Hitler

Adolf Hitler and The discipline cordialists A Case Study in Political Constructivism ABSTRACT Adolf Hitler and his study Socialist Party gained and maintained federal agency by adopting the philosophy of constructivism and applying it to governmental drawing cardship. The national socialist draw took re state of warfared of every situation which made his speak to to virtuouss and politics dependent on the climate of public, topic, and foreign opinion at the time. This situational relativist approach can be considered constructivist in re arrogateation.Therefore, by selectively exploring the coups of Hitler and his henchmen the constructivist, unstructured nature of National Socialism will become app atomic number 18nt. By Mark Mraz Mark Mraz is an assistant professor of facts of life at Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania. He holds a PhD in C& I Social Studies Education from The Pennsylvania State University. Mark teaches social studies methods and foundations cour ses at Slippery Rock. Prior to coming to the University, He taught history and social studies for 29 years at the St Marys Area School District in St.Marys, Pennsylvania. benefactor Professor of Education Slippery Rock University Secondary Education Department 208D McKay Hall Slippery Rock, PA 16057 Emailmark. emailprotected edu Phone 724-738-2288 0 Electronic copy available at http//ssrn. com/ accost=1126363 Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists A Case Study in Political Constructivism Introduction Adolf Hitler and his national socialist movement gained and maintained power by adopting the philosophy of constructivism and applying it to political lead.The Nazi leader took advantage of every situation which made his approach to morals and politics dependent on the climate of public, national, and international opinion at the time. An example of this bathetic form _or_ system of government can be seen in the Nazis attempt to create a religion, the Reich Church. However, the oecumenical German public adhered to their Christianity and Hitler was forced back down when faced with severe prevalent resistance, in that respectby allowing the hoi polloi to keep their religious beliefs (Goldenhagen). Undoubtedly, this situational relativist approach can be considered Constructivist.Therefore, by exploring a selective array of the major(ip) coups of Hitler and his henchmen the constructivist unstructured nature of National Socialism is ostensible. fit in to Hitler, in one of his many private diatribes to his sexual circle of disciples, the ultimate goal of his intact policy was quite clear. Hitlers employment of Machiavellian tactical manoeuvre can be seen as implied constructivism. Hitler readd Al appearances I am concerned only that I do non take a step from which I will perhaps have to retreat, and not take a step that will harm us.I tell you that I invariably go to the outermost limits of risk, alone never beyond. For this you need to have a nose much or slight to smell out What can I still do? In a struggle against an enemy, I do not summon an enemy with force of fight. I dont say promote because I want to fight. Instead I say , I will destroy you And now. Wisdom, help me to orient you into a corner that you cannot fight back, and then you encounter the blow to the heart. (Rosenbaum, 382). This passage suggests that Hitler had a goal in mind but the way of life to the end 1Electronic copy available at http//ssrn. com/abstract=1126363 involved a series of constructed scenarios to back his opponents into a position of weakness by giving them no room to maneuver. This is exactly what he did when he took over Austria, the Rhine background, and Czechoslovakia. Hitler harangued, browbeat, and got a vast territory without firing a shot. This weaving and bobbing like a prize fighter on the world stage of geo-politics is dangerous for some(prenominal) the winner and loser. Because the relativity of the circumstances can b e misconstrued as vital to the national interest..This situational contrived metaphysics of the whole history of the National Socialist Workingmans Partys rise to power can be taken as Machiavellian. Machiavellianism, is by its very Realpolitik-politics void of ethics nature is a process that is constructivist due to the solipsistic beliefs of its adherents always laboring for the welfare of ones state at the cost of others countries. This ultimately leads to means that are built to real goals by situational circumstance and contrived ethics. According to Claudia Koonz, Professor of History at Duke Univesity Hitler was a keen judge of his constituencys desires and needs, which allowed him to fashion his state around principles of secular racism which were void of religion. Basing their notions of honorable behavior on the civic virtues of the ethnic Germanic community and hatred of outsiders, the national socialists had an amoral compass (Koonz). This moral construction, based on u nderlying prejudices was seen by the majority of Germans as being proper and ethical, are some other example of the constructivist philosophy of the Third Reich.Hitler and his disciples gave the masses what they wanted security from outsiders. Many Germans were xenophobic about collectivism and other alien ideologies that if adopted would destroy the socio-political cultural fiber of Germanic Teutonic society. All 2 ideas counter to the Nazi Utopia of Aryan supremacy in all socio-cultural-geo-political spheres were perceived by the masses as a threat or a wart on the body politic which had to be removed. consequently creating a surgical mind set about the elimination of undesirable Non-German elements in society.This whole observatory of the reign was conditioned by this contrived metaphysics which made murders out of learned people who under general circumstances would be humane. Constructivism as a Philosophy in Theory and Practice Constructivism is a philosophical perspectiv e that contends that all lawfulnesss or facts are constructed. Therefore, truth is contingent on situational, social experience and soul perception. Constructivist philosophy in education holds that pupils are not passive vessels of knowledge, but actively involved in the creation of knowledge through their experiences.The adherents to this philosophy believe that truth is made or invented, not observed or learned (Ozmon). So if one would take this philosophy to the extreme, it would be easy to extrapolate that truth can be contrived to fit the need of the moment. Indeed a tactic, employed by the national socialists, was to learn from their experiences and invent the truth to fit the circumstances. This certainly was the case during the unsuccessful beer hall putsch of November 8-9, 1923. During theNazis failed attempt to take over the government of Bavaria by force, Hitler gave several speeches to his followers acting like they had effectively made a coup and won the day. When in reality, they had lost, some were killed and Hitler and his entourage went to prison (Hitler). give out of this experience, Hitler stipulated that his goal was the same, to gain control of the government, but the means were different. The unsuccessful attempt to take over by brute force was replaced with legal constitutional 3 means to gain control.Hitler from then on use democracy to destroy the representative government in Germany. He would work the system to his advantage (Gordon). According to the British Historian, Bevin Alexander, even though Hitler was not aware of Sun Tzu, he subscribed to his axiom The way to avoid what is strong is to strike what is weak (Alexander, ix). Between 1933 and 1940, the Fuehrer avoided the strong and attacked the weak with great triumph. Hitler and the Nazis had the uncanny ability to become protean when the circumstances called for it.He also had a huge genius for spotting and taking advantage of the insecurities and vulnerabilities of h is opponents. Using these abilities, which might be called Machiavellian logic or exclusively constructivism, Hitler gained the upper hand in every situation beginning with his elevation to chancellor in January of 1933, and decision with the capitulation of France in July of 1940. However, after the invasion of Russia in July of 1941, he abandoned his constructivist geopolitics in choose of all out pursuit of a policy detrimental to his own country. Because of his hatred of Bolshevism and Jews, Hitler invaded Russia.He had been allied with Stalin and had gotten enormous amounts of oil as well as other raw materials needed for war from the Russians. The invasion put an end to these supplies. The Nazis gravely miscalculated the extent to which the Russians were fanatical about their land and not Communism. This love of mother Russia led to the most tenacious fighting in human history. Hitler was on the cusp of ultimate victory when in late 1940 and 1941 he changed that policy, and began to strike at the major powers of Britain, Russia, and eventually the United States. Hitlers constructivist theory of kicking in the 4 oor and the whole thing will collapse, was a grave misinterpretation from which there was no retreat and deadly consequences (Alexander). Nazi Geo-Political and Socio-Cultural Coups as case studies in Constructivist Leadership During every phase of the rearment of the Nazi Reich, Hitler would ally with potential enemies to get what he wanted. When Hitler was prescribed chancellor, he was the head of a coalition government that contained people he did not like from some(prenominal) the left and the right politically. However, in a constructivist style all his own he embraced the arrangement to get to power (Evans 2005).Once Hitler became chancellor, he derailed all efforts for any opposition to gain a majority in parliament and on that pretext argued the demise of Reichstag representation. His own party had lost the majority so he was arguing to dissolve his own government. Hitlers persuasive opinions caused President Hindenburg to acquiesce to the chancellors wishes and he dissolved the legislature. New elections were scheduled for early March, but before that could take place, the Reichstag building or the German Parliament burned down (Bullock).It is believed that Hitlers confederates started the fire and blamed it on Communists. Once there was a perceived threat, the Nazis evoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which enabled the chancellor to do away with the civic liberties of the people to protect the nation from fanatical threats from either the left or right. By doing this, the Nazis gave the impression that they were the stable element in society and not reactionary radicals, which they actually were. hence as the prize fighter metaphor suggests he simply weaved, bobbed, and counterpunched his way to the Enabling Act. This act fused the office of chancellor and president together giving Hitler dictatori al control of Germany by legal means (Evans 2005). Another episode of Machiavellian constructivist philosophy would be the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Hitler scorned the Soviet Union and Communism. exactly he hated the thoughts of a two front war more. In chameleon-like fashion Hitler courts his most hated enemy in friendship to get what he wants, no counter-attack by the Soviet Union to redeem Poland.Once he consolidates his Eastern frontier by agreement with the Russians, he hits the Western Democracies (Bullock). Where constructivism really becomes apparent is when one looks at the Final Solution. The Nazi leader stated that if there were no Jews it would be necessary to invent them because the masses need a tangible, concrete enemy and not an abstraction (Fuchs). Since the war many historians have developed various historiographic theories for the policies that led to the final solution. Two historical schools of thought have developed the functionalists and i ntentionalists.The intentionalists hypothesized that there was a plan for the genocide of the Jews since 1924 (Dawidowicz). Functionalists, also known as morphologicists believe that the holocaust was the product of the structural rivalry within the Nazi government and it was functional circumstances that lead the Third Reich from deportation to ravaging of the Jews (Browning). Hitlers actions from 1933 to 1941 involved a policy for forced deportation and exile of Jews. This seems at odds with the plan extermination theory.If he had that plan in mind why would he allow them to leave? 1 would think he would keep them locked up till he could get the death camps functioning (Framer). 6 Accordingly, a clarification of lexicon may be in order. The functionalist and structuralist schools contend that 1) Hitler was actually a weak leader who was dependent on governmental and party organizations. 2) Rivalry between four power groups army, economy, state administration, and Nazi Party/SS lead to constructivist policy making (Browning).The opposite school of thought is the intentionalist which believes that 1) Hitler was a strong leader and implemented his will. 2) Hitler had a long term plan primarily driven by ideology which he carried out (Marrus). Both interpretations have obvious flaws. The functionalists-structuralists paradigm overlooks the popularity of Hitler, as well as deliberate policy and put too much emphasis on the power and independence of various governmental agencies. The intentionalists ideas put too much emphasis on Hitler leadership and his development of a precise plan on paper which he ollowed from the 1920s onward. In recent years, there has been a synthesis of ideas on the Holocaust and a merging of the intentionalitists and functionalists interpretations which suggests that the policy that became the Final Solution was both a top down and foundation up structural construct that involved no master plan (Kenshaw). Clearly the functionalists and the synthesizers are in essence saying that the National Socialist policies can be seen as constructivist in that they developed more as a function of the state rather than from coherent plan devised in 1924.Hans Mommsen and Martin Broszat, historians, believe that the National Socialist State was not a modern government but a feudal state with under lords vying for power against others for Hitlers approval. Accordingly, they contend that Hitler was a reactionary responding to situations rather than taking the lead in formulating policy. 7 Hitler had basic knee jerk reactions to problems that arose and this lead to the development of policy in a by small degrees approach. In addition, Hitler hated paper work so he formulated an idea and let an underling run with it to see what would happen.This constructivist, open ended approach permitted him to leave the minutiae of administrative paper work to others (Framer). His leadership style of constructivism caused a monumental degre e of latitude for underlings from different institutions and different paradigms to develop policy. This leeway caused the innate conflicts to emerge within competitive governmental structures which lead to confusion and overlapping authority within the political system (Goldhagen). One can make a case that Hitler and his party developed situational ethics and on with it situational politics.These politics involved ideological ends with no means in place. So the function of the state was to develop the means to give them the end they had in mind as conceived by Hitler. Therefore by trust various historiographical schools of thought, functionalism, structuralism, intentionalism it is plausible that one gets constructivism. Lastly, there are the synthesizers who contend that both interpretations are correct but have flaws. It is my contention as an historian that Hitler was in total control but used a Machiavellian form of leadership that called for bold unches on the world stage. He had an overall goal in mind but no means to reach the goal. So using Machiavellian tactics and applying a constructivist philosophy he was able to successfully get what he wanted by a by small degrees approach, while letting underlings fight out the details at lower levels. This allowed him to take all the accredit when things went right and to spread all the blame when things went wrong. 8 Works Cited Alexander, B. (2001). How Hitler could have won the world war II The fatal errors that led to nazi defeat. New York Three Rivers Press. Browning, C.R. (2000) Nazi policy, jewish workers, and german killers. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Bullock, A. (1962) Hitler A study in tyranny. New York Penguin Books. Dawidowicz, L. S. (1975) The war against the jews. New York Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Dobry, M. (June 2006) Hitler, charisma and structure Reflections on historical methodology. totalistic Movements and Political Religions. 157-171. Draper, R. (February 8-22, 1999) D ecoding the holocaust. The New Leader, 14-15. Evans, R. J. (2003) The coming of the third reich. New York Penguin Books.Evans R. J. (2005) The third reich in power. New York Penguin Books. Farmer, A. (September 2007) The episodic past, hitler and the holocaust. History Review, p 4-9. Flew, A. (1979) A dictionary of philosophy. New York Gremacy Books Fest. J. C. (1973) Hitler. New York Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich. Fuchs, T. (2000) A concise memoir of adolf hitler. New York Berkley Books. Goldhagen, D. J. (1997) Hitlers willing exceutioners Ordinary germans and the holocaust. New York Vintage Books. Gordon, H. J. (1972) Hitler and the beer hall putsch.Cambridge Princeton University Press, 1972 Hitler. A. (1975). Mein kampf. Boston Houghton Mifflin. Kenshaw, I. (2000) The nazi despotism problems and perspectives of interpretation New YorkOxford University Press Koonz, C. (2003) The nazi conscience. Cambridge Bleknap Press of Harvard University Press. Marrus, M. R. (1987) The hol ocaust in history. London University Press of England. 9 Ozmon. H. A. (2003) Philosophical foundations of education. Columbus Prentice-Hall. Rosenbaum, R. (1998) Explaining hitler The search for the origins of his evil. New York Basic Books. 10