Category: Hitler

Alfons Heck was born around 1927 in Rhineland near the Morsel River Region. He was brought up by his grandmother and a number of uncles and aunts. His parents and twin brother occasionally paid him visits in the farm where he lived. Hitler ascended to power when Alfons Heck was just six years old; that was in the year 1933. His teacher at that time was a full blown follower of the Nazi (Heck 2).

Even at his young age, Alfons somewhat had a sense of admiration for his teacher and the ideals he stood for. Hitler’s regime had successfully turned him into a fanatic who was willing to lay down his life for a cause he believed was both just and achievable. For the following five or so years, Alfons attended school normally like other children and served as an altar boy in his local church.

Germany had remained in turmoil in the years following World War 1 and this offered an ideal setting for the emergence of firebrand political leadership who would establish and enforce extremist ideologies (Heck 6).

At this time in Germany’s history, citizens were under immense pressure to make payments to the victors of war and the country was grappling with a serious economic crisis. This was when Adolf Hitler came to be known since he offered easy explanations to the problems that the people were facing and he went ahead to offer quick fix solutions.

In his opinion, the Jews were to be blamed for Germany’s downfall in World War 1 and the subsequent peace treaty that was a source of embarrassment to the nation. The Nazis cunningly capitalized on the political and economic distrust of the middle class and made up lies about the Jews (Heck 11).The party enjoyed a significant rise in popularity and this saw Hitler ascend to the post of Chancellor in the year 1933. Some people thought he could have been instrumental in dealing with communists proponents.

Hitler began forming structures of the Nazi State that were based on authoritarian principles and racism. Individuals’ rights and freedoms were revoked while rights entrenched in the Weimar Constitution were renounced. Jews suffered persecution and discrimination, and in the year 1933, they were expelled from the civil service.

This year also saw the abolishing of all trade unions. All elements of government were ‘harmonized’ to completely fit into Nazi control while all other political parties were outlawed. Germans were made to believe that their destiny was to grow and enlarge a superior population that would rule the Soviet Union. A policy was put in place to encourage the bearing of racially pure Aryan children (Heck 12). Other groups of people like Gypsies and the Jews were classified as racially inferior and were set to be eliminated.

In that year, Nazi groups started the indiscriminate killing, molesting and maiming of Jews. Their businesses were forcefully shut while others were destroyed. Those that remained open were boycotted by the larger German population. More racist decrees and laws were formulated and enforced.

The Jews were accused by the Nazis of being responsible for socialism, communism and revolutions and their positions both economically and politically placed them strategically for involvement in conspiracy theories. Thousands of Jews were confined in concentration camps while their property and synagogues were torched (Heck 13).

In schools, the Nazi regime ensured that messages against Jews were relayed to children as little as four years old. This was a deliberate step by the Nazi to ensure that from a tender age, the children would be programmed to believe that Jews and other minority groups were a threat to them and that they were criminal and inferior to them(Heck 15).

The teachers were instructed to ensure that their pupils forever remained to be enemies of minority groups. This indoctrination went a long way in molding the thinking and actions of Alfons Heck plus a huge number of boys who were later recruited into Nazi groups. A majority of the teachers were also ardent believers in the cause of the Nazi regime and worked to ensure they influenced their students to identify with the Nazi ideology.

The author was just a young boy at the time the war commenced, but by the time it came to an end, he was an officer who was highly ranked in the group known as the Hitler Youth. The recruitment of Alfons and very many people into this group was done through carefully executed brainwashing of citizens by the flash and power of Adolf Hitler and his numerous promises for a new world order in Germany(Heck 28).

He was an eager participant in a number of youth rallies that took place all over Germany and was chosen to be the leader of a large group of young boys who had been recruited to join in fighting the war.

As the forces in the war began facing depletion, Hitler started depending more and more on this group (the Hitler youth). At the tender age of fifteen, Alfons had risen to become a high ranking glider pilot. When he was sixteen years old, he had already become a Bannfuhrer which is an equivalent to the present day’s rank of a Major General in the United States Army and was put in charge of more than sixty thousand troops.

He stayed in Luftawaffe for some time when a loss of the war started becoming imminent. After his short stint in Luftawaffe, he was transferred back to the war front; specifically to a wall that was along the western border post of Germany (Heck 32).It was there he got to personally meet and talk to Adolf Hitler. Hitler conveyed a sense of interest in Alfons and honored him with the Iron Cross for his exemplary service.

When the war ended, the Allied Troops arrived to his town and since he could not communicate in fluent English and the soldiers were not conversant with German, they used him to capture all the Nazis who had now gone into hiding. When his identity was discovered, he was thrown in jail together with others. By the time the war drew to a close, the author had lost almost all his friends and the town where he was born had been reduced to mere rubble (Heck 48).

While in jail, there were times when he thought that he would be executed. This was because during the war, the death of one German was avenged by killing thirty French soldiers. He was among those who sought the French soldiers that were used for the revenge missions. After spending some time in confinement, quite a number of inmates still defended the cause of the Nazis and saw nothing wrong with what they had done. Until Alfons saw the ruins that had become of Germany, he had not begun to question their fanaticism of the Nazi.

During his trial, it was revealed that by December 1939, it had become compulsory for every German child above the age of ten years to join one of the two factions of the Hitler Youth group. He used this as one of his lines of defense. However, this did not aid in clearing his name at the tribunal since it was argued that with the passing of time, he had become an adult and was fully accountable for his words and actions.

Amnesty did not also help acquit him because at the time he stood before the tribunal, he was already an adult. Up to this time, some of his fellow inmates still did not understand why they were being imprisoned while all they had done is serve their country and obey the orders they had received from their superiors. In prison, life was harsh due to the hard labor the inmates were subjected to and starvation (Heck 70).

They were once given a task to dig up mass graves of French prisoners who had succumbed to injuries they got in a fighter bomber assault. After seven months in jail, he was permitted to return to school and go home during the nights. It was after going back to school and seeing his wrecked home that Alfons truly began to brood about his life under Hitler’s reign. The promises that had been made had turned to a nightmare.

This period in time was marked by a serious economic crisis with large numbers of German women turning to prostitution as a means to earn money while most men were in captivity. People had given up their dignity in search for food and basic items; this was a great contradiction to what had been expected to be the ‘new Germany’.

When the author saw the destruction and suffering of the Germans, it dawned on him that he had done his utmost best fighting for the wrong cause (Heck 82). It is worth noting that even though a majority of teachers and civil servants had been quick to embrace the new ideology, there was still a number that resisted the pressure, clung on to their principles and refused to be members of the Nazi.

The Allied troops sometimes acted unjustly as in the case where Alfons’ twin brother came to visit him and his grandmother and was seized by the troops, locked up, sodomized, then released. Within the confines of the school, a new crop of Germans was emerging; one that was fed up with threats from the French. They threw out books that were written in French without fear of the consequences had they been caught.

An intervention by the principal helped quiet the boys and got them to cooperate with the teachers including those who had originated from France. Seven months after Alfons had faced the tribunal, he sought permission from the liaison officer for matters concerning education from the French Military Government to visit Nuremburg. The trial was coming to an end and he wanted to catch a glimpse of the proceedings. He was granted a two week pass and allowed to travel (Heck 102).

Nuremberg was a significant place because it had witnessed many domestic triumphs by Hitler and the Nazi. It was a place that synonymous with the Nazi regime however, to many German Jews and minority groups it was a place of terror and fear. It was from there that the Nazi regime made public the Racial Laws in the year 1935 that automatically revoked the citizenship of Jews.

Due to brainwashing, most Germans had applauded that move and thought it would work towards enhancing the country. The mainstream churches did not do much to oppose this violation of civil rights probably due to fear of reproach from a regime that had dealt ruthlessly with opposition.

At the beginning of the twenty one trials, most Germans viewed the proceedings with complete indifference. They interpreted the trials as their victor’s way of exerting revenge upon them. There was no sign that the nation was prepared to come to terms with the real events or dealing with their feelings of guilt.

Alfons was able to listen to the trials via some loud speakers that had been placed outside the trial chambers and heard the entire evidence of the charges that were leveled against the Nazi leadership. There were confessions by a number of the leaders including the man who was in charge of training the young boys who were members of Hitler Youth.

He was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to a jail term of not less than twenty years. This was a major turning point for Alfons Heck who now fully realized that the men he had adored and served under had betrayed him and other Germans (Heck 108).

