On Jan. 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. To his supporters, it was a day of “national revolution” and rebirth. They believed Germany needed the restorative force of an authoritarian strongman after 14 years of the liberal-democratic Weimar “system.” That night, Hitler’s torch-bearing brownshirts marched through central Berlin to mark the dawn of a new era.
It was also a triumphant moment in the history of popular deception. Since the Weimar Republic’s early days, its politics had been defined by disinformation campaigns, including the lie that Weimar democracy was the work of a cabal of Jews and socialists who had “stabbed Germany in the back” to ensure its defeat in World War I.
Today, few people dispute that Hitler’s arrival was a turning point in world history, the start of a political process that would lead to World War II and the Holocaust. However, Hitler did not “seize power,” as the Nazis later claimed. Instead, as his biographer Ian Kershaw has explained, he was “levered into power” by a small group of influential men.
Illustration: Mountain People
One of those men was Franz von Papen, who served as chancellor in 1932. He (infamously) thought that Hitler and the Nazi Party — by far the largest party after the Reichstag elections of 1932 — could be used to advance a conservative agenda. Similarly, then-German president, former field marshal Paul von Hindenburg, wanted to use Hitler to restore the monarchy.
However, these conservatives’ plans were soon swept away by Hitler’s ruthless leadership, Nazi violence, and the German public’s rush to join the regime and become a part of the promised national reawakening. The liberals and social democrats who opposed Hitler were either subjected to violence or caught up in their own optimistic escapism. As bad as things got, they assured themselves, Hitler’s rule would eventually collapse. Nazi infighting would surely bring an end to the new government.
Beyond liberals and socialists, a wider section of German society assumed that Hindenburg, who had promised to be president of all Germans, would keep Hitler on a leash, while others expected the army to do so. All had been fooled by Hitler’s ability to look respectable in the final years of the Weimar Republic.
Within 100 days of Hitler becoming chancellor, as historian Peter Fritzsche has shown, the Nazis’ ruthless drive for power became all too clear. By the end of the summer of 1933, German society had been brought into line. There were no more independent political parties, trade unions or cultural organizations. Only Christian churches retained some degree of independence.
A year later, in the summer of 1934, Hitler ordered the murder of his internal party rivals and, following Hindenburg’s death on Aug. 2, declared himself German fuhrer. His dictatorship was complete. By then, the first concentration camps were already up and running, and the economy was being put on the path to war.
This period of history remains all too relevant today. Hundreds of millions of people are to vote in pivotal elections this year, and even though the warning signs are there, few commentators are prepared to say it out loud: 2024 might be the new 1933.
Just imagine the world a year from now, with disinformation having taken down democratic majorities around the world. Donald Trump, as the new US president, ends Washington’s support for Ukraine. NATO is no longer a restraint on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dreams of building a new Russian empire across eastern Europe. A critical mass of far-right parties in the European Parliament blocks a unified European response. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are on their own. With the war in Gaza having expanded into a regional conflict, Putin seizes the opportunity to launch another blitz, accompanied by long-range missiles. And amid the chaos, China decides to seize Taiwan.
The prospects for this year are so bleak that many refuse to contemplate them. Just as liberals in 1933 predicted that Hitler would quickly fail, wishful thinking today is clouding our judgement. We are sleepwalking — to borrow Christopher Clark’s apt metaphor for the onset of World War I — into a new international order.
In her masterful two-volume history of the interwar era, Zara Steiner refers to 1929 to 1933 as the “hinge years,” when idealism in international relations was replaced by the “Triumph of the Dark.” However, as late as 1926, liberals had seemed to be winning: Then-French minister of foreign affairs Aristide Briand and his German counterpart, Gustav Stresemann, shared the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on Franco-German reconciliation, and Germany joined the League of Nations. Extreme nationalism seemed to be isolated in Benito Mussolini’s Italy.
Faced with today’s global crises, there is no room for optimism. We are potentially in another hinge year. If liberals act now, they can still prevail.
In a promising sign, hundreds of thousands of Germans recently took to the streets to support democracy and diversity, and to denounce the far right. However, demonstrations in one country are not enough. German liberals must be joined by others across the continent. A continent-wide demonstration would send a powerful message. The sense of urgency must extend upward, particularly to business leaders such as JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who, hedging his bets, has already started cozying up to Trump.
Not so long ago, European leaders came together and did whatever it took to save the euro, because they recognized that the single currency’s failure would end the EU itself. Europeans now must demand the same urgency to meet this year’s threats. The EU needs a plan for a world without NATO. It needs new tools to deal with member-state leaders such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, both of whom would rather kiss Putin’s ring than defend democracy. It is simply unacceptable that Orban still wields a veto over EU decisionmaking.
In the US, political mobilization is the big variable. Trump’s opponents must set aside their differences and unite behind US President Joe Biden. We know all too well where disunity and naive optimism can lead.
Mark Jones, assistant professor of history at University College Dublin, is the author of 1923: The Forgotten Crisis in the Year of Hitler’s Coup.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS