Death of Democracy in Germany 1933 with the Rise of Hitler

Germany in the late 1920's and early 30's was a hotbed of political violence as the weak Weimar Republic, established after the Great War, demonstrated it's inherent weakness and lack of capability to govern. Emerging Nazis, trumpeting Adolf Hitler, were in a fierce combat, often with bloody riots, against the Communists and Social Democrats. There were also Monarchists who clung to the notion that the Hohenzollern dynasty might one day return as well as the Catholic party.

Nazi strategy was to crush the Social Democrats, perceiving them to be the greatest opposition threat. German Communists, however, also prioritized debilitating the Social Democrats and listed them as a greater oppositional fear than the Nazis, despite some KPD (Kommunist Party Deutschland) activists believing the Nazis should be the first priority.  Joining the Nazis against the Social Democrats was a major mistake that would lead to catastrophe for the nation in 1933. Communist leaders that saw the obvious outcome were silenced.

In the several parliamentary elections preceding Hitler's rise to power as Chancellor, Communists and Nazis used every opportunity to browbeat the Social Democrats and dwindle away their parliamentary numbers. But as soon as Hitler gained absolute power, following the February 27, 1933 Reichstag fire, The proverbial die was cast and within hours every Communist leader was arrested, primitive concentration camps had already been erected and were being rapidly filled with men and women considered enemies of the state, and the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) took over many city police stations such as in the large northern city of Hamburg, often considered the "red-est city" in the Republic.

Particular effort was placed on the destruction of key unions, such as those controlling shipping and the harbor docks, and Catholic groups that posed possible threats to Nazi rule. Often, this resulted in fierce fighting within city areas controlled by the Communists. Invariably, the Nazis rooted out all opposition and made prolific use of the axe, cutting off the heads of thousands of opposition activists. Some historians estimate that more Nazi enemies were beheaded during the Third Reich than during the French Reign of Terror. 

Communists and Nazis battled in the streets of many cities. Guns were plentiful, smuggled from Belgium and Russia. Ultimately, the Nazis won and proceeded to ruthlessly suppress Communist opposition.

The Nazi takeover and ultimate German reign of terror could have been avoided if Communist strategies had seen the primary enemy as Hitler and his Brown shirts. But Communist directives were coming from Berlin, Europe's Communist "hub" which was receiving marching orders through the Comintern and ultimately Stalin himself. In Russia it was a period of mistrust, purges, show trials, long sentences served in Siberian labor camps, or death in the dungeons of the Lubyanka. European leaders within the Communist organization often found themselves called to Moscow, never to return.

Everyday Germans faced a choice that involved not only politics but a way of life. Neighbors acting suspiciously were to be denounced to the local Gestapo. Good Nazi children entered the Nazi Youth organizations and the female auxiliary groups. If your family was not a member of the Party, you were literary an outcast. In schools, their children sat in the back of the class. Once Jews were identified, this became a norm in classrooms.

Nazi police stations tortured people mercilessly, attempting to obtain names of other Communists, families that helped hide activists. Once found, entire families: men, women, and children were brought in for questioning and, often, brutalized. *

We, in this enlightened century, have slowly forgotten the dark times that represented Germany in 1932 and 1933. Dachau concentration camp was already built in Munich. And by 1933 it was being filled. The camp was built in a Munich suburb, on a Munich city bus line. Residential buildings virtually surrounded the camp. How can the presence of Dachau be disputed?

The Nazi camp system was like a large octopus, reaching to every part of the Reich. The camp system often starting as transitional camps and hubs, much later leading to the death camps through out occupied Europe.

It only took a few years for Democracy in Germany to be quashed and be replaced by a totalitarian dictatorship. German people were desensitized and stood by as Jews and other "undesirables"  were taken away to camps or, in the east, shot en masse and dumped into graves. 

All it took was people believing a lie, supporting a system whose party leaders lied constantly and spread propaganda. Listening to opposing viewpoints meant arrest and possibly death (such as listening to BBC on the radio or other foreign stations). 

People who lived through that time still recall the horrors and warn that if not careful, it could happen again, even in a solid democracy.

*my grandmother was called to her local gestapo office for not displaying a portrait of Hitler in her living room.

 Constitutional Supremacy Still A Good Idea

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once observed that, “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” In 1787, as the American nation’s founders gathered in Philadelphia in order to create a more perfect union, both history and philosophy influenced the resolve to write the new Constitution.

