Section 1
Citizenship through History
‘Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?
What are bands of robbers themselves but little kingdoms?’
Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Fifth Century AD
The following extended case study investigates the impact of the Nazi regime on people in
Germany, 1933-39. Use the material and the activities that follow to research, investigate and
discuss important issues connected with citizenship today. The following materials look at
how the Nazis arrived at unique and destructive interpretations of the relationship between
the individual and the state, political ideology and process, and ‘society’ and ‘community’.
What important lessons should we learn from this epoch of History? Read the material that
follows, complete the activities, and think about the relevance of these issues to citizenship
today.
The Individual and the Political Process
Nazi Ideology and its Genesis
Why, by 1933, Hitler gain power in Germany?
1
Citizenship Reflection A1
Ideas have consequences. What individuals think bears fruit in action, whether those
ideas are recognised or not. But ideas themselves do not only shape the contexts in
which they operate; they are also shaped by them.
What ideas underpin our political systems? Research concepts such as power,
authority, justice, legitimacy, participation, representation and accountability. What
do we understand by these concepts and how do they bear fruit in our political
systems? How has the historical experience of the British Isles shaped these notions?
Outline the development of democracy in Britain over the last 150 years. Then,
compare and contrast contemporary British concepts with Nazi notions of legitimacy,
authority, participation and representation. A table is set out below to help you do this.
Use the text that follows to research the following issues:
In what ways did the experience of German History post 1918 shape Nazi ideology?
Briefly outline the reasons why Germany had a fascist government in 1933 and why
Britain didn’t.
Background Information:
Timeline depicting the development of Nazi ideology and philosophy
1914
World War One began
2
1918
German High Command handed power over to civilian republicans; Armistice was
signed; Kaiser abdicated and a republic was set up. Hitler lay injured in hospital.
1919
Civil unrest in Germany between extreme nationalists and extreme communists;
Treaty of Versailles agreed. Hitler joined the army’s counter-revolutionary
propaganda unit. He also joined the German Workers’ Party.
1920
Nazi Party founded out of the base of the German Workers’ Party. The Twenty Five
Point Programme of the Nazis was drawn up.
1921
Alfred Rosenberg appointed editor of the Volkischer Beobachter pro-Nazi newspaper.
He later went on to be leader of ‘Intellectual and Ideological Education’ from 1934.
1923
Hitler failed to seize power after the Beer Hall Putsch
1924
Whilst imprison for the failed Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler penned Mein Kampf (My
Struggle).
1929
Wall Street Crash and Great Depression plunged Germany into economic crisis with
high unemployment.
1930-32 Nazis made major electoral gains in the wake of the failure of successive
Chancellors to deal adequately with the Depression. Fear of communist takeover also gave
major impetus to their appeal.
1933
Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. The Nazis secured two other seats
in the coalition government.
How did the circumstances of Germany, 1918-1933 shape Nazi ideology
and philosophy?
German defeat in 1918 had come as a surprising and devastating shock to German
militarists. Like most other combatant nations, most militarists had been blithely optimistic
about a speedy victory back in August 1914. When these lofty hopes had got bogged down
in the mud, barbed wire and flames of the Western Front by 1916, new and desperate
measures were sought. In Germany, power shifted to the German High Command in the
persons of Field Marshal von Hindenburg and General Ludendorff. Despite the facts on the
ground revealing a bleak picture of military overstretch and severe domestic strain, by August
3
1918, the Kaiser was foolishly promising his compatriots a victory. By September 1918 the
generals had come to a more realistic conclusion: German defeat was inevitable. It was in
this atmosphere of panic that the German High Command handed over authority to a hastily
assembled democratic civilian government of socialist republicans. This would have the
twofold effect of passing responsibility and blame for signing the impending armistice from the
Generals to the civilians. It would also ensure that the reputation and status of the army in
Germany remained intact despite defeat. Moreover, with the Americans shaping peace
negotiations the German High Command felt that the USA would respond with greater
sympathy to a democratic government. The price of peace, though, was the ransacking of
German territorial, military and industrial strength. In Germany especially the shock of defeat
was felt all the deeper since Germany had never been invaded or occupied during World War
One. Germany, some militarists had mistakenly felt, could have continued fighting. Out of
this wishful thinking was born the myth that the German Army had been ‘stabbed in the
back’ by the socialist-Jewish-democratic criminals: they had signed the peace only as part of
a wider conspiracy to undermine German strength.
The news of the armistice came as a deeply traumatic blow to a patriotic 29 year old Corporal
lying in his hospital bed recovering from the effects of a mustard gas attack on the Western
Front: his name was Adolf Hitler. With a rather pathetic touch of melodrama and
mystification, this winner of the Iron Cross, First Class Award for Bravery went on to recollect
his feelings on hearing the news of defeat and collapse. These were recorded in his
memoirs-cum-political treatise Mein Kampf (My Struggle) written 6 years later:
I could stand it no longer. It became impossible for me to sit still one minute more. Again
everything went black before my eyes; I tottered and groped my way back to the dormitory,
threw myself on my bunk, and dug my burning head into my blanket and pillow. . . And so it
had all been in vain . . . Did all this happen only so that a gang of wretched criminals could lay
hands on the Fatherland? . . . The more I tried to achieve clarity on the monstrous event in
this hour, the more the shame of indignation and disgrace burned my brow. What was all the
pain in my eyes compared to this misery? . . . hatred grew in me, hatred for those
4
responsible for this deed. In the days that followed, my own fate became known to me. I
could not help but laugh at the thought of my own future which only a short time before had
given me such bitter concern . . . there is no making pacts with Jews (referring to the
armistice arrangements); there can only be the hard ‘either-or’: I, for my part, decided to go
into politics’1.
The reality was somewhat different from the shotgun conversion experience to political
mission recounted in Mein Kampf. In fact, on recovery, Hitler drifted back down to Munich
and stayed on the army payroll into 1920. Back in Munich (where he had been before the
war) in 1918 there was little that awaited him: no family of which to speak, no job and no
prospect of realising his ambition of becoming a famous architect. Outside of the army, all
that beckoned was picking up where he had left off in 1914 before the war; the eking out of a
meagre existence as a painter of street scenes. But this was not to be. For another
opportunity presented itself. The Munich to which Hitler returned in 1918 had changed
beyond recognition to that of 1914. Civil order had collapsed and rival paramilitaries fought
bitter street battles for control. Much of this fighting was between the demobbed soldiers in
the nationalist Freikorps and those who preferred to align themselves with the communist
armed bands, such as the Sparticists.
The army were particularly concerned about the infiltration of subversive communist
tendencies into its structures. To combat this, they organised a programme of political
indoctrination. This, it was hoped, would uproot potentially dangerous ideas. As a member of
the army, Hitler duly attended these political indoctrination courses. Here, Hitler and other
troops learnt the buzzwords of right wing politics and anti-Semitic propaganda. The thrust of
the indoctrination was that the German Army had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by the so called
‘November Criminals’. The ‘November Criminals’ were believed to be the Jews, communists,
liberals and other ‘un-German’ elements that had signed the Armistice and accepted the
Treaty of Versailles. It was in this context that Hitler discovered his talent for impassioned
1
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
5
monologues on race and politics. Picking up on his enthusiasm and impressed by his
contributions, his superiors appointed him as a fellow instructor.
His star in the political indoctrination and counter-revolutionary unit of the army began to rise.
His role soon widened to that of informant and undercover spy, spying on the various (left
wing) extremist political groups that were springing up in Munich at this time. It was his brief
to decide whether such groups were likely to be pro- or anti the army, or more precisely, proor anti Communist. In this capacity he was sent on 12th September 1919 to inform on the
German Workers’ Party, founded by Anton Drexler. Drexler’s German Workers’ Party was
attempting to wean the German workers away from communism by serving them up a heady
brew of right wing German nationalism and anti-Semitism under the label of being a ‘Workers’
Party’. Such a programme chimed with Hitler’s own racist-nationalist assumptions. Indeed,
he so impressed them with his racist-anti-Semitic-nationalistic contributions that they invited
him to join.
With Hitler’s admission to the Party, the German Workers’ Party now took on a new
dynamism, attracting increasingly more attention from the radical right and staging meetings
at larger venues. Amidst the sweat and smoke of the beer cellar racist after racist took to the
stage to rant about the ‘stab in the back’, the ‘November criminals’, the Jews, the communists
and the ‘corrupt parliamentary democracy’. It was not unusual for such meetings to escalate
into violence, especially when communists attempted sabotage. Above the tumult, Hitler
ranted and raged against the perceived enemies of the ‘Fatherland’. By February of 1920,
Hitler’s demagogy had propelled him to effective leadership of the German Workers’ Party
such that he was able to motion for a change of Party name. Wishing to group themselves
with other nationalist movements, the Party changed its name to the National Socialist
German Workers’ Party, or ‘Nazi’ Party for short. At this meeting the manifesto of the Party
was drawn up, outlining the key beliefs and attitudes of the Party. The central thrust of their
manifesto focused on uniting the polarised groups of nationalist and socialist around the
common theme of race. According to the Nazis, it was the Jews who were held responsible
for the outbreak of war in 1914, the outcome of it in 1918 and the collapse of civilian order in
6
Berlin and Munich in the aftermath of the war. The Twenty Five Point Programme, as their
manifesto became known, gave a political framework to these obsessions. A politico-racial
purge of all ‘un-German’ elements would, in their view, ‘resurrect’ Germany from its current
decayed and defeated state.
Citizenship Reflection Activity A2
Use the information that follows to complete the following table. You will have to do
research elsewhere to fill in the column on the British political system.
Political Concept
How did the Nazis interpret
How has the contemporary
this concept?
British political system
interpreted this concept?
Power
Authority
Legitimacy
Justice
Means of participation in
government
Ways of holding
governments to account
for their decisions and
their record.
Weltanschauung: world view, or philosophy
7
Nazi ideology and philosophy were set out in two key documents that date from the earliest
years of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). The first of these was the
Twenty Five Point Programme, formulated at the Party’s beginning in 1920. This was a
political manifesto, or programme of ideas and values which would shape all subsequent Nazi
action. These ideas were elaborated on in more detail in Hitler’s own work of Nazi ideology
Mein Kampf,, or ‘My Struggle’, written whilst serving a prison sentence for treason in 1924.
