Nietzsche and Hitler

[drgoodtrips]

I was reading a chapter in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich entitled, "The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich". It is a bit of an aside from the history of Hitler's life, stuck in chronologically when Hitler is in jail and writing Mein Kampf. I suppose that's a natural time to discuss Hitler's inspiration.

The author cites a few characters: Hegel and a few bellicose German philosophers of the 19th century as well as Wagner who (apparently) was a huge anti-Semite when he wasn't making dramatic operas. But, he rather prominently cites (and seems to almost blame) Nietzsche, at a statue of whom Hitler would apparently stare in creepy reverie sometimes.

From what I've read of Nietzsche, he doesn't seem to be any great lover of the German Nationalist (to put it mildly). And, a lot of the views apparently quoted in earnest by the Nazis seemed to be expressed by Nietzsche in a critical or mocking, or at the very least cautious way. That is, it seemed to me (though I'm not incredibly well versed in Nietzsche) that Nietzsche was painting a critical picture of reality and the Nazis appropriated it and touted it as an idealistic statement of what ought to be.

But, I'm no expert here. I'm soliciting people's takes on the matter that know more than I do. What are the connections between Nietzsche and the Third Reich?

[andrewl]

I was reading a chapter in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich entitled, "The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich". It is a bit of an aside from the history of Hitler's life, stuck in chronologically when Hitler is in jail and writing Mein Kampf. I suppose that's a natural time to discuss Hitler's inspiration.

The author cites a few characters: Hegel and a few bellicose German philosophers of the 19th century as well as Wagner who (apparently) was a huge anti-Semite when he wasn't making dramatic operas. But, he rather prominently cites (and seems to almost blame) Nietzsche, at a statue of whom Hitler would apparently stare in creepy reverie sometimes.

From what I've read of Nietzsche, he doesn't seem to be any great lover of the German Nationalist (to put it mildly). And, a lot of the views apparently quoted in earnest by the Nazis seemed to be expressed by Nietzsche in a critical or mocking, or at the very least cautious way. That is, it seemed to me (though I'm not incredibly well versed in Nietzsche) that Nietzsche was painting a critical picture of reality and the Nazis appropriated it and touted it as an idealistic statement of what ought to be.

But, I'm no expert here. I'm soliciting people's takes on the matter that know more than I do. What are the connections between Nietzsche and the Third Reich?

Well I'm sure Michael can expound on this to a far greater degree, but i'll give it a brief stab.

Nietsche described the ultimate goal of man to the Ubermensch (overman, superman). Once god is dead we have to create new goals and values, as the old ones no longer apply. The ubermensch is the state of a man that has overcome the prior god fearing man and has become his own master, his own god. Man is to become the creator of values, rather than the follower of values set down by an imagined god.

Hitler appropriated this for his own myth making of the Aryan race. The german people were to become the Ubermensch. And hence the Jews, Gypsies, etc were the untermensch, or sub-humans.

Andrew

[Michael]

I was reading a chapter in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich entitled, "The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich". It is a bit of an aside from the history of Hitler's life, stuck in chronologically when Hitler is in jail and writing Mein Kampf. I suppose that's a natural time to discuss Hitler's inspiration.

The author cites a few characters: Hegel and a few bellicose German philosophers of the 19th century as well as Wagner who (apparently) was a huge anti-Semite when he wasn't making dramatic operas. But, he rather prominently cites (and seems to almost blame) Nietzsche, at a statue of whom Hitler would apparently stare in creepy reverie sometimes.

From what I've read of Nietzsche, he doesn't seem to be any great lover of the German Nationalist (to put it mildly). And, a lot of the views apparently quoted in earnest by the Nazis seemed to be expressed by Nietzsche in a critical or mocking, or at the very least cautious way. That is, it seemed to me (though I'm not incredibly well versed in Nietzsche) that Nietzsche was painting a critical picture of reality and the Nazis appropriated it and touted it as an idealistic statement of what ought to be.

But, I'm no expert here. I'm soliciting people's takes on the matter that know more than I do. What are the connections between Nietzsche and the Third Reich?
An excellent question and an often disputed one.

First of all, I'd like to say that andrewl's reply above is a pretty darn good one. Stripped down to the basics, that's as good an answer as one can get. Hitler and the Nazis just used bits and pieces of Nietzsche's thought in order to dress themselves up with some intellectual respectability.

And it goes without saying that the Nazi's usage of Nietzschean concepts for their own purposes, were not only highly selective, but more often than not, bastardized simplifications.

But that's not the whole of it. I think there is a strong socio-cultural aspect that needs to be recognized. Then, as now, the very name of Nietzsche means many different things to many different groups. Many european propagandists in the 19th century (from both the extreme right and extreme left) used or praised or attacked some aspect of Nietzsche's thought. Usage of Nietzschean-inspired propaganda was probably strongest amongst the German rightwing-militarists (pre-WW1). It is here that I think Hitler (as a self-educated rube and WW1 veteran) developed his 'respect' for Nietszche as a 'rightwing' symbol of German nationalism.

For Hitler and the Nazis, Nietzsche's ubermensch became the intellectual-moral equivilent of the Aryan superman - and the 'will to power' was personified by Hitler and the Nazi Party movement as representatives of the German people. This interpretation is shallow, but reasonably connected with Nietzsche's actual words that it is believable and persuasive to many.

Last, but not least was the person of Martin Heidegger who was a German academic philosopher much inspired by Nietzsche's work (amongst others) who was a contemporary to Hitler's Germany and the rise of Nazism. He joined the Nazi party in 1933 and publicly praised praised Hitler, National Socialism, Nietzsche and German nationalism from the 'presidency' of a German university that he was appointed to by the Nazis.

Added all together, I conclude that it is both legitimate and reasonable to say that Hitler's national socialist 'Third Reich' was, in some part, inspired by the ideas of Nietzsche. That these ideas were misrepresented or twisted to suit Hitler's own purposes is obvious. But the root connection is there - the 'will to power' when actually applied to 'a people' or a single human being, is indeed a powerfully dangerous thing - as Hitler clearly demonstrates.

[Dominick]

Nietzsche is so rich that through cherry-picking one could use his writings to endorse practically all political systems. Well, except for democracy which is defintitely not compatible.
"Jenseits von Gur und Böse"[1] is a leitmotiv for all postmodern ideas.The subtitle of that work is not "Eine Philosophie der Zukunft"[2] for nothing.

It's a bit silly that only Nietzsche is always held in this light. If one cherry-picks Plato, one can also endorse fascism.

[1]Beyond good and evil
[2]A philosophy of the future

[drgoodtrips]

Thanks, all, for the clarifications. Generally, the more I read/learn, the happier I am :)

The only other thing that I'm wondering is about Nietzsche (I have read some, but am certainly not "fluent") is the context of his description of this 'ubermensch'. Is it akin to Machiavelli's description of The Prince? That is, not an endorsement, but a realpolitik assessment of how one might achieve one's goals, given the peccadilloes and failings of humans? And, same question, for the will to power. Or does Nietzsche advocate that these things are what people should strive to be, ideally?

Because, from what I have read about this, it seems to be the latter for Ubermensch, but it also doesn't seem to, in and of itself, advocate anything like what Hitler took it to mean.

[Michael]

Thanks, all, for the clarifications. Generally, the more I read/learn, the happier I am :)
Generally speaking, the more good questions I encounter, the more I learn - my attempts/desire/pleasure to answer questions is what drives me to learn more. :)

The only other thing that I'm wondering is about Nietzsche (I have read some, but am certainly not "fluent") is the context of his description of this 'ubermensch'. Is it akin to Machiavelli's description of The Prince? That is, not an endorsement, but a realpolitik assessment of how one might achieve one's goals, given the peccadilloes and failings of humans? And, same question, for the will to power. Or does Nietzsche advocate that these things are what people should strive to be, ideally?

Because, from what I have read about this, it seems to be the latter for Ubermensch, but it also doesn't seem to, in and of itself, advocate anything like what Hitler took it to mean.
Yes, the latter - and neither is akin to the way Hitler/Nazis actually interpreted or applied the concept.

And yes, I think there is a substantial and categorical difference between Machiavelli's Prince and Nietzsche's 'ubermensch'. Nietzsche's 'ubermensch' is an expression of morality. For Nietzsche, morality is a necessary element of human existence - to which, in the absence of God, the 'ubermensch' is the only reasonable (or respectable) expression of morality.

Machiavelli's Prince on the other hand is seen to be amoral in his methods. It is an unstated assumption that the Prince rules on behalf of the governed (which is a moral position), but Machiavelli is far more concerned with the difficulties of rulership itself and thus counsels an 'amoral' approach to maintaining the Prince in office (Machiavelli is foreshadowing Hobbes here in 'assuming' that government is absolutely necessary or that any government is better than no government).

Thus, the Prince is 'amoral' while the ubermensch is 'morally righteous'. Neitzsche's ubermench can only have contempt for Machiavelli's Prince (who is ultimately concerned with matters beyond himself - the art of rulership). Nietszche's ubermensch cares only for himself and his own self-defined morality.

[Sucre]

Very quickly a few additional remarks, food for thoughts ... Reg. the Nazi ideology, the interpretation of Nietzche and the parallel made to the Prince.

The Nazi ideology is often reduced to Nationalism, Anti-Semitism and Dictatorship. But it had been just that, it would never have encountered the success we know. It was also a highly idealistic ideology i.e it inspiring people to become "better" - pretty much like religions pushing in the direction of "God". Nazism was secular and anti-religious (Hitler did coalise with the Church but it was for tactical reasons, not out religious conviction.) Therefore it is not so much that the Nazis found inspiration in Nietzsche's Übermensch, but rather that their intention was to create the Übermensch - outgoing from Germany's sad state, back to the origins (the Aryans), purifying the "race" - through the elimination of polluting elements such as Jews, homosexuals and mentally retarded -

Nothing better illustrate this drive to "betterness" than the films of Leni Riefenstahl and this is why we can still love her films and her pictures while hating the underlying ideology.

I would tend to say that the Nazis did not "interpret" Niezsche, they "instrumentalised" him. They found some intellectual backing if you want. Nietzsche attacks the bourgeois and intellectually limited society of his time (not changed much), the underlying ideology based on Christianism. His message is personal : he is a moral philospher not a political philosopher (like Marx and Engel).

This is why I don't think that Nietzsche can be compared to Machiavelli at all. Machiavelli is a politician first, a philosopher by accident. In his book "The Prince" he tries to find solutions to the problems of his times (How can the Italians free themselves from foreign occupation). As it happens, these practical solutions have inspired generations of politicians after him because they tell how to get to Power and more importantly how to keep Power. Because Machiavelli individualises "Power" (The Prince) and because he advocates the use of demagogy, he has foremost inspired Fascism - and his most notable proponent being Musolini (but also Berlusconi or Sarkozy make use of Machiavelli's advices).

Nietzsche has been used by the right and has inspired the left. My philosophy teacher at school a long time ago, when I was 17, was an admire of Nietzsche and ... and anarchist. Quite clear : the Übermensch is in each of us.

[JHC]

I think Nietzsche is probably the most abused philosopher of all time. If you could look at our modern society from an elevated perspective - step out of it and look back in - do you imagine that you would see the biases and influences that brought Obama to the presidency?
Well, I think looking at the rise of Hitler should be viewed from that same perspective. Hitler didn't make it to the top purely on his own ideology.

:rofl:
Oh my god. I just compared Hitler and Obama.

Anyway, Hitler would have ridden any wave. His strength was very Machiavellian! He had the ability to view the biases and influences of the day and use them to his own advantage. Most successful politicians are successful for this reason aren't they?

The danger in society abandoning the god idea is the transition period I think. Nietzsche's superman ponderings were the opposite of what Hitler made them out to be. Nietzsche was trying to advocate personal responsibility and reason. But these philosophical ideas boil down in the mass of society to some vaguely related residue. The unwashed masses are still trying to feel special and elite - pretending to be educated and intelligent without puttiing forth the effort, (which is exactly what Nietzsche is talking about! He's urging people to abandon reliance on outside forces and take responsibility as individuals with the power to do so). So when Hitler says "Nietzsche says...", he is appealing to a bunch of folks that are pretending to know why Nietzsche's musings are important without actually having to read and understand Nietzsche himself.
Meanwhile, Nietzsche is off in the mountains licking his wounds and writing books most people won't bother to actually read.
Nietzsche and Wagner had a very close relationship for a while. Did you know? But as Wagner became increasingly more nationalistic, Nietzsche withdrew from the relationship. Ironic ain't it.

Note that Hitler used Nietzsche, Darwin, the Catholic church, nationalism, and every other bias he could. Anyone that thinks he was really an advocate of any of these things is the perfect target for someone jus tlike Hitler.

IMHO :D

[Michael]

...Nothing better illustrate this drive to "betterness" than the films of Leni Riefenstahl and this is why we can still love her films and her pictures while hating the underlying ideology.
Umm... "Triumph of the Will" is almost homoerotic - especially the whole first half of the film.

That being said, I do think Leni Riefenstahl deserves some reprobration here. I refuse to give the artist a pass - the material is toxic and celebrates a horrific political movement focused upon the 'subhumanification' of other humans. Leni's cinematographical masterpieces certainly are works of art but they were meant to contribute to, and celebrate, the Nazi movement and Hitler himself as the 'super-leader' who was above criticism or normal rules. Leni Riefenstahl did more than just about anyone (save the party inner circle) to make the monstrosity of Hitler's war program and genocide possible.

I would tend to say that the Nazis did not "interpret" Niezsche, they "instrumentalised" him. They found some intellectual backing if you want. Nietzsche attacks the bourgeois and intellectually limited society of his time (not changed much), the underlying ideology based on Christianism. His message is personal : he is a moral philospher not a political philosopher (like Marx and Engel).

This is why I don't think that Nietzsche can be compared to Machiavelli at all. Machiavelli is a politician first, a philosopher by accident. In his book "The Prince" he tries to find solutions to the problems of his times (How can the Italians free themselves from foreign occupation). As it happens, these practical solutions have inspired generations of politicians after him because they tell how to get to Power and more importantly how to keep Power. Because Machiavelli individualises "Power" (The Prince) and because he advocates the use of demagogy, he has foremost inspired Fascism - and his most notable proponent being Musolini (but also Berlusconi or Sarkozy make use of Machiavelli's advices).
I agree with all of this. I'm just picking a fight over Leni's art being praised too highly. If an artist makes political art, that artist is as much a political actor as any politician - probably more so. ;)

Nietzsche has been used by the right and has inspired the left. My philosophy teacher at school a long time ago, when I was 17, was an admire of Nietzsche and ... and anarchist. Quite clear : the Übermensch is in each of us.
I always expect 'anarchists' to be strong admirers of Nietzsche.

Indeed, no surprise that Nietzsche has always been more popular on the left. For the rightwingers, Nietzsche is way too dangerous for them. Nietzsche is only conservative in his passion for old school moral righteousness and regressive attitudes towards women. In reality, Nietzsche's moral system is certain death to all that the right holds most dear (military organization of the state and religion to salve the conscience and sooth the masses while doing it).

For the left, Nietzsche offers intellectual support to the radical who desperately loves to hate bourgeois society.

I personally love Nietzsche just for the 'ink-blot' results one gets from so many sources looking at him. People tend to see in Nietzsche what they want to see. He's so complex that there is lots to see there. If you pick & choose, you can make any case you want (except you can never pretend that Nietzsche was a democrat or a liberal - no matter what Nietzsche says, those are always the two enemies that are never praised).

I think Nietzsche is probably the most abused philosopher of all time. If you could look at our modern society from an elevated perspective - step out of it and look back in - do you imagine that you would see the biases and influences that brought Obama to the presidency?
Well, I think looking at the rise of Hitler should be viewed from that same perspective. Hitler didn't make it to the top purely on his own ideology.

:rofl:
Oh my god. I just compared Hitler and Obama.
First of all, I agree that Nietzsche is the "most abused" philosopher. Probably because his ideas are so complex - few understand him enough to gather more than just a few 'bullet point' arguments from him. It takes years of critical study to figure out where Nietzsche's really at. 90% of the content of his books are just wonderfully colorful rants that disguise more than enlighten the reader about the 10% that is the real content.

Secondly, about Hitler and Obama, I believe you are quite correct. The second is a pale shaddow of the first (that's good), but the overall similarity of circumstance is there. Both are primarily charismatic orators (selling 'hope') that appeared on the scene at PRECISELY the right moment in time when their nations were suffering from a serious case of 'low morale' AND a notable leadership vacuum. In that, they are similar. Lets hope the analogy ends there. ;)

Anyway, Hitler would have ridden any wave. His strength was very Machiavellian! He had the ability to view the biases and influences of the day and use them to his own advantage. Most successful politicians are successful for this reason aren't they?
Yes, we are all in agreement about this. Hitler would have used or abused anything that was 'useful' to him to achieve his goals.

The danger in society abandoning the god idea is the transition period I think. Nietzsche's superman ponderings were the opposite of what Hitler made them out to be. Nietzsche was trying to advocate personal responsibility and reason. But these philosophical ideas boil down in the mass of society to some vaguely related residue. The unwashed masses are still trying to feel special and elite - pretending to be educated and intelligent without puttiing forth the effort, (which is exactly what Nietzsche is talking about! He's urging people to abandon reliance on outside forces and take responsibility as individuals with the power to do so). So when Hitler says "Nietzsche says...", he is appealing to a bunch of folks that are pretending to know why Nietzsche's musings are important without actually having to read and understand Nietzsche himself.
Meanwhile, Nietzsche is off in the mountains licking his wounds and writing books most people won't bother to actually read.
Excellent points. And special 'kudos' for the part I bolded. That's a rarely popularized point about Nietzsche, but a critically important part. :pat:

Nietzsche and Wagner had a very close relationship for a while. Did you know? But as Wagner became increasingly more nationalistic, Nietzsche withdrew from the relationship. Ironic ain't it.
I've never read any biographical material about Nietzsche - or any other philosopher. I try to avoid that. Just my personal thing here. I'm sure the biography of someone like Nietzsche might be very interesting. I normally like reading biographies - just NO philosophers. ;)

Note that Hitler used Nietzsche, Darwin, the Catholic church, nationalism, and every other bias he could. Anyone that thinks he was really an advocate of any of these things is the perfect target for someone jus tlike Hitler.

IMHO :D
Your opinions are rarely humble ones. That's what makes them interesting. Humble opinions are usually quite boring. ;)

[JHC]

:pat: Thanks!


I've never read any biographical material about Nietzsche - or any other philosopher. I try to avoid that. Just my personal thing here. I'm sure the biography of someone like Nietzsche might be very interesting. I normally like reading biographies - just NO philosophers. ;)

I read Nietzsche ages and ages ago and thought that his ideas in that particular respect sounded an awful lot like my own. Then I got into some debate and was told that I was not only wrong about what Nietzsche was imparting, (because his ideas were the foundation of Naziism :rolleyes: ), but that Nietzsche went crazy because of his ideas. I was reasonably secure about my interpretation of his philosophy but left some humble room for possible confirmation bias until I could give it another look. I was completely unarmed in regard to Nietzsche's alleged psychosis. That's why I learned a little about his life. And you're right, it was really interesting on so many levels.

[Sucre]

@Michael

If you did not know that Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi and Hitler admirer, what would you think of her work - just in a very abstract way ?

@ Michael and JHC
Nietzsche might be so difficult to read because he does not write like philosophers usuall do, in a set of logical arguments, but as poets do using images - He speaks both to the left side and to the right side of our brain. I had a philosophy teacher who hated him just for that and said he was not a philosopher but just a "writer". Instead of Nietzsche we had to read Hegel :( .

@ JHC
There is no harm comparing Hitler to just any politician. I find it sad that in political discussions it is almost impossible to use any examples from the Nazi period. There is a lot we can learn about mass politics, propaganda, machivellian power struggle and almost anything on our human insanity by studing the Nazi period. (And camparing it to nowadays ...)

@ Michael
You are wrong not to read the biography of philosophers. A great deal of their philosophy may be understood if you understand what they experienced in their lifetime. In fact, isn't it Nietzsche who said that to understand a philosopher, you must know who he is ?

:o Oups I just contradicted my first comment !

[drgoodtrips]

Secondly, about Hitler and Obama, I believe you are quite correct. The second is a pale shaddow of the first (that's good), but the overall similarity of circumstance is there. Both are primarily charismatic orators (selling 'hope') that appeared on the scene at PRECISELY the right moment in time when their nations were suffering from a serious case of 'low morale' AND a notable leadership vacuum. In that, they are similar. Lets hope the analogy ends there. ;)

I think that the differences on this comparison far outweigh the similarities. Hitler appealed to some mythologized notion of German (Prussian) past, which would be more characteristic of the GOP in this country than anything Obama has done. In Hitler's rise to power there was no pretense of populism - he enthralled some anti-communists and nationalist types but really gained power by winning over the captains of industry and the army (albeit through deceit). And, the 'hope' that he offered wasn't the nebulous idea espoused by Obama, but rather specific images of a Fatherland bent on glory. Hitler was also a conniving back-stabber who rose largely through political intrigue, as opposed to charisma (though he certainly had speaking charisma). And, finally, Hitler acquired chancellorship largely through chicanery, whereas Obama ran a textbook, straightforward campaign.

I think the characteristics of Hitler's rise and Obama's that make them seem similar are too general to be reasonable measures, as they could be applied to just about any democratic (or semi-democratic) situation in which times were tough and the existing leadership unpopular (Roosevelt, Reagen, to name a couple).

[Michael]

I think that the differences on this comparison far outweigh the similarities. Hitler appealed to some mythologized notion of German (Prussian) past, which would be more characteristic of the GOP in this country than anything Obama has done. In Hitler's rise to power there was no pretense of populism - he enthralled some anti-communists and nationalist types but really gained power by winning over the captains of industry and the army (albeit through deceit). And, the 'hope' that he offered wasn't the nebulous idea espoused by Obama, but rather specific images of a Fatherland bent on glory. Hitler was also a conniving back-stabber who rose largely through political intrigue, as opposed to charisma (though he certainly had speaking charisma). And, finally, Hitler acquired chancellorship largely through chicanery, whereas Obama ran a textbook, straightforward campaign.

I think the characteristics of Hitler's rise and Obama's that make them seem similar are too general to be reasonable measures, as they could be applied to just about any democratic (or semi-democratic) situation in which times were tough and the existing leadership unpopular (Roosevelt, Reagen, to name a couple).
I dispute your assertion about Hitler's rise to power. The Nazi 'outreach' to the industrialists and the army occured only AFTER he had won a democratic majority and had declared himself dictator for life.

That is to say, Hitler & the Nazis achieved legal power of government in 1933. The outreach to the industrialists and army was 1934-35 period. The infamous 'night of the long knives' is 1935.

And Hitler's charisma was driving the Nazi party even in the 1920's while Hitler's remarkable charisma was evident in his rise even before that.

Hitler rose to power riding his charisma all the way. In the very early 1930's they used to have women throwing themselves at Hitler.

And I'll also dispute the 'backstabber' accusation. To my knowledge, he only 'backstabbed' Ernest Rohm - and that was the price of the Army's support. Indeed, the inner circle of Nazis from the 1920's are all still there in the late 1930's. Only Rohm and Julius Stoesser were tossed aside. Rohm scared the Army while Stoesser (a Berliner) was the enemy of all the 'Bavarian' Nazis as a geographic rival to the 'Bavarian-faction'.

I'm not saying that there was anything noble about Hitler, but rather that his rise was entirely driven by charisma and selling 'hope' for a better tomorrow that avoided the conflicts of the present day. That's very similar to Obama's rise. Good timing and charisma (and only vagueness about future plans).

Like Hitler, Obama's supporters tend to project their wants/wishes upon him without any reasonable or evidential justification. It is a matter of 'belief'.

[drgoodtrips]

I'll pull out the book that I'm reading later to verify what I'm recalling, but off the top, it suggested that Hitler was appealing to the Army and to the captains of industry as early as 1930 or so. The specific incident that I recall was that Hitler began spreading propaganda to officers, in spite of the army's "no politics" policy. This resulted in a trial of several lower level officers where Hitler testified and by simultaneously assuring that he would not stage a revolution, per se, but would achieve power legally, and also that there would be a 'revolution' toward army greatness when he took over, he won a great deal of officer support, unofficially (though the officers were found guilty).

I forget the names, but I recall reading that, around this time (1930), the Nazi machine needed financing to continue its increase in popular vote tally (and also to shed its "thuggish" image). To this end, Hitler began making overtures to financial types with significantly different promises. There was one, in particular, that introduced Hitler to a variety of others and won them over (he later wound up in a concentration camp - as part of the 'backstabbing', I suppose :lol: )

And, for backstabbing, I can think of a few instances. In the very beginning, he joined the party with the specific intent of taking it over and getting rid of the existing party leader. As he went on with his career, I think you could make a good case that he did this to Otto and Gregor Strasser and the Defense Minister in the early 30's, von Scheissler (sp?).


I'll come back when I have the book I'm reading at my disposal for more concrete verification of what I'm saying (or, retraction, if I'm misremembering).

[Michael]

I'll pull out the book that I'm reading later to verify what I'm recalling, but off the top, it suggested that Hitler was appealing to the Army and to the captains of industry as early as 1930 or so. The specific incident that I recall was that Hitler began spreading propaganda to officers, in spite of the army's "no politics" policy. This resulted in a trial of several lower level officers where Hitler testified and by simultaneously assuring that he would not stage a revolution, per se, but would achieve power legally, and also that there would be a 'revolution' toward army greatness when he took over, he won a great deal of officer support, unofficially (though the officers were found guilty).

I forget the names, but I recall reading that, around this time (1930), the Nazi machine needed financing to continue its increase in popular vote tally (and also to shed its "thuggish" image). To this end, Hitler began making overtures to financial types with significantly different promises. There was one, in particular, that introduced Hitler to a variety of others and won them over (he later wound up in a concentration camp - as part of the 'backstabbing', I suppose :lol: )

And, for backstabbing, I can think of a few instances. In the very beginning, he joined the party with the specific intent of taking it over and getting rid of the existing party leader. As he went on with his career, I think you could make a good case that he did this to Otto and Gregor Strasser and the Defense Minister in the early 30's, von Scheissler (sp?).


I'll come back when I have the book I'm reading at my disposal for more concrete verification of what I'm saying (or, retraction, if I'm misremembering).
I'm not going to defend Hitler on any point. My only point is that Hitler's rise to power was entirely without the support of the army or the industrialist class. It really was a 'working class' movement through the 1920's. Hitler's entreaties to these powerful groups only begins AFTER Hitler had become the most popular political leader in the country and was seeking to consolidate his hold on power.

As for the 'backstabbing' issue, I still don't see Hitler as guilty of this any more than any other politician of any other era. Sure he turned against a few of his earlier supporters - but that's common. And the key point I'd make here is that Hitler and the Nazis had an impressive amount of loyalty - especially within the party - throughout the entire period from the early 1920's right through to 1945. The party was always loyal to Hitler. Very few supporters ever turned against them (except the fairweather supporters who joined up in the early 1930's).

[Michael]

@Michael

If you did not know that Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi and Hitler admirer, what would you think of her work - just in a very abstract way ?
One cannot look at Leni's work without knowing that Leni was a Nazi and Hitler admirer. Leni's work and pro-Nazi propaganda were one and the same.

That being said, I will admit that Leni Riefenstahl is one of the greatest and certainly a major innovator and groundbreaker in the art of propaganda.

Triumph of the Will is a 'masterpiece' in the art of propaganda - the equivilent of Michelangelo's David in the field. Students of the art will still be watching that film a hundred years from now - you can be sure of it.

@ Michael and JHC
Nietzsche might be so difficult to read because he does not write like philosophers usuall do, in a set of logical arguments, but as poets do using images - He speaks both to the left side and to the right side of our brain. I had a philosophy teacher who hated him just for that and said he was not a philosopher but just a "writer". Instead of Nietzsche we had to read Hegel :( .

Yes, this is a good point. Nietzsche's poetic prose is rather unconventional for modern philosophy.

But it is to be noted that Plato's Socratic dialogues are similarly 'poetic' and they've never suffered for a lack of serious philosophic treatment. Even Voltaire gets credit as a philosopher without ever writing any book other than the 'novel' Candide which is certainly more 'literary' than 'philosophic' to any but the most dedicated philosophic eye.

In other words, the dismissal of Nietzsche's significance to philosophy under the pretense of 'Nietzsche wrote poetry' is essentially a 'dodge' to avoid dealing with the challenge of taking Nietzsche seriously as a philosopher.

Under the same rule, Plato has to go too and that's just nonsense.

@ JHC
There is no harm comparing Hitler to just any politician. I find it sad that in political discussions it is almost impossible to use any examples from the Nazi period. There is a lot we can learn about mass politics, propaganda, machivellian power struggle and almost anything on our human insanity by studing the Nazi period. (And camparing it to nowadays ...)
I agree completely.

@ Michael
You are wrong not to read the biography of philosophers. A great deal of their philosophy may be understood if you understand what they experienced in their lifetime. In fact, isn't it Nietzsche who said that to understand a philosopher, you must know who he is ?

:o Oups I just contradicted my first comment !
I disagree. I purposefully avoid knowing much about the biographical details of the philosophies I study precisely because that tends to introduce a bias/influence that is not present in the original work. The original work is the only ground that is solid for discussing the philosophic ideas of any given philosopher. Once one starts appealing for authority to any given biographical details in order to interpret any given philosopher, then the sky's the limit and the study of great philosophers becomes entirely subjective and not realistically subject to critique.

That being said, I can and do recommend that 'non-philosophy-specialists' should read biographies of famous philosophers if that helps them interpret that philosopher. I certainly recommend studying biographical details of historians - especially if one is an academic historian. Philosophy is just a bit different I guess. ;)

And your last line confirms part of my point. Philosophy I treat too seriously to permit biography to interfere.

[Sucre]

One cannot look at Leni's work without knowing that Leni was a Nazi and Hitler admirer. Leni's work and pro-Nazi propaganda were one and the same.

That being said, I will admit that Leni Riefenstahl is one of the greatest and certainly a major innovator and groundbreaker in the art of propaganda.

Triumph of the Will is a 'masterpiece' in the art of propaganda - the equivilent of Michelangelo's David in the field. Students of the art will still be watching that film a hundred years from now - you can be sure of it.

It is a masterpiece in the art of propaganda.
It is a masterpiece in art. (She also innovated in film technics)
It is also a very interesting documentary conveying not only images of the time but emotions as well.

It is the three at the same time and you don't need to be a Nazi to appreciate these facts.

But it is to be noted that Plato's Socratic dialogues are similarly 'poetic' and they've never suffered for a lack of serious philosophic treatment. Even Voltaire gets credit as a philosopher without ever writing any book other than the 'novel' Candide which is certainly more 'literary' than 'philosophic' to any but the most dedicated philosophic eye.

In other words, the dismissal of Nietzsche's significance to philosophy under the pretense of 'Nietzsche wrote poetry' is essentially a 'dodge' to avoid dealing with the challenge of taking Nietzsche seriously as a philosopher.

Under the same rule, Plato has to go too and that's just nonsense.

Yes, this is true. The poetic package may be misused to dismiss the philosophy - the content - altogether. Which is wrong of course.

I also think that this has to do with the psychology of some people. They simply cannot "handle" images. Not everybody likes literature. Literature is powerful because it speaks to our sub-conscience (using images and conveying "feelings") as much as to our logical brain.

I disagree. I purposefully avoid knowing much about the biographical details of the philosophies I study precisely because that tends to introduce a bias/influence that is not present in the original work. The original work is the only ground that is solid for discussing the philosophic ideas of any given philosopher. Once one starts appealing for authority to any given biographical details in order to interpret any given philosopher, then the sky's the limit and the study of great philosophers becomes entirely subjective and not realistically subject to critique.

Let's stick to philosophy.

It's quite clear that Nietzsche ranting about women is solely due to the fact that his father died young and he lived together with a vicious sister, a mother and a grand-mother. Had it been otherwise, he would maybe not have written what he has written about women. Anyway, knowing that gives weight to my suspicion, when I read him, that anything he writes on women is not to be taken seriously - eventhough he is a great philosopher.

I used to read philosophy a lot when I was younger, less so since the age of 35, let say, and have turned to psycho-analysis instead. I find that the study of the mind is the most fascinating of all pursuits. And I find also that most human activities usually explained with logical political and philosophical analysises may be traced back to some human traumata (well, obviously, that includes nazim). At least, it it quite obvious for politics which is just a sublimation of some neuroses.

[drgoodtrips]

I'm not going to defend Hitler on any point. My only point is that Hitler's rise to power was entirely without the support of the army or the industrialist class. It really was a 'working class' movement through the 1920's. Hitler's entreaties to these powerful groups only begins AFTER Hitler had become the most popular political leader in the country and was seeking to consolidate his hold on power.

Yes, that certainly seems to line up with what I've read. Hitler was certainly an established, if not officially endorsed, political figure when he started with the overtures to which I was alluding.

As for the 'backstabbing' issue, I still don't see Hitler as guilty of this any more than any other politician of any other era. Sure he turned against a few of his earlier supporters - but that's common. And the key point I'd make here is that Hitler and the Nazis had an impressive amount of loyalty - especially within the party - throughout the entire period from the early 1920's right through to 1945. The party was always loyal to Hitler. Very few supporters ever turned against them (except the fairweather supporters who joined up in the early 1930's).

They remained loyal to him, it seems, but certainly not he to them. I won't dispute that a lot of leaders turn on people during their rise to power as well, though it might stand out in my mind because Hitler often had them summarily murdered. Though, I suppose that you can name any number of unsavory political figures who have done this as well. That also might not be fair grounds for comparison to Obama, given that the US political climate doesn't really allow for roving bands of unofficial SA and party soldiers in the streets ;)

One thing that the author mentions about Hitler quite frequently was his apparent and complete lack of scruples when it came to who he surrounded himself with. That is, whatever he thought of as a moral and upright Fatherland seemed to have no bearing on who he would use and to what ends. I imagine a demagogue like one of those mega-church leaders in the US surrounding himself with people who had been convicted of child molestation, assault, racketeering, etc for comparison, and doing so brazenly.

[drgoodtrips]

And, on the subject of comparisons, I agree. I find it tiresome when some aspect of a leaders rise to power or philosophy is compared with some tyrant (not a character or wholesale comparison) and people stick their fingers in their ears and scream "blasphemy!"

[Michael]

It is a masterpiece in the art of propaganda.
It is a masterpiece in art. (She also innovated in film technics)
It is also a very interesting documentary conveying not only images of the time but emotions as well.

It is the three at the same time and you don't need to be a Nazi to appreciate these facts.
I disagree about calling it "art". To me, art can NEVER be separated from its message. Art is the message itself. And yes, I just love to argue about art, just for the sake of arguing about art. The subject is interesting to me. :)

Leni's brilliant propaganda films cannot be separated from the obnoxious purpose they served.

Indeed, do you admire the beauty of the a-bomb? As a killing device that is truly magnificent - raising the 'art of killing' to a whole new level. If you are consistent here, then you should admire the sublime beauty of the Hiroshima mushroom cloud.

If you agree that the Hiroshima mushroom cloud was "art", then I'll agree that Leni's masterpiece films are also "art". :D

:yoda:

I also think that this has to do with the psychology of some people. They simply cannot "handle" images. Not everybody likes literature. Literature is powerful because it speaks to our sub-conscience (using images and conveying "feelings") as much as to our logical brain.
Some people don't 'relate' to poetry. Some people don't relate to logical arguments. Some people don't relate to 'pictures' and prefer words. Some people don't relate to words and prefer pictures. Some only relate to emotional stimulus, some never relate to emotional stimuli. Humans come in a variety of types - obviously one method of communication can never be better than another. Different types of expression suit different mediums, different audiences and different goals. I don't see a problem with that.

It's quite clear that Nietzsche ranting about women is solely due to the fact that his father died young and he lived together with a vicious sister, a mother and a grand-mother. Had it been otherwise, he would maybe not have written what he has written about women. Anyway, knowing that gives weight to my suspicion, when I read him, that anything he writes on women is not to be taken seriously - eventhough he is a great philosopher.
The simplest of biographical facts is sufficient to understand that Nietzsche was brought up in a male chauvinist world. I am accustomed to seeing such mundane biases in thinkers and ignoring them as mere manifestations of local and temporal cultural norms. Such cultural norms tend to change over time.

Aristotle, for example, is no less brilliant a philosopher despite the fact that he considered anyone who wasn't Greek to be barbaric. He held that opinion because it was a significant Greek cultural norm. Likewise when Greek philosophers speak of women - they are always driven by temporal cultural norms that were, intellectually speaking, anti-women. I don't want or need to study Aristotle's biography to see if he had a nasty wife or bitchy mother/sister to find some reason for Aristotle's low opinion of women. It is sufficient to know that Aristotle was an ancient Greek - thus that opinion is expected (and dismissed as pure cultural bias).

Gibbon is another one - being an 18th century British protestant is all the biographical info one needs to have in order to know that Gibbon is going to show a strong (and crude) bias against Muslims and the Catholic Church despite that fact that they are the object of his study.

Thus, I assert that one doesn't need to study Nietzsche's biography to understand that he is 99% likely to hold a low intellectual opinion of women just like most of his contemporaries - it goes with his 19th century socio-cultural status (where 'liberated' male opinions such as J.S. Mill are a rarity or exception).

I used to read philosophy a lot when I was younger, less so since the age of 35, let say, and have turned to psycho-analysis instead. I find that the study of the mind is the most fascinating of all pursuits. And I find also that most human activities usually explained with logical political and philosophical analysises may be traced back to some human traumata (well, obviously, that includes nazim). At least, it it quite obvious for politics which is just a sublimation of some neuroses.
I think this assertion requires a whole thread discussion on its own. :)

Suffice it to say that I'm not much of a fan of the field of psychology. It has its uses and it is worthy of study, just that it doesn't seem to produce much in the way of being particularly useful outside of the field of marketing. From my perspective, psychology seems to be more useful in application to any given individual. My intellectual interests are always driven by an interest in society itself - humans as a group. Individual humans are just too subjective to be particularly interesting to me as anything but friends, lovers or others. ;)

Just my bias of course. That's why I'd like to see your assertion here fleshed out with a bit of support or example to demonstrate how political acts can be traced (psycho-analytically) to originate with some prior trauma.

[Michael]

I won't dispute that a lot of leaders turn on people during their rise to power as well, though it might stand out in my mind because Hitler often had them summarily murdered. Though, I suppose that you can name any number of unsavory political figures who have done this as well.
I think it is important to study Hitler because he represents an 'mega-extreme' form of a rather common political leadership type. All of Hitler's acts of leadership are duplicated or mimicked by the most mundane of bourgeois politicians - in smaller scales, lesser degrees, contained within moral legal and/or cultural constraints. Hitler just dropped all the moral, legal and cultural constraints. Same game though.

Hitler didn't invent the art of authoritarian and megalomanic and murderous tyrannt - he is only the 20th century's most extraordinary example of one.

That also might not be fair grounds for comparison to Obama, given that the US political climate doesn't really allow for roving bands of unofficial SA and party soldiers in the streets ;)
Well, one has to put the roving SA on the streets into the context of the fact that they were a 'response' to the roving bands of Soviet-paid Communist 'activists' that were roving the streets of the early 1920's seeking to spread the 1917 Bolschevik revolution to Germany. The hyper-inflation 1920's in Germany was not a pretty place. Germany was dangerously unstable at that time.

21st century USA is an entirely different place and context. One doesn't need to 'kill' in order to produce political silence. Just good spin doctors, good spokespeople and a friendly media is all you need now. ;)

One thing that the author mentions about Hitler quite frequently was his apparent and complete lack of scruples when it came to who he surrounded himself with. That is, whatever he thought of as a moral and upright Fatherland seemed to have no bearing on who he would use and to what ends. I imagine a demagogue like one of those mega-church leaders in the US surrounding himself with people who had been convicted of child molestation, assault, racketeering, etc for comparison, and doing so brazenly.
Look at Hitler's basic background - relatively poor, uneducated and serving as a soldier in WW1 and laborer in the depressed German economy of the post war years living in various hostels in different cities without a penny to his name. That's a recipe for being surrounded by a bizarre and eclectic mixture of people.

Btw, the 'highest eschelons' of the Nazi party were a colorful bunch weren't they? Only Albert Speer had a university degree - and Geobbels. That's it. Much like their archenemes the Bolscheviks - lots of thugs and criminals.

[Sucre]

I disagree about calling it "art". To me, art can NEVER be separated from its message. Art is the message itself. And yes, I just love to argue about art, just for the sake of arguing about art. The subject is interesting to me. :)

Leni's brilliant propaganda films cannot be separated from the obnoxious purpose they served.

Indeed, do you admire the beauty of the a-bomb? As a killing device that is truly magnificent - raising the 'art of killing' to a whole new level. If you are consistent here, then you should admire the sublime beauty of the Hiroshima mushroom cloud.


Separating the skill from the message ? In which case atheists are bound not to like religious art and only communists will love "socialist realism".

Intuitively, you will recognise that this is wrong and if you knew nothing, just nothing of Leni Rieffenstahl and had missed the Nazi period - what would you think of her films? Would you not have any feelings of awe and admiration.

"Art" is not just skill, it is also the power to sublimate. And Leni was good at sublimating but she used her talent for the wrong purpose.


Some people don't 'relate' to poetry. Some people don't relate to logical arguments. Some people don't relate to 'pictures' and prefer words. Some people don't relate to words and prefer pictures. Some only relate to emotional stimulus, some never relate to emotional stimuli. Humans come in a variety of types - obviously one method of communication can never be better than another. Different types of expression suit different mediums, different audiences and different goals. I don't see a problem with that..
Tss, tss, tss you are avoiding the problem.

Of course some people do this and some people don't do that. But you will agree with me that the more things you can, the better it is, the more talents you have etc.

The simplest of biographical facts is sufficient to understand that Nietzsche was brought up in a male chauvinist world. I am accustomed to seeing such mundane biases in thinkers and ignoring them as mere manifestations of local and temporal cultural norms. Such cultural norms tend to change over time.
Michael, it's exactly the contrary : Nietzsche was brought up only by women, strong and viscious women, and men were so absent from his world that he needed to compensate. His writings on women go much further than the male chauvinism of the time and precisely because he is a great philosopher they come as a surprise : shouldn't he be above the prejudices of his time ?

Reg. male chauvinism and women liberation movements, I always like to point out that men, not women, were (and still are) the best of their supporters.

John Stuart Mill made groundbreaking suggestions on women's allienation and not Niezsche ?

You say Mill is an exception. OK. But why is he an exception ?

Great philosophers are only just that and despite of their great minds nothing else : men. Sie sind auch nur Menschen. Their great mind does not liberate them from their instincts, unconscious yearnings and early experiences.

This is why there is always a lot to learn from a biography. :)


I think this assertion requires a whole thread discussion on its own. :)
I agree.


Suffice it to say that I'm not much of a fan of the field of psychology. It has its uses and it is worthy of study, just that it doesn't seem to produce much in the way of being particularly useful outside of the field of marketing. From my perspective, psychology seems to be more useful in application to any given individual. My intellectual interests are always driven by an interest in society itself - humans as a group. Individual humans are just too subjective to be particularly interesting to me as anything but friends, lovers or others. ;)

Just my bias of course. That's why I'd like to see your assertion here fleshed out with a bit of support or example to demonstrate how political acts can be traced (psycho-analytically) to originate with some prior trauma.
But humans as a group mean nothing without the humans as individuals. It all goes back at the end to the indviduals and their personal history building at the end the group dynamic. Individuals are affected by the group and the groups by the individuals. This is why Nations do build up "characteristics" which separate them culturally from each other.

Reg. your last paragraph, I will only refer briefly to the Nazi period in Germany, clearly to be traced back to the traumata of the war defeat followed by the the traumata of the humiliating peace treaties followed by the traumata of the inflation followed by the traumata of the communist threat followed by the traumata of the economic crisis. This traumata as a group is the build up of all the small individual traumatas of these soldiers who fought for nothing for four years, of these families in pain who lost brothers and fathers and sons, of all these family fathers who lost their jobs and found only despair, etc. etc. etc. And at the end, you get a third of the electorate voting for a pschychotic.

As to regard the "usefulness" of psychology, it goes far beyond marketing. I personally use it everyday at work and in inter-personal relationships, even on this forum. Besides if marketing is about manipulating, then psychology will also help you not to get manipulated yourself - as a consumer or as a voter. You see : it's everywhere.

[Michael]

Separating the skill from the message ? In which case atheists are bound not to like religious art and only communists will love "socialist realism".

Intuitively, you will recognise that this is wrong and if you knew nothing, just nothing of Leni Rieffenstahl and had missed the Nazi period - what would you think of her films? Would you not have any feelings of awe and admiration.

"Art" is not just skill, it is also the power to sublimate. And Leni was good at sublimating but she used her talent for the wrong purpose.
Hitler himself was a brilliant political leader, but he just used his talent for the wrong purpose.

I've already acknowledged that Leni was a remarkable cinematographer and brilliant in the art of visual propaganda. Her skills here are not in dispute at all.

The point I'm making here is that "art" is everything - not just some particular technical skill. Art is an expression or statement that cannot broken into component parts. It is all or nothing. Hitler's political art includes gassing Jews in ovens. All the brilliant orations and/or clever political calculations can't change that.

As for your first comment, I think that's true. Atheists usually don't care much for religious art and only socialists seem to like 'soviet realism'. (I also assert that the only people who like 'impressionist' style painting seem to be those who need to wear glasses). ;)

To look at art as just a pretty picture is facile or shallow and entirely subjective. Sure you can do it, but who cares?

I would argue that to treat "art" as "art", one has to take it seriously - all of it. That means the setting, the composition, the commercial value and the socio-cultural effect it produces are all one and the same. The artist themself, not so much. This is because the art is an object that may be objectively observed. The artist is a subjective that is ultimately hidden to observation.

My point here is consistent with my views on not reading philosopher's biographies and on the issue of moral agency.

Tss, tss, tss you are avoiding the problem.
I may be avoiding a problem, but you'd have to identify it please. My reply was directly to your statement. You said some people don't like literature because they can't "handle images" or the subconscious emotiveness associated with this.

My reply was specific to that point. Lots of people process perceptions of data in different ways. This is the way that humans are. I don't see a problem with this. Some poeple enjoy emotive subconscious reactions, some people don't. Some people prefer logical arguments, some people don't. Some like convoluted mixtures of the two. Human subjectivity is not something I'm going to object to. It just is.

Btw, you have dodged my question about the 'art' of the mushroom cloud. ;)

Of course some people do this and some people don't do that. But you will agree with me that the more things you can, the better it is, the more talents you have etc.
Not necessarily. I've always argued that ignorance is bliss. The only happy people on this planet are the stupid or ignorant ones. Knowledge, skills and/or talent only helps to make a miserable world more pleasant and tolerable for those who are cursed with a taste for the apple of knowledge.

Michael, it's exactly the contrary : Nietzsche was brought up only by women, strong and viscious women, and men were so absent from his world that he needed to compensate. His writings on women go much further than the male chauvinism of the time and precisely because he is a great philosopher they come as a surprise : shouldn't he be above the prejudices of his time ?
Great philosopher he may be, but Nietzsche is human after all. Nietzsche's strongly negative view of women differs only in degree from that of the general chauvinism of the period. I choose to ignore such obvious socio-cultural biases as useless for analysis. One need only ignore Nietzsche's comments about women. It doesn't change Nietzsche's essential philosophical arguments. No reason in my mind that a woman can't be an 'ubermensch'.

Reg. male chauvinism and women liberation movements, I always like to point out that men, not women, were (and still are) the best of their supporters.
Yes, this is true. It is equally true of the abortion rights and abortion opposition movement as well.

Perhaps this is because men are more inclined to be 'political' in the first place?

John Stuart Mill made groundbreaking suggestions on women's allienation and not Niezsche ?

You say Mill is an exception. OK. But why is he an exception ?
I don't know why he's an exception. I just know that he is one.

He is one of the earliest (notable) writer-thinkers to call for full legal and political rights for women. Please see "The Subjection of Women" by J.S. Mill (http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm)

Great philosophers are only just that and despite of their great minds nothing else : men. Sie sind auch nur Menschen. Their great mind does not liberate them from their instincts, unconscious yearnings and early experiences.
I agree completely. I've been arguing consistently on this point.

This is why there is always a lot to learn from a biography. :)
Yes, reading biographies is good - I've never suggested otherwise.

I make a specific exception for the great works of philosophy. I don't want my analysis of textual arguments to be unduly biased by a subjective interpretation of some subjective and selective biographical information. That puts me in the impossible position of 'second-guessing' the philosopher's intent. Ergo, I ignore that beyond the most basic of demographic facts.

I hold that reading biographies of philosophers may hinder the ability to fully analyze the arguments given. It is easy to ignore rhetorical flourishes that are not integral to the textual argument. It is the textual argument that stands the test of time and is of primary concern for analysis.

I think this assertion requires a whole thread discussion on its own. :)
I agree.
Then you should make a thread about it! :D

But humans as a group mean nothing without the humans as individuals. It all goes back at the end to the indviduals and their personal history building at the end the group dynamic. Individuals are affected by the group and the groups by the individuals. This is why Nations do build up "characteristics" which separate them culturally from each other.
Yes, humans are individuals. But in larger groups, they tend to aggregate into cliques, mobs, or societies and as groups they operate in ways unlike the psychology of individual humans.

Reg. your last paragraph, I will only refer briefly to the Nazi period in Germany, clearly to be traced back to the traumata of the war defeat followed by the the traumata of the humiliating peace treaties followed by the traumata of the inflation followed by the traumata of the communist threat followed by the traumata of the economic crisis. This traumata as a group is the build up of all the small individual traumatas of these soldiers who fought for nothing for four years, of these families in pain who lost brothers and fathers and sons, of all these family fathers who lost their jobs and found only despair, etc. etc. etc. And at the end, you get a third of the electorate voting for a pschychotic.
The Germans had every reason in the world to rationally consider the Versailles Treaty to be a horrific insult that necessitate revenge.

There was nothing 'psychotic' about the German people supporting Hitler's anti-Versailles rhetoric. That was extremely rational and highly predictable.

The Germans performance in WW1 was anything but "losing the war". The Germans only lost the war because they were more successful in fighting it. They got caught by an unexpected and impossiblely difficult supply situation that resulted from their extraordinary battlefield victory. And the Germans didn't start WW1. Evidence suggests that it was Russia and France that actually triggered WW1 while Germany was the one trying the hardest to prevent it (I'm referring to close analysis of diplomatic initiatives by telegram in July 1914 - Germany was the LAST nation to call up a full mobilization and only did so in direct response to France doing so - Russia was the first to call up a full mobilization - and France and Russia were close allies at the time).

That is to say, Germany didn't start WW1, and Germany wasn't really defeated in a substantial battlefield situation in WW1, thus, Germany considered Versailles to be a huge insult. It was.

In my mind, Clemenceau deserves to be 'retroactively' exhumed from the grave and symbollically hung from the gallows for 'crimes against humanity' as the chief author and driving spirit behind the Versailles Treaty - that guarenteed WW2 no matter what. Clemenceau was more instrumental in making WW2 happen than Hitler. No doubt of that in my mind. Hitler and Germany reacted quite rationally to the Versailles Treaty. That's an important lesson to learn from history.

As to regard the "usefulness" of psychology, it goes far beyond marketing. I personally use it everyday at work and in inter-personal relationships, even on this forum. Besides if marketing is about manipulating, then psychology will also help you not to get manipulated yourself - as a consumer or as a voter. You see : it's everywhere.
So it is useful to yourself when you need to market yourself and/or your ideas? That's my point.

As for innoculating one's self against marketing by unsavory corporations and governments, that's the same game is it not?

Everything here is all about the individual. That's fine. I acknowledge the psychology has something to say about playing influence games on individuals. But to play an influence game on a group - that's politics, not pychology. Psychology is only one aspect of politics.

The study of individual psychology doesn't tell us much about the group dynamics of the mob or society - and that's the topic that interests me most.

[Sucre]

Originally Posted by Sucre
Reg. male chauvinism and women liberation movements, I always like to point out that men, not women, were (and still are) the best of their supporters.

Yes, this is true. It is equally true of the abortion rights and abortion opposition movement as well.

Perhaps this is because men are more inclined to be 'political' in the first place?

There is a lot to answer to your message but for the moment I will concentrate on that bit, which made me spontaneously laugh :D - Don't take me wrong !!!

Your answer is such a typical male chauvinist answer ;).

In my humble opinion, the reason why men have been the best supporters of women's rights, be it electoral rights or abortions rights, and also why it is men who made these rights true is simply because they have the POWER to do so. In a male dominated society only males can concede a bit of their power to the dominated gender.

Similarly, abolition of slavery of or apartheid was a white men decision.