Spiegel Online talks to art historian Birgit Schwarz, who, in a new book on Hitler and art, traces a link between the dictator's conception of himself as a genius and the crimes he went on to commit once in power. One should read the book, naturally, before coming to a conclusion on its central theses. But there seems to me to be an obvious reason to start out sceptical about at least one element of what Schwarz says:
In my opinion, people have underestimated the notion that Hitler considered himself an artist, in fact, an artistic genius, and that much can be deduced from this self-image, this overheated artist's ego. However, this has hardly played a role in the research to date... Hitler's deluded view of himself as a genius... centered on the idea that a genius - a strong personality who outshone everything else - could do anything and could do anything he pleased.
Later in the interview, she repeats the point:
A genius had to have a strong personality. He was a larger-than-life talent who was permitted to do anything, including evil things. The genius has outstanding ideas, and they must be implemented, even if they are completely amoral.
And then, asked specifically if she's implicating Hitler's view of himself as an artistic genius in the genocide against the Jews, Schwarz answers affirmatively.
My initial scepticism towards this thesis is based on the fact that Hitler had a view about the Jews - as the embodiment of evil, as a poison or a disease to the German nation and less than human - that rendered the idea of genius and its permission to act amorally surplus to requirements. According to Hitlerite anti-Semitism the destruction of the Jews was not an evil act in need of a justification appealing to genius. (Via.)