What do you think?
Rate this book
De Nihilistische Revolutie
Kessinger Publishing is the place to find hundreds of thousands of rare and hard-to-find books with something of interest for everyone!
284 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1938
2 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Hermann Rauschning
30 books10 followersGerman Conservative Revolutionary who briefly joined the Nazis before he broke with them in 1934.
Rauschning joined the Nazi Party in 1932 and became the head of the parlement of Danzig in 1933.
In 1934 he left the Nazi party membership and defected to the United
States where he denounced Nazism.
Rauschning is chiefly known for his book Conversations with Hitler in which he claimed to have many meetings and conversations with Hitler. His book is considered to be a fraud by historians.
After the war he became a staunch critic of the president of the federal republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer
Rauschning joined the Nazi Party in 1932 and became the head of the parlement of Danzig in 1933.
In 1934 he left the Nazi party membership and defected to the United
States where he denounced Nazism.
Rauschning is chiefly known for his book Conversations with Hitler in which he claimed to have many meetings and conversations with Hitler. His book is considered to be a fraud by historians.
After the war he became a staunch critic of the president of the federal republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 26, 2023
Written in 1938, and published in Europe shortly after Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, it was published in the US in early 1940.
The author -- Hermann Rauschning -- was an early true believer in the promise that National Socialism seemed to offer of liberating Germany from the economically ruinous policies imposed by the Versailles Treaty that marked the end of WWI. However, as the '30s wore on he became increasingly disillusioned, put off by the brutality embraced by Hitler and his henchmen and by the enlargement of the mission to "restore Germany" to include domination of all who would challenge Hitler's rule.
You might wonder what value there might be in reading a book written so long ago for, after all, hundreds of historians have combed once-hidden archives and written informed tomes that, surely, are more inclusive.
That is true, however it is fascinating to read the thoughts of one who had been an insider, and to hear his narrative of how things "went wrong."
One of the issues that has long bothered me is "How could so many good people choose to follow such a monster as Hitler?" A lot of opinions have been offered in response: that they were duped and misled, that they didn't realize the magnitude of what the Third Reich was about, even that it happened because -- deep down -- most Germans in fact hated Jews and wanted revenge for the defeat of Germany in WWI.
Here Rauschning is revealing. At one point, he asks how could any German be dissatisfied by the surging economy -- the result of Hitler's decision to defy the Versailles document and begin to rearm secretly -- the pride that Germany was no longer compliantly suffering at the hands of the Allied victors, and that Hitler was regaining "lost" Germany territory without bloodshed?
Curiously, he says very little about Hitler's anti-semitism and the horrific cost in human lives that were a consequence. Does this mean that he was himself unaware of what was going on? Of course, the most evil of Hitler's actions did not gather much steam until actual war had broken out with Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939, and Kristallnacht -- which made Hitler's policies chillingly clear to all -- occurred in the fall of 1938, after this book was published.
Rauschning , when he speaks of Hitler's anti-semitism, tends to treat it as but one of many of Hitler's inclinations, or tactical feints, or something "tried out" to see just how far it would fly. Still, I find it disturbing that a man as high up as he once was seems to have been so little aware of, or concerned about, this critical element of Hitler's worldview and intention to act.
As others have pointed out, he also makes it very clear that the rise to power of Nazism was not inevitable. He accuses those who helped bring Hitler to power -- who did so hoping that it would further their own political stance -- of being so ignorant of Hitler's intentions and charism. It is an irony that at the time they invited him to join the government the National Socialists' standing among the people was actually falling!
Nor does he spare the leaders of European governments for, he makes it very clear, if they had responded quickly to the first of Hitler's moves -- the rearmament of the soldiers -- they could have crushed it before it grew any larger. Even by the time of the false resolution of the Czechoslovakian crisis he believes Hitler might have backed down, although that was very late, indeed.
The subtitle of this book is "Warning to the West!" That is because he came to realize that the Nazis were putting nihilism into practice. Their "ultimate aim," he writes, "is the maximum of power and dominion. The means is general subversion, the destruction of the existing order so as to have a free hand for the building of a new and greater dominion." Moreover, the "central ideal of this urge is the redistribution of the world."
