoch of human history and would create a new man and a new world.
pg. 19 Hitler had 16.3k books in his library including 7k on military matters. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Hitler knew better than his generals in many instances.
pg. 41 class conflict was to be overcome by abolishing a class but by increasing social mobility.
pg. 52 Hitler's revolution was not a reaction against Communism but an alternative revolution against the bourgeoise democratic capitalist social order.
pg. 70-71 in 1930-32 Hitler did not talk very much about Lebensraum or anti-Semitism and yet he became the leader of the masses during this time. The author believes it was his revolutionary program that made this possible.
pg. 85 The masses are stupid while history is made by great leaders. The masses are just human material to be shaped by great leaders.
Hitler was not upset at the November revolution in 1919 because it overthrow the monarchy. He was actually quite happy about that and grateful. What he thought was treasonous was that they signed the Versailles treaty. He thought the correct response would be to overthrow the corrupt old regime and rally the people to continue the fight.
pg. 102 the state was not an end in itself as the conservatives believed but the state was only a means to the end. The end being the preservation of the race.
pg. 108 The National Socialists wanted to restructure every single aspect of human life.
pg. 109 A complete revolution was not just a political change but a spiritual re-orientation as well. This spiritual change was represented by a change of Weltanschauung which would guide the restructuring of life. He said if the German Nationalist party won nothing would change in Germany (cough Republicans) but if the communists won everything would be different. He saw this as a positive since the communists had a Weltanschauung.
pg. The term fanatic was a compliment.
pg. 114 He saw the French revolution as the victory of the merchants and capitalism over the feudal era. The beginning of liberalism.
pg. 136 the weaker an authority is the more hated it is.
pg. 138 In 1930 Hitler spoke to his friend about a turning point in history that the age of the individualistic with the socialistic. Which Hayek even complained was happing in Britain during the war.
pg. 141 He wanted to change the calendar and saw the NS revolution as a turning point in history and the collapse of Christianity. "Basically, it is the collapse of Christianity that we are experiencing. This began with the Lutheran revolution. The torch was the theory of freedom of speech and belief; the shock was the uprising against authority." Another thinker who blames the death of Christianity on Luther.
pg. 146 Revolution is not a permanent condition but turns into evolution after seizing power. Explains why Germany didn't go through the mass murder and starvation common to all major communist states. He did come to regret some of these decisions later on and wish he had purged the generals and the capitalists.
pg. 158 Either one class can destroy or oppress the other or both classes can be given the room to succeed. Hitler wanted to tear the walls down between the classes so everybody can advance, he wanted to make sure the poorest were secure, and that culture was open for everyone. It was shocking to learn Hitler pushed equal opportunity for everyone in the volk. He tried to level society somewhat but also lift everyone up.
pg. 159 the difference between races was more then within a race but there were differences. The Socialist side wanted to equalize things and the Darwinist side wanted to give people freedom to compete so the strong would rise. These two competing drives run throughout.
pg. 163 He thought that instinct, the power of will and determination were more important for leadeership then intelligence and level of education. He thought the upper classes lacked this completely but the lower classes had it.
pg. 175 "A state in which birth is nothing and achievements and ability are every thing. That is our ideal, for which we are now working." Like what?
pg. 191 "Not when I support a class am I a nationalist, I am only one completely when I support the whole nation. It is not the greatness of a class or an estate, but the greatness of the whole nation which is important for us." Democracy he saw as just the rule of capital and special interest. He idea was to uplift the whole nation seen as an abstract ideal as opposed to the materialism of the capitalists pursuing their own benefit.
pg. 192 "One could "not take the false idol of Marxism away from the people without giving them a better God." He thought the bourgeois lacked a Weltanschauung and were incapable of beating the communists.
pg. 200 Hitler was even more anti capitalism in his table talks then public speeches. Destroying the myth that he was a tool of Capitalism.
pg. 205 "'bourgeois parties' have for a long time been nothing but interest groups of certain professions and classes, and their most solemn duty is no longer anything but the egoistic pursuit of their interests." This hits so true today.
pg. 213 No other party in Germany except the SPD and KPD had as many workers voting for them. Definitely not just a middle class movement as previously believed.
pg. 217 Propaganda directed at emotions not the brain. Masses understanding is limited and they are forgetful. Next page: the masses take time to adjust to a knew idea and are incapable of differentiated thinking.
pg. 222 However, the lower classes have a strong instinct and will which the upper classes lack entirely. Making them a source of strength.
pg. 224 Hitler loves the people so much he can see from their perspective. Which is probably true since he was so insanely popular.
pg. 229 Hitler made the workers feel appreciated. What a completely novel concept...
pg. 230 Hitler thought that compulsory labor service would help bridge the divide of the classes. I don't hate this idea.
pg. 236 Hitler was interested in the lower middle classes as they were the class that provided upward mobility for the working class and a connecting link between the classes. His anti-Semitism played on this classes fear of Jewish department stores and corporations destroying it.
pg. 241 Hitler was not that concerned with the farmers as thought accept during 1928 when they faced a crisis. He was primarily focused on the bourgeoise and the workers.
pg. 243 Hitler did not like the unions because they represented the worker but were tools of the Social Democrats. He abolished them because they were a threat and because, as in the USSR, there was no need for them when a party was in power that was representing them. Or so the ideology went. The DAF took up representing and working for the workers.
pg. 245 Hitler saw himself as a mediator between the classes and that the state should not represent a class. Next page - Hitler placed politics above economics.
pg. 249 Hitler advocated for an equalization in many areas of life as a condition for building a healthy national community.
pg. 254 He emphasized repeatedly that compulsion and force were not sufficient for ruling. Only a Weltanschauung could serve as such a foundation.
pg. 262 He found his time in the trenches as an egalitarian experience.
pg. 265 He did not think economics was a suitable common platform for a nation due to rampant divergent interests. Convicting since my Priest said awhile ago that the only thing American's have in common is the economy.
pg. 269 He rejected the gold standard and saw a nations currency based in it's production capacity.
pg. 273 "Capital has to become the servant of the state and not its master." How many American's would agree with that?
Pg. 274 The health of a state is not based on economics. A flourishing in this area often signals an impending downfall. When business becomes the sole content of a nations life the virtues collapse. Business interests cannot unify as they are always divergent.
pg. 284 He believed that there should be a sharp division between politics and business. He believed that capitalist and democratic states did not make decisions based on politics but on behalf of special interests and capital because they were tied to these business interests through being on boards and having stocks in these companies and future job opportunities. How true this is today is absurd. He did his best, often failing, to make sure no NS did the same. He believed that Britain would not have joined ww2 if Baldwin and Chamberlain had not had interests in the armaments' industry.
pg. 286 He had nothing against rich people but thought their influence in politics should be limited. Fair enough.
pg. 289 The author says that the Fuhrer state in propaganda was incorrect despite Hitler's desire. There were many business connections despite his repeated decrees and much corruption which he forgave. Despite many attempts he could not fix it.
pg. 292 "Now only the big ones benefit from liberalism any longer, the mass has sunk down to become their servants and to become slaves. Even in the organizations and chambers of the democracies, business sense reigns supreme, the owners of private capital, the big industrial magnates, the trusts, rule the state." Pretty much.
pg. 295 Hitler had reservations against state planning from his socio-Darwinist convictions. He was afraid the lack of competition would remove the mainspring of business life. But only the state could govern the economy for the general good and as his planning met with success he became more and more favorable to it.
pg. 307 Private ownership remained untouched however the state controlled investments, labor, what was made and raw materials which affectively negated that right making NS a truly socialist state despite leftist protests. When the state can tell you what to make, how much to make, the price you can sell it at etc. you don't really have private property.
pg. 344 He believed that modern wars were caused by economic reasons, especially the great war, mainly caused by a British reaction to German economic expansion across the globe. Which was a commonly held view in Germany.
pg. 346 His conclusion from this is that if peaceful means for economic expansion resulted in war then there was no peaceful solution.
pg. 363 Autarky was the point of the war but also a temporary means to make an alliance with Britain.
pg. 381 Capitalism results in deindustrialization due to exports industrializing foreign countries and then business building factories overseas to cut down on costs depriving the home country of jobs and industrial capacity. Resulting in unemployment at home. Reading this it struck me that US foreign policy is designed to halt this advance of other countries industrializing while maintaining unemployment at home.
pg. 392 Hitler criticized the US for not having a culture and that worshiping film stars shows a lack of great ideas...
pg. 408-11 He praises the enlightenment and sees NS as the fulfillment of it.
pg. 426 Capital rules democracy. Freedom just means free enterprise for big business quote. Rome and England were not democratic republics but aristocratic.
pg. 432 The precondition for human progress was the restriction of personal freedom.
pg. 475 NS like communist movements see themselves as the true fulfillment of democracy by being able to truly represent Rousseau's general will.
pg. 489 Hitler didn't see himself as either left or right but attack them both. He wanted to overcome both extremes.
pg. 492 He rejected bourgeois nationalism because it only represented a class.
pg. 495 Socialism means that the benefit of the whole takes precedent over the benefit of the individual.
pg. 455 He rejected selecting his new elite based on racial attributes but looked for the ability of the person. "you cannot only conclude from the race about the abilities, but also from the abilities about the race."
pg. 532 He struggled to convert his ideas into deeds. He often only saw the broad principle and the minute detail but never in-between.
pg. 505 'Eternal battle' was the Hitler's key concept as it guaranteed constant development upward.
Thus ends I think my longest review ever.
One of the biggest revelations while reading this is confirming my suspicion that National Socialism and Fascism are different and possibly not even right wing. Marxism uses the state to destroy the Bourgeoise on behalf of the working class. The state becomes a tool for salvation and is supposed to disappear but never does. For Fascism the state is the mystical deification of the will of the people. So the state becomes God. Hitler's view of the state is that it is just a means to an end, the end being the preservation of the race. Fascism seems to be the antithesis of Communism, while National Socialism is the synthesis of left wing socialism with more conservative nationalism. There is not room in Fascism for racism since it unites all races and classes into the state. But NS unites the race by minimizing class differences and cleansing out the race of the Jews. Making National Socialism one of the most centrist totalitarian movements of the century by orders of magnitude.
After reading this it seems clear that Hitler admired and respected both the Communists and Social Democrats and to a much lesser extant the Jews. He admired them both for their strengths but that also meant that they were threats he had to destroy. The Communists because they had a strong Weltanschauung and how Stalin had carried forward the revolution and modernized Russia while purging it of capitalistic forces. The Jews were one of the strongest and most resilient races and were thus a competitor to the German race in the Darwinian fight for survival. Groups like the conservatives or monarchic nationalists he saw as silly and weak thus did not see them as a threat. He latter came to regret this after the assassination attempt and blamed his defeat on not purging them as well.
One of my retired philosophy Professor friends had a very bright colleague who supposedly read everything on this topic and concluded that Hitler started the war to eradicate the Jews. While this book talks very little "about the Jews" this thesis seems absurd and reveals a near total lack of understanding of Hitler's philosophy and Weltanschauung or reveals an over idealization of the Jews which both anti-Semites and Zionists seem extremely susceptible. Another common misconception about Hitler is from especially British enlightenment advocates who see NS as a result of the German romantic counter enlightenment. The Marxists have a whole host of absurd ideas such as Hitler was not a revolutionary, he was a counter revolutionary and a reactionary, he was a tool of capitalism, and many more. And there are so many more. No historical figure is talked or studied more or more misunderstood.
The writers purpose in this book is to understand why Hitler was so popular. He does not believe Hitler's anti-Semitism or goal to conquer Lebensraum in the east explain this. For example east Germany under the Soviet's had 2-3 hundred thousand secret police while Hitler had 7k Gestapo. Hitler's regime was not based on coercion but on mass popular support. He also shows Goebbels diary entries after the plebiscites in 1934 and again in 1936 of the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Goebbels and Hitler's circle were disappointed with 89% approval in 1934 and felt crushed especially by the results in Berlin and like they had failed. But in 1936 they celebrate that they had united the country although a figure is not given.
In reading this it becomes clear why Hitler has become THE Devil in the Western mind besides just filling the atheistic vacuum which plays a major role as well. Far from being a reactionary or regressive, Hitler is probably the most modern man of the 20th century. He is a great admirer of the Enlightenment and saw himself as it's continuation and he loved Voltaire. One of his desires was to replace religion with a telescope and have people line up to view the universe through it in order to dispel their religious convictions. He though reason could replace religious superstition. His nationalism is clearly influenced by Romanticism as well as social Darwinism and 19th century romanticism. His two main ideals that shape all his thought are Darwinism and Socialism. He was also heavily influenced by eugenics and socialism and was very impressed with the Social Democrats and the Communists as well as Stalin. The affect of the Romantic cult of genius on Hitler is obvious. I also see a very obvious influence of Rousseau's general will and some Hegel as well. Hitler was a man of his times who was honest enough to draw conclusions others were unwilling to deduce. Hitler combines so many modern ideas that modern man is unwilling to recognize or see it for if he did he would see those faults in himself, so we create a taboo around it and banish it from our consciousness. It also might have to due to the fact that he was so insanely popular in ways no Communist or bourgeoise could ever achieve.
One thing I really liked about this book is he refuses to do the obligatory renunciation of Hitler that anyone who reads or writes about this topic feel compelled to do. People can read about Stalin and no one feels compelled to renounce it. So instead of an emotional disavowal this book is a very cool analysis of Hitler's thinking represented in his Weltanschauung that guided all of his actions.
