What caused Hitler's rise to power?

[12th Doctor]

I suppose one could argue without Martin Luther's writings on Jews there would've been no Nazi Party.

The 16th century antisemitism was much different than 20th century antisemitism, even if the writings of the former may have opportunistically been used by the latter. Luther's antisemitism was pretty much purely religious, as there wasn't really a concept of the "Jewish race" yet. He would have had absolutely no problem with an "ethnic Jew", provided he had converted to Christianity. The 20th century antisemitism espoused by Hitler and his ilk was based on pseudo-scientific eugenic racism. I don't think it's really very fair to compare them, except in so far as they were both despicable.

Still, after Pope Pius XI issued Mit Brennender Sorge condemning antisemitism, the Nazis quickly countered with large scale reprintings of Luther's tracts on Jews.

[Lief 🗽]

I suppose one could argue without Martin Luther's writings on Jews there would've been no Nazi Party.

The 16th century antisemitism was much different than 20th century antisemitism, even if the writings of the former may have opportunistically been used by the latter. Luther's antisemitism was pretty much purely religious, as there wasn't really a concept of the "Jewish race" yet. He would have had absolutely no problem with an "ethnic Jew", provided he had converted to Christianity. The 20th century antisemitism espoused by Hitler and his ilk was based on pseudo-scientific eugenic racism. I don't think it's really very fair to compare them, except in so far as they were both despicable.

Still, after Pope Pius XI issued Mit Brennender Sorge condemning antisemitism, the Nazis quickly countered with large scale reprintings of Luther's tracts on Jews.

True, but again, I see that as just an opportunistic misrepresentation of Luther's writings for the Nazis own ends. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf made it pretty clear that he disagreed with Luther's form of antisemitism (which may more accurately be called anti-Judaism). Perhaps the violent and vitriolic tone of On the Jews and Their Lies influenced the Nazis, but I don't think that their antisemitism arose out of a Lutheran (the man, not the religious sect) tradition.

[minionofmidas]

Because Lutheranism has rarely if ever transcended blind worship of authority. And it used to show in their voting patterns.

[Bono]

Because Lutheranism has rarely if ever transcended blind worship of authority. And it used to show in their voting patterns.

So just like Catholicism then?

[J. J.]

I blame Lutheranism.

They brought it on themselves. 

Seriously, the DVP, DNVP, did not do too well, but were relatively stable during the 1920's.  The Nazis declined until 1930.  Then both they and Communists gained fairly big.  It was basically that the political center couldn't hold.

There was no one single reason for Hitler, but perhaps the greatest reason was the economy.  First, hyperinflation destroyed thrift, then there was unemployment.

[minionofmidas]

I blame Lutheranism.

They brought it on themselves. 

Seriously, the DVP, DNVP, did not do too well, but were relatively stable during the 1920's.  The Nazis declined until 1930.  Then both they and Communists gained fairly big.  It was basically that the political center couldn't hold.

The political center? That'd be DDP and SPD. And the SPD held okayish (the DDP broke down completely, and most of that went to the Nazis. Some of it probably went to the SPD, actually, limiting their losses to the commies.) There was nothing "centrist" - indeed, nothing remotely describable as anything but far-right extremist - about the DNVP.

Because Lutheranism has rarely if ever transcended blind worship of authority. And it used to show in their voting patterns.

So just like Catholicism then?

At least they had multiple ultimate authorities to choose from.

[Hash]

Seriously, the DVP, DNVP, did not do too well, but were relatively stable during the 1920's.  The Nazis declined until 1930.  Then both they and Communists gained fairly big.  It was basically that the political center couldn't hold.

Are you calling the DNVP the political centre of Weimar Germany? My, oh my.

[Coburn In 2012]

He would have been wiped off the map in 1938 if appeasement had not been the politically correct order of the day.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

He would have been wiped off the map in 1938 if appeasement had not been the politically correct order of the day.

Not true.  Stalin and FDR would not have joined, and the UK alone would have been crushed.

[GMantis]

He would have been wiped off the map in 1938 if appeasement had not been the politically correct order of the day.

Not true.  Stalin and FDR would not have joined, and the UK alone would have been crushed.

Actually, there was a very good chance that the USSR would join France and the UK, that the German army would incurr significant casualties while conquering Czechoslovakia, that Romania would refuse to export oil to Germany and that Germany, having significantly less resources than in 1940 (including the lack of the weapons taken from the Czech arms factories or Soviet supplies) would be unable to achieve a breakthrough on the Western Front.
Therefore, there would be an attrition war on the Western Front which would lead to a much quicker German defeat.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

...a butterfly...

[12th Doctor]

He would have been wiped off the map in 1938 if appeasement had not been the politically correct order of the day.

Not true.  Stalin and FDR would not have joined, and the UK alone would have been crushed.

That is beyond incorrect.

The German Army was simply blustering in 1938.  Hitler was taking a gamble and testing the limits.

The German Army in 1939 had not yet built up the full strength that it would turn loose on France, et al, in 1940, let alone had that kind of capacity in 1938.  The Panzer Corps and the Luftwaffe, which were essential to German successes in 1940, were both barely at half strength.

Meanwhile, the difficult terrain along the German, Czech boarder, and the fact that the Czechoslovakian Army was actually one of the the better equipped armies in the world means the German would have absorbed significant casualties in the early months of the invasion.

Even if they had the equipment for blitzkrieg at that time, an operation in Czechoslovakia would not have been favorable to those ends.  The open country required to effectively execute the tactics required was not present in the territory in question.

In the meantime, an alliance of Poland, France and Great Britain could have pressured Germany on all sides.

While the RAF was not at wartime strength in 1938, it wouldn't have mattered, because there never would have been any "Battle of Britain".

The French Army, which was in fact both stronger, and better equipped than the Germans in 1940, let alone 1938, could have easily defeated German in the Rhineland.

It is doubtful that it would have come to that, however, since the German generals would have seen defeat coming, and removed Hitler before any war started.

The Myth of 1938 is just another in the long line of historical retcons that the people in Europe who weren't speaking out in 1938 devised to make themselves feel better.

[J. J.]

Seriously, the DVP, DNVP, did not do too well, but were relatively stable during the 1920's.  The Nazis declined until 1930.  Then both they and Communists gained fairly big.  It was basically that the political center couldn't hold.

Are you calling the DNVP the political centre of Weimar Germany? My, oh my.

No, I'm saying that they were more centrist, at least in 1920's, than the Nazis, and they did better.  Actually, the DVP, at some points, was basically drifting toward the center.

Until the Depression and hyperinflation, there was a slow drift to center in the electorate to more moderate parties than the Nazis and Communists.  After that, both extremes gained, at the expense of the more moderate parties.

[pogo stick]

Jews brought it upon themselves.

wow, just wow <_<

um.. probably the treaty of Versailles

[pogo stick]

He would have been wiped off the map in 1938 if appeasement had not been the politically correct order of the day.

Finally someone who agrees.


Like Winston Churchill said "You had to choose between war and dishonor, you chose dishonor ,now you have war"

[Mechaman]

What caused Hitler's rise to power? Well I took Holocaust Studies my senior year in high school and the teacher seemed to give most credit (different from blame) to the Treaty of Versailles.

Personally I think it was the Wilson foreign policy. Now the average history textbook will tell you the US was neutral and stayed out of the war until the Germans decided to be douchebags and start attacking our ships.
While they do tell a little bit about how the US was acting during 1914-1917, they de-emphasize it a lot so it sounds like we really had no choice but to go to war.
The truth is the US was favoring Great Britain quite a bit during the war with Germany. The truth is the US, the supposed neutral power, was supplying Britain alot more than Germany. The truth is Britain had enacted a blockade on Germany that left many of it's citizens starving to death and Germany stepped up submarine warfare only as a desperate measure of survival. The German government posted warnings in US newspapers warning that sea travel aboard Allied vessels during war time put them at risk. The US government made very unfair demands on Germany in regards to submarine warfare (subs can only attack in self defense, etc.) while saying nothing about how Great Britain's blockade was starving hundreds of thousands of German citizens to death. The US was not neutral in this war, the US was playing favorites with Great Britain. Wilson's pro-British administration went out of it's way to agitate Germany and make war with them inevitable. We had no reason for being in that war.
If we were truly a neutral power we would've minded our own damn business. If we were a truly neutral power we would've showed no favortism in a time of war. We had nothing to gain or lose from this war, nothing.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Allies would've still won without our help and the punishment may've been even more severe than IRL, but somehow I doubt it. Now Germany might've done the same thing to the Great Britain or France, and some Hitler like character would arise and go ape on Europe. Those are all possibilities. But I think we had a big part in making Hitler's rise to power more possible than it probably would've been otherwise. Sometimes, the truth just really sucks.......

[Kaine for Senate '18]

International Bankers mainly the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Shiffs looted Weimar's economy through inflation and caused Germany to loose WWI by bringing in the Americans on behalf of the British in exchange for signing the Balfour Declaration and promoted a lot of pornographic filth and white slavery.

Now there's the Stark we all know and love

[jokerman]

Why blame necessarily Wilson?  Even from a broad historical perspective with hindsight, had we intervened earlier and decisively the result would have been a quick peace treaty with minor concessions from the central powers.  The balance of power would have returned and the escalation of arms continued, in all likelyhood, merely postponing a cataclysmic "Great War."  A Hitlerian figure could have arisen out of any such blood.

Had he stayed out completely (and stayed neutral), the scenarios are much more interesting.  I imagine Germany would have won, and absolutely raped the rest of Europe of their colonial posessions.  Germany would have been the final hegemonic power of Europe (and the world).  They consolidate European power and colonial posessions, the neutral U.S. is allowed its sphere of power in the Americas.  This was really the more logical procession of history; the U.S. leaping out its strong habit of isolationism was an aberration.  Decades later, communism threatens to liberate colonial peoples from their yoke, but a caesarian figure out of Germany utilizes the ultimate power of the nuclear bomb (which I imagine German scientists would eventually have discovered) to pacify this threat.  Western civilization in twilight holds on to power, and somehow I imagine it would have been displaced (but it beyond my imagination to say how).  Either way it is a much bleaker experience than our own, but one much more in accordance with human history before that point.  I only hope we've somehow been freed from the vicious cycle of civilizations in our time, and have seen the birth of human civilization.

[big bad fab]

The fundamental cause is economic crisis, of course.

First, hyperinflation of the 20s that broke any confidence in Weimar's politicians and society.
Then 1929 and its aftermath.
NSDAP electoral results were good only after.

Of course, some other things acted as boosters or make things easier:

- antisemitism was a "plus" for real antisemitic persons and others didn't mind: remember anitsemitism was widespread all over Europe, even among clever and moderate people; so, antisemitism was played as a bonus by the Nazis,w ithout any damage for them;

- and there weren't any "cordon sanitaire" (in minds or in concrete) against extremists (right or left); the "freikorps" did what they want;

- Weimar republic was seen as weak and so, strong leadership was favoured; and Weimar republic was weak because former military leaders and old conservatives created the myth of "being stabbed by knife in the back" by democratic leaders at the end of WWI; and because KPD refused any support to Weimar or even to SPD governments ("social-traitors");
confidence was already damaged, since the beginning;

- Versailles was not a fundamental cause, but an easy and great excuse or pretext for extremists to take a xenophobic stance and to insist on humiliation; France's policy was bad for some years... as it fed this pretext;

- Hitler's and Nazis' skills in campaigning, in propaganda and in political organizing: they were real and efficient.
And Hitler's own devil mind was underestimated in 1932-33.

So, don't think foreign affairs were decisive on this: the US, Britain and France weren't very good at managing all this until 1925, but better after;
in fact, Soviet Union's and Komintern's behaviours, by preventing the big KPD to take part in the Republic, were eventually more harmful than Western policies.

Economic situation and internal factors were far more important, and the mood of the time (antisemitism, strong leadership), which was the same in many countries, made things "easy".

[Hash]

- Versailles was not a fundamental cause, but an easy and great excuse or pretext for extremists to take a xenophobic stance and to insist on humiliation; France's policy was bad for some years... as it fed this pretext;

Thank you for an intelligent answer. God bless you!

- Weimar republic was seen as weak and so, strong leadership was favoured; and Weimar republic was weak because former military leaders and old conservatives created the myth of "being stabbed by knife in the back" by democratic leaders at the end of WWI; and because KPD refused any support to Weimar or even to SPD governments ("social-traitors");
confidence was already damaged, since the beginning;

I wrote my EE on the fall of Weimar, and one of the sources I fell across, written by EJ Passant argued that the German psyche had no real will for democracy or civil liberties. Germany had had no successful movement for civil liberties, such as the French Revolution or American Revolution. Then there's the thing that they had been ruled for ages by Kaisers, Kings, Grand Dukes and Grand Thingees; and now they're ruled by a rather weak Social Democratic President and weak Chancellors.

This desire for strong unifying figures can kind of be proven. You have Hindenburg, the (incompetent) military general defeating Marx, the party system candidate in 1925. You have the appearance of (incompetent) "experts" government such as Cuno, strong support for von Seeckt and the Reichswehr, and finally people taking to Hitler as the unifying figure and strongman. It's an interesting thesis.

[pragmatic liberal]

To be entirely honest, I personally think that Hitler's rise to power was something of a historical fluke.

Don't get me wrong -- anger over the WWI settlement, the weakness of the Weimar Republic, and the Great Depression combined with German Hyperinflation all made the collapse of the Weimar Republic fairly likely. I'm just not sure that that inevitably meant Hitler and the Nazis.

I view history as probabilistic. Trends and patterns make certain events more likely and push the historical narrative in a particular direction. I think the trajectory of post-1919 Germany and, especially, late '20s Germany, made the emergence of a right-wing dictatorship in Germany quite likely, but I tend to think that if you were graphing probabilities on a curve, the possibility that someone as extreme as Hitler would come to power was still a relatively unlikely event.

There were any number of small things that could have gone the other way and I don't think Hitler's rise was inevitable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed, a militaristic aggressive Germany that would start a World War II was inevitable.  A genocidal Germany out to kill Roma, Jews, and other undesirables was not inevitable.