Current U.S. Politics and the Rise of Hitler, Part 2: Historical Congruencies
Nazis were defiling the home of Mickey Mouse. No, this is not the opening line of a dystopian movie script. On June 14, 2023, various news outlets reported that there were, “Neo-Nazis demonstrating outside of Walt Disney World.” The reason given? Donald Trump, the former president of the United States had just been indicted.
If this were, in fact, the opening of a movie, we’d be talking about the dark humor underlining the message about the end of American democracy. Nazis protesting outside of Disney World should seem surreal — except it was almost six years ago that a gathering of Nazis & White Supremists groups in Charlottesville shocked the nation and the world. Ostensibly there to protest the removal of a Confederate statue, many carried swastika flags right next to the Confederate ones. One group notoriously spent an evening marching around with tiki torches saying, “Jews will not replace us.”
Many of those involved who were interviewed spoke about how the election of Trump had empowered their groups. He did so even more with his “Good people on both sides” statement. It made the Nazis and White supremacists seem no better or worse than those protesting against them. Furthermore, Trump said this knowing that Heather Heyer had been murdered that weekend by a White supremacist deliberately ramming his car into a crowd of protestors.
Rather than the murder of Heyer giving those on the far-right pause, the practice of using cars to ram protestors has since increased. This is an American spin on a practice endorsed by overseas terrorist groups such as Al Queda or ISIS. Likewise, this same period has resulted in at least 3 states — Florida, Oklahoma, and Iowa — passing laws granting drivers civil immunity for doing so, all with the caveat of the driver having taken “due care” or having not been, “reckless or willful” with their actions. The laws also include the classic, “feared for my life” reasoning often used to justify killing unarmed Black men. Such laws being passed have continued to embolden Nazis and White supremacist groups. Having them show up to protest or march around has become so commonplace that such stories barely are a blip in a 24-hour news cycle.
Granted, the news cycle regarding American politics is filled with so much dire news it can be hard to keep track. There’s the GOP clown show in the U.S. House of Representatives that gets more embarrassing by the day and the Republican guy in the Senate undermining the military. The U.S. Supreme Court has been revealed to have Justices who have been taking huge gifts of travel, homes, etc from billionaire conservative donors and making rulings largely aligned with those donors’ ideology and personal good. Some states continue to pass draconian laws that take away a person’s bodily autonomy and right to privacy around health matters. In those states, a woman’s right to have an abortion and the decisions made about a child’s gender by its doctor and parents are now in the hands of legislators. Falsehoods about American history regarding the enslavement of African Americans are being pushed into public schools. Oh, and the former president thus far has lost a civil case regarding the rape of E. Jean Carroll, has three criminal indictments — including one alleging that he tried to overturn the will of American voters — and at least one other pending.
You would think that all of this news would make the choices people are thinking about for the 2024 elections simple — don’t vote for the party being endorsed by the Nazis and that has a candidate facing several indictments. Sadly, studies have shown that Trump supporters have belief systems that support authoritarianism, not democracy, and one in particular pinpoints that those beliefs are driven by racism. As such, this is not a group that is going to have a problem with the Nazis and the overthrowing of our government.
In fact, before the 2020 election, a Monmouth poll had this hypothetical statement: “Trump should continue in office despite a loss if he declares election was fixed and crooked.” 53 percent of the Republican respondents said yes. Luckily, there is some good news in these polls and studies. It’s not all Republicans saying yes to that question or to other signs of authoritarianism.
So, what about those who still have some belief in democracy? Why are they backing Trump and the GOP, even when it’s against their own interests? Various non-partisan polls suggest that two-thirds of the country support abortion rights, some form of gun control, and term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Approval for the Affordable Care Act has had a generally steady rise in popularity since Obama left office (no comment) and now hovers around 60 percent. Views of Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare are even higher. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed don’t want Social Security cut, and 58 percent think taxes on the rich should go up to cover it.
These are all things supported by President Biden and the Democratic Party. Yet, a look at generic ballot polls shows a near-even split on voting for either party. This suggests that anywhere from 8 to 26 percent of voters are voting for Republicans, despite the party not representing what they actually want.
