Why Did Hitler Hate the Jews?: The Origins of Adolf Hitler's Anti-Semitism and its Outcome

By Peter den Hertog

This investigation into the Nazi leader’s mindset is “an inherently fascinating study . . . a work of meticulously presented and seminal scholarship”(Midwest Book Review).

Adolf Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism is often attributed to external cultural and environmental factors. But as historian Peter den Hertog notes in this book, most of Hitler’s contemporaries experienced the same culture and environment and didn’t turn into rabid Jew-haters, let alone perpetrators of genocide. In this study, the author investigates what we do know about the roots of the German leader’s anti-Semitism. He also takes the significant step of mapping out what we do not know in detail, opening pathways to further research.

Focusing not only on history but on psychology, forensic psychiatry, and related fields, he reveals how Hitler was a man with highly paranoid traits, and clarifies the causes behind this paranoia while explaining its connection to his anti-Semitism. The author also explores, and answers, whether the Führer gave one specific instruction ordering the elimination of Europe’s Jews, and, if so, when this took place.

Peter den Hertog is able to provide an all-encompassing explanation for Hitler’s anti-Semitism by combining insights from many different disciplines—and makes clearer how Hitler’s own particular brand of anti-Semitism could lead the way to the Holocaust.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Sep 30, 2020
• ISBN: 9781526772398

Book preview

Preface

Another book about Adolf Hitler? Haven’t there been countless books written about this insidious man already? This is what many people will wonder when yet another book about him is published. I hold the opinion that every author that writes about Hitler should have good reason to do so.

In 1998, the first part of Ian Kershaw’s monumental biography of Hitler was published. One particular sentence struck me and strongly roused my curiosity, namely: ‘In truth, we do not know for certain why, nor even when Hitler turned into a maniac and obsessive anti-Semite.’

How was this possible? His deadly anti-Semitism led to one of the greatest human catastrophes of the twentieth century – and we cannot even determine when and why Hitler became such a rabid hater of Jews? I could not believe my eyes. I rushed to libraries and quickly studied many major Hitler biographies; indeed, there was no specific explanation to be found in those texts. In fact, the only related topic mentioned was the ‘influence of the anti-Semitic environment’. Now, this influence was certainly an important factor, but in Hitler’s time there were many people who, like him, were exposed to anti-Semitic influences who did not become anti-Semites; so why did he become one? Furthermore, Hitler did not become a ‘common’ Jew hater but a genocidal Jew hater, who executed 6 million Jews.

As for ‘environmental influence’, this could be used to explain virtually any human act. As long as this explanation is not particularised and supplemented, it is in fact inconsequential.

I knew what I had to do – seek a distinct explanation. This resulted in two books, which were published in the Netherlands, the first in 2005 and the second in 2012. These two studies offer an explanation for the origins of Hitler’s demonic anti-Semitism beyond ‘environmental influence’.

My books were favourably received by the press and called ‘innovative’. Those who read the reviews must have gained the impression that indeed something novel was being said about the origins of Hitler’s anti-Semitism.

Now, fifteen years after the publication of my first book, no new material has been published about the origins of his anti-Semitism. It seems difficult to uncover explanations for it.

I have updated my discoveries and insights (all new publications up until 2020) and bundled them into one book for an English-speaking audience. However, I still thought my own contribution to another aspect of the Hitler debate was missing. We already know what Hitler’s anti-Semitism led to; however, up until now there remains disagreement on the crucial decision process in 1941: did Hitler give a clear order to kill the European Jews or not? If so, when? A multitude of answers, propositions and interpretations are presented. In the final chapters I provide my answer. I use insights into Hitler’s personality that have been explored in previous chapters. The fact is that in the knowledge of why Hitler was an anti-Semitic lies important information – if well interpreted – that creates clarity about the genocidal decision process. I hope this book will contribute to the great ‘Hitler debate’.

I would like to make a few more points. There are historians who strongly assert that their book is composed of primary sources. This is simply not possible. The starting point of each historical interpretation is first and foremost an explanatory story – good or bad. Without a story, the researcher cannot do anything with facts and sources. Without a story, facts and sources have no context. Once the researcher has a story – and he always does – after all, he has read countless texts on Hitler, only then can he refine it by consulting primary and secondary sources. He can also revise it, but he derives his point of departure from the tradition of the great Hitler debate. Any book on Hitler relies on previous research. If a researcher were to focus on the primary sources, he would ignore a sea of valuable information. Worse still, he would not know what to do. I am fully aware of this. Therefore, the debate – the conversation with other Hitler researchers – is particularly emphasised in this research.

