Nicholas Schlosser on Hitler

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Nicholas Schlosser on Hitler A. N. Wilson. Hitler. New York: Basic Books, 2012. 215 pp. $24.99, cloth, ISBN 978-0-465-03128-3. Reviewed by Nicholas J. Schlosser Published on H-Empire (September, 2012) Commissioned by Charles V. Reed (Elizabeth City State University) Is there room in the already crowded feld of much that has not been written about before. In literature on the history of Nazi Germany for yet this brief, highly interpretive account of Hitler’s another biography of Adolf Hitler? With excellent life, Wilson asks questions that have been asked biographies already written on this subject by Ian before and examines sources that have been ex‐ Kershaw (Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris [1998] and amined before, and ultimately presents conclu‐ Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis [2000]) and Alan Bul‐ sions that are highly conjectural, speculative, and lock (A Study in Tyranny [1962]), not to mention unsubstantiated by a careful reading of the avail‐ the vast corpus of works examining specific ele‐ able evidence and historical literature. ments of Hitler’s ideology, the Third Reich, and Much ink has already been spilled over this their place within the broader context of German work.[1] After its publication, British historian history, do we need yet another book on this par‐ Richard J. Evans wrote a critical review of it for ticular topic? New Statesman in which he pointed out numer‐ The answer, of course, is yes. There is always ous factual errors, criticized the work’s broad gen‐ room for new works on any historical topic, pro‐ eralities, and noted that the author made little ef‐ vided they bring something new to the table. fort to examine and consider the majority of There are always new documents to uncover, new works that have already been written on this par‐ interpretative approaches to take, and ultimately ticular subject.[2] Wilson’s response focused on new conclusions to be made by specialists and the supposed defensiveness of academic histori‐ nonspecialists alike. Therefore, the question we ans and specialists when nonspecialists write must ask with regard to newly published works, about their subjects of expertise. Evans was clear such as A. N. Wilson’s biography, Hitler, is to note that this was not the case, writing that “I whether those books achieve any of these goals? am cross with him not because I think only spe‐ Unfortunately, Wilson’s work does not provide cialists should write about Hitler--I explicitly not‐ H-Net Reviews ed the contributions made by novelists and liter‐ Theater of Operations, and was consequently not ary scholars--but because he has simply ignored the overall commander of all U.S. forces as Wilson 99.9 per cent of the work on the subject done by claims (pp. 169, 174). Winston Churchill also did historians, and as a result has written a book that not introduce the strategy of bombing civilian tar‐ is absolutely valueless as well as full of errors, gets in August 1940 when he ordered the Royal many of them not minor at all.”[3] Air Force to target Berlin (p. 137). The Luftwaffe On the whole, this reviewer has found Evans’s had already leveled Warsaw and Rotterdam be‐ assessment to be correct. Wilson’s work is flled fore then, and Luftwaffe units helped level the with inaccuracies. As Evans notes in his initial re‐ town of Guernica during the Spanish civil war in view, Bavaria was not an independent state sepa‐ 1937. rate from the rest of Germany in 1918 (as Wilson The book is plagued by broad generalities. Far writes on page 17) and Heinrich Brüning was not too often readers are expected to accept Wilson’s the leader of the Catholic Center Party (p. 67). word with regard to what historians have de‐ There were only two German parliamentary elec‐ clared in the past about Hitler. For example, he tions in 1932, not fve (p. 80). The Molotov-Ribben‐ writes that “much is sometimes made of the Ro‐ trop Pact did not divide Poland along ethnic lines, man Catholic upbringing of both Hitler and granting the Nazis only the German-speaking re‐ Goebbels,” but does not cite, either in text or in an gions and Joseph Stalin the Slavic-speaking ones endnote, just who has been making so much of (p. 119). Indeed, Nazi Gauleiters carried out brutal this issue (p. 71). He declares that “it is a baffling campaigns of ethnic cleansing as they sought to fact that so many historians of Hitler continue to Germanize those areas of Poland annexed directly speak belittlingly of My Struggle as a key text ex‐ to the Reich in 1939.[4] plaining his later intentions” (p. 48). Unfortunate‐ We can add to these errors that the Catholic ly, the author does not indicate who all these his‐ Center Party was not outlawed in 1933, but in fact torians are. Kershaw in his two biographies of dissolved itself (p. 91). Hitler’s frst reaction to the Hitler; Karl Dietrich Bracher (The German Dicta‐ burning of the Reichstag was not to glibly declare torship: The Origins, Structure, and Effects of Na‐ “Good riddance to that trashy old shack” (p. 93). In tional Socialism [1970]); Eberhard Jäckel (Hitler’s fact, as historian Ian Kershaw recounts, he be‐ Worldview: A Blueprint for Power [1981]); Ger‐ came gripped by the fear that the Communists hard Weinberg (Germany, Hitler, and World War were attempting to launch a revolution against II [1995]); and Jeffrey Herf (The Jewish Enemy: his regime, and subsequently ordered a violent Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the crackdown to insure that a repeat of the Novem‐ Holocaust [2006]) are just a few of the many histo‐ ber 1918 revolution could not occur.[5] The book’s rians who have all stressed the fundamental place account of World War II is further riddled with Mein Kampf holds as the key explanatory text of mistakes. Denmark did not fall two months after National Socialist ideology. As the historian Fran‐ Norway fell in April 1940 (p. 133). Erwin Rommel cois Furet noted, “it is obvious that from the frst was not the primary innovator of Blitzkrieg and it two years--between the terrorized parliament’s is certainly problematic to claim that he was “the vote to endow him with total power and the Night most esteemed general, of whatever country, dur‐ of Long Knives--the Hitler in power was the same ing the entire war” (p. 158). It would have been Hitler who had written Mein Kampf.”[6] remarkable if he was, considering he never won a The book also often argues that surface simi‐ campaign. George S. Patton commanded only one larities between National Socialism and other po‐ of fve U.S. feld armies fghting in the European litical and religious institutions are far deeper 2 H-Net Reviews and more fundamental than they really are. For liberalism, and modernity as a whole. As histori‐ example, Wilson argues that Hitler was appointed ans George L. Mosse and Fritz R. Stern respective‐ chancellor by a normal and democratic process. ly argued in The Crisis of German Ideology: Intel‐ Hitler “became the Chancellor of Germany just as lectual Origins of the Third Reich (1964) and The many others have done since in milder and more Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of democratic times, by a series of telephone calls the German Ideology (1961), the basic building and a succession of compromises” (p. 82). Certain‐ blocks of National Socialism can be traced back to ly, on frst glance, the assembly of the Conserva‐ conservative völkish intellectuals writing during tive-National Socialist cabinet by Paul von Hin‐ the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. denburg and Franz von Papen in 1933 had the These völkish ideologues condemned the Enlight‐ veil of a democratic process. But is it accurate to enment for its overarching stress on reason over call the creation of a coalition of minority parties, emotion, zivilization over kultur, rationality over by a president who was contemptuous of the spiritualism, and individual human rights over Weimar constitution and had been governing for the national, organic will. three years using emergency decrees, as demo‐ Indeed, these right-wing intellectuals soon de‐ cratic? The appointment of Hitler as chancellor, veloped a “reactionary modernism” that em‐ the fnal death knell of Weimar democracy, was braced technology and science but condemned rung by men dedicated to seeing that republic de‐ and eschewed the political and social principles of stroyed.[7] In another example, the author argues the Enlightenment and political liberalism.[9] This that Hitler’s reliance on spectacle and grandiose reactionary iteration of modernity was fully em‐ speeches demonstrates that he “belonged to the braced by Hitler and the National Socialists, and oral future, the future which contained Walt Dis‐ their ideological worldview thus constituted a ney, television and cinema” (p. 26). Wilson’s asser‐ fundamental rejection of the Enlightenment and tion that Hitler broke with the “world of the text” political and economic modernity. The Nazis cer‐ ignores National Socialism’s heavy reliance on tainly embraced modern technology, utilizing textual material for its propaganda, such as its means of mass communication to spread their use of highly detailed (and verbose) “Wall News‐ message and building highways to better unify papers” to transmit its propaganda.[8] the German nation. But this was not done to make The book’s treatment of the Enlightenment men more reasonable, as Wilson’s book contends, and the issue of modernity is a good example of but to create a stronger, more organic racial state. how Wilson’s focus on only the most basic similar‐ Similar means do not mean similar objectives.
Recommended publications
  • Book Reviews Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars with Israel: East
    Book Reviews Jeffrey Herf, Undeclared Wars With Israel: East Germany and the West German Far Left, 1967–1989. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 493 pp. $29.99. Reviewed by Jeffrey Kopstein, University of California, Irvine In a fitting sequel to his book Divided Memory: The Nazi Past and the Two Germanys (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), Jeffrey Herf provides a mountain of evidence documenting how the Communist regime in the German Democratic Re- public (GDR) and the extreme-left opposition in West Germany supported Palestinian Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article-pdf/18/4/217/700114/jcws_r_00689.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 terrorists who murdered Jews both in Israel and in numerous other countries for more than two decades, from 1967 to 1989. If the 11th commandment of West German politics was to bolster the Jewish state or at least do no harm to Jews, the East German regime and the West German extreme left felt bound by no such strictures. The GDR provided weapons, training, medical care, vacation spots, and steady support in the United Nations (UN) for Israel’s enemies. The West German far left offered a steady drumbeat of propaganda about the evils of Zionism and occasionally backed up their rhetoric with violent acts against Jews. How did these Germans justify violence against Jews so soon after World War II? Herf points to a combination of Realpolitik and ideology. West Germany’s Hallstein Doctrine left East Germany isolated and desperate for diplomatic recognition. Once the Soviet Union threw its full weight behind the Arab side after 1967, the GDR (which alone among the Warsaw Pact states had never established diplomatic relations with Israel) became the most ardent backer of the radical rejectionist states: Syria, Iraq, Libya, and—until Anwar al-Sadat’s break with the USSR in 1972—Egypt.
    [Show full text]
  • D'antonio, Michael Senior Thesis.Pdf
    Before the Storm German Big Business and the Rise of the NSDAP by Michael D’Antonio A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Degree in History with Distinction Spring 2016 © 2016 Michael D’Antonio All Rights Reserved Before the Storm German Big Business and the Rise of the NSDAP by Michael D’Antonio Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Dr. James Brophy Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Dr. David Shearer Committee member from the Department of History Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Dr. Barbara Settles Committee member from the Board of Senior Thesis Readers Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Michael Arnold, Ph.D. Director, University Honors Program ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This senior thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of Dr. James Brophy of the University of Delaware history department. His guidance in research, focused critique, and continued encouragement were instrumental in the project’s formation and completion. The University of Delaware Office of Undergraduate Research also deserves a special thanks, for its continued support of both this work and the work of countless other students. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-89796-9 - Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick Excerpt More information 1 Introduction After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer with assistance from Sheila Fitzpatrick The idea of comparing Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union under Stalin is not a novel one. Notwithstanding some impressive efforts of late, however, the endeavor has achieved only limited success.1 Where comparisons have been made, the two histories seem to pass each other like trains in the night. That is, while there is some sense that they cross paths and, hence, share a time and place – if, indeed, it is not argued that they mimic each other in a deleterious war2 – little else seems to fit. And this is quite apart from those approaches which, on principle, deny any similarity because they consider Nazism and Stalinism to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, despite the very real difficulties inherent in comparing the two regimes and an irreducible political resistance against such comparison, attempts to establish their commonalities have never ceased – not least as a result of the inclination to place both regimes in opposition to Western, “liberal” traditions. More often than not, comparison of Stalinism and Nazism worked by way of implicating a third party – the United States.3 Whatever the differences between them, they appeared small in comparison with the chasm that separated them from liberal-constitutional states and free societies. Since a three-way comparison 1 Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (London: HarperCollins, 1991); Ian Kershaw and Moshe Lewin, eds., Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Henry Rousso, ed., Stalinisme et nazisme: Histoire et memoire´ comparees´ (Paris: Editions´ Complexe, 1999); English translation by Lucy Golvan et al., Stalinism and Nazism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004); Richard J.
    [Show full text]
  • Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick Excerpt More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-72397-8 - Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick Excerpt More information 1 Introduction After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer with assistance from Sheila Fitzpatrick The idea of comparing Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union under Stalin is not a novel one. Notwithstanding some impressive efforts of late, however, the endeavor has achieved only limited success.1 Where comparisons have been made, the two histories seem to pass each other like trains in the night. That is, while there is some sense that they cross paths and, hence, share a time and place – if, indeed, it is not argued that they mimic each other in a deleterious war2 – little else seems to fit. And this is quite apart from those approaches which, on principle, deny any similarity because they consider Nazism and Stalinism to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, despite the very real difficulties inherent in comparing the two regimes and an irreducible political resistance against such comparison, attempts to establish their commonalities have never ceased – not least as a result of the inclination to place both regimes in opposition to Western, “liberal” traditions. More often than not, comparison of Stalinism and Nazism worked by way of implicating a third party – the United States.3 Whatever the differences between them, they appeared small in comparison with the chasm that separated them from liberal-constitutional states and free societies. Since a three-way comparison 1 Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (London: HarperCollins, 1991); Ian Kershaw and Moshe Lewin, eds., Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Henry Rousso, ed., Stalinisme et nazisme: Histoire et memoire´ comparees´ (Paris: Editions´ Complexe, 1999); English translation by Lucy Golvan et al., Stalinism and Nazism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004); Richard J.
    [Show full text]
  • Jürgen Habermas and the Third Reich Max Schiller Claremont Mckenna College
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2012 Jürgen Habermas and the Third Reich Max Schiller Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Schiller, Max, "Jürgen Habermas and the Third Reich" (2012). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 358. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/358 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact scholarship@cuc.claremont.edu. Introduction The formation and subsequent actions of the Nazi government left a devastating and indelible impact on Europe and the world. In the midst of general technological and social progress that has occurred in Europe since the Enlightenment, the Nazis represent one of the greatest social regressions that has occurred in the modern world. Despite the development of a generally more humanitarian and socially progressive conditions in the western world over the past several hundred years, the Nazis instigated one of the most diabolic and genocidal programs known to man. And they did so using modern technologies in an expression of what historian Jeffrey Herf calls “reactionary modernism.” The idea, according to Herf is that, “Before and after the Nazi seizure of power, an important current within conservative and subsequently Nazi ideology was a reconciliation between the antimodernist, romantic, and irrantionalist ideas present in German nationalism and the most obvious manifestation of means ...modern technology.” 1 Nazi crimes were so extreme and barbaric precisely because they incorporated modern technologies into a process that violated modern ethical standards. Nazi crimes in the context of contemporary notions of ethics are almost inconceivable.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION the Goldhagen Controversy
    DISCUSSION The Goldhagen Controversy: Agonizing Problems, Scholarly Failure and the Downloaded from Political Dimension’ Hans-Ulrich Wehler (BieZefeZd) http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ When a contentious book with a provoca1.ive message has aroused lively, not to say passionate, controversy, it is desirable that any new contribution to the debate should strive to provide as sober and clear a cost-benefit analysis as possible. It is best, moreover, to attend first to the book’s merits and achieve- ments, before giving an equal airing to its faults and limitations. In the case of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hiller’s Willing Executioners such a procedure is parti- cularly advisable, since the response in the American and German media to at Serials Department on February 18, 2015 this six-hundred-page study of ‘ordinary Germans and the Holocaust’ has not only been rather speedier than that of the academic world-though scholarly authorities have also, uncharacteristically, been quick off the mark-but has impaired the debate by promptly giving respectability to a number of stereo- types and misconceptions. The enthusiastic welcome that the book has received from journalists and opinion-formers in America is a problem in its own right, and we shall return to it later. But here in Germany there is no cause for complacency either, since the reaction in the public media has been far from satisfactory. With dismaying rapidity, and with a spectacular self-confidence that has frequently masked an ignorance of the facts, a counter-consensus has emerged. The book, we are repeatedly told, contains no new empirical data, since everything of significance on the subject has long been known; nor does it raise any stimulating new questions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Failed Post-War Experiment: How Contemporary Scholars Address the Impact of Allied Denazification on Post-World War Ii Germany
    John Carroll University Carroll Collected Masters Essays Master's Theses and Essays 2019 THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY Alicia Mayer Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/mastersessays Part of the History Commons THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY An Essay Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts & Sciences of John Carroll University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts By Alicia Mayer 2020 As the tide changed during World War II in the European theater from favoring an Axis victory to an Allied one, the British, American, and Soviet governments created a plan to purge Germany of its Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Allies agreed to reconstruct Germany so a regime like the Nazis could never come to power again. The Allied Powers met at three major summits at Teheran (November 28-December 1,1943), Yalta (February 4-11, 1945), and Potsdam (July 17-August 2, 1945) to discuss the occupation period and reconstruction of all aspects of German society. The policy of denazification was agreed upon by the Big Three, but due to their political differences, denazification took different forms in each occupation zone. Within all four Allied zones, there was a balancing act between denazification and the urgency to help a war-stricken population in Germany. This literature review focuses specifically on how scholars conceptualize the policy of denazification and its legacy on German society.
    [Show full text]
  • From War to War – Europe During the First Half of the 20 Century
    From War to War – Europe during the first half of the 20th Century 15304.0052 – Winter Semester 2018/19 Lecturer: Dr. Johannes Müller, Mon – 10-11:30 – R. 0.01 (Building 326) European History during the 20th Century has been described as an “Age of Extremes” (Eric Hobsbawm), as a period in which the “Dark Continent” (Mark Mazower) went “to Hell and Back” (Ian Kershaw) and then had to be rebuild “Out of Ashes” (Konrad Jarausch). This is all the more surprising as the 19th Century seemed to forebode an age of culminating progress, characterised by scientific triumphs, civilizing achievements, accelerated discoveries and technological solutions for all problems and needs of mankind. Yet, the 20th century saw the most barbaric set- back Europe had experienced for ages: Two world-wars, slaughter and repression of entire people and populations, excesses of intolerance, hate and violence, dictatorship, tyranny and the spectre of nuclear apocalypse. Examining the first half of the 20th century is examining how Europe arrived at the edge of self-destruction. It also means to identify the lessons to be learnt by successive generations – as at least in part the second half of the century is reacting to and trying to avoid the errors of the first half. Historiography has just started to historicize the last century as a whole. Hence, we will also deal with competing interpretations which try to integrate the first half of the century into a comprehensive view of the entire epoch. Language of Sessions: English Papers may be written in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish Oral exams, where applicable, can be given in English, Italian and German.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy
    Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy’s fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today’s new and old democracies under siege. Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University where he is also a resident fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also currently Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute. His first book, Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (2006) received several prizes from the American Political Science Association. He has written extensively on the emergence of democracy in European political history, publishing in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Economic History, and World Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Nazi Germany and Its Entanglements with Other Empires
    Journal of Global History (2017), 12, pp. 206–227 © Cambridge University Press 2017 doi:10.1017/S1740022817000055 Colonial crossovers: Nazi Germany and its entanglements with other empires Patrick Bernhard Niels Henrik Abels vei 36, Blindernveien 11, 0851 Oslo, Norway E-mail: Dr.PatrickBernhard@web.de Abstract Nazi Germany’s place in the wider world is a controversial topic in historiography. While scholars such as Ian Kershaw argue that Hitler’s dictatorship must be understood as a unique national phenomenon, others analyse Nazism within comparative frameworks. Mark Mazower, for example, argues that the international concept of ‘empire’ is useful for comprehending the German occupation of Europe. Using an approach native to transnational cultural studies, my contribution goes a step further: I analyse how the Nazis themselves positioned their regime in a wider international context, and thus gave meaning to it. My main thesis is that, while the Nazis took a broad look at international colonialism, they differentiated considerably between the various national experiences. French and British empire-building, for instance, did not receive the same attention as Japanese and Italian colonial projects. Based on new archival evidence, I show that the act of referring in particular to the Italian example was crucial for the Nazis. On the one hand, drawing strong parallels between Italian colonialism and the German rule of eastern Europe allowed Hitler to recruit support for his own visions of imperial conquest. On the other hand, Italian colonialism served as a blueprint for the Nazis’ plans for racial segregation. The article thus shows the importance of transnational exchange for under- standing ideological dynamics within the Nazi regime.