That was the moment he discovered the scale of murder, child abuse and the countless atrocities that had been unleashed on innocent people. That was when he started to dissociate himself with the Nazi ideology he had once revered. He began his long journey of ‘rehabilitation’ that took many years. Like Alfons, so many young Germans had been duped into believing that they were doing their country great service by joining these groups.

The way in which the Nuremberg trials were carried out elicited criticism since some argued that it imposed ex post- facto kind of justice which means; that the rules were created after the crimes were committed. Some said that it served as a catharsis for those who ‘won’ the war and needed to put people on trial to quench their hatred.

Despite the limitations of the process, the trials achieved some significant objectives which included; preventing a blood bath which would have been witnessed had the Nazis been tried in courts that would have afforded them very able defenses (Heck 262).

The accused parties were given more justice than they would have given if the tables were to be turned. The concept of individual accountability and personal responsibility was introduced and it helped dispel the notion that orders from superiors were to be followed at all costs (Heck 270).

After the trials, waging aggressive war was criminalized and a declaration of human rights was drafted and adopted. Despite a number of confusing sentences and acquittals, it could be concluded that justice was served. The messages that had been relayed through the media about certain groups of people being inferior to others had been rubbished. In comparison to the heavier sentences of those tried by the tribunal in Nuremberg, Alfons’ sentence looked like a slap on the wrist even though a chunk of his youth had been used negatively.

Works Cited

Heck, Alfons. The burden of Hitler’s legacy.New York: American Travellers Press, 1988.print.

Introduction

Hitler’s Nazi regime is considered by many to be one of the most atrocious governments in modern history. The negative view of Hitler’s rule is mostly caused by the manner in which his regime treated European Jews. The Nazi were responsible for the killing of millions of Jews as Hitler sought to exterminate this race from Europe. While the responsibility of Hitler and the Nazi top command in the mass killing of the Jews is unquestionable, there are disputes over the role that ordinary Germans played. Some historians suggest that ordinary Germans did not support Hitler’s racist policies while others argue that ordinary Germans played a role in enabling the realization of the Final Solution by supporting Hitler’s anti-Semitic legislation. By performing a concise yet informative review of Nazi Germany, this paper will demonstrate that Germans to a large extent supported Hitler’s anti-Semitic “Final Solution”.

European Jews: An Overview

By the onset of the First World War in 1914, Jews had been living in Europe for many centuries. Although there was no widespread and systematic persecution of the Jewish community by other European dwellers, the Jews endured some form of discrimination. This situation changed in the nineteenth century, which saw Jews in Europe receive significant political and economic rights. Germany was one of the European countries where the status of the Jews improved considerably in the 19^th century.

Browning notes that by 1900, Germany was considered by many East European Jews as “a land of golden opportunity” since Jews were allowed to thrive and integrate with German culture (7). Jews were able to acquire real emancipation and there was a high degree of political equalization. The Jews became integrated into German society and they enjoyed political and social rights equal to those of Gentile Germans.

However, these positive outcomes quickly deteriorated at the start of the twentieth century. By the end of the First World War, anti Jewish sentiments began to grow in the German community. Ordinary Germans blamed the Jews for their humiliating defeat in the War and parties that had an anti-Semitic agenda gained popularity among the masses. Anti-Jewish prejudices grew significantly trough the decade and by the mid 1930s, they had become completely entrenched within German society.

The Final Solution

One party that rose to power, partly due to its nationalistic and anti-Jewish policies, was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party), was led by Hitler and it ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945. Hitler implemented a series of anti-Semitic policies that culminated in the Final Solution. The Final solution was Hitler’s elaborate plan to eliminate all the Jews of Europe and this plan was carried out between 1939 and 1945. The decision to implement a Final Solution to the perceived “Jewish Problem” in Germany and the rest of Europe was a state in the evolution of Nazi anti-Jewish policies that had been implemented since 1933.

Germans Support for Hitler’s Plans

Perhaps the strongest indication that the German population supported Hitler’s plans is from the fact that there was a deep hatred for the Jews by the Germans since the end of the First World War. Wegner reveals that there was a familiar anti-Semitic theme of “the Jews are to Blame” all over Germany following the humiliating defeat of the nation in the First World War (300). Anti-Semites in Germany accused the Jews of shirking front-line services and therefore contributing to the county’s loss in the war. There was a widespread belief by many Germans that Jews were the “undoing” of German society. Wegner states that for many Germans, the Jewish question was “alpha and omega” meaning that the Germans felt that addressing this question was crucial for the future prosperity of the German nation (300).

By the late 1920s, the Jewish question was an important political issue and many German political parties exploited it to gain political mileage. There was a general feeling among German citizens that the Jews were responsible for the social and economic difficulties that German faced. German Jews had since the late nineteenth century experienced increasing political and economic rights in Germany. The increased liberties of German Jews were seen as being the cause of the problems that Germany faced during the Weimar Republic. When Hitler began implementing anti-Jewish legislation in 1933, the German community supported the trend. When the final solution was proposed and implement, there was no widespread opposition from German citizens.

Historians suggest that the Nazi anti-Semitic policies were a reflection of the public attitude towards the Jews. As early as the mid 1920s, there were strong anti-Semitic sentiments within the German community. Historians report that well before the Nazi’s advanced in political circles, the relationships between German Jews and other Germans was confrontational (Slavkin 437). There was a widespread rejection of the idea that Jews could be assimilated into German society. Browning confirms that policy makers and citizens rejected the notion that one could be both Jewish and German at the same time (20).

The Germans viewed the Jewish people as their enemies and they were therefore willing to endorse Hitler’s policies. The Nazi party was initially driven by populism and policies were guided by the public opinion in the country. The Nazi exploited the gulf that existed between the Jewish minority and the general population. Slavkin notes that during the early years of the Nazi rule, Hitler was keen not to take radical actions that might alienate the people (435). He therefore endorsed measures that were already popular with the German population. One such measure was anti-Semitic policies. The Nazi party rationalized its mistreatment of the Jewish population by asserting that the Jews were the natural enemy of the community of the German people. In the initial stage, Hitler sort to pressure Jews out of Europe. This endeavor had the support of the German population.

A look at the educational systems within the greater German community suggests that Germans were complicit in Hitler’s anti-Semitic “Final Solution”. Slavkin declares that the successful introduction of formalized anti-Judaic policies in the education system in the mid 1930s paved the way for the acceptance of the Final Solution (432). The Nazi party changed the state’s curriculum for elementary schools to include anti-Semitic opinions.

While the teachers were aware of this perversion of the curriculum to teach hatred of the Jews, they did not take any action against it. Instead, they embraced the new curriculum and taught the children that the Jews were sub-humans. This created an environment where Germans could mistreat the Jews without feeling guilty since they did not consider them to be human beings deserving of humane treatment. Slavkin explicitly states that The Nazi Party would not have been as successful in its implementation of racist ideology were it not for the influence of educators in the Republic” (437).

The Germans endorsed the racist policies implemented by the Nazi since they benefited them. Historians agree that for many business people and professionals in the Weimar Republic, the Jews were great economic rivals. Nazi anti-Semitic policies promised to remove these economic rivals and therefore improve the economic position of German traders and professionals. The German community was therefore supportive of Nazi policies that led to the dismissal of professionals who were Jewish or “not Aryan” enough from their positions. For example, an anti-Jewish legislation enacted in 1933 called for the banishment of Jewish teachers from public schools.

Non-Jewish teachers supported such a policy since it led to better opportunities for them. In the medical schools, proposals were made to restrict Jewish interns with the intention of reducing the number of Jewish Doctors. This measure was economically motivated since the German doctors wanted to remove their Jewish colleagues from the profession, therefore reducing the competition in the field.

The German society was responsible for the alienation of the Jewish population by boycotting their businesses. By the 1930s, the Jews in Germany had had a long history of commercial involvement in the society. They owned successful businesses and contributed to the economic development of the country. When the Nazi regime implemented anti-Jewish legislation in 1933-1937, it did not exclude Jews from owning of running businesses. However, ordinary Germans engaged in the widespread boycotting of Jewish businesses. The Jews, who had until then been a part of the German culture and society, began to see themselves as distinct and different. The Germans refused to engage in commercial relationships with them and in some cases, Jewish shops were destroyed or ransacked by Germans (441).

The enthusiasm with which certain segments of the German population attacked the Jewish community once the Nazi emphasized its anti-Semitic policies indicates that Germans supported Hitler. The Hitler Youth, which was made up of German youths who were loyal to the Nazi party, engaged in widespread acts of violence against the Jews. These acts of aggression were perpetrated without any direct order from the Nazi command.