The second point is this: historians are historians. Due to their educational focus on history, they draw on their own fields of study. Little interdisciplinary research takes place. Now, I arrive at the next point. Especially if one is writing about an atypical, fiendish figure such as Hitler, one should make more frequent use of social sciences. A historian must dare to look beyond their own borders. If they do, they can decipher more information about historical characters. In this study, I have employed psychiatry, anthropology, socio-biology and evolutionary theory. Indeed, Adolf Hitler was born in 1889, but we do not hesitate to – briefly – travel back to 65 million years ago.

Another curious fact: until 1998, I was not at all interested in Hitler. In fact, he always filled me with such horror that I did not even watch documentaries or read books about him. I still had to read Ian Kershaw’s 1998 biography. As a historian, after all, one must know something about Hitler. I only intended to read the biography – and also part two – and then I would call it quits. But then I read the previously mentioned sentence: ‘We would not know when and why he became an anti-Semite.’ I have always been interested in the ‘Why question’. In the field of philosophy, it is said that there is no phenomenon without reason or cause. Questions that raise the why of a phenomenon have always strongly appealed to me. I overcame my disgust of Hitler and began my research into why he became anti-Semitic. Twenty years have passed and my third book about Hitler has been published. In it one also finds – as I said before – a new proposition with regard to the decision process in 1941 that led to the Holocaust. I could never have imagined that I would take on such a subject as Hitler so thoroughly, yet it has happened.

Finally, many consider history to be boring and stuffy. Tomes have been written that produce well-founded, high-quality insights, but unfortunately they are uninteresting. I have often heard students say that they were not able to get through this or that book. Make a historical story palatable for goodness’ sake. The reader will appreciate it. I am also a novelist and writer of thrillers. The story I have created about Hitler resembles a detective’s tale. It was written as a search for motives. I hope that the reader will experience the tension and excitement essential in a good detective’s story – but scientific criteria have always been number one.

Peter den Hertog

Emmen, The Netherlands, 2020

Chapter 1

The Riddle

No conclusive explanation has yet been given for the origins of Hitler’s demonic hatred of the Jews. I am not alone in this claim, as you can see in the following quotations:

The anti-Semitism is the only riddle of Hitler’s personality that most likely will never be fully resolved. (Franz Jetzinger, 1956)

I have never found out what was the cause of Hitler’s fanatical hatred of Jews. (Fritz Wiedemann, 1964)

Despite all the detailed knowledge, Hitler’s anti-Semitism cannot be fully explained. (Werner Maser, 1971)

We can probably no longer plumb the real cause of this ever-growing hatred [of Jews], which lasted literally to the last hour of Hitler’s life…. Perhaps we may never be able to trace Hitler’s overwhelming phobia down to its roots. (Joachim Fest, 1973)

In truth, we do not know for certain why, nor even when, Hitler turned into a maniac and obsessive anti-Semite. (Ian Kershaw, 1998, 2009)

The last quote dates back to the year 1998 and was repeated by the author in 2009. After that, another six major studies on Hitler have appeared. We will encounter all of them later in this book. In all these publications, however, one will still not find a good explanation for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. So, despite all these new studies, the question when and why Hitler’s demonic anti-Semitism originated still remains. This is why I’m suggesting a sixth statement.

Until now, the riddle of Hitler’s anti-Semitism has still not been resolved.

It is clear what we want to achieve in this book. We will have to see how far we are able to go. By the end of this study, readers may judge for themselves whether progress has been made towards solving the riddle – or if the riddle has even been solved.

Chapter 2

The Detective

During the 1920s, the critical English thinker Robin George Collingwood clarified how a historian resembles a detective. Both the historian and the detective seek the truth behind events. A detective often encounters silent or evasive witnesses, yet he does not give up easily. If he asks new, surprising questions, he may still be able to force the witnesses to speak. This also applies to the historian. According to Collingwood, his sources remain silent if he asks them the wrong questions. If the historian does ask the right questions, then the sources suddenly begin to speak – sometimes very loudly and convincingly. ¹

The research on Hitler will not reveal many new spectacular sources. But the old sources can provide new insights if one asks surprising questions, as Collingwood posits. He gives us another interesting piece of advice. He says that the historian must place the authorities (in this case, the experts who have already done research on Hitler’s anti-Semitism) in the witness box and submit them to a cross-examination to determine what they have not said.² Those who know what the authorities are silent about and how to describe this flaw will see exactly what is missing. It is obvious that one must know what the authorities have actually said. And in the case of Hitler, a proper analysis of the origins of Hitler’s hatred of Jews may lie in that which has not been said.