Towards the end of the book he observes, "Between this will to anarchy as the first condition for the creation of a new order, and the conservative progress to higher forms of our Western civilization, there can be no compromise....
"For us Germans, the issue is plain and simple. Everyone who is still capable of thinking for himself must know that National Socialism is leading us to self-destruction. The revolutionary character of its foreign policy must inevitably lead to campaigns which will exhaust the nation. In opposition to its boundless aims and revolutionary methods, the plain question must be asked what lasting benefit they can bring the nation. Even if the Third Reich achieves complete success in the redistribution of the world...in the nature of things this can mean nothing but a permanent military occupation of subjugated territories, with all the accompanying violence and terrorism."
I'll leave you with one last observation that I believe we should hear and recognize, for we have people in power today who behave the same way!
In speaking of the "style" of leadership exemplified by such people as Hitler and Goebbels, he talks about how they have no real intention of persuading by use of facts or thoughtful reasoning, for they are interested only in what "facts" or arguments can allow them to prevail. They speak often, loudly, and with the repetition of key themes; they demonstrate remarkable ability to change the topic, to avoid answering specific questions. In their entire manner they demonstrate arrogance towards those who disagree with them and are intent upon taking every path possible in achieving their goals, civic rules of behavior or laws to the contrary.
People who behave like this are not necessarily fascists, but they ARE totalitarians.
The author -- Hermann Rauschning -- was an early true believer in the promise that National Socialism seemed to offer of liberating Germany from the economically ruinous policies imposed by the Versailles Treaty that marked the end of WWI. However, as the '30s wore on he became increasingly disillusioned, put off by the brutality embraced by Hitler and his henchmen and by the enlargement of the mission to "restore Germany" to include domination of all who would challenge Hitler's rule.
You might wonder what value there might be in reading a book written so long ago for, after all, hundreds of historians have combed once-hidden archives and written informed tomes that, surely, are more inclusive.
That is true, however it is fascinating to read the thoughts of one who had been an insider, and to hear his narrative of how things "went wrong."
One of the issues that has long bothered me is "How could so many good people choose to follow such a monster as Hitler?" A lot of opinions have been offered in response: that they were duped and misled, that they didn't realize the magnitude of what the Third Reich was about, even that it happened because -- deep down -- most Germans in fact hated Jews and wanted revenge for the defeat of Germany in WWI.
Here Rauschning is revealing. At one point, he asks how could any German be dissatisfied by the surging economy -- the result of Hitler's decision to defy the Versailles document and begin to rearm secretly -- the pride that Germany was no longer compliantly suffering at the hands of the Allied victors, and that Hitler was regaining "lost" Germany territory without bloodshed?
Curiously, he says very little about Hitler's anti-semitism and the horrific cost in human lives that were a consequence. Does this mean that he was himself unaware of what was going on? Of course, the most evil of Hitler's actions did not gather much steam until actual war had broken out with Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939, and Kristallnacht -- which made Hitler's policies chillingly clear to all -- occurred in the fall of 1938, after this book was published.
Rauschning , when he speaks of Hitler's anti-semitism, tends to treat it as but one of many of Hitler's inclinations, or tactical feints, or something "tried out" to see just how far it would fly. Still, I find it disturbing that a man as high up as he once was seems to have been so little aware of, or concerned about, this critical element of Hitler's worldview and intention to act.
As others have pointed out, he also makes it very clear that the rise to power of Nazism was not inevitable. He accuses those who helped bring Hitler to power -- who did so hoping that it would further their own political stance -- of being so ignorant of Hitler's intentions and charism. It is an irony that at the time they invited him to join the government the National Socialists' standing among the people was actually falling!
Nor does he spare the leaders of European governments for, he makes it very clear, if they had responded quickly to the first of Hitler's moves -- the rearmament of the soldiers -- they could have crushed it before it grew any larger. Even by the time of the false resolution of the Czechoslovakian crisis he believes Hitler might have backed down, although that was very late, indeed.