The concept of ‘struggle’ was central to Nazi ideology and philosophy. Hitler viewed world
history and politics in terms of a racial struggle for survival and dominance. For the Nazis, all
races were locked in deadly combat. The greatest danger to the German, or Aryan race, in
his view, was the Jewish ‘race’. To secure themselves in this struggle, Hitler argued that
Germany had to expand eastwards into eastern Europe and Russia.
According to Hitler, the German race needed a ‘Fuhrer’ or Leader, for engagement in this.
Hitler’s personal ‘struggle’ would be the embodiment of Germany’s ‘struggle’. He would be
the architect of a totalitarian state that would prepare Germany for dominance. To Hitler,
‘totalitarian’ meant total control of all private and public decisions made by individuals. This
included control over what they thought, what they did and what they said. All this had to be
articulated towards the ‘struggle’ that the racial state was locked in. The ‘struggle’ was
against Jews, communists, liberals, parliamentary democrats, gypsies, homosexuals, the
mentally and physically handicapped and other ‘non-German’ racial elements.
To make Germany fit for the struggle, Hitler wished to create a Volksgemeinschaft, or racial
community. The expression he used to define this community was Blut und Boden, or ‘blood
and soil’. ‘Blood’ referred to the racial element of the community; ‘soil’ referred to the
territorial extent of it. Another of the key slogans of Nazi ‘philosophy’ was ‘ein Volk, ein Reich,
ein Fuhrer’. This translated as ‘one race, one Empire, one leader’. Hitler wanted to ensure
the dominance of the ‘Aryan’ or German race over specified territories in Europe and the
world. This would be attained under the leadership of one man. Hitler and his admirers
8
viewed him as the man that would enable Germany to fulfil its ‘racial destiny’. Hitler often
used the biological metaphor of ‘organism’ when speaking of the Volksgemeinschaft. The
Party needed to ‘reinvigorate’ and ‘rejuvenate’ the minds and bodies of the German ‘race’. It
was under threat of ‘contanimation’ and ‘pollution’ from hostile ‘viruses’ and ‘bacteria’ such as
Jews and communists. These were conspiring to make Germany weak. The use of this
biological metaphor was important for Hitler, since he felt that it showed that his plans for
Germany had a strong scientific basis.
‘Racial Community’
The Nazi Party viewed itself as much more than a political Party; they viewed themselves as
a revolutionary movement that would create not only a new kind of man, but a new kind of
society. At the top of this society would be the Leader supported by a racial warrior
aristocracy, or elite. Beneath these would be ordinary Party members. Below the ordinary
Party members would be the ‘Volk’ or the ‘racially correct’ masses who needed the guidance
of the leader. At the bottom of this new society would be the ‘Untermenschen’ or slave
populations. These were the racially inferior. In Hitler’s view, the laws of nature had decreed
that their role was to serve the needs of the racial elite. Needless to say, it was a very
simplistic and crude ideology, but one that contained no new ideas. There was much in these
views that was common in Germany, Europe, the USA and indeed, the wider world. What
was new, though, was the synthesis and presentation given to them by the Nazi Party.
Ein Volk
The animating aim of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was to ensure the
dominance of the Aryan race in what was perceived to be an impending racial struggle for
world supremacy. The ‘Aryan race’ was believed to have certain racial and cultural
characteristics. Ideally these included blonde hair, blue eyes and an athletic stature. Their
key cultural characteristics included a delight in war and other militaristic pursuits.
9
Subscribers to the theory were paranoid that the ‘Aryan racial community’, or
Volksgemeinschaft was under threat.
Hitler defined the ‘Volk’ as those who were united by ties of blood kinship; this kinship
expressed itself in the supposed superior physical appearance and cultural prowess of the
Aryan. Understandably, ‘blood’ or ‘race’ could be subject to considerable mystification. It was
also believed to express itself in the ‘culture creating’ superiority of the Aryans. Their ‘culture
creating’ prowess could be contrasted with the ‘culture bearing’ inferiority of non Aryans, such
as the Chinese and Japanese. The threat to the Aryans, the ‘culture creators’, came from the
‘culture destroyers’. These were the supposedly inferior races, comprising especially of Jews,
gypsies, and non-Caucasians. The underlying assumption of these thoughts was that a racial
hierarchy could be detected in homo-sapiens. At the top of that hierarchy stood the Aryan, or
‘German’, who was defined by a series of racial and cultural characteristics. At the bottom of
that hierarchy was ‘the Jew’. Yet the Jew was not passive, according to this theory: he was
actively seeking to contaminate and undermine the Aryan. Those excluded from the racial
community were deemed as subhuman. Hitler went on to equate ‘Jewishness’ with
communism. The other key Nazi thinker, Alfred Rosenberg, elaborated on this connection
between Judaism and Communism. In his 1919 treatise entitled ‘The Russian-Jewish
Revolution’ Rosenberg argued that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution and plans
to spread that Revolution on an international scale. The equation of Judaism with
Communism was an article of faith in Nazi propaganda. This was especially the case in
publications such as Alfred Rosenberg’s Volkishcher Beobachter. The Nazis viewed it as an
expression of a world Jewish conspiracy to corrupt and undermine the Aryans. For the Nazis,
Jews, communists, gypsies and other non Caucasians were all perceived as enemies of the
race.
The Nazi Party also held the view that Aryans had been complicit in undermining the strength
of their own race. Racial interbreeding (miscegenation) was central to this. This threatened
to undermine the strength of the race and render it ineffective in the impending racial struggle.
This would have to be stopped. Moreover, the racial purity of the Aryans would have to be
10
promoted. This involved two tactics: promoting the ‘right’ kind of life and preventing the
‘wrong’ kind of life. ‘Rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ was defined in relation to how far it reinforced
the strength and fitness of the race in pursuit of the ultimate end of world domination. The
physically and mentally handicapped and homosexuals were deemed to be the ‘wrong’ kind
of life and were thus not entitled to the protection of the state. These also were enemies of
the race.
According to Hitler and his sympathizers, what Germany needed was a thoroughgoing purge
of all elements holding the Volkgemeinschaft back from attaining political and cultural
‘greatness’. The Jews and communists held a special place for him in this respect. For the
Nazis the view that life was a struggle in which only the fittest would survive was raised to the
level of a world view, or Weltanschauung. Perceived racial ties would transcend any
differences and resentments between classes and lead to a regeneration of Germany.
Whereas communists emphasised class solidarity, and used class conflict to explain history,
the Nazis emphasised racial solidarity and used racial conflict to explain history. In their own
eyes, the Nazis were progressives, harnessing racial hygienist and scientific theories to their
prejudices of ridding Germany of supposed damaging elements.
The creation of a racially superior and racially pure ‘Volksgemeinschaft’, obedient to the will of
the Fuhrer, would be the means by which Hitler would attain world domination. This
domination was believed to be an inevitability given the ‘laws of nature’. These ‘laws’
demonstrated to Hitler and his adherents that not only would the fittest survive in the struggle
for existence, but also that ‘might was right’. He was prepared to use the full might of the
state apparatus and new technologies to ensure that hostile elements were driven out of the
Volksgemeinschaft and that those within it hardened themselves for continued struggle.
Ein Reich
To be ‘ein Volk’, or ‘a people’, the Nazis held the view that they would need a ‘Reich’, or a
territorial empire. ‘Blood’ (or race) was intimately connected with ‘soil’ (or territory) in Hitler’s
11
mind. This manifested itself in two ways. Firstly, Hitler idealised the peasant, or rural worker.
He and other leading Nazis viewed them as of the purest racial stock. They would be
instrumental in attaining his aims of ‘blood’ purity. Secondly, the Nazis wished to unite all
German speaking peoples that conformed to their racial criteria into a Reich, or empire. This
would involve reclaiming lands that were taken from them after defeat in World War One,
such as Austria and the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. It would also involve reclaiming
territories that contained German speaking peoples but had never been part of the Reich.
Yet the Nazi Party did not stop there. In Mein Kampf Hitler also argued that the Reich should
expand eastwards towards Russia, colonising territory as it went. Since Hitler viewed
Germans as the ‘Master Race’ it was inevitable that they would conquer inferior ‘races’ to the
east and settle on their lands. This inevitability formed the basis of Hitler’s claim to
‘Lebensraum’, or ‘living space’. The ‘Slavic hordes’ of Eastern Europe were viewed as a
particular threat to the racial integrity of the Aryan: they would have to be subjected in a war
of conquest. As the lowest ‘race’ they were only fit to be the slaves of the new Reich.
Hitler also had fantasies (which he later tried to actualise) of domination in the Soviet Union.
As a communist state, Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as the most dangerous threat to the
Aryans. In his view, here, the Jewish-Bolshevik world conspiracy had been successful: JewMarxists had gained the upper hand and were threatening to advance into Germany. All
Jewish conspiracies were supposed to emanate from the Soviet Union. Such views were way
beyond what even the most superficial glance at the evidence would support.
Ein Fuhrer
Leadership of the ‘Volksgemeinschaft’ was invested fully in the ‘Fuhrer’, or Leader. As
Fuhrer, Hitler ruled as an authoritarian dictator, practically accountable to nobody. The scope
of the Fuhrer’s powers was defined by the ‘Fuhrerprinzip’ or ‘Leadership Principle’. This
principle argued that the Fuhrer embodied the will of the ‘Volk’. The ‘Fuhrer’ transcended and
united the Volk. He would set out the vision and guide the Volk towards their predestined
12
greatness. He was unaccountable to any person or institution: his ‘will’ reigned supreme and
loyalty and obedience were owed to him. Hitler was to be totally authoritative, or
‘authoritarian’ in Germany.
After the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, the ‘Leadership Principle’ was applied in the localities
with all regional power being invested in a local Party boss. They were accountable to Hitler
and would have to work in line with his ‘will’. As far as the Nazi Party was concerned, the
‘Leadership Principle’ had its roots in Hitler’s hatred of parliamentary democracy. To Hitler,
democratic government was little more than a mixture of ‘mob rule’ and cowardice, the
abdication of the responsibility required of a true leader. Not only this, it also offended
‘against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature’2 (ie rule by the strongest).
