THE POSSIBILITY THAT HITLER WAS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE

by Colin Liddell

People who hate Jews can readily 'understand' why Hitler was anti-Semitic, but for those of us who don't automatically hate Jews and are reasonably familiar with Hitler's backstory, it does seem a little odd that Hitler went down this path.

First of all, Hitler was not stupid. This is important because one of the preconditions of anti-Semitism, or believing that the Jews are some kind of evil supervillains, is an IQ south of 100. Hitler, by contrast, despite his humble origins and tendency towards self-delusion, was obviously a man of high intelligence, able to judge people and situations in a manner that allowed him to play complex political games and win. Could he really have believed the frankly ludicrous anti-Semitic tropes that his lowly followers fell for?

Secondly, Hitler was also not Jewish. This may sound odd, but I mention this because, as is well documented on the right, many of the most anti-Semitic people are, actually self-loathing Jews themselves. If in doubt, please read my article "America is Shit at Racism" for some ready examples.

Thirdly, the Jews in the period in which Hitler lived were a lot more moral and respectable than Jews are today, by which I am mainly referring to the behaviour of the Likudist-dominated Israeli state in causing genocidal conditions for Palestinians and carrying out other extremely underhanded operations. But you could also throw in the behaviour of various high profile obnoxious Jewish individuals.

Not even trying...

Mitteleuropa Jews of the late 19th and early 20th century, by contrast, did not make those kinds of glaring PR mistakes. They went out of their way to appear cultured, civilised, moral, and polite, and largely succeeded. 

Fourthly, Hitler personally appears to have had relatively positive experiences with Jews. This is an area that may require more detailed research, but, off the top of my head, I think it is true to say that many of Hitler's best customers when he was an impoverished "Bohemian" artist on the streets of Vienna and Munich were Jews. Then, later, during World War One, Hitler could not have failed to notice the relatively high number of Jews serving honourably in the German army. After all, he was recommended for his own Iron Crosses by a Jewish officer.

And that is not all. Recently there is growing interest and research into Hitler's own involvement with the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic, an entity that he would later denounce as "Jewish-led" and "Bolshevik." At the time, however, Hitler seemed to be quite cosy with the whole thing.

Hitler as an enthusiastic participant in the "Jewish-led" Bavarian Soviet

So, based on this, it is at least plausible to posit a theory that Hitler was not a sincere anti-Semite, but a tactical one.

But, then, how does one explain all the anti-Semitism that flowed from him? Is it absurd to consider the notion that the person guilty of the most notorious acts of Anti-Semitism in history may not have been a genuine anti-Semite in his views and feelings?

A true intellectual does not wall off possible avenues of thought, enquiry, and speculation simply for emotional reasons or because others may find them offensive. Based on the evidence mentioned above, there is some foundation for such a notion that Hitler may have been an insincere Anti-Semite. But, besides actual deep, burning, emotional hatred of Jews and a sense of paranoia, what could have propelled Hitler down such a path?

To explain this paradox you would need to consider, at least in theory, the utility of anti-Semitism to a non-Anti-Semitic politician in interwar Germany. There are several points that arise here.

First, Hitler was a politician seeking popularity at a time when it was difficult to offer the masses positive improvements. Around the time he entered politics, 1919 to 1920, the best that a sincere politician could offer the masses would be stability and steady improvement. This was hardly the kind of sharp message and ready appeal that a relative outsider like Hitler could cut through with. Therefore, viewing things purely from the perspective of a political career, Hitler had to construct a negative appeal by being against something, more than for something.

Secondly, while Hitler craved success like any politician, it is something of a stretch to see cynical ambition as his only motivation and anti-Semitism as his only tool. Whatever one's view of Hitler's anti-Semitism is, there was clearly more to Hitler's politics than that.

But what did he really care about politically?

The problem of Hitler is not dissimilar to the problem of the Bible. Christianity would be viewed as a very different religion if our view of it was mainly based on readings of the Old Testament, while the second book, the New Testament, was neglected. But this is exactly what has happened with perceptions of Hitler. 