The subtitle of this book is "Warning to the West!" That is because he came to realize that the Nazis were putting nihilism into practice. Their "ultimate aim," he writes, "is the maximum of power and dominion. The means is general subversion, the destruction of the existing order so as to have a free hand for the building of a new and greater dominion." Moreover, the "central ideal of this urge is the redistribution of the world."
Towards the end of the book he observes, "Between this will to anarchy as the first condition for the creation of a new order, and the conservative progress to higher forms of our Western civilization, there can be no compromise....
"For us Germans, the issue is plain and simple. Everyone who is still capable of thinking for himself must know that National Socialism is leading us to self-destruction. The revolutionary character of its foreign policy must inevitably lead to campaigns which will exhaust the nation. In opposition to its boundless aims and revolutionary methods, the plain question must be asked what lasting benefit they can bring the nation. Even if the Third Reich achieves complete success in the redistribution of the world...in the nature of things this can mean nothing but a permanent military occupation of subjugated territories, with all the accompanying violence and terrorism."
I'll leave you with one last observation that I believe we should hear and recognize, for we have people in power today who behave the same way!
In speaking of the "style" of leadership exemplified by such people as Hitler and Goebbels, he talks about how they have no real intention of persuading by use of facts or thoughtful reasoning, for they are interested only in what "facts" or arguments can allow them to prevail. They speak often, loudly, and with the repetition of key themes; they demonstrate remarkable ability to change the topic, to avoid answering specific questions. In their entire manner they demonstrate arrogance towards those who disagree with them and are intent upon taking every path possible in achieving their goals, civic rules of behavior or laws to the contrary.
People who behave like this are not necessarily fascists, but they ARE totalitarians.
August 7, 2024
This book is interesting as it was written by a former high-level Nazi in 1938 as a plea to save Germany from imminent destruction. Worth the read for the perspective and period written alone. Sadly, depressingly, he was right but could do nothing about it.
National Socialism as distinct from Fascism?
He was writing this book to convince people in and out of Germany that they needed to work to destroy the current regime. What I found most interesting was his clear delineation between the revolutionary movements of his day. He doesn't make a case but rather states matter-of-factly - as if it were common knowledge - that there were three types: Bolshevism, Fascism, and National Socialism. He repeatedly and only refers to the party of National Socialists, not to deny their similarity but as a distinction as plain as we might distinguish between moderates and extreme elements of our own parties.
I guess I have never read a book from a former Nazi's perspective, meaning, as they saw themselves.
They must destroy themselves:
Most fascinating was his prediction that the regime must destroy itself. That there was no other way, as it had to continue being revolutionary until it met with its match or conquered the world and then disintegrated with something like an internal quarrel. He writes that many people did not believe this and felt the "revolution" was over, to which he argued that that was its essential nature and driving force.
National Socialism as distinct from Fascism?
He was writing this book to convince people in and out of Germany that they needed to work to destroy the current regime. What I found most interesting was his clear delineation between the revolutionary movements of his day. He doesn't make a case but rather states matter-of-factly - as if it were common knowledge - that there were three types: Bolshevism, Fascism, and National Socialism. He repeatedly and only refers to the party of National Socialists, not to deny their similarity but as a distinction as plain as we might distinguish between moderates and extreme elements of our own parties.
I guess I have never read a book from a former Nazi's perspective, meaning, as they saw themselves.
They must destroy themselves:
Most fascinating was his prediction that the regime must destroy itself. That there was no other way, as it had to continue being revolutionary until it met with its match or conquered the world and then disintegrated with something like an internal quarrel. He writes that many people did not believe this and felt the "revolution" was over, to which he argued that that was its essential nature and driving force.
December 12, 2024
Hermann Rauschning’s The Revolution of Nihilism (1939) is a stark and penetrating analysis of the ideological underpinnings and political trajectory of National Socialism in Germany. Written by a former Nazi Party member turned critic, the book offers an insider’s perspective on the rise of Adolf Hitler and the destructive logic of the Nazi regime. Subtitled Warning to the West, the book serves not only as a critique of National Socialism but also as a cautionary tale about the vulnerabilities of democratic societies to totalitarian movements.