The rampant discrimination of the Jews by Germans in the private sphere points to a great support for Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies by the German population. Between 1933 and 1939, German citizens engaged in acts of random terror against the Jewish community. Wegner states that these actions were illegal and they were not sanctioned by either the administration or the party agencies (300). The Germans engaged in violence against the Jews out of their own prejudices in a spontaneous manner. The apathy of the Nazi regime towards the plight of the Jews helped to fuel the ill treatment of Jews in the private sphere. The atmosphere created by Hitler enabled people to engage in the progressive mistreatment of the Jews since their civil rights were non-existent.

Opposition by Germans to the Final Solution

Arguments have been made that the German people did not willfully support Hitler’s policies against the Jews. Some historians demonstrate that the Nazi regime forcefully made the German society to endorse the racial policies. A key characteristic of Hitler’s Germany was the loss of individual rights and freedoms. As the Nazi converted Germany into an authoritarian country, individuals lost most of the rights they had enjoyed under the previous democratic regime. By using the secret police (known as the Gestapo), ordinary individuals were kept under constant surveillance. Disobeying the Nazi policies could lead to imprisonment or even torture. In such an environment of fear and intimidation, Germans followed the wishes of the Nazi since speaking out could lead to dire repercussions.

Germans were the victim of the Nazi propaganda, which played a part in causing the Germans to allow Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies to go on. The Nazi had an elaborate propaganda machine that played a significant part in inciting anti-Semitic feelings among Germans. The Nazis fabricated hate propaganda that was designed to incite Germans against the Jews. This case is especially true for children who were taught to hate and discriminate against the Jews by their teachers. Slavkin confirms that immediately after they got into power, the Nazi did not lose any time in indoctrinating the young with the message that the German Aryan nation was strong while the Jewish people were feeble and dirty (441).

Students were taught about racial hygiene with the aim of creating in them an anxiety about sharing space with European Jews. However, it should be noted that this indoctrination of the young did not happen without the knowledge and complicity of the adult population. The educators were enthusiastic about inculcating the Nazi doctrine of the racial superiority of the German ancestry in their students. Parents also emphasized this racial superiority at home therefore creating a generation of German children who had anti-Semitic views.

A strong argument offered to show that Germans did not support Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies is that many Germans protected Jews by hiding them in their houses or aiding in their escape to other countries. Even as Hitler imposed anti-Semitic legislation, some Jewish communities continued to exist peacefully with their German neighbors. Wegner notes that even as Nazi propaganda compelled Germans to engage in discrimination, many Germans continued to treat Jews humanely (310).

When the Nazi ordered the removal of Jews from Germany into ghettos and concentration camps, some Germans risked their own freedom by harboring Jews. While it is true that Germans acted to save thousands of condemned Jewish families, only a minority of the German population did these actions. The majority were simply apathetic to the fate of the Jews or too intimidated to go against the wishes of the Nazi. Browning reveals that most Germans were open to the idea of limiting or even ending the role of Jews in Germany (10).

Many Germans supported the Nazi movement because it promised to bring about positive changes to the society. The Nazi movement promised positive changes at a time when many people were experiencing economic downturns and massive layoffs. Many professionals and business owners supported the Nazi movement due to the significant changes in society that it promised. When Hitler took power, the professionals who had supported the party were given good positions in society.

These members of the public became active in the Socialist Party and supported the policies of the Nazi. Slavkin states that while some did not agree with the anti-Semitic policies, they followed them due to fear of losing their positions (432). Following the policies of the state was a “necessary and unavoidable situation”. While it might be true that most professionals did not endorse Hitler’s policies, their apathy enabled Hitler to implement the final solution. The German people did not offer any resistance to the anti-Semitic policies adopted by the Nazi from the mid 1930s. This complicity strengthened Hitler’s position and enabled the implementation of the Final Solution.

Conclusion

This paper set out to show that to a large extent, Germans supported Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies and by extension the “final solution. The paper began by highlighting the history of the Jews in Europe. It noted that in the nineteenth century, Germany was a favorite destination country for Jews since they enjoyed significant freedoms there. However, this favorable climate changed in the twentieth century when strong anti-Semitic sentiments became prevalent. From the evidence provided in this paper, it is clear that the Nazi party did not introduce anti-Semitism in Germany. While the Nazi regime made use of propaganda to arouse deeper hatred of the Jews among German citizens, there was pre-existing notions of anti-Semitism among the Germans. Unquestionably, Hitler played the decisive role in providing the direction that the “final solution” took.

However, this paper has shown that the Nazi leader mostly ruled through public consent and the public endorsed his anti-Semitic policies. The paper has shown how ordinary Germans were willing executioners of Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies. By considering the popular reactions of ordinary Germans to anti-Semitism and Nazi policies towards the Jews, the paper has shown that Germans, to a large extent, support Hitler anti-Semitic “Final Solution”. As such, some blame for the Holocaust and other atrocities against the Jews primarily placed on Hitler and the Nazi should be placed on ordinary Germans.

Works Cited

Browning, Christopher. The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. Nebraska: U of Nebraska Press, 2007. Print.

Kitson, Alison. Germany 1858-1990: Hope, Terror and Revival. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.

Slavkin, Michael. “The Holocaust and Education: What Impact did Educators have on the Implementation of Anti-Judaic Policies in 1930s Germany?” Paedagogica Historica 48.3 (2012): 431-449. Web.

Wegner, Gregory. “A Propagandist of Extermination: Johann von Leers and the Anti-Semitic Formation of Children in Nazi Germany.” Paedagogica Historica 43.3 (2007): 299-325. Web.

The two sources discussed in this paper are “Joseph Goebbels: Life and Death” by Toby Thacker and “German Artists and Hitler’s Mind: Avant-Garde Art in a Turbulent Era” by Wayne Andersen. Both of these books cover the events that revolved in Germany during its Nazi era. The sources describe the regime from a variety of angles and take into consideration diverse factors that formed the political and social events of the time. The book by Thacker focuses on the events from the point of view of Joseph Goebbels – the historical figure responsible for the propaganda in Nazi Germany. The book by Andersen explores the history of art in Germany during the Second World War that was tightly intertwined with the social phenomena and trends. The development of art can be traced using both of these sources, but the first one covers it in a narrower way whereas the second one depicts it using a broader scope of factors.

“Joseph Goebbels: Life and Death” by Toby Thacker

“Joseph Goebbels: Life and Death” is a biography of Joseph Goebbels – a very prominent historical figure in Nazi Germany during the Second World War. To be more precise, Goebbels was the Propaganda Minister in Germany of the time. Being in charge of propaganda that was so powerful it was able to launch the Holocaust and genocide of the Jewish people in Europe, Goebbels also had a massive impact on the other social trends in Germany (Thacker 67). In particular, the information that was presented in the mass media was heavily censored by the Propaganda Ministry, and so was art. In that way, art became a part of the entire system of forming people’s mindsets and ideas. In the book by Thacker, the reader is able to follow this tendency learning about the life of the main person behind it all – Joseph Goebbels, and all the factors that were a part of his life journey of becoming one of the world renowned war criminals in history. However, the book does not concern art as a separate subject, and one would have to make their own conclusions and connections between the biography and Goebbels’ impact on art.

“German Artists and Hitler’s Mind: Avant-Garde Art in a Turbulent Era” by Wayne Andersen

From the title of the book by Andersen, it is obvious that it specifically focuses on the development of art in Germany in the period of Nazi regime. The author explores the lives and artistic paths of versatile artists of the time and the challenges they faced due to the political situation in the country and in the world in general. The book describes how the social trends and the interest towards art developed in Germany and were regulated by the government. In particular, how the support of arts led to the attraction of multiple new people in this career field who ended up having insufficient educational background and training to work as professional artists and found themselves in poverty due to the lack of skills (Andersen 124). The author explores the development of different trends in art such as Romanticism, Expressionism, and Modernism and follows the factors that contributed to their formation in Germany and the influence they had on the society. The book is very informative for a reader willing to learn about art in Nazi Germany and covers the topic fully.

Works Cited

Andersen, Wayne. German Artists and Hitler’s Mind: Avant-Garde Art in a Turbulent Era. Boston, Massachusetts: Editions Fabriart, 2007. Print.

Thacker, Toby. Joseph Goebbels: Life and Death. New York, New York: Springer, 2016. Print.

Adolf Hitler was Germany head of state for a period of eleven years from 1934 to 1945. Today, the dictator is associated with his quest to install the Nazi as the preferred political hegemony in Germany as well as other European countries that he ware allied to him. During his reign, his army together with that of his allies in the unique defense alliance system occupied most of Europe as well as the northern part of the African continent. Also, Germany accumulated hefty military hardwares as well as the expansion of its military for defense purposes.

Adolf Hitler’s treatment of the non-Germans has been criticized by many observers. It was during his reign that many non-Germans were killed either by state machinery or by other forms of organized non-governmental efforts with little measures from the government to stop the killings. During Hitler’s reign, there was genocide against the Jews where approximately six million Jews as well as approximately one million Roma were killed. This is an indication that Hitler could not tolerate people who were not of German decent in the country. For this reason, Hitler the founder of the Nazi party had declared it as early as 1924 that no person who was not a “member of the nation” could become a party member. This meant that only Germans by blood could be members of the Nazi party.

Hitler’s prior treatment of the non-German was motivated by his ethnocentric belief that European were of a superior race and thus, the non-Germans were out to destroy the “purity” of the Germans. His writings also indicate that his hate for non-Germans was due to the entrepreneurial nature of some of these non-Germans such as the Jews who were seen by Adolf Hitler as exploiters of the Germans. In some of his writings, he referred to the Jews as crooks who enrich themselves through the labor of the Germans who, according to Hitler, were the real owners of the nation. This belief led to his party expelling and killing millions of Jews.

Introduction

The Holocaust was a dark event in German history when Jews were subjected to mass murder during the Second World War (1939-1945) under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The Nazi Party was able to assume absolute power in Germany because of the propaganda of Hitler and his close associates that emphasized the superiority of the German race over all other races. The book Mein Kampf was one of the pieces he wrote during this period to popularize his ideology in the German society and to justify his plan to eliminate Jews from the society.

This document provides an important insight into German society and how it became possible for Jews to be slaughtered in mass without any major public outcry among Germans. It explains how the leadership had convinced the society to hate and embrace extremism. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze a set of documents in order to explore how they provide modern audiences with an insight into the society in which they were written and the attempt of certain figures to change this society. The study will focus on the Holocaust by looking at the attitude towards religion, politics, cultural life, and nationality in Germany during this period.

Background

The book was written by Adolf Hitler, who was the Nazi leader and the ruler of Germany during the period of the Holocaust. Hitler planned and executed one of the worst massacres that targeted the Jewish community, not because of what they had done but what he believed they stood for in the German society. He was an overambitious man who was keen on conquering the world and getting rid of the people he believed were inferior within the German society. He single-handedly made the Second World War come to pass (Lewy 42).

Discussion

In modern society, it is not easy to imagine that the German community would be indifferent to the senseless murders of innocent people primarily because of their race. However, a review of documents written at that period may help in explaining why the Holocaust was possible in the society that was increasingly getting civilized. Hitler’s book provides a unique insight into the mind of the very person who planned and supervised the executions.

Attitudes about Religion

According to Junginger, Germany has always been a highly religious country, and Christianity is the most popular belief among its citizens (25). The biblical accounts that blamed the Pharisees and Jews in general for the death of Jesus have caused a constraint in the relationship between Christians and Jews (Lewy 89).

During the period preceding the Holocaust, the political class and some religious leaders keen on spreading hate against Jews used the argument that they betrayed and finally killed Christ. Hitler states, “Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form” (360). The statement demonstrates the fact that although the society was religious, the tension between one religion and another was common.

Politics

According to Junginger, unlike other dictators of his time who came to power through a coup, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected to the position of power (34). He was an articulate politician who knew how to appeal to his people based on what was worrying them the most. He realized that Jews had dominated the financial sector of the country, and his advisers warned him that they could not be trusted, especially at a time when the country was going to war (Junginger 56).

He had to find ways of vilifying them, and propaganda was the best tool he knew how to use other than guns. Hitler told his people that the Jew was not the victim but the aggressor, who attacks anyone perceived to be an enemy (363). He paints the Jew as a person who is ready to fight anyone not willing to embrace their beliefs. Hitler goes further and notes, “Slowly fear of the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people” (364).

After creating a platform for hatred, he instills fear in his people by warning them that if they do not deal with Jews, they will always face the eminent danger of extermination. He manipulated the minds of the society so much that by the time he started the mass killings of Jews, he was viewed as a savior getting rid of dangerous elements in the society (Lewy 67). The majority of society never questioned his acts after that.

Intellectual and Cultural Life

The intellectual and cultural life in German society is also depicted in this document. Hitler, as a political leader in the country, had to be an intellectual, and that is exactly what he tried to achieve when writing this book. He was keen on championing his narrative that would justify his radical decisions and actions before and during the Holocaust. Hitler argues that the Aryans were the only people who developed influential culture (358). This statement shows that during this time, the society had strong regard towards a lifestyle strongly rooted in a given culture.

In this book, there is a deliberate attempt to paint Jews as someone lacking in culture and virtues that define civilized people. Hitler states, “If Jews were alone in the world, they would stifle in filth, they would try to get ahead of one another in the hate-filled struggle and exterminate one another” (358). He argues that their lack of culture makes them vicious and able to destroy one of their own for socio-economic benefits.

The message is supposed to be a warning to German society. He is reminding them that if these people can kill their own for socio-economic gains, it is unimaginable what they could do to others. He then reminds them that they still have an opportunity to rid themselves of these vicious people to have a normal peaceful society. Hitler tells Germans that the strong must dominate the weak when there is an opportunity to do so (353).

Nationality

The book demonstrates that during the time of the Holocaust, nationality was a highly valued factor among people. Having a sense of belonging strongly depended on whether one was a citizen of the country or not. The political class in the German society was keen on reminding people that Jews were not the citizens of their country, hence they were not welcome. Hitler states, “Thus the Jew of all times has lived in the states of other people, and therefore formed his own state, which to be sure, habitually sailed under the disguise of the religious community” (359). He was warning his people that if they do not uproot Jews, then they will form their own nation within Germany.

They would manipulate the locals to the extent that Germans would become second-class citizens if appropriate measures were not taken. Society easily believed him because it could see that Jews had already dominated the financial sector. He then told the society that the German race should remain pure and not contaminated by other inferior races. Hitler says, “The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races but their uniform character” (353). A perfect ground for the Holocaust had been set, and it was almost impossible for those who listened and believed in his statement to be merciful to Jews during mass murders.

Conclusion

The book Mein Kampf provides an insight into the mind of Adolf Hitler, a man whom modern history has classified as one of the worst dictators of all times. Other than pushing the world into a global war, he engineered the Holocaust that led to the extermination of millions of Jews. The book enables its readers to understand German society before and during the Holocaust. One gets to understand why it was possible for the government to annihilate a section of the society with ease in a community that was religious and embracing civilization. People were easily radicalized because of the socio-economic and political events in the country at that time. They believed that Jews posed a serious threat to the existence of the German community.

Works Cited

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Houngton Mifflin Company, 1943.

Junginger, Horst. The Scientification of the Jewish Question in Nazi Germany. BRILL, 2017.

Lewy, Guenter. Harmful and Undesirable: Book Censorship in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Comparison of American presidents George W. Bush and Barrack Obama to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis has become very common. After eight years of comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, Obama is also receiving the same treatment. The actions, believes and personal associations of Obama are compared to those of Hitler on many internet blogs and newspaper columns.

Adolf Hitler is one of the most forceful and powerful personalities in history. He was a philosophical and political leader of the National socialist party (Nazi) and what most people agree on about his personality is that he was evil.

He has become the most infamous leader for his extremist stands. Comparisons between Obama and Hitler are based on their policies. However, it is absurd and inexcusable to compare Barrack Obama to Hitler. Obama is not like Hitler at all and it is a logical fallacy and a dilution of history to compare them.

Hitler rose to power during a period when Germans needed a hero to save them from a recession. The same is the case for Obama to whom, most Americans looked for a savior from the economic problems facing America. Both individuals wanted change and those comparing Obama to Hitler have used such phrases, as “Hitler wanted change too”.

It is wrong to assert that since Hitler wanted change, every other person who wants change is morally or politically equivalent to Hitler. From the books audacity of hope by Barrack Obama and mein kampf (translated loosely as my struggle) by Adolf Hitler, it is clear what kinds of change these two persons believed in.

Hitler wanted change to the German population and actually not to the government itself. He blamed the Jews for the failures in the German society since he believed Germans were superior to other races (Michael, para 8). Mein kampf reveals Hitler’s extreme hatred for Jews (Meler, para 39). According to his book, Obama on the other hand recognizes and desires to change the problems in the American functional government and state of politics.

