I would also add that at the time of WWI, Germany had only been a unified nation for less than a century. Prior to that, it had been broken up into little kingdoms, principalities and duchies. The Second Reich didn’t last very long and didn’t have enough time to build up a sense of “nationality”, at least not like the US had.
(Not saying that people didn’t feel they were Germans, just that culture and society might be different in militaristic Prussia than in say, Bavaria or Coburg).
Because FDR was one hell of a leader, that’s why. Some argue that his economic policies were completely ineffective while others argue that they actually did some good. I don’t know. I do know that FDR managed to keep a spark of hope alive in the hearts of millions of frightened and desperate people who might otherwise have succumbed to the appeal of political extremists.
FDR was second only to Lincoln, in my book. And a close second at that.
I agree. I think that Roosevelt changed what could have been a violent revolution into a relatively peaceful one. It is hard now to believe the state of mind in the US in 1932, '33, '34 and I think that some kind of one-man rule with Congress as a rubber stamp, at least an attempt at it, wouldn’t have been an absolute impossibility had such an individual gained political power. However, it would have been difficult and there would have been lots of turmoil because it would have been a much more radical change here than in Germany.
A combination of several reasons. Germany was hit harder by the depression than the United States was, so people were more desperate. Germany was near the Soviet Union, so people were more scared of the Communists taking over. Most Germans felt they had been screwed over by the Versailles Treaty, so there was a widespread “legitimate” complaint for the Nazis to act on. And Hitler was in Germany - there was no similar figure in America to bring it all together. The theoretical leaders who might have formed an American fascist movement (Butler, Coughlin, du Pont, Ford, Lemke, Lindbergh, Long, MacArthur, Pelley, Smith, whomever) all faded out in one way or another.
I think part of it had to do with the structure of the Weimar Republic.
Since the Republic was new, it didn’t have the centuries of traditions and gentleman’s agreements necessary to keep a parliamentary democracy functioning. The split votings resulted in governments with no majority, thereby resulting in an almost complete paralysis.
Secondly, the federal structure of the republic also contributed to its paralysis. I’m not sure if the problems were political or structural, but the federal government was unable to enforce its directives on the state governments at times. For example, IIRC, at one point, the federal government ordered a clamp-down on the Nazi party, and several state governments refused to comply. (I’m doing this off the top of my head, if anyone can clarify this, it would be appreciated).
So, the weak federal government was ripe for collapse, it was just a question of who would push it over. Hitler was shrewd enough that he managed to be the one to do it, but I don’t see any reason that the communists wouldn’t have won the day if he hadn’t been around.
Not that they didn’t give it a try. @
Thanks for the link, crowmanyclouds. That was very interesting reading.
Read Antony Sutton’s WALL STREET series, WALL STREET AND FDR shows some interesting parallels, right down to the same economic advisers, between the New Deal and Mussolini’s economic program (the other two books are WS & THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION and WS & THE RISE OF HITLER).
Re Johann’s ref to Mencken as a quasi-fascist - cite?
http://www.powells.com/review/2003_01_23.html
Mencken was an anti-Semite who called Jews “the most unpleasant race ever heard of.” He had a “fondness for all things German.” Mencken’s “The Mailed Fist and Its Prophet” appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in November 1914 and praised the Kaiser for implementing what Mencken took to be Nietzschean ideals. A biographer writes, “that he was an anti-Semite cannot now reasonably be denied.” The reviewer of the biography notes,
That’s “quasi” enough for me.
To expand a bit (sideways) on what **Der Trihs ** said: A Swiss psychiatrist named Alice Miller opined that the German culture was very vulnerable to strong, didactic father figures, and that is the image and manner that Hitler portrayed. Ordinary people didn’t support him because of his ideas, but because of the manner in which he expressed them. His approach was comfortable and familiar, and saved them from having to think very much. Der Vater will save us.
After WWII, on the other hand, the utter devastation may have caused the culture to shift somewhat away from the paternalism that had led them into that disaster.
OK, although it sort of rings true to me, it isn’t exactly hard science. Just another perspective.
Oh, yes, why didn’t America follow the same path? What **Der Trihs ** said.
Do I detect a note of irony in this? :dubious:
The Nazi party only came into power in Germany.
Oh, no, the “shackles of Versailles” were a very, very big thing. Even the pro-democratic parties of the Weimar Republic were determined to worm their way out from under Versailles. Their ineffectiveness at doing so was one of the factors in their downfall.
Actually, Germany is a cautionary tale for those who believe that democracy can be imposed from outside. The Weimar Republic was decidedly a foreign creation - the Allies demanded the dissolution of the Hohenzollern monarchy; there was no mass movement in Germany towards democracy. Those Germans who did the dissolution - largely the SPD - always had the taint of being foreign agents.
If the legitimacy of the democratic system itself is in doubt due to the method in which it was installed, it doesn’t have the roots to survive severe crises - or, at least as in the case of Germany, multiple severe crises (think hyperinflation).
Sua
I asked about this once here and was told that the republic was a domestic invention.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=317025&highlight=germany
As far as democracy not being imposed from outside, it worked in Japan, Italy and Germany post WW2. Germany in 1930 really isn’t a good example for many reasons.
That time frame saw the rise of alot of militant, totalitarian regimes as a result of WW1. Regimes in Spain, the US, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and probably an assorment of less known countries. So the world wasn’t in a pro-democracy mood at the time
The great depression caused people to become desperate for strong leadership.
the Germans had mass personality traits that made them demand a strong leader as some here have said.
Yes. I think I was mistaken in implying that Versailles wasn’t that big a deal. I meant that from the viewpoint of its actual terms. It really didn’t impose great hardship on Germany as compared with the settlement, if that’s what it can be termed, ending WWII. However, to the Germans it turned out to be a big deal that was exploited by Hitler.
All great, great answers and I don’t really disagree strongly with anyone. But I want to point out that even if the exact same circumstances and conditions had existed in the U.S. and Hitler had run within the system (as he did in Germany) he would not have come to power here. The two party system would have prevented it.
As Governor Quinn’s statistics show the highest showing Hitler ever got was 33.1% of the voters. The U.S. system doesn’t realistically allow a minority party to win (Minority by say less than 45%), let alone take over the way Hitler did. Either Hitler would have had to really, really water down his message and made a peace with the vast majority of Republican voters to attract a majority (which knowing middle American of the 30’s would not have been his Mien Kampf-style open faced fascism) or, as I believe more likely, his followers would have been absorbed by some candidate who was able to do just that – take a hard right, but not overtly fascist and scary, position.
I think part of the answer then *to why not here * – the two party system that doesn’t allow true minority parties to come to power-- and tends to weed out the extremist elements of the party within the primaries.
Oh, I don’t know about this. If you frighten people badly enough they will tolerate some pretty extreme measures. The two party system isn’t any protection in such cases because both parties’ political leaders are subject to fear of the effect on their reelection of the fear of the electorate. As an example I cite the Democrats support of the resolution. of recent vintage, authorising the President to use force in Iraq. I don’t think the Democrats feared Sadaam nearly as much as they feared being called “soft on terrorists.”
The Nazis DID come to power.
Henry Ford, Prescott Bush, IBM etc… They all profitted greatly from their nazi connections.
Most of the jews were in Europe it was much easier for us to kill them by turning their boats away at the ports than it would have been for us to have a policy of extermination.
Erek
Certainly you can take my last sentence to far – I see that it can be sensibly read that I was saying that the two-party system is a panacea that will always make sure no extremists are ever elected…I don’t believe that and to the extent I was unclear or overstated I agree.
But also, what we were talking about in this thread was Hitler coming to power. Even in the Weimer Germany, a place and time of fear and depression and hopelessness, even there, Hitler could only get 33% of the vote. To actually have fascism here, he would either have to A. flat out lie (not publish Mein Kampf) or B. tailor his message to reach a slim majority (in short to appeal to about 19% more of the voters).
So that was my point – elections and who is elected. I certainly agree that decisions can be made in fear and haste. Again though – these sorts of decisions (usually 1 off – not elections) are made usually with super-majorities in the face of an inflamed populace and not by a minority (which again goes to my whole point).
Let’s use for instance your Iraq example – even if we take what you said as 100% accurate – almost 66% of the country supported Bush at the time of the resolution – this is important to my point — it was not a minority or even a slim majority.
So let me say again:
… I want to point out that even if the exact same circumstances and conditions had existed in the U.S. and Hitler had run within the system (as he did in Germany) he would not have come to power here. The two party system would have prevented it.
I think we are in essential agreement as to the probability of a Hitler type coup occuring here in the 1930’s. I stated in an earlier post that such a move would be a more radical change here than in the Germany of 1932 and therefore more difficult.
However, all of the response in the US to the WTC/Pentagon attacks was not by a President with a super majority in the previous election. In fact there was probably doubt in the minds some members of the Congress about that whole election process. And I don’t think that the fact that most of the country supported GW after the attacks is significant with regard to electoral majorities. Most would have supported him at that time even if he had only gotten 30% of the vote. Not me because I had, and have, no confidence in him as a leader, as a planner, organizer, implementor, or as a thinker and so my immediate thought was that he would do something foolish.
My only concern is that complacency about about built-in safeguards keeping potential autocrats in check is hazardous. I don’t believe in automatic, “turn the crank and things work properly” human activities. It is my belief that the public attitude, the laws passed and the actions taken after 9/11 have turned the ratchet one or two notches toward a restrictive central government. Precedents have been set and in time people will think that’s the way things should be and then there can more easily be another turn of the ratchet. Bad people can misuse any system of government.