Rauschning was a prominent conservative nationalist in the Weimar Republic and briefly president of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland). After breaking with the Nazi Party in 1934, he fled Germany and became a vocal critic of the regime. This personal background shapes the book, lending it the authority of firsthand observation but also the biases of an ideological opponent of both the Nazis and certain aspects of modernity.
Published shortly before the outbreak of World War II, The Revolution of Nihilism reflects the anxieties of its time, addressing a primarily Western audience in an attempt to galvanize resistance against Hitler’s expansionist ambitions and ideological project.
The book’s central thesis is that National Socialism is fundamentally nihilistic—a movement dedicated not to constructive governance or ideological coherence, but to destruction, perpetual revolution, and the dismantling of all traditional values and institutions. Rauschning argues that this nihilism is not accidental but intrinsic to the Nazi worldview, rooted in a rejection of Enlightenment rationality, Christian morality, and the rule of law.
Rauschning identifies Hitler as the embodiment of this nihilism, portraying him as a cynical manipulator driven not by ideology but by a thirst for power. He contrasts the public facade of Nazi propaganda, which emphasized order and national revival, with its underlying chaos, violence, and disdain for any enduring principles. According to Rauschning, National Socialism’s ultimate goal is not merely the conquest of Europe but the obliteration of civilization itself.
A key strength of the book is its emphasis on the revolutionary character of National Socialism. Unlike traditional authoritarian regimes that seek stability and continuity, Rauschning argues, the Nazis embrace instability and constant upheaval as a means of maintaining their grip on power. This insight foreshadows later analyses of totalitarianism by thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin.
While The Revolution of Nihilism provides valuable insights into the psychological and ideological dynamics of National Socialism, it is not without flaws. One of the book’s limitations is its speculative tone. Rauschning’s characterization of Hitler and the Nazi leadership often relies on anecdotal evidence, personal interpretation, and secondhand accounts. This has led to questions about the book’s historical reliability, particularly regarding the accuracy of Rauschning’s claims about private conversations with Hitler.
Moreover, Rauschning’s framing of National Socialism as a uniquely nihilistic phenomenon has been criticized for underestimating its ideological coherence and appeal. Later scholarship has shown that the Nazi regime, while undoubtedly destructive, also articulated a vision of racial hierarchy, cultural renewal, and economic modernization that resonated with significant segments of the German population.
Despite these shortcomings, Rauschning’s critique of Nazi nihilism remains compelling as a philosophical and moral analysis. His warnings about the dangers of political movements that reject universal values, embrace unrestrained power, and exploit mass discontent continue to resonate in contemporary debates about authoritarianism and extremism.
The Revolution of Nihilism was influential in its time, shaping Western perceptions of National Socialism and contributing to the intellectual groundwork for resistance to fascism. Its emphasis on the destructive nature of totalitarian movements remains relevant in the 21st century, particularly in the context of resurgent populism and authoritarianism.
However, the book is best read alongside more recent and rigorous studies of National Socialism, which provide a more nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of its ideology, policies, and social impact. Scholars such as Ian Kershaw, Richard J. Evans, and Timothy Snyder have built on and, in some cases, challenged the ideas Rauschning introduced.
Hermann Rauschning’s The Revolution of Nihilism is a powerful and prescient critique of National Socialism as a nihilistic and revolutionary force. While its historical accuracy and interpretative framework have been debated, its philosophical insights into the dangers of unbridled power, ideological extremism, and the rejection of moral foundations remain highly relevant. As a document of its time, it offers both a warning from the past and a lens through which to view contemporary political challenges.
GPT
Rauschning was a prominent conservative nationalist in the Weimar Republic and briefly president of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland). After breaking with the Nazi Party in 1934, he fled Germany and became a vocal critic of the regime. This personal background shapes the book, lending it the authority of firsthand observation but also the biases of an ideological opponent of both the Nazis and certain aspects of modernity.
Published shortly before the outbreak of World War II, The Revolution of Nihilism reflects the anxieties of its time, addressing a primarily Western audience in an attempt to galvanize resistance against Hitler’s expansionist ambitions and ideological project.
The book’s central thesis is that National Socialism is fundamentally nihilistic—a movement dedicated not to constructive governance or ideological coherence, but to destruction, perpetual revolution, and the dismantling of all traditional values and institutions. Rauschning argues that this nihilism is not accidental but intrinsic to the Nazi worldview, rooted in a rejection of Enlightenment rationality, Christian morality, and the rule of law.
Rauschning identifies Hitler as the embodiment of this nihilism, portraying him as a cynical manipulator driven not by ideology but by a thirst for power. He contrasts the public facade of Nazi propaganda, which emphasized order and national revival, with its underlying chaos, violence, and disdain for any enduring principles. According to Rauschning, National Socialism’s ultimate goal is not merely the conquest of Europe but the obliteration of civilization itself.
A key strength of the book is its emphasis on the revolutionary character of National Socialism. Unlike traditional authoritarian regimes that seek stability and continuity, Rauschning argues, the Nazis embrace instability and constant upheaval as a means of maintaining their grip on power. This insight foreshadows later analyses of totalitarianism by thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Eric Voegelin.
While The Revolution of Nihilism provides valuable insights into the psychological and ideological dynamics of National Socialism, it is not without flaws. One of the book’s limitations is its speculative tone. Rauschning’s characterization of Hitler and the Nazi leadership often relies on anecdotal evidence, personal interpretation, and secondhand accounts. This has led to questions about the book’s historical reliability, particularly regarding the accuracy of Rauschning’s claims about private conversations with Hitler.
Moreover, Rauschning’s framing of National Socialism as a uniquely nihilistic phenomenon has been criticized for underestimating its ideological coherence and appeal. Later scholarship has shown that the Nazi regime, while undoubtedly destructive, also articulated a vision of racial hierarchy, cultural renewal, and economic modernization that resonated with significant segments of the German population.
Despite these shortcomings, Rauschning’s critique of Nazi nihilism remains compelling as a philosophical and moral analysis. His warnings about the dangers of political movements that reject universal values, embrace unrestrained power, and exploit mass discontent continue to resonate in contemporary debates about authoritarianism and extremism.
The Revolution of Nihilism was influential in its time, shaping Western perceptions of National Socialism and contributing to the intellectual groundwork for resistance to fascism. Its emphasis on the destructive nature of totalitarian movements remains relevant in the 21st century, particularly in the context of resurgent populism and authoritarianism.
However, the book is best read alongside more recent and rigorous studies of National Socialism, which provide a more nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of its ideology, policies, and social impact. Scholars such as Ian Kershaw, Richard J. Evans, and Timothy Snyder have built on and, in some cases, challenged the ideas Rauschning introduced.
Hermann Rauschning’s The Revolution of Nihilism is a powerful and prescient critique of National Socialism as a nihilistic and revolutionary force. While its historical accuracy and interpretative framework have been debated, its philosophical insights into the dangers of unbridled power, ideological extremism, and the rejection of moral foundations remain highly relevant. As a document of its time, it offers both a warning from the past and a lens through which to view contemporary political challenges.
GPT
January 19, 2026
An influential book about the rise of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP and their so called nihilist revolution. It describes the tactics used by the party to gain control over the institutions in Germany and why this was not ideologically driven. Rauschning’s thesis is based upon his time being part of the party and states that national-socialism does not have an ideological basis. Propaganda is used to control the masses and the only goal is the complete parasitization of the state and to destroy the the social and political order. This would result in a no man’s land for which the national socialists would not have a plan.
It is a well written book and poses some interesting statements and questions but it is not entirely relevant anymore and highly debated by scholars. I would recommend Eberhard Jäckel’s Hitlers Worldview from 1972 which goes directly against Rauschning’s thesis to get a better understanding of the nazi ideology.
It is a well written book and poses some interesting statements and questions but it is not entirely relevant anymore and highly debated by scholars. I would recommend Eberhard Jäckel’s Hitlers Worldview from 1972 which goes directly against Rauschning’s thesis to get a better understanding of the nazi ideology.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews