A Counterfactual Conversation with Thomas Weber About His New Book, "Becoming Hitler"
Over the summer, I exchanged a few emails with Tom Weber about the counterfactual implications of his brilliant new book, Becoming Hitler. Our correspondence built upon an earlier exchange that appeared on the CHR last year (see LINK).
Now that Becoming Hitler has just been published, readers of this blog may be interested in the slightly edited version of our recent exchange, which is printed below. Much of it involves a rewind counterfactual exploring what an earlier death of Vladimir Lenin would have meant for Hitler's views of Lebensraum.
Rosenfeld:
I finally wrapped your provocative book last
night and have circled back to some of the counterfactual questions we
discussed last year. I'm more persuaded than I was before that Hitler's Lebensraum ideas about seizing land in
the east depended on him recognizing that an alliance with a restored Tsarist
regime was no longer possible. As you put it, that took place only after
Lenin's death and the failure of the USSR to collapse in 1924-25. I was
actually hoping for more empirical evidence bearing this point out (though I
realize it's hard to come by). Am I right that you are mostly correlating the
timing of Lenin's death and the new foreign policy goals expressed in Mein Kampf as sufficient evidence?
Weber:
You are absolutely right in saying that you had
hoped for empirical evidence in support of Hitler’s change of heart on Russia
in 1924. So had I ….
The biggest frustration in writing this book was
the scarcity of sources on vital parts of the story. I had hoped that if I only
dug deep enough, as I had for ‘Hitler’s First War’, the missing pieces of
(empirical) evidence to tell the story would come to the fore (just as had been
the case for Hitler’s First War). So, yes, as far as Hitler’s changing attitude
towards Russia is concerned, what I did do was map out Hitler’s views on
Russia, identify the time when his views suddenly changed rapidly almost
overnight, and I then tried to come up with an explanation based on my reading
of the documents that is the most probable and plausible.
Do I think that the timing of Lenin’s death and
of Hitler’s expression of his new foreign policy goals to be sufficient
evidence? Well, the evidence would be insufficient in court but then
again the same would be true for most of our research (and certainly for the
work of archeologists or ancient historians). It is the best reading of the
scarce surviving evidence with which I could come up with and I would hope that
this is the beginning rather than the endpoint of a renewed discussion of the
genesis of the Hitler whom we all know.
There are likely to be various pieces of
evidence still around that will surface or resurface one day….One would also
imagine that there are still relevant papers in private hands amongst
some Russian aristocratic emigre families but then again I am not sure if
they’ll ever give access to them.
There is also a private collector in America who
has amassed an enormous number of papers relating to Hitler. I know for certain
that some of the papers in his hands would shed new light on some of the
questions discussed in my book. Yet my attempts to get access to his papers for
the time being have been futile. However, I understand that his papers will
become available some day. vI would also
imagine that the private papers of Arenberg and others will become available in
the foreseeable future.
Rosenfeld:
This also raises the question of what the
earliest possible date would be for Hitler’s decision about the impossibility
of a German-Russian alliance. I wonder what would have happened if Lenin
had died 1-2 years earlier and the Soviet Union had failed to fall by 1922-23?
Would Hitler have given up his German-Russian scheme earlier and embraced
the idea of Lebensraum? Moreover, how much of this decision was
contingent on Ernst Scheubner-Richter's death at the Feldherrnhalle on November
9, 1923? (after all, his death removes a key adviser who had been
tellinog Hitler to hold out for a German-Russian alliance).
Is there any evidence at all that someone else
influenced Hitler to shift his gaze eastward? You say that Rudolf Hess
and Karl Haushofer gave Hitler the term "Lebensraum," but that it was
grafted onto already extant ideas. You say that Hitler's racism was
reconfigured to fit his geopolitical goals (not the other way around).
That seems a fair point. I wonder what other reviewers will say.
Anyway, I appreciate the book's restoration of contingency to Hitler's
evolution. It is quite convincing in
revealing that Nazism did not arrive on the historical stage in any fully
formed fashion.
Weber:
What would have happened if Lenin had died 1-2
years earlier and the Soviet Union had failed to fall by 1922-23? Would Hitler
have given up his German-Russian scheme earlier and embraced Lebensraum? Hmm,
good question….
My short answer would be: Yes, he would have…embraced
a colonization of Russia. My slightly longer answer is to say that a lot would
depend on the people with whom Hitler had interactions. Let’s assume Lenin died
in 1921 and that the Soviet Union was still around in 1922 and 1923; but
equally let’s assume that Hitler would have still been surrounded by
Scheubner-Richter, Rosenberg, AND Russian emigrés. The real question now would
be if Russian Tsarist emigrés, Sch-R, & Rosenberg would have held on to
their pipe dream of a new Tsarist Empire. In that case, Hitler might also still
have believed that the Soviet Union was unsustainable and would soon fall.
Yet we also have to take into account that
Hitler had a change of heart while being incarcerated and hence had time from
contemplation. I would argue that if Hitler had been incarcerated earlier (let’s
say he had been imprisoned much longer when he was in Stadelheim), if Lenin had
died earlier, and if the Soviet Union had failed to fail much earlier, Hitler
might well have pivoted towards Lebensraum much earlier.
Yes, even though I have no firm evidence in
support of your implicit counterfactual on Scheubner-Richter, I think you are
absolutely right that his death removed a key adviser telling Hitler to hold
out for a German-Russian alliance. This is a point I really should have made in
my book.
Is there any evidence at all that someone else
influenced Hitler to move eastward? Well, there is no firm evidence that
someone else influenced Hitler to move eastward but others might well have
played a role.
I wish we knew what happened to Hess’s notes
from Landsberg (which by 1941 were still in existence)
I hope that other reviewers will [take note of] my
argument that Hitler's racism was reconfigured to fit his geopolitical goals
(not the other way around). This is…the…argument which I was surprised…was not
commented upon in reviews of the German-language edition of my book.
Comments
Hitler and associates wanted to expel the Slavic peoples from western Russia and kick them the other side of the Urals. Read Gerhard L. Weinberg and it was clearly Hitler goal to crave an empire in the east. If Hitler was a rational leader he would have accepted Stalin peace feelers in October 1941(Operation Typhoon) and March 1943(after Manstein counter attack at Kharkov).
That based on my lectures : Stephen G Fritz book Ostkreig, John Mosier book Stalin vs Hitler and others.
But the counterfctual I would made on my humble opinion is that a tsarist russia or a white russia who could have toppeled the soviets in 1919 would have been less a menace to germans generals class. Lets not forget that they were russian nobility that descended from Germany. A tsarist or nationalistic authoritarian Russia wich would be capitalist would be less a threat to Weimer Germany and the generals.
Hitler would in this case have been a minor agitator without a supposed " juedo -bolchevik" threat. A nationalist would have taken power but there would not have been a genocidal dictatorship(killigs jews, mentally ill, political opsition, gypsies, slavic etc). A new Bismarck would have arisen and at best Germany would have gone back to its frontier of 1914 in Europe.
Anyway its my humble opinion.