Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Synopsis
1
power of history in dictating how individuals are ultimately
remembered.
Thomas Corel
SCECGS Redlands
The intricate complexities of Adolf Hitlers character have given rise
to numerous voices and interpretations both as a result of new
evidence and changes in ideologies and context. As Ian Kershaw
affirms: Hitler has been viewed in many different and varied
fashions, often directly contrasting with each other. (Kershaw,
1998), It is this conflict on which I intend to focus. Historians Hugh
Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock, despite sharing similar contexts offer
vastly different views regarding the demonisation and madness of
Adolf Hitler, debating whether he was purely evil or just simply a
pragmatic opportunist. German historian Joachim C. Fest and
Hungarian historian born John Lukacs provide a far more conceptual
and theological analysis of Adolf Hitler and his so called madness
and demonisation, delving into the reasons that promulgated these
views and tendencies British historian Ian Kershaw will be
employed to provide a contrast. Psychologists Erich Fromm and Alice
Miller both conducted studies on the German statesman, and while
they concluded that he wasnt inherently evil, Miller claimed it was
due to corporal punishment at the hands of his tyrannic father,
while Fromm suggested that it was the neglect of his mother that
was to blame for his malevolence. As of recent, new evidence
(Hitlers methamphetamine addiction) has also played an
undeniably significant role in providing new reasons for Hitlers
madness, novelist and director Norman Ohler has sparked new
revelations regarding the reasons for his so called evil, in what Ian
Kershaw called a serious piece of scholarship (Ohler, 2016).
2
Hitler will appear to posterity somewhat different from the way in
which he appeared to his contemporaries. He will not evoke the
more extreme forms of judgments, or interpretations, passed on him
by his own generation. (Williams, 2012). Thus, re-establishing and
reinforcing the rationale for this paper to consider both
psychoanalytical, modern and traditional historical views:
championed only by well-known authorities in order to best
determine to what extent Hitler has been interpreted differently
over the decades.
3
(Rosenbaum, 1998). Trevor-Roper believed that Hitler committed his
evil deeds unknowingly; he conducted them in a deluded and
sincere belief that he was taking heroic measures to salvage the
human (Aryan, German) race from the destructive Jewish peoples.
By taking this position, Roper is affirming the tendency of centuries
of western philosophic thought on the questions regarding evil -
which if it is defined as a conscious wrongdoing means that Hitler
was, not in fact mad, but a victim of his own radically deluded will.
4
executes a will going beyond individual desires (Fest, 1974), which
he referenced from Jacob Burckhardts famous essay on historical
greatness, in Reflections of History. Burckhardt affirms Joachims
claims as he states that there is a mysterious coincidence between
the egoism of the individual and the communal will, partly shifting
the alienation and blame from Hitler to that of the German people
and greater Nazi party, showing how Hitlers career is a classic
illustration of this tenet. Fest comes to the conclusion that both
modern and traditional scholars hesitate to call Hitler great not
because of his criminal features, but rather as a result of a notion
concerning a strange exemption from the ordinary moral code
which he suggested we tend to grant in our minds to great or
significant individuals. Fellow German historian John Lukacs offers a
similar view that is more theological; he acknowledges the popular
view that Hitler was mad, and he tells us that: By assertingand
thinkingthat he was mad, we have failed twice. We have brushed
the problem of Hitler under the rug. (Lukacs, 1997), Agreeing
wholeheartedly with the view of Aaron T. Beck, mentioning earlier in
the work that labelling does little to further our understating of
Hitler, but only further mystifies the actions of the tyrannic regime
and its leader. Lukacs goes on to tell us that if he is to be deemed
mad, then the entire Hitler period was nothing but an episode of
absurdity. The defining of Hitler as mad relieves him of all
culpability, especially in this context, where a certification of mental
illness voids a conviction by law. Lukacs concludes: Hitler was not
mad; he was responsible for what he did and said and thought.
Both agree that the Statesman was neither mad nor evil, making it
clear that he was not abnormal, but instead driven by a unique
moral and intellectual code that is largely misunderstood.