Adolf Hitler was the leader of Nazi party, a political party that believed in National Socialism. Hitler was therefore a socialist unlike Obama who although branded a socialist by some critics has personally rejected claims that he is a socialist. Republicans are yet too convincingly proof that his policies are socialist and again, being a socialist does not imply that someone is like Hitler.

Hitler’s form of socialism was based on racial supremacy. In his period of leadership, Hitler sought to increase German dominancy among other nations and employed an expansionist foreign policy that triggered the World War II. His policies were based on racism and anti-Semitism. During the short period as a president, Obama has tried to improve the relationship between America and other countries, especially Arab speaking nations.

There is no way these actions can be similar to those of Hitler. Obama has not tried to increase America’s dominance over other countries but has mainly focused on reducing the possible threats against America by trying to undo some actions of previous regimes.

Inhumanity, dictatorship and mass murders dominated Hitler’s leadership. His leadership policies lead to mass extermination of Jews and other racial minorities. Those comparing Obama to Hitler argue that these vile actions of the Nazi had their roots in socialist, eugenics and imperialism ideologies that Obama supposedly posses.

From his publication, the audacity of hope, he writes, “there are certain things that anchor my personal faith, the golden rule, the need to battle cruelty in all its forms, the value of love and charity, humility and grace” (“Book summary: Audacity of hope”).

This indicates the different personalities between Hitler and Obama. Hitler believed in cruelty and he forced his soldiers to perform inhuman acts on Jews and other race minorities. He was a dictator and he perpetrated genocide in Germany through race cleansing.

Obama’s policies are against inhuman actions, dictatorship, racism and cruelty. By supporting the Geneva Convention against torture, Obama portrays a character that is completely different from Hitler. The Obama presidency is about avoiding mass murders whenever possible by employing other gentler means to solve the current world problems. By employing dialogue to bring understanding between nations, Obama focuses on creating cohesion.

Obama is an extreme supporter of pro-abortion bills. This has generated a lot of criticism and the continued likening of Obama to Hitler. By supporting abortion, some critics accuse Obama of perpetuating genocide just like Hitler. This is far fetched and out of context.

The debate about humanity in abortion has been going on for along time and people have different stands on the matter. What is worth noting is that in Obama’s viewpoint, every woman should be allowed to decide whether to do abortion or not. He does not therefore support abortion but the right to choose.

In his perspective, abortion decision rests on the actual individuals involved. They can make the decision to go ahead with it or not depending on their moral inclinations and believes. Hitler on the other hand was a dictator who determined whether an individual dies or not. He prohibited abortion for the “pure-blood” Germans and allowed it for the other races as a case of “racial hygiene.” He wanted to control the reproduction of the other races.

Therefore, supporting pro-abortion laws does not at all portray Obama as having the same moral values as Hitler. Hitler did not give any choice to those he deemed deserving to die. They were just executed. Obama does not call for execution of unborn children but for the right of the mother to choose.

In conclusion, Obama is not like Hitler. He does not fit into Hitler’s moral or political personality. Not everybody who wants change in government and political environments is like Hitler. It all falls back to what the individual in question wants to change. Obama wants to change the way the functional government operates and the political environment in America.

Hitler wanted to change the German population by racial cleansing. He promised to improve the economy and Germany’s global dominance but perpetuated racism and inhuman actions. Persons can only be termed to be like Hitler if they practice his kind of ideologies.

Without bias, Obama’s ideologies do not fit into those of Hitler at all. He has a different view of America from the one Hitler had about Germany. In audacity of hope, he writes, “there is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America- there is the United States of America” (“Book summary: Audacity of hope”).

Therefore, the comparison of Obama to Hitler is a poor comparison only meant to gain attention. Although not everybody approves of Obama policies, more logical comparisons to other leaders should be made but not to Hitler. Doing this is down playing the evil of Hitler’s leadership.

Works Cited

“Book summary: Audacity of hope.” Political books summaries, reviews and opinions. 31 July 2009. Web.

Meler, David. “Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.” Dickinson State University. 2000. Web.

Michael. “Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.” Adolf Hitler. n.d. Web.

Saddam Hussein

A man full of determination and persistence, something that majority of world leader get along with in haste. He was born in 28^th, April 1937 in Tikrit village, in Iraq. His thirst for readership oozed up when he was still a student, since 1957, while he was still at the university he was recruited in the ‘revolutionary Baath party’. As a man of a worldwide mind, he was determined to get his way at all mean to be an upstaired position.

“He proved this in 1958 when he launched his political career by assassinating a supporter of Iraq ruler Abdul-Karim Qassim” (Aburish, 40) The higher lank gone thirstier it makes” got on him as in 1959 Saddam felt that he had what it takes to rule Iraq and to do it in a practical was he opted to assassinate the current president Abd al-Karim Qasim. However, this mission failed and was forced to flee to Egypt Cairo, where he took this opportunity and attended a law school (45).

All in all, his determination and a spirit of “tomorrow is the best day” seemed to keep him going. Being in exile didn’t kill his dream of once becoming an Iraq leader.

Talking of being opportunistic, when Ba’thist gained power in 1963, he returned to Iraq but all was not well on his side because, in1963, Ba’thist were overthrown and he was jailed. He portrayed a mind of international oriented since dealing with his own country alone was a theory out of his envelop. He expanded his fume not only to the neighboring countries but also globally.

When he took over the presidency, he did it with the aim to cause an effect to other countries. For instant, he had an aim of replacing Egypt as leader of Arab world and gain hegemony over the gulf of Persian. He also launched war against Iran and Kuwait in 1980-88 and 1990-91 respectively. “Fear for him spread throughout the world due to his production of weapons of mass destruction” (Renfrew, p.53).

Saddam was one man who never believed in the spirit of “now I give up” his consecutively failed mission never deterred him from moving forward. For instant, his fail in invasion to the Islamic Republic in 1980 in Kuwait I 1990 among other only made him more hard-core.

According to Renfrew (32), “Saddam became vice president of Iraq in1968 following the seizure of power in a military coup and only after a decade of eliminating civilian officials and military officers ruthlessly, he forced out his predecessor and benefactor, Gen. Ahmad Hassan al- and became president in July 1997”.

He killed his opponents, among them thousands of Iraq’s Kurdish minority, (whom he had instituted a brutal dictatorship and directed intensive campaign against the) which either rebelled or supported Iran during the Iraq-Iran war which ended in 1988. He was a man with a reputation for ruthless suppression of opposition.

The country’s economic strength, constituted by growing oil wealth enabled him to support the development public work and to massively purchase arm. In spite of this, Iraq was nearly bankrupt with loans of $80 billion from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. His tendency of taking calculated risk pushed him to bullying Kuwait into bailing him out as well as invading emirate. (Renfrew p.37)

Saddam’s dictatorship rule and threat he posed to the whole world, led to invasion of the U.S. Government on Iraq. He was captured on 13^th December 2003 and on 5^th Nov 2006 after several trials, was convicted of crime against human rights and given capital punishment sentence.

Despite his request to be shot, the execution was carried out on the first day of Eid ul-Adha, 30 December 2006 at camp justice, an Iraq army in Kadhimiya northern Baghdad (Aburish p. 187). He has portrayed himself as a brutal dictator, whose goals are (to him) more important than the means of obtaining them, making him quick to slice throat to gain.

Adolph Hitler

Born in Austria, in Braunau –am-inn village on 20^th April 1889, Hitler grew up in a very low tone a profile. His early age was met by many blocks and misfortunes which included losing his father and two siblings. His attempt to gain formal education was also unfruitful as his school records were poor and he was forced to leave school before completing his tuition.

In spite of this, he seemed to have a heart of determination, and he tried to become an artist but was rejected by the institution of fine art. He lived a penniless life with no formal education till 19^th birthday when he moved to Vienna after his father’s death. By then, he had gained a passion in political matters and historical studies.

He took occasional menial jobs there for sustenance at the time the First World War was beginning, in 1914 when he was recruited for work in the Germans armed forces. His humbleness determination commitment enabled him to move up ladder smoothly. His talent and interest in war was noted and was promoted to corporal. (Toland p.12).

However, the war was not always giving in into him since by 1918, when the armistice was being announced he was hospitalized from a temporally blindness caused by gas explosion in war. As a phenomenon of preparation of his later leadership, he took different role like; prisoner-of- war camp, part of local army organization, spy on certain local political groups and, his tirade impressed the founder of the party, Anion Drexler who asked him to join his organization in 1919.

He gradually started attracting people through his publicity and propaganda in various organized meetings. He was discharged from army on February but he determiningly strengthened his party which was changed to the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi).

It is at this point when he started giving out warning on whom he really is when he began forming private groups of thug to create disorders in other meetings. By 1921 he had secured total control of the Nazi party, which he was determined to maintain by all mean, for instant he threatened to resign when he learned member were not in good term with him.

His thirst for leadership pushed him to attempt to take over the local Bavarian Government though the coup was unsuccessful. He was arrested and sentenced for five year and after only six month in prison he was released. He ran for presidential post several but defeated by Hindenburg and became chancellor in 1932-33. (Kershaw p. 63).

Hitler gained complete control over the destiny of Germany and when Hindernburh died on august 1934 Hitler took control over Germany as a “Fuehrer and Reich Chance” and the title president was abolished. He strengthened his force and started testing his power by intimidating France and Britain.

He gradually invaded Poland, Britain and France whom on September, 1, 1939 declared war on Germany which lead to death of thousands of people. “On April 29^th, he married Eva Bruam, and eventually on April 30^th they committed suicide in an underground bunker of the chancellery building having ordered their bodies to be burned” (Leeson p. 101).

In comparison Hitler and Saddam had commonalities as well as differences. Whereas Saddam used force and blood spill to attain power, Hitler was elected and promoted. In dealing with opposition, Hitler did not brutally kill his people as Saddam did. While Saddam was an international threat, Hitler was a threat to his neighboring countries.

On other hand, both Hitler and Saddam were dictators and they led to mass killing which were brutally done. In addition, they also both exercised coup against their presidents and were seen as a threat to both citizen of their country and other nations. Simply put both Hitler and Saddam are people who will always be remembered for their inhuman role in their regime.

Works Cited

Aburish, Said . The politics of revenge. London: Bloomsbury,2000. Print

Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: A Bibliography. New York: W. W. Norton& Com., 2008. Print

Toland, John. Adolph Hitler. Waterloo: Military History Series. Frankfurt: Wordsworth military library, 1997. Print

Leeson, Waite & Robert, George. The psychopathic god: Adolph Hitler. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 1999. Print.

Renfrew, Nita. Saddam Hussein. Chelsea; Chelsea House, 1992. Print.

Introduction

Brief history and family background of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler was certainly a disharmonious and destructive personality and, in order to define the main underpinnings and causes of his psychological disorders, family background and history information should be carefully considered. Born to an ordinary family of a customs official, Adolf accepted Catholicism and entered baptism (Zalampas, 1990 p. 4).

The future dictator made enormous effort to conceal his origins. He resisted to the NSDAP directives and rejected to provide records about his descent because any interruption in his private life was considered unacceptable. Therefore, the cases reveal that Hitler waxed indignant over the interview with Patrick Hitler, his half-brother Alois’s son (Zalampas, 1990 p. 4).

Hitler’s reluctance to discuss the facts from his family background was also explained by his fear to revealing the Jewish ancestors. However, even thorough investigation withdrawing the assumption did not make Hitler reveal the details of his genealogy (Zalampas, 1990 p. 5). The facts from the lineage also suggest that Alois and Klara, Adolf’s parents, were official cousins. Investigations assume that Johann Nepomuk Huttler was, in fact, Alois’s great-grandfather, and Klara’s grandfather.

According to the above-consideration, it can be assumed that Hitler’s fear of uncovering his lineage was due to his fear of disclosing his inferiority. Because of ambiguousness presented in his family ties, Hitler could not feel himself as a full-fledged personality. He desperately wanted to detach himself from the family background because his origins prevented him from becoming a legitimate and commendable leader for German people.

While considering general psychological aspect, the name of the dictator has always been associated with a mentally abnormal person who guided Nazi concentration camps and put fear in Jewish people’s hearts. Judging from historical events and facts linked to the personality, including Holocaust and the World War II, Hitler was, indeed, inexplicably evil. In social interaction with people, Adolf was revealed as a reserved and serious person (Zalampas, 1990 p. 6).

Judging from the above psychological and social conditions, the hypothesis is that Hitler suffered from posttraumatic disorder and schizophrenia revealed at the first Axis of DMS-IV.

Assessment

Assessment and Methodology Tools

Due to the fact that the analysis and diagnosing of the patient is carried out posthumously, the clinical interview is certainly impossible. In this respect, more emphasis is placed on historical records revealing face-to-face psychological testing, clinical interviews, and self-report techniques. The research studies of people who directly interacted with Adolf Hitler will also be included to present the accurate conclusions.

As a result, posthumous DSM analysis can be presented with the help of informant ratings. Using the method of Coolidge Axis II Inventory, the research will be able to fit the criteria of DSM-IV (Coolidge, 1995). The models will not be used as the basis for the analysis, but some references will be made to identify the extent of the disorders. The core assessment of Hitler’s disorders will be performed with the help of DSM-IV coding.

The given study will also be based on the scholar’s published articles and books disclosing Hitler’s life and psychological portrait with regard to the identified DSM-IV diagnosis. Studies dedicated to the analysis of similar mental disorders are also included to better comprehend possible causes of psychological deviations.

Preview of Deviations as Presented by Coolidge Axis II Inventory

The main scope of the model consists in measuring all scales of measuring psychological and neuropsychological dysfunction (Coolidge, 1995). Hence, the scales are also aimed at defining the deficits, including decision-making problems, task completion difficulties and planning barriers.

Hostility scales should also be highlighted to measure dangerousness, anger, aggression, and impulsiveness. Personality assessment is subjected to such aspects as apathy, paranoia, and liability. According to these results, Hitler had difficulties in adjusting to new and changing environments (Payne, 2001).

DSM-IV Differential Diagnoses Analysis

Axis I

Examination of the first scale reveals that the deviations are closely connected with posttraumatic stress disorder (code 309.81) and schizophrenia (paranoid type, code 295.3). Hence, the first deviation is justified with regard to such symptoms as chronic, acute reactions to traumatic events and recurrence of flashback distressing memories (Summerfield, 2001, p. 95). In our case, the trauma is strongly associated with military combat and assault.

Displays of schizophrenia were revealed through the analysis of Hitler’s psychological behavior that was accompanied by delusions and hallucinations. This type of schizophrenia is marked by the presence of grandiosity, delusions, and suspiciousness (Murray, 1943). According to Murray’s (1943) report, “[Hitler] has exhibited … all of the classical symptom of paranoid schizophrenia: hypersensitivity, panics of anxiety, irrational jealousy, delusions of persecution, delusions of omnipotence and messiahship” (p. 14).

Axis II

The overview of personality disorders has revealed the emergence of paranoid, antisocial, sadistic, and narcissistic deviations. Based on the research conducted by Renato et al. (1998), Hitler’s personality has been diagnosed with histrionic and paranoid personality disorders.

At this point, Hitler was defined as “enfeebled self that lacked any capacity for self-worth or self-regard; …he felt that the German people after World War I suffered this same collective defect in self…” (p. 65). Judging from the above records, the personality disorders include antisocial personality disorder (301.7), histrionic personality disorder (301.50), and narcissistic personality disorder (301.81). All these psychiatric deviations referred to dramatic and emotional instabilities.

Axis III

It is documented that Hitler had serious somatic problems, although no evidence was found to believe that he had neuropsychological dysfunction (somatic and grandiose subtype of delusional disorder, 297.1) (Murray, 1943, p. 15). The disorder is premised on the physical impairment and emotional instabilities (Renato et al., 1998). In addition, it is purposeful to state that memory execution functions deficiency was also present due to the difficulties in decision-making.

Axis IV

Because Hitler had significant problems with adjusting to a changing social environment, it can be assumed that this was one of the main stressors of the disorders diagnosed in Axis I. According to Murray (1943), Hitler’s resistance to opposition was the motivation for living.

The stronger the opposition was, the more frustrated reaction was reveled through emotional outbursts, displays of inertia, and melancholy. Frustration caused by failure to gain victory while struggling with Russia was followed by collapse, which means that Hitler did not have natural mechanism for defense.

Axis V

With regard to the above-presented symptoms, GAF amounts to 50 at admission (before the World War II) and about 30 at discharge (after the World War II). The last period of his life proved that psychological and social conditions were aggravated and Hitler failed to explain his actions (Munson, 2001, p. 75).

Etiology: Theoretical Perspectives

Because most of the symptoms presented above refer to a psychoanalytic theoretical perspective, the related frameworks should be discussed to understand the causes and underpinnings of Hitler’s psychological disorders.

According to Welham et al. (2010), “subtle impairments on neurocognitive measures during childhood or adolescence are associated with an increased risk of non-affective psychosis in young adult males”. In this respect, cognitive deficit can be considered the core reasons of schizophrenia emergence. The presented analysis also explains mood and emotional abnormalities observed in Hitler’s behavior.

Psychoanalysis presented by Gaylin (2004) also underscores the above-discussed idea. Specifically, the researcher states that the main trait of the paranoid character include negativism, suspicion, chronic anger, self-referential attitude, and narcissism (Gaylin, 2004, p. 114). All these features are presented in Hitler’s personality.

To enlarge on this point, the dictator often displayed negativism when his life position was not approved by others. He never expected positive outcomes and always anticipated that each occasion was accompanied with danger. Finally, he always expressed indignation and anger on each possible occasion.

Types of Treatment

If Hitler had not committed suicide, the following treatment and therapeutic techniques should have been introduced. It would have been purposeful to present a complex approach to reducing the original causes of Hitler’s disorders.

Before analyzing the cases and possible treatment, it should be stressed that personality disorders are difficult to treat because people with such psychological deviations do not recognize those as a serious disease that should be intervened (Gaylin, 2004). The only decision that could have been made in this situation was to encourage the individual in his actions and make him persuade that all his decisions and beliefs were highly appreciated.

Because Hitler had significant family problems and because he did not want to recognize the ambiguousness and inferiority of his family lineage, the dictator strived to compensate it with other actions augmenting his feeling of superiority. Emotional outburst displayed as a result of family problems took place. These instabilities, however, could have been treated with the help of holding therapy embracing emotionally driven principles and intensified therapeutic interventions.

Notably, using a purely psychological approach would not have been effective because of Hitler’s inability to recognize his mistakes and make the right decisions based on previous experience. Most of his problems, therefore, were premised on the failure to accept the world as is it, which made it impossible for Hitler to adjust to new treatments (Murray, 1943). In this respect, mere acceptance of the rules and orders presented by Hitler was the only way out to minimize the psychotic effects.

Regarding somatic disorders treatment, it should be noted that somatic disorders treatment should have relied heavily to non-psychiatric interventions due to the fact that the depression often appeared as a result of physical impairments and dysfunction. In this respect, specific attention should have beeen paid to Hitler’s problems with physical health.

Hypothetical Prognosis and Limitations

While predicting Hitler’s behavior, it is rational to refer to Murray’s (1943) report discussing behavioral patterns of the patient before committing the suicide. Specifically, the scholar asserts that Hitler’s “neurotic spells with increase in frequency and duration and his effectiveness as a leader will diminish” (Murray 1943, p. 29). The dictator could have been seized by the military arms; in this situation, the patient’s reaction would have been worse because the possibilities of being deprived of the hero title would have been disastrous.

One of the predictions happened was that of committing suicide in case Hitler’s plans and decisions were not affected. Because Hitler did not have defense mechanisms, life termination was the only solution to the problem. Importantly, Hitler was ready to resort to all means to remain a hero in the hearts of the German people.

Murray (1943) notes that there was a possibility of Hitler’s going insane because “paranoid schizophrenia…with the mounting load of frustration and failure may yield his will to the turbulent forces of the unconscious” (p. 31). Finally, the scholar admits the possibility Hitler dying of natural reasons due to this inability to adjust to a social environment.

Conclusion

A thorough analysis of DSM-IV scales for paranoid type of schizophrenia has approved the diagnoses. The criteria support symptoms related to the exaggerated feelings of persecution, suspicion, negativism, and presence of delusions. Associated traits also include anger, aggression, anxiety, and apathy.

In addition, the presented DSM-IV assessment argues that persecutory displays can predispose paranoid individuals to committing suicide. Grandiose delusions and emotional outbursts also presuppose the individual’s increase predisposition to violence. Consequently, the presence of cognitive impairment and superior behavior accompanied with intense interpersonal interaction can serve a logical explanation of Hitler psychotic state.

As to personality disorders, the clinical assessment has discovered antisocial, paranoid, and sadistic deviations. These findings are sufficiently supported by reports provided by Murray (1943), Gaylin (2004), and Summerfield (2001). Specifically, life descriptions and explanations of psychological disorders are relevant because theoretical underpinnings have managed to define how Hitler’s lifestyle and position can be interpreted with regard to existing psychoanalytical frameworks.

References

Coolidge, F. L., Burns, E. M., & Mooney, J. A. (1995). Reliability of observer ratings in the assessment of personality disorders: A preliminary study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 22-28.

Gaylin, W. (2004). Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence. US: Public Affairs.

Munson, C. E. (2001). The mental health diagnostic desk reference: visual guides and more for learning to use the Diagnostic and statistical manual. NY: Routledge.

Murray, H. A. (1943). Analysis of the personality of Adolf Hitler with predictions of his future behavior and suggestions for dealing with him now and after Germany’s surrender. US: Harvard Psychological Clinic.

Payne, K. B. (2001). The fallacies of Cold War deterrence and a new direction. Kentucky, US: University Press of Kentucky.

Renato, D. A., Foulks, E. F., and Vakkur, M. (1998). Personality Disorders and Culture. New Jersey.

Summerfield, D. (2001). The Invention of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders and the Social Usefulness of a Psychiatric Category. BMJ. 322(7278). 95-98.

Welham, J., Scott, J., Williams, G., Najman, J., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., & Mcgrath, J. (2010). The Antecedents Of Non-Affective Psychosis In A Birth-Cohort, With A Focus On Measures Related To Cognitive Ability, Attentional Dysfunction And Speech Problems. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121(4), 273-279.

Zalampas, S. O. (1990). Adolf Hitler: A Psychological Interpretation of his views on architecture, art, and music. US: Popular Press.

Abstract

The role of individuals can hardly be overestimated in international relations as foreign policy is a set of actions of individuals that influence the development of countries and the entire human society. Although many world leaders influenced international politics in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin could be seen as some of the most prominent actors. The focus of this dissertation will be on the personalities of the two leaders and their opinions on war and peace.

The theoretical basis of the present study will be a cognitive model that implies the analysis of the way individuals shape or create political agendas. The operational code approach will also be utilized to consider the two people’s traits and beliefs. The quantitative method and statistical analysis of data collected from diverse sources will be instrumental in identifying the trends and peculiarities of the viewpoints of Stalin and Hitler.

Introduction

The role of an individual in foreign policy has been analyzed from different perspectives, and there is hardly a universally accepted approach to the matter. In the nineteenth century, the theory of the Great Man was rather popular, and it was assumed that great leaders were the primary driving forces of major historical events (LeRoy Malchow, 2015). This approach was highly criticized later, and more attention was paid to other actors, such as the masses.

Some researchers placed rational choices first while others concentrated on discourses and meanings. The role of an individual in international relations is undoubtfully considerable. The examination of the events of major significance can help in explaining the role an individual plays, and the Second World War is one of such episodes in the history of humanity. This study will dwell upon such key figures as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin with a focus on their views regarding war and peace and their personalities.

Literature Review

The political figures mentioned above have attracted substantial attention in academia, and numerous researchers have explored different aspects of these leaders and their legacy. These men had quite different perspectives, backgrounds, political agendas, but they had to interact at a certain point in history (Groom, 2018). These two persons have also been in the lenses of historians, but their worldviews and some aspects of their personalities remain under-researched.

Although the relationships between Hitler and Stalin could hardly be referred to as political (or any other kind of) friendship, their interactions have been explored in detail. The alliance between Germany and the USSR is seen as one of the central premises for the start of the war (Kotkin, 2017). For the contemporaries, the close collaboration between the two dictators came as a surprise, which now seems, nonetheless, logical (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016).

The two dictators tried to create new empires based on the political views they developed during their early years and had a different perspective on the future of the world. Finally, Communism and Nazism were very different political systems, and their leaders often criticized each other heavily at certain periods (Ascher, 2016; Reynolds & Pechatnov, 2018). Nevertheless, the two systems also shared certain similarities that made Hitler and Stalin allies for a short period.

One of the primary prerequisites of this alliance was the fact that the leaders of the two countries opposed the democratic values of the rest of the world and wanted to control vast territories (Kotkin, 2017). The personalities of these two historic figures have been explored in many works and certain similarities can be found. Ascher (2016) claims that Stalin’s features of character enabled him to gain power. This man who adopted a new name ‘made of steel’ (Stalin) sought power and tried to create a specific image of himself (Ascher, 2016). At the same time, he was, in some ways, insecure, anxious, and indecisive.

