In his opus, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, English historian Edward Gibbon refers to the Emperor Augustus as the “subtle tyrant.” The phrase may seem like a contradiction in terms, but it actually contains a profound insight about the true nature of tyranny. Dictators from the ancient world to modern times have rarely, if ever, simply wielded omnipotent power. Instead, they have had to manipulate their counselors and followers, often pitting them against one other, all while keeping a wary eye on broader public sentiment, ready to make tactical compromises whenever necessary in order to achieve their long-term aspirations.
In Hitler’s Compromises, Nathan Stoltzfus, a professor of history at Florida State University, argues that the Nazi dictator fits firmly into this mold. Stoltzfus’s ambitious study seeks to correct the perception of the Nazi state as a seamless totalitarian organization that easily cowed Germans into unthinking obedience. The author suggests there was more to it than that: rather than seek to rely automatically on outright terror, Hitler was surprisingly prepared to compromise politically in order to avoid jeopardizing his popularity with the German people. Throughout, his highest goal was to exploit his hold on Germans to weld them into a true National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft, or people’s community.
Read Full Article »