Speaking of both the TV broadcast :”Hitler and the March on Berlin, Hitler’s photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann” in La 7, by Andrea Purgatori, of November 30, which of many others made over time also on the same subject, requires the dutiful introduction of a complex of necessary clarifications unfortunately never presented up to now. In this sense, in the meantime, I cannot first of all, the excessive reproposition of this topic cannot be striking.
On the other hand, one could object, in defense of this excessive re-proposal, how much usefulness could certainly derive from it from a cultural point of view for the necessary knowledge of one of the greatest horrors that occurred in the last century, above all for the new and future generations. But despite all this there would undeniably remain a certain “excess” of this “re-proposal”, perhaps explainable through a certain, unusual, paradoxical “attraction” for certain characters, even if they are the architects of the most serious crimes against humanity.
Proceeding in medias res, and precisely starting from the aforementioned television broadcast of 30 November last, it is necessary to admit that both in it, and in many others, we have never, in fact, moved to deal more fully with this topic through the exhibition of one of the fundamental nodes of all this past tragedy of the ‘900. For example, a large part of the aforementioned television broadcast of November 30 took place by attaching a large part of the “success” of this, almost, ex-tramp, insignificant character, mediocre painter, rejected by the Berlin Academy of Arts, to the improvement work of his image, among the German people, carried out by his personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann, also a member of the National Socialist party and probably, since the beginning of his acquaintance with Adolf Hitler, attracted by a, so to speak, unusual ” aggressive verve” of the future evil dictator.
But things went much more differently and the most completely exhaustive explanations cannot fail to derive, both for this case, as for various others, in the “good” and in the “bad”, and from the observations of the behavioral sciences, among which they assume particular emphasis is placed on those of a psychoanalytic brand. Almost an entire population, the Germanic one, was at the time seduced by the implementation of an important and incisive mental mechanism, that of “suggestion”. Freud was the first to go so far as to examine this phenomenon in various conditions of “libidinal” investment (whereby this term does not mean anything specifically sexual, but rather the reference to a more general energetic concept), as, for example, in the fascination that the masses undergo, in hypnosis, in falling in love, etc.
More specifically in “Psychology of the masses and analysis of the Ego” (1921), he tackles the problem of leadership and the characteristic dynamics of the relationship of a mass with its leader, arguing, quite rightly, that the function of the leader is that to replace the ideal of the ego of the individuals who constitute it, thus delegating the mass the head not only to the function of guide, but also to the ability to “think”. This phenomenon, at the time of the triumph of Hitler’s National Socialism, also explained the parallel fascination of a large part of the Italian people for another inopportune idol-dictator: Benito Mussolini.
One could then say that, on the basis of complex, specific, economic and social problems, often fate or rather chance has offered the peoples some nefarious leader, described, in this case, for the above phenomena, at home, in Germany, as an almost divine figure and outside, as an “object” to be subjected only to heated, full, derision. On the other hand, it matters little to ascertain the true personality profile of Adolf Hitler, as attempts have been made on several occasions and over and over again, now describing him as a psychopath, other times as a paranoid schizophrenic, other times still as a a borderline, alongside the fact that certainly, with regard to, for example, the holocaust, it was perpetrated by the dictator both for his psychopathological, uncontrollable, aggressive, destructiveness, and for his clear paranoid tendency with respect to the vilified and massacred people Jew.
On the other hand, it would be useful to remark, for a greater expository clarity of the facts, how a certain “histrionic-seductive” capacity of the dictator, even improved, and why not, by his personal photographer, certainly, finally, has managed to succeed, fact, to seduce almost an entire people, since the mass in many specific and particular national events has often shown itself to be powerfully “attracted” and at the same time, so to speak, “decapitated” by its leader for the reasons mentioned above.
In this way, sometimes, a certain, “delusional”, “circular”, i.e. “group-based” condition can be induced, so much so, for example, that the day after Adolf Hitler killed himself with his wife on April 30, 1945 Eva Braun, follow him with an identical insane gesture, Joseph Goebbels, whom he previously designated to be his successor, and his wife Magda after she coldly killed their six small children. Furthermore, in Nuremberg, during the trial, no Nazi criminal seemed to realize the atrocities he had committed, often everyone usually considering himself at the time of the events perpetrated a soldier in war and necessarily predisposed to having to obey orders only.
Any reference to horrors perpetrated in the historical past of any nation or country, as long as it is well exposed and thoroughly examined, which functions well to “prevent” and such as to recommend to the peoples and to politics the need for the building of very solid democracies, a conditio sine qua not, in order to avoid disastrous, dramatic, horrendous “repetitions”, based on dangerous regressive dynamisms, infantilizing almost entire masses of people subjected to unacceptable destructive authoritarianisms.