It’s not just Republicans doing things that seem contrary to their goals. Some of the same Democrats who voice concern about U.S. democracy and are passionate about wanting the changes that are a part of the democratic agenda, one which Biden arguably has pursued with some success, continue to harp on Biden’s age. There’s also the tendency to see a half-full glass as mostly empty. Despite an April 2024 Pew Research poll that has 79 to 65 percent of Democrats saying Biden stands up for what he believes in, cares about the needs of other people, and is able to get things done, only 49 percent in that same poll think he’s inspiring.
Meanwhile, those who consider themselves to be Centrists have decided that this 2024 election is the perfect time to put a third-party presidential candidate on the ballot. Calling themselves the “No Labels” party, they claim to be concerned about a second term of Trump, but not overly so. Jay Nixon, the former Democratic governor of Missouri, is now the “director of ballot integrity” for the No Labels party. These two quotes are from an NPR On Point discussion where he was asked if the party’s push to get on the ballot for 2024 was essentially handing Trump the election.
I think the situational analysis of comparing the erosion of a pillar of democracy to any singular election is a mistake. That being said, I think these pillars of democracy need to be protected.
I don’t think we as Americans should give up our rights just because Donald Trump exists and there are some risks that he might get enough votes to be returned to the White House.
For the record, no one is asking them to give up their rights. The question being asked of them is a matter of judgment. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Timing is everything.
Clearly, whether a non-MAGA person is on the Left, the Right, or in the Center, there seems to be no true understanding of the dangerous place America is in right now. There seems to be this idea that the situation is unprecedented, that nothing like this has happened before. It has though. Not this exact situation, but the arc of events that has brought the U.S. to where it stands today, and those of the Weimar Republic have many similarities. Sadly, as noted by the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
To do a full-on history course in an article post is not possible. However, there are key points of knowledge that can give what is happening in the U.S. today some historical context. Showing how what happened in Germany’s Weimar Republic has congruency with American history and current U.S. politics will reveal the level of danger American democracy is in. Perhaps this knowledge may spur many to take actions that both citizens and politicians during the time of Weimar did not.
Key Components that Led to Hitler’s Rise — And Today’s U.S. Counterparts
Germany’s Component 1: Antisemitism.
It’s not like Europe was a great place to be Jewish before Hitler. Jewish persecution has been a part of Western civilization since the Roman Empire. As Christianity took off, so did rampant antisemitism. There were various Christian Crusades that went after both Muslims and Jews. Later on, there was the Catholic Inquisition — which went after Jews, Muslims, Lutherans, and anyone else who wasn’t Catholic (in that order). In terms of antisemitism in Germany specifically, Prussia, part of the precursor of what is now the country of Germany, was kicking Jews out of the country around the same time that 13 British Colonies in the Americas were fighting to become the United States.
Then, beginning in the late 1800s, the Volkisch movement began.
“The Volkisch movement was an over-arching collecting point for, in particular, those who aspired to reform culture and lifestyles, for anti-ultramontanists, anti-Semites, eugenicists, and many more. The lowest common denominator was the shared political goal of a ‘rebirth of the German Volkstum’ defined in terms of race and religion.” (German Historical Institute London Bulletin)
Because the Volkisch was a reactionary movement that fought against the ideas of modern living, it coined the phrase “blood and soil.” This would later become a Nazi rallying cry.
Antisemitism in Germany would be bolstered and intensified by an early 1900s Russian disinformation campaign called Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Even after it was proven to be a hoax in 1921, scapegoating Jews for Germany’s woes was standard practice by those who wanted to end the Republic. One way they did this was by associating the Republic as a part of the “Jewish Conspiracy.” This was something that Hitler, and others who wanted to end Weimar, exploited.
Despite all of this history, until Hitler came into power, the virulent antisemitism that had been around for centuries did not result in the systematic murdering of 6 million Jews. Jewish people were fully integrated into German society. No one was looking for a “final solution” to the “Jewish problem.” The holocaust is all on Hitler, because unlike those using antisemitism in their quest to obtain political power, Hitler’s hatred of Jews, and his insane ideas about race, ethnicity, and survival, are what drove him. He was able to tap into the already present German antisemitism and escalate it by elevating feelings of German nationalism and placing the blame for the country’s woes on the Jewish people.
As the first step towards his vision, Hitler took inspiration from America’s Jim Crow laws and treatment of Indigenous Americans to craft his policies to isolate and disenfranchise the Jewish people. His pattern of dehumanizing Jewish people also made it easier for Germans to go along with the various stages that led to the murder of 6 million Jews.
America’s Component 1: Racism
It’s not that antisemitism isn’t a part of the American story. The U.S. being founded by Europeans means that antisemitism came over on the Mayflower. However, the slavery practiced in the “New World” was different from the slavery that had existed in the world before. Its development created a uniquely American experience.
Going back to the ancient times of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, slaves were most often people who were captured during wars, but could also be sold into slavery by others. The conditions of slavery varied from pure brutality to allowing them to ascend to high positions of power. In some of these civilizations, they even had some rights, including the ability to buy their freedom. In Rome, that also meant that they could become full citizens.
Slavery was also a practice in parts of Africa beyond Egypt. It is documented that before the beginnings of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the practice of slavery was also a part of the cultures of Central & Western Africa. However, this was not like the kind of slavery that Europeans would soon bring.
“When diverse African empires, small to medium-sized nations, or kinship groups came into conflict for various political and economic reasons, individuals from one African group regularly enslaved captives from another group because they viewed them as outsiders. The rulers of these slaveholding societies could then exert power over these captives as prisoners of war for labor needs, to expand their kinship group or nation, influence and disseminate spiritual beliefs, or potentially to trade for economic gain.”(From Slavery before the Trans-Atlantic Trade.)
What becomes clear when looking at the history of slavery is this. Before the development of the Trans-Alantic African slave trade, the practice of procuring slaves had rarely been an enterprise in itself and had never been based on skin color. This is why, before the introduction of race-based chattel slavery, a slave could still be seen as a human being in the culture doing the enslaving. Once the practice of slavery became strictly based on the economic needs of European and later American society, it became race-based. From there began the dehumanization of African people -because those engaged in this practice of slavery had to justify the specification of saying only Africans and their descendants could be enslaved.
Why should America be singled out for this when all the major European countries of the time were involved in creating the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Only America has had slavery based on race baked into its founding as a nation. Furthermore, the circumstances of how slavery was perpetuated in America were unique.
“Slavery in the US was distinctive in the near balance of the sexes and the ability of the enslaved population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. Unlike any other enslaved society, the US had a high and sustained natural increase in the enslaved population for more than a century and a half.” (The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History)
Also, unlike in the U.S., the chattel-based slavery of Africans took place in Europe’s colonies, not on its native soil. This created a certain distance from European people’s day-to-day living. This distance also made it easier for countries like Britain to “white-wash” their brutal history with African enslavement and its contribution to their current wealth. For instance, Europe had no KKK groups terrorizing black people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (The same can’t be said today, as American racists have exported the concept.) This isn’t to say that there are no issues of racism in Europe, but it has manifested differently because the brutality of slavery was exported to their colonies, rather than to their shores.
In contrast to what happened in Europe, the brutality of slavery was a part of daily life for White people in the Americas. The impact of seeing Black people being enslaved and treated as less than human affects everything in the U.S. to this day. It’s been passed down through the generations. This history has been carried on by things like the terrorism of the Klu Klux Klan, which is still active in America today, and the Jim Crow laws that weren’t lifted completely until 1965.
Yes, America has steadily worked towards rectifying its past and achieving the ideals of its Constitution. Sadly, it’s also true that the journey has been a story of two steps forward and one step back.
Why hasn’t this journey gone better? The first reason is that all the facts of American history regarding African Americans have never fully been acknowledged, discussed, and atoned for. As such, the ugliness that drove slavery continues to permeate the nation. It can be seen in the culture and actions of America’s law enforcement agencies, and actions by other government agencies such as Health and Human Services. Racism also exists in some of the nation’s electorate.
