The fuhrer of the German middle classes in revolt was himself the son of a civil servant. He tells of a conflict which is especially characteristic of a middle-class mass structure. His father wanted him to become a civil servant; but the son rebelled against the paternal plan, resolved ‘on no account’ to obey, became a painter, and fell into poverty in the process. Yet alongside this rebellion against the father, a respect for and acceptance of his authority continued to exist. This ambivalent attitude towards authority - rebellion against it coupled with acceptance and submission - is a basic feature of every middle-class structure from the age of puberty to full adulthood and is especially pronounced in individuals stemming from materially restricted circumstances.
Hitler speaks of his mother with great sentimentality. He assures us that he cried only once in his life, namely when his mother died. His rejection of sex and his neurotic idolization of motherhood are clearly evident in his theory on race and syphilis (see next chapter).
As a young nationalist who lived in Austria, Hitler resolved to take up the fight against the Austrian dynasty, which had abandoned the ‘German fatherland to Slavization’. In his polemics against the Hapsburgs, the reproach that there were several syphilitics among them assumes a conspicuous position. One would not pay any further attention to this factor if it were not that the idea of the ‘poisoning of the nation’ and the whole attitude towards the question of syphilis are brought up again and again, and later, after the seizure of power, constitute a central part of his domestic policies.
In the beginning Hitler sympathized with the Social Democrats, because they led the fight for universal suffrage, and this might have brought about a weakening of the ‘Hapsburger regime’, which he despised. But Hitler was repelled by Social Democracy’s emphasis on class differences, their negation of the nation, the authority of the state, the private ownership of the social means of production, of religion and morals. What finally caused him to turn away from the Social Democrats was the invitation to join the union. He refused and justified his refusal with his first insight into the role of Social Democracy.
Bismarck becomes his idol, because it was he who had brought about the unification of the German nation and had fought against the Austrian dynasty. The anti-Semite Lueger and the German national Schonerer play a decisive role in shaping Hitler’s further development. From now on his programme is based on nationalistic-imperialistic aims, which he intends to compass with different, more suited means than those used by the old ‘bourgeois’ nationalists. The means he chooses are determined by his recognition of the effectiveness of organised Marxism’s power, by his recognition of the importance of the masses for every political movement.
.. . Not until the international world view - politically led by organized Marxism - is confronted by a folkish world view, organized and led with equal unity, will success, supposing the fighting energy to be equal on both sides, fall to the side of eternal truth.
[op. cit. p. 384]
. . . What gave the international world view success was its representation by a political party organized into storm troops; what caused the defeat of the opposite world view was its lack up to now of a unified body to represent iti Not by unlimited freedom to
interpret a general view, but only in the limited and hence integrating form of a political organization can a world view fight and conquer.
[op. cit. p. 385]
Hitler soon recognised the inconsistency of the Social Democratic policies and the powerlessness of the old bourgeois parties, including the German National party.
All this was only the necessary consequence of the absence of a basic new anti-Marxist philosophy endowed with a stormy will to conquer.
[op. cit. p. 173]
The more I occupied myself with the idea of a necessary change in the government’s attitude towards Social Democracy as the momentary embodiment of Marxism, the more I recognized the lack of a serviceable substitute for this doctrine. What would be given the masses, if, just supposing, Social Democracy had been broken? There was not one movement in existence which could have been expected to succeed in drawing into its sphere of influence the great multitudes of workers grown more or less leader-less. It is senseless and more than stupid to believe that the international fanatic who had left the class party would not at once join a bourgeois party, in other words, a new class organization.
[op. cit. p. 173]
The ‘bourgeois’ parties, as they designated themselves, will never be able to attach the ‘proletarian’ masses to their camp, for here two worlds oppose each other, in part naturally and in part artificially divided, whose mutual relation can only be struggle. The younger will be victorious - and this is Marxism.
top. cit. p. 174] National Socialism’s basic anti-Soviet attitude was evident almost from the beginning.
... If land was desired in Europe, it could be obtained by and large only at the expense of Russia, and this meant that the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic Knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation.
[op. cit. p. 140]
Hitler saw himself confronted with the following questions: How is the National Socialist idea to be carried to victory? How is Marxism to be combatted effectively ? How is one to get to the masses?
These questions in mind, Hitler appeals to the nationalistic feelings of the masses, decides, however, to develop his own technique of propaganda and to employ it consistently, thus organizing on a mass basis, as Marxism had done.
Hence, what he wants - and it is openly admitted - is to implement nationalistic imperialism with methods he has borrowed from Marxism, including its technique of mass organization. But the success of Ms mass organisation is to be ascribed to the masses and not to Hitler. It was man’s authoritarian freedom-fearing structure that enabled his propaganda to take root. Hence, what is important about Hitler sociologically does not issue from his personality but from the importance attached to him by the masses. And what makes the problem all the more complex is the fact that Hitler held the masses, with whose help he wanted to carry out his imperialism, in complete contempt. Instead of giving many examples in substantiation of this, let one candid confession suffice: ‘... the mood of the people was always a mere discharge of what was funnelled into public opinion from above [op. cit. p. 128].’
How were the structures of the masses constituted that they were still capable of imbibing Hitler’s propaganda, despite all this?