Kotkin (2017, p. 341) named Stalin as a “self-centered, intrigue-prone” person. He used various ways to achieve his goals, including terroristic acts, murder, bribery, blackmail, torture, intrigues, and so on. Ascher (2016) noted that the past of the Soviet leader had a significant impact on his personality and his behavioral patterns. His relationships with his parents, as well as his studies in the religious school, affected his development.

The personality of the German dictator also had such traits. Hitler, as well as millions of German people, was dissatisfied with the world order based on the Treaty of Versailles that was regarded as unfair and ineffective (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016). Adolf Hitler dreamt of building the mighty state described in the stories of the past. Hitler was quite insecure, anxious about the way people saw him, and affected by a messianic complex (Spielvogel & Redles, 2016, p. 125).

It is noteworthy that the psychological state of the German leader was questioned by his contemporaries, and many psychiatrists analyzed Hitler’s personality (Kaplan, 2017). Kaplan (2017) stressed that researchers had a biased attitude towards the German dictator, which affected the quality of their studies. Therefore, the conclusions of many researchers, especially Hitler’s contemporaries, will be taken with the necessary caution. Spielvogel and Redles (2016) agreed that the past of the German dictator was also instrumental in his personal development. He also had quite difficult relationships with his father, and Hitler’s participation in the First World War became one of the pillars that shaped his personality.

In his turn, Joseph Stalin was absorbed with the ideas of the world Communist revolution as he saw this political system as the only possible for humanity. Another significant contributing factor was the nature of the two dictator’s power in the late 1930s (Kotkin, 2017). They both could hold power by making their citizens believe that they were surrounded by enemies who would defeat them without the wise rule of their leaders. Therefore, the war became almost inevitable due to the worldviews of the two leaders.

Purpose and Contribution to Literature

The purpose of this study is to examine the views on war and peace and the personalities of the two individuals. Although the input of each of these persons has received the necessary attention of researchers, the role their relationships shaped by their worldviews played in the international relations of that period remains obscure. The utilization of quantitative methods will be instrumental in tracing the most relevant trends regarding the matter.

This type of methodology is not common, although also used, so the contribution of the present study will be considerable. At that, the major contribution of the present study will be the focus on this topic that will enrich larger literature regarding the role of the individual in foreign policy. The research questions guiding this study can be formulated as follows: What were the worldviews of Stalin and Hitler on war and peace? How were the personalities of these people similar, and in what ways were they different? How did the personalities of the two leaders affect the interactions of the two countries in the 1930s?

Theoretical Framework

As mentioned above, different approaches to exploring the role of an individual in international relations exist. The cognitive model will be utilized to address the research questions mentioned above. The model is based on the assumption that decision-makers do not always (or rather seldom) make rational choices due to the concentration on their beliefs, as well as the way they perceived data (Carlsnaes, 2016). This model is instrumental in addressing the set research questions and can help explain the decisions made by the two people in question. The cognitive peculiarities of Hitler and Stalin could explain the reasons for their collaboration and the fact that Hitler decided to start the war in 1939.

This approach is often employed by researchers who have examined the personalities, choices, and impact of Stalin and Hitler (Ascher, 2016; Kaplan, 2017). These two person’s beliefs and ideas regarding diverse topics have been considered to explain their behaviors and decisions that had a substantial effect on the development of their countries and the entire world.

Methodology

The present research will be based on the quantitative research method and case study design. Two case studies (Hitler and Stalin) will be developed, and the two leaders’ personalities and perspectives concerning war and peace will be central to the research. The case study design enables the researcher to explore diverse aspects of the personality of a particular figure (Bernard, 2017). Quantitative analysis is rarely employed to explore people’s features and worldviews as qualitative methods often offer more opportunities to explore different aspects (Bernard, 2017). Nevertheless, quantitative data are instrumental in detecting the existing trends. For instance, the prevalence of some codes in the leaders’ accounts will help in developing these person’s profiles.

The operational code approach will also be utilized to profile the two leaders’ personalities and their worldviews. The operational code model involves the analysis of philosophical beliefs and instrumental beliefs towards the politics of particular people (Dyson & Parent, 2018). Diverse sources are often used for this type of analysis, including but not confined to speeches, interviews, as well as secondary sources such as biographies, monographs, and peer-reviewed articles. The collected data will be used to identify the prevalent ideas and beliefs, as well as the traits of the characters of Hitler and Stalin. Statistical analysis will be employed to evaluate the data taken from these sources.

Ethical and Confidentiality Issues

The focus of this study is on historical figures and their worldviews. No sensitive information will be disclosed or utilized as published works will be employed. The project will not include the personal life of the two leaders and their relatives will not be in the spotlight. Therefore, the chance of facing any confidentiality issues is minimal. Since no human subjects will be involved, gaining people’s consent regarding the use of the data they provide is not necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to note that this study will attempt to describe the views of Hitler and Stalin on war and peace. The analysis of the personal traits of these two political leaders will be implemented. The 1930s, and especially the late 1930s, will be the major focus of this study. The utilized theoretical frameworks will be the cognitive model and operational code scheme due to their basic premises regarding the reasons for humans’ and political leaders’ decisions and actions.

The underlying assumption is that the interactions between Hitler and Stalin based on their personality traits influenced the onset of the Second World War, so individuals play the leading role in international relations. The quantitative research methodology will be employed as it ensures the identification of the most apparent trends associated with the personalities of the two historic figures in question.

Reference List

Ascher, A. (2016) Stalin. London, England: Oneworld Publications.

Bernard, H. R. (2017) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

Carlsnaes, W. (2016) ‘Actors, structures, and foreign policy analysis’, in Smith, S., Hadfield, A. and Dunne, T. (eds.) Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford, England: Springer, pp. 113–130.

Dyson, S. B. and Parent, M. J. (2018) ‘The operational code approach to profiling political leaders: understanding Vladimir Putin’, Intelligence and National Security, 33(1), pp. 84-100.

Groom, W. (2018) The Allies: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and the unlikely alliance that won World War II. Washington, DC: National Geographic Books.

Kaplan, R. M. (2017) ‘Adolf Hitler and the psychiatrists: psychiatric debate on the German dictator’s mental state in The Lancet’, Journal of Forensic Science & Criminology, 5(1), pp. 101-107.

Kotkin, S. (2017) Stalin: waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941. New York, NY: Penguin.

LeRoy Malchow, H. (2015) History and international relations: from the ancient world to the 21st century. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Reynolds, D. and Pechatnov, V. (ed.) (2018) The Kremlin letters: Stalin’s wartime correspondence with Churchill and Roosevelt. New York, NY: Yale University Press.

Spielvogel, J. J. and Redles, D. (2016) Hitler and Nazi Germany: a history. 7th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.

The last century was rich in ideologically driven and cruel dictators, with Hitler and Mussolini as the most infamous. Broadly and retrospectively, Hitler’s method of political rule can be considered fascist. According to experts, “fascism typically centers around extreme nationalism and an opposition to democracy and liberalism” (Nazi vs. fascist, 2020, para. 6). Both considered such punitive measures as political repression and state violence as legitimate methods of state governing.

Differing Ethnic Policies

The ideological and political differences between the ideas of Mussolini and Hitler are nuanced. They lie in such government branches as ethnic and military issues. For example, anti-Semitism was not an original element of Italian fascist ideology; it only became so right before World War II due to pressure from their Nazi ally (Italy, n.d.). It explains the historical paradox that many Jews could find a relatively safe haven in a country that was the main ally of Nazi Germany, both de jure and de facto (Italy, n.d.). It is also noteworthy that the Italian society had no anti-Semitic sentiment compared to the German one, even in prewar and wartime.

Differing Military Policies

Views on purpose and purpose for the coming World War II are another thing where Mussolini and Hitler’s views differed. For the creator of fascism, war was not just a method of forcible expansion of the state but a way of reviving the Roman Empire, both physically and ideologically. According to historians, “the Fascist regime hoped to establish a new “Roman” Empire” (Italy, n.d., para. 7). Hitler perceived the future war as a necessary and long-awaited rematch for the lost World War I, a way to unite the Germanic ethnic groups and increase their living space. Moreover, he saw it as an opportunity to purge Europe and the world of the religious, cultural, and ethnic ones that he and other Nazis considered inferior. One can say that Mussolini’s ideas were comparatively more egalitarian and less oppressive than Hitler’s ones.

References

Italy. (n.d.) Holocaust Encyclopedia. Web.

Nazi vs. fascist: Is there really a difference? (2020). Web.