Everyday, this sub sees new additions to its vast collection of questions and answers concerning the topic of Hitler's thoughts on a vast variety of subjects. In the past this has included virtually everything from Native Americans, Asians, occultism, religion, Napoleon, beards, and masturbation.
This in fact has become so common that in a way has become something of an in-joke with an entire section of our FAQ dedicated to the subject.
I have a couple of thoughts on that subject, not as a mod but as frequent contributor, who has tried to provide good answers to these questions in the past and as a historian who deals with the subject of National Socialism and the Holocaust on a daily basis.
Let me preface with the statement that there is nothing wrong with these questions and I certainly won't fault any users asking them for anything. I would merely like to share some thoughts and make some suggestions for any one interested in learning more about Nazism and the Holocaust.
If my experience in researching National Socialism and the Holocaust through literature and primary sources has taught me one thing that I can put in one sentence that is a bit exaggerated in its message:
The person Adolf Hitler is not very interesting.
Let me expand: The private thoughts of Adolf Hitler do not hold the key for understanding Nazism and the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler, like any of us, is in his political convictions, in his role of the "Führer", in his programmatics, and in his success, a creation of his time. He is shaped by the social, political, economic, and discursive factors and forces of his time and any attempt at explaining Nazism, its ideology, its success in inter-war Germany, and its genocide will need to take this account rather than any factors intrinsic to the person of Adolf Hitler. Otherwise we end up with an interpretation along the lines of the great man theory of the 19th century which has been left behind for good reason.
Ian Kershaw in his Hitler biography that has become a standard work for a very good reason, explains this better than I could. On the issue of the question of Hitler's personal greatness -- and contained in that the intrinsic qualities of his character -- he writes:
It is a red-herring: misconstrued, pointless, irrelevant, and potentially apologetic. Misconstrued because, as "great man" theories cannot escape doing, it personalizes the historical process in the extreme fashion. Pointless because the whole notion of historical greatness is in the last resort futile. (...) Irrelevant because, whether we were to answer the question of Hitler's alleged greatness in the affirmative or negative, it would in itslef explain nothing whatsoever about the terrible history of the Third Reich. And potentially apologetic because even to pose the question cannot conceal a certain adminration for Hitler, however grudging and whatever his faults
In addressing the challenges of writing a biography of what Kershaw calls an "unperson", i.e. someone who had no private life outside the political, he continues:
It was not that his private life became part of his public persona. On the contrary: (...) Hitler privatized the public sphere. Private and public merged completely and became insperable. Hiter's entire being came to be subsumed within the role he played to perfection: the role of the Führer.
The task of the biographer at this point becomes clearer. It is a task which has to focus not upon the personality of Hitler, but squarely and directly upon the character of his power - the power of the Führer.
That power derived only in part from Hitler himself. In greater measure, it was a social product - a creation of social expectations motivations invested in Hitler by his followers.
The last point is hugely important in that it emphasizes that Nazism is neither a monolithic, homogeneous ideology not is it entirely dependent on Hitler and his personal opinions. The formulation of Nazi policy and ideology exist in a complicated web of political and social frameworks and is not always consistent or entirely dependent on Hitler's opinions.
The political system of Nazism must be imagined -- to use the concept pioneered by Franz Neumann in his Behemoth and further expanded upon by Hans Mommsen with concept of cumulative radicalization -- as a system of competing agencies that vie to best capture what they believe to be the essence of Nazism translated into policy with the political figure of the Führer at the center but more as a reference point for what they believe to be the best policy to go with rather than the ultimate decider of policy. This is why Nazism can consist of the Himmler's SS with its specific policy, technocrats like Speer, and blood and soil ideologists such as Walther Darre.
And when there is a central decision by Hitler, they are most likely driven by pragmatic political considerations rather than his personal opinions such as with the policy towards the Church or the stop of the T4 killing program.
In short, when trying to understand Nazism and the Holocaust it is necessary to expand beyond the person of Adolf Hitler and start considering what the historical forces and factors were behind the success of Nazism, anti-Semitism in Germany, and the factors leading to "ordinary Germans" becoming participants in mass murder.