    [Show full text]
  • Kurt Von Schleicher the Soldier and Politics in the Run-Up to National Socialism: a Case Study of Civil-Military Relations
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2013-06 Kurt von Schleicher the soldier and politics in the run-up to national socialism: a case study of civil-military relations Bitter, Alexander B. Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/34631 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS KURT VON SCHLEICHER—THE SOLDIER AND POLITICS IN THE RUN-UP TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM: A CASE STUDY OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS by Alexander B. Bitter June 2013 Thesis Co-Advisors: Donald Abenheim Carolyn Halladay Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704–0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704–0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2013 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS KURT VON SCHLEICHER—THE SOLDIER AND POLITICS IN THE RUN-UP TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM: A CASE STUDY OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Kpd and the Nsdap: a Sttjdy of the Relationship Between Political Extremes in Weimar Germany, 1923-1933 by Davis William
    THE KPD AND THE NSDAP: A STTJDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICAL EXTREMES IN WEIMAR GERMANY, 1923-1933 BY DAVIS WILLIAM DAYCOCK A thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. The London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London 1980 1 ABSTRACT The German Communist Party's response to the rise of the Nazis was conditioned by its complicated political environment which included the influence of Soviet foreign policy requirements, the party's Marxist-Leninist outlook, its organizational structure and the democratic society of Weimar. Relying on the Communist press and theoretical journals, documentary collections drawn from several German archives, as well as interview material, and Nazi, Communist opposition and Social Democratic sources, this study traces the development of the KPD's tactical orientation towards the Nazis for the period 1923-1933. In so doing it complements the existing literature both by its extension of the chronological scope of enquiry and by its attention to the tactical requirements of the relationship as viewed from the perspective of the KPD. It concludes that for the whole of the period, KPD tactics were ambiguous and reflected the tensions between the various competing factors which shaped the party's policies. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE abbreviations 4 INTRODUCTION 7 CHAPTER I THE CONSTRAINTS ON CONFLICT 24 CHAPTER II 1923: THE FORMATIVE YEAR 67 CHAPTER III VARIATIONS ON THE SCHLAGETER THEME: THE CONTINUITIES IN COMMUNIST POLICY 1924-1928 124 CHAPTER IV COMMUNIST TACTICS AND THE NAZI ADVANCE, 1928-1932: THE RESPONSE TO NEW THREATS 166 CHAPTER V COMMUNIST TACTICS, 1928-1932: THE RESPONSE TO NEW OPPORTUNITIES 223 CHAPTER VI FLUCTUATIONS IN COMMUNIST TACTICS DURING 1932: DOUBTS IN THE ELEVENTH HOUR 273 CONCLUSIONS 307 APPENDIX I VOTING ALIGNMENTS IN THE REICHSTAG 1924-1932 333 APPENDIX II INTERVIEWS 335 BIBLIOGRAPHY 341 4 ABBREVIATIONS 1.
    [Show full text]