{"id":54047,"date":"2022-09-10T01:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-09-10T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=54047"},"modified":"2022-09-10T10:24:46","modified_gmt":"2022-09-10T14:24:46","slug":"qotd-working-toward-the-fuhrer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2022\/09\/10\/qotd-working-toward-the-fuhrer\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: “Working toward the F\u00fchrer<\/em>“"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Sir Ian Kershaw was broadly right about how the Third Reich operated. He says Nazi functionaries were “working towards the F\u00fchrer<\/em>“. In other words, the F\u00fchrer<\/em> \u2014 the idealized, mythologized leader, not Adolf Hitler the individual \u2014 made it known that “National Socialism stands for X<\/em>“. Hitler was famously averse to giving direct orders, so that’s often the only thing big, important parts of the government had to work from \u2014 the F\u00fchrer<\/em>‘s* pronouncement that “National Socialism means X<\/em>“. It was up to them to put it into practice as best they could.<\/p>\n

This had several big advantages. First, it’s in line with Nazi philosophy. The Nazis were Social Darwinists. Social Darwinists hold that “survival of the fittest” applies not only to humans as a whole, but to human social groups as well. Any given organization, then, must exist to do something<\/em>, to advance some cause, to reach some goal. Ruthless competition between groups, and inside each group<\/em>, is how the goal works itself out (you should be hearing echoes of Hegel here). The struggle refines and clarifies what the group’s goal is, even as the individual group members compete to reach it. The end result gets forced back up the system to the F\u00fchrer<\/em>, such that, dialectically (again, Hegel), “National Socialism means X<\/em>” now encompasses the result of the previous struggle.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

As with philosophy, “working towards the F\u00fchrer<\/em>” fit well with German military culture. Auftragstaktik<\/em><\/a> is a fun word that means “mission-type tactics.” In practice, it delegates authority to the lowest possible level. Each subordinate commander is given an objective, a force, and a due date. High command doesn’t care how<\/em> the objective gets taken; it only cares that<\/em> the objective gets taken. Done right, it’s a wonderfully efficient system. It’s the reason the Wehrmacht<\/em> could keep fighting for so long, and so well, despite being overpowered in every conceivable way by the Allies. The Allies, too, were constantly flabbergasted by their opponents’ low rank \u2014 corporals and sergeants in the Wehrmacht<\/em> were doing the work of an entire Allied company command staff (and often doing it better).<\/p>\n

Consider the career of Adolf Eichmann<\/a>. In the deepest, darkest part of the war, this man pretty much ran the Reich’s rail network. Say what you will about the Nazi’s plate-of-spaghetti org chart, that’s some serious power. He was a lieutenant colonel<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The final great advantage of “working towards the F\u00fchrer<\/em>” is “plausible deniability”. Let’s stipulate Atrocity X<\/em>. Let’s further stipulate that we’re in the professional historian’s fantasy world, where every conceivable document exists, and they’re all clear and unambiguous. It’s a piece of cake to pin Atrocity X<\/em> on someone … and that someone would, in all probability, be a corporal or a sergeant. Maybe<\/em> a lieutenant. What you wouldn’t<\/em> be able to do is trace it up the chain any higher. Everyone from the captain to Hitler himself could \/ would give you the “Who, me?” routine. “I didn\u2019t tell Sergeant Schultz to execute those prisoners. All I<\/em> said was to go secure that objective \/ defeat that army \/ that National Socialism means fighting with an iron will.”<\/p>\n