Counter-factual history

[Minimalist]

Hitler did not convinced majority of Germans of his fitness to rule.

But he didn't have to, Szu.  In the entire lifespan of the Weimar Republic no party ever attained that 50% goal.  They still managed to form governments for their whole history.  Hitler was not an anomaly.

Did the system fail them?  Yes.   But it was the system they devised.

[Szuchow]

Hitler did not convinced majority of Germans of his fitness to rule.

But he didn't have to, Szu.  In the entire lifespan of the Weimar Republic no party ever attained that 50% goal.  They still managed to form governments for their whole history.  Hitler was not an anomaly.

Did the system fail them?  Yes.   But it was the system they devised.

The point is that Hitler wasn't elected in any way, shape or form and as election results show he did not actually had majority support; he was given power. It wasn't failure of the system but short sightedness of people who like certain lady from Riga thought that they would be able to ride the tiger. And just like lady from Riga they ended devoured and tiger only smiled.

System that truly failed was judicial one. Hitler should have been hanged for his putsch. He was to paraphrase Thomas Mann spared to his own and world misfortune.

[Minimalist]

It was the same process they had used since 1919.  The President invited Hitler to form a government.  

Bad idea?  Yes.

Unconstitutional?  No.

[Szuchow]

It was the same process they had used since 1919.  The President invited Hitler to form a government.  

Bad idea?  Yes.

Unconstitutional?  No.

I somehow doubt that every chancellor since 1919 was appointed as:

 the result of sinister intrigues behind the scenes in which a handful of figures, most
notably former Chancellor von Papen, pulled the strings. 

No one here is saying that Hitler was appointed unconstitutionally. I'm saying that small clique wanted to use Hitler but sorely miscalculated and that his appointment was result of shady deals not electoral success.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No one here is saying that Hitler was appointed unconstitutionally. I'm saying that small clique wanted to use Hitler but sorely miscalculated and that his appointment was result of shady deals not electoral success.

This is correct in fine detail as well as general overview. Hitler's appointment in no way reflected the majority view of the German electorate, popular though he may have been (which popularity, by the way, was declining).

Hitler was appointed because Hindenburg believed v. Schliecher / v. Papen's argument that by restricting the Nazis to three Cabinet seats and the same Nazis in the minority in the Reichstag, Hitler could be restrained. But Hitler convinced Hindenburg that he needed emergency powers and then put to the Reichstag that those weren't enough. He convinced the Reichstag to abdicate its own power and role in passing the Enabling Act even as in March the Nazis still could not muster a majority of Reichstag seats.

Dachau was fired up by the end of March, receiving political dissidents.

The German population only fell in later, and not to the extent that some historians claim, but enough that the system and the people was able to absorb the leap to Kristallnacht and then Endlosung, even if the system new exactly what it was doing while the populace simply followed along if not actively participating.

Hitler came to power more than anything else by the misjudgment of his political opponents. I think Hitler called them "worms", and that sounds about right.

[Szuchow]

No one here is saying that Hitler was appointed unconstitutionally. I'm saying that small clique wanted to use Hitler but sorely miscalculated and that his appointment was result of shady deals not electoral success.

This is correct in fine detail as well as general overview. Hitler's appointment in no way reflected the majority view of the German electorate, popular though he may have been (which popularity, by the way, was declining).

Hitler was appointed because Hindenburg believed v. Schliecher / v. Papen's argument that by restricting the Nazis to three Cabinet seat and the same Nazis in the minority in the Reichstag, Hitler could be restrained. But Hitler convinced Hindenburg that he needed emergency powers and then put to the Reichstag that those weren't enough. He convinced the Reichstag to abdicate its own power and role in passing the Enabling Act even as in March the Nazis still could not muster a majority of Reichstag seats.

Dachau was fired up by the end of March, receiving political dissidents.

The German population only fell in later, and not to the extent that some historians claim, but enough that the system and the people was able to absorb the leap to Kristallnacht and then Endlosung, even if the former new exactly what it was doing while the latter simply followed along if not actively participating.

Hitler came to power more than anything else by the misjudgment of his political opponents. I think Hitler called them "worms", and that sounds about right.

Fucking exactly. No need to add more than that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No need to add more than that.

...except perhaps that by the time that dissident Germans realized what was actually happening, it was too late -- the trap had already sprung shut.

[Szuchow]

No need to add more than that.

...except perhaps that by the time that dissident Germans realized what was actually happening, it was too late -- the trap had already sprung shut.

Sure. I however doubt that there were all that many dissidents, especially in pre war years though of course one can't really tell how many support totalitarian gov and how many just go along.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...except perhaps that by the time that dissident Germans realized what was actually happening, it was too late -- the trap had already sprung shut.

Sure. I however doubt that there were all that many dissidents, especially in pre war years though of course one can't really tell how many support totalitarian gov and how many just go along.

Sure. I read Goldberg and thought he overstated his case, but as I noted upthread, anti-Semitism had such deep (and virulent, thanks to Luther) roots in Germany that even those who thought it was "wrong" in the front of their brains felt somewhere deeper a cultural resonance?

Of course the dissidents were few and far between, and incarcerated early where identified. I think too of Niemoller and the Catholic hierarchy that in the early years (shades of Schliecher and Papen here!) thought they could work with or even massage this rough-house gang into civility. And with them too, only too late, did they realize the jaws of the trap had already sprung, Gleichschaltung and all that. But they worked for a couple of years, in their naivete (or realpolitik, regarding the Catholic Church). And then they got smashed too. I'd put v. Neurath in that club as well.

It's only my opinion and while I can list general readings that you likely already have read anyway, it's what I took out of it. Lots joined NSDAP for professional or social advancement, lots joined because they were true believers, and lots joined just to keep their heads under camouflage. I don't know how those fractions break down and won't offer any more than that generality.

I know @Deesse23 probably has much -- and much better -- to say as well. I'd like to hear from him, as him having learnt his own nation's history from the inside would provide another insight.

[Minimalist]

It was the same process they had used since 1919.  The President invited Hitler to form a government.  

Bad idea?  Yes.

Unconstitutional?  No.

I somehow doubt that every chancellor since 1919 was appointed as:

 the result of sinister intrigues behind the scenes in which a handful of figures, most
notably former Chancellor von Papen, pulled the strings. 

No one here is saying that Hitler was appointed unconstitutionally. I'm saying that small clique wanted to use Hitler but sorely miscalculated and that his appointment was result of shady deals not electoral success.

Come now, Szu.  Politics is a dirty business.  There are always deals being made for support.  And coalitions collapse when those deals fall apart.

This fellow understands:

[Thumpalumpacus]

I somehow doubt that every chancellor since 1919 was appointed as:

 the result of sinister intrigues behind the scenes in which a handful of figures, most
notably former Chancellor von Papen, pulled the strings. 

No one here is saying that Hitler was appointed unconstitutionally. I'm saying that small clique wanted to use Hitler but sorely miscalculated and that his appointment was result of shady deals not electoral success.

Come now, Szu.  Politics is a dirty business.  There are always deals being made for support.  And coalitions collapse when those deals fall apart.

This fellow understands:

That ignores that Hitler was a failure as a politician. He never won enough votes to win any governmental election though he ran several times. And Hitler solved his electoral failures by subterfuge and then seizing the moment.

Hitler was a shitty politician, but a master opportunist.

[Szuchow]

Come now, Szu.  Politics is a dirty business.  There are always deals being made for support.  And coalitions collapse when those deals fall apart.

Politics might be a dirty business but there is a world of difference between forming coalitions or making deals like "I support you bill and you will support mine" and shady camarilla bringing what they deemed patsy into power, after said patsy started to lose support.

[Szuchow]

Sure. I read Goldberg and thought he overstated his case, but as I noted upthread, anti-Semitism had such deep (and virulent, thanks to Luther) roots in Germany that even those who thought it was "wrong" in the front of their brains felt somewhere deeper a cultural resonance?

Daily Life in Nazi-Occupied Europe by Harold Goldberg or something different? I didn't read much on antisemitism before Shoah but from what little I read I would agree with Gotz Aly words: 

Crisis does not explain crisis, nor does war account for war.
The same is true of the Holocaust. Anyone who proposes that
the German anti-Semitism that resulted in the mass murder of
six million people was the result of anti-Semitism in general is
merely painting a picture of the devil without accounting for the
forces that conjured him and gave him such massive power. [...] [Gotz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust, p. 206]


For me pre-Shoah antisemitism does not have all that great impact on Endlosung. One have to remember that previously Jews were hated for religion and "killing Jesus". "Racial" hatred was relatively new invention and well, even nazis did not really planned to exterminate Jews from the onset. I suppose radicalization that came with war (coupled with killing their own citizens in "euthanasia" program) made killing easier. Of course one can ask if Endlosung would be possible without more than millenium of hatred directed toward Jews but I think answer is yes. Propaganda apparatus was good at manufacturing outrage even then.

Of course the dissidents were few and far between, and incarcerated early where identified. I think too of Niemoller and the Catholic hierarchy that in the early years (shades of Schliecher and Papen here!) thought they could work with or even massage this rough-house gang into civility. And with them too, only too late, did they realize the jaws of the trap had already sprung, Gleichschaltung and all that. But they worked for a couple of years, in their naivete (or realpolitik, regarding the Catholic Church). And then they got smashed too. I'd put v. Neurath in that club as well.

Church and nazis were mostly ideologically aligned I would say, especially when it came to bolsheviks. I certainly wouldn't ascribe what little church did in opposition to some moral outrage on it's part. Though to be fair von Galen deserve respect from speaking against euthanasia murder.

It's only my opinion and while I can list general readings that you likely already have read anyway, it's what I took out of it. Lots joined NSDAP for professional or social advancement, lots joined because they were true believers, and lots joined just to keep their heads under camouflage. I don't know how those fractions break down and won't offer any more than that generality.

I would like this reading list I think. It certainly wouldn't hurt to read what made you to think like you think. In any case I'm more focused on Endlosung and criminality of nazi regime than anything else.

I don't think that any break down of such factions that would be worth something could be offered. How many people would honestly state that they though nazis to be best thing since sliced bread? Certainly one can infer something from date of joining (there was specific word for those who joined late but for the love of dog I can't recall it) and activity thereafter but that's the most of it. 

I know @Deesse23 probably has much -- and much better --  to say as well. I'd like to hear from him, as him having learnt his own nation's history from the inside would provide another insight.

It would be nice to hear from him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Daily Life in Nazi-Occupied Europe by Harold Goldberg or something different?

I meant to write Goldhagen -- Daniel Goldhagen, to be exact. I blame beer. In Hitler's Willing Executioners he argues that the vast majority of Germans were essentially willing accomplices to the Holocaust. That is certainly an overstatement. But in giving background, he makes good points about about the environment of anti-Semitism.

I didn't read much on antisemitism before Shoah but from what little I read I would agree with Gotz Aly words: 

Crisis does not explain crisis, nor does war account for war.
The same is true of the Holocaust. Anyone who proposes that
the German anti-Semitism that resulted in the mass murder of
six million people was the result of anti-Semitism in general is
merely painting a picture of the devil without accounting for the
forces that conjured him and gave him such massive power. [...] [Gotz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust, p. 206]

Sure, it required the catalyst of Naziism in this particular case; the anti-Semitism only steeped the population, but it needed fanatics.

For me pre-Shoah antisemitism does not have all that great impact on Endlosung. One have to remember that previously Jews were hated for religion and "killing Jesus". "Racial" hatred was relatively new invention and well, even nazis did not really planned to exterminate Jews from the onset. I suppose radicalization that came with war (coupled with killing their own citizens in "euthanasia" program) made killing easier. Of course one can ask if Endlosung would be possible without more than millenium of hatred directed toward Jews but I think answer is yes. Propaganda apparatus was good at manufacturing outrage even then.

I think the general anti-Semitism played into it. Consider Hitler's vagabond days; it was finding and reading anti-Semitic garbage that started the process, for instance. Garbage that had been in production for centuries. In such an environment of demonization, the chances of pogroms growing into genocide had to be larger. We see this in the racial hatreds of Yugoslavia exploding once Tito died and central authority failed. We see it in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, too.

So while that long-standing anti-Semitism in Europe wasn't the direct cause, I think it was most certainly a major factor. Virulent ideology and hateful leadership were the catalysts, in my opinion.

Church and nazis were mostly ideologically aligned I would say, especially when it came to bolsheviks. 

Absolutely. But Hitler did not want a power-base guiding Germans that he could not control -- especially the Catholic Church with its wealth and influence. So he set about canalizing it, and while some religious leaders recognized it, most others -- precisely because of their sympathy with many Nazi viewpoints -- didn't realize the Nazis were so dangerous to themselves too.

I certainly wouldn't ascribe what little church did in opposition to some moral outrage on it's part. Though to be fair von Galen deserve respect from speaking against euthanasia murder.

Oh, I don't.

I would like this reading list I think. It certainly wouldn't hurt to read what made you to think like you think. In any case I'm more focused on Endlosung and criminality of nazi regime than anything else.

Shirer is dated but goes into great depth on the background of the Nazi Party and its relationship to long-standing anti-Semitism. Toland's biography of Hitler is less in-depth but still useful. Goldhagen, mentioned above, is flawed in my opinion but still makes points about the connection between the Holocaust and the wider bigotries that helped to fuel it.

I have no doubt you're more well-read on this topic, though.

I don't think that any break down of such factions that would be worth something could be offered. How many people would honestly state that they though nazis to be best thing since sliced bread? Certainly one can infer something from date of joining (there was specific word for those who joined late but for the love of dog I can't recall it) and activity thereafter but that's the most of it. 

My point was that the fanatics were surely outnumbered by the membership which enrolled for ulterior motives. Sorry I didn't draw that more clearly.

[Minimalist]

Come now, Szu.  Politics is a dirty business.  There are always deals being made for support.  And coalitions collapse when those deals fall apart.

This fellow understands:

That ignores that Hitler was a failure as a politician. He never won enough votes to win any governmental election though he ran several times. And Hitler solved his electoral failures by subterfuge and then seizing the moment.

Hitler was a shitty politician, but a master opportunist.

If you look up the history of the Weimar Republic you'll see that it existed for just under 14 years and in that time there were 15 chancellors.  In the 1919 election, the Social Democrats won 165 seats.  No party EVER got more than that in any of the 9 national elections that were held  between 1919 and 1933 until November of 1932 when the Nazis won 230 seats.  Still, even with such a showing in which they crushed the other parties, Hindenburg tried to put von Papen in charge even though he had virtually no support in the Reichstag.  If you want to talk about dirty-back-room, deals....start there.

In actuality every Weimar government was a coalition of two or more parties and every one of them was the result of political deal-making.  Much is made that the Nazis lost seats in the November, 1932 election and that is true.  Do you know who gained?  The Nazi's DNVP allies....  and the Communists.  In fact, the Communists won 100 seats and don't think that didn't scare the shit out of the Junkers.  Meanwhile, the centrist parties continued their slide into irrelevancy.  von Papen was not the answer Hindenburg needed and he finally gave up the fight.

See for yourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Germa...l_election

You can click on the link to the next election to see the progression.

And, btw, Hitler became a German citizen in 1932.  He ran for president against Hindenburg.  Hitler finished 2d.

[Szuchow]

I meant to write Goldhagen -- Daniel Goldhagen, to be exact. I blame beer.  In Hitler's Willing Executioners he argues that the vast majority of Germans were essentially willing accomplices to the Holocaust. That is certainly an overstatement. But in giving background, he makes good points about about the environment of anti-Semitism.

Ah. I'm familiar with it and controversy surrounding it. Saying that it wasn't worth paper it was printed on is perhaps overstatement but when likes of Kershaw, Browning, Bauer and Hilberg heavily criticize it then it is clear that book ain't worth much. 

Sure, it required the catalyst of Naziism in this particular case; the anti-Semitism only steeped the population, but it needed fanatics.

To quote Ian Kershaw: The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference. Obviously there were fanatics (like Julius Streicher) but fanaticism wasn't needed for killing Jews; orders were sufficient. Having said that there was certain degree of "enthusiasm" particularly shown by Einsatzgruppen but I'm afraid that for most perpetrators it was simply a job. 

I think the general anti-Semitism played into it. Consider Hitler's vagabond days; it was finding and reading anti-Semitic garbage that started the process, for instance. Garbage that had been in production for centuries. In such an environment of demonization, the chances of pogroms growing into genocide had to be larger. We see this in the racial hatreds of Yugoslavia exploding once Tito died and central authority failed. We see it in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, too.

So while that long-standing anti-Semitism in Europe wasn't the direct cause, I think it was most certainly a major factor. Virulent ideology and hateful leadership were the catalysts, in my opinion.

Sure, general anti semitism played a role but it took very specific circumstances for Endlosung to happen. 

Rwanda is good example here - from what I read there was no millenia old hatred like it was against Jew. Few years if I recall correctly sufficed to stoke the hatred. I think it was similar with Shoah - old antisemitism simply made inciting hatred against Jews easier but I wouldn't wager anything on genocide not happening without it present, though it's obviously unverifiable take. 

Absolutely. But Hitler did not want a power-base guiding Germans that he could not control -- especially the Catholic Church with its wealth and influence. So he set about canalizing it, and while some religious leaders recognized it, most others -- precisely because of their sympathy with many Nazi viewpoints -- didn't realize the Nazis were so dangerous to themselves too.

Hitler might not have wanted such but he was forced to tolerate it for a time at least. Consequence of styling himself as a savior from godless bolshevism and of popular sentiment. Kershaw shows how sometimes regime was forced to back down when confronting church. It's too long to quote but if you're interested then I can recommend Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945. It's solid work overall.

Shirer is dated but goes into great depth on the background of the Nazi Party and its relationship to long-standing anti-Semitism. Toland's biography of Hitler is less in-depth but still useful. Goldhagen, mentioned above, is flawed in my opinion but still makes points about the connection between the Holocaust and the wider bigotries that helped to fuel it.

I have no doubt you're more well-read on this topic, though.

I saw quite few recommendation of Toland and Shirer works so to my reading list they go. 

I guess I am but there still are hundreds of books waiting for me. 

My point was that the fanatics were surely outnumbered by the membership which enrolled for ulterior motives. Sorry I didn't draw that more clearly.

Sure. I would even wager that fanatics never outnumbered opportunists no matter in what regime.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I saw quite few recommendation of Toland and Shirer works so to my reading list they go. 

The first 190 pages of Shirer go into the background of the Nazi party, Hitler's early years in Vienna, the influence of Luther, Wagner, H.S. Chamberlain, and others; the party's struggles before the Putsch, Hitler's recovery and rise afterwards, and so on.

[Minimalist]

I read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in high school..... a long time ago.

I read his subsequent Collapse of the Third Republic which I thought was must better.

[LastPoet]

I have to mention the naval battle of Diu as a portuguese dad enacted revenge basicly breaking the islamists into 2. Had that gone wrong we could've had more alah in the mix. To paraphrase Francisco de Almeida: Son, you never had a candle, a decent burial, today, i will light you a city.

It is obscured, what such a small coutry as portugal ever done?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Diu

[Minimalist]

If history is not written in English it gets short shrift over here.  Thanks for an enlightening read.

In the computer game, Empire Total War they depict Eastern naval units in exactly the way the article does.  Lightly armed galleys or dhows with small guns limited to the bow section so they don't mess up the rowers.
 
French, Spanish, Italian, even Austrian frigate groups go through them like shit through a goose.  I don't think I have ever lost a ship in a battle with those useless little boats.