It is well known that Hitler developed his worldview on the basis of extensive reading¹; he was an avid reader. Even if he did not open many of the estimated 16,000 books he left behind after his death (Ryback, 2010, p. 14), he drew on what he had read, or at least on what he had heard from other people’s reading around him, for the rest of his life. However, he had a very arbitrary approach to texts. In his manifesto, Mein Kampf, published in 1925/26, he detailed how, in accordance with his theory of «mosaic stones», he took pieces out of texts in order to insert them into his worldview and gradually complete it (Hitler, 2016, p. 165 f.). Clearly hermeneutical principles were completely alien to him. To apply them would also have required an engagement with the text that contradicted his imperious nature. In this respect, it can be assumed that Hitler was not concerned in the slightest about the intention of the author whose work he was reading. Rather, he would pick and choose that which suited his purposes.

Since, after his forays into the conceptual world of others, Hitler rarely noted where his ideas had come from, it is difficult to detect the influence of foreign authors.² For instance, in the index of persons and subjects in Mein Kampf, there are very few author names mentioned. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, however, is one of the few. It can therefore be assumed that Hitler took note of some of Chamberlain’s extensive writings, since he could make good use of them as a source of ideas. It is not possible here to deal exhaustively with what Hitler probably took over from Chamberlain and incorporated into his own worldview. Yet, a few highlights should serve to illustrate why an author so devoted to National Socialism as Georg Schott called Chamberlain the «Seer of the Third Reich».³

Chamberlain and his ideology

Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927) was an English writer whose passion for German culture brought him into contact with Cosima Wagner’s circle and their racist ideology. He apparently placed his hope in Hitler to bring about national unification and renewal, to enable Germany to rise again after its defeat in the First World War. There is a record of a direct meeting between Chamberlain and Hitler on 30 September 1923; the Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923 and the writing of Mein Kampf in 1924/25 were still to come when Chamberlain, seriously ill at the time, welcomed Hitler in Bayreuth. Shortly after the visit, he wrote an enthusiastic letter to Hitler, praising him as both an awakener and a provider of peace. For Chamberlain, Hitler awakened «souls from their sleep and slumber» (Schott, 1933, p. 11), yet a sense of calm would come from his eyes, which completely captured the people, and from his hands with their expressive gestures. Yet, for Chamberlain, a much deeper reassurance was «the fact that Germany was giving birth to a Hitler at the hour of its greatest need» (Schott, 1933, p. 13). Even then, he evidently perceived Hitler as the saviour he had so longed for – the saviour of Germany and also of the world. He considered the portrayal of Hitler as a fanatical and violent man to be a misrepresentation. It seems that the charisma of Hitler – witnessed by others who had experienced him as an orator or in private – had such an effect on Chamberlain that, in him, he saw the fulfilment of his longings.

Yet what might Hitler have seen in Chamberlain, or rather, which of his thoughts could he use to support his own worldview? The obvious answer is the theory of race developed by Chamberlain in his two-volume work Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhunderts (‘The foundations of the 19th century’, 1899). This work, in turn, was influenced by Joseph Arthur de Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (1853–1855), one of the earliest treatises on the subject of race, in which Gobineau asserted the superiority of the white race above all others – which he traced back to an Aryan «primordial race».⁴ Gobineau already held the idea that racial mixing would lead to qualitative decline.

The origins of the theory: Gobineau

However, Gobineau’s theory of race is not anti-Semitic. Chamberlain’s racial theory takes this turn, evidently making it particularly interesting for Hitler. A second difference between Gobineau and Chamberlain is likely to have been of great significance: the former considered the French nobility, from which he came, to be racially superior in his day, while Chamberlain believed in the superior racial stock of the Germans. This almost automatically gave rise to the idea of the German mission – and of a leader who would put an end to the hated parliamentarism and change the course of history, moving from decadence to triumphant resurgence.

If we consider Chamberlain’s theory of race, it shows the same ambiguity as that of both Gobineau and later Hitler: «race» is actually a biological characteristic. The suspicion is that, in the age of democratisation, aristocrats like Gobineau and Chamberlain were looking for a distinguishing characteristic among people that was not socially defined and was therefore fluid. A racial affiliation that was biologically determined was not as easy to wipe out as an affiliation to the aristocratic class. Yet, despite the original biological approach of the racial theory, in all of the authors mentioned, one sees that the perceived superiority or inferiority of a certain race was fundamentally culturally rooted.

For Chamberlain, therefore, «the awakening of the Teutons to their world-historical destiny as the founders of a radically new civilisation and a radically new culture» constituted the pivotal point in European history (Chamberlain, 1899, p. 6). Ultimately, it is therefore an intellectual achievement, and not a physical characteristic, that determines the rank of the superior race. The fact that his concept of race oscillates indecisively between the material and the immaterial is also displayed in the peculiar neologism Rassenseele (‘racial soul’) (Chamberlain, 1899, p. 830). It is determined by common blood, but manifests itself in character attributes and creative or destructive powers.

Hitler also claimed that «race does not lie in language, but in the blood» (Hitler, 2016, Vol. II, p. 997), and talks extensively about the supposedly repulsive physical appearance of the Jews he had encountered in Vienna. Yet for him, the significance of the chosen race, the Aryans, lay in their creative and cultural achievements. «All that we admire in the world today, its science, its art, its technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples» (Hitler, 2016, Vol. I, p. 753). The biological component of race is, as it were, only the material basis of the non-material that is really the issue.

The latter is much more explicit in Chamberlain’s work than in Hitler’s, as Chamberlain wrote about Wagner, Kant and Goethe. These intellectual heroes and several others, including «Luther and Bismarck, Friedrich the Great and Moltke, (....) Bach and Beethoven»⁵ also shape his image of Germany. He finds in them worthy descendants of the Teutons to whom he ascribes the creation of the ultimate superior culture. In contrast, he diagnoses a decline in the other European nations:

The Western and Southern nations, followed by the educated classes of Russia, have fallen more and more (including their conservative elements) into the grip of the ideas of the French Revolution, which can be summarised as follows: the arbitrariness of the individual, the tyranny of those in power, and moral chaos. (Chamberlain, 1915, p. 23)

These final three concepts are Chamberlain’s translation of the revolutionary ideals of «liberté, égalité, fraternité». And in his country of origin, Great Britain, he despises the parliamentarianism and mercantile orientation, both of which he considers manifestations of mediocrity, reduced rationality and the absence of ideals.

The racist foundation of his view on the national characteristics of peoples seems almost unnecessary here; the projection of certain traits onto national collectives would have been possible without the digression into race. However, the racist basis of his theory has one advantage: it makes it possible to claim the inescapability and immutability of certain characteristics if they are anchored in the genes and not in individuality or shared traditions. This was especially relevant for Hitler. Chamberlain’s anti-Semitism was not exterminationist, while Hitler’s was. Only if people believed that the Jews had unchangeable characteristics that would bring about the destruction of mankind, could the idea of having to exterminate them all for the good of mankind even arise. «But a Jew can never be freed from his fixed notions», claimed Hitler in Mein Kampf (2016, Vol. I, p. 225), thereby insinuating the inextricable link between being and thinking. From a purely logical standpoint, the basis for his policy of extermination was established, although he never explicitly announced it anywhere.

Hitler’s mosaic

As was the case with all his appropriations from other authors, Hitler took only the elements of Chamberlain’s anti-Semitism that were of use to him, reinterpreting them in his own fashion. It is without doubt; Chamberlain’s anti-Semitism is also inhumane. According to him, the Jews are perpetual strangers who keep themselves racially pure, subjugate other peoples with their monetary power and, ultimately, strive for world domination (Chamberlain, 1899, pp. 381–386). However, one important aspect of Chamberlain’s relationship to the Jews is completely irrelevant for Hitler: namely their alleged opposition to Jesus, who, for Chamberlain, represents «the denial of their very being» (Chamberlain, 1899, p. 390). Hitler hates every form of religiousness, including Christianity, and therefore, would have only followed Chamberlain’s statements on the subject of «worldview» in part.

Chamberlain attests that the Germans’ «innermost need in life» is «to form a worldview» (Chamberlain, 1917, as cited in Schott, 1933, p. 31), and views this as one of the great strengths of the Germans. He considers the Germanic worldview to be composed of science and religion. Science is the rational and mechanical part, but religion is «the contact with a world outside the bounds of reason», the «instinct to seek the essence of nature in the heart of nature» (Chamberlain, 1899, p. 260 f.), that creative power that is rooted in the mind. For Chamberlain, Christ’s Epiphany signals a striking contrast to the Jewish religion, which «through its formalism and hard-hearted rationalism», had closed itself off from the true source of every religion: the heart (Chamberlain, 1899, p. 266). In Mein Kampf, Hitler also makes reference to Christ, but he does so without the enthusiasm that characterises Chamberlain’s remarks. Rather, he instrumentalises the figure of Christ and depicts him as an early fighter against Judaism, who resorted even to the whip to drive «those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; [...] because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests» (Hitler, 2016, Vol. I, p. 799).

What is the relationship between worldview and the German mission in Chamberlain’s work? The decline of Western civilisation, which Chamberlain, like many of his contemporaries, diagnosed, could only be countered by a political system based on noble ideals. It was only a worldview, a soul-stirring sense of the whole, free from egotistical concerns, that could mobilise the forces needed in the face of the crisis. For Chamberlain, this capacity for enthusiasm about ideals and the ability to make them the supporting element of politics is the fundamental characteristic of the German, in which he places all his hopes. Only the Germans – as the worthiest representatives of the Aryan, or Germanic, race – possess affinity to the ideal, and to the encompassing worldview. For Chamberlain, this is proven by their history and cultural accomplishments. That is why they are called upon to save not only themselves, but the entire world.

Hitler was able to adopt this view quite readily. However, the worldview that he would impart to Germans to fulfil their mission was much more concrete and politicised than the one Chamberlain spoke of. He saw the principal threat of his time in Marxism, which he considered the political ideology of Judaism, and in Bolshevism, which he perceived as a movement striving for world domination. Therefore he considered it his task to inspire the Germans with a new worldview to counteract the Marxist worldview and make the German people willing to fight. «If Social Democracy should be opposed by a more truthful teaching, then even, though the struggle be of the bitterest kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail provided it be enforced with equal ruthlessness» (Hitler, 2016, Vol. I, p. 181).⁶ National Socialism was to be this worldview and the fight against Judaism its declared goal: to eradicate Marxism and Bolshevism along with it.⁷ That Chamberlain always associated the pursuit of freedom with the Aryan worldview was most certainly not a relevant factor for Hitler.

Chamberlain’s question: «How do we reach the purer air of the heights, where the breath of eternity and freedom blows?» (Chamberlain, 1917, as cited in Schott, 1933, p. 31) – which he characterises as the driving force behind the Aryan worldview – would undoubtedly have been too enthusiastic for Hitler. Nonetheless, when investigating intellectual authorship and adaptation, it is also necessary to consider the potentially unintended course of action which could emanate from a theory. Chamberlain surely did not have the extermination of the Jews in mind. Yet, his characterisation of their nature had the potential to lead to this outcome. Moreover, he was certainly not thinking that the fulfilment of the German mission would mean the unleashing of a world war. Yet, such an interpretation was possible. Naturally, this was all the more possible when people, like Hitler, used texts arbitrarily and ignored the author’s intentions. Yet this reasoning, which exonerates the author to some extent, is again called into question, when the author sees in that person, who treats texts so imperiously, the leader that the German people have been waiting for.

But why was there even a need for a leader; why not rely on newly emerging political parties or movements? Conservative and reactionary cultural criticism of the day sought to counter democratisation – perceived as a levelling force – with the great individual. The cult of the leader and the cult of the hero were counter-movements against parliamentarisation and democratisation. Thus, personality was played off the masses and all hope placed on a leader. Chamberlain was part of this trend. As early as 1916, he declared: «The Germans are ready; they only need a leader appointed by the Holy Spirit» (Chamberlain, 1918, as cited in Schott, 1933, p. 30). The fact that, in 1923, he recognised the coming leader in the still relatively unknown and controversial figure of Adolf Hitler – who, admittedly, was not appointed by the Holy Spirit – explains why he was attributed with seer-like abilities, at least by his editor Georg Schott. Chamberlain no doubt had a keen sense of the irrepressible will to power with which Hitler was imbued. However, his intuition failed when it came to the radicalism and unscrupulousness of the man. To see him as the fulfilment of his hopes can only be described as delusion. Yet the delusion most likely began much earlier – when Chamberlain failed to recognise the trajectory of his own theory into the abyss.

References

Bermbach, U. (2015). Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Wagners Schwiegersohn – Hitlers Vordenker. J. B. Metzler.

Chamberlain, H. S. (1899). Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Bruckmann.

Chamberlain, H. S. (1915). Politische Ideale. Bruckmann.

Chamberlain, H. S. (1917). Arische Weltanschauung. Bruckmann.

Chamberlain, H. S. (1918). Der Wille zum Sieg. Bruckmann.

Fritz, S. (2022). Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Rassenwahn und Welterlösung. Biographie. Brill.

Gobineau, A. de (1853–1855). Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines. 4 Volumes. Librairie de Firmin Didot Frères.

Hamann, B. (1996). Hitlers Wien. Piper.

Hitler, A. (2016). Mein Kampf. Eine kritische Edition. Institut für Zeitgeschichte. (Original published in 1942)

Ryback, T. W. (2010). Hitlers Bücher. Seine Bibliothek – sein Denken. Fackelträger.

Schott, G. (1933). Houston Stewart Chamberlain der Seher des Dritten Reiches. Das Vermächtnis Houston Stewart Chamberlains an das Deutsche Volk. Bruckmann.

Zehnpfennig, B. (2018). Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf. Weltanschauung und Programm. Studienkommentar. Wilhelm Fink.

Notes

Notas de autor

barbara.zehnpfennig@uni-passau.de

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 5117