Why did Nazism thrive in Germany?

Char. Limit

Well, I've already spoken my piece on why Nazism thrived, and you agreed with me, or vice versa, one of the two, and there's one more thing I'd like to say, unless someone challenges my first two arguments.

Language, often, does carry stereotypes and cultures with it. I have multiple times been called a Nazi for daring to speak German in public, for example. So I would say that culture is indeed imperative in language, and generalizations are natural in any speech, not just fascism.

brainstorm

Have you ever thought that the reason someone would assume you are a nazi for speaking German might be the result of ethnic stereotyping and fascist assumptions?

Language is the vector of culture, but culture is malleable and subject to flexible interpolation in practical usage. Language is a set of words and grammatical possibilities that makes the expression of practically all thoughts and ideas possible. If language carries fascism, it is not because of the meanings of words, it is because of patterns of thought and communicative orientations that are established in social interaction.

I said it in another post, but if I tell you over and over that "Germany is fascist" as an imperative, and you succumb to the will to avoid disagreeing with me, out of fear of conflict or otherwise, then your subscription to the idea that "Germany is fascist" would be the result of your submission to my authority on the basis of resistance to question my claim. So fascism is transmitted through both form and content of propaganda. It is not an inherent quality of any language itself, because all languages contain the possibility of disputing claims and discussing alternative ideas.

The form of language-manipulation I most dislike is when people avoid making explicit claims as a means of avoiding discussion. This way, they can merely imply by proxy things they want to say, so when someone else responds to the implication to bring it to discussion, the person says that it is simply not what they meant. That way, they can deny responsibility for a thought or idea until someone else expresses it for them. I believe this is an authoritarian game, because the goal is to manipulate someone else to say something for you, instead of you saying it to them and leaving it up to them what to do with it.

CloudChamber

Another reason Nazism and radical parties in general were able to grow so strong was the Treaty of Versailles, which, with 242 articles, a request for 33 billion dollars and the famous war guilt clause, was very harsh. As a result, Germans started despising their government for agreeing to such cruel conditions and watched as their economy plunged into ruin. This economic chaos and distaste for existing leadership established the perfect basis for a charismatic opportunist like Hitler. By slowly dismantling the Treaty of Versailles and gaining land without wars, many felt he was bringing the country back to its former glory (he was Time magazine's man of the year in 1938!). Sadly, they ignored the massive genocide he was implementing and averted their eyes as millions of innocent people met their deaths. I doubt the nation will ever repeat this, having (hopefully) learned from the horrors of the past.

ImaLooser

No simple answer.

Germany was in terrible shape. I can't imagine living that way. There was widespread poverty and a great many handicapped young men from the war. War War I was an unbelievably horrible experience. The Allies had imposed heavy economic penalties. The most capable leader, Walther Rathenau, was assassinated by anarchists whose goal was to screw up the country. They succeeded.

Europe had had a big war every generation for hundreds of years. It was tradition, and the winner got wealthy. The loser wanted another war to get revenge, the winner wanted another war in order to get rich. Hitler's plan was to get out of poverty by overthrowing the Versailles treaty by force, then get rich by conquering Europe. Many Germans thought that was a very good idea.

Europe was very anti-Semitic, going back for over a thousand of years. Not just Germany, but the entire place. Less so in England. In my view, the success of Jews was envied and resented. Nobody loves his landlord. People at that time took religion much more seriously than now. Even today, it is popular to blame all of your problems on some other group. Looking at one's own mistakes somehow never seems to catch on.

Now the details. The upper and upper middle class was worried as there was a very strong chance of a communist takeover as had just happened in Russia. That's why the army surrendered in 1918: the Navy had mutinied and taken over government buildings in Berlin, the army was starting to disobey, and a communist revolution was immanent, so they had to end the war and get rid of the Kaiser.

Germany had never been a democracy. They weren't very good at it, and many Germans were against it. Democracy was imposed from without and not popular. The largest party in Germany was pro-democracy but also anti-authoritarian and not willing to use its power to impose order. There was terrible inflation and everyone lost all of his/her savings. If you look at Nazi rallies, it is largely upper-middle class people from 40 to 60, and usually mostly women. They had lost all of their retirement money and were angry about it.

Hitler got a lot of support from upper and middle class people who were rightly afraid of a communist takeover. He also appeared to be a strong, firm leader who did not hesitate to use force, and this was traditional in Germany. A strange advantage he had is that most people thought that once he got into power he would moderate his views. They thought that his views were so extreme that he could not possibly really believe them. They were wrong about that.

Hitler tried to lead a revolution but no luck. He got thrown in jail, but was lucky in that the publicity made him a national figure. The police and judges supported him, so his sentence was short. Later he decided to go legit and got about 35% of the vote, which made his party the largest in the legislature. He was appointed Chancellor. Then the Reichstag burned down, he got emergency powers, arrested all of his political opponents and tortured and/or killed them. That was the end of democracy.

The original plan was to export the Jews, which they did. The mass murder didn't start until during the war.

Could it happen again? Sure, why not. Even in today's prosperous US people believe all sorts of crazy stuff. Rational people are a definite minority. Most people will believe just about anything if their friends believe it.

ImaLooser

If you are really interested, try Charles Bracelyn Flood's Hitler: The Path to Power. Seemed objective to me, and very well researched.

ImaLooser

I read that article. Time called him a "monster" and a "dire threat to world peace."

The Man of the Year was whomever made the most news. It had nothing to do with approval. It was no secret what he was up to.

Evo

German Nazi history in a nutshell.

http://www.history.com/topics/nazi-party

And why it became *popular*.

http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol2/issue1/german.htm

For some reason, this old thead keeps getting ressurected.