Hitler loved Germany? (and the germans?)

[Belisarius II]

@Belisarius II do you think these underlying trends, values and attitudes pre-dated even the First World War? I mean, were they already there during the Imperial German era?

Yes many of them were. Racist, anti-Semitic, Eugenicist, and hyper nationalistic thinking were all on the rise in Wilhelmine German. Similar isms were also on the rise in other Western Nations, with strong Eugenicist movements in the United States, and Britain, which Dr. Goebbels credited with inspiring their racial "Hygiene" Laws. These screwy pseudoscientific theories became very popular in Germany, as a justification for intra White Racism, against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Magyars, and other minority groups in Germany, and Austria.

Pre WWI Germany suffered from a strong national sense of pessimism, that their culture was in decline, and that only a nationalist revival could reverse the decay. Many authors, and professors of the day reflected this in their writing, and lectures. The desire for a much stronger national leadership then the current regime provided was very strong, and many already spoke of the need for a Fuhrer to represent, and defend the true interests of the German Folk.

The Germans also had a feeling of being surrounded by enemies, beyond just the Franco/Russian Entente, to Britain, America, or any other power that might deny them their "Place in the Sun". The sense of national pessimism extended to fears they were going to be overtaken economically, and militarily by Russia, and other powers, This led to more aggressive thinking, that they had to strike their enemies first while they still had the chance. This prevailing mindset led to the General Staffs determination to launch a preemptive war against Russia in 1914. Oddly this "defensive" preemptive war on Russia would be based on a Balkan pretext, and via an invasion of Belgium, and France.

Defeat in the Great War only intensified all these tendencies, and added more fears. Socialist revolutions in Germany led to the rise of the counter force of the Right Wing Nationalists, and the Freikorps. Ethnic battles with the Poles, refugees from Soviet Russia, hyperinflation, the humiliation of Versailles, and the "Stabbed in the Back" Theory, and you half way there. Add in a rejection of Liberal Democracy, and cultural progressivism, and your 75% to a Right Wing Nationalist regime. With the Great Depression as a final catalyst, you have Red Front, SA street battles, and the writing is on the wall.

 

[Garrison]

Pre WWI Germany suffered from a strong national sense of pessimism, that their culture was in decline, and that only a nationalist revival could reverse the decay. Many authors, and professors of the day reflected this in their writing, and lectures. The desire for a much stronger national leadership then the current regime provided was very strong, and many already spoke of the need for a Fuhrer to represent, and defend the true interests of the German Folk.

This may be best illustrated by the popularity of Spengler's 'Decline of the West' in Germany, it's gloomy thesis that the 'West' had entered the 'Winter' phase of history and was doomed to fall seemed to take hold in certain circles, though Hitler for one vehemently rejected its conclusion that Germany was the prisoner of inevitable historical cycles. Given Germany's experience in WWI its hardly surprising such aa fatalistic work gained prominence whereas it didn't really take hold elsewhere.

 

[Aghasverov]

The Weimar Republic lacked legitimacy because of the way it was created. Germany also lacked a strong democratic tradition like in America, and this made the majority of Germans to easily reject democracy when things became desperate. I mean, for many Germans, democracy was a totally foreign concept. The whole political right totally and absolutely rejected democracy, and not enough, on the left you have the communists as well. The series of elections in 1932-1933 clearly showed the anti-democratic forces as a whole (both right and left) won well above 50% of total national votes (Nazis + DNVP + KPD).

German National People's Party - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Because most of the Protestant aristocracy, high civil servants, the Lutheran clergy, the Bildungsbürgertum (the upper middle-class), university professors, and Gymnasium (high schools for these destined to go to university) teachers supported the DNVP until 1930, the party had a cultural influence on German life far beyond what its share of the vote would suggest.[31] Because so many university professors and Gymnasium teachers supported the DNVP, everyone who went to university in Germany under the Weimar republic was exposed in some way to Deutsch-National influence" - well, the whole intelligentsia being dominated/infiltrated/perversed by a bunch of radical right-wingers who totally hated democracy is certainly not a thing in a healthy and stable democracy. The anti-democratic forces unfortunately had won the national debate in the German "free marketplace of ideas" long before the rise of Nazism. Also, in other democracies, the middle class were the main democratic groups. In Germany, the middle class were persuaded by reactionary politics and later Nazism (if that was not the case, the DDP - the only pro-democracy middle-class party - would have been way bigger than it actually was).

