Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Germany 1933: A Lesson To Consider

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:21 PM
Original message
Germany 1933: A Lesson To Consider
In the early thirties in Germany there were three prominent political factions struggling for dominance; The Nazis, the Communists and the Social Democrats.

In earlier elections, the Communists and SD's had often made common cause. But in 1933, the Communists, under directions from Stalin, refused to form a united front with the SD's to stop Hitler's rise to power.

Ideological purity was more important to the Communists than defeating the Nazis, and teaching the SD's, who they called "Social Fascists", a lesson was considered just as important as stopping Hitler.

Take from this example what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is why I honestly wonder about some that claim this level
of purity. I have to wonder what their true intentions are since the law of unintended consequences has already been demonstrated once.

Fool me once...uh.....uh....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atlant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. The "Unintended Consequence" of my voting "D", year-after-year, even...
The "Unintended Consequence" of my voting "D", year-after-year, even
as it became more and more clear that they didn't support my positions
was that they drifted farther and farther from my positions while still
expecting to get my vote.

But I'm done with that now.

From now on, I'm voting FOR someone who'll support my positions.

Atlant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nice indirect swipe at us!
I feel good now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Who is "us"?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Read the sig and then think hard, if you still can't figure it out....
check out the loyalty oath threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I voted for Dean in the Michigan caucus
But I am adamantly opposed to anyone who would split the opposition to Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hellhathnofury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. We have no intention too, but it's nice to read all the Dean 3rd part post
Edited on Mon Feb-09-04 11:55 PM by cynicalSOB1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. We will have to agree to disagree
I find the third party posts every bit as objectionable as any loyalty oath threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. It's a completely appropriate post IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. add another
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. This belongs in General Discussion
Well, it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. Why. You don't recognized the players in this drama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. So, uhhhh, he's accusing John Kerry of being a Nazi sympathizer?
Come off it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BruinAlum Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-04 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. Good analogy for what 3rd Party advocates are proposing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. Wrong on certain key facts
three big parties were
Social Democrats.
Centre Party (sometimes referred to as Catholic Center Party)
and
the Nazis.

KPD kommunists were comparatively minor, growing a bit in strength as the country polarized but nowhere near as big as either the center or the spd.

in 1930 SDP and Centre were in coalition. The Presidency, which in the Weimar system was a popularity contest separate from party politics was held by Paul von Hindenburg of the National Party (a conservative monarchist leaning party popular among the military but minor in the Reichstag) Chancellor Muller of the SPD faced the effects of Great Depression rippling across the Atlantic, which included a polarization in politics beginning in '29 and growing unemployment. The SPD was the most popular party at this time and the cabinet was composed of mostly spd and centre party members. As the numbers of unemployed grew, the gov't was faced with budget crunches including a critical shortfall in the national unemployment insurance. The Centre Party wanted benefits reduced. The SPD wanted the pay-in from employers increased. A compromise was worked out in the cabinet but rejected by the SPD rank and file and others in the Reichstag. His gov't having reached an impasse, Muller resigned the Chancellorship.

Now the institution of Chancellor and President had some "quirks" in the Weimar Constitutional system. One of these was that the President could name the Chancellor. (maybe that was all the time or maybe it was just when no party held a majority in the Reichstag --which was always) Anyway, a Centre party politician named Bruning now became the Chancellor, appointed to the job by President Hindenburg. The shoe was on the other foot. If the Centre party did not care to do things the SPD way in the cabinet, they could see how they liked trying to run the coalition as the junior partner with a substantial SPD superiority in the Reichstag. One would expect a quick turnaround with the senior partner to the coalition returned to the chancellorship in short order
Well here's what happened INSTEAD.
There so happened to be ANOTHER little quirk of the weimar constitution that said that the President could enact anything the Chancellor proposed without the consent of the parliament if the chancellor and the president were in agreement that there was a state of emergency. This nifty law, called Article 48, was supposed to be used only in the event of dire emergencies like wars or insurrections and the like. But there was enough of a loophole there that people who didn't care about democracy could find a way to exploit it. The right people came together and started exploiting it.

Bruning, who personally favored a return to monarchy and to the autocracy of Bismarck, promptly used Article 48 to force through his approach to the unemployment insurance problem. Benefits were cut, indeed unemployed persons eventually found themselve laboring on the estates of Prussian aristocrats. And after that, Bruning continued to resort to Article 48 as he discovered the joys of ruling without having to obtain the consent of the governed. When the stunned parliament eventually tried to vote to suspend his article 48 powers, Bruning got Hindenburg to dissolve the Parliament. In the new elections the Nazis gained so many seats that to oppose them, all the other parties would have to act together including far right splinters together with Centre Party, SPD and the KPD. But the balancing act was not even attempted. Bruning had fallen in love with his Article 48 powers and he had become determined to remake Germany's political institutions into an autocracy. Hindenburg was his "King" figure and he was playing the Cardinal Richelieu or Bismarck "Minister" figure who runs the country for the King by dictat.

But it didn't work out. Bruning fared no better than Muller despite having resorted to dictatorial powers, including summarily dismissing parliament. He was replaced by Centre party backer Franz Von Papen. Von Papen was a land magnate who although involved in politics had never been elected to anything --not by ordinary voters. This strange fact was due to the godlike role of the President under the Weimar Constitution. Hindenburg named von Papen to the Chancellorship just like Bruning, passing over any SPD leaders, despite their status as the larger party in the coalition (a coalition which was no doubt permanently shattered by Bruning's abuses). You could say that at the point of Papen's ascent to the CHancellorship that the Right and the Center were now in an open & unmistakable conspiracy against democracy and the Weimar constitution. Papen would use Article 48 routinely too,like Bruning, but also without any better success. Meanwhile the Nazis had been growing more or less inevitable with every election. They had already leapfrogged the Centre and the SPD to become number one. But their leader, A. Hitler, who never stood for election himself (except for Pres.) was a highly polarizing figure. Hindenburg didn't like him or want to give him the chancellorship. However, von Papen undertakes to do a deal with Hitler. The Brown Shirts had been banned under Bruning for their use of violence to sweeten the electoral results for the Nazis. Hitler tells Papen he will have the Nazis full support if he lifts the ban on the SA brownshirts AND calls for fresh elections immediately. Papen goes for it. The Nazis make big gains and combined with the KPD now have a blocking majority that can stop the functioning of Papen's Centre Party government. Hitler then breaks his promise to support von Papen's government. Von Papen immediately resorts agains to ruling by decree. (meanwhile the police forces of 2/3 of Germany have come under direct control of the chancellorship under the pretext of stopping SA-communist violence.)
The new parliament is seated and soon the KPD moves to repeal one of von Papen's emergency decrees and no-confidence his gov't. Von Papen moves to dissolve the Parliament Again, but the vote is taken 5oo and something to forty something. And yet another round of elections is held. This time the Nazis slip a little. But the damage to the Republic is already too far gone. THe government has been functioning for 3 full years as a dictatorship since Bruning took over as the junior partner of the SPD -Centre coalition and began issuing decrees. Anything the Chancellor can't get agreement on is rammed through by Article 48 decrees signed by the old general von Hindenburg. Anytime the parliament attemtps to repeal these decrees, the Chancellor dissolves parliament. The rotting away of the democracy is revealing something assertive and nasty --sort of like FLorida 2000. It's coming to a head. Von Papen, having lost the support of his cabinet hands his resignation to Hindenburg. A new clown is appointed: Von Schleicher, a personal friend of Hindenburg. His ideas to form a coalition are a joke and his gov't collapses in 50 something days. In the interim, Papen has done another backroom deal with Hitler, Hitler demands the chancellorship and certain other plums. Papen agrees to Hitler as Chancellor with himself in a kind of a co-Chancellorship position and he also gives Hitler control over the Prussian Interior Ministry, ( meaning control over the police in most of the country). Hindenburg can't resist it anymore, and Hitler is appointed Chancellor at the end of January 1933. In the elections of March of that year, the police under Hitler's command hire 50,000 "auxiliaries" who are in fact Brownshirts of the SA to "keep order". And of course they do this by beating up and intimidating voters and parliamentarians of other parties besides the Nazis and the Nationalists. The Kommunists are banned and their Reichstag deputies arrested.
The Reichstag is burned. Hitler demands his Enabling Act vote making him dictator indefinitely and the Centre Party lines up to vote for it along with most of the Nationalists.
The KPD is umm absent let's say. and the SPD the most numerous party after the Nazis, votes en bloc against it. In 60 - 90 days all these SPD deputies are either dead, escaped the country or rotting next to the Kommunists in the first concentration camp.

If you're looking for a "traitorous villain" in the story of 1930-33 Germany that villain is the traditional values-business boosting Catholic Centre Party which ran Germany as a dictatorship for 3 years before Hitler could grab for power, and whose inner circle of powerbrokers did deal after deal with Hitler trying to shore up their own political fortunes instead of tending to their old alliance with the Social Democrats. yes the KPD liked to play a disruptive role but with usually not much more than a dozen deputies in the Reichstag they were a marginal force in the political meltdown of the Weimar Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
minkyboodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. great post
Welcome to DU!!!
Scott
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrenzy Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Simply Incredible Post
I have never heard that detailed a description of the mechanics of the transition from Weimar to the 3rd Reich anywhere. That was simply amazing! Better than 2 hours of the history channel.

Damn, that's so crazy. It also may go to show why many Germans were so 'high' on Hitler - they saw him as somebody finally stopping the endless squabbling and elections and actually getting things done.

I never knew about his little end around to fill the 'police' with Brownshirts. Holy shit - that is nuts. As soon as he did that he had the force to control the outcome of the elections anyway.

I am still not quite sure why so many representatives voted to essentially 'dissolve themselves' and give Hitler absolute power. Were they scared?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. If you mean the Enabling Act...
If your question was why so many deputies voted for the Enabling Act. Yes they had to be scared. Also they probably feared being called "soft on terrorism". I think they believed their vote would not stop Hitler from seizing total dictatorial authority. He was already CHancellor despite his party's dedication to overthrowing multiparty democracy, and he already controlled the police in most of the country. He had arrested all the KPD deputies at this point in time--making a powerful example. However, if the Centre had joined the SPD they could have blocked the vote on the ENabling Act from having the appearance of legitimacy and "due process" that it had. They would have gone to jail perhaps. But sometimes sacrifice is called for, yes? People on television keep telling me that when they report that another American kid has been shot or blown apart in Iraq. Because of the hardness of the Nazis and the softness of the middle, Hitler managed to become a Caesar like ruler over the German Republic without ever having to annul the Weimar Constitution or get some officers to join him in a military coup d'etat.
If Hitler had violently seized power, is it likely that he could have stayed on top for 6 years before starting the war? It seems to me (although there's no knowing for sure), that his grip would have been much less secure even though he could have still used all the repressive means that he used. Just the fact that he kicked over the country's applecart to get his way --and that everyone would see this and no one could deny it-- would have set many people totally against him, even in the upper ranks of the military. Lots of aristocratic officers did not like the little bastard at all. Given a good excuse to put him down--who knows?
I've read that in the elections in which Hitler was able to use the 50,000 SA Brownshirts to suppress other parties' turnout, the Nazis still only got about 43% of the vote. The more friction he caused going up the quicker he would have come down (probably). Unfortunately "going along to get along" with Hitler was the Centre Party's only way of dealing with Hitler and the incursion of the Nazi Party, and I will always be convinced that it made things worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iverson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. well, there goes the mythology
However, it unlikely to get through to a group that needs to project motives of ideological purity into others.

Thanks for your informative post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. That was a very informative and well written post
But I am afraid it misses the point. That's my fault, for oversimplifying the analogy.

The point I hoped to make is that those of us who supported candidates who will not be the nominee must not allow ourselves to become blinded to the primary goal, that of defeating the Bush regime.

Even if we feel that the DLC, the centrists, the "corporatist Democrats" are also enemies of progressive reform, we must recognize that the danger they present is in no way comparable to that of the Republicans. As you said yourself, the KPD was "absent" at the key moment. That is exactly the point I was making. Let's hope that no Democrat, no faction of the opposition, is absent in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. The KPD were absent from the Enabling Act vote
The KPD were absent from the Enabling Act vote because all the KPD deputies to the Reichstag were under arrest. (the Reichstag fire was blamed on the Communist Party -- there has always been a lot of speculation that the fire was set by Nazis as a pretext for grabbing total power and doing away with multiparty democracy. A psychotic young man with KPD affiliations was produced as "the lone gunman") Membership in the Kommunists was immediately banned--hence the arrests of the deputies. Had they been there, I rather doubt the KPD would have voted to give dictatorial powers to the man who promised to annihilate them as a party and as human beings, but it didn't matter anyway.

The only possible counterweight to the Nazis were the other major parties. At the time of the Enabling Act vote, the most numerous party after the Nazis was the Social Democratic Party. The third most numerous party was the Centre Party. Together they would have had enough votes to at least block the Enabling Act from achieving the color of legitimacy. The Enabling Act required a supermajority to sustain it. Together SPD and Centre couldn't outvote the Nazis but they could preclude a supermajority. What happened instead was the Centre cut another deal with Hitler. The Centre was a party representing German Catholics and the southern diets of Germany. In exchange for the promise from Hitler that Church property would not be confiscated, the Centre agreed to vote up the Enabling Act of 1934 and throw their lot in with him. Everyone could see what happened to the KPD, and so since it was widely believed that Hitler was going to seize power anyway, why end up pushing up daisies with the Kommunists? In about 60-90 days all political parties but the Nazi Party were banned. Von papen and some other Centre Party bigwigs would take positions in the Nazi administration. The diets --regions of Germany with some autonomy like states-- were dissolved, too which made Germany one country with only one political party which ran on unquestioning loyalty and discipline to hierarchy.

Through the ineptitude and the personal weaknesses of their leaders, Bruning and von Papen, the Centre party got themselves into the position of making deals with the Nazis and Hitler --deals which Hitler always got the better part of. But that overshadows an equally important development that gets less attention because what Nazis did was so spectacularly evil. As I indicated the Centre had been exercising rule by emergency decree--dictatorship essentially-- for 3 years already before Hitler's rise. Aside from the dangerous dealings they had with the Nazi Party, the Centre Party themselves had "gone off the reservation" completely. They went "Nazi" before Nazi was cool. Hitler didn't federalize the police forces, von Papen did. Before Hitler was made Chancellor, the Centre leadership was ruling by decree with only 44 deputies in the Reichstag. This is only possible through the implied threat of force. (Which explains von Papen's move with the police forces) Forget the Nazis for a second. What has happened here? Isn't what has happened under Bruning and von Papen bad enough? And where are they getting the power to pull stunts like this? Who's backing them? In the stress of a global economic bust, the traditionalist church-going property-respecting eminently respectable people of the Centre have gone over and met the authoritarian rightwing, elite elements of German society-- the Prussian dominated military, the Junkers landowners, the industrialists-- and declared democracy a useless concept. Nice ceremonial window dressing but not fundamental. The wealthy and powerful, as the real owners of the country, have a underlying right to rule the country without benefit of democratic consent whenever they decide they must. Once Germany started down that path it kept going further and further and could not go back.

Unfortunately there are some similarities between the rise of an elitist-centrist tyranny in pre-Nazi Germany and our own time since Florida 2000, and even before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I agree with you completely
But once again, the point I have been trying to make is that the KPD, throughout the Weimar period, treated the Social Democrats as their primary enemy, and that helped enable the rise of Naziism. They refused to participate in any sort of United Front against Hitler. As Trotsky put it, they were confronted with two opponents, one who was slowly poisoning them, and one who was firing a gun at their heads, and they chose to fight the poisoners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vernunft II Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. Have you ever heard of the ZENTRUM ?
There were 4 main players... And about 6 more smaller ones. That was also before the 5 % hurdle was introduced to prevent just that chaos.

And I still think having just 2 parties is dreadfully wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. hmmm...doesn't Bush use this same fear tactic???
"you're either with us or you're with the enemy"...yep, this definitely sounds familiar.

The Communists were not responsible for the evil actions of the Nazis and people in America who vote differently from you are not the reason why PNAC is so f*cking evil.

All this talk about how Greens or Independents are "bad" is insane. How does alienating a group of people who already feel alienated by the Democratic party help the cause??? How exactly does this tactic "unite" the party?

You want to call a group of people out for being irresponsible with their vote? Then go after the millions upon millions of apathetic Americans who don't even bother to take 20 minutes every 4 years to get off their lazy asses just to punch a hole through a piece of paper. Don't piss on the hundreds of thousands of Greens who's only offense is caring too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
25. Let's not underestimate the power of Hitler's fascism. Keynes predicted
what would happen in Germany, and it didn't have to do with with the failure of coalition governments.

Germany was suffering economically and Hitler took that anger, directed it at a racial other, argued about genetic superiority, and manipulated the people with fear. Even if a coalition had formed, the lure of his brand of fascism was powerful. To defeat it would have taken organization, argument and persuassion way beyond what would have been achieved simply by a coalition government. They would have needed opposition as smart and coordinated was what they were fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC