Re: Hitler, The Left, & the Right (Or: Into the Lions' Den)
Sorry, Zoltan, I somehow seemed to have overlooked your post.
So you want me to be the referee?....Ooooooo...
Well, here is what I think: You are both right...and you are both wrong.
How is that for a diplomatic response? <gg>
Seriously now...I don't have time to look up chapter and verse, and my memory ain't what it used to be. (Oh, age, and age's evils!) But, as a preliminary response, I would like to make a few observations -- bearing in mind, of course, that whole libraries have been written on the Nazi phenomenon, and that every conceivable interpretation in the world has been advanced to explain it.
1) The "Left" was deeply divided on Hitler (and on Stalin, as well). And it was divided against itself (Communists vs. Socialists/Social Democrats). The best example of this, perhaps, was in Germany itself. The Communists so detested the Social Democrats, whom they called "Social Fascists", that they failed to pay proper attention to the "threat from the right" (the strongly anti-Bolshevik Hitler & co.). (They never could forgive Ebert's Social Democratic government for putting down a Communist rising in 1919.)
You are quite right to observe that "they [the Communists] fomented conditions that they thought would lead to a Communist revolution in Germany." So, they were wrong -- and thus played right into the hands of right-wing forces (e.g., the Nazis) who were fomenting conditions for a Nazi takeover. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats were trying to preserve democracy in Germany...
2) The Hitler-Stalin pact. It is certainly true that Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union abruptly reversed their anti-fascist position, when the pact was signed, only to reverse it once again when Hitler invaded Germany. But that was because they were proxies for Moscow. On the other hand, for many "democratic socialists" (for lack of a better world), the Hitler-Stalin pact, following on the heels of the Great Purge, was the last straw, and alienated them from Moscow and the Communists altogether. (Of course, in this country, this was all soon forgotten once we entered the war, and Stalin became our "ally." But this was true of "conservatives" as well. Look at back issues of the old Look Magazine, for example, if you want to read some really fulsome & fawning praise of "Uncle Joe".)
3) The Right. As far as conservative European governments go, it is quite true that they too bear responsibility here, because they were more worried about "Bolshevism" than Nazism. Let us not forget that one of the major planks in Hitler's "program" was "anti-Bolshevism." So Western conservatives' fear of a possible Russian-German rapprochement was at first greatly alleviated when the "anti-Bolshevik" Hitler emerged. (It has been argued that Stalin finally decided that he did have to come an agreement with Hitler precisely because he was genuinely convinced that the Western powers would never come to the Soviet Union's aid if it were attacked.) A.J.P. Taylor, as a matter of fact, goes so far as to argue that conservative statesmen like Chamberlain actually encouraged Hitler to start a war (in Taylor's view, Hitler was just "testing the waters") by offering such tepid resistance to his demands (e.g., Munich and "Peace in our times", etc., etc.).
On top of that, there was widespread support for Hitler himself, and for Nazism, in the European Far Right. This was the golden era of proto-fascist ideology, after all. French intellectuals, in particular, were particularly "supportive", both before and after the Occupation. (Remember Maurras, for example, and "integral nationalism"?) France is still having trouble coming to grips with this period in its history. And in Britain, you had not only the unabashed Nazi apologists like Sir Oswald Mosely, but you also had a whole slew of "normal" people expressing some degree of admiration for Hitler and his regime. (A sample: "There is more real Christianity in Germany today than there ever was under the Weimar Republic.")
Just a few thoughts on a very complex subject.
A more interesting question, perhaps...Why has more been written on Hitler and the Nazi phenomenon than on any other development in history (or at least in modern history)? Why the enduring fascination? Not just for scholars, but for the general population? I recall walking into a sleazy little store in Times Square some years ago, and finding a whole rack of paperbacks prominently displayed in the front, with titles like "Hitler's Generals", "The Beast of Dachau", etc., etc. Are we still under the spell of The Ogre? Then why is there relatively little interest in Stalin, for example? Also an Ogre, after all..
Just curious..
jbe
|