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that democracy was a totally foreign concept to many Germans. Ever read the German Constitution of 1871? It's really not such a bad document... While not as "democratic" as we tend to think of today, in the sense that it reserved significant powers to the Monarch (de jure) and more significant powers to the appointed Chancellor and Ministers (who de facto came to exercise most of the real power by 1914), it DID contain a democratic element in the Reichstag. Unfortunately there's a historiographic tendency among the "western democracies" to portray the German Empire as an autocracy on the order of the Russian Empire, and the Reichstag as basically just a sort of show debating society - this really wasn't the case.
The German Empire had a wider franchise (all adult males over 25) than many of the vaunted western democracies (what percentage of South Carolinians could vote in, say, 1914?), and the constituent monarchies and free cities of the Empire (some what, 25-26 of 'em?) all had their own elected local assemblies as well (although some, like Prussia, had a far more restrictive franchise for the state chambers).

 

[Resurgam]

Alexandra Richie's Faust's Metropolis, which is a fascinating history of Berlin, is also designed around the idea of using Berlin as a prism to view and understand Germany and its history. I'd highly recommend it since she goes in-depth on the feelings and beliefs of Germans and how it led to its brown conclusion.

 

[BlackDragon98]

As John Lukacs noted in The Hitler of History, the question of Hitler's attitude toward the German people was perhaps more complex than many people realize. There certainly were occasions toward the end of the war when he said that if they lost, that just showed they deserved to perish. But that was not the whole story:

View attachment 563905

It was the drugs, messing with his head.
We'll probably never know for sure how Hitler felt about Germany and Germans because after 1933, the guy was on drugs like 24/7 and it only got worse as the war went on.
A person on drugs is not their real self.

 

[Belisarius II]

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that democracy was a totally foreign concept to many Germans. Ever read the German Constitution of 1871? It's really not such a bad document... While not as "democratic" as we tend to think of today, in the sense that it reserved significant powers to the Monarch (de jure) and more significant powers to the appointed Chancellor and Ministers (who de facto came to exercise most of the real power by 1914), it DID contain a democratic element in the Reichstag. Unfortunately there's a historiographic tendency among the "western democracies" to portray the German Empire as an autocracy on the order of the Russian Empire, and the Reichstag as basically just a sort of show debating society - this really wasn't the case.
The German Empire had a wider franchise (all adult males over 25) than many of the vaunted western democracies (what percentage of South Carolinians could vote in, say, 1914?), and the constituent monarchies and free cities of the Empire (some what, 25-26 of 'em?) all had their own elected local assemblies as well (although some, like Prussia, had a far more restrictive franchise for the state chambers).

There's a lot of truth in what you say, but the reason Germany was more autocratic was the balance of powers between the branches. The Reichstag was elected, but it had no power over the budget, just a yes or no vote. They lacked oversight of the executive, and so had no ability to effect policy, or even know what was happening. If you don't know how policy is functioning how do you pass laws to reform government? How do you even find corruption, or inefficiency? The Chancellor is appointed by the Keiser, and is only responsible to him. Imperial officials were appointed by the Keiser, and swore an oath to him, not to the Constitution, or People. The Reichstag, and Courts were too weak, and the executive was to powerful. The Constitution itself was too weak, because it could be changed by majority vote, like changing a law. And the most basic problem was the People were not sovereign.

 

[Aghasverov]

There's a lot of truth in what you say, but the reason Germany was more autocratic was the balance of powers between the branches. The Reichstag was elected, but it had no power over the budget, just a yes or no vote. They lacked oversight of the executive, and so had no ability to effect policy, or even know what was happening. If you don't know how policy is functioning how do you pass laws to reform government? How do you even find corruption, or inefficiency? The Chancellor is appointed by the Keiser, and is only responsible to him. Imperial officials were appointed by the Keiser, and swore an oath to him, not to the Constitution, or People. The Reichstag, and Courts were too weak, and the executive was to powerful. The Constitution itself was too weak, because it could be changed by majority vote, like changing a law. And the most basic problem was the People were not sovereign.

A "yes or no" vote over a national budget can be a very substantial power to wield....

 

[Thomas1195]

There's a lot of truth in what you say, but the reason Germany was more autocratic was the balance of powers between the branches. The Reichstag was elected, but it had no power over the budget, just a yes or no vote. They lacked oversight of the executive, and so had no ability to effect policy, or even know what was happening. If you don't know how policy is functioning how do you pass laws to reform government? How do you even find corruption, or inefficiency? The Chancellor is appointed by the Keiser, and is only responsible to him. Imperial officials were appointed by the Keiser, and swore an oath to him, not to the Constitution, or People. The Reichstag, and Courts were too weak, and the executive was to powerful. The Constitution itself was too weak, because it could be changed by majority vote, like changing a law. And the most basic problem was the People were not sovereign.

And not to mention that Imperial Germany had a very large standing army that was loyal to the Kaiser not the people and the Reichstag. At worse, the Heer could simply march in and disband the Reichstag.

A large standing army was a legitimate threat to democracy at the time. Even France always had to watched over its army and officer corps all the time.

 

[Belisarius II]

A "yes or no" vote over a national budget can be a very substantial power to wield....

Yes it can, but it's one of those doomsday options that you don't want to use, because you don't know the consequences. A negotiation process before the fact is much better then a take it or leave it situation.

 

[Aghasverov]

And not to mention that Imperial Germany had a very large standing army that was loyal to the Kaiser not the people and the Reichstag. At worse, the Heer could simply march in and disband the Reichstag.

A large standing army was a legitimate threat to democracy at the time. Even France always had to watched over its army and officer corps all the time.

Did the Heer between 1871 and 1918 ever march in and disband the Reichstag?

 

[Aghasverov]

Yes it can, but it's one of those doomsday options that you don't want to use, because you don't know the consequences. A negotiation process before the fact is much better then a take it or leave it situation.

And it worked pretty well for almost 50 years

 

[Thomas1195]

And it worked pretty well for almost 50 years

It worked because the Social Democrats were shut out by the three-class voting system.

 

[Belisarius II]

And not to mention that Imperial Germany had a very large standing army that was loyal to the Kaiser not the people and the Reichstag. At worse, the Heer could simply march in and disband the Reichstag.

A large standing army was a legitimate threat to democracy at the time. Even France always had to watched over its army and officer corps all the time.

The Founders fear of a standing army came from the example of Cromwell, and the Roundhead Army. If I can use a fictional example. Most fans hated the Star Wars prequel movie trilogy, but I loved the politics. Palpatine hides his evil ambitions, creates a crisis reveling the impotence of the Senate. They need a stronger Chancellor, and he's right there to fill the job. He engineers a secession crisis, and he now has a ready made Clone Army. He fights the war to a victory, purges the Jedi, and claims he's fighting off a coup, and so the Empire is born to save the public from chaos. Brilliant.

 

[Belisarius II]

And it worked pretty well for almost 50 years

Yes it did, but what was it intended to be? It was more of a Sop to popular rule, then an actual Constitutionally balanced system.

 

[Aghasverov]

It worked because the Social Democrats were shut out by the three-class voting system.

The three-class voting system was employed in Prussia, not in the German national elections... The SD's were occasionally "shut out" (never entirely, though) by the single-member-district majoritarian elections, something that happens in fully functioning democracies today...
At least the German Empire provided for run-off votes for Reichstag seats, ensuring that a candidate was elected who could at least command a majority in his district - not like the FPTP plurality garbage that most of us in the "Anglosphere" are saddled with today...

 

[Thomas1195]

Yes it did, but what was it intended to be? It was more of a Sop to popular rule, then an actual Constitutionally balanced system.

And once progressives began to push forwards reforms that fundamentally weaken the Kaiser, the aristocrats and the Heer's political power, it would happen. IOTL, only the chaos in 1918 enabled them to successfully stage a revolution, and Versailles actually prevented the Weimar Republic from being couped outright. A 1-million Heer with zero restrictions would simply throw Weimar politicians into the prison and bring back the Kaiser.

 

[Aghasverov]

And once progressives began to push forwards reforms that fundamentally weaken the Kaiser, the aristocrats and the Heer's political power, it would happen. IOTL, only the chaos in 1918 enabled them to successfully stage a revolution, and Versailles actually prevented the Weimar Republic from being couped outright. A 1-million Heer with zero restrictions would simply throw Weimar politicians into the prison and bring back the Kaiser.

All conjecture, and all predicated upon the course of WWI evolving as in OTL... remember that a lot of the conscripts into the Heer were S-D's themselves...

 

[Aghasverov]

Yes it did, but what was it intended to be? