Buchanan and Hitler

How careful must we be when addressing the subject of Adolph Hitler?  Must we always state up front that we consider him to be evil incarnate or worse?  Must we state it at the start of our comments, then restate it at the end, less we be considered some sort of Hitlerite?  Can we never stop to say that, no matter how evil, he was an extraordinarily gifted man? I thought of this last week when reading responses to Patrick Buchanan’s column noting the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, Did Hitler Want War?  It caused much commentary and condemnation of Buchanan within the blogosphere.  I have my own quarrels with the column, which I’ll address in a bit, but what caused me to start thinking about the above questions were comments made by the blogger Mætenloch over at Ace’s site.  While condemning Buchanan’s column, Mætenloch pulls out a quote from a book review Buchanan wrote in 1977 as an example of Patrick’s “Hitler-love.”  Here’s the quote in question”

"Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only as caricature. Either he was a ranting, raving, carpet-chewing Chaplinesque buffoon -- or the anti-Christ, Satan Incarnate, a devil without human attribute who had hypnotized the German people.

Such ignorance is folly. Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.

But Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."

What, precisely, can be argued with here?  How are these basic statements of fact an example of Hitler-love?  Hitler was a soldier’s soldier in the first war, one who exhibited his bravery on numerous occasions.  This is well-documented fact.  From Hitler’s Wikipedia entry:

Hitler served in France and Belgium in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment (called Regiment List after its first commander), ending the war as a Gefreiter (equivalent at the time to a lance corporal in the British and private first class in the American armies). He was a runner, one of the most dangerous jobs on the Western Front, and was often exposed to enemy fire.^[14] He participated in a number of major battles on the Western Front, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras and the Battle of Passchendaele. The Battle of Ypres (October 1914), which became known in Germany as the Kindermord bei Ypern (Massacre of the Innocents) saw approximately 40,000 men (between a third and a half) of the nine infantry divisions present killed in 20 days, and Hitler's own company of 250 reduced to 42 by December…Hitler was twice decorated for bravery. He received the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914 and Iron Cross, First Class, in 1918, an honour rarely given to a Gefreiter.

It is also well-established fact that Hitler was a first class political organizer, rebuilding the Nazi party from the near-oblivion it had sunk to while he was in prison for his role in the Beer Hall Putsch.  Under his leadership, the Nazis grew from a local Munich-based party to a national one.  While many of the strategies used to achieve this growth did not originate with Hitler, it was Hitler who chose those with the necessary knowledge and expertise to accomplish the task.  He stepped aside and allowed their strategies to work, a sure sign of a confident leader.  The Nazi party also pioneered many political campaign techniques that are still in use today. 

Granting that, none of these strategies would have been successful without what Buchanan calls Hitler’s “oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.”  Who can deny this?   

Finally, as for Buchanan’s contention that Hitler’s “genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path," there is little to argue with here.  Hitler had long considered the Western European countries leadership soft, their societies decadent.  He doubted their will to fight and events proved him right, right up until the invasion of Poland.  One by one, Hitler made bold moves that were met with nothing but condemnation, or less, from the west: his rearmament; his introduction of an air force;  his reoccupation of the Rhineland; the Anschluss with Austria; his occupation of the Sudetenland; Munich; his invasion of Czechoslovakia.  All of this occurred without bloodshed and while the English and French sat on their hands.  This was the primary reason Hitler thought the French and English would not fight should he move on Poland.  According to German General Wilhelm Keitel, “In Hitler’s opinion, the French were a degenerate, pacifist people, the English were much too decadent to provide real aid to the Poles.”  Hitler himself said, “our enemies have men who are below average.  No personalities.  No masters, men of action … Our enemies are little worms.  I saw them at Munich.”

So I say, Buchanan’s quote above is perfectly accurate and no example of “Hitler-love.”   I understand Pat Buchanan is suspect when talking about Hitler.  Many regard him as an anti-Semite.  His support for the Arabs and his disdain for Israel has been on full-display for decades now.  While he makes no apologies for his stances, I understand how people can take last week’s column on Hitler as further evidence of these views. (As I said above, I hope to make my own disagreements with the column clear in a future post, hopefully this afternoon.) But the excerpted book review quote can only be cited as an example of “Hitler-love” by those who are willing to view everything Buchanan says in the worst light.  It will not do for adults to hold the view that Hitler must have been a pure maniac, possessed by the devil, in order to do the evil he did.  He was a man, an evil man, but one with extraordinary gifts.  For much of the 1930’s he was a perfectly rational actor on the world stage.  He saw better than everyone else, including many of his generals and advisors, what was available to him and he took it with a number of bold but rational strokes.  His first misstep was the invasion of Poland.

Finally, the obligatory final note: whatever I said above is not to be taken as evidence that I am pro-Hitler.  He was wicked, evil, vile, etc. etc.  He was the worst person to ever live.  Hell, even Hitler himself thought so: