Just Finished Reading: The Death of Democracy – Hitler’s Rise to Power by Benjamin Carter Hett (FP: 2018) [235pp]
The German Weimar Republic came into existence following the end of the First World War. It was born during the crisis of Germany’s defeat and continued in crisis throughout much of its short 15 years of existence. As new as the Republic was the democracy that supported it was almost as young. Until the German nation needed to show the victorious Allies – and particularly the Americans – that they were really a Democracy too and should be treated like one (rather than a military supported Monarchy) – most of the poorer German people couldn’t exercise their vote and little that the constituent assembly in the Reichstag decided during the reign of the Kaiser rose above the level of advice. Power, since German unification in 1871, was solidly in the hands of the military, the Kaiser and Prussia. So democratic roots, where they existed at all, had yet to move much beyond the surface.
Into the chaos of a defeated nation the political parties of
early Weimar covered the whole gamut from far Left to far Right. But 1919 and
1920 were years of revolution and counter revolution – of attempted coups,
assassinations and threats of uprisings and invasions. Democratic politics
generally took second place to street fighting and the sound of gunfire. Disorder
and confusion was the order of the day and day after day. Slowly though things
began to normalise. Coalition governments – as the country had a system of
Proportional Representation – existed mostly around the Centre Left of the Social
and Christian Democrats. But these governments were generally weak and short
lived. The Communists – allied to the new Soviet Union – made up a significant
part of the Reichstag but would not co-operate with other Socialistic parties
which they held in contempt as ‘class enemies’. On the far Right a handful of
parties fought for votes amongst them the newly formed NSDAP – the Nazi Party.
At the time no one really took them seriously. Their vote was tiny and their
influence insignificant. They could draw crowds – that was certain, especially
after Adolf Hitler joined and subsequently led them – but crowds consistently
failed to morph into votes. So it continued….
As the 1920’s dragged on, and fights over Reparations
continued to define much of the political agenda, further crisis and turmoil
unsettled the country. As the centre parties continued to disagree and fail the
country the voters turned to alternatives on the Left and Right of the
spectrum. The Communists started to win more seats and more support as did the
reducing number of larger Right wing parties. It was here that the first of a
series of fatal mistakes were made by political forces on the Right and the
major Industrialist who supported them against the Communist threat. Sensing an
opportunity for advancement of his programme Hitler positioned himself and his
still fledgling party – although much larger by now – as the solution to the
Communists. Again initially dismissed some in government saw the Nazi’s as a
way to manipulate things in their favour until they could be disposed of. They
were to be used as a means to an end, nothing more. But Hitler had other ideas
and so the dance began. But when the music stopped it was the would-be manipulators
that failed to acquire the all-important chairs.
Important though it is and as vital as it is not to be
forgotten I do find myself rather uninterested in the ‘Rise of Hitler’
narrative. As a political and historical chronicle is has, with justification,
been done to death. However, I did find myself honestly riveted to this almost
blow by blow account of how first the political and economic position of
Germany between the wars provided fertile ground for the rise of the Nazi’s
and, more importantly I think, how self-serving politicians and frankly incompetent
power brokers not only allowed Hitler to gain the Chancellorship but actively
aided him on the patent misunderstanding that he could be controlled or
manipulated for their benefit. At no point did they think that they themselves
were the manipulated ones or that they were enabling or facilitating their own
dooms. Indeed many of those who died on or soon after the ‘Night of the Long
Knives’ were surprised and shocked that the Nazi’s could turn against them so
effectively. Despite every piece of evidence to the contrary they apparently
never saw it coming!
As with all good history books this reinforced the idea that
everything we might think of an inevitable is in fact highly contingent. There
were SO many ways Hitler’s rise might have failed. He was injured twice in the
war and could have been killed, several of his followers just feet away from
him during the ‘Beer Hall Putsch’ were shot and killed and any of those bullets
could have hit him, the judge at his subsequent trail could have deported him
(as an Austrian) but didn’t….. and so on. The failure of the Weimar Republic
was not inevitable – even after the Wall Street Crash. It was the action of
individuals, making often self-serving decisions, which put him in power and imperilled
the world in the years that followed. That, I think, is the most important
message we can take from the events and this excellent book that covers them.
Recommended.
8 comments:
hmmm... does that sort of verify the "great man" theory of history?
No.
But seriously.... [grin] people do have a variable impact on history. To be honest most people don't really make much of a historical mark. BUT that doesn't mean that History is driven by 'great men' or even 'great people'. That just reflects how we like to see History - as the product of Human action. It makes us feel good to think that we, or rather the great and the good, DRIVE History forward. As with most general theories its really not that simple. But the narrative written around 'great people' allows a great story to be told and we do love our stories - both telling and hearing - don't we..? [grin]
i've been thinking lately about the herd instinct and how it effects large numbers of people en masse via the media and through political interactions... maybe it is all just a result of what's happening at the time...
Politics, as we are seeing today, is such a muddle. It is good though to learn as much as we can from history and to take the full measure of aspiring leaders.
@ Mudpuddle: I think Asimov was onto something with Psycho-History. With enough data (which we're starting to get now) and enough computing power (ditto) it *might* be possible to predict the future with a fair degree of accuracy once we get some decent equations to deal with. But I think our present total failure to predict the future accurately just show how little we understand the processes of history.
@ Judy: I was VERY impressed at your understatement at using the word 'muddle'. As a BRIT - born into a world of understatement and very much at home in those waters - that means a LOT.... [rotflmao]. "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it" Knowing how things turned out in the past is SO important. How else do we learn from our many mistakes!
When my class analyzed Germany's election returns in the late twenties, the professor pointed out that some of the strongest support came for parties like the Nazis and communists who wanted to destroy or undermine the existing system, not just guide its course their way.
@ Stephen: It seems that the general electorate had lost faith with the process and with the 'ruling' centre parties by the time the Nazi's came to power. Democracy had failed them (they believed) in the signing of the Versailles Treaty and had failed them again over the 10+ years of the Wiemar Republic. Seeing how badly the whole thing was handled I'm not at all surprised that people went to the extremes to try to 'sort' things.
Post a Comment