Tag Archives: Hitler

National Disintegration

Anyone following recent political events in the United States will have a feeling of what it means to say that a nation is falling apart. Given this experience, one can begin to comprehend Adolf Hitler—whose entire political career originated in his belief that Germany was “disintegrating.”

Hitler’s Ideology presents and analyzes the central images and metaphors in Hitler’s writings and speeches. Hitler’s rhetoric often refers to the “disintegration” of Germany. In my book, Hitler’s statements clustering around this term appear in a table entitled “The Disintegration of the National Body.”

Hitler wrote and spoke about the “decomposition” of the German nation, and of the “splitting up of the body politic.” He stated that the German people found itself in the midst of a “process of dissolution,” observing that “internally the body of the people began to dissolve.” It was a “chaos of views and concepts,” Hitler believed, that had “torn asunder the German people.”

According to Hitler, the bourgeois world had failed to notice the beginnings of a process that threatened to “dissolve the German people once more into its basic elements.” This increasingly rapid “falling to pieces of the organic structure of the nation” acted to “destroy the people’s trust in their leaders.”

Hitler became profoundly anxious reflecting upon Germany’s incipient decomposition or disintegration. What to do? Hitler’s response to this question was the source of everything that followed. His career revolved around his determination to prevent or reverse the process of German disintegration.

Rudolf Hess often introduced his Fuehrer’s speeches with the phrase, “Hitler is Germany, just as Germany is Hitler.” Perhaps few people have ever identified as deeply with their nation as Hitler did. He experienced himself as being “at one” with his nation. Germany existed within the fabric of his being.

Hitler spoke of Germany as if it were an actual physical entity. What was disintegrating when the nation was falling apart—was the German body. What more, Hitler identified his own body with the body politic. When he claimed that Germany was disintegrating, it is likely that he experienced this disintegration as a condition of his own body. Thus, from Hitler’s perspective, the “falling to pieces” of the German nation was simultaneously a world historic event and a personal one.

The following passages provide a sense of the immense power that Hitler attributed to the destructive force attacking Germany, and of the cosmic threat that he believed it posed:

This attack is levelled against the very substance of peoples as peoples, against their internal organization: it is levelled, too, against the leaders of these peoples, against those who represent each people’s own race, against their intellectual life, against their traditions, against their economic life, in a word against all those other institutions which determine the picture of the individuality, the character, and the life of these peoples and States. This attack is so embracing that it draws into the field of its action almost all the functions of life, while no one can tell how long this fight may last.

It is only rarely that the life of peoples suffers from such convulsions that the deepest foundations of the edifice of social order are shaken and that this social order itself is threatened or destroyed. But to-day who will refuse to see or even deny that we find ourselves in the midst of a struggle which is not concerned merely with the problems of frontiers between peoples or States but rather with the question of the maintenance or the annihilation of the whole inherited human order of society and its civilizations? The organization of human society is threatened.

According to Hitler, the attack taking place was directed not only against Germany, but against races, peoples and states. What was at stake was the survival or annihilation of the “whole inherited human order of society and civilization.”

Hitler was unique in that he believed that it was his personal responsibility to rescue Germany—and Western civilization. Germany was falling apart. Society was disintegrating. Hitler was an activist who refused to sit back while the world collapsed. He made it his business to “do something” to rectify the situation.

At the moment Hitler perceived the incipient breakdown of civilization—this is when violence enters the picture—based on his belief that he had identified the cause of national disintegration. Hitler believed that communism, or the Jew, was responsible. Doing something about Germany’s plight, therefore, meant taking action against communism and the Jew.

Hitler claimed that Marxism was a conception of the world with disintegration as its aim—leading to the “splitting up of the body politic.” The Jew, he felt, was a “ferment of decomposition” among races—a “dissolver of human culture.” The Jewish “demon of disintegration” symbolized the “unceasing destruction of peoples’ lives.”

