In class we have discussed how Fascism can flourish when democracy fails. Mussolini and Hitler both rose to power in political vacuums, and were able to capitalize on disintegrating order, but how much of it was the fault of the people who supported their rise?
Before the collapse of the Weimar, Germany wasn't doing so bad. There still existed some strains and tensions due to the end of the Great War (repartations, loss of territory, and the war guilt clause), but in the period from 1918 to 1933 the Republic was able to draft a constitution, suppress right and left wing militancy (specifically by 1923), improve the economy, and be admitted into the League of Nations. Though the world depression hit in 1929, why were Germans so unhappy with the Weimar Republic, and what made Nazisim so appealing?
Hyperinflation and the death of Streseman could be seen as pitfalls for the Republic. And a coalition needed to be formed to ensure the continuance of a smooth government, but why, despite heading the largest party in the Reichstag, would von Hindenburg form a coalition with a political dissenter? There is the lesser of two evils theory: Hitler's conservativism was better than radical leftists who were vocally dissenting. But, this still appears to be a poor choice for leaders in the Weimar because he had already proven that he was against the governement in 1923 with the Beer Hall Putsch.
German citizens could also be blamed for Hitler's rise. They backed a man who since the early twenties had played off hatred for minority groups (hatred that had arguably been instilled in Germany since the massacres of Jews during the marches to the Crusades). But, even after he assumed the chancelorship, his policies directly reflected meglomania and militancy. His school policies were blantant attempts to indoctrinate children into racially motivated militancy, the creation of Hitler youth and the Nazi control of early motherhood showed their desires to cradle children into Fascist society from a young age while limiting the power and influence of the family, and the gradual decrease in privacy coupled with the increase of paranoia would yield the conclusion that the government was on a wrong path. This having been said, is it the entire German people's fault for the atrocities of World War II, or were the Nazis just that good at indoctrinating and propagating?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that this blog is especially interesting after today's discussion on Gellately's chapter ("Turning Away from Weimar"). As the author points out, much of the rise of Hitler can be attributed to the social and economic needs of the German people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, our debate on whether Hitler's rise to power was through consent or coercion can answer ome of the questions raised in your blog. Although some in the class thought that coercion was the underlying current, the general consensus was that the consent of the German people played a much larger role in Hitler's rise to power. I agree with this. I believe that the German people ultimately accepted Hitler as their ultimate leader due to their extreme desire to return to a sense of traditional normalcy and their need for a united governing force.
I certainly believe the conditions had to be right for Hitlers rise to power. The shame of defeat and the Versaille reparations. The somewhat shaky political foundation and the ability to capitialize on opportunities of desperation for stability and to artfuly use media dissemination to inculcate the German populace to Nazi propoganda all played large factors in the rise of Hitler. The question of consent versus coercion was a wonderful question that we explored. I hold fast to my perspective that the consent was given by many Germans who stood to gain at the cost of those who were targets from the first place. In this the Germans were consenting to be empowered as Aryan and the dominant force, the only force in German society. The Jewish population along with liberal groups and any other dissenter could not be counted as a valid source of opposition according to Nazi doctrine. It is realy not so hard to imagine this happening. Humanity is filled with anger, strife, and racial superiority complexes. Give people free reign to vent their rage or a focal point to unleash it such as Jewish people and you will bring out the worst in many people. However you will bring out the best in some people as well. I suppose it just depends upon the mood of the mob on which way it will go. Violent crime is emboldened when people are in groups, and Hitler had one BIG group.
ReplyDeleteYou raise the familiar question of German guilt and responsibility, as if there were an acceptable either/or answer: either the Germans are guilty or they are innocent; either they knew or they did not; either they resisted or they assisted. The problem with these questions is exactly what makes the Holocaust such an enduring subject of study. I would argue that such black and white answers fail to address the complexities of the Holocaust and the way in which it proceeded. I argue instead that in order for an event such as the Holocaust to occur, the lines between right and wrong, guilt and innocence, compliance, consent and coercion must already be blurred. Without this pre-existing moral complexity, it is difficult to imagine such actions taking place.
ReplyDelete