Citations:
pg. 12 The Nazi party was a multiclass party and had more working class people then previously assumed having 40% membership from the working class. Hitler emphasized the anti-Semitism less towards the end of the 20s then he did earlier in the decade and started emphasizing his social promises.
pg. 15 The only thing holding the top Nazi leaders together was the belief they were making an entirely new epoch of human history and would create a new man and a new world.
pg. 19 Hitler had 16.3k books in his library including 7k on military matters. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Hitler knew better than his generals in many instances.
pg. 41 class conflict was to be overcome by abolishing a class but by increasing social mobility.
pg. 52 Hitler's revolution was not a reaction against Communism but an alternative revolution against the bourgeoise democratic capitalist social order.
pg. 70-71 in 1930-32 Hitler did not talk very much about Lebensraum or anti-Semitism and yet he became the leader of the masses during this time. The author believes it was his revolutionary program that made this possible.
pg. 85 The masses are stupid while history is made by great leaders. The masses are just human material to be shaped by great leaders.
Hitler was not upset at the November revolution in 1919 because it overthrow the monarchy. He was actually quite happy about that and grateful. What he thought was treasonous was that they signed the Versailles treaty. He thought the correct response would be to overthrow the corrupt old regime and rally the people to continue the fight.
pg. 102 the state was not an end in itself as the conservatives believed but the state was only a means to the end. The end being the preservation of the race.
pg. 108 The National Socialists wanted to restructure every single aspect of human life.
pg. 109 A complete revolution was not just a political change but a spiritual re-orientation as well. This spiritual change was represented by a change of Weltanschauung which would guide the restructuring of life. He said if the German Nationalist party won nothing would change in Germany (cough Republicans) but if the communists won everything would be different. He saw this as a positive since the communists had a Weltanschauung.
pg. The term fanatic was a compliment.
pg. 114 He saw the French revolution as the victory of the merchants and capitalism over the feudal era. The beginning of liberalism.
pg. 136 the weaker an authority is the more hated it is.
pg. 138 In 1930 Hitler spoke to his friend about a turning point in history that the age of the individualistic with the socialistic. Which Hayek even complained was happing in Britain during the war.
pg. 141 He wanted to change the calendar and saw the NS revolution as a turning point in history and the collapse of Christianity. "Basically, it is the collapse of Christianity that we are experiencing. This began with the Lutheran revolution. The torch was the theory of freedom of speech and belief; the shock was the uprising against authority." Another thinker who blames the death of Christianity on Luther.
pg. 146 Revolution is not a permanent condition but turns into evolution after seizing power. Explains why Germany didn't go through the mass murder and starvation common to all major communist states. He did come to regret some of these decisions later on and wish he had purged the generals and the capitalists.
pg. 158 Either one class can destroy or oppress the other or both classes can be given the room to succeed. Hitler wanted to tear the walls down between the classes so everybody can advance, he wanted to make sure the poorest were secure, and that culture was open for everyone. It was shocking to learn Hitler pushed equal opportunity for everyone in the volk. He tried to level society somewhat but also lift everyone up.
pg. 159 the difference between races was more then within a race but there were differences. The Socialist side wanted to equalize things and the Darwinist side wanted to give people freedom to compete so the strong would rise. These two competing drives run throughout.
pg. 163 He thought that instinct, the power of will and determination were more important for leadeership then intelligence and level of education. He thought the upper classes lacked this completely but the lower classes had it.
pg. 175 "A state in which birth is nothing and achievements and ability are every thing. That is our ideal, for which we are now working." Like what?
pg. 191 "Not when I support a class am I a nationalist, I am only one completely when I support the whole nation. It is not the greatness of a class or an estate, but the greatness of the whole nation which is important for us." Democracy he saw as just the rule of capital and special interest. He idea was to uplift the whole nation seen as an abstract ideal as opposed to the materialism of the capitalists pursuing their own benefit.
pg. 192 "One could "not take the false idol of Marxism away from the people without giving them a better God." He thought the bourgeois lacked a Weltanschauung and were incapable of beating the communists.
pg. 200 Hitler was even more anti capitalism in his table talks then public speeches. Destroying the myth that he was a tool of Capitalism.
pg. 205 "'bourgeois parties' have for a long time been nothing but interest groups of certain professions and classes, and their most solemn duty is no longer anything but the egoistic pursuit of their interests." This hits so true today.
pg. 213 No other party in Germany except the SPD and KPD had as many workers voting for them. Definitely not just a middle class movement as previously believed.
pg. 217 Propaganda directed at emotions not the brain. Masses understanding is limited and they are forgetful. Next page: the masses take time to adjust to a knew idea and are incapable of differentiated thinking.
pg. 222 However, the lower classes have a strong instinct and will which the upper classes lack entirely. Making them a source of strength.
