Let history be the judge of what is fascism

Recent discussions of fascism create an opportunity to look at history’s most brutal fascist, Adolf Hitler, at how he approached politics and power, and whether there are similarities between Hitler’s Germany and today’s understanding of fascism.

There have been volumes written about Hitler, examining who he was and his infamous role in shaping history. One of the most enlightening analyses of Hitler is the 1993 essay, “Working Towards the Führer,” by British historian and Hitler scholar Sir Ian Kershaw. The essay is subtitled, “Reflections on the Nature of the Hitler Dictatorship.” While this is a complex subject, what Kershaw does quite brilliantly is discuss the nature of Hitler’s tenure as Führer, how he governed, and his relationship with his followers.

Kershaw examines Hitler’s autocratic approach to political power but points out that, although his rule was unchallenged, he was oddly removed from overseeing the details of governing Germany. He calls Hitler and the Nazis a classic charismatic leadership movement. Kershaw uses German sociologist Max Weber’s charismatic authority paradigm to explain Hitler’s relationship with the German people. This includes the idea that the leader is on a heroic mission and is revered by his followers. The leader is also the person who comes to the rescue in a crisis, presumably even if the crisis is manufactured.

In a recent paper by social psychologist Alexander Haslam et. al., the authors discuss a model for understanding a mutually advantageous relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers. The leader derives influence by leading but also by allowing followers to help determine how the goals of the group — the leader’s goals — are achieved. At the same time, followers show their loyalty to the leader by working toward the goals he has defined, which helps to empower the leader. Leaders and followers need and use each other. The authors call this an integration of identity leadership and engaged followership.

Throughout his tenure as Germany’s leader, Hitler remained generally popular. He was the defining force in the Nazi Party, and blind loyalty to the Führer was a necessary feature of being a Party member. There was no room for debate or disagreement. The Nazis were unequivocally the “Führer Party.” Hitler had a vision — goals— of Germany’s rebirth, of expanding German territory, battling Bolshevism and the unconscionable elimination of German Jews, who he tragically used as a scapegoat for Germany’s problems. His methods were barbaric. Yet, his followers worked to enact his vision and to please the Führer. Leaders and followers reinforced each other’s roles, no matter how devastating.

Hitler was detached from the running of the Nazi Party and the government bureaucracy. His habits were, as Kershaw describes them, that of an “indolent youth.” He rose late in the day, read press clippings, and did not behave as a head of state. As one of his former aides described him, “He disliked the study of documents.” He would make decisions without examining an issue. He trusted that things would work themselves out. Rather than relying on written records and using analyses by his aides to determine government policy, he would make oral pronouncements that could be Delphic in nature about what he wanted done.

Kershaw talks about a “systemlessness” to the Nazi government. The institutions of government were unclear, making Hitler the sole source of legitimacy. He used “special authorities” to circumvent government institutions. His whims were the law. Hitler believed in the triumph of the (his) will in dealing with complicated problems. Since there was not a government that had rationally functioning institutions — no “deep state” to challenge him — there was no hedge against Hitler and his followers implementing their acts of terror and malfeasance. What is particularly striking about Hitler’s style was the importance he placed on personal loyalty. Loyalty was defining in gaining access to power.

Kershaw describes Hitler as a unifier, activator and enabler of the Third Reich. He kept the squabbling members of the Nazi Party elite together, gave the Party purpose and enabled its inhumane policies. He was the instigator for the fall of decency and standards in Germany. He mainstreamed extremism, and his followers supported his efforts. Nazi atrocities got their agency from Hitler. The Party faithful and others who believed in the Führer tried to outdo themselves in anticipation of his will. Kershaw describes a rivalry between two provincial leaders who were trying to outdo each other in furthering Hitler’s goal of making Germany “racially pure.” He quotes a Nazi Party functionary, who describes the role of the Party faithful, “… It is the duty of everybody to work towards the Führer along the lines he would wish.” Hitler’s “lines,” as interpreted by his followers, permitted — indeed incited — acts of atrocity and violence against those perceived to be at odds with the Führer’s master plan and wishes.

The sobering lessons of history are often ignored. Pundits and other political observers can judge whether there are concerning similarities between the threat to democracy today and the threat that Hitler and the Nazis posed in their time. There is something unique about every generation, but also something similar. A lack of imagination — “We could never make the mistakes of a previous generation” — helps to ensure that history’s warnings may not be heeded. But there is also the possibility, to paraphrase Seamus Heaney, that history, if understood, can rhyme with hope.

William Danvers is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School and worked on national security issues for the Clinton and Obama administrations.