 

Americans left Europe, in part, to distance themselves from a history of warfare among the various European states. Following independence from Britain and the 1783 peace, however, growing sectional concerns helped fuel a feeling of disunity. As historian David Hendrickson correctly noted in his book on the founding of America, “…the corporate identity of the individual states would be far less secure under disunion than under the proposed constitution…”

 

The Absence of a Strong Central Government

 

The new American government under the Articles of Confederation, conceived during the years of war, was impotent against the looming national crisis involving debt, commerce, and national integrity; no European power took the Americans seriously.

 

Growing sectional concerns, notably between the commercially-minded Northeast and the agriculturally-geared South, threatened to disunify, enabling European states to manipulate Americans against each other. George Washington warned his colleagues about “relaxing the powers of union” which would expose the new country to the, “…sport of European politics…”

 

Independence also meant an end to the British mercantile system in regard to key American enterprises such as tobacco, rice, indigo, and naval stores in the South and lumber in the North. As soon as the war ended, European goods flooded the American market, hurting attempts to expand American industries. Agricultural prices also fell, hurting American farmers and contributing to the levels of popular discontent associated with events such as Shays’ Rebellion in 1786.

 

Unity, after 1783, was based on a loose confederation. The American Congress lacked any direct power to levy taxes. The individual states printed their own money and acted as sovereign states, thus contributing to the overall weakness of the confederation. Any moves toward greater centralization of power were equated with tyranny and the loss of liberty. As writer Robert Harvey noted, “…the new nation was a ragbag of competing authorities.”

 

Another source of friction involved the westward movement. Land claims regarding these territories frequently overlapped, pitting one state against another. The Articles of Confederation lacked an organized formula addressing territorial assumptions.

 

The need for a Constitution and Centralized Power

 

The Constitution gave power to the people, but not too much power. Through a series of compromises, the weaknesses that had left the nation vulnerable after 1783 were remedied: a bicameral legislature, a chief executive, a judiciary, and an enumeration of the rights of individual states. The Constitution was inspired both by history and philosophy.

 

Ratification, however, did not end the debate over personal liberties and sectional concerns. Additionally, European powers continued to threaten and manipulate the new nation. The realities of Paris mobs, with the outbreak of the 1789 French Revolution, hardened conservatives in Britain – men like Edmund Burke who referenced the mobs as “swinish multitudes.”

 

The Constitution helped unify the individual states but it would take a civil war to reign in the friction over the extent of state sovereignty. This debate has continued in American history, especially when federal centralization was perceived as interfering with individual liberties and threatening the powers of individual states.

 

References:

 

Colin B. Goodykoontz, “The Founding Fathers and Clio,” The Vital Past: Writings on the Uses of History, Stephen Vaughn, editor (The University of Georgia Press, 1985)

Robert Harvey, “A Few Bloody Noses”: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (The Overlook Press, 2002)

David C. Hendrickson, Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding (University Press of Kansas, 2003)

Simon Schama, A History of Britain: The Fate of Empire 1776-2000, Volume III (Hyperion, 2002)

 

 Helping Students and Adults Explore History at the Source: My Dedication to Kim Eads

A special dedication to my longtime friend, Kim Eads, who passed away on June 9, 2022. Kim and I were colleagues and I knew her for over thirty years. But my fondest memories of Kim will always be the many educational trips we took student and adult groups on throughout the 1990's. We traveled across most of Europe, visiting some cities more than once and spent numerous summer weeks in Australia and New Zealand, educating students, sharing new cultures, and having fun. Kim was a tireless trip co-leader, getting up early and waiting in hotel halls long past evening curfews.

Prague is an excellent example. We were housed in a former Communist hotel with a number of other groups. One of our kids, the type to always break the rules, wasn't in his room. We were told he was after a girl from some other group. Kim knocked on the door of that other group. They reluctantly let us in, seeing we were teachers and traveling with the same group they were, EF Educational Tours.

The room, typical for most teenagers including our own, was littered with beer bottles and full ash trays. Someone was in the shower. Neither of us wanted to invade the privacy of a bathroom! Since we didn't see Bryan, our wayward kid, we left.

But Kim and I parked ourselves outside the door in the wide hallway, grabbed a table and two chairs, and played gin rummy for several hours. Finally the door opened. It was Bryan, amazed to find us siting there. We kept an extra eye on him for the rest of the trip and restricting him from any beer (although we allowed the rest of the group to have a beer with a meal).

 It was also in Prague that another teacher from Little Rock grabbed my arm at the elevator and told me some of our boys had just left the hotel. Kim and I looked at each other. We had not given permission. I rushed outside and ran to the back of the hotel. To my amazement, our guys were playing basketball with some neighborhood teens. This was what an educational tour was all about!

After a particularly grueling few nights in Budapest, Kim looked at me while on the bus to Vienna and said, "Want to call their parents and ask them to finish the trip with their kids so we can fly home?"

We had other great experiences - so many I could write a book. But I could always count on Kim. She also joined me every February as a faculty advisor in Boston at the Harvard University Model Congress.

After moving to Arkansas in 2000 to teach and pursue a graduate degree program, she had an accident at school that required knee replacement surgery. This didn't go well and ultimately she had several surgeries to correct problems arising from the first operation. She was in great pain and was forced to go on disability. Every time we talked she told me how much she missed the classroom and our foreign trips.. 

Kim was a dedicated, caring educator. She was the best human being I ever knew, never showing any negative feeling toward anyone.

She moved back home several years ago to care for her ailing parents but they passed away in late 2019. 

Kim and I often met at the Golden Coral when she came home to visit, to sit and reminisce for hours about our students, and adventures, and the many people we were fortunate to meet and call friends. I'll greatly miss her!

Kim and I at Neuschwanstein castle in southern Bavaria.
 

The historical equilibrium between obliteration and human existence has always managed to avoid the black hole of chaos. It has always been believed that good people are in greater abundance than bad people. Poets have given us this assurance. The mythological tales of ancient gods also point toward an ultimate goodness. Osiris would triumph for the people of Egypt. For the Greeks it was Olympus. And the Romans provided the Pax Romana which kept the peace of Rome for centuries. Every religion or belief system has a positive force, or "god" if you will, that ensures life will go on.

 But history shows us that there were anomalies. There were men motivated by blood-lust and conquest. Like Attila the Hun, Ivan the Terrible (or "Formidable." And so many others. Human life was cheap and the life of a peasant perilous.  The newly risen Christian Church offered graces to mitigate the death and destruction, but it never fully worked. Too often great numbers perished, as in the 13th Century Black Death or Plague that killed off half the population of Europe and came back several times. 

Meanwhile, Christians tolerated their own and persecuted others, like Jews and Muslims. The love of Christ never extended to the millions who populated vast swaths of God's creation. In short, without recounting in bloody detail the history of the Christian Church, it is very obvious that the words of Jesus, ostensibly the founder, have been drowned out by the clash of swords or the bombardment of tanks.

Nuclear weapons, indeed, any so-called weapons of pass destruction, are still waiting in the wings until some truly mad person releases them on billions of people. Is this the so-called sign of the end?

The wars all over the globe, large and small, clearly show that mankind has not learned from the past. And in the advanced, wealthy countries, people do not even consider the possibility of annihilation. 

They go about their business, championing sports, keeping the shop keepers busy, and patronizing the super heroes on vast movie screens. It is a tale of two worlds. No wonder we no longer teach history in many institutions.  

 

 Pavel Pestal and the Decembrists in Russia: Attempt at Revolution and Change

 

On the morning of December 14, 1825, an attempt at revolution broke out at St. Isaac’s Square in St. Petersburg, Russia. The revolution’s leaders, many young and representative of some of Russia’s most important aristocratic families, intended to force a Manifesto on members of the Senate and thus proclaim a new government that included the abolition of serfdom. These were the Decembrists, idealistic revolutionaries who chief contribution would be in providing martyrs to the future generations of Russian radicals and revolutionaries.

 

Decembrist Goals

 

Formed as a secret society in 1816, the loose organization that would tie Northern and Southern conspirators together went through several phases of ideological maturity from advocating a constitutional monarchy to regicide. Not all members agreed with each other on proper actions to take nor could they all agree on exactly what form of government should ultimately replace the autocratic rule of Tsar Alexander I. Pavel Pestel, considered the greatest intellect among the group, would confess in 1826 that he had come to the conclusion, after years of reading and observing, that “the republican form of government was superior,” and referred to the United States as a model.

 

Decembrist leaders were, for the most part, highly educated and harbored hopes of a reformed Russia after Alexander I returned from the 1815 Congress of Vienna. Instead, the tsar became more reactionary, even closing Masonic Lodges which had gained in popularity. Decembrists viewed national salvation in terms of republican ideals, using historical guidelines as models. Pestel idealistically invoked Republican Rome, contrasting it “with its lamentable fate under the rule of emperors” and spoke of the “glorious time of Greece when it was a republic.”

 

Casting the Die

 

The death of Alexander I in late 1825 gave the Decembrists the opportunity they had been waiting for. Although everyone assumed Alexander’s brother, Constantine, would succeed him, this was not to be. Constantine had abdicated earlier through a secret letter to his older brother. Alexander then named Nicholas, his 29-year old younger brother to succeed him. So secret was the affair that even Nicholas was unaware of the new arrangement. The Decembrists used this turmoil in succession to launch their revolution in St. Petersburg. The affair would be short-lived. The feeble military units occupying St. Isaac’s Square were leaderless, Prince Trubetskoi, ostensibly the commander of the operation, had absconded. Eventually, Nicholas I, now the Tsar after Constantine’s letter had been made public, ordered grape shot fired into the motley crowd, dispersing them in a melee of fear.

 

In the South, Serge Muraviev, leader of the southern faction, refused to admit defeat and fermented a mutiny with the intent on marching to Kiev. An imperial army had little difficulty ending the affray and arresting the leaders. Although most of the Decembrists were banished to Siberia, five, including Pestel and Muraviev, were executed.

 

Martyrs of a Cause

 

In her book on Mikhail Bakunin, [1] Aileen Kelly refers to the memoirs of Alexander Herzen, the “father of Russian Socialism.” In the memoir, Herzen relates that he was fourteen when Pestel and the other leaders were executed. The impression on him was to act out Schiller’s Don Carlos with his cousin. Far from ending a movement, the repressive policies of Nicholas I, the “Iron Tsar,” forced revolutionary sentiment underground. The Decembrists bred a progeny of future radicals that identified with these early Russian Jacobins.

 

[1] Aileen Kelly, Mikhail Bakunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics of Utopianism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) p.9ff.

 

Other Sources:

 

Imperial Russia: A Source Book, 1700-1917, Basil Dmytryshyn, editor (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1967)

 

Adam B. Ulam, Russia’s Failed Revolutions: From the Decembrists to the Dissidents (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1981)

 

 Comparing Peter the Great and Louis XIV of France

The mid to late 17^th century in Europe is defined by the lives of two men whose efforts greatly influenced the balance of power in the next century while creating competitive societies among the large and small European powers. Peter the Great of Russia and Louis XIV of France – the “sun king,” began their respective reigns with vision. Both would leave a legacy of strong leadership that resulted in the formation of powerful nations. Each ruler, alike in many ways, helped define the age.

 

The Early Years in France and Russia

 

Louis inherited a potentially prosperous kingdom with the largest population of any European nation. Yet for most of his twenty million subjects, everyday life in France reflected a day to day existence based on poverty, an inefficient and punishing tax system, and the continuance of a feudal system whereby a small group of powerful nobles controlled all aspects of society. Louis’ early years were marked by the Fronde, an uprising of nobles that forced him to flee Paris as a child.

 

Peter’s Russia was also a backward feudal society with a history of political and social unrest. Like Louis of France, Peter’s early childhood was marred by an unsuccessful attempt to seize power by his ambitious half-sister, Sophia. Both Peter and Louis took personal control of the state after coming of age, Louis’ reign identified as “Absolutism” while in Russia the rigid “Autocracy” was strengthened under Peter.

 

Building a Modern State

 

Although labeled “Antichrist” by the Orthodox Church, Tsar Peter’s determined efforts sought to modernize the feudal state along the lines of western European societies such as England and the Netherlands. His reforms, often called “revolutions,” affected everything from dress to architecture. His greatest act was the creation of the Russian navy. The traditional beard, so much a part of religious tradition, was outlawed and women were freed from their cumbersome clothes in favor of western-style fashion.

 

Much of this “fashion” came out of Louis’ France and the glittering court he presided over at Versailles. Like Peter of Russia, Louis transformed a semi-feudal society into a competitive mercantile nation. This involved an overhaul of the taxation system via the talents of treasury minister Colbert as well as the establishment of a modern, efficient army created by the Marquis de Lavois. Louis’ reforms helped to grow an urban middle class, the bourgeoisie.

 

Control of the Nobility and Symbols of Power

 

Louis’ most visible legacy was the great palace of Versailles, a model for all future rulers that wanted to demonstrate power and control. At the same time, Versailles was used to lure the restless nobility. At Versailles, the aristocracy was kept busy with endless parties and concerts, hunting and gambling, and dozens of diversions. In the midst of it all was the sun king, the epitome of absolute rule.

 

In Russia, Peter’s 1703 construction of St. Petersburg on the Neva River achieved similar purposes. It was his “window to the west.” Originally built as a fortress in the quest to deprive Sweden Baltic dominance, the city came to represent the ideals of Peter’s vision. Peter’s control of the nobility was linked to the “Table of Ranks,” which mandated state service for all nobles.

 

Death of Peter and Louis

 

Both Peter and Louis died leaving an uncertain future. In Russia, Peter’s second wife, Catherine, ruled with the help of advisors. Following her death, Russia experienced a brief second “time of troubles.” In France, a regency oversaw the interests of the infant king who would one day proclaim, “After me, the Deluge.”

 

Peter the Great and Louis XIV were larger-than-life figures at a pivotal time in western European history. Their lives saw many parallels and both men died bequeathing their people a stronger state.

 

Sources:

 

James Cracraft, The Revolution of Peter the Great (Harvard University Press, 2003)

Pierre Goubert, Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen (Vintage Books, 1972)

 

A Reprint from the Past...

Viktor Orban's Hungary has a Spotty Human Rights History and Should Start Acting Like an EU Nation

 

As the Second World War drew to a close, an enigmatic Swede fought against time to save the last large Jewish community from the Nazi death camps. Eclipsing Oskar Schindler, whose similar efforts were immortalized by Steven Spielberg, Raoul Wallenberg rescued more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. Wallenberg disappeared when Budapest fell to the Soviet Army in January 1945. Despite inquiries at the highest diplomatic levels, his disappearance has never been adequately explained.

 

The Call to Sacrifice

 

Raoul Wallenberg was born into a prominent Swedish family. Well educated, Wallenberg graduated from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, returning to Sweden to be groomed for a banking career by his diplomat grandfather. Even before the outbreak of war in 1939, Wallenberg was told of the growing persecution of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. These impressions led to his determination to play a part in stopping the madness. He resolved to confront evil face to face and save as many Jews as possible. In July, 1944, he traveled to Budapest.

 

Sweden was a neutral nation during the war. Working at the Swedish legation, Wallenberg began issuing schutzpasses, official documents, to desperate Jews. The passes effectively put their bearers under Swedish protection. Wallenberg personally visited Admiral Horthy, the Nazi puppet ruler, pressing him to stop deportations. Finally, he enlisted the support of the other neutral legations in Budapest. Wallenberg purchased empty buildings in Budapest to use as safe houses and established an intricate intelligence network within the Jewish community.

 

Confronting the Face of Evil

 

As the Soviet Army drew closer to Budapest, the Nazis increased their efforts to exterminate the Jews, using their local surrogate force, the Arrow Cross, to do much of the killing. Agnes Mandl, whose description of events is listed with the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, credits Wallenberg with saving many lives. Her account details the Arrow Cross leading bound Jews to the Danube River, shooting one and then dumping the group into the cold December waters to drown. She, along with Wallenberg and others, rescued fifty people by jumping into the waters to save the drowning people.

 

Wallenberg eventually confronted Adolph Eichmann, who had returned to Budapest to complete the Final Solution in Hungary. Wallenberg was unsuccessful in his attempt to reason with the man responsible for the Third Reich’s railroad network devoted to transporting hundreds of thousands to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other extermination camps. Eichmann was tried for war crimes in Israel in 1961-62 and executed for what historian Hannah Arendt called, “the banality of evil” in her 1962 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem.

 

Final Days in Budapest

 

Two days before the Soviets liberated Nazi death camps, Wallenberg threatened to have SS General August Schmidthuber tried for war crimes once the war ended if the planned massacre of the remaining Jews in Budapest was not stopped. The pogrom was cancelled at the last minute, although Schmidthuber was eventually executed for atrocities committed in Yugoslavia.

 

Raoul Wallenberg, in an attempt to make contact with the Russian commander, was taken by the Soviets and never seen again. Budapest was “liberated” by the Red Army. The Budapest Jews would not be exterminated. But the great hero whose passion was to confront and stop evil, disappeared. No adequate explanation has ever been offered by the Soviet government despite reports of sighting Wallenberg in the Russian Gulag. It remains as one of modern history’s mysteries.

 

Sources

 

http://www.ushmm.org (National Holocaust Museum)

Linnea, Sharon. Raoul Wallenberg: The Man Who Stopped Death (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1993).

Terror House Museum, Budapest (visited by author, December 2006)