pg. 224 Hitler loves the people so much he can see from their perspective. Which is probably true since he was so insanely popular.
pg. 229 Hitler made the workers feel appreciated. What a completely novel concept...
pg. 230 Hitler thought that compulsory labor service would help bridge the divide of the classes. I don't hate this idea.
pg. 236 Hitler was interested in the lower middle classes as they were the class that provided upward mobility for the working class and a connecting link between the classes. His anti-Semitism played on this classes fear of Jewish department stores and corporations destroying it.
pg. 241 Hitler was not that concerned with the farmers as thought accept during 1928 when they faced a crisis. He was primarily focused on the bourgeoise and the workers.
pg. 243 Hitler did not like the unions because they represented the worker but were tools of the Social Democrats. He abolished them because they were a threat and because, as in the USSR, there was no need for them when a party was in power that was representing them. Or so the ideology went. The DAF took up representing and working for the workers.
pg. 245 Hitler saw himself as a mediator between the classes and that the state should not represent a class. Next page - Hitler placed politics above economics.
pg. 249 Hitler advocated for an equalization in many areas of life as a condition for building a healthy national community.
pg. 254 He emphasized repeatedly that compulsion and force were not sufficient for ruling. Only a Weltanschauung could serve as such a foundation.
pg. 262 He found his time in the trenches as an egalitarian experience.
pg. 265 He did not think economics was a suitable common platform for a nation due to rampant divergent interests. Convicting since my Priest said awhile ago that the only thing American's have in common is the economy.
pg. 269 He rejected the gold standard and saw a nations currency based in it's production capacity.
pg. 273 "Capital has to become the servant of the state and not its master." How many American's would agree with that?
Pg. 274 The health of a state is not based on economics. A flourishing in this area often signals an impending downfall. When business becomes the sole content of a nations life the virtues collapse. Business interests cannot unify as they are always divergent.
pg. 284 He believed that there should be a sharp division between politics and business. He believed that capitalist and democratic states did not make decisions based on politics but on behalf of special interests and capital because they were tied to these business interests through being on boards and having stocks in these companies and future job opportunities. How true this is today is absurd. He did his best, often failing, to make sure no NS did the same. He believed that Britain would not have joined ww2 if Baldwin and Chamberlain had not had interests in the armaments' industry.
pg. 286 He had nothing against rich people but thought their influence in politics should be limited. Fair enough.
pg. 289 The author says that the Fuhrer state in propaganda was incorrect despite Hitler's desire. There were many business connections despite his repeated decrees and much corruption which he forgave. Despite many attempts he could not fix it.
pg. 292 "Now only the big ones benefit from liberalism any longer, the mass has sunk down to become their servants and to become slaves. Even in the organizations and chambers of the democracies, business sense reigns supreme, the owners of private capital, the big industrial magnates, the trusts, rule the state." Pretty much.
pg. 295 Hitler had reservations against state planning from his socio-Darwinist convictions. He was afraid the lack of competition would remove the mainspring of business life. But only the state could govern the economy for the general good and as his planning met with success he became more and more favorable to it.
pg. 307 Private ownership remained untouched however the state controlled investments, labor, what was made and raw materials which affectively negated that right making NS a truly socialist state despite leftist protests. When the state can tell you what to make, how much to make, the price you can sell it at etc. you don't really have private property.
pg. 344 He believed that modern wars were caused by economic reasons, especially the great war, mainly caused by a British reaction to German economic expansion across the globe. Which was a commonly held view in Germany.
pg. 346 His conclusion from this is that if peaceful means for economic expansion resulted in war then there was no peaceful solution.
pg. 363 Autarky was the point of the war but also a temporary means to make an alliance with Britain.
pg. 381 Capitalism results in deindustrialization due to exports industrializing foreign countries and then business building factories overseas to cut down on costs depriving the home country of jobs and industrial capacity. Resulting in unemployment at home. Reading this it struck me that US foreign policy is designed to halt this advance of other countries industrializing while maintaining unemployment at home.
pg. 392 Hitler criticized the US for not having a culture and that worshiping film stars shows a lack of great ideas...
pg. 408-11 He praises the enlightenment and sees NS as the fulfillment of it.
pg. 426 Capital rules democracy. Freedom just means free enterprise for big business quote. Rome and England were not democratic republics but aristocratic.
pg. 432 The precondition for human progress was the restriction of personal freedom.
pg. 475 NS like communist movements see themselves as the true fulfillment of democracy by being able to truly represent Rousseau's general will.
pg. 489 Hitler didn't see himself as either left or right but attack them both. He wanted to overcome both extremes.
pg. 492 He rejected bourgeois nationalism because it only represented a class.
pg. 495 Socialism means that the benefit of the whole takes precedent over the benefit of the individual.
pg. 455 He rejected selecting his new elite based on racial attributes but looked for the ability of the person. "you cannot only conclude from the race about the abilities, but also from the abilities about the race."
pg. 532 He struggled to convert his ideas into deeds. He often only saw the broad principle and the minute detail but never in-between.
pg. 505 'Eternal battle' was the Hitler's key concept as it guaranteed constant development upward.
Thus ends I think my longest review ever.
November 6, 2022
There are so many quotes, such a variety of sources pulling in a largely consistent direction that it is a real mystery it took until 1987 for such a clear picture of Hitler's Weltanshauung to emerge. Many errors of the Marxist historians stem from their inability to separate normative judgements from terms. Hitler couldn't have been a revolutionary, because revolution is good. Hitler couldn't have been for material progress, because material progress is good. Hitler couldn't have had any egalitarian aspects to his thinking, because egalitarianism is good. Moreover Hitler had to be aligned with bourgeois society because their ideology tells them this must be the case, evidence be damned.
This book explodes the foundations of the popular account. The various inaccuracies dealt with include:
- Hitler saw himself as a 'counter-revolutionary'
- Hitler had more in common with reactionaries than revolutionaries
- Hitler hated Marxism because it was 'inimical to labour'
- Hitler was ideologically cosy with the bourgeoisie
- Hitler was against nationalization of industries
- Hitler didn't aim for modernization
- Hitler didn't aim for greater social mobility
- Hitler didn't care about the 'workers'
- Economics played a small part in Hitler's thinking
And many more.
In the absence of these mistakes, a remarkably clear and consistent worldview emerges, covering the social, political and economic spheres, and subordinating the economic and social to the political, or rather the nation. It's not an exactly original worldview, but it is both distinct from competing ideologies and nuanced. It's a predominantly populist worldview aimed at attracting the masses, but Hitler is not only telling the masses what they wanted to hear. His positive view of the working classes, seeing in them the courage that was wholly lacking in the bourgeoisie, is present consistently in both speeches, private talks and memoirs. Another consistent thread is Hitler's hatred of the the bourgeoisie, seeing them as weak and without a Weltanshauung. The fact that Hitler allied with certain figures like Schacht is often seen as confirmation of Hitler's ideological similarity with the bourgeoisie, yet such an alliance comes as no surprise on further investigation. Hitler thought that you should never ally with a faction of equal power. As such, Hitler's view of the bourgeoisie provided the rationale for an alliance, one in which he held the whip.
This book explodes the foundations of the popular account. The various inaccuracies dealt with include:
- Hitler saw himself as a 'counter-revolutionary'
- Hitler had more in common with reactionaries than revolutionaries
- Hitler hated Marxism because it was 'inimical to labour'
- Hitler was ideologically cosy with the bourgeoisie
- Hitler was against nationalization of industries
- Hitler didn't aim for modernization
- Hitler didn't aim for greater social mobility
- Hitler didn't care about the 'workers'
- Economics played a small part in Hitler's thinking
And many more.
In the absence of these mistakes, a remarkably clear and consistent worldview emerges, covering the social, political and economic spheres, and subordinating the economic and social to the political, or rather the nation. It's not an exactly original worldview, but it is both distinct from competing ideologies and nuanced. It's a predominantly populist worldview aimed at attracting the masses, but Hitler is not only telling the masses what they wanted to hear. His positive view of the working classes, seeing in them the courage that was wholly lacking in the bourgeoisie, is present consistently in both speeches, private talks and memoirs. Another consistent thread is Hitler's hatred of the the bourgeoisie, seeing them as weak and without a Weltanshauung. The fact that Hitler allied with certain figures like Schacht is often seen as confirmation of Hitler's ideological similarity with the bourgeoisie, yet such an alliance comes as no surprise on further investigation. Hitler thought that you should never ally with a faction of equal power. As such, Hitler's view of the bourgeoisie provided the rationale for an alliance, one in which he held the whip.
June 21, 2022
Rainer Zitelmann's Hitler's National Socialism is a republished edition of his original Hitler: The Policies of Seduction book from 1999, with a new introduction dealing with criticisms of the original edition of this book from [mainly German] historians.
Hitler's National Socialism is a thought provoking book which challenges the established narrative of Hitler's world view. Although not everybody likes history books that venture off the main highway of history, so some people might prefer the simple "Hitler was a fascist" or "Hitler was a madman" sound bites of today, but there really was a lot more to his beliefs than that. Also, modern day socialists don't really like to contemplate the idea that National Socialism was in any way related to 'their' idea of socialism, as that might just be too scary a proposition for them. To stay safe they should probably avoid reading this book, as Rainer Zitelmann's contention that Adolf Hitler was more left-wing than right-wing could be a shock to their system!
