Trump's America and the rise of the Nazis in Germany - analogous?
The analogies are frightening (to me at least) between Trump's America and the takeover by the Nazis of the more-or-or-less democratic Weimar republic. "Let's make Germany great again" they said then, just before the Weimar republic was swamped by violence.
My attention was drawn to this by a BBC documentary series The Rise of the Nazis shown in Australia (on SBS) and USA (on PBS) the last weeks of the Trump presidency , but I a year or so earlier in Britain.
The series featured old newsreels interspersed by commentary by respected British and German historians (all of whom had written biographies of one or more of the main players). One of them was Richard Evans, whose book I am now reading. The Coming of the Third Reich is the first of a trilogy , and is is subtitled "how the Nazis destroyed democracy and seized power in Germany". Here is a short quotes from the book to re-inforce the analogy:
“By 1929, the Nazi movement had evolved a way of diverting legal responsibility for acts of violence and lawlessness committed by brownshirts and other elements within the movement. For Hitler, Goebbels and the rest only gave orders couched in rhetoric that while violent was also vague; their subordinates would understand clearly what was being hinted at and go into action straight away.”
Sound familiar? Do other shipmates see this analogy as revealing? Perhaps it is instructive that while they were showing their hand in 1929, the Nazis did not succeed in seizing power until 4 years later.
My attention was drawn to this by a BBC documentary series The Rise of the Nazis shown in Australia (on SBS) and USA (on PBS) the last weeks of the Trump presidency , but I a year or so earlier in Britain.
The series featured old newsreels interspersed by commentary by respected British and German historians (all of whom had written biographies of one or more of the main players). One of them was Richard Evans, whose book I am now reading. The Coming of the Third Reich is the first of a trilogy , and is is subtitled "how the Nazis destroyed democracy and seized power in Germany". Here is a short quotes from the book to re-inforce the analogy:
“By 1929, the Nazi movement had evolved a way of diverting legal responsibility for acts of violence and lawlessness committed by brownshirts and other elements within the movement. For Hitler, Goebbels and the rest only gave orders couched in rhetoric that while violent was also vague; their subordinates would understand clearly what was being hinted at and go into action straight away.”
Sound familiar? Do other shipmates see this analogy as revealing? Perhaps it is instructive that while they were showing their hand in 1929, the Nazis did not succeed in seizing power until 4 years later.
Comments
I think democracy has considerably deeper roots in the USA than that. The mass of the population genuinely believe in democratic ideals even if some (many?) of their other beliefs and actions are inconsistent with that. I am hopeful.
That's what Arnie Schwarz. said too.
Trump shows courage for his age. By completing a round of golf. That's enviable in my view.
The parallels do include the fascist tropes of victimhood and racism but the causes are entirely different. America has done it to themselves. There was no defeat and it's still the richest country in the world.
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” John Stuart Mill, 1867
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” John Philpot Curran, 1813
What a magnificent book that is
Similarities: Both men were initially widely regarded as a joke; both men can be fairly described as racists, but Hitler's racism was genocidal, initially in word and later in deed; both operated, broadly speaking, within the rules, but were prepared if the opportunity arose to break them; both, I would argue, have had their Munich Putsche; both, in power, were extreme nationalists who withdrew from international norms; both were dedicated showmen, making full use of the most up-to-date media, and traditional ones like parades; both loved simple often offensive slogans.
As has been pointed out both men repeated a big lie. Hitler blamed the Jews and the Communists for Germany's 'stab in the back' which brought about her defeat and humiliation by the Allies. Trump's big lie was to claim he had been robbed of victory in the election - and with him his millions of supporters had a right to believe they were unfairly treated. That claim (which Donald Trump had to invent) was indeed a chilling parallel to the belief that the German army had been 'stabbed in the back'.
Many other parallels are noteable, without necessarily implying Trump is going to be just like Hitler. There are important differences. Both men stand out as effective orators, particularly at rallies of the faithful. But Hitler had a much greater range in voice and in words, and the types of people he appealed to.
Once Hitler got to a certain point there was no stopping him. I think this is rightly the fear people have of where Trump might go if he were to wield power again - basically, almost anywhere.
This is why I think it's important to remember the profound differences between these two men. Hitler's relationship with the Friekorps has been mentioned. Hitler always saw himself as a soldier. In the early years of the Nazis he was able to strike deals with other paramilitary groups as well as acquiring weapons. As has been pointed out he turned against the SA as a political force once he was in power. Hitler then managed to get the High Command of the army on his side to the point where the entire army took an oath to him personally. He also probably thought of himself as the greatest soldier in the world.
Trump, on the other hand, enjoyed missile rattling, but seemed to pull back when faced with the reality of military action. Despite his use of generals in his cabinet it appears he was a very long way from subverting the armed forces' independence.
Some more differences: both men aimed to exploit the 'peculiar' constitutions of their respective countries, but Hitler did it successfully; Hitler aimed to appeal to the widest possible electorate and was very successful in this; but Trump appealed to particular groups, and has sought to disenfranchise groups he doesn't like; both men invoked the Almighty, but Hitler planned to destroy the church when the war was over.
Looking and listening to one of Donald Trump's speeches reminded me of a History lecturer telling me his reaction to hearing the Nuremberg rallies on the radio: no one worried too much when Mussolini came to power. But Germany, a major industrial power ...
Yes, obviously, Nazism is a 'warning from History'. But Trumpism needs to be fought not for being 'Nazi' but for being whatever Trumpism is.
Sorry, that was a long one. Back to reading 'War and Peace'...
Yes. We dodged a bullet. Next dictator-wannabe will be much smarter. And we're not prepared.
But did he go up against a Sicilian when death was on the line?
I think yes: Hitler was very aware of the new technologies and leveraged them to his own advantage (he was also keen on the aeroplane, making flying tours to speak to as many large gatherings as possible).
Radio is a very different technology to the internet however - it is "one-to-many" rather than "many-to-many", so I think the social dynamic is different.
Also this was not the only way in which radio was put to use. FDR was famous for his "fireside chats" if I am not mistaken?
FDR realised that it wasn't "one to many", but the illusion of "one to one" that was important. When he spoke on the radio, he knew he was addressing the individual listener, directly, in their own home.
Counter-counterargument: While national-level democracy was relatively new in Germany, in many places there was a tradition of local self-government going back to the Middle Ages. Most of these places had limitations based on gender and property ownership, but then again so did the United States for a lot of its history.
Also to be remembered is that, contrary to American self-image, in a lot of the United States actual democracy only dates back to the 1960s or 1970s. In fact one of the things that seems to be fueling Trump's support is white Americans having to deal with real democracy for the first time and not liking it very much.
March 1938 featured the first trans-Atlantic radio broadcast by CBS from Europe to North America. This was shortwave rebroadcast on medium wave (AM radio) William Shirer writes about it in The Nightmare Years. He's also the author of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. They had correspondents in Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Rome, and London. This allowed broadcasts from both sides of the invasion of France for example. (Shirer was later blacklisted, Edgar R. Murrow did not behave well. Shirer's A Native's Return is worth reading. It shows the insanity of the 1950s into the 60s, which parallels, rhymes with the Nixon and Trump idiocy in many ways.)
Radio started in the mid-1920s in Germany. Radio was a big thing everywhere. Germany was broadcasting mostly in medium wave (AM) in the Hitler and war era, with quite specific instructions about when because British bombers could use the radio signals as directional beacons. Germany did broadcast specifically to the UK, just as the British did into mainland Europe.
I've been a radio nut since the 1960s.
No need to apologise for the length of the post - it was all interesting although I'm only quoting this brief paragraph. I think that's right. Lots of similarities between the 2 but essential differences as well, starting with the different nations.
Fascism is inherently nationalistic, so there are always variations based on culture. An American fascism will be different than a German fascism and both will be different from Italian or Spanish fascism. Fascism does have some common features, however, that distinguish it from other forms of authoritarianism. Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism outlines what he sees as fascism's defining features. A summarized list is available from Wikipedia for those who don't want to deal with the NYRB paywall. Robert Paxton's list of fascist earmarks is also useful.
In any case, fascism isn't a natural kind, nor is it an ideology with an internal normative standard like Marxism or Saint-Simonism or Christianity. Citing Mussolini as an authority is not one of Eco's points. Any definition of fascism with a small f is therefore to some extent arbitrary. Identifying particular things as marks of fascism is not a purely descriptive act.
I find Paxton's list very good. It's years since I read Eco's essay, was impressed with it then and must see if I can find it again. Your observations about nationalisms and their different contributions is very useful.