A Short History of Fascist Enablers

As Democrats fail to articulate a forceful response to what increasingly resembles wholesale fascism, one might ask whether we can learn from previous botched efforts which failed to stem the tide.  Though comparisons to Nazi Germany have been exhaustively overplayed, we would do well to examine the record of enablers during the Weimar period who committed grave tactical mistakes and seriously underestimated the threat which lay before them.  Indeed, just as the system neglected to hold Donald Trump accountable for the January 6^th riot, so too did Weimar authorities miss crucial political opportunities following Hitler’s failed beer hall putsch of 1923.

Though the circumstances were somewhat different, since Hitler’s rabble did not come to Munich to prop up a president who had been voted out of office, nevertheless the events of 1923 bear similarities to the present day.  Could the uprising have been averted?  The previous year, Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau had been assassinated by right-wing nationalists, and the Nazi Party was banned almost everywhere throughout the country.  In Bavaria, however, conservatives regarded Nazis as thugs but useful criminals.  Though the local state government banned large Nazi public meetings, national socialism was still legal.  Thumbing his nose at authorities, Hitler and hundreds of supporters assembled and attempted to occupy downtown Munich.

Just like Trump’s “Save America” rally, which left five dead and 140 injured, Hitler’s abortive coup resulted in wanton destruction and loss of human life, with four Bavarian policemen and a bystander killed in the fray.  During unrest, Nazi insurrectionists destroyed SPD (Social Democratic Party) newspaper offices and took party members as hostages.  However, the beer hall putsch ultimately failed, and Hitler was arrested and tried for treason.

At the time, observers believed the trial would be an open-and-shut case resulting in the demise of the Nazi Party.  Under the circumstances, any functional judiciary system would have handed Hitler a life sentence in prison.  By standards of the day, he might have even been executed, and indeed the international press predicted such an outcome.  At the very least Hitler should have been banned from holding public office.

And yet, the defendant was treated with kid’s gloves.  Technically, Hitler and his conspirators should have been tried in the supreme Reich court, but Bavarian authorities were able to retain emergency jurisdiction.  From the very outset, then, the scale was tilted since the trial was held in Munich, a city located in the anti-democratic south.

Just as ineffectual Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to hold Trump to account after January 6^th, prosecutors in Hitler’s case proved woefully inadequate.  Indeed, in their closing statement, the prosecution team even praised Hitler as “a brave soldier [who] was filled with genuine, blazing enthusiasm for a great German Fatherland.”  Inexplicably, prosecutors added for good measure that Hitler “created from the smallest beginnings a great party — the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party.”  Foreign newspapers covering the trial were shocked by prosecutors’ complete spinelessness.

Presiding over the kangaroo court was a five-judge panel chaired by Georg Neithardt.  Just like conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who similarly refused to hold Trump accountable for January 6^th, Neithardt was an avowed nationalist who gave right-wing defendants the benefit of the doubt.  Turning the trial into a “political carnival,” Neithardt allowed Hitler to drone on extemporaneously and launch attacks on the Weimar Republic.  Wearing his Iron Cross from World War I, Hitler delivered a speech on the first day of the trial which lasted no less than three hours.  Then, in his final two-hour speech, Hitler claimed the beer hall putsch hadn’t really failed, and he personally would restore Germany’s glory.

On April 1^st, 1924 — April Fool’s Day — Neithardt declared Hitler guilty of treason but imposed the minimum sentence under Bavarian law; that is, five years of “honorable confinement” with possibility of early release provided good behavior.  Outraged by the verdict, many amongst the public believed the judge himself should have been sentenced for overseeing a travesty of justice.  A leading Catholic newspaper, meanwhile, proclaimed the authority of the state “dead and buried.”  Though Bavarian authorities were displeased with the verdict, they refused to criticize the local Justice Ministry.

Leaving the trial, Hitler posed for photographers, while Nazi sympathizers mocked liberal opponents, declaring the latter shouldn’t get too “emotional” and “let the past be the past.”  In later years, Hitler and the Nazi Party leadership extolled the memory of their historic putsch, and a Munich square where rioters had clashed with police became a right-wing shrine.  Just as cops murdered by Trump’s rioters have been forgotten by many, so too was the memory of four fallen Bavarian policemen erased.  It was only later, after WWII, that West German authorities saw fit to lay an honorary plaque.

Though Nazi paramilitaries were found guilty of destroying SPD newspaper offices and taking socialist party members hostage, they were later let out on parole.  Following a public outcry and prosecutorial appeal, the case was brought back and Hitler’s conspirators were sent to fortress detention with their leader.  Just like pending civil cases attempting to hold Trump and rioters responsible for damages, the SPD newspaper sued Nazi paramilitaries for civil damages.  However, the Nazis managed to postpone the trial with legal shenanigans for such a long time that ultimately, a compromise settlement had to be arranged which was favorable to Hitler.

As for Hitler himself, the Nazi leader was imprisoned in comfort at Landsberg fortress, along with his accomplices.  He was allowed to wear civilian clothes, meet with other prisoners at his leisure, and send and receive letters.  Hitler was released at the end of 1924, having served only eight and a half months of what was supposed to have been a five and a half-year sentence.  To make matters worse, prosecutors were not able to appeal Hitler’s lenient sentence.

On the other hand, it may have seemed as if Nazis were destined to be consigned to history.  Shortly after the beer hall putsch, authorities raided Hitler’s Nazi headquarters, and the party’s newspaper was banned.  Bavarian and federal officials then banned the party outright.  But just a fortnight after being released from Landsberg, Hitler convinced the Bavarian Prime Minister to lift the state ban on the Nazis and reverse prohibitions on the party newspaper.  Unrepentant, Hitler then delivered a fiery speech in Munich with violent undertones.

Realizing they’d been played as fools, Bavarian authorities retaliated by banning Hitler from speaking.  Moreover, from 1925-27, Hitler was prevented from speaking in several other German states which followed Bavaria’s example.  However, in early 1927, the large German state of Saxony lifted Hitler’s speaking ban, and shortly thereafter, Bavaria relented and followed suit.  Ultimately, authorities were mistakenly persuaded to lift a ban on the Nazi Party once Hitler agreed to abide by the rules and pledge that he would only attempt to come to power legally.

Failure to hold Hitler to account, both politically and legally, had dire consequences.  The Nazis went on to subvert the Weimar Republic from within, and from 1925-29, Hitler carefully restructured the party.  In 1930, the Nazis had a significant breakthrough in Reichstag elections and became the second-largest party.  In April 1932, Hitler ran for president, and though he lost by six million votes, the election buoyed his reputation.  Several months later, the Nazis became the largest party after federal elections, eclipsing the SPD.  In 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor.  The following year, when Hindenburg died, Hitler declared himself führer.

Like Weimar, the U.S. has suffered from political fragmentation, polarization, demagogic hate speech, and a gridlocked Congress.  Though Attorney General Garland had four years to prosecute the January 6^th case, he failed as he was too concerned the precedent of going after a former president would be negative for the country.  Trump moreover was able to outfox the judicial system by seeking delays.  Internal institutional failure, such as squabbling between congressional panels and the Department of Justice about the need to share evidence, did not help.

On the other hand, if the system had worked properly, Trump would have been excluded from the ballot from the outset.  Under Section 3 of the 14^th amendment, insurrectionists are barred from holding public office.  The evidence proving Trump is an insurrectionist is overwhelming: following an impeachment trial, the House of Representatives voted that Trump was guilty of incitement of insurrection.  Though the Senate fell short of convicting Trump, who was acquitted, the body still affirmed the former president was similarly guilty of incitement by a vote of 57 to 43.  Damning testimony at a subsequent House select committee provided further evidence of Trump’s unhinged insurrectionism.

Under any normal circumstances, Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy would have been declared illegal.  In Colorado, the State Supreme Court ruled Trump was an insurrectionist and should be excluded from the ballot.  When Trump appealed the ruling, however, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the former president to the ballot.  However, justices stopped short of declaring him innocent of engaging in insurrection.

After Trump won the election, Congress had another opportunity to enforce Section 3 of the 14^th amendment by raising objections.  Despite pleas from activists, not one legislator agreed to do so.  Amid Trump’s current lawless presidency, just one legislator has called for impeachment, even though more than 250,000 people have signed a petition calling for just that.

The historical example of Weimar proves that fascism must be forcefully and urgently challenged from the outset, and failure to do so only encourages those who would shred the law and ensconce themselves in power.  Since the system has failed to hold Trump accountable for insurrection, a valid first step might be to simply start referring to Trump as a fully illegal president and occupant of the White House, and therefore his orders should be considered null and void.  Belatedly, perhaps, Americans will now be moved to act.