Proof of the latter is seen in those who protest the removal of Confederate statues from state and federal government properties and rail against “Critical Race Theory” or “CRT” being taught in schools. (For the record, CRT isn’t being taught in schools, but this is irrelevant to those protesting it. The term has become a dog whistle to not have the history of African-Americans taught with any accuracy at all. Hence we now have things like the ridiculous but dangerous actions being taken in Florida.)
What is happening now isn’t new. There has always been a portion of the American electorate who would rather keep the racism of slavery — and the antebellum culture around it — intact. This segment of the population was mainly in the South — and it’s what led to the forming of the Confederacy and the American Civil War. Furthermore, the ending of the Civil War hardly made the ideals of the Confederate side disappear. Those Confederate ideals included racism, sexism, and the belief that business interests are more important than the welfare of a country’s people.
Yesterday’s Democrats Were Like Today’s Republicans
Today, those same Confederate beliefs live in the Republican party, even though at the time of the Civil War the party that championed the Confederate viewpoints was the Democratic Party. The switch between the two parties slowly began after the Civil War. Its final turn was after President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
How this change came about is an article in itself, and there are some alternative theories as well. Regardless of why the parties switched platforms, the results created today’s Republican party. The change is marked by President Johnson signing those acts. As historian and author, Lawrence Glickman notes in this Atlantic article, the resulting backlash to the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn’t happen immediately. Nevertheless, the rage leading up to that signing was something that Barry Goldwater, who ran against Johnson that fall, thought the party could exploit to retake power. It didn’t work for Goldwater, but his campaign and strategy set the course for the Republican party that we have today.
It was Goldwater who first led the Republican party, the “party of Lincoln,” to begin courting the racist blocks of voters in the South that usually voted Democrat — the “Southern Strategy”. Was Goldwater that much of a racist? Not necessarily. However, much like lies about African inferiority to whites were invented to justify using Africans as slaves — which was deemed necessary to increase the profits of wealthy plantation owners — Goldwater was willing to embrace the system of racism and Jim Crow to increase the power of the Republican party.
This change to the Republican party, including its housing of the backlash to the Civil Rights (and Women’s Rights) Movement occurred long before the arrival of Trump. Despite Goldwater failing dismally in his 1964 election, he is often called the father of modern conservatism and the bedrock of Republicans like President Ronald Reagan. From his presidential run came the political structures and ideology that would lead to the election of Reagan — and the election of Trump. (This point will be explored further as we go on.)
This is why the idea that Trump, and all of the racist, sexist, anti-government, rhetoric are out of nowhere is false. It is part and parcel of the modern Republican’s brand, no matter if it’s being used via dog whistles or loudly in the way Goldwater did. This idea may seem surprising because many like to think of Trump’s electoral college win as a backlash to the election of Obama. That is a shortsighted theory, or perhaps just wishful thinking.
It would be nice to think that the base of the GOP that propelled Trump into office was ramped up over a mere eight years. A deeper look at the facts will show that the cauldron of white grievance and anti-government & anti-democratic sentiment has been cooking on a slow simmering boil since Goldwater’s presidential run. Trump just walked in and served it up.
Component 2: The Economic Circumstances of the Weimar Republic
Most historians rightly name the Treaty of Versailles as a reason that Hitler and his Nazi party were able to rise to power. The terms of peace laid out by the Allies in the treaty to formally end World War II are today seen as largely unfair and unrealistic. It wasn’t just that having to accept all blame for the war, severely limit their military (more on that later), and give up various territories was nationally humiliating. The treaty also called for huge economic reparations to be paid out to the Allied countries. That economic punishment directly hurt the German people and they blamed the leaders of the Republic for agreeing to the treaty.
Of course, the new German government didn’t have a choice in signing the Treaty of Versailles. It was either they sign the treaty or have the Allies invade Germany within 24 hours. In other words, the circumstances were out of the government’s control. Nevertheless, the treaty created hostilities against the new government because it was they that had signed it.
The economic hardships got even worse after the stock market crash of 1929. By 1932 Hitler was able to exploit the economic downturn to get 37 percent of Germans to vote for the Nazi party — which gave them the largest faction in the Reichstag (German Parliament). In 1933 he was named to the position of Chancellor — and we all know what that led to.
Component 2 for the U.S.: Those 2008/2009 Corporate Bailouts
The economic circumstances in the U.S. leading up to Trump’s election weren’t anywhere as difficult as what Germany had been dealing with. However, there was something that a specific part of the electorate was mad about. It was the 2008 bank bailouts after the “Great Recession.”
In hindsight, there have been arguments about how well President Barack Obama did in handling the economic crisis of 2008. Some will say that without his actions the country would have gone into a free-fall economic depression. Others will say he didn’t do enough to help the middle class and that the recovery mostly helped Wall Street — not Main Street. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
On the positive side of the discussion, the choices made by Obama did stabilize the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the idea that those responsible for the crisis (giant banks playing gambling games with debt) were getting bailed out on the taxpayer’s dime did not go over well with the average American. Five years after those initial bailouts a Rutgers poll showed that a good 44 percent of Americans still thought they were a bad idea — even as the economy was getting better and the unemployment rates were lowering.
The problem Obama was having in selling the news about the economic recovery was that, for the average American, regaining financial stability was slow going. Take, for instance, these statistics from Pew Research.
“it took until 2015 for incomes to approach their pre-recession level. Indeed, the median household income in 2015 — $70,200 — was no higher than its level in 2000, marking a 15-year period of stagnation, an episode of unprecedented duration in the past five decades.”
This was the underlying problem gnawing at average Americans — the unfairness of how the American economy had been going for quite some time. Americans had a vague sense that the rich were getting richer and the poor were getting poorer long before that recession hit. Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times wrote a piece in 2018 that looked at how the 2008 financial bailouts had affected the electorate. One of his points was this:
“In the United States, the crisis exposed an economy that had been a charade — one that most Americans didn’t understand or appreciate. The use of debt had masked the real problems underneath the surface: a significant decrease in worker participation, automation that would take jobs and stagnant wage growth.”
In other words, that vague feeling many had about having economic stagnation in their lives, despite what the economists and Wall Street guys were saying at the time, wasn’t based on illusion. It was based on the truth.
Furthermore, that stagnation had been getting worse for decades. Pew Research notes that there was a steady rise in income inequality that started in 1980. That rising picked up pace in the year 2000. The bailouts in 2008–2009 just highlighted the ongoing reality.
Some may have different arguments about the issues within the U.S. economy. There are entire books written on when and how the U.S. growth in wealth disparity began. What’s important for this comparison is that, because of that disparity, a portion of the electorate was angry at those who had put the bailouts in effect.
It didn’t matter that these bailouts did stabilize the economy overall. To them, this was yet another example of the rich on Wall Street getting richer, while everyone else had to suffer for the errors Wall Street made. The fury some had about this created similar feelings to that which occurred for the Weimar Republic electorate. Both groups had seething anger and resentment towards the powers in charge of the government because of ongoing economic issues and a decision made by the government, one that they deemed to be unfair.
Component 3: Anti-Republic Parties Within The Republic
Even with the prior two points in place, Hitler could not have gotten into power without the help of some within the Weimar political arena. Specifically, of the seven significant parties, (The NAZI party wouldn’t become a major party until 1930), only two of them wanted to completely dismantle the Republic and claim power for themselves. Interestingly enough, these parties were on different sides of the political spectrum, but ultimately their synergy would come to create the perfect circumstances for Hitler’s rise. (“A Concise History of Nazi Germany,” Joseph W. Bendersky, pg 5–8.)
The Extremist Parties & The Largest Moderates Closest to Them
On the Left:
- German Communist Party (KDP)
The KDP had a hard-core Marxist stance. At the beginning of Weimar, they tried to forcibly overthrow the Republic and establish a Communist state. They would continue to openly oppose the Republic throughout Weimar’s existence. - Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP)
Led by Friedrich Ebert, he would become the President of Weimar until 1925 and was instrumental in bringing about its founding. There were a few years when the KDP tried working with this more moderate left party, but by 1928 the KDP was firmly back on the team of Joseph Stalin and Russia. - German Democratic Party (DDP)
This center-left party was important in the forming of Weimar’s constitution and the first coalition government. Made up of “intellectuals and small traders” it focused on principles such as having a separation of church and state and supported the League of Nations. However, it found itself split on economic issues as it advocated for both minimum governmental regulation of business and an end to business monopolies. After its initial success as a party, its membership quickly dropped, with more voters switching to the DVP or SDP. It hit its lowest point in 1930 when it briefly merged with a smaller antisemitic party. Calling itself the German State Party, they never recovered from it, despite that association ending after the 1930 election.
On the Right:
- National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP or NAZI)
Originally called the German Workers’ Party (DAP), neither it nor the NAZI party was in existence when Weimar was born. Founded by Anton Drexler, it was Hitler who would have it renamed. He felt that adding the “National Socialist” part would attract more members — even though the party’s ideology included being intensely anti-Marxist. DAP officially became the NAZI Party on February 24th, 1920. The ideology of both parties came from threads of the Völkisch movement.
Initially, the party gained little attention. If not for the fateful meeting between Drexler and Hitler on 12 September 1919, perhaps the party would have faded into the background. It was Hitler who would grow the party and then lead it to become the most extremist far-right party in Germany. - German National People’s Party (DNVP)
This far-right Nationalist party hated Communism — but they also hated the Republic. Originally, it wanted a return to the monarchy. Being that many in it were aristocrats, or large land or big business owners, this is not surprising. They soon decided that an authoritarian government that the party controlled would suffice. Part of their strategy was a steady stream of political attacks against Weimar’s first president.
From 1928 until the end of the Republic, the DNVP was led by Alfred Hugenberg. He was a German business and media mogul who ultimately would convince Weimar’s President at the time, former head of the German Military, Paul von Hindenburg, to hand the chancellorship to Hitler. - German People’s Party (DVP)
The members of the DVP were more of the middle and upper-middle class. In contrast to the DNVP, they were merchants, not magnates. The party was also critical of Weimar, and early on its members wanted a return to the monarchy as well. However, it became a centrist party. It still leaned more towards authoritarianism than toward democracy, but its criticisms were not trying to topple Weimar. For the sake of national stability, the party would work with the SDP and other liberal or centrist parties (A Concise History of Nazi Germany, pg 7.)
How the Far-Right Became As Dangerous as the Far Left: Communism & The Backlash
It is fair to say that the far extremes of the right and the left are dangerous to any Democratic Republic. Yet, these extremes were reacted to very differently in Weimar, in part because of how it was founded. In November of 1919 things in WWI were going badly for Germany. The two leading German generals were trying to negotiate an armistice and surrender to the Allies. At the same time, there was the stirring of a Communist uprising in Germany, with outbreaks first occurring within the Navy and then in several German cities.
It was the Socialist Democratic Party (SDP), led by Ebert, that was determined to hold off a Communist revolution. This juxtaposition of issues — the quest to both get out of WW1 and put out the sparks of the Communist uprisings that were occurring — made it clear to the German military, Ebert, and the nobility (except for Wilhelm II, the German Emperor, and King of Prussia) that the monarchy had to end. This was quickly orchestrated.
On November 9th the German Chancellor, Prince Max, announced that Wilhelm II had abdicated his position as both Emperor and King. (Wilhelm II hadn’t been informed of this, but it was made clear to him he had no other choice.) A new government was then declared and Ebert became the new Chancellor. That was the birth of Weimar. On November 11, the new government signed the armistice that ended World War I — and opened up a new host of problems.
One of the conditions of the armistice was giving up most of their military arms, weapons, etc. Along with this, millions of German soldiers had to be demobilized. There were also huge financial burdens put in place. (Those would become worse with the Treaty of Versailles.) These terms for the armistice meant Germany had 1.5 million former soldiers milling around with nothing to do. Anger at the humiliation of the loss and at the conditions of surrender, many would become a part of various right-wing Freikorps ( volunteer paramilitary organizations). These Frikorps hated the Weimar Republic and eventually would become the core of the Nazi Party’s notorious SA (also known as Stormtroopers).
One could say that it was this fear of Communism that helped bring Hitler to power. In the immediate aftermath of the end of World War I, Ebert would sanction the use of the Freikorps to put down several Communist uprisings. He paid little attention to the overzealous “maximum brutality” they used to do so, and there were no serious disciplinary actions afterward. This was partly because of a deal he’d made with Hindenburg. (At the time, he was the leader of the military.) All that mattered to Ebert was shutting down a German version of the Russian Revolution.
Having a fear of Communism was justified given what these wealthy Germans knew about the October 1917 part of the Russian Revolution. It had stripped all properties and businesses from their owners. Then there was the Red Terror, which included the murdering of the Russian royal family. That had begun only a couple of months prior to the end of World War I.
Unfortunately, the fear of Communism created a blindside to the far-right threat. The lack of any punishment for those unnecessary levels of violence would set a precedent in the behavior of the Frikorps going forward. These points would soon be demonstrated by what is known as The Kapp Putsch — the first attempt made by far-right forces to overthrow the Weimar Government.
The Kapp Putsch occurred in March of 1920. It was, in part, a reaction to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The plot for it was hatched by a Right-wing journalist named Wolfgang Kapp and the German Army General Erich Ludendorff. Lundendorff’s involvement was unsurprising as he was well-known for spreading the “Stab in the Back” myth about why Germany lost the war. They were then helped by another German General, General Luttwitz.
This is where the terms of the Armistice and Treaty of Versailles come back into play. Many, if not most, of the German military, were angry at the Weimar government for agreeing to the terms of surrender and the peace agreement that cut their ranks to a mere 100,000 soldiers. The militias that helped in the attempted coup were Freikorps — former members of the German Military. Thus, they were more than willing to overthrow the government.
The Generals, and the journalist, along with two groups of Freikorps militias, managed the physical taking of Berlin, Germany’s capital. Although the rest of the German Army didn’t fight with the coup plotters (it was all the Freikorps), they also did nothing to stop it. When Ebert asked for the official German Army’s help he was told, “Troops do not fire on troops.” This stance was taken because the official army also harbored sympathies for those attempting the coup. They also wanted a return to the Monarchy, or at least a strong central leader. As odd as it may sound to us in America, for many, these didn’t seem like bad things.
Why Would Anyone Want a King?
Although Communism was (and is) as much of an authoritarian style of government as a monarchy, it differed in that it was a direct threat to the military’s position as a “state within a state”, the middle class, the wealthy, and of course, the German aristocracy. The threat that Communism posed to all three groups was both physical and fiscal.
The physical threat was that the Russian Communist Movement had made it clear that the above-mentioned groups all had a target on their backs. However, even if people weren’t killed, these groups would certainly lose their wealth and any perks of power they had. Hence, unlike their reaction to the far-right forces who were involved with the Kapp Putsch, there had been harsh and immediate moves to stop the earlier Communist coup attempt. Many on the right believed a far-right takeover wouldn’t strip them of money and power. It might even restore some of what they’d lost in the forming of Weimar and the agreement to the Treaty of Versailles.
Generally speaking, regardless of where they fell on the political spectrum, all Germans had some hatred for the Treaty of Versailles. The payments Germany was going to have to make to the Allies were an enormous burden on everyone. As for those connected to the German military, they were extra unhappy because the treaty forced Germany to cut the size of the military drastically. This had put many former soldiers out of work (and made them ripe for joining various militia groups). Hence their unwillingness to fight against those raising the coup.
For the aristocracy, much of the wealthy business class, and some of the middle class, creating a Republic had never been something they wanted. It was a practical solution to end the war, create stability, and have a bulwark against Communism. This made them as indifferent to the coup as the military.
Nevertheless, despite the hatred of the Versailles treaty, the Putsch was stopped because neither the everyday people of Germany nor the career civil servants were having it. They actually wanted a Republic. By the time Ebert called for a general strike, people had already started walking off the job. This made it impossible for the coup plotters to move around the city or get anything done. The attempted coup failed.
Setting the Stage for Hitler’s Nazi Takeover
Unfortunately, the fear of Communism kept Ebert and the Weimar government from really punishing those who attempted the coup. As time went on, more of the German people came to have nostalgia for the old days of the monarchy, because those were the days when they had much better social and economic status. (Nevermind that it was the Monarchy that got them into the mess of WWI in the first place.) That longing for the times before WWI slowly began making it more acceptable for some Germans to embrace far-right extremism, including the false scapegoating of Jewish people. Those were the sentiments Hitler was able to tap into.
However, even Germans wishing for the old days, the anti-semitism that was built into the culture, and the addition of anger at those who agreed to the Treaty of Versailles, would not have been enough to set off what would become the Nazi regime. Those things were just the kindling for the bonfire. The match that would ignite all of it was the continued actions of the political parties on the right — especially the DNVP.
It is this aspect of the Weimar Republic’s tumble into Nazism that has much in common with what’s been happening in America. The fall has been much slower, but the force that has pushed America to this point is also largely on a single political party: The GOP.
How The 3 Components Play Out in the U.S. Today
Unlike the U.S., Germany’s Republic was (and today still is) a multiparty system where each party has its focus, constituents, and place on the political spectrum. Although there have been attempts in the U.S. to have more parties, they have never really gone anywhere. Instead, each party tends to incorporate about half of the political spectrum. Except for the KDP, it is possible to find the equivalent of all of the major German parties within the American two-party system. Sadly, this also includes the extremist Nazi party.
In his quest to take over the government, Hitler first had the Nazi party work with the DNVP. How did this happen? It’s because both Hitler and the DNVP had a similar goal. Each wanted to overthrow the Republic and build an authoritarian government that they would control. However, while the DNVP certainly was anti-Semitic and anti-republic, their primary concern was protecting their wealth and power — and they were willing to use any means to do so. As such, they thought they could use Hitler and the Nazis to reach their goals — because they didn’t see him as a real threat to them. In their eyes, it didn’t matter that the primary goal of Hitler’s Nazi party was always to build a government based on a philosophy of anti-semitism, White supremacy, and German nationalism.
The members of the DNVP could not claim ignorance about the levels of racial hatred and violence Hitler and his party were capable of. Even before the 1925 publication of his book Mein Kampf — he’d been interviewed by Josef Hell in 1922 and had said the following:
“If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!”
The Nazi party also had violent paramilitary groups. First, it was the Brown Shirts, and later came the SA. (The Brown Shirts served a function similar to what the Proud Boys do at some Republican events.) Despite all of this, the members of the DNVP thought the worst thing that could happen was more power going to the people. They saw it as akin to communism, or at least that’s how it was framed. As such, the DNVP didn’t care about the means of maintaining power, even if it meant pairing with the violent Nazi party.
In fact, if you put the three right-wing Weimar parties together — the DNVP, DVP, and the NAZIS — you’ll get the makeup of what the Republican party used to be before Trump. The majority of conservative Republicans were similar to DNVP. Then there was a contingent of moderate Republicans in the mold of President George H. W. Bush or Senator Lisa Murkowski, or even the late Senator John “Maverick” McCain. They would be akin to those politicians found in the DVP. Finally, there were always those few fringe Republicans who were seen as being “out there” in the vein of the Nazis. Unfortunately, that fringe would gradually grow — primarily via political groups such as Moral Majority and CPAC. These organizations would cultivate the fringe into the GOP base.
That base is what Trump was able to use to take over the Republican party — a point that part 3 of this series will lay out in-depth. However, until then, here’s a final thought. It would be a good idea for today’s Republican politicians to realize that the DNVP’s choice to work with and back Hitler did not save their party. Once Hitler’s party took the majority in the 1933 German parliament and he was made Chancellor, the DNVP was absorbed by the NAZI movement. As for the moderate version of the DNVP — the DVP? Even before Hitler was made Chancellor it had lost relevance. They were down to receiving about 1 percent of the votes in elections. It, like all the other parties, was forced to disband. Furthermore, those on the Right who had wanted the end of Weimar soon would learn that the death of the Republic didn’t quite bring all the benefits they expected. This point will be discussed in part 4.