Swiss Psycho-analysts and psychologists, Alice Miller and Erich
Fromm, are both highly respected and renowned in their field of
work, their analyses provide a new aspect on Hitlers fascinating
personality and try and provide reasons for his madness. While Alice
Miller doesnt deny Hitlers later atrocities and his responsibility for
them, she does argue that he was never inherently evil; or mad,
Miller attempted to portray Hitler as a victim of an abusive father,
her book on Hitlers childhood polarised French journalist Claude
Lanzmann, in which he called the book an obscenity. Ron
Rosenbaum American literary journalist and critic also agrees with
Lanzmann (who believed that any kind of pursuit in explanation of
Hitler is both futile and immoral), however not to the same extent -
simply stating that the fifty-five-page Hitler explanation Miller
included in For Your Own Good, had raised some serious problems
in his mind as well. Miller suggests that Adolf Hitlers evil can be
traced to brutal corporal punishment at the hands of his father. The
demonisation of his father, Alois Hitler, victimises Adolf, effectively
shifting the blame. Ron Rosenbaum heavily critiques Millers work as
he states: Miller employs dubious evidence to support her claims,
all we have for evidence is Hitlers self-pitying. A final leap to
5
exculpation sees Miller rising to defence of Hitlers credibility. She
dismisses evidence regarding doubts of corporal punishment by
stating: As If anyone were more qualified to judge the situation
than Adolf Hitler himself (Miller, 1985). Alice miller continues to, as
Rosenbaum puts it: use dubious evidence in the service of dubious
psychologising, she takes at face value the controversial, unproven
theory that Adolfs fathers father was Jew; she argues that Adolfs
father beating his son and the sons subsequent anti-Semitism can
be attributed to self-lacerating rage about his putative Jewish blood
(Rosenbaum, 1998), Rosenbaum argues that Adolf Hitler is being
rendered into the rhetoric of victimology, through Millers
demonization of his father. Erich Fromm acts as an inadvertent (and
almost parodic) counterpoint to Millers work, instead, singling out
Hitlers mother, Klara. Fromm agrees with Rosenbaum, as he sees
Alois Hitler as a mild type (Rosenbaum, 1998), instead of the
abusive monster that Alice Miller suggested him to be, Fromm
declares that Alois was, indeed, not a frightening figure. Telling us
that Hitlers mother is the catalyst of his evil, or as he put it
neuroses (Fromm, 1973). Fromm, however, presents a complex
that he believes can be used to explain Hitler. Fromms pathography
follows largely Sigmund Freud's concept of psychoanalysis, stating:
that Hitler was an immature, self-centred dreamer who did not
overcome his childish narcissism; as a result of his lack of
adaptation to reality he was exposed to humiliations which he tried
do overcome by means of lust-ridden destructiveness (Fromm,
1973). The evidence of this desire to destroy is so outrageous that
one could assume that Hitler had not only acted destructively, but
was indeed driven by a destructive character.
6
much of his inspiration from, when in reality dangerous drugs helped
to fuel the German war effort. Norman Ohler describes the Nazi
image (Championed by Adolf Hitler) as: strict, ideologically
underpinned anti-drug policy with propagandistic pomp and
draconian punishments as a vehicle for the exclusion and
suppression, even the destruction, of marginal groups and
minorities. (Ohler, 2016) The Nazis drug policies, he argues, were
deeply linked to anti-Semitism, in an attempt to further alienate and
subjugate them. With guidance from well-known German historian
Hans Mommsen, and respectable praise from British historian Ian
Kershaw as a well researched piece of work, Ohler has managed
to build a respectable reputation, however, other historians such as
English scholar Richard J. Evans and history professor Nikolaus
Wachsmann, have taken issue with Ohlers methods and
conclusions. Nikolaus Wachsmann, a professor of history at Birkbeck
College, University of London, and author of KL: A History of the
Nazi Concentration Camps, started out with an amiable critique
saying Ohler overstates his case, further adding that Ohler
eschews nuance for headlines and appears to mix fact and
fiction. Wachsmann ended his assessment harshly, saying that
Ohlers diligent research is buried beneath the breathless prose,
(Wachsmann, 2016). British Historian Richard J. Evans also took
issue with Ohlers work, writing in his review for the guardian: that
Ohler makes sweeping generalisations that are wildly
implausible, making examples of the doping mentality that spread
into every corner of the Reich. that he believed to be, nothing less
than farfetched and what he later called crass. Evans also went on
to tell us that he labelled Ohlers work as apologetic to the Nazi
cause, calling it: Morally and politically dangerous, as it runs the
risk of relieving Hitler and his followers of responsibility for their
atrocities (Evans, 2016). Ohler, however, does conclude in his work
that Hitler remained sane until the end and was fully in command
of himself: this was the true Hitler. (Ohler, 2016) Effectively
stating that his claim regarding Hitlers drug consumption does not
diminish his monstrous guilt, nor does it excuse the actions of the
German statesman and his radical political party.
Many attempts have been made to try and understand Adolf Hitler
and what could have lead a human being to commit atrocities on
such a grand and epic scale. Many of these attempts have failed, as
they sought explanation through shallow and futile means of
labelling him as merely evil, others have simply lacked the
understanding of the wider-context of his time and the deeply
7
enrooted hatred and idiosyncrasies of his dark childhood. This paper
has attempted to provide a range of traditional, modern and psycho-
historical approaches from a variety of perspectives, in order to best
summarise and analyse the ways in which changing constructions
and interpretations regarding the evil of Adolf Hitler have
ultimately changed and evolved over the decades.
References
8
2. Bullock, A.Hitler, A Study in Tyranny; Harper & Rowe: New
York, NY, USA, 1952.
Annotated References
9
1. Rosenbaum, R., 1998. Explaining Hitler. In Rosenbaum, R.
Explaining Hitler.
10
at first was shocked by, however, it is this expansion of the mind
that lead me to consider all perspectives (i.e. these interpretations,
and other more controversial takes such as Norman Ohler, after
seeing their academic merit.) and cultivate a far more sincere and
considerate argument. His deep questions, such as why dont we
call Hitler great? spark many issues in your mind at first however,
after reading and thinking about the topic more deeply and taking a
more conceptually concerned and wider approach it allows you to
consider other areas of history and new approaches, such as
characteristics of human nature. For these reasons I found Fests
work highly beneficial to the completion of my work, and its
tendency to consider not just the traditional approaches, but the
conceptual, psychological, historical and contemporary takes on the
madness of Adolf Hitler.
11