As Fuhrer, Hitler elevated himself to the status of a superhuman, or deity, able to represent
the will of the Aryan race. Fuhrer worship and validation were demanded by him from all
Aryans. Conformity to the will of the Fuhrer as expressed in the Party apparatus became the
only measure of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ or good and bad. There was no standard outside or above
the Fuhrer to which any appeal could be made. Although the details had yet to be worked out
in full and the circumstances in which they had to operate shifted, all that Hitler and the Nazi
Party subsequently did was consistent with the aims of ‘blood and soil’ and ‘one race, one
Empire, one Leader’.
Violence
An often overlooked area of Nazi ideology is the role of violence in it. Violence persistently
growled in the belly of the Nazi movement. Throughout the supposedly ‘peaceful’ 1920s and
1930s the Nazi Party was prepared to use murder, savage beatings and aggressive
intimidation in pursuit of its political ends. Many in the Nazi leadership (including Hitler
himself) had served as soldiers in the Great War, 1914-18. All looked back on it with fond
affection, as a time when man could realise his full potential for violence. In fact, in the early
2
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
13
years, the Nazi Party was something of an ‘Old Soldiers’ Club’. A myth had grown up
amongst the trench fighters that there was a ‘front generation’ who were bound together with
a spirit of comradeship and loyalty. These loyal fighters styled themselves as heroes who
had been betrayed by mendacious civilian authorities. As a mark of his own identification with
the ‘Front Generation’ Hitler continued to wear his trench coat and Iron Cross.
The cult of violence that spilled out of the trenches and onto the streets lingered on in the
paramilitary activity of the Stormtroopers and the SS. Throughout the period 1919-23,
political disputes were often resolved by recourse to arms. With the Nazi seizure of power in
1933, that cult of violence now acquired an unambiguous face of legitimacy.
Citizenship Reflection A3
What limits the exercise of power by one person in British politics?
Think about the following:
Cabinet
Executive
Legislature
Elections
Supranational Organisations, e.g EU
How had these ideas developed to 1914?
Perhaps the most striking point to note about Nazi ideology and philosophy is that it contained
nothing that was new in German or European thought. By the time of the onset of World War
One in 1914 many of the ideas that went to form Nazi ideology and philosophy had already
been shaped. What was new about Nazism was the synthesis that these ideas enjoyed in
their own programme and the presentation and emphasis this programme was given by Hitler.
14
No political Party or intellectual had combined all of the ideas into one package. And,
certainly no political Party before the creation of the Nazi Party could boast a leader with the
charismatic oratory of Adolf Hitler. It was this charismatic authority that enabled Hitler to
present his ideas in a manner which struck a chord with many Germans, especially from
1929.
The development of these ideas pre-1914 followed a variety of different paths.
Pan German Nationalism:
Throughout the late 1870s onwards in Germany various pan-German nationalist pressure
groups emerged arguing for the aggressive expansion of Germany’s borders and the
Germanization of minorities within Germany. Although enthusiasms and obsessions differed
from pressure group to pressure group a certain consensus of opinion seems to have formed.
Bismarck’s work of German unification was considered as incomplete. All German speaking
peoples in Europe had not, in their view been united to the ‘Fatherland’ after unification in
1871. These included German speakers in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxemburg and Austria. Others argued that Romania would also have to be annexed to
prevent the possibility of Russian encroachment.
Germany herself was being undermined by internal enemies. Amongst these were included
the Jews, and the minorities in the newly annexed territories that made up Germany. These
included the Poles in eastern Prussia, the Slavs of central Germany and the Danes of
northern Germany. To these right wing nationalist groups, other internal enemies threatened
German strength. These included political enemies such as socialists and communists.
Pan Germans did not think so much in terms of ‘nationalities’ as in terms of races. In their
view, the ‘Anglo-Saxon-Nordic’ race needed to be united in one political unit under the
leadership of a ‘strong man’. Only by returning to their racial roots could Germany overcome
the external and internal enemies that were threatening to engulf and/or undermine her.
15
Anti-Semitism
It was not just those of different nationalities who were considered potentially hostile ‘aliens’ in
late nineteenth century Germany. The Jews also were considered by some national
extremists to be a danger to the ‘Germanic race’, despite making up less than 1% of the
population of Germany. There was nothing new in anti-Semitism in European society: age
old pogroms and hatreds had flared up in all countries in Europe in the name of religious
bigotry. What was new in the later nineteenth century, though, was the fact that antiSemitism could be justified on pseudo-scientific grounds.
Social Darwinists such as H.S Chamberlain argued that the Jews were a biologically and
culturally inferior race and a danger to the strength of Germany. Indeed, anti-Semitism was
certainly not restricted to Germany where Jews were a highly integrated minority. The
Dreyfus Affair in France and the persecutions of Jews in Russia after the 1905 rebellion
suggest that hostility towards them was more intense outside of Germany rather than in it.
Pre 1914 anti-Semitism in Germany was mostly confined to the semi-illiterate, wilder corners
of the political debate in the vast majority of cases. That said, evidence could be found of an
such as the judiciary, the civil service, the army and the universities.
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism represented a mutation in the ideas of the English naturalist Charles
Darwin. In 1859 Darwin’s Origin of the Species hypothesised that species were evolving
gradually over extremely long periods of time through a process of natural selection. The
mechanism for this change, mutation in hereditary properties, was later discovered by the
Austrian Catholic monk Mendel. Individuals such as Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton and his
follower, Herbert Spencer, seized hold of the selective strand of Darwin’s thought and argued
that governments should intervene in human populations (which were considered as little
more than intricate lumps of matter plus time plus chance of varying degrees of worth) to
16
promote supposedly desirable genetic properties and prevent supposedly undesirable
features. Artificial selection by government, they hoped, could do in decades what natural
selection had only been able to do in millennia. This would lead to rapid improvements in the
health and efficiency of the race. Resources saved on caring for the physically and mentally
handicapped could be redirected to much ‘worthier’ causes such as rearmament. Social
Darwinist ideas permeated the fields of medicine and law, social work and criminology. This
movement became known as ‘eugenics’. The aim was to breed a race that would be as
strong as a cart horse and, in some cases, about as intelligent as one, too. Eugenics
programmes had widespread support in European scientific communities and spanned the
European political spectrum from left to right. In Germany, Schallmeyer, Plotz and Haeckel
were amongst the loudest advocates of Social Darwinist ideas. The harshest critics of
eugenics generally came from Catholic theologians, clergy and observers.
Authoritarianism
Military authoritarianism had a pedigree in Germany and Europe before World War One. The
German army had obviously played a prominent role in uniting Germany by force in 1871. A
sense of militarism permeated the aristocracy from the Kaiser down. And, although Bismarck
was more complex a character than most militarists, he identified closely with the Prussian
military Junker class. Models of authoritarian militarism, though by no means the only form of
leadership and government, could be found. The Nazis later went on to misappropriate the
ideas of the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. They built on the spin given to his
work by his anti-Semitic sister, Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche. Nietzsche himself was no antiSemite. The Nazis, in particular, were influenced by his Will to Power. They used this to
support their view that all life was in a struggle to assert dominance over other forms of life.
They used this assumption to justify authoritarian government – the leader would be allpowerful.
17
What follows below is a diagram of some of the pre 1914 strands of thought that went to
make up ‘Nazism’. From the diagram it is clear to see that if anyone was pivotal to the
philosophy and beliefs of Nazism, it was Hitler. The diagram also shows how ideas current in
German and European society found translation into the political programme of Nazism
expressed in the slogan ‘ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer’.
DIAGRAM
18
19
The Intellectual Ancestry of Nazism
20
Social Darwinism:
development of
‘selective’ strand in
Darwin’s thought.
European AntiSemitism: shifted from
religious bigotry to a
‘scientific’ footing, 1870s
F. Galton:
‘Eugenics’, 1883;
Alfred Ploetz
H.S. Chamberlain,
Foundations of 19th
Century. 1900
Pan Germanism: view
that German ‘race’
should dominate central
Europe.
‘Leadership
Principle’: rule by
a strong man.
Treitschke, Historian,
1862: ‘Jews are our
misfortune’.
Nietzsche and his
popularizers, E.
Forster
Lanz von Liebenfels,
Austrian aristo, 1907
E. Haeckel, Natural
Creation; Riddle of
Life, 1904
Adolf Hitler and
NSDAP, 1920
Ein Volk
Ein Reich
Volksgemeinschaft
21
Ein Fuhrer
Citizenship Reflection Activity A4
Research each of the thinkers listed below. Find a picture and devise a speech bubble
caption that summarises their thoughts, showing how they unwittingly contributed to
the development of Nazi ideology. You may wish to quote something they actually
said.
Francis Galton
Alfred Ploetz
H.S. Chamberlain
Ernst Haeckel
Lanz von Liebenfels
Friedrich Nietzsche
Heinrich Treitschke
Given that Nazism was a heady cocktail of racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Communist, social
Darwinist, nationalist and authoritarian ideas it would be unwise to claim that any one thinker
or intellectual was a ‘proto Nazi’ or solely responsible for the development of the Nazi
Programme. This is to make the mistake of reading History backwards as opposed to
forwards. That said, Hitler certainly had an unacknowledged debt to Britain’s H. S
Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, published in 1900, with its blend of
pan Germanism, social Darwinism and anti-Semitism. Few, if any, who shared these ideas
before 1914 could have envisaged the developments these ideas underwent in the hands of
the Nazis. It is also important to note that before 1914 some of these ideas existed on the
extreme political fringes rather than in the political mainstream. With the exception of social
Darwinism and nationalism, which had a mainstream currency in Europe and Germany, most
of the ideas were minority tastes. Racial anti-Semitism certainly existed in Europe and
22
Germany, but the rabid, ferocious form it took was peculiar to those on the margins of the
debate.
The national trauma of defeat, post war political collapse, revolution and economic crisis
sharpened and intensified these latent ideas, allowing them to seep into the mainstream of
political discourse throughout the 1920s. With the collapse of Weimar democracy amidst an
economic crisis, the way was clear for extreme ideas to occupy the centre ground.
How did these extremist ideas develop after 1914, such that by 1933 they
had mainstream political support?
Task:
Read the textbox that shows the key events that enabled the Nazis to gain political
success in Germany by 1933. Use the information to construct a graph illustrating how
support for the Nazis increased in response to the various events in Germany, 1918-33.
Along the horizontal axis of the graph indicate the key events with their dates. Along
the vertical axis of the graph indicate the support for the Nazis.