Modern political structures grow out of the individual’s willingness to “identify with the nation.” Nationalism is a cultural form with profound psychological implications. As people are expected to devote themselves to their countries, so is the nation incorporated into the self.

Individuals vary in the degree to which they identify with their nations. What characterized Hitler was the depth of his attachment: the degree to which he equated own being and body with Germany.
Hitler explained to his people, “You are nothing, your nation is everything.” Hitler applied this proposition to himself. He was willing to become nothing in order to be everything. One became everything to the extent that one identified with one’s nation. Hitler projected his self entirely into Germany.

Thus, his struggle for survival (Mein Kampf) was simultaneously a struggle for the survival of the German nation. The Jewish force of disintegration within Germany was within Hitler’s body. If the nation was to survive—if Hitler was to survive—the Jewish force of destruction had to be removed— from within Hitler’s body, from within Germany, and from the world.

Hitler’s struggle was to keep Germany—and himself—alive. Given that this was a question of “life against death,” no actions were off-limits. Thus followed the fundamental premise of Nazi morality:

We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the cross. We may be inhumane, but if we rescue Germany, we have achieved the greatest deed in the world.

The Goal of War is Death

Hitler’s view of the “Aryan” was not what many people imagine. What was “most strongly developed in the Aryan,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, was his willingness to sacrifice himself for the community: to “give one’s personal labor and if necessary one’s life for others.”

The Aryan was “not greatest in his mental qualities,” but in the extent of his willingness to “put all his abilities in the service of the community.” The Aryan “willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.” The “superiority” of the Aryan race grew out of the capacity of the Aryan to sacrifice his own life for the sake of the community.

The idea that one should sacrifice one’s own life for the sake of one’s community or nation was the bedrock of Nazi ideology: the anlage out of which everything else grew. Nazism meant absolute devotion to Germany: willingness to die for one’s country. Hitler’s “will” revolved around actualizing this ideology—bringing it into being.

Nationalism, Hitler believed, meant acting with a “boundless and all-embracing love for the people,” and, if necessary, dying for it. A man proves his love for his people “solely by the sacrifices he is prepared to make for it.” Giving one’s life for the community constituted the “crown of sacrifice.”

Military service meant consciousness of the duty to fight for the existence of the German people by “sacrificing the life of the individual, always and forever, at all times and all places.” To be a Nazi, in short, was to be endlessly, eternally willing to die for Germany.

Hitler was deeply disturbed by Germany’s loss of the First World War (or, rather, by her surrender). On the other hand, he idealized the death of the German soldier in battle. The young regiments went to death in Flanders, Hitler wrote , crying Deutschland ueber Alles in der Welt (Germany above everything in the world). With “fatherland love in our heart and songs on our lips,” Hitler’s regiment had “gone into battle as to a dance.”

More than once, Hitler said, thousands of young Germans had stepped forward to “sacrifice their young lives freely and joyfully on the altar of the beloved fatherland.” Having died in battle, the best comrades—“still almost children”—slumbered in the sacred ground having “run to their death with gleaming eyes for the one true fatherland.”

Nazism was an ideology of sacrificial death. To be a Nazi was to be willing “to die for Germany” (the title of a book by Jay Baird). “Obedience to authority” does not convey the meaning of Nazism. Rather, the willingness to submit and to sacrifice one’s life grew out of faith: love for one’s country and loyalty to Adolf Hitler, who was conceived as the perfect embodiment of Germany.

When a boy entered the Hitler Youth at age 10, he swore to devote all his energies and strength to Adolf Hitler, vowing that he was “willing and ready to give up my life for him.” The Wehrmacht soldier swore by a sacred oath that he would render “unconditional obedience” to Hitler, willing at all times to “give my life for this oath.” And the SS-man famously vowed “obedience unto death.”

Nazism was a cult of sacrificial death. Willingness to die for Germany constituted the core of Nazi ideology. “Obedience unto death” was the fount of morality: a vow to surrender one’s life when Adolf Hitler asked one to.