Hitler's National Socialism is a thoroughly absorbing book that will stimulate anyone's critical thinking. Whether people agree or disagree with the author, Hitler's National Socialism should be essential reading. It is without doubt one of the best books written on Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.
Hitler's National Socialism is a thought provoking book which challenges the established narrative of Hitler's world view. Although not everybody likes history books that venture off the main highway of history, so some people might prefer the simple "Hitler was a fascist" or "Hitler was a madman" sound bites of today, but there really was a lot more to his beliefs than that. Also, modern day socialists don't really like to contemplate the idea that National Socialism was in any way related to 'their' idea of socialism, as that might just be too scary a proposition for them. To stay safe they should probably avoid reading this book, as Rainer Zitelmann's contention that Adolf Hitler was more left-wing than right-wing could be a shock to their system!
Hitler's National Socialism is a thoroughly absorbing book that will stimulate anyone's critical thinking. Whether people agree or disagree with the author, Hitler's National Socialism should be essential reading. It is without doubt one of the best books written on Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.
May 4, 2025
In Hitler’s National Socialism, Rainer Zitelmann presents a meticulously researched exploration of one of history’s darkest chapters, dissecting the ideological underpinnings and the socio-political mechanics that fueled Adolf Hitler’s ascent and the subsequent horrors of the Third Reich. This book is not merely an account of events but a profound inquiry into the mindsets and motivations that propelled an entire nation toward catastrophic ruin.
It is an in-depth review of the policy positions of the National Socialists - and modern readers won’t like the similarities between the policy positions and today’s U.S. domestic issue positions. The evidence is clear: Hitler was a far Left-Authoriatarian. Claims to the contrary are baseless.
Zitelmann deftly navigates through the labyrinth of Nazi ideology, stripping away the layers of myth and distortion that have accrued over decades. He confronts the pervasive tendency to oversimplify Hitler’s motives, arguing convincingly that his nationalism was not born in a vacuum but was instead a confluence of historical grievances, cultural dynamics, and political opportunism. The author elucidates how National Socialism, rather than being an aberration of German society, was a culmination of various elements that resonated with the collective psyche of a disillusioned populace.
The prose is sharp, incisive, and sometimes unapologetically confrontational, challenging the reader to grapple with uncomfortable truths. Zitelmann does not shy away from the era's complexities; he emphasizes the interplay between Hitler’s ambitions and the socio-economic conditions of post-World War I Germany. The book reminds us that ideologies do not simply arise from a singular vision; myriad influences shape them, including economic despair, social unrest, and the thirst for vengeance.
One of the strengths of Zitelmann’s analysis lies in his engagement with contemporary debates surrounding the legacy of National Socialism. He skillfully critiques the tendency to portray Hitler as a singularly evil figure, cautioning against the dangers of reductionist thinking. Instead, he encourages a nuanced understanding of how ordinary individuals became complicit in extraordinary evil, urging readers to consider the implications of such complicity in our times.
Moreover, Zitelmann’s exploration of the practical implications of Nazi ideology—how it transformed into policies that culminated in genocide—is both harrowing and enlightening. His arguments about the administrative machinery that enabled these atrocities serve as a stark reminder of the potential for bureaucratic systems to facilitate unimaginable horror when combined with ideological zeal.
Ultimately, Hitler’s National Socialism calls for vigilance and critical engagement with history. It challenges readers to comprehend the past and recognize the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of extremist ideologies. Zitelmann’s work significantly contributes to the ongoing discourse on fascism, nationalism, and the perennial question of human nature’s capacity for good and evil. It is a book that compels us to look unflinchingly at the shadows of our history, urging us to confront the uncomfortable realities that continue to echo in our contemporary political landscape.
QUOTES:
On Ideological Complexity: ��Hitler’s thinking contained serious economic, social, and domestic policy components beyond his well-established foreign and racial policy goals” (Page 36).
On Economic Motivations: Zitelmann asserts, “The desire for economic advancement and the perception that the NSDAP… responded to that desire, made the NSDAP a likely choice for millions of German workers” (Page 62).
On National Socialism as Revolutionary: “A revolutionary does not only wish to change the direction of the ship of state; he wishes to remake its society” (Page 44).
On the Nature of Socialism in Nazism: “Hitler’s anti-capitalism was a constant… it was still there when his empire was crumbling” (Page 78).
On Membership in the NSDAP: “By the end of the war, roughly one in seven eligible voters in Germany was a party member” (Page 102).
