My Conclusion

Overall, i want to say that through my research i've learned that Hitler is smart/pragmatic, cultured, a vegetarian, religious to a certain extent, determined, a murderer, and EVIL.

Hitler gained control because of lucky circumstances (the people were tired of a failing Weimar Republic and a horrible president); Hitler was perseverant and never lost hope in his party even when it was the "butt of jokes"; he used lots and lots of manipulative propaganda; Hitler used legal tactics (such as Article 48); the nazi party was well organized and supported (he had lots of patronage); he traveled around the country in a private plane; he appeared strong and promised the people what they wanted; hitler got rid of his opponents by blaming the Communists for the Reichstag fire; he used nationalism to gain popular support; he took the blame off the germans by saying the war guilt clause was ridiculous; he killed those against him in the "Night of Long Knives;" he used the pre-existing anti-semitism to his advantage and found a common enemy for all germans to unite against; and finally he gained the support of the President and the Army when Hitler became President and therefore the army was forced to swear allegiance to him. 

Most of my research focused on how Hitler actually gained his power because for me that was the most interesting part about this guy. I understand how he kept his power- force, murderer, relentless torture and slaughter, etc... Granted the guy needed some brains in order to come to power and to correctly carry out his plan to destroy the Jewish race- but he was bloodthirsty never the less. I obviously have some strong emotions towards Adolf Hitler (as shown in a few earlier posts), but i do respect his manipulation skills. He was definitely more of a totalitarian dictator than Peter the Great or Napoleon- but i think we all knew that before. Everyone knew that Hitler was considered the first totalitarian dictator. We were just curious what aspects of totalitarianism were used in Peter and Napoleon's respective rules. Hitler had control over EVERYTHING through the use of FORCE and propaganda. 

BUT

i have NO doubts that HITLER was a

BRUTAL 

TOTALITARIAN

DICTATOR

IN GERMANY.

Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler

This is a short post-

basically i'm just surprised by how Grace talks about how honest Peter the Great was. Well at least he did what he said he was going to do. Hitler was such a manipulator through his use of religion, military, words, propaganda, etc... I respect Peter the great for protecting his "reputation in history" as Grace puts it. I like that about a ruler- but is he a tyrant or a totalitarian dictator? In the sense that he had total control over all aspects yes- but for me when i think of a totalitarian dictator i don't think of a good person who wants to respect his own reputation- i think of a brutal manipulator: Hitler. For me, Peter the Great was a great ruler because he just changed the religious aspects he didn't like and he "imposed his authority instead of tricking the public" as Hitler did. The thing is, all this makes Peter the Great a great ruler and a great and POWERFUL man- but not a TOTALITARIAN MANIPULATING DICTATOR. Maybe this is just my opinion? who knows...

Holocaust Doesn't Unite Germans

Okay, yes hitler was one to demonstrate his power through all of the propaganda and FORCE that was used, but i have to disagree a little bit with Grace about how Hitler used the Holocaust "to unite the German people." Yes, since Hitler was legally voted into power- the majority of people were united by his powerful words promoting "CHANGE," but i'm not sure that the holocaust in of itself united the german people. Perhaps the Nazi's were united by the sheer grief and terror of having to kill so many people. But i remember from some article we read in class, that a lot of Nazi's questioned Hitler and questioned his reasoning for all this killing. Also, plenty of good germans hid Jews in their homes and a good number also didn't approve of the killing at all. But i think that the majority just had NO IDEA what was actually going on. Or at least they denied the fact that they had any clue whatsoever. Therefore the Holocaust didn't actually unite the German people in a positive light of "woo hoo hitler is awesome!" But the Holocaust actually united the german people and the jewish people through sheer terror.

Jealousy

I can see that zak- considering that there is no way that Hitler could've come to power had there not been an underlying feeling of anti-semitism. The Jews in Prussia had a lot of financial success- and when one group is extra productive- everyone else tends to get jealous and feel threatened (this would be the already established aristocracy). When Napoleon established this emancipation and gave the wealthy and already established Jews equal rights, the aristocracy got even angrier. So in reality, this anti-semitism in Prussia/Germany has its seeds in jealousy. I guess Hitler just played off of this jealousy of Jews when he was trying to gain and maintain power. With my previous post, i discovered that Hitler chose the Jews as his victims because he believed them to be the most logical and pragmatic choice. This obviously wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Napoleon's contribution when he was in charge of Prussia. 

All of these tyrannical leaders seem to be interconnected in one form or another.

Hitler, The Nobility, and Machiavelli

Hmm...Hitler and the nobility- well Grace, you are definitely right about Hitler not really having a persay "nobility" to deal with since Hitler was rising to power in the 20th century when social class divisions were much different. Don't forget that Hitler rose to power legally- but i'd say that in the beginning (PRIOR to his ascent to total power) he did not have the support of the big business or of the nobility. Hitler's primary supporters were from the lower classes and the peasantry. But in order to get a majority- you can't just have one group support you- you need some people from most every group. I mean, the majority of the 'nobility' really didn't like Hitler and viewed him as a demagogue. it doesn't seem like Hitler really respected the nobility or the elite intellectuals or the high members of the military either. My evidence for how Hitler didn't like any of these people that had different views than him was that on June 30th, 1934 "Hitler carried out a purge that took the lives of a number of dissident Nazi leaders and other opponents. The exact number of victims has never been determined, although it probably exceeded one hundred. Ernst Röhm, the SA leader, was among these victims. The influence of the SA now declined, while that of Himmler's SS, which provided the executioners for the purge, increased. Himmler also controlled the Gestapo, the secret police created by the Nazis." I don't think he ever promised the nobility anything like he promised the working class jobs, etc... (although he 1did help bring Germany out of the depression); Hitler never gave anything to the nobility like Peter the Great did with having to let the nobility play a role in the government. But once Hitler had total power, which can be explained in detail by looking at this post- through the use of Article 48- Hitler didn't have to give anyone anything because he could just use total force. Hitler had total power since he "abolished the office of president and assumed the president's powers. The members of the armed forces were now required to take an oath of allegiance to Hitler. This oath represented an important step in the establishment of Hitler's control over Germany's armed forces." (same website as before)

Grace- exactly like Machiavelli since Hitler did make the people fear and respect him- love him? Well, they certainly called him the Fuhrer and gave him lots of respect and attention. So i'd say he was pretty damn good at being Machiavellian. Unlike Peter the Great i guess. After Hitler took power- he controlled all the social classes practically- since he could use FORCE FORCE FORCE. In a previous post of mine, i compared Bismarck to Machiavelli- and now i am making the comparison between Hitler and Machiavelli.

Motivations for the Holocaust

As in my previous post, Cas asked the question as to what Hitler's motivations were for wanting to slaughter the jews. Through my research i came across a couple of very interesting quotes on the internet. Obviously, Hitler had some kind of personal connection with wanting to kill the jews- he genuinely believed that they were a lesser race and were subhuman. But it also seems that he chose the Jews, because it was the most practical and logical solution. In a sens, they were the best choice.
"With this very thing in mind I scanned the revolutionary events of history and put the question to myself against which racial element in Germany can I unleash my propaganda of hate with the greatest prospects of success? I had to find the right kind of victim, and especially one against whom the struggle would make sense, materially speaking. I can assure you that I examined every possible and thinkable solution to this problem, and, weighing every imaginable factor, I came to the conclusion that a campaign against the Jews would be as popular as it would be successful" (nizkor.org) My question is- why didn't Hitler work in a more positive light- why didn't he just focus on raising the german's spirits simply by telling them how great and strong they are. Why did he have to raise the german's spirits by lowering the Jew's spirits (or should i just say slaughtering the jews)? He had to find "the right kind of victim"- that sounds almost like a murderer scowering the city below for his perfect target. This clearly wasn't solely chosen by random, or by his own personal connection- but a combination of his personal feelings and by his pragmatic tyrannical feelings. Along with his pragmatic ideals, Hitler felt that the jews "are totally defenseless, and no one will stand up to protect them"- so therefore by attacking the Jews- it is a sure win (same website as before). That seems to be something always on Hitler's mind- his need to win win win.

Nationalist Hitler

Hitler plays to people’s love of their country and always references our country and us Germans. For example, this mother’s day card talks about how Hitler says, “We all have but one thing that really makes our lives worth living on this earth: That is our own people, which for us Germans is our Germany. We stand within this people. We live with this people and are bound to it in good times and bad. Our highest duty and holiest task is to preserve this people. For that goal, no sacrifice is too great.” To me, the words/phrases that pop into my head after reading this: NATION, NATIONALISM, COUNTRY PRIDE, COUNTRY LOVE, GERMANS ARE AWESOME, WE ARE AWESOME, LETS KILL THE ENEMY- THE JEWS AND ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS THEM! KILL KILL KILL!

Also, along the lines of Hitler using a strong sense of nationalism to gain the popular support- he used the Treaty of Versailles to help argue his point as well. Meaning- he talked about how horrible the Treaty was and therefore how they should fight back! As said here, "The Treaty of Versailles created economic conditions where Hitler's populist message could gain a hearing. The Allies forced a prostrate Germany, threatened by communist revolution from within, to accept full blame for the war." The cash reparation would've taken 50 years to pay off. Plus, when Germany's economy collapsed due to hyperinflation- everyone (including Hitler) blamed the Treaty. Overall, Hitler's nationalism gave hope to the common man. But the upper classes were fearful of Hitler- maybe because they detected "a genuine willingness to take risks" (same article).

"The answer is that Hitler called for European nationalism as a response to communism, liberalism and internationalism."