Hitler explained to his people, “You are nothing, your nation is everything.” Nazism was the will to nothingness: negation of the self in the name of glorifying one’s nation. Sacrificial death was the highest ideal. Dying for Germany was the summum bonum: the end in itself (at the same time containing all other goods).

Warfare constituted a vast arena giving Germany the opportunity to sacrifice young men. When the war against Russia began, German General Gerd von Rundstedt admonished the soldier of the Second World War to emulate his brothers of the First World War and to “die in the same way”: strong, unswerving and obedient, going “happily and as a matter of course to his death” (cited in Baird, 1975). Goebbels was satisfied that German soldiers went into battle “with devotion, like congregations going into service.”

The Psychotic Fantasy of Masochistic Group Death

In “The Cult Leader as Agent of a Psychotic Fantasy of Masochistic Group Death,” Stewart Twemlow and George Hough examine the case of Jim Jones and his followers of the Peoples Temple. On November 18, 1978, in Guyana, approximately 900 men, women and children perished after drinking from a metal vat of grape Kool-Aid mixed with poison.

The authors analyze the transcript (based on a tape recording) of the very last “White Knight” sermons delivered by Jones to his followers. As external threats against Jonestown mounted, Jones increased his demands, ultimately insisting that his followers be prepared to die for him as the “ultimate expression of their loyalty.”

As Jones expounds on why he embraces death—and why other members of the group should do so—the crowd becomes “audibly more enthusiastic.” Later in his sermon, as Jones reiterates that it is time to die, members of the community are “cheering exuberantly at the idea.” From this point forward, there will emerge numerous spontaneous exhortations by audience members—for the community to embrace its death.

In the midst of the numerous calls for their communal death, a lone female audience member raised objections. However, there were no other objections. Appeals for communal death and farewell testimonials increased exponentially. One loyal member spoke to Jones in tears: “We’re all ready to go. If you tell us we have to give our lives now, we’re ready. All the rest of the sisters and brothers are with me.”

On February 18, 1943, Joseph Goebbels spoke before 15,000 people at the Sportpalast. The German sixth army had just suffered a catastrophic defeat at Stalingrad, and the seriousness of the war began to come home to the German people. Goebbels exhorted his flock to commit to the war effort. Please view an excerpt of the speech here.

After pointing to “rows of wounded soldiers” sitting in the front, Goebbels posed a series of questions. The audience, Goebbels said, represented the whole nation, and their answers would be “answers for the German people throughout the world, and especially for our enemies who are listening to us on the radio.”

Goebbels asked: “Are you ready to follow the Fueher and to wage war with wild determination through all the turns of fate”? And: “Is your confidence in the Fuehrer greater, more unshakable than ever before”? And: “Are you absolutely and completely ready to follow him wherever he goes and do all that is necessary”? An ear-splitting Ja! (yes) was the reply to each question. Stormy applause increased in intensity with each of Goebbel’s questions.

At the climax of his speech, Goebbels screamed: “Do you want total war? Do you want it, if necessary, more total and more radical than we could ever imagine today”? Pandemonium broke out in the Sportpalast. “Now, Volk,” Goebbels raved, “arise and storm, break loose.” Shouts of “Heil” flowed through the hall, thousands of voices joining in as if one man. “Fuehrer command, we follow.”

“The tide had irrevocably shifted against the German war effort in the fall of 1942. The German military was perfectly aware of this situation. General Alfred Jodl: ‘When the catastrophe of winter 1941-42 broke, it became clear especially to the Fueher that victory could no longer be achieved.’

The machinery of destruction and annihilation went into high gear at the very moment the war was lost. The Wehrmacht fought for three years and the nation was mobilized in a total war effort notwithstanding the leadership’s knowledge that this war effort would not make a difference in the eventual outcome.

Death was talked up as the only way for soldiers to redeem themselves. In the cruel metaphysics of the Third Reich, the only way to be a man was to be dead. Goebbels and Hitler deliberately prepared for death—their own and that of the nation—on the funeral pyre made of the ruins of their imperial dreams.”

