[Three posts follow.]


1.
From: Charlotte Opfermann [mailto:CHARLOTTEO@aol.com]

In a message dated 05/30/03 10:22:42 AM, Clare Spark writes:

"For instance, in the first pages of his Hitler biography, Ian Kershaw calls
Hitler an 'empty vessel', a man 'without substance', unlike the world
leaders who have emerged from traditional elites. So Kershaw explains ... to
look at Hitler's power as determined by his roles. He will treat him as a
charismatic leader whose effectiveness is dependent on the adoring ...
masses who filled him up."

Ian Kershaw may very well have explained a very basic detail of the entire
Adolf Hitler/National Socialism mystique: Hitler may or may not have been an
"empty vessel" ... but he most certainly grew in stature and his power and
effectiveness increased as the adoring masses Sieg-Heil-ed and adored him
endlessly and without reservation. Still, it is hard to swallow such a
thought.

There is a brief and obviously unintentionally funny segment in one of Leni
Riefenstahl's Nuernberg Rally films when Hitler believes himself off camera
and allows his face to break into a self-satisfied grin during the
roaring-approving outcries as he catches his breath in mid-speech.
The empty-vessel debate touches, however remotely, on the functionalist vs.
intentionalist debate, and also on the argument whether or not Hitler knew,
participated in and ordered the "Final Solution" murders.

It is possible but not very likely that Hitler was an "empty vessel"-and
that the adoring masses filled him up. I will never forget my teachers in
Germany (from 1933 on): They were enthusiastic, dedicated, totally committed
to the cause of the party, to the War, to all the programs.  And this
points, in consequence, to the allocation of guilt. If the masses were
behind him, how can we deal with responsibility for what occurred throughout
Germany and in the countries under German rule?

Some time ago, I submitted a review of the Ulrich Herbert (ed.) book,
_National Socialist Extermination Policies, Contemporary German Perspectives
and Controversies_ (Berghahn 2000). The various contributing authors (Goetz
Aly, Dieter Pohl, Christian Gerlach, et. al.) would not subscribe to the
"empty vessel" view.

The job of Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung is seemingly too big. The book _Opa
war kein Nazi, Nationalsozialismus und Holokaust im Familiengedaechtnis_ by
Harald Welzer, et. al. (Fischer 2002) speaks to this issue-by implication,
if not directly.

Charlotte Opfermann


2.
From: Robert Whealey [mailto:whealey@ohio.edu]

I apologize for misunderstanding Clare Sparks's original question.  I
understand Hitler through history and biography; she is interested in
sociology.  She and I simply perceived a different film in viewing "Hitler:
The Rise of Evil."

I'm unqualified to make any comment on structural social theory.

The Leninists seem to be alive and well in the PRC, but dead in the US,
Russia, Germany today.  The German Social Democrats of 1919, 1932, 1949 were
three different groups of people, who were different again from the group of
socialists who support Chancellor Schroeder today.

I don't see too much room for the "revolt of the masses" in the
Constitutional crisis the Weimar Republic faced in 1932.  The unemployment
problem brought recruits to the KPD and the NSDAP.  Their street
demonstrations frightened Bruening, von Papen, and von Hindenburg. The film
touched on this, but not sufficiently.

As to how Hitler manipulated millions, the film showed his 1923 attempt to
manipulate perhaps a thousand people in Munich.  He took in Ludendorff for a
few months.

There are 6-12 books mentioned in this net that could be read to see how
Hitler took in millions from 1933 to at least 20 July 1944.

Goebbels and thousands of Nazi's stuck with him until the last day.

Sociologists and Historians have a different methodology.

Robert Whealey


3.
From: Merel Boers [mailto:blackbird@bollywoodmail.com]

Dear list members, Mr. Whealey,

I think you have misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about consensus, I
was talking about scholars giving up all hope of "critical masses" and
bowing to shallow, tunnel-vision-depiction oversimplifying everything, not
just some aspects, to the credo "bad knowledge is better than no knowledge".

I dare to state that there is a very visible line between good history and
bad history (as depicted in the series discussed here), not only for
scholars but also in the "mainstream" area-even if the gray zone in between
is very large. But I would say that this series is a good example of "bad
mainstream history" and that's ok if it's used for pure amusement, but it's
not, and it rarely is when it comes to the Third Reich.

Film makers have their responsibility, but historians should continue to
criticise, not only amongst themselves but also in public media, the
monotonic message of commercialised efforts at "understanding". People are
very well capable of handling conflicting messages and forming their own
opinion-if taught to do so. And even if the struggle is hard, I don't think
we should give up hope in the nice and easy shadow of the aforementioned
credo.

Best regards,

Merel Boers

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS