Perhaps the Neoconservative technique of generating social change through reaction against a created monstrosity had it’s roots in Hitler’s Germany (and the Cold War).
Hitler was not realistic. Nor, however, was he insane. Hitler was a pure idealist. He established his ideal world in his mind and did everything in his ability to render that ideal a reality.
Or so the story goes. That’s what you’re taught in school, anyway.
I’ll begin by offering support for the notion of Hitler as straightforward:
An agenda of White Supremacy resonated throughout the white world in the 1930s, as did Fascism. It was reasonable to think that enough of the power centers of the world might follow along to allow military and civil success for Nazism. The normal procedure of gathering allies PRIOR to military aggression probably was not followed due to the idea that such a radical plan would be met with anger or disdain: the plan then was to “shock and awe” the world to the power of the Nazi military and then through a measure of fear to get governments to join.
That Hitler was following this outline is not a terrible theory by any means. If it didn’t have one glaring flaw I’d have no problem whatsoever with it.
It wasn’t likely to work. While Fascism was big in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in Imperalist cultures like those in Western Europe and the United States, it still was too new, too weak, and too small to expect success in such an endeavor. The rational approach would have been to slowly strengthen Fascism within the world and then undertake military expansion when the situation was *confident*. Also bear in mind that Nazi Fascism was a specific brand of Fascism, and Hitler wasn’t open to other brands.
There are reasons, in turn, why a rational approach could not be undertaken. Hitler had his domestic situation to consider: how tenuous would his hold on his country be if his policy was patient world-building instead of repression and military expansionism? Rightly or wrongly, he considered only himself capable of leading Nazism and thus a loss of power for him meant a loss of possibility for his vision.
But that in turn leads to questions: why, if it was such a grand vision, was only Hitler capable of producing it? Why couldn’t he simply convince others of his cause and thus create a perpetuating culture with perpetuating leaders for Nazi fascism?
What turned the world against Hitler was not Nazism, but military expansion. If he had just taken over a couple countries, stopped, and instituted a 10-year program of ethnic cleansing and Nazi philosophy, he would have both gained experience in Nazi civil control, gained human and industrial resources to increase military potential, and if successful at that would have perhaps turned world opinion (among the white elites anyway) in his favor.
The end result of premature aggression was that Nazism was proceeded with in an environment where it was not likely to succeed. This raises a lot of questions about the *real* motivations, rather than the ostensible ones we hear about.
Here’s something that will always be true: a powerful enemy, once defeated, is demonized. Anything considered the OPPOSITE to such a demonized enemy is lionized. Therefore, I ask you, what is the best manner of controlling what is lionized in society?
It’s the obvious: present a powerful enemy with an identity that you want to demonize, destroy the enemy, and watch the people themselves even without propaganda celebrate and lionize themselves as “opposites”.
What did Hitler ACTUALLY create in the world? Notice that after Hitler America turned intensely anti-homogenous. Twenty years after Hitler the first major improvement for minorities since the Civil War occurred. Affirmative Action, the most radical pro-minority movement in America’s history, followed soon after. America turned intensely democratic in attitude, following the defeat of Hitler almost immediately with high tensions toward the repressive powerful regime of the Soviet Union.
The effect on Europe was much the same.
Americans, in all walks of life, all classes, all races, were HAPPY with the changes Hitler wrought. They were so happy in fact that they, again in all walks of life, all classes, all races, hopped on board with the Anti-Communist movement which when defeated was supposed to produce the same thing. MORE democratic excitement, more capitalist fervor, more opposite happiness.
It was *this* approach, this attitude, this methodology, that unified the American people… but take close note of what this requires.
It requires a powerful “opposite” enemy. Hitler, check. Soviets, check. But what does this mean for individualism?
You are no longer self-sufficient as a person or as a nation if you need someone else to fulfill yourself.
America had become co-dependent.
Isn’t democracy so exciting, so liberating, so wonderful, that there is no need to reinforce it through destroying powerful opposites?
But furthermore, isn’t that sort of thing an *artificial* support system? If there does come a day when capitalism, or even democracy, cannot stand in America *without* the lionization effect, then shouldn’t we happily wave it goodbye?
Nothing should last forever.
Did we defeat Hitler, or did Hitler corrupt us?
Let’s put the final nail in Hitler’s coffin by destroying the lionization need in America, thus saving America.