During his life, he actually wrote two books. The first one, Mein Kampf, is too well-known. Anyone reading it could not fail to pick up its message of anti-Semitism. Hitler's second book, however, is much less well known. In fact, it is usually called "Hitler's Second Book" because it was an unedited transcript, written around 1928, that was not published in his lifetime. This book reveals Hitler's views on foreign policy and geopolitics, and, whatever one thinks of these, there is an infallible logic and sincerity to his views.

I haven't read it for some time, but from what I recall the basic ideas are as follows:

(1) Britain, France, Russia, China, and America, all have vast empires and territories, which provide living space and raw materials for their economies. Germany, like all great countries, needs a similar empire in order to survive. 

(2) Due to the invincibility of the British Royal Navy, it is hopeless for Germany to seek an overseas empire like it did under the Kaiser, when it so dramatically failed. Germany must therefore seek its empire in the contiguous land territories to the East. This idea was summed up by Hitler on September 16th, 1941, when he told Otto Abetz, the German ambassador in Paris, that "Russia as far as the Urals" would become Germany's equivalent of Britain's India. He also added that this land would be more advantageous to Germany than India was to Britain due to its geographic proximity.

(3) In order to create this inland equivalent of Britain's sea empire from the small base of its post-Treaty-of-Versailles territory and against the many states that stood in its way, Germany needed, in Hitler's view, to go through a period of intense militarization, both physically and spiritually.

The implication of this logic is that a conventional democratic Germany (i.e. the Weimar Republic), focused on the immediate needs and comforts of its masses, would be incapable of undertaking such a Spartan effort. In order to do what was necessary, Germany would therefore need to undergo a revolution, not just a coup. Only through real revolution could the emotions and fanaticism needed to galvanize the masses, redraw the maps, and rebuild the geopolitical architecture of Europe, be unleashed.

But revolutions are dangerous because, in essence, they are internal or civil wars that generally pitch one class against another in a way that usually leads to the destruction of one of the classes. The most obvious examples to Hitler's mind would have been the French and Russian Revolutions, although he may also have been aware of the English Revolution of the mid-17th century.

In both the French and Russian Revolutions, the upper classes were destroyed, while in Russia other classes, such as well-to-do peasants, also perished. Both revolutions led to severe internal disruption and brutal wars that killed millions. Such a process repeated in Germany could prove disastrous or even fatal. But how else could a cunning and ruthless politician unleash the radicalising flood of emotion and hysteria needed to revolutionise a society? 

The answer to this question is obviously the tactical use of anti-Semitism on a massive scale.

Through stoking up an intense hatred of Jews, the Nazis could emotionalise and revolutionise German society without waging a damaging internal conflict that would wipe out entire classes and weaken the state against its neighbours. On this tide of emotion, Hitler and the Nazis could override not only the freedom of the German people and tighten their grip on the state, but they could also dismiss their comforts and material interests in favour of what Hitler saw as the greater and ultimate good -- guns instead of butter! 

Anti-Semitism made all this possible without the major schisms of a conventional revolution. Anti-Semitism thus provided a path to revolution with a much lower price tag, as only a relatively small minority would bear the pain of the revolution.

Also, while the French and Russian revolutions invited the enmity and intervention of foreign powers, this was not the case with Hitler's anti-Semitic pseudo-revolution. In spite of attempts by "international Jewry" to "declare war on Germany" and boycott it, no sanctions were imposed and all the major powers were happy to continue doing business with Nazi Germany and participate in the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Welcome to Berlin 1936

The problems only began for the Nazis when their attempt to use the revolutionary energy they had unleashed at such relative low cost was managed badly. Their attempt to create their land empire led instead to war with too many important nations at the same time, and a causality toll much higher than any revolution could produce. 

Whether this attempt was driven by the real or fake anti-Semitism of its leader, it is easy from the safety of the early 21st century to demonise Germany's attempt to create a land empire. But in a world of high tariffs, protectionism, and mercantilist economics, creating empires or zones of influence was the only way for nations to be truly sovereign and secure. Japan and, to a lesser degree, Italy were forced to follow similar paths.

The world created in the aftermath of WWII -- the one that prioritised free trade and emphasised collective security -- was an entirely different one from the one that called into being dangerous imperialists like Hitler.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky