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 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, 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 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. 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, 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 & 3Sources: www2.needham.k12.ma.us and elderofziyon.blogspot.com
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 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 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.