Lewis Weinstein's Reviews > Adolf Hitler

I read this years ago , and found it quite good, but 1000 plus pages on that man can be draining! You'll need a stiff drink from time to time.

Doing the research for my new novel is sometimes a painful experience. Writing about the Nazis is also painful, but I think it is important to understand why the German people brought Hitler to power and kept him there even when it was clear he was a mass murderer.

Lewis wrote: "Doing the research for my new novel is sometimes a painful experience. Writing about the Nazis is also painful, but I think it is important to understand why the German people brought Hitler to pow..."

The active figures were motivated by power-craving and opportunism. They used deceipt, hate-mongering, and brainwash/propaganda to sell their sick ideology.

The passive figures (that is the masses) were likewise driven by craving for power and opportunism (at least some of them) but were also driven by herd instinct and stupidity. Besides, they (most of them Nobodies) liked being told that they were glorious members of a master race, and they liked to believe in the ideal world that Hitler promised. All that was standing in the way were the Jews, the socialists, and the communists.

Well, this is a bit simplified, but that's the core of the issue.

I don't think Hitler's followers saw him as a mass murderer. Hitler had preached long enough that it is the law of nature that only the Strong and Superior deserve to live; it was only natural that the Weak and the Inferior must die. And Hitler, of course, knew Who were inferior, that is, all non-Aryans and also Aryans of "lower grade", like the Polish and the Russians.

You can sell any ideology to the stupid masses if you are determined and use bribery, deceit, hate-mongering, and brainwash/propaganda, followed by intimidation.

You know this mechanism gets used for ANYTHING. Please go to the following link and read my comment #764:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This is a discussion thread following a 1-star review of a book with awful love-poems. The mechanism used by the author of this book and her bribed followers are the very same as Hitler has used. And I am pointing this out in comment #764. (The issue has been reported to Goodreads, and there will be an investigation.)

One book I read, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, theme was that the striving for a utopia of the future (in Hitler's case "a Germanic master race" as outlined in Mein Kampf; in communism a Marxist-Leninist state) made them indifferent to human suffering. They saw the elimination of whole peoples' as necessary for their future utopia.

In the case of the German people, very sadly, I feel that most swallowed this wholesale and believed it and followed their fuhrer willingly to the very end. In the case of the Soviet Union, it was different, as both Stalin and Lenin waged war against their own people to construct their utopia. For the most part Hitler killed non-Germans in order to achieve his aims.

I think there were many Germans who believed in themselves as the "master race" - and that the Slavs, Poles and especially the Jews had to be eliminated to construct their future utopia. Western Europe to be subjugated and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union obliterated. Very fortunately England survived.

So that, in a sense, goes along with what you say Lilo
I don't think Hitler's followers saw him as a mass murderer. Hitler had preached long enough that it is the law of nature that only the Strong and Superior deserve to live; it was only natural that the Weak and the Inferior must die. And Hitler, of course, knew Who were inferior, that is, all non-Aryans and also Aryans of "lower grade", like the Polish and the Russians.

Mikey B. wrote: "One book I read, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, theme was that the striving for a utopia of the future (in Hitler's case "a Germanic master race" as outline..."

Excellent points.

Mikey B. wrote: "One book I read, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe, theme was that the striving for a utopia of the future (in Hitler's case "a Germanic master race" as outline..."

This is exactly what I say.

There is only one thing with which I don't 100% agree or, at least, would like to see a bit more specified. You say:

"In the case of the German people, very sadly, I feel that most swallowed this wholesale and believed it and followed their fuhrer willingly to the very end."

What do you mean with "most"? Do you mean "more than 50%"? Or do you mean "near 100%"?

I do not know the percentage of Germans who were true Nazis. I wish I did. You cannot go by the numbers that were members of the NSDAP. Many joined for fear to lose their jobs or be sent to the most dangerous parts of the front if they refused to join. Some who refused to join the Party were sent to the front despite of being unfit for military service or despite of having papers that confirmed them to be indispensable at the family farm.

My adoptive grandfather (head of the local Internal Revenue Office) refused to join. He had cancer and had to retire early. (He died in 1940). However, before he really felt he had to retire, he was pushed out of office (in 1938 or 1939?). The reason was his refusal to join the Party. In his case, it did not matter much. However, I suppose it would have mattered a lot, had he not been terminally ill. (I haven't got a clue what he would have done in such case.)

