The Chiefs of Edom and Germany
One of the characteristics of Edom is the Principle of Leadership.
In 1-Chronicles 1:52 we have an expression, "the chiefs of Edom".
So too, Genesis (36:15) speaks of the "Dukes of Esau".
The word translated as Duke or leader in Hebrew is Aluph meaning general or commander.
"Duke" derives from the Latin "Dux" meaning leader. This is a good equivalent to "Aluph".
"Aluph" is from the root "aleph" connoting train, teach, assist. The English word "help" may come from this root.
Edom is identified with Rome and Germany and other places in Europe.
The leaders of Edom are called"Aluphim" (singular: Aluph) in Hebrew. This is translated as Duke.
It is interesting that the Italian Fascist Dictator, Mussolini, was called IL DUCE or The Duke. Mussolini set the tone. He was the model for Hitler and company.
It is also interesting that Italy, Germany, and Japan, together with Hungary, Austria, and Rumania were part of the Axis forces that fought against Judah and Israel.
The leadership or "frueher" principle was very important in fascist and Germanic-Nazi thinking and quite effective. It must have reflected some deep aspect of the peoples it was applied to and utilized by.
Compare the following notes on this matter.
Models of Leadership in the Third Reich. Brit-Am Historical Notes.
There are three models below. All of these are historically valid. They should be viewed as overlapping rather than cancelling each other out.
1. The Autocratic Model. From Hitler down.
This understanding locates the source of Nazism in Hitler who passed on commandments to his followers.
2. Fuehrer Anticipation.
This was known as "Anticipating Hilter" and the Fuehrer Principle. Those in charge would be allowed and even encouraged to act as they thought Hitler or those above them wanted.
We thus have subservients acting differently to, and at cross purposes with, each other until their leaders send them additional directions clarifying what is wanted. This also explains why at the beginning of Nazi Rule there were cases of officials who expressed opinions or acted in ways contradictory to later policy.
A variant of the leadership principle was employed to great effect in the German Armed Forces. The man in the field was often allowed a great deal of autonomy to improvise and use initiative. Due to the high standard of training and motivation this was often extremely effective.
The Allies on the other hand due to the hurried training and lower standard of their troops had to be quite constrictive in the latitude allowed their forces. This resulted in the paradox that the autocratic Axis nations often enabled individual creative expression of the military instinct in their soldiers whereas the freedom-loving Democracies were forced to strictly circumscribe it.
3. Folk Arousal. Apex Leadership Cadre Pushed from Behind.
A group of leaders exists at the top. They are in charge and they formulate policy. They owe their power however to resonance with the folk instincts of the people.
It thus may happen on occasion that the leadership will be pushed aside. Hitler and company were therefore tools whose usefulness continued as long as they gave expression to what the folk needed.
This explains such incidents as the Jew, Ernst Hess. This man had been brought up a Protestant and was married to an Aryan. He had received the Iron Cross first and second class in World War 1 during which time he had been the commander of Adolf Hitler. By profession Hess was a judge in Dusseldorf. Himmler gave Hess a letter of protection which explicitly said
"as per the Fuehrer's wishes. This letter helped Hess from 1937 to 1940 when the letter was taken from him and he was sent to a concentration camp, which he was lucky enough to survive. His sister died at Auschwitz. Here we have a case in which the wish of Hitler extending exceptional leniency to a Jew was in fact disregarded. Hess was treated with slightly less severity because he was married to a German. We see from this incident that Hitler himself was in a de facto sense not considered as have overriding authority in racial matters.
The reality of the Third Reich appears to have been a combination of all the above three models.
Hitler (as Jung noted) managed in some way to personify the soul of Germany. He was given power to rule and ruled from the top down. Even so, there were many fields in which the wishes of Hitler at first were not clear or in which how to apply the will of Hitler was not certain. In such cases the local plenipotentiaries would second guess what the Leadership required.
So too, German society is often pictured as being terrorized by the Gestapo. In effect the Gestapo and similar agencies had very few full-time staff. Numerous German citizens regularly and officiously reported to the Gestapo and assisted in police enforcement activities. This enabled the system to work. Once the system was in operation it took on a will of its own. Even Hitler could not have changed it once its form was settled on.
This albeit partial and sketchy analysis of leadership patterns in the Third Reich is nevertheless interesting when considered in the light of the Dukes or Leaders of Edom.
Leadership is an Edomite asset.
So are martial qualities. Esau was blessed that he should live by the sword (Genesis 27:40).