Now, Identify the two most significant events post 1918 that account for the rise of the
Nazis to political prominence in Germany. Justify your answer.
Event
How did this enable the Nazis to shift from
the political fringe to the political
23
mainstream?
Formation of the Nazi Party Programme and Political Strategy: this took place on the
fringes of German politics.
1918: A civilian government of socialist,
Many moderate and extreme nationalists in
republican and democratic persuasions
Germany believed that the German Army
signed the Armistice. The German
could have won the ‘Great War’. The myth
government had accepted defeat in World
developed amongst them that the German
War One.
Army had been ‘stabbed in the back by the
November Criminals’. The ‘November
Criminals’ were stereotyped by nationalists
as Jews, communists and liberals: they were
the enemies of Germany. The experience of
World War One also left a legacy of
brutalised, violent demobbed troops.
Violence spilled out of the trenches and onto
the streets of Germany as rival groups
wrestled for power. Widespread acceptance
of the ‘stab in the back myth’ and the cult of
violence meant that few were surprised by
the Nazi Party’s agenda and tactics when it
was eventually formed in 1920.
1919: A new German Republic was set up
Moderate and extreme nationalists did not
with a new, democratic constitution, known
accept the legitimacy of the ‘Weimar
as the ‘Weimar Republic’. Ebert, the
Republic’ – few had any enthusiasm for it.
President of the Republic, accepted the
The army agreed to support it only in return
terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany
for non-interference from the newly formed
officially accepted responsibility for the Great
government. The Treaty of Versailles
24
War. The bitterness was made all the
united nationalists of all shades. Throughout
sharper given that Bismarck had proclaimed
Germany many disliked it as unnecessarily
the Second Reich in the same room a mere
harsh and unfair. It led to the proliferation of
50 years earlier after defeating the French.
nationalist parties in Germany. The Nazi
Party was simply one more of these
nationalist parties outraged at the Treaty of
Versailles. It just happened to be amongst
the most radical of them.
1919-23: Bitter street fighting between
Given the choice between a government of
communists and right wing nationalists
communists and a government of
throughout Germany, but especially in
nationalists, many with property preferred a
Bavaria and Berlin. Hyper inflation crisis
nationalist government. The Army certainly
after French and Belgian troops invaded the
had a strong preference for nationalism.
Ruhr.
Resentment against French occupation led to
further sympathy with nationalist parties.
1923: After the failure of the Beer Hall
The Beer Hall Putsch had raised the profile of
Putsch, Hitler was imprisoned in the
the Nazi Party on the national stage. Given
Landsberg Prison, serving 10 months of a 5
the failure of ‘illegal’ methods, Hitler now
year sentence. The Beer Hall Putsch was a
plotted to supplement these with ‘legal’,
pale imitation of Mussolini’s ‘March on Rome’
constitutional means to attaining power. The
which enabled him to seize power. At this
brevity of Hitler’s prison sentence shows the
stage, the Nazi Party lacked popular support.
degree of sympathy he had from nationalists
in the legal system. Hitler reorganised the
Party and acquired a mastery over
propaganda techniques.
Nazi vote in Reichstag elections: 6.5% (2
million) in May 1924; 3% in Dec 1924 (1
25
million); 2.6% in May 1928.
The collapse of Weimar democracy amidst the Depression enabled fringe ideas to seep
into the political mainstream.
1929: International economic crisis halted 4
Amidst mass unemployment, the effective
years of stabilising economic conditions in
propaganda of the Nazi Party began to
Germany. Mass unemployment.
appear as the only viable alternative to a
much feared communist government. All of
the old wounds of nationalist resentment and
racist angst were re-opened and made
seemingly more urgent. With the collapse of
central authority in the face of crisis,
extremist parties once again began to seep
into the mainstream of politics. The 25 Point
Programme of the Nazis had not changed:
Hitler chose to emphasise the antiCommunist part of his programme, especially
those aspects which confirmed ownership of
private property and were sympathetic to big
business.
1930-33: The militaristic President
Many German voters became increasingly
Hindenburg and successive Chancellors
disillusioned with the attempts of the
Bruning, von Papen and Schleicher were
governments of the day to deal with the
unable to resolve the deep economic crisis.
economic crisis. Hitler made much political
With unemployment at 11%, fears of a
capital out of this. He continued to
communist takeover in Germany were
manipulate fears of a communist takeover:
widespread amongst property owners.
for Nazi supporters all Jews were in league
with all communists.
26
In the face of the crisis, government had
drifted towards a more authoritarian, non
consultative style. The Reichstag was
increasingly by-passed by Bruning,
democratic government in Prussia was
overthrown by von Papen, and Schleicher
had a stated preference for the interests of
the Army. There was an increasing
dissatisfaction with parliamentary democracy.
Many held it responsible for the ills of
Germany. Thus, there was nothing
exceptional about Hitler’s preference for
authoritarian leadership.
Nazi vote in Reichstag elections: 18.3% (6
million) in Sept 1930; 37.4% (13.5 million) in
Jan 1932; 33.1% (12 million) in Nov 1932.
Votes for Hitler in 1932 Presidential
Election: 37% (13 million votes). Hitler lost
the election
Jan 1933:
President Hindenburg
appointed Hitler as Chancellor. The
Nazis had the largest amount of popular
Hitler held out until he was offered the
Chancellorship by Hindenburg: the German
elites thought they would be able to control
Hitler and get him working for them. To the
support; Hindenburg and the Army elite
electorate, the Nazis appeared as the only
thought they would be able to control Hitler to
represent their interests. The role and status
viable alternative to communism. Apart from
the presentation of their ideas by Hitler and
27
of the Army, in addition to the prevention of
the synthesis of them into one programme
communism were central to their interests.
there was little that was striking about the
Nazi Programme in 1933. Many on the right
shared assumptions such as anti-Semitism,
Pan Germanism, support for Lebensraum;
anti-Communism, anti-parliamentary
democracy and social Darwinism. Only the
Nazi supporter subscribed to this ‘catch-all’
package of resentments in its totality.
Nazi vote in (rigged) Reichstag elections:
43.9% (17 million) in Mar 1933 – Communist
Party campaign had been sabotaged by
violence and intimidation - an ‘un-free and
unfair’ election.
The Nazis formed a nationalist coalition
government with other nationalist parties.
The Nazis held key posts in the Cabinet.
Hitler was appointed as Reich Chancellor;
Wilhelm Frick was appointed as Minister of
the Interior; Hermann Goring was appointed
as Reich Minister Without Portfolio and
Acting Prussian Minister of the Interior. The
Nazis had thus been placed in control of law
and order agencies. Violence could now be
used as a ‘legitimate’ weapon to purge the
state of its perceived enemies.
28
Once he had formulated his premise, however flawed and crude this premise was, Hitler was
ruthlessly consistent in pushing it to its logical conclusion. Germany would be regenerated
through a purge of its undesirable elements. A ‘new man’ would be created for the ‘new
society’: a racial community that would follow the Leader in taking up their supposedly
predestined place as the masters of Europe and the world. How Hitler set about constructing
this Volksgemeinschaft and the success he had in doing it will be looked at in the following
sections.
Summary

Nazi ideology was anti-Semitic, anti-Communist, anti-Slavic, anti-parliamentary
democracy, anti-capitalist (in theory); it was pro-Aryan, social Darwinist, pro
German nationalism and pro-authoritarian leadership. Its chief enemies were
those they believed to have been complicit in undermining German strength and
signing away land at the Treaty of Versailles.

Nazi ideology was formulated by Hitler in two key documents. These were the
Twenty Five Point Programme and Mein Kampf. Others, such as Alfred
Rosenberg elaborated on these themes, especially in his Volkischer Beobacther.

Nazi ideology grew out of the First World War and its aftermath in Germany.

There was nothing that was new in Nazi ideology. All ideas could be found pre
1914 in Europe and the USA. The synthesis of the ideas into a political
programme and the presentation of them were new.

The economic crisis and weak political leadership during the Depression allowed
these extremist ideas to seep into the mainstream of German politics. Most voted
for the Nazis because they were seen to be the only viable alternative to the
Communist Party during the deep seated economic crisis of 1929-33. During the
election campaigns, Hitler put heavy emphasis on his economic proposals. AntiSemitism was neither stressed nor suppressed. This message was a significant
propaganda achievement for the Nazi Party.
29
Citizenship Reflection Activity A6
The thought and possible implications of Charles Darwin have become increasingly
controversial in public debates in recent years. At its simplest, the debate appears to be
between two competing (and increasingly hysterical) extremes: on the one hand, there are
the so called ‘neo Darwinians’ who argue that evolution either proves conclusively or makes
extremely unlikely the existence of ‘God’, whatever is meant by the concept of ‘God’; on the
other hand, is the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement who argue that the study of science proves
conclusively that God exists, and that evolution has a number of devastating methodological
and empirical problems in it. Some go further and argue that the implications of an
acceptance of Darwinian ideas lead to a devaluation of human life. They often point to the
experience of Nazi Germany to illustrate their point. The school, and, more specifically the
science classroom, has become the battleground for the debate.
Consider the following highly topical and controversial issues this raises:
What, if anything, did Hitler owe to Darwin? Even if there is a connection, to what extent can
the ideas of Charles Darwin be considered responsible for the Holocaust?
Is there a third way in the debate between neo-Darwinians and the Intelligent Design
Movement? Is science capable of proving that either God does or does not exist? If so why,
and how? If not, why not? Should either of these views (that God does not exist/does exist)
find their way into science lessons? Or should all attempts at using science as a tool to
advance an ideology be resisted?
Is science capable of determining questions of value and meaning?
30
Select Bibliography and Suggested Further Reading
The following materials are excellent for further research and reflection:
Bartov:
Browning:
Bullock:
Burleigh:
Burleigh:
Burleigh:
Burleigh:
Evans
Evans:
Kershaw:
Kershaw:
Longerich:
Noakes
and Pridham:
Overy:
The Holocaust
The Origins of the Final Solution, 1939-42
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany, 1900-45
Sacred Causes
The Racial State, 1933-45
The Third Reich
The Coming of the Third Reich
The Third Reich in Power
Hitler: Vol 1 and Vol 2
The Nazi Dictatorship
The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final Solution
Nazism: Vol 2: State, Economy and Society, 1933-39
The Dictators
31