Harlan 1 Rhetorical Analysis of Hitler’s Persona, Influences, and Propaganda Figure 1 source: kenraggio.com By: Kacey A Harlan Description Adolf Hitler’s incredible persuasive personal power is legendary, especially in regard to his public speeches. In order to effectively persuade an entire country to fully engage and believe in an ideology and course of action that is inarguably extremist in its entirety, it is fore mostly necessary to have a thorough mastery of the art of persuasion, charisma, and
39
Embed
sites.gsu.edusites.gsu.edu/.../files/2015/03/English355PropagandaArtic… · Web viewHe then touches his audience’s heartstrings by using the word struggle ... he used his understanding
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Harlan 1
Rhetorical Analysis of Hitler’s Persona, Influences, and Propaganda
Figure 1 source: kenraggio.com
By: Kacey A Harlan
Description
Adolf Hitler’s incredible persuasive personal power is legendary, especially in regard to
his public speeches. In order to effectively persuade an entire country to fully engage and believe
in an ideology and course of action that is inarguably extremist in its entirety, it is fore mostly
necessary to have a thorough mastery of the art of persuasion, charisma, and rhetoric. In this
article rhetorical tools utilized by Hitler will be analyzed in order to gain a more cohesive
understanding on why he was so successful through the medium of his speeches. Perhaps the
most well known example of Hitler’s successful employment of such tactics is in his Declaration
of War on the U.S., or Reichstag, speech in which he uses powerful rhetoric and an engaging
persona to both mask and communicate a veritably psychotic point of view and, more
importantly, bring its goals to fruition. However, in order to truly understand why Hitler was able
Harlan 2
to declare war on the biggest World Power and have support for it, earlier texts must be
examined. Accordingly, I have chosen two documents which clearly demonstrate the rationale
that Hitler possessed while highlighting his strengths as a persuasive orator—a speech given
before the infamous Reichstag address in 1939 and a speech given to the National Socialist
Women’s Organization in 1934. In the latter half of the article, the connection between Adolf
Hitler and Joseph Stalin will be examined in order to comprehend the incredible influences that
they had on one another, as well as where these influences manifested.
Occurring on September 1, 1939, the speech before the Reichstag in its entirety provides
an insightful glimpse into the extremist perspective on the period of history following the
Versailles Treaty. This treaty forced Germany to pay astronomical reparations for its
involvement in the First World War, crippled Germany’s military and economy, as well as
stigmatized the entire population of Germany as being volatile and extremist. Although heavily
critiqued thanks to hindsight, the treaty was seen as the best course of action at the time, given
both the strained state of all countries involved and their exhausted leaders. Given these factors it
is understandable that many German citizens would feel disgruntled and discriminated,
especially those who did not support the war in the first place. The speech demonstrates Hitler’s
innate understanding of people’s general mindset during crises by enumerating on the injustice
of the treatment of Germany after the First World War and inciting any already present feelings
of injustice into a national desire for all out war. The second speech to the women’s organization
depicts Hitler’s uncanny ability to understand people and relate to them, while still being able to
use these skills in order accomplish his goal.
From even an objective perspective, it is difficult to remain completely unbiased in
evaluating not only this particular speech and the rhetorical strategies being employed within it,
Harlan 3
but also in evaluating the rhetor himself. Speeches such as these two directly resulted in the mass
genocide of millions of innocent people and the Second World War. Subsequently, this paper is
written with the unstated, understood assumption that the majority agrees with this perspective.
This being said, it is impossible to truly remain objective in an approach which evaluates the
ethics, pathos, and morality involved in this act. However, it is almost possible to remain
objective when evaluating the exceptional rhetorical ability that Hitler possessed in conveying
his ideals and intentions. He displayed his tendency towards direct, harsh, and powerful
discourse even in his own Mein Kampf where he states in regard to the Vienna government’s
ultimatum in the First World War:
…for in the eyes of the broad masses the tone of the ultimatum was far too gentle
and by no means too brutal, let alone too far-reaching. Anyone who today
attempts to argue this way is either a forgetful blockhead or a perfectly conscious
swindler and liar. (Hitler 161)
As previously stated, in order to actually bring such hate-fueled, dehumanizing acts to fruition,
Hitler possessed an intimidating and cohesive understanding of people’s thought processes in a
time of conflict and uncertainty. More importantly, Hitler understood how to manipulate them.
Terms
In this paper three specific rhetorical terms will be used in order to better understand the
rhetoric behind these speeches: kairos, rhetorical situation, and exigency. The first term, kairos,
can be understood as simply rhetorical timeliness, such as knowing when to present ideals at the
most opportune time in order to have the highest probability of ensuring desired results
(www.technorhetoric.net). The second term, rhetorical situation, can be defined as any given
Harlan 4
situation in which there lies an area of dispute which can be altered via either one rhetor’s
testimony or debate. The term, originally coined by Lloyd Bitzer, argues that such situations are
always present and that they offer constraints that a rhetor must essentially work around to
effectively convey his point. However, for the purpose of this paper the alternate understanding
of the rhetorical situation argued by Richard Vatz will be used in regard to Hitler, which states
the opposite. Vatz contends that it is not a given situation that maintains the utmost control and
provides constraints, but that it is the rhetor themselves who have the ultimate power in
manipulating a situation which they deem “rhetorical”. The exigency is perhaps the key
component of a rhetorical situation and is the third term which will be used. The exigency is the
part of a rhetorical situation which is in need of some “positive modification”, as described by
Bitzer. For example, the exigency for Hitler in his particular situation was Germany’s condition
post-World War One and his view that things needed to be changed in order for Germany to
prosper. What makes Hitler’s version of the exigency in this situation radical is that he chose
mass murder and totalitarianism as the ideal positive modification.
Kairos
The term kairos ties directly not only to Hitler’s speeches, but also to the timing of his
agenda in general. The origins of the term kairos lie in ancient Greece, where it was used as one
of two general terms, the other term being chromos, used to refer to time. However the term
kairos held a more qualitative meaning and alludes more to ethics in regard to this “timeliness”
(www.technorhetoric.net). Hitler knew very well that if he were going to be able to enact his
ideals on a mass scale, he needed attempt to employ them in a time of veritable national crisis. At
this point in time between the end of the First World War/beginning of the Second and before the
United States had officially entered; Germany was heading towards veritable national disaster.
Harlan 5
As previously stated, Germany had been forced to give up most of their military, industrial
products, and was also being forced to pay massive reparations—all of which proved crippling to
the economy post-Treaty of Versailles.
Hitler emphasizes this state in his pre-Reichstag speech in the first line when he states,
“For months we have been tormented by a problem once imposed upon us by the Dictate of
Versailles and which, in its deterioration and corruption, had now become utterly intolerable”
(Moeller 110). The German people felt a dire need for both vindication and empowerment in the
form of a powerful leadership figure in whom they could put their trust and ambitions entirely.
By using his own anger towards the state of Germany and even by using it as the attention
grabber in his opening line, Hitler shows here that kairos was a necessary component to his
agenda. Hitler chose perhaps the most opportune time and the most fitting persona to effectively
carry out his plan for an all out war. He used time as a convenient tool to acquire loyalty through
mutual interest, and then essentially enforced mass murder on the Jewish people for an entirely
personal reason all while instigating the Second World War. Without this eerie sense of kairos,
the majority would have probably never accepted Hitler’s radical ideals.
Rhetorical Situation
Using Richard Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation as being primarily controlled
by the rhetor enables a comprehensive analysis of Hitler’s point of view during this period.
According to Vatz, it is the rhetor that creates these situations from their own observations and
thoughts, and is therefore the primary controlling factor in rhetorical situations. In terms of
Bitzer’s concept of positive modification, Vatz argues that there is no universal base on which all
situations rest. Therefore the idea of positive modification is both relative and subjective,
Harlan 6
negating the need for tying some ethical meaning to the phrase “positive modification”. Indeed,
it appears as though Hitler himself veritably created the entire “situation” regarding the Jews and
in essence made a situation out of them. Hitler’s ideal positive modification was to send an entire
people to work in extremely harsh, potentially lethal conditions, and away from the general
populace. Although this idea of positive modification has the wide effect of nausea in modern
day review, at the time it seemed appropriate.
When viewing this portion of the situation, it is easy to observe here that Hitler’s positive
modification was certainly slavery to an extent, but beyond that façade and at its core—it was
simply genocide. Without once using the term, Hitler was able to effectively persuade an entire
population that genocide was indeed the right, reasonable course of action. He was able to
inflame people not only with his rhetorical skills employed in speeches, but also through his
talent at using propaganda rhetorically. For example, examine these two Nazi propaganda posters
concerning Jews:
Fig. 2 & 3
Sources: www2.needham.k12.ma.us and elderofziyon.blogspot.com
Harlan 7
Hitler instilled in the German people a deep fear of Jewish domination and a hard hatred
towards their supposed greed. In Figure 2, a rather stereotypical Jew is depicted holding objects
and symbols associated with the very things that Germans were learning to fear and hate. In
figure 3, dehumanization is employed by making a Jew an octopus and showing that Jews have
enough “legs” to take over the world’s economy, here through the acquisition of precious oil.
Using the rhetoric employed in person as well as using propaganda mudslinging as illustrated in
these posters, Hitler was able to mold a country into exactly the form he wished to see it take.
Through the hate he was able to generate via both the Jews and post-World War I reparations, he
was able to use his charismatic, strong-willed persona to express in just the right discourse why
Germany should not only accept, but rejoice in going to war with the biggest world power. This
is all due to Hitler’s take on a situation which he deemed rhetorical in that it required immediate
attention while providing a striking example of Richard Vatz’s interpretation of the rhetorical
situation.
Hitler was also quite adept at handling those rhetorical situations which did offer
constraints. For example, in his speech to the National Socialist Women’s Organization he
proves effective when in a situation where his rather misogynist view on a woman’s place in
society is called into question. During the Weimar Republic, which was in place in Germany
after the Treaty of Versailles and prior to the Nazi takeover, women began to advocate their
equality and rights. Once the Nazis came into power, however, these aspirations were crushed
and all groups were conglomerated into the National Socialist Women’s Organization which held
little to no standing. Hitler offers an interesting vindication for these actions, claiming that a man
is “psychologically too erratic… to know what exactly his responsibility is” and that the National
Harlan 8
Socialists opposed women in the political spectrum because it is a “life in our eyes that is
unworthy of her” (Moeller 80). He furthers this argument when he states:
A woman once said to me: “You must see to it that women get into the
parliament, because only they can ennoble it.” “I do not believe,” I replied, “that
we should ennoble something inherently bad. And the woman who gets caught in
this parliamentary machinery will not ennoble it; instead it will dishonor her. I do
not want to leave something to woman that I intend to take away from men.
(Moeller 81)
In essence, Hitler is stating that women should be prevented from entering the political
circle because their natural piety would be soiled. The counter-argument here would
naturally be put the pious in power and there is no conflict—but that is not what Hitler
wanted. This particular passage illustrates Hitler’s skill at handling any kind of rhetorical
situation, as he is able to confidently tell a hall of feminists that their desire for equality in
the workforce actually goes against nature.
Interestingly, Hitler also uses this occasion to attribute Jewish qualities to the
movement of women’s liberation. The first line of his speech reads, “The phrase
“women’s liberation” is a phrase invented only by Jewish intellectualism, and its content
is shaped by the same spirit” (Moeller 80). Here Hitler demonstrates his ability to
attribute qualities he wants to whatever group he wants. Not only is he successful in
convincing the populace that Jews are subhuman and greedy beings, he is equally
successful in creating a negative connotation with even the word “Jew”, making it
something no one wants to be equated with. Basically, it is better to be repressed in the
Harlan 9
true patriotic fashion than fight for a belief system which may coincide with the Jews.
After examining rhetorical situations and how Hitler manipulated them, it is crucial to
examine the term “exigency” and how it functions in this context.
Exigency
Relative to the idea of the rhetorical situation and its being controlled in this instance by
the rhetor, is the term exigency. Coined first by Aristotle, the term exigency refers any given
thing present in a given rhetorical situation which requires debate, immediate attention due to
flaw, or anything that poses a kind of conundrum which a rhetor may speculate/act on. Bitzer
provides his definition of exigency as, “an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an
obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (Bitzer 7).
Moving on from the obvious example of the Jews in Hitler’s view, exigency is more applicable
here in regard to his actual philosophy. He successfully argues that war with the United States is
the only true way to allow Germany to reach its full potential. As Norman Rich aptly states in
Hitler’s War Aims:
All policies would have to be based on the consideration of the future security of
the German race. To guarantee this security, and with it the future of world
civilization, any and all means were justified. One had to make clear to oneself
that this goal could only be achieved through fighting, and quietly to face the
passage at arms. (Rich 9)
Hitler illustrates this view in his pre-Reichstag speech when he states:
As a National Socialist and a German soldier I enter upon this fight with a stout
heart! My whole life has been but one continuous struggle for my people, for its
Harlan 10
resurrection, for Germany, and this whole struggle has been inspired by one single
conviction: faith in this people… As for the rest of the world, I can only assure
them that November 1918 shall never occur again in German history. (Moeller
111)
Hitler’s rhetoric here is striking. Here Hitler first establishes his credibility by reminding his
audience that is he a true patriot by being both a National Socialist and a German soldier, adding
further emphasis by implying that it is these qualities which enable him to enter with a “stout
heart”. He then touches his audience’s heartstrings by using the word struggle repeatedly in
conjunction with phrases such as “for my people” and “faith in this people”. Finally he ends with
a powerful reference to the exigency of the situation, the Treaty of Versailles.
Examples such as this one are littered throughout Hitler’s rhetoric, demonstrating a keen
understanding of progression in discourse in order to really emphasize the exigency at hand.
Hitler evaluated his rhetorical situation, established his goals, and then decided the exigency in
this particular situation that required the most persuasive discourse was the act of going to war.
While the annihilation of a certain group of human beings proved a relatively easy subject to
impose, people were even less willing to actually take the full stride and start another World
War. The fact that Hitler was so adept at handling this situation through rhetoric certainly
illustrates just how talented this man was at the art of both persuasive discourse and channeling
an audience’s biases to his own advantage.
Connections
Certain theoretical connections certainly jump to mind when examining the rhetoric
behind Hitler’s ideology expressed in his speech. Namely, the idea of critical race theory strikes
Harlan 11
true and is unavoidable when examining his rationale. While critical race theory usually is in
relation to African Americans, it actually originated in Germany. Jane Gilgun explains this
interesting history in her article “Critical Theory Stands Up to Abuses of Power” in which she
explains, “Critical theory originated in Germany in response to the rise of Hitler, who embodies
the abuse of power through manipulating the fears of German citizens and German social and
economic systems” (Gilgun 6).
Critical race theory in practice refers to the attempt to change the dichotomy between
race and power; in this case the well known theory of Hitler’s concerning the “Aryan race”.
During this period, Hitler is desperately trying to unite Germany in many ways to create his ideal
human unit, but a crucial factor in this unification is belief in the idea that true Germans are part
of this Aryan race and, therefore, are superior. And while the target in Hitler’s theory was
predominately the Jews he also targeted other peoples including African Americans as depicted
in Nazi propaganda posters such as this one:
Figure 4 Source: Moeller
Harlan 12
Yet another applicable theory is what is known as cognitive anthropology which attempts
to understand how people created their identities not only internally, but with the objects and
people around them during a period of time. It examines the complex interplay of a person’s
point of view with their cultural, economic, and racial position at the time (Robertson). Hitler
clearly felt slighted by a large number of countries, peoples, and conflicting ideologies and so
constructed a radical, charismatic, and somewhat imperialist persona that he both consciously
and subconsciously believed to fit the bill.
Conclusion
Studying the rhetoric behind Hitler’s public speeches and persona is essential to examine
because it allows a glimpse into the mind of what most modern day psychologists classify as a
psychopath and how someone of such a mindset is able to rise to power, especially in regard to
the time period. Using the knowledge gained from such research, it becomes easier to understand
how comparable figures are and were able to manipulate massive amounts of people. Perhaps the
most striking modern examples are Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin, who all
rose to seats of power which they abused in similar fashions. By studying the rhetoric behind
such figures and understanding why they have appeal during their relative eras, it may become
easier to spot such figures before they can reach positions of leadership and widespread conflict
may be avoided entirely. Next, Joseph Stalin’s rhetoric will be examined in order to understand
the influence that he had on Hitler during this time period.