Historians and the like have been researching Hitler for over eighty years. So, we will critically engage these publications, especially the more recent ones. In particular, we will consider what the authorities, harking back to Collingwood, do not mention. But how do we know what they do not say? Through logically evaluating an explanation one can determine why the explanation is incomplete or even false. This study intends to do this. In addition, we use an extra analytical instrument. Namely, we first explain Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Through this process, we uncover a fundamental insight into Hitler’s personality to understand why he was so exceptionally receptive to anti-Semitism and why he ultimately embraced it. At the same time, we gain knowledge through which we can judge explanations by other researchers; we will especially see what they do not say.

We also examine the period in which his anti-Semitism manifested itself – in what month or in what year? Why then in particular? At the end of the book, we will also endeavour to answer the question whether Hitler had given a clear order to murder the European Jews in 1941. And if so: when? And what were his motives?

Chapter 3

The Nineteenth-Century Background: Anti-Semitic Traditions

In the preface, I suggested that biographers mainly make use of the ‘influence of the anti-Semitic environment’ to account for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. At the same time, I stated that it’s possible to explain virtually any human act by ‘environmental influences’. I even said that that is why such a statement is meaningless. To illustrate this, I pointed out that many Germans did not become anti-Semitic despite anti-Jewish influences. This shows that nurture provides an incomplete explanation. This in turn implies that a complete explanation requires more, nature to be precise, which through its interaction with nurture leads to different outcomes in different people. However, if there is no anti-Semitism in a culture, there will also not be anybody who hates Jews. From this, you can see that an anti-Jewish environment is still an absolute prerequisite for anti-Semites to emerge.

Hatred of Jewish people doesn’t just appear out of thin air! That is why it is both understandable as well as correct, that from the earliest research into Hitler in the 1930s onwards, we keep encountering anti-Semitic influences as an explanation. In the meantime, we have, however, come to understand that this is only a partial explanation. Of course, Adolf Hitler was moulded to his core by the anti-Jewish environment in which he grew up. We shouldn’t, however, forget that this is only a ‘partial explanation’. The remainder consists of formative forces stemming from nature. So, we will be looking into Adolf Hitler and nature. For now, we will concentrate on the environment in which Adolf Hitler grew up. Everyone knows roughly what ‘anti-Semitism’ means or consists of. However, what exactly did the anti-Semitism that Adolf Hitler came into contact with consist of? What was the great diversity of anti-Semitic thoughts, ideas and assertions which informed his development? Let us take a look into this now and try to obtain a concrete picture of anti-Semitism in Adolf Hitler’s lifetime.

The Jews had been supressed and hated over many centuries. They were seen as usurers and as a people doomed by God. They were subject to special anti-Jewish laws. However, as a result of the French Revolution and the dissemination of liberal ideas, an increasing tolerance in political matters and questions of faith developed. In Prussia, in 1812 Jews were guaranteed equal rights: so, they received the same rights as other religious communities. In Austria-Hungary, Jews already enjoyed legal equality from 1867.

What happened to the Jews was unique. They could leave the ghettos in which they had lived in isolation and join the rest of the population as free citizens for the first time. Now, Jewish people were given new opportunities and they indeed welcomed the opportunity. Soon they were present everywhere in society. In fact, they were an enrichment to the economy and culture.

Their social rise was remarkable. They prospered in the new capitalism. They stood out in the areas of trade and banking. They were also richly represented in politics, science, journalism and the arts. Some of them became extremely wealthy. Of course, the Jews supported the modern, democratic and liberal forces to which they had owed their emancipation. In this way, they became easily associated with the new social forces. This was a danger to them.¹

The new freedom of the nineteenth century also had its losers: people and groups for whom social progress was virtually impossible.² The old middle class was driven into a tight corner by the rise of industrialisation and mass production. Officials and office workers remained in their old positions where they, in social terms, were unable or hardly able to gain promotion.

The economic slump of 1873 after the overheating of the economy and the stock-market crash was of unprecedented magnitude, especially in Germany. The Jews, who were seen as the embodiment of capitalist modernity, were blamed for the disaster. Now many of the economic losers and even more culturally critical sceptics in Germany – along with the anti-liberal conservative elite – turned against democracy, liberalism and capitalism. Some of them wanted to partially undo the emancipation of the Jews, which had been in force since 1871, while others wanted to do this completely. This gave rise to modern anti-Semitism.³

This is simply a case of downright envy. There was more going on with modern anti-Semitism, however – contrary to the already age-old religious anti-Judaism. Something new was added to the enmity towards the Jews, which would appear catastrophic at a later stage: one began to consider Jews a separate race. This means the Jews formed a so-called biological unit. In terms of the second half of the nineteenth century, Jews were all of the same blood and this was meant very negatively. All kinds of ugly traits emerged from their blood – we would now talk of ‘genes’ – whether they wanted this or not. Adolf Hitler would continue to emphasise this. On 13 August 1920, he shouted the following: ‘The character of the Jew is in his blood and he has to act accordingly. No matter what profession the Jew has, he is and remains a Jew and through his blood, he only has one thing on his mind: How can I bring my people to world dominion….’⁴ All other conceivable and unconceivable bad qualities inevitably emerged from Jewish blood as well according to him. The Jew was determined to do evil through his biology.

This new idea, that the Jews formed a separate race (‘the Jewish race’ would become a typical Nazi term), did not just come out of the blue.

The concept of human ‘race’ had already come into fashion in the eighteenth century, under the influence of European colonial expansion and people were divided into all kinds of human races. The white race was superior. African and American races followed at a great distance. For a long time, there was confusion about primitive races such as Hottentots and Pygmies. What were they exactly, human beings or apes?⁵ The general opinion was that the difference between the races had originated through geography, climate and food. One expressed vague opinions about the connection between race and culture.

Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, the influential pioneer of the new racism, changed this. In his 400-page book, An essay on the inequality of human races (1853–5), he developed a racial doctrine in which he clearly expressed his opinion about races and the connection between race and culture. A race did not originate from environmental factors but was determined biologically. And in particular: culture emerged from race. To put it in twenty-first-century terms, he says that culture stems from a race’s DNA, so purely from nature. The white race was superior to all other races. Among the white, the Aryans (the French, the English, the Germans and North Europeans) were most high bred. Only they had the creative qualities at their disposal to produce a high culture. The Aryans were also superior physically. The Aryan body was beautiful, with blond hair and blue eyes. They resembled statues of classical sculpture. Gobineau was worried about the Aryan race. The danger was not present in the Jews, but in the crossbreeding with the lower, yellow and black races. If this crossbreeding took place, the Aryans would lose their creative powers and die a ‘racial death’. Gobineau was no anti-Semite himself, but, later on, National Socialists perverted his racial doctrine and used it against the Jews.⁶

Social Darwinism also provided a strong impulse for thinking about races in biological terms. Charles Darwin had developed a powerful scientific explanation in his On the origin of species by means of natural selection (1859) about how the different species had originated, namely by natural selection. But the anti-Semites used Darwin to provide a ‘scientific’ basis for the enmity towards the Jews. Darwin had expressed himself only in terms of plants and animals in his book, but anti-Semitic Social Darwinists applied his ideas to human society and history. Higher and lower human races were distinguished by means of physical criteria. Cross-breeding was taboo on account of degeneration. They saw peoples and races fighting each other in a battle for survival. Some of them wanted to intervene in an active way and promote the so-called stronger races, based on natural selection.

Gobineau, Darwin and the Social Darwinists produced theories which served as the ‘scientific’ foundation for the racial superiority of the white race. Anti-Semites drew on elements from this philosophy to attack Jewish people. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, they developed racial anti-Semitism, where heredity was the norm. The classic anti-Semitic writers and thinkers, such as Eugen Dühring (1881), Theodor Fritsch (1892) and Adolf Wahrmund (1887), published works in which the noble Aryan was viewed as the opposite of the wicked Jew, whose behaviour sprouted from immutable racial characteristics. In actual fact, this means nothing other than whatever a Jew does, it stems from his biology. In this we can see the same as Gobineau’s argument, which is (now in modern terms to aid clarity): Jewish genes, DNA and chromosomes ensure that they are only able to do wicked things and never good. Later, Hitler would repeat this in his own jargon: he stressed again and again that ‘the blood’ of the Jew determined his ‘wicked’ behaviour. Here we encounter the crux of modern anti-Semitism, which encapsulates a fatal thought: due to the undermining tendencies of the Jews, which cannot be changed, and which will always exist because of heredity tendencies, Jews should really disappear. In other words: they should die. Here we see an essential difference to the much older, anti-Judaic sentiments, which rejected Jewish people because of their religion. If a Jew converted to Christianity, he was simply included in the Christian community.

In the 1870s, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ was used for the first time by the journalist Wilhelm Marr during his anti-Jewish campaign, in which he turned against Jewish emancipation, precisely at the time when many had lost their jobs and possessions following the economic crisis of 1873. Incidentally, Marr had also lost his job and he claimed that this was a result of Jewish actions.

The anti-Semitism of the composer Richard Wagner was authoritative for a modern art-loving elite. Wagner’s own anti-Semitism had been strengthened by Gobineau’s doctrine and he became friends with the French racist. He supported Gobineau financially and made his work popular in Germany. For him, the Jews were the personification of all evil, filth and wickedness. They had no inner life, were lacking in creativity and only lusted after money. In his operas, performed on an annual basis in Bayreuth from 1876, Wagner expressed a racial German ideal. In a mythical battle, the Aryans resisted the temptations of the flesh, paid for their intense joy or ignored