This brings me to my last point: When asking a question about National Socialism and the Holocaust (this also applies to other historical subjects too of course), it is worth considering the question "What do I really want to know?" before asking. Is the knowledge if Adolf Hitler masturbated what I want to know? If yes, then don't hesitate. If it is really what Freudian psychology of the sexual can tell us about anti-Semitism or Nazism, consider asking that instead.
This thread about how Hitler got the idea of a Jewish conspiracy is a good example. Where Hitler personally picked up the idea is historically impossible to say (I discuss the validity of Mein Kampf as a source for this here) but it is possible to discuss the history of the idea beyond the person of Adolf Hitler and the ideological influence it had on the Nazis.
I can only urge this again, consider what exactly you want to know before asking such a question. Is it really the personal opinion of Adolf Hitler or something broader about the Nazis and the Holocaust? Because if you want to know about the latter one, asking the question not related to Hitler will deliver better results and questions that for those of us experienced in the subject easier to answer because they are better historical questions.
Thank you!
I have a question for the mods concerning "Great Man" theory more generally. I ask this of you as historians, not mods though. At what point do we draw the line between specific choices made by historical figures and the societies and environments that they emerged from and came into conflict with? I don't subscribe to Great Man theory, but I've always felt that in rejecting it, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. A lot of times it seems to me that societal analysis seems to push out individual action and reaction, even when the actions taken are countervailing to societal norms that would be expected. To be clear, I agree entirely with the content of this post, but I thought this might be a good place to discuss exactly where historians do and/or should draw the line between the individual and the society.
This makes me wonder (not sure if this is the right place, but I definitely not going to open a new post about this): was the Hitler unavoidable?
Was Adolf Hitler just a guy, who "stumbled" in a position that was just waiting to be filled? That, if there wasn't an Adolf Hitler, we would have this conversation about an Alex Riemer?
In other words: did Hitler just filled a role, that was bound to be filled by someone?
Furthermore, the way in which we attribute agency to "Great Men" has an impact on how history is taught to our students and how they view their place in the world.
For example, when teaching the Holocaust at my school, my students typically only know the pop-culture view of Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust (ie. Hitler killed the Jews. Nazis killed the Jews. Germans were brainwashed, etc.) With such understanding, the Holocaust is a horrible event that has no application to them. Hitler was crazy and Americans would never let Nazis come to power.
Only by addressing the nuances of perpetration and agency in the Holocaust are the students able to grapple with it as important for understanding human nature, society and culture, and their own selves.
I think that there is a middle ground between "Great Man" and "Great Movements", in neither can exist without the other.
For example:
In the larger context, the American Revolution did not need those specific Founding Fathers in order to occur. The sweep of the Enlightenment in Western thought and the philosophies of Locke, Rousseau, Burke, had already taken hold in Europe as well as the colonies. English political and economic policy had already begun working to alienate the colonists well before any of the future revolutionaries had risen to prominence. The experiences of American colonists born and raised in the Americas had already begun to form fundamentally different concepts of self, society, philosophy, governance, rights, and values. The seeds were well planted before even the first tax acts passed by Parliament.
Within this environment, certain men, who of their own "character" rose through society to play key roles in the Revolution. Certainly Benjamin Franklin through his own particular traits thrived in the environment of colonial Pennsylvania. However, without a doubt he was subject to the already burgeoning Enlightenment by reading Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, etc. He clearly took a lot from the popular idea of the Protestant and Puritan work ethic and with the clearly evidenced greater than normal intelligence and personal motivations, he was able to rise from a modest background to achieve significant things in not only political philosophy, but science, literature, and personal wealth. Franklin's notoriety and fame played a key role in motivating other future Founding Fathers, many of whom would later write fawningly over the man upon first meeting him. Franklin played key roles in the Declaration of Independence, securing France's support in the war, and writing the Constitution of the United States.
Now, the probability of the American Revolution occurring is almost certain without Franklin's existence. However, Franklin did play key roles in its success, its ideological foundations, and it's enduring legacy. Could other men have played the same role? In a singular sense, no. No one man had the same collection of traits that Franklin had. However, men such as George Washington had the individual charisma to hold the Union together in its formative years. Thomas Jefferson certainly had the literary skills to craft documents as profound as the Declaration of Independence (with help from my homeboy John Adams), though it certainly would have been worded differently. John Adams had an equal amount of ideological motivation to overcome nearly insurmountable challenges in governance and diplomacy. Certainly, the Revolution would still have occurred, but it's eventual progress, outcome, and legacy would have been vastly different without the "fingers in every pie" nature of Franklin's existence.