My father, an absolute anti-Nazi like all of my family and relatives, had no other choice but join the NSDAP in March 1945. His well-meaning superior told him he would have to put him on the list for front-service if he didn't join the Party immediately. Front-service would have meant the Eastern Front in those last days of the war, and the Eastern front meant very likely death. So my father joined the NSDAP 6 weeks before the war ended so that he could keep his relatively safe office job with IG-Farben, in Ludwigshafen.

Not all fiercely fighting Wehrmacht soldiers were necessarily dedicated followers of Hitler either. If they didn't put every effort into fighting the enemy, they would be accused of "Feigheit vor dem Feind" ("cowardice towards the enemy") by some military court, sentenced to death, and immediately shot or hanged.

Any critical remark of Hitler would be a reason to be accused of either "being an 'enemy of the state'" or of "Wehrkraftzersetzung (undermining of military strength)" and being sentenced to death by some "kangaroo court" So it is very hard to tell how many people were true followers of Hitler and how many just didn't dare to say or act otherwise.

From the impression I had (but please keep in mind, I was a preschooler during the war, and after the war Nazis no longer greeted with "Heil Hitler!"), I would say around 50% of the people I knew were true Nazis. But i could be wrong.

I am presently reading "The Liberator", by Alex Kershaw (a very recommended read, btw). There it says that 62% of the Wehrmacht soldiers still believed in their "Fuehrer". I haven't got the slightest idea how reliable this figure is.

When it comes to the SS-members (and their families), I would guess that close to 100% were fervent Nazis to the end. And I haven't got the slightest clue what percentage of German males (fit for military service) were SS.

I think it is impossible to get any reliable figure what percentage of Germans really believed in Hitler. So many had their own agendas (power-craving, opportunism, fear, etc) and would have followed ANYBODY. And after the war, there were no longer any Nazis, had never been any Nazis. They had all been always against Hitler. They had all been do-gooders. And if anyone said otherwise, they must be mistaken, or they must have some private reason for slander. And if there was no way that they could deny to have been Nazis, they had, at least, been Nazis with halos, having treated everybody nicely and having helped Jews and other victims of persecution survive.

So, as you can see, it would be very difficult to come up with a reliable statistic.

Lilo wrote: "What do you mean with "most"? Do you mean "more than 50%"? Or do you mean "near 100%?"

By "most" I simply mean that - as in a majority. I don't feel that estimating a percentage of German support is really my main concern.
I think you have made a good point with your examples of opposition and coercion.

I have many thoughts on the subject area. For one, an army that conquered all the way from the coast of France to almost Moscow and Stalingrad obviously had a lot of enthusiastic soldiers.

I remember meeting an old Italian fellow who was a child in Italy during the war. He told me that when Italian soldiers were sent somewhere to fight they raised all kinds of issues – like what will they have to eat, where will they sleep... When he met German soldiers he noticed they were of an entirely different mettle. Italian soldiers surrendered by the thousands to a much smaller group of Allied soldiers in North Africa in 1940. Then Germany (Hitler) sent in some German soldiers and the tide of battle changed drastically.

And also I have heard that as well about their
And after the war, there were no longer any Nazis, had never been any Nazis.

It reminded me of an American soldier who was in France and he found it strange when all the citoyens (citizens) claimed to be members of the resistance.

Mikey B. wrote: "Lilo wrote: "What do you mean with "most"? Do you mean "more than 50%"? Or do you mean "near 100%?"

By "most" I simply mean that - as in a majority. I don't feel that estimating a percentage of Ge..."

I bet that all French citizens had been members of the resistance. LOL. Sounds so similar to German Nazis after the war.

From what I know, the SS were very enthusiastic. They were an elite corps that was pampered and highly appreciated by Hitler and that had sworn him special allegiance.

The Wehrmacht was mixed. Some were enthusiastic; some were nothing but obedient*, good soldiers, who did as they were told; and others were just simply forced.

I just read the book "Dead Funny", by Rudolph Herzog (a highly recommended read, btw). It tells about the history of the Third Reich as mirrored in the humor of the era. There was this joke:

One German general tells another: "The Italians have entered the war." The other replies: "That's gonna cost us 10 divisions." The first corrects: "They are fighting on our side." Says the second: "Oh my God! Then it's gonna cost us 20 divisions."

* I think Germany's historic past has bred obedient subjects, or maybe most Germans have it in their genes to be obedient and follow orders. I don't have it in my genes, but I also don't consider myself "typically German".

Churchill was delighted when the Italians entered the war on the German side.

I have always been perturbed by the German word "furher" - meaning leader (as you know). I mentioned to Lew in one email that I could hardly imagine Americans referring to President Obama as "their leader". Canadians would be snickering, and would know it was a joke, if anyone referred to our prime minister as "our leader".

Good that you rebelled against obedience - you naughty girl! I think I was quite the good son, but different era and different folks!

Have just added "Dead Funny" to my tremendous list of books

I copied this blurb below (in italics) from the Amazon description of "Dead Funny" - and I understand more completely the title

Hitler and Göring are standing on top of the Berlin radio tower. Hitler says he wants to do something to put a smile on the Berliners’ faces. Göring says, “Why don’t you jump?”

When a woman told this joke in Germany in 1943, she was arrested by the Nazis and sentenced to death by guillotine—it didn’t matter that her husband was a good German soldier who died in battle.

Mikey B. wrote: "Churchill was delighted when the Italians entered the war on the German side.

I have always been perturbed by the German word "furher" - meaning leader (as you know). I mentioned to Lew in one ema..."

It's not "furher", it's "Fuehrer". Actually it is an umlaut "u"; that is, the "u" is supposed to have two dots on it, yet when you don't have a keyboard that produces "Umlaute", you have to put an "e" behind the vocal that needs an "Umlaut". Quite often, American authors write German words/names just simply leaving the 2 dots off. This always makes me cringe. (And in German, nouns are written with a capital letter.) But that's all beside the point.

I never thought of it that way, but you are right, "Fuehrer" (leader) is ridiculous as it is. Well, this shows you that Germans have (or at least had, at this time) a tendency to follow a leader and act like sheep (many of them turning out to be slaughtered).

The original, German title of this book is "Heil Hitler! Das Schwein ist tot" ("Heil Hitler! The Swine is Dead"), which refers to a well-known joke. "Dead Funny" probably relates to the German expression that something is "zum Totlachen" (to laughing yourself to death), and of course, it relates to the joke on the blurb on the back of the book. Yet I think they might have picked a better English title.

I, unfortunately, had bought the English version of the book. (Jokes rarely come out well, when translated.) I just hadn't thought of buying the German original. I am not in the habit to buy from Amazon.de. I only buy few books that were originally written in German, and I also shy away from the high shipping costs. Some German books, I meanwhile found out, are available from certain dealers (rarely Amazon directly) on Amazon.com. These books are usually used or publisher overstock. I'll watch out for these dealers in the future.

The word is Führer and it is still used today in for example "Geschäftsführer" = CEO.

Lysergius wrote: "The word is Führer and it is still used today in for example "Geschäftsführer" = CEO."

The word "Fuehrer" (I don't know how to produce an Umlaut on my keyboard) is now only used in word combinations or in combination with a certain, named group. One could say "der Fuehrer der Expedition" ("the leader of the expedition").

See the movie ANTHROPOID about Heydrich's assassination. Read Philip Kerr's novel PRAGUE FATALE about Heydrich's assassination. Both are well done.

Jim wrote: "See the movie ANTHROPOID about Heydrich's assassination. Read Philip Kerr's novel PRAGUE FATALE about Heydrich's assassination. Both are well done."

Yes, I will, when I get to that event. For now, my characters in the sequel to A FLOOD OF EVIL are in 1935 and Heydrich is very much alive and a distinct threat in their lives.

Still unread in my shelf, but both of Bullocks Hitler Books are enough about that man for this year.

Armin wrote: "Still unread in my shelf, but both of Bullocks Hitler Books are enough about that man for this year."

I understand.

Travelin wrote: "Perhaps you've heard the rumour that Hitler was arrested as a gay prostitute in Austria? With the number of history books you've researched on the era, any evidence it's true?"

I never read anything like that

This rumour is also absolutely new to me and I read a lot of books about AH.

Travelin wrote: "http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyl...

No idea how much genuine footnotes this might contain."

Bought it, feels somehow right, that the Führer was gay, I'll give this saucy reading a try.