Michael Geyer in Sacrifice and National Belonging in Twentieth-Century Germany

In their study of Jonestown, Twemlow and Hough state that a charismatic leader can “inspire his followers to actualize a psychotic and co-created fantasy of masochistic group death.” Group members may “heroically choose to die rather than to become crushed by enemy forces closing in.” The leader is like a pied piper who “leads the community of the faithful” precisely where they have “unconsciously directed him to lead them.” Joseph Goebbels was the pied piper of Nazi Germany, leading his people into the valley of death.

In subsequent speeches and published documents, Goebbels continued to exhort the German people to die. In another speech at the Sportpalast on June 5, 1943, he explains that “the laws of war are harsh. Millions of German soldiers today have to be ready to die on the battlefield for their people.” As the war on the Eastern Front progressed, he was satisfied to note that German soldiers “go into battle with devotion, like congregations going into service.”

In his pamphlet of September 26, 1943, Goebbels explained that “the duty of the individual during war extends to sacrificing his life for the life of his nation.” On a speech delivered on April 20, 1945, on the occasion of Hitler’s birthday—near the end of the war and Germany’s devastating defeat—Goebbels stated:

We will never desert him, no matter how dangerous the hour. We stand with him, as he stands with us—in Germanic loyalty as we have sworn, as we shall fulfill. We do not need to tell him, for he knows and must know: “Fueher command!—We will follow!”

What is the difference between how Jim Jones seduced and led his followers to die at Jonestown…and how Joseph Goebbels seduced and led his people to sacrifice their lives for Germany? Weren’t Hitler and Goebbels “charismatic leaders,” “pied pipers” who “led the community of the faithful” by inspiring their followers to “heroically choose to die rather than to become crushed by enemy forces closing in”?

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Hitler and Goebbels led the German people to “actualize a psychotic and co-created fantasy of masochistic group death”? The difference between Jonestown and Nazi Germany is that Jim Jones led 900 people to their deaths, whereas the words and actions of Hitler and Goebbels led to the deaths of nearly 8 million Germans. The difference is in the number of people who participated in the social movement, and the magnitude of destruction that was generated. Yet, as I observed in a previous issue of the Library of Social Science Newsletter, we rarely if ever use words like masochism and psychosis in relationship to political and historical phenomenon.

Well over 200 million people were killed in the twentieth century as a result of political violence generated by nations. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says that the twentieth century was dominated by the “politics of organized insanity.” Yet nowhere do we find a concept of psychopathology to characterize the destructive and often bizarre events in that occur on the stage of politics. Why is this the case?

Why don’t we use terms like “masochism” to describe how soldiers (and citizens) are willing to “die for their countries”? Daniel Goldhagen (1996) observes that the Nazis were in the grip of a “hallucinatory ideology” and that their writings about the Jews were so fantastic and divorced from reality that “anyone reading them might conclude that they were the produce of the collective scribes of an insane asylum.” Why do we hesitate to use a term like “psychosis” to characterize the Nazi belief system?

For further reading on this topic, please see my paper on collective psychopathology.

Despite the fact that defeat was staring the Nazi regime in the face, it persisted in its attempt to restructure Europe’s racial composition through mass murder. During the summer of 1944, after the Allied landings in Normandy, German casualties reached levels never before seen: over 215,000 German soldiers were killed in July, and nearly 350,000 in August. With defeat unavoidable, the Nazi regime persisted in sending its soldiers to their deaths in hundreds of thousands.

The result was casualties on a colossal scale—so much so that Germany in January 1945 became the site of what perhaps was the greatest killing frenzy ever seen. The last months of the war were by far the most bloody. In January 1945 alone, more than 450,000 German soldiers lost their lives (a considerably greater number of soldiers than either the United Kingdom or the United States lost during the entire war). In February, March, and April, the number of German military dead approached 300 thousand per month.

Richard Bessel (2004) in Nazism and War