,_from_Los_Caprichos_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
Peter Fritzsche’s Hitler’s First Hundred Days starts with Hitler’s appointment as chancellor on January 30. Fritzsche notes that there “was no such thing as majority opinion” in fragmented Germany and that the “political system had checkmated itself.” … He continues, “In order to smash the Weimar Republic the men in the room needed the Nazis, and to lever themselves into power, the Nazis needed the men in the room.”
And as we see Trump’s fanatics prepare for a second January 6, we should remember that the “Nazis had no intention of competing in a free and fair election.”
Fritzsche makes the telling argument that violence not only silenced Nazi opponents but was also essential to building support. The ongoing violence, choreographed as public rituals of humiliation that portrayed Nazi opponents as weak and ridiculous, turned entertained spectators into accomplices by virtue of their “voyeuristic pleasure.” The “wave of denunciation” that swept over Germany broadened the ranks of complicity further.
And as the Germans watched the violence, they changed.
Fritzsche asks how such a “sea change,” in which “more and more Germans” accepted the “necessity of compliance” as well as the Nazi standard of “normality,” was possible. Coercion “played an undeniable role,” he concedes, but ultimately he concludes that “the great achievement of the Third Reich was getting Germans to see themselves as the Nazis did: as an imperiled people who had created for themselves a new lease on collective life,” and that “to make Germany great was to narrate a great awakening.”
Browning quotes Benjamin Carter Hett’s book The Death of Democracy:
“in many ways, our time more closely resembles the 1930s than it does the 1990s,” as the Nazis “were fundamentally a protest reaction against globalization.”
To build the German MAGA movement, truth has to be overcome and replaced by the submission to the Great Leader, the Fuhrer.
The lost war, revolution, unjust peace settlement, economic chaos, and “huge social and technological change” were so intolerable that they led to a rejection of reality by many Germans. And they supported Hitler because he gave “voice to this flight from reality as could no other German politician of his time.” This “hostility to reality translated into contempt for politics” that in turn destroyed the “minimal common ground” that democracy needs to function.
Like Donald Trump, Hitler lied all the time, while revealing his plans to an audience that had stopped reflecting. Truth didn’t matter.
For Hitler his message “had to be simple” and “emotional,” not intellectual. And while he was personally close to no one, he had “a remarkable intuition for the thoughts, hopes, fears, and needs of other people.” Among other traits of Hitler, Hett includes insecurity, intolerance of criticism, bombastic claims about his own achievements, and scorn for intellectuals and experts. Thus without ever mentioning Donald Trump and MAGA, Hett clearly intends to draw parallels between Hitler and the Nazis on the one hand and the current American situation on the other.
And if you are surprised that so many billionaires, powerful and conservative joined forces with a right-wing “national socialist,” you are following in the path of Germany’s conservatives.
Like Ryback and Fritzsche, Hett places ultimate responsibility for Hitler’s ascent on German conservatives, who disdained democracy:
The crisis and the deadlock of 1932 and early 1933, to which Hitler appeared as the only solution, was manufactured by a political right wing that wanted to exclude more than half the population from political representation…. To this end, a succession of conservative politicians…courted the Nazis as the only way to retain power on terms congenial to them. Hitler’s regime was the result.
