Section 7
The reader will have noticed, perhaps to his displeasure, that since the meeting in the Weimar hotel I have not mentioned any immediate impressions, but have instead resorted to all sorts of more or less convincing conclusions in order to explain Hitler's human nature in an "analytical" way, like the sculptor Tank. But I must now tell the reader that I have by no means, as it might seem, been constantly occupied with solving the Hitler riddle. I have often hardly thought about Hitler for weeks at a time, and this has been the case at least since the "seizure of power" in
January 1933, which inevitably presented us all with a "fait accompli," facts that we had to accept one way or another.
Anyone who can appreciate how much effort a university professor has to put in if he only wants to follow the progress of his science to a certain extent will understand that I did not find the time to concern myself with the "Führer" Hitler or even with Hitler the man. University professors have never had an eight-hour day, and even the long periods of leisure, which they, like teachers, are envied for, have to be devoted to intellectual work. This was especially true for me, who in 1930 was suddenly transferred from the freedom of academic writing to the obligations of a university professor. During the whole Hitler period, my academic work was my main concern, while politics and reflections on Hitler's human nature were secondary matters that were only occasionally considered.
Having said that, I would now like to return to my conclusions. I experienced the "seizure of power" in Jena first of all in front of the radio receiver: my wife and I, who did not have a receiver, had been invited to a couple of colleagues' houses on the evening of January 31, 1933. The broadcast of the torchlight procession in front of the Reich Chancellery had been announced. The well-known marches rang out, the cries of "Heil" rang out, the radio explained everything in the sometimes excited, sometimes solemn words that were already common before and after Hitler. I was seized in my chair by a sudden feeling of anxiety: now he has seized power after a long and dangerous "time of struggle". Which men will he fill the high offices of the state and the party with? Is there even a fraction of the trained team required for this in his environment? -
I had been able to find only a few men in Hitler's circle who I thought could handle a public office. There was Darre, there was Frick, and there was perhaps Göring for a military position. But who else? Lost in such anxiety, I was repeatedly torn from my thoughts by the voice of my colleague, who was walking up and down enthusiastically, asking me: "Isn't that great?" I pulled myself together and replied, so as not to make my excellent colleague uncomfortable: "Yes, great, yes, great!" But my concern could no longer be dismissed, and today I would like to assume that at the time and even more so later, such concerns were justified.
In the foreword to the 4th edition of "Heredity and Environment" (1966) I pointed out the disastrous selection of Hitler's subordinates, just as I have already mentioned above occasional incompetent and unworthy people in Hitler's entourage who were chosen by Hitler, who lacked human knowledge. The personal physician chosen by Hitler was his greatest downfall.
According to Martialis, the main virtue of a leader is to be able to see through his people: principis est virtus maxima nosse suos. This virtue has been denied to our “leader” due to his inherited disposition.
Some people from lower and middle classes begin to admire themselves when they drive their Mercedes, whether they are working for them or driving their own Mercedes, and believe that their position of power - which is not subject to public judgment - also entitles them to act outside the rules and customs in the spirit of "no one can do anything to me". There were men in Hitler's circle who, when police officers reminded them to follow the rules, referred to their high position. But I also found people from higher classes in Hitler's circle who, after being promoted, had let their position of power go to their heads. One such person, who had previously only struck me as a superior, smiling know-it-all, now that he had become powerful, gave free rein to his dictatorial tendencies. In every nation and at all times, and in every form of government, there are people in all classes who are only prevented by external circumstances from developing their inherited dictatorial tendencies. I suspect that such phenomena are particularly common today in the "underdeveloped", "decolonized" countries - whose peoples and tribes have had the opportunity to "develop" for thousands of years since the end of the Palaeolithic period. A small example from our time and from a "highly developed" people: A federal minister demanded - albeit in vain - the punishment of a policeman who did not immediately allow the minister's car to pass by by stopping all traffic.
It is said that when Hitler was selecting candidates for a high state or party office, he chose the one who had proved to be "the stronger" in the competition with his competitors. So Hitler too had not learned from the history of states and parties that where superior knowledge of human nature - something that must be inherited and can only be learned to a limited extent - is not the deciding factor, the person who often prevails over his competitors is the one who is able to use even the most base means. In the politics of times of decay, success is least of all an indication of the human worth of a successful person.
After the "seizure of power" came the foolish and crude "coordination", a coordination that would have been almost impossible to avoid in high offices, but which chess clubs or rabbit breeding clubs did not have to be forced to undergo. Such groups and cliques had to depose their leaders if they were not National Socialists, and had to elect party comrades in their place, preferably "old fighters", whether capable or incapable.
This was followed by the prohibition or the coordination of ethnic groups, student associations at universities, and the abolition of brightly coloured school caps, which were seen as a sign of "class arrogance". This was followed by an unspeakably foolish harassment of university professors, and indeed of teachers at all levels, as long as they had not already joined the NSDAP. I will come back to the harassment of professors later. The fact that on such occasions those who seek and find opportunities to satisfy private revenge or promote selfish plans in all upheavals have come to the fore and will continue to do so is, as was shown to us in 1945, a characteristic of every state upheaval and in any case cannot be blamed on Hitler. The persecution of National Socialists by masses incited at home and abroad has provided the worst examples.
But all these events were disgusting to me. As soon as I arrived in the city from our hilltop apartment for a lecture, I learned of new attacks and crimes, of "brown" students breaking into the buildings of student associations, of threats to schoolchildren who belonged to national associations, and I saw with disgust the "boycott" of Jewish shops by SA men who were "on duty" at the entrances. I was being unfair to Hitler in this, because I wanted to attribute the
orders for such attacks and senseless nonsense to him. In most cases, however, the "little Hitlers" who were now appearing everywhere had given the orders, who wanted to attract the attention of their "leader" with their particular boldness. Nevertheless, to my sense of freedom, these conditions appeared to be the result of a dictatorship - an unavoidable form of government compared to communism, but not one that suited my nature. So I threw my anger - partly unfairly - at Hitler, who had actually become dictator through an Enabling Act, a law that had also been approved in the Reichstag by men who held high offices in the Federal Republic after 1945.
As soon as I had heard of new misdeeds in the city and had returned to our hill to eat, I spoke to my wife, after we had sat down, Greek verses:
“I will crown my sword with myrtles like
Harmodius and Aristogeiton
when they slew the tyrant.”
After repeating this a few times, my wife replied with a smile: “You will not rest until they have taken you to a concentration camp.” We had already heard about the illegal establishment of such camps.
Little by little I got used to such confused and confusing conditions, because I considered, like others, whether National Socialists or not, that every revolution, even one directed against disorder, would initially increase the disorder. In addition, my lecture work was overly stressful: I had to give main and secondary lectures, exercises and colloquia, which other university teachers had been able to prepare for during their years as lecturers. I was often busy with this until a glance at the clock told me to hurry down to the university. In addition, I still learned enough about the unpleasant side effects of a revolution. My indignation faded, I must confess, through habit. The verses that I now recited a few times at lunch were renunciatory, based on Hölderlin:
“Ah, the crowd likes what is good for the
market place, and the servant honors only the violent.”
In the years that followed, I was repeatedly reminded of a warning that Livy passed on from the great times of the Roman aristocratic republic: the harshness of the fatherland must be borne patiently, just like the harshness of the parental home: ut parentum saevitiam sic patriae patiendo et ferendo leniendam esse.
Comments
Post a Comment