Hitler and Weimar Enablers: What Can Be Learned?

As Democrats flail and 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.  Specifically, there’s an intriguing similarity between Democrats and the German Social Democratic Party, or SPD.  Though the latter played a significant role in the formation of the Weimar Republic after World War I, some party members missed crucial political opportunities following Hitler’s failed beer hall putsch of 1923.

Just like Trump’s “Save America” rally, which almost resulted in severe harm if not death of Democratic politicians, Hitler’s abortive coup resulted in wanton destruction and loss of human life.  During unrest, Nazi insurrectionists destroyed SPD newspaper offices and took party members as hostages.  However, the beer hall putsch ultimately failed, and Hitler was arrested and tried for treason.  In 1924, a kangaroo court 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.

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.

The Nazi leader was released at the end of 1924, having served only eight and a half months.  Hitler went on to subvert the Weimar Republic from within, and from 1925-29, he carefully restructured the party.  To be sure, some SPD figures grew concerned about the rise of Nazism.  Take, for example, regional politician and intellectual activist Carlo Mierendorff, who played an important role in promoting SPD propaganda.  Mierendorff joined the SPD in 1921 after witnessing right-wing students disrupting lectures delivered by the likes of Albert Einstein.  Fearing counter-revolution could bring down the Weimar Republic, Mierendorff went on to lead the SPD student organization in Heidelberg and kept a close eye on Nazis throughout the late 1920s, and in 1930 was elected to the Reichstag.

Not all SPD members, however, had the same foresight as Mierendorff.  Take, for instance, Carl Severing, who served as a Reichstag member throughout the Weimar years.  Severing also served as Interior Minister of the state of Prussia from 1920-26, and later from 1930-32.  He also held the position of Interior Minister at the Reich level from 1928-30.  Though he fought against right-wing extremism, Severing favored allowing the Nazis to participate in Reichstag elections in 1924, despite Nazi violence inflicted against the SPD in Munich the previous year.  Severing’s position was out of step with the political mood, since Hitler had been banned from speaking publicly until 1927, and the Nazi Party was under constant pressure from Weimar authorities, having been banned several times nationally as well as different parts of Germany.

Mierendorff, by contrast, warned of Nazi gains and urged greater mobilization to counteract the threat.  However, SPD leadership proved tone deaf, and in 1930, the Nazis made a significant breakthrough in Reichstag elections, becoming the second-largest party after the SPD.  In the wake of the election, Mierendorff intensified criticisms of his party by advocating a more activist strategy on the ground, but for the next three years, the SPD remained passive and seemingly paralyzed.  Though Mierendorff was able to win approval for his propaganda proposals, which were popular amongst the rank and file, SPD leadership was not won over and the activist’s efforts were rolled out sluggishly.  Like Washington Democrats, the SPD was at odds with its more militant members, most particularly youth groups.

SPD moderates, meanwhile, preferred to dither, with some even advocating outlandish tactical alliances with Nazi-like trade unions which purportedly shared socialist values.  Though Severing banned the Nazi SA in 1932 as Prussian Interior Minister, he favored Nazi participation in state government after elections in April resulted in deadlock.  In the same month, Hitler ran for president, and though he lost by six million votes, the election buoyed his reputation.  Shortly later, the Nazis became the largest party following federal elections and eclipsed the SPD.

Severing advocated cooperation between SPD and extremist parties in the Reichstag, arguing it would be worse to withdraw rather than leaving such elements in control.  When the Prussian Minister President withdrew due to ill health, Severing became the dominant figure in a caretaker state government.  In July, Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen in turn ousted state authorities during the so-called “Prussian coup d’état.”  Severing and other SPD members offered no resistance, thus ominously paving the way for Hitler to become Chancellor in January 1933.

Mierendorff protested Hitler’s appointment by organizing mass protests in Frankfurt and Darmstadt.  However, he had grown increasingly disenchanted with SPD leadership, which refused to consider extra-parliamentary action amid intensifying political crisis.  In February, Hitler’s Reichstag Fire Decree resulted in a draconian crackdown on the SPD, and Mierendorff became a fugitive.  By the middle of the year, the Nazis had banned and disrupted SPD meetings, beaten up, arrested or killed party members and corralled trade unions into abandoning the SPD.  Hitler smashed or took over SPD libraries, printing presses, buildings and assets.  Needless to say, the assault met with no organized SPD resistance.

The situation led to distrust within the SPD, such that tensions between party leaders in Berlin and those who had chosen to go into exile boiled over, with resistance cells reluctant to share information with the top brass.  Mierendorff was arrested and sent to concentration camps where he was beaten and abused.  Released in 1938, he helped organize the underground resistance until his death in 1943 during an allied air raid on Leipzig.

As for Severing, the SPD leader offered symbolic resistance by refusing to fly the swastika, but when his party called for the Saarland to reject reunification with the Reich in 1935, Severing inexplicably spoke out in favor.  The SPD in exile regarded Severing’s position as so outrageous as to be a forgery.  Though Severing survived the war, his reputation was tarnished because of the 1932 Prussian coup d’état, while others questioned how he had been able to survive the Nazi period largely without being bothered.  Though Severing tried to fight back against the campaign, he met with little success.

Historians debate the reasons for catastrophic SPD failure, from bureaucratic paralysis to internal fissures within the party to lack of coordination between the top echelons and grassroots.  Though the SPD tried to stop Nazism, the party either underestimated Hitler or totally misunderstood the Nazi menace.  Today, we may see echoes of SPD ineffectuality in the Democratic Party, which has certainly been aware of the threat from Trump but has failed to offer any effective resistance.

Part of the problem is that from the very outset, Democrats have not challenged the fundamental illegality of the Trump regime.  Under Section 3 of the 14^th amendment, insurrectionists are barred from holding public office, yet no Democrat was willing to stand up for the constitution during the electoral certification process.  As history has shown, it is much harder to challenge fascism and stand up for the rule of law once authoritarians are ensconced in power.  In the run-up to certification, activists pleaded with Democrats to uphold their constitutional oath, but to no avail.

In a similar echo of Mierendorff’s struggles within the SPD, Democrats have not demonstrated much interest in engaging with the grassroots, which has become increasingly impatient with party leadership.  Like Severing, out of touch Democrats such as Chuck Schumer have paid the price for appeasing and accommodating authoritarianism, which has resulted in backlash.  Indeed, Democrats have shied away from innovative tactics including “extra-parliamentary” street protest, something Mierendorff warned about.  As the White House tightens its grip, the gap between Democrats and more militant elements of the activist base is growing into a chasm.