"The Hitler Myth"

What I have found interesting is this idea argued by Ian Kershaw in "the Hitler Myth" in Nazism and German Society 1933-45 that this myth was different for the four different social groups in Germany at the time. Kershaw argues that the in this myth, Hitler
1) personified national community
2) bulwark against Marxism
3) sought to reassert Germany's "true" status in the world
4) military leader
5) great statesman
6) moderate
7) brought economic success

What is interesting here is that the myth itself was seen and used differently among the 4 different German groups within society. The elites determined that the myth was politically useful, and (incorrectly) judged that Hitler was a moderate, rather than the rest of the Nazi rabble which tended to be more radical. They felt as though they could work with him, and could possibly use him and his popularity to further themselves and their own agendas down the road. The Socialists, communists, and catholics, people who were not part of the "national community," were especially against myth #1, that Hitler personified the German national community, and to an extent myth #2, that Hitler was a bulwark against Marxism. When they saw Hitler, they believed that this man might just take everything away from them, maybe even their own lives. So they, in response to the myth, also became more radical, as the threat of Nazism grew more menacing. The non-organized masses, those who were on the sidelines but not in the game, saw in Hitler a man who would take them, and their beloved country of Germany somewhere- this idea of moving forward. With each political, economic, and military success, they believed this myth even more, thus enlarging the myth to the point that it was self-sustaining and became even bigger than Hitler himself. For the members of the Nazi party itself, Hitler's power base, this myth further entrenched them into this notion that Hitler was the man. With no cynicism, the Nazi party members honestly believed that this list of attributes concerning Hitler were absolutely true 100%. Regardless whether the 7 aspects of the Hitler myth were true of not, these 4 social groups within Germany were affected by the myth, thus increasing the myth's power, until eventually it was a crucial part of life within the Nazi State.

The Turnip Winter of 1916-17

I cannot imagine a worse, more depressing situation than to be an average german on the homefront during the Turnip winter of 1916-17. As the police reports indicate, the people where between a rock and a hard place. "The mood can only be described as very bad...the discontent in the population has reached a new intensity...the attitude of women toward the war can be summarized as 'Peace at any price.' (66)" First the government rations the bread, and provides potatoes instead. Then, potatoes by 1916 become increasingly difficult to find legally, so the only alternative become turnips. As Fritzsche points out on pg 69, over 28,000 copies of "Turnips Instead of Potatoes" were published in newspapers and cookbooks during this awful time in German history. I have never eaten just turnips, or turnip soup, but if that was all I could eat, for months at a time, without meat, bread, potatoes, or hardly any sugar or chocolate to consume either, I could not be a happy camper- to say the least. On top of the terrible eating situation, Fritsche continues by adding that "the winter turned out to be the coldest in memory...35,000 households in Nuremberg simply ran out of coal before the winter ended... 175,000 men and women died of influenza in the year 1918." I just canot fathom a worse living quagmire than to not only be able to eat hardly anything, not be able to keep yourself warm, and to sit back and read daily reports of how the war was not going germany's way any longer. This shows how devoted the people were to not only the war, but to their country, and for that these poor souls should be recognized for enduring one of, if not the worst living conditions possible in all of german history. There is just no way I could have been able to survive through that horrible turnip winter.

The Blame Game

Like many other fans of Bulldawg Nation, I really liked our chances going into last year's football season. We had so many things seemingly going in our favor; good offense, solid coaching staff, and the media "experts" ranking us @ #1 in the preseason rankings. I must say I bought into the hype... looking back I must admit I believed it too much. When I saw the cover of Sports Illustrated for example, I decieved myself and chose to buy into what "society" was selling. Well, the "experts" were very wrong. We ended up a very less than stellar 10-3 team that had way too many defects. Who's to blame for last year? The players? I do not think so. The Coaches? Probably not. I believe that the fan base, who too eagerly bought into the hoopla, was to blame. In this same way, the German people bought into the hype of German conquest and annexationism, which in turn fueled this German drive to fight a war with (nearly all of)Europe, ultimately an unsuccessful one in the end. Just like last season's UGA Football team the same question arises: Who is to blame? In the article "Germany and the Origins of the First World War," David Kaiser blames Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg and his eagerness to buy into the hype of expansionism for the glory of Germany. I disagree with Kaiser. I believe that the blame for Germany's entry into WWI and subsequent failures falls onto the shoulders of "Society" and to an extent Bismarck's fault as well. Whether it was King Wilhelm II or it was the paper boy on the street-corner, nearly every single individual in Germany bought into this idea that they had to fight an upcoming war against their European foes. This misplaced sentiment was then what the Chancellor unwittingly drew upon to make decisions; he bought into the hype too. In the end however, part of the blame also falls on Bismarck because he created a system of governance that was far too complicated and difficult to manage for those who came after him to handle. If he had made a less rigorous form of goverment for Germany, perhaps domestic and political tensions would have been able to be corrected, thus not creating a false belief that a European conflict was unavoidable sometime in the near future. Perhaps like those German soldiers who sorrowfully trodded home after their WWI defeat, dawg fans have no one to blame but themselves for setting the bar too high and then having to deal with the bitter thought of what might have been.