It is an in-depth review of the policy positions of the National Socialists - and modern readers won’t like the similarities between the policy positions and today’s U.S. domestic issue positions. The evidence is clear: Hitler was a far Left-Authoriatarian. Claims to the contrary are baseless.
Zitelmann deftly navigates through the labyrinth of Nazi ideology, stripping away the layers of myth and distortion that have accrued over decades. He confronts the pervasive tendency to oversimplify Hitler’s motives, arguing convincingly that his nationalism was not born in a vacuum but was instead a confluence of historical grievances, cultural dynamics, and political opportunism. The author elucidates how National Socialism, rather than being an aberration of German society, was a culmination of various elements that resonated with the collective psyche of a disillusioned populace.
The prose is sharp, incisive, and sometimes unapologetically confrontational, challenging the reader to grapple with uncomfortable truths. Zitelmann does not shy away from the era's complexities; he emphasizes the interplay between Hitler’s ambitions and the socio-economic conditions of post-World War I Germany. The book reminds us that ideologies do not simply arise from a singular vision; myriad influences shape them, including economic despair, social unrest, and the thirst for vengeance.
One of the strengths of Zitelmann’s analysis lies in his engagement with contemporary debates surrounding the legacy of National Socialism. He skillfully critiques the tendency to portray Hitler as a singularly evil figure, cautioning against the dangers of reductionist thinking. Instead, he encourages a nuanced understanding of how ordinary individuals became complicit in extraordinary evil, urging readers to consider the implications of such complicity in our times.
Moreover, Zitelmann’s exploration of the practical implications of Nazi ideology—how it transformed into policies that culminated in genocide—is both harrowing and enlightening. His arguments about the administrative machinery that enabled these atrocities serve as a stark reminder of the potential for bureaucratic systems to facilitate unimaginable horror when combined with ideological zeal.
Ultimately, Hitler’s National Socialism calls for vigilance and critical engagement with history. It challenges readers to comprehend the past and recognize the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of extremist ideologies. Zitelmann’s work significantly contributes to the ongoing discourse on fascism, nationalism, and the perennial question of human nature’s capacity for good and evil. It is a book that compels us to look unflinchingly at the shadows of our history, urging us to confront the uncomfortable realities that continue to echo in our contemporary political landscape.
QUOTES:
On Ideological Complexity: ��Hitler’s thinking contained serious economic, social, and domestic policy components beyond his well-established foreign and racial policy goals” (Page 36).
On Economic Motivations: Zitelmann asserts, “The desire for economic advancement and the perception that the NSDAP… responded to that desire, made the NSDAP a likely choice for millions of German workers” (Page 62).
On National Socialism as Revolutionary: “A revolutionary does not only wish to change the direction of the ship of state; he wishes to remake its society” (Page 44).
On the Nature of Socialism in Nazism: “Hitler’s anti-capitalism was a constant… it was still there when his empire was crumbling” (Page 78).
On Membership in the NSDAP: “By the end of the war, roughly one in seven eligible voters in Germany was a party member” (Page 102).
February 17, 2025
An outstanding analysis of the economic philosophy of Adolf Hitler compared to the propaganda that surrounded him. Rainer Zitelmann's "Hitler's National Socialism" provides a definitive account of Hitler's economic ideology, revealing his aim for a racialized socialism with total state control over the economy. Hitler's extreme leftist views, focused on his version of social justice, incorporated significant anti-capitalist elements, but instead of pushing for worldwide class struggles like Marxists, he was focused on uniting classes within Germany.
Admiring the Soviet planned economy, Hitler intended to restructure Germany similarly after WWII, emphasizing the unique aspects of National Socialism, which regulated industries without full nationalization. While sharing some features with fascism, National Socialism prioritized state-corporate collaboration.
Zitelmann pushes back against the anti-capitalist talk by showing how market economies have done way better than socialist ones. Grounded in social Darwinism, Hitler's radical approach tossed aside traditional social structures, centralizing power and looking to nationalize industries, which really threatened private property under his totalitarian rule.
Admiring the Soviet planned economy, Hitler intended to restructure Germany similarly after WWII, emphasizing the unique aspects of National Socialism, which regulated industries without full nationalization. While sharing some features with fascism, National Socialism prioritized state-corporate collaboration.
Zitelmann pushes back against the anti-capitalist talk by showing how market economies have done way better than socialist ones. Grounded in social Darwinism, Hitler's radical approach tossed aside traditional social structures, centralizing power and looking to nationalize industries, which really threatened private property under his totalitarian rule.
April 1, 2024
Kniha spíše populárně naučná, než nějaký odbornější text. Čekal jsem více relevantnějších informací, ale postačilo dobře jako zdroj informací k práci
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews