The case of Adolph Hitler is often used as a cautionary tale about how a charismatic leader can ride his appeal to a democratic victory and then go on to subvert democracy because of the power of his personality. 1 However, is this really an accurate reading of the situation?
First off, Hitler did not personally come to power via election. Indeed, he never even stood for election to the Reichstag (the German legislature), as he wasn’t a German citizen until 1932–he was an Austrian who had renounced his citizenship in 1925, but did not become a German citizen until right before his 1932 run for the presidency (Bullock, 142). In that race, his only attempt at electoral office, he lost badly. In the 1932 election, Hitler challenged incumbent president Hindenburg and won only 30.1% of the vote in first round and 36.8% in the second. Here are the numbers:
(Source: Childs, 496.)
Hitler would later become Chancellor (i.e., Prime Minister) via a desperation deal made by Hindenburg—not through democratic means or even though clever deployment of his charismatic skills.
While it is true that the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis) were able to win a plurality in the German legislature in 1932, the notion that the operative factor was Hitler’s charisma is problematic. Consider the following:
(Source: Frey and Weck, 411)
Just the unemployment figures alone cited in the table should clue us all in that there was a lot more going on in interwar Germany than a charismatic politician who could attract large crowds. This doesn’t even touch on hyperinflation or the general effects of the loss in WWI.
There is an awful lot that can be said about why Weimar Germany’s democracy collapsed into Nazi totalitarianism, but it is not the case that we should understand as an example of charisma über alles.
Indeed, if one looks at the political parties that were competing in the German elections, the majority of them in terms of winning seats were anti-regime parties. By this I mean that they did not support the Weimar Constitution and sough power as a means of doing away with it and were anti-democratic. The Nazis were clearly an anti-democratic party. Then there was the Communist Party (KDP), the third largest party in the 1932 Reichstag, also an anti-regime party. The German National People’s Party (DNVP) which was a monarchist party. The Nazis had 230 seats, the KDP 89, and the DNVP 37 for at least2 356 out of 608 (or 58.6%) of the seats belonging to parties opposed to the regime and to democratic governance. That is hardly a healthy situation that goes beyond issues of Hitler’s charisma.
While there is a whole lot more that can be said about the collapse of Weimar Germany and the rise of Hitler (indeed, a great deal has been written on the subject for those who care to look for it), even this cursory look should clearly demonstrate that one cannot look at Nazi Germany as an example of a democratic regime subverted by a charismatic politician who used oratory to fool the voters into giving him power. Not only was Hitler’s rise to power not accomplished primarily via elections (indeed, he himself was never elected), but it is hardly the case that Weimar Germany was an especially healthy democracy (to put it mildly).
References
Bullock, Alan. 1964. Hitler, A Study in Tyranny. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Childs, Harwood L. 1932. The German Presidental Election of 1932. The American Political Science Review. 26,3 (June):486-496.
Frey, Bruno S. and Hannelore Weck. 1983. A Statistical Study of the Effect of the Great Depression on Elections: The Weimar Republic, 1930-1933. Political Behavior. 5,4:403-420.
- Given Obama’s ability to draw large crowds, such argument have been suggested during the recent campaign. I have seen, and largely ignored, such statements. The proximate cause of this post was a comment to a post at OTB that was at least in the family of Obama-Hitler comparisons. I decided to refresh my own memory on the issue and to have this post written so that in future I could refer to it. [↩]
- I say “at least” insofar as I think some of the smaller parties may have been anti-regime as well, but I am not certain and am not inclined to do the research at the moment [↩]
November 9th, 2024 at 9:40 pm
So very refreshing to see someone on a blog, posting about Hitler, and having not only done credible research on the subject but refrain from making crude comparisons between he and X (where X can be either Bush, Obama, or whatever you want to call BAD.)
One of the better professors of history that I studied under had a class entitled History of European Fascism. We used Payne’s book as a primary text; it was an excellent course, and a great prelude to the same prof’s History of the Cold War; I was lucky enough to be able to take those courses back to back, and of my college experience, those courses stand out as some of the few good ones.
Indeed, when you really study Hitler and Fascism, you gain an appreciation of how very far any leaders in American history are from being either a Hitler or a Fascist. It is so very annoying to me when people throw the comparisons around lightly and apparently without having taken the time to truly educate themselves on the subject.
I’m not sure if it’s as annoying as comparing the United States to the late Roman Empire, but it’s really friggin’ annoying, and definitely makes my top five most tired and annoying historical analogy list.
November 9th, 2024 at 9:45 pm
Yep, that one gets under my skin as well.
November 10th, 2024 at 4:15 pm
Even Cullen Murphy’s (in my opinion) well written examiniation of the subject in Are We Rome?
I like to think of the rise of Hitler as a cautionary tale against including an Article 48 in your Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution)
November 10th, 2024 at 5:25 pm
That’s a good one to avoid as well, amongst any number of others.
November 10th, 2024 at 5:26 pm
Most of the people who toss around the comparisons between the US and Rome have not studied the late Roman Empire with any seriousness. There have been some scholars to come along and make cases like Murphy’s; but I would argue that they are the exception, not the rule.
And in any case, I disagree with Murphy on a lot of points. He argues, for example, that Rome’s military was overextended, and likens the state of the Roman military to the state of our military.
The problem I have with that comparison is that it does not take into consideration the influence of technology; if the homeland was invaded and we had to move troops from their posts overseas to the mainland – if push came to shove – it would not be so hard as it was for Rome to move soldiers from its far-flung corners back to the capital. In late Rome, it would have taken days or weeks for the message to get to the farthest outposts, and then weeks, months, or longer for a legion to march the distance back to Rome; during which, it would be subject to a casualty rate from injury, disease, malnourishment, and the occasional attack by marauding celts, huns, or visigoths.
When I was a paratrooper deployed in Iraq, my command had instant, secure communication with Washington. If we had to, we could have packed into C-17′s and been back in the states in less than 24 hours, armed and ready to fight when we hit the ground, probably with a clear intelligence picture of the battlefield there. It would have left a horrible mess in Iraq to leave so suddenly, but it could have been done – we drilled on it. Murphy greatly plays down the mobility of the US military, probably because he has not studied modern military science and does not know what our military is really capable of.
His case that our porous borders liken us to Rome is also a weak one; I can play the devil’s advocate quite easily on most of Murphy’s points.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s done his homework and the book was at some points stirring. And I do think we have some problems that could be indicative of decline as a world power; but the evidence of that is hardly conclusive, and in any case, just being in a state of decline does not make us like Rome, even if we are to come to the conclusion that we are in a state of decline. I think that perhaps we are in a state of moral decline, but we remain the most militarily powerful nation in the world, and in spite of the “economic crisis” are still the world’s most important single economy.
In the face of those facts, it just doesn’t make sense to allude to us as the late Roman Empire.
November 11th, 2024 at 2:29 pm
Captain D:
“When I was a paratrooper deployed in Iraq, my command had instant, secure communication with Washington. If we had to, we could have packed into C-17’s and been back in the states in less than 24 hours, armed and ready to fight when we hit the ground, probably with a clear intelligence picture of the battlefield there. It would have left a horrible mess in Iraq to leave so suddenly, but it could have been done – we drilled on it. Murphy greatly plays down the mobility of the US military, probably because he has not studied modern military science and does not know what our military is really capable of.”
Some comments:
1) You would not have been back in the USA within 24 hours, unless those planes were (a) available, (b) available *within* Iraq, (c) available *within* Iraq with no other priority missions and (d) available *within* Iraq with no other priority missions with mid-air refueling available (which probably would have been used to refuel combat aircraft).
2) You wouldn’t have been able to fight more than a very, very short period of time, unless you had a good logistics chain in support of you (probably, unless you were landed at a US base, and fought within a few miles of it).
You’re thinking of paratroopers, and a jump *into* combat. If one thinks of moving mech/tank divisions and sustaining them in combat, the timeline goes from a few days to a month or more.
Of course, it’s academic, unless the Godless Hordes pop up out of nowhere…
November 12th, 2024 at 6:31 pm
Nicely on the factual / historical approach to Hitler. I thought no one did that anymore.
regards
November 13th, 2024 at 2:59 pm
Well, look, you’re right, it is academic. There are no invaders waiting on our borders.
My basic point was that it is an invalid comparison to say that Rome’s military was busy in the far-flung corners of the empire, and our military is busy in the far-flung corners of the world, ergo we are like Rome. There are many things that make the comparison invalid.
My basic point stands, that it was an entirely different challenge for the Romans to send legions home than it would be for us to do the equivalent. It would not take weeks just to receive the message; we would not lose half our force to disease on the way home; and it may not be easy, but we could put lots of boots on the ground at home pretty darn fast if we really had to.
While I’ll grant that it would be hard to move heavy assets quickly (depending on where they are coming from this will take between 2 and 6 weeks), our Army’s four light divisions (82, 101, 10, and 25) could be moved by air very easily. There are also smaller units that are highly mobile; we have an airborne regimental combat team in Alaska, and another in Italy; I can’t really speak for the Marine Corps, but they also have some expeditionary units that are pretty fast moving. And you’ve not done your homework on the range of the Globemaster 3; it, as well as the C-5, can go from Baghdad to mainland US on a single tank of gas. When used as a troop transport (people weigh less than trucks and tanks) a C-17 has a range of over 6000 nautical miles, without refueling; so it can make it, although it would be a stretch.
What would probably happen is what happened every time I deployed – we had a stopover at another NATO country (usually England). Planes land and refuel; it takes maybe an hour of sitting on the tarmac to refuel a plane like the C-17 (that’s total time from touchdown to wheels up).
Also, our reserves and national guard are not totally tapped out. We could easilly activate a division or two worth of soliders that way, as well.
Also, there are always air assets kept here; these include part of our Strategic Air Defense, and also the NORAD forces that are charged with defending American air space. There is usually at least one carrier battle group in or near American waters, also.
Point is, the world is not the same, and while our military is spread a bit thin at the moment, we retain the capability to re-deploy, and we could if push came to shove.
November 13th, 2024 at 3:25 pm
“Well, look, you’re right, it is academic. There are no invaders waiting on our borders.”
For God’s sake man, you’re forgetting Cuba!
regards
November 18th, 2024 at 10:42 pm
[...] that post I wrote about a week ago about how Hitler actually isn’t a cautionary tale about an …? Especially part wherein I noted that Hitled was never elected to [...]