UMass Boston History 112: Essay#5

Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” relies primarily on the basest of human emotions and the abandonment of intellectual integrity in its case for tying Jews to Marxism and Marxism to the need for Germany to advance on Russia. While its sentiments certainly live on in the hearts of those who share Hitler’s anti-Semitism and perspective on life from the angle of race, ultimately one is required to personally identify with the Aryan race as well as to discard with reason, humanity and objectivity in order for such sentiments to resonate.

Hitler attempts first to dehumanize the Jews and strike fear and anger in the hearts of non-Jewish Germans, in alleging without proof the animalistic drive among Jewish males to seduce non-Jewish females, ultimately for the purpose of impurifying her prospective offspring’s’ supposedly superior Aryan bloodline and depriving non-Jewish German males of the opportunity to produce purely Aryan children with said females. Hitler than declares without proof the absurd statement that the Jews were responsible for bringing blacks into Germany for further purposes of diluting the Aryan racial purity. The statement is absurd in all capacities, in purporting Jews were solely responsible for bringing blacks to Germany, for alleging that there was something inherently wrong about blacks being in Germany and for suggesting this importation of blacks was tied to Hitler’s ill-conceived Jewish agenda of diluting Aryan blood. Following this dehumanization and appeal to Germans’ xenophobia of Jews and blacks, Hitler asserts a blanket statement that in weakening the power of Aryan purity could the Jews then pursue their grand goal: the enslavement of a bastardized amalgam of races, all “infected” with Jewish blood.

After deconstructing the supposed agenda of the Jewish race, Hitler then employs Marxism as the weapon of Jews with which they may “subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.” Hitler relies on intellectual ambiguity and fallacy in describing all of the fears he and many Germans harbored towards the effects of Marxism and vaguely binds these effects to Jews intermingled with anti-Semitic rambling. After decrying how “he” (the Jew) “…undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjugated to his financial control,” Hitler further names the Jew (“he”) as being culpable for dismantling the political structure. He alleges that the Jew (“he”) “…refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership…” as well as having contempt for the state’s history, culture and moral center.

Hitler then instantiates these supposed illustrations of the employment of Marxism by Jews with the example of Russia. Here, Hitler’s agenda is transparent, as he waxes nostalgic for the centuries past when “…Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata.” Hitler then states that this “Germanic nucleus” has been “…exterminated and extinguished,” having been replaced by the Jew. In then lamenting the impossibility for the Russian to “…shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources” as well as stoking hope that “…it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever,” Hitler has essentially created a two-headed boogeyman to both frighten his fellow Germans as well as to inspire mock-sympathy in them towards the apparent “decomposition” of the Russians whom he intends to “re-nourish” with Germanic rule.

From an ideological standpoint, Mussolini would have undoubtedly agreed with Hitler’s anti-intellectual rhetoric, in so far as he boldly asserted proclamations from the heart with little reliance on reason or substance. Mussolini’s belief in the need of the state to expand that it could express its vitality by way of militarism agrees with Hitler’s justifications for the advance on Russia. Mussolini would clearly agree with Hitler’s attacks on the economic, political, cultural and moral effects of Marxism, and overall the notion that the strength of the state had to be preserved at all costs. Apart from Hitler’s attributing the implementation of Marxism to the Jews, Mussolini would undoubtedly agree that Marxism undermined the state’s financial control of social enterprises. He would agree that Marxism undermined the political integrity of a democratic state. He would agree that Marxism polluted the state’s culture in terms of its art, literature and theater, as much as he would have found Hitler’s romanticism of the state’s cultural virtues agreeable. He would agree that Marxism debased the moral centers of a state including religion, ethics and morality in general, having stated, “The state is a spiritual and moral fact in itself.”

As insane and despicable as Hitler’s sentiments and tactics may seem to anyone not subscribing to his ideologies, it is easy to understand why “Mein Kampf” resonated with many Germans in the 1930’s. In the wake of such miserable morale following the crushing and humiliating defeat of Germany in World War I, Hitler’s appeal to many Germans’ supposed racial superiorities must have been uplifting and empowering to a people who felt inferior and powerless. In the wake of poor economic conditions, Hitler’s demonization of the Jews (a people whose cultural emphasis on education had historically propelled them to positions of political and financial influence in European society) empowered the resentment of Jews by non-Jewish Germans, and fabricated a sense of racial entitlement. Hitler’s romanticism of German history and culture must have certainly appealed to the German people’s strong sense of pride and nationalism. The fact that the previously more liberal German government, relying on reason and accountability, had failed its people could only have increased the receptiveness people had for anti-intellectualism as well as compliance with the forthcoming totalitarianism. Hitler’s fear-mongering the effects of Marxism at the hands of Jews could only have intensified his alternative political appeal in the wake of such ineptitude by the failed liberal government.

From today’s perspective, as astounding as Hitler’s notions of safeguarding democracy are (e.g. “And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat”) given his suppression of the ideals of democracy with his fascist regime, I find it equally astounding to note the similarity of tone and tactics “Mein Kampf” has in relation to rhetoric employed by the modern Republican Party in its scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims as tied to the threat of terrorism. One can only hope that in the instance of the United States, liberalism will prevail and ultimately thwart the rise of fascism.