Great Men and Great Movements are symbiotic in nature, and while we can question and discuss the roles these men had on history, we cannot discount that they are the product of multiple factors all acted upon by previous Great Men, to create movements. Mind you, these Great Men aren't just the generals, statesmen, financiers, theologians, and artists we build statues for, but anyone who has an impact on history. For example, the unknown archer who shot Harold Godwinson is a "great man" in history.
Just as a comment, and I do not mean for this to be antagonistic on any level, I do not think that there is such a great argument against the "great men" theory. Any argument seems to me to end in a paradox, I am not so sure why people seem to be quickly categorical and disregarding when it comes to this matter. I think it stems from an ethical bent and the idea of personalising therefore humanising these figures of history who we shouldn't, but it always seems to end in a chicken and the egg situation which doesn't necessarily disprove it. Anyway just my two pennies.
On the subject of great man history, do you think there are any moments in history where an individual has ended up tipping the balance? Alexander the Great springs to mind for example. We can agree that the conditions were right for a Macedonian King to create a huge empire, for instance. However, if he'd had say...less of a drinking problem, is it possible he could have created a more cohesive one that wouldn't have fallen apart when he died? Likewise, what if he'd been a less talented general?
Is there something to be said for this point of view?
This post reminds me of the novel White Noise by Don DeLillo. The main character is a professor who "invented" the field of Hitler Studies, a whole field dedicated to Hitler. There are Hitler majors at his university that he teaches, and later on in the book they hold a Hitler Conference for all of the worldwide Hitler researchers. He has a personal copy of Mein Kampf that he keeps on his nightstand. And he's widely respected by his peers at university and in his field. I don't know if any of this would ever happen in real life, maybe as part of a history graduate program. I don't know. But part of the appeal of the joke is how close to life it could be, Hitler studies.
I wholeheartedly agree! German historians often cite the "Nährbodentheorie" ("fertile land theory"), which demonstrates how much Nazism, not necessarily Hitler, had to feed on from the German cultural sphere towards the end of the chaos that was the Weimar Republic. Antisemitism was well ingrained in the majority of German's minds by then ("Dolchstoßlegende"), and I think rather than discussing who Hitler was, or what he was thinking, the truly fascinating thing about Nazism is that it was a nation-wide phenomenon - this organically developed ideology that was as much human as it was beast.
Yes, Hitler found the right buttons to push, the right levers to pull and said the right things; a sick man indeed and arguably an evil genius, but he was in no way the perfect, sole embodiment (or cause) of Nazism - the "martian" or "wizard" that tricked a nation. Our history teacher had us compare Golo Mann's view of Nazism with Ian Kershaw's to try and argue this (what I find to be crucial) distinction.
In regards to great man theories, I am surprised nobody has discussed Machiavelli's Prince as a source for thinking about a Great Man as a catalyst for History. Machiavelli stresses over and over in the Prince that History is driven by the impulses of decisive men acting upon favourable circumstances. Obviously this plays into the whole "historical forces and factors behind" the men and ideas, but at the end of the day, is it not true that we rarely record the deeds of a group and more the deeds of a single person? In discussing the Civil Rights movement, we tunnel in on MLK Jr. In discussing the Civil War, we tunnel in on Grant, Lincoln, Lee, etc. This is not to say that it is invalid to consider the wider group, but for the sake of interesting writing, it is far easier to engage a reader by focusing on the choices, motivations, and decisions of a single person rather than a whole group.
What was Hitler's stance on dental hygiene?
Nice explanation
Here's a somewhat off-topic, parallel in my field. The popular notion of inventors and inventing seems to follow the "great man" story. People who have never worked in engineering have been told simplistic stories along the lines of..Edison invented the light bulb. Invention is simplified to the story..there was ignorance and darkness, then one shining light appeared
What actually happened was thousands of years of science and engineering work came together at a time and a place, making the invention possible. I chose the example of Edison on purpose. He was not a lone genius, he had many, many assistants, and often took credit for their work
Honestly this post should be added to the FAQ and stickied. It's a barrier for questioning that will continue because of generalized assumptions of leaders roles in these different periods. Much like the question concerning the deportation of undesirables from Germany yesterday; the posts author found that the "Final Solution" was not a one man super villain plan. Hopefully if this post is more visible to people it will eliminate most of the generalized foundation work we have to write to focus the subject of the question.
Thanks for a thought provoking and thoughtful post.
A little off topic, I am currently reading Black Earth by Timothy Snyder. I have found his exploration of the role played by the break down of state legitimacy in Poland and elsewhere in enabling the holocaust to be very interesting. What has the critical reception of his arguments been like amongst historians?
I think that this is basically just a question of being familiar with historical methodology. Those who are at least somewhat familiar with it will usually post better and more comprehensive questions. I have prefaced many answers with a short explanation as to why a question was badly phrased. However, I think that this can't be helped and that it's simply an unfortunate symptom of the wonderful initiative that is /r/AskHistorians. We are basically providing a bridge between academical knowledge and popular understanding. There are bound to be misunderstandings and historiographical fallacies. I think that it's up to us - those who have crossed that bridge -, to guide others across. That's why I try to occassionaly tackle badly phrased, but well-meaning, questions.
Naturally, that doesn't mean we can't adress this problem or talk about it under the META label. So I appreciate your post.
I completely agree, and I think it's much more interesting to look at the historical context that enables something like anti-Semitism to take such virulent root. It also makes it easier to recognise similar themes happening again; there needs to be a recognition that this was a widely accepted policy and, as such, could reoccur.
I'm sorry, I'm no fan of Hitler, but the point made by OP seems moot, as it feels just like the chicken-egg conundrum of the nature vs. nurture problem. It could be argued obviously that times create the man, but it's also arguable that man has to have the right upbringing, qualities and the belief (in himself, his "calling", etc.) to create the proper mixture that would fire him/her above the mundane life roles fulfilled by most of us.
One couldn't just cut one of the other and still follow the (historical) truth of the matter. I believe the infatuation of many with the person of Hitler has to do with the latter, and rightly so. What is that thing that may transform an ordinary and feeble man into one that "Providence" had chosen to become "great" - for good, or for evil in his case?
But what would Hitler think about great man theory?
After reading some of the comments here, is it fair to say that a general consensus of great man theory is that it allows us as people, not just historians, to in a way shift blame and responsibility off on to the figurehead? If it wasn't Hitler it would've been someone else?
What exactly is the difference between this and generating a cult of personality? Or are they the same and just interchangeable terms?
Also it seems to me that completely rejecting great man theory would place responsibility on the environment in which the individual grows up, which would effectively remove notions of free will no?
If I may ask you to take a stab at a guess, why is it, do you suppose, that people have such an avid fixation on the person of Hitler?
Can i also make a point that there is an overload of questions about the Roman empire?
You've made a good point. You do have to contend simultaneously with the fact that events would have unfolded vastly differently without Hitler. I realize a counterfactual like this has only limited use, but even a heavyweight like Gordon Craig was forced to admit that Nazism was a strange way for the German century to end, and that the pure luck of Hitler's birth does in part explain that strangeness.
I'm not arguing against you, but you can understand why people are curious. The point is less that it's not interesting or doesn't tell us anything. For instance, critic/historian George Mosse (another heavyweight) was very interested in Hitler's opinions about the author of pulp westerns Karl May. He thought it told us much about the sorts of petty bourgeois fantasies the Nazi movement indulged. Really, the point is that, if we want to learn from Nazism - and by extension prevent anything like it from ever happening again - it's much more useful to ask (and study) why the average German became a fascist. If Hitler was an act of fate, then, as you correctly ask, why did he attract followers?
I'm really just agreeing with you in a roundabout way.
So to use your example directly, we shouldn't ask if Hitler played his skin flute, we should ask the broader question like, how was male and female sexuality treated during the third reich versus America at the same time period? America now?
Is this what you're getting at, OP?
If historians from 100 years ago were here with us today, would they agree that they did Great Man Theory? Would they try to defend it? Or what would they claim to be doing if they deny that it was about Great Men?
Or do you need to go 100 years back to find professional historians that engage in the kind of research that is often derided as Great Men Theory here?
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question OP, but here goes:
While it seems sort of plainly obvious that Hitler, acting as Fürher, would have to make some pragmatic decisions in the interest of the state, but doesn't his handling of the invasion of Russia run counter to that narrative of pragmatism? In every historical account I have encountered, it seems like Hitler let his ego and sense of maybe... destiny(?) get in the way of a more well crafted military plan. From what I understand he constantly meddled with military plans during that invasion and was directly responsible for key tactical blunders that may have led to the failure of the invasion and by extension, sped up the probably inevitable demise of the 3rd Reich.
To consider Hitler is to consider the nature of Evil in Man.
Hitler is everybody's favourite bad guy. The 3rd Reich is everybody's first historical era. Heck .. even people who don't know anything about history know about the war and the stories that come out of it.
When you say "Hitler" or "Nazis" you know that everyone around you knows what you are talking about and has some frame of reference. I'm not sure you can say this about any other historic figure or movement.
Honestly I am so bored of it. Sometimes it seems half the internet is about Hitler. "Ok .. let's say you were Jewish and you got Hitler in a headlock. What would happen to you?"
This seems like it might be relevant to the discussion, for all those folks asking for clarification/alternatives to Great Man:
To what extent would you say that this is similar to the (informally named?) "Great Year" view of history described in this article?
"It is the invariable lesson to humanity that distance in time, and in space as well, lends focus. It is not recorded, incidentally, that the lesson has ever been permanently learned."
'even to pose the question cannot conceal a certain admiration for Hitler'
Well that doesn't logically follow. Why do you - or Kershaw - even believe it likely?
Can we throw the "great man" out completely? Certain historical figures do seem to have altered history through their exceptional gifts. Is Germany ever unified without Bismark? Do crusaders ever conquer the holy land without Ghengis Khan decimating the middle East? Would Christianity ever exist without Cyrus conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews? (His "gentle" nature certainly seems tremendously out of character for the era and the location)
This "out with the great man theory" is very specious. It has it's attractions, and in general I don't quable with the fact that of course Hitler didn't just bend the world to his impressive will, there had to be demand for the goods he was selling, etc etc.
But as it is it denies that Hitler actually did do some stuff. So did Gavrillo Pinzip. So did William Sherman.
Do we take down the Lincoln Memorial because slavery was, probably doomed anyway?
Thank you for this wonderful post. It has me wondering though, what was Hitler's favorite flavor of ice cream?
This is interesting, I completely agree, and I hope it is appropriate to add a thought / ask a question here:
I am born and raised in Germany, and I have always been bothered by an idea that seems to prevail here: The idea that somehow, if any of the assassination attempts on Hitler had succeeded, the evil Nazi dictatorship / war / Holocaust would have ended immediately.
My personal theory is that Hitler's death would not have changed very much at all. It might even have prolonged the Nazi regime if more moderate forces would have come into power after Hitler's death ... e.g. forces that just decided to quietly continue murdering Jews instead of invading the rest of Europe ...
is "a first-rate madness" (amazon link) considered a credible book?
written by psychiatrist nassir ghaemi with due diligence on primary historical sources (will edit to add details, but currently on mobile) hitler discussion in the book is a digression from "first-rate" leaders who had neurodiverse leadership styles in times of crisis: resilience, originality and high empathy.
hitler never displayed high empathy... not surprisingly.
The person Adolf Hitler is not very interesting.
I don't think he was neurotypical. examples from the book include grandiose discussions of destiny with his childhood friend.
Let me expand: The private thoughts of Adolf Hitler do not hold the key for understanding Nazism and the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler, like any of us, is in his political convictions, in his role of the "Führer", in his programmatics, and in his success, a creation of his time.
agree that he was interacting with a weak political system and a culture ripe for revenge ideology. World War II being the revenge war for World War I.
edit: ghaemi used august kubizek's memoir "the young hitler I knew" for his commentary "beginning with symptoms, hitler had clear manic and depressive episodes throughout his life." kubizek's memoir was written 10 years after hitler's death and "most historians accept the general veracity of kubizek's account." that's what ghaemi wrote about the source.
edit 2: to clarify, "hitler never displayed high empathy"... I meant "us vs them" mentality which was violent even in the beginning.
I know there has already been a lot of posts regarding your Great Man assertion in this post. However I did not see one that brought up this particular question:
As far as I am aware, the Great Man theory is not a thing of the past anymore than the counter theory is. Where did you get that it is no longer a regarded or relevant theory?
My background is with Ancient history (Roman + Near Eastern). We have a lot more emphasis on Great Man theory due to the sources we have available. In all lectures and books I've read that covered this debate, the author and lecturer have stated that the debate is on going. However most (By most I mean all but one lecture I'm currently listening to) have said that the consensus tends to be a middle ground between the two theories. That said, probably close to 100% of what I've read and listened to tends to have a focus on great men and gave the background context of why they were able to have the impacts they have had. I believe everything I'm thinking of for this has been written within the last 10-15 years, so nothing severely outdated.
So essentially from my experience it's more of a middle ground that focuses more on great men than it does the environment. This is in part due to my area of history. To give a couple of examples:
The Roman revolution was a culmination of a century of environmental and social movements that had a great man in Julius Caesar who used that environment to have a huge impact on the Roman world and arguably bring about the end of the revolution.
In Egyptology it is widely considered that Egyptian history was defined by the Pharaohs. However this was enabled by the social and environment that the Pharaohs had to wield that kind of power. So while Egypt rose due to Great Men as Pharaohs and fell when those men were not in power, those great men would not have been able to have the same kind of impact had there not been the society and environment that allowed them to weird that power.
I guess my point is - from my understanding it's essentially the environments are what allows change but great men who use the environments to change history.
Great post. Another thing that can't be shared enough is how awful a read Mein Kampf is, and if you're interested in the history of Nazism there's plenty of books I'd rather reccomend, you're not going to get this great insight into Hitler's head that you'd think you'd get.
this should be pinned
I really like the discussions going on in this sub and greetings and thanks to the mods at this point, I enjoy this environment.
Topic: I never understood why people thought Hitler was something like the "evil-incarnated", the more I learned the more I got convinced that he wasn't actually that much more "evil" (which is a very flexible word in itself) than the average person. Face to face he seems to have been a really decent human being (I am not excusing anything he did/ordered ofc...). Tho I think he had certain talents like his eloquence (not sure if this is the correct word) which helped him greatly.
One problem you seem to ignore in your analysis is the victor-bias. As someone who studies Nazism and Hitler, it is very hard to find unbiased analysis on these issues. Even Kershaw falls into this pitfall many times, not to discount his work entirely, as it's very good, it just takes a little away from me.
The real issue of course which makes most of these questions somewhat pointless is that we will never actually know what Hitler really thought.
When historians claim Hitler thought XYZ, this is actually not based on actual mind-reading. It's instead based on various documents - books, orders, meeting minutes - that were written by the historical figure or recorded by those around him. For all we know Hitler was saying one thing but secretly thinking a different thing.
Therefore any question specifically about Hitler or another "Great Person" should not be in terms of what he "thought". Rather, what was the effect of his policy declarations, orders, and written books. Hitler for instance to the very end may have secretly wished a peaceful life as a great artist and the he regretted writing Mein Kampf - we will never know - but what's actually important is the effect of Mein Kampf on the people around him and the course of events as a whole.
In short, at the end of the day what you think matters less than what you do. This applies just as much to historical figures as it does to regular life.
Look I don't know what Great Man Theory is. I don't subscribe to it. I don't want to know about it. All I know is that I find this line of thinking troubling. Is it because of all the Hitler questions? Is it because of the History channel? Is this a well placed diatribe against all the Hitler posts? I don't get it. I try to sympathize, but when I hear that Adolf Hitler "holds no key to understanding Nazism and the Holocaust," you push me away, and it becomes too tempting to ask,
Are we saying that Hitler is the key to nothing at all? This should be obviously absurd. Are we sincerely maintaining that the world without Hitler is identical to one with Hitler?
And now I'm hearing that if it wasn't Hitler it would be someone else because millenia-old trends and forces were converging on the year 1933. Really? This is starting to sound like the plot to an RPG.
Maybe it's just the toxicity around Hitler. Maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation about Genghis Khan.
