American psychological analysis of German men (from 1943)

[Domen]

I was reading about Hitler's psychological analysis done by Americans, and I stumbled upon this passage:

It may be of interest to note at this time that of all the titles that Hitler might have chosen for himself he is content with the simple one of "Fuehrer". To him this title is the greatest of them all. He has spent his life searching for a person worthy of the role but was unable to find one until he discovered himself. His goal is now to fulfill this role to millions of other people in a way in which he had hoped some person might do for him. The fact that the German people have submitted so readily to his leadership would indicate that a great many Germans were in a similar state of mind as Hitler himself and were not only willing, but anxious, to submit to anybody who could prove to them that he was competent to fill the role. There is some sociological evidence that this is probably so and that its origins lie in the structure of the German family and the dual role played by the father within the home as contrasted with the outside world. The duality, on the average is, of course, not nearly as marked as we have shown it to be in Hitler's case, but it may be this very fact which qualified him to identify the need and express it in terms which the others could understand and accept.

From:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection5pt1.htm

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osstitle.htm

If I understood what this article stated correctly, at least in the case of Hitler, his father was a man of society, diligent, hard-working and someone to be respected when at work, but an aggressive and instabile drunkard when at home. Basically the author states that the reason for his blind and utmost obedience to his superiors was the two-faced nature of his father. The author also mentions that this is probably the case in most German families, but of course usually on a smaller scale than in the case of Hitler's.

So it seems that most of German family fathers were like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde according to this American psychological analysis ???

BTW, there was such a joke in Poland: German and Pole play cards. German has The King card, while Pole has The Queen, but Pole claims he won. German says: "I won, the King beats the Queen". "Perhaps in Germany!", replies Pole. The allusion is, that German men beat their wifes / women.

This joke - like the psychological analysis you quoted - promotes this stereotype that German fathers / husbands were such "home Fuehrers".

And due to being "home Fuehrers" themselves, they supported Hitler - "countrywide Fuehrer", who was like them.

==================================

The joke I quoted above was also used in this Polish beer commercial below:


Link to video.

 

[Borachio]

the author states that the reason for his blind and utmost obedience to his superiors was the two-faced nature of his father

Except for during WW1, and its immediate aftermath, who was Hitler obedient to?

This is the psychological report I'm familiar with. Well, I've heard of it, anyway.

I don't put much store by it, though.

I wonder how much credibility there is in psychology, or psychiatry, generally.

 

[Dachs]

I wonder how much credibility there is in psychology, or psychiatry, generally.

More now than there was in 1943, that's for damn sure.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't doubt that Germany has its share of negative values/culture (even bestiality is legal there, along with zoo 'tourism' of another kind ), but i also recall the supposed "study of Hitler" that Freudians (?) wrote, during ww2. I also would not think too much of such works. Demonisation is bad, however using pseudo-science to demonise is far worse.

 

[Borachio]

More now than there was in 1943, that's for damn sure.

Is there? I'm not so sure.

You could be right. But I tend to think of psychology a bit like art. Modern art is no more credible, or valid, than prehistoric cave painting. And often less so.

 

[Phrossack]

Look, we get it, you don't like Germans.

 

[luiz]

The article only exposes a lot of reasons why psychology should always be takes with many grains of salt.

The conclusion-drawing process there is just bizarrely unscientific.

 

[Domen]

Look, we get it, you don't like Germans.

Dear Phrossack, nowadays even Germans don't like themselves! BTW - I like many Germans, as individuals.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I wonder how much credibility there is in psychology, or psychiatry, generally.

It's accurate if you mainly want to consider Western university students.

 

[cybrxkhan]

It's accurate if you mainly want to consider Western university students.

Indeed I would be inclined to agree. Though it is a problem I've seen in many fields, where sample sizes are not representative of, well, the human race in general. While I believe psychology (like some favorite "liberal arts" punching bags such as anthropology) is often underrated and made fun of for no good reason, it does have issues here. Oftentimes from what I've read in psychology - and I mean actual studies and research, not some pop psychology stuff you read in the news - doesn't seem to exactly acknowledge this, except maybe if they're doing anthropological psychology/psychological anthropology/whatever it's called.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Yep, the psychological conditions of the German sapient, "Homo Germanicus," are wholly disparate from and alien to that of the "Homo sapiens sapiens." All political and cultural developments of the German nation -- meaning the Homo Germanicus Wildlife Preserve and Game Range -- are unique to the psychology of the Homo Germanicus' truly strange and incomprehensible mind. We are lucky to live in an era of such progress and understanding that great and wise men can use the powers of science to finally understand just what it is those wacky Germans are thinking.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The article only exposes a lot of reasons why psychology should always be takes with many grains of salt.

The conclusion-drawing process there is just bizarrely unscientific.

This is really a psychiatric evaluation. The two terms get conflated constantly.

I agree, though, that especially the Freud era of grand and sweeping generalizations, many of which simply reinforce social norms of the time, are nonsense and reek of chauvinism (not just the norms-reinforcing bit, but the idea that you can actually determine with finality what a person's relationship with their parents was like because of some unrelated event, or those kinds of things, is extraordinarily arrogant). It's with good reason that psychiatrists were slandered as quacks in the early-mid 20th century. However, while most of Freud has been overturned since then, the discipline has moved in a different direction, and today's psychiatry is more directed toward counseling than quackery; helping the patient to ultimately overcome their problems themselves. I think it's a very useful service to have, as we all go through a great deal of psychological trauma in our lives which we shouldn't be forced to deal with solely on our own. We honestly may not even realize is something that is affecting us, until we consult with an expert who can help us to unravel these things.

 

[luiz]

This is really a psychiatric evaluation. The two terms get conflated constantly.

I agree, though, that especially the Freud era of grand and sweeping generalizations, many of which simply reinforce social norms of the time, are nonsense and reek of chauvinism (not just the norms-reinforcing bit, but the idea that you can actually determine with finality what a person's relationship with their parents was like because of some unrelated event, or those kinds of things, is extraordinarily arrogant). It's with good reason that psychiatrists were slandered as quacks in the early-mid 20th century. However, while most of Freud has been overturned since then, the discipline has moved in a different direction, and today's psychiatry is more directed toward counseling than quackery; helping the patient to ultimately overcome their problems themselves. I think it's a very useful service to have, as we all go through a great deal of psychological trauma in our lives which we shouldn't be forced to deal with solely on our own. We honestly may not even realize is something that is affecting us, until we consult with an expert who can help us to unravel these things.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but IIRC the distinction is like this:

-Psychology - Freud - Quackery
-Psychiatry - Proper Medical field - Mostly based on drugs nowadays

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but IIRC the distinction is like this:

-Psychology - Freud - Quackery
-Psychiatry - Proper Medical field - Mostly based on drugs nowadays

No, psychology today is geared toward understanding human behavior, personality, and mental functions. Part of it is quite heavily scientific: neuroscience and the like. Part of it is observational, relating to things like behavioral economics. And part of it is about human mental development, from early childhood to old age. While these were things Freud also focused on, the methods of analysis are different. Freud's was very philosophical, that is, he thought about what ought to cause something, and used his conclusions as the starting point. Modern psychology, however, doesn't do that, it looks at trends and evidence. Some of it is still heuristic, since, well, you're either drawing conclusions about peoples' emotions, or asking them to do so, and that's not a very precise exercise. But even that part is just one small aspect of a much larger field, which doesn't deserve the blanket dismissal of "quackery."

What you're (we're) specifically objecting to is Freudian psychoanalysis, which is quite different.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but IIRC the distinction is like this:

-Psychology - Freud - Quackery
-Psychiatry - Proper Medical field - Mostly based on drugs nowadays

The main difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist is that the latter can prescribe drugs, at least that's what I've been told.

Anyhow indeed the field has moved to be more... "scientific", I guess, and counseling can and will general help, as I've found from personal experience. Is it a perfect field? No. I think there is still a lot of improvement particuarly with finding more diverse groups to study, rather than the typical "western university students" as stated above, but it isn't the wish-washy, liberal arts punching bag that the media would have one believe.

 

[Kyriakos]

^+1

Indeed nowdays most psychiatrists do not attempt to form a full theory/model, but are open to reacting to the info by the person who asks for some help. Besides, no one can come up with a model of the mental world which would account for all. Not even on an average level.

Freud, on the other hand, exactly was making models, and filling them up. It would be like someone claiming he could study the universe by making a working map of it, when they only have evidence for the nearer/most glaring objects, and then theory for the ones further away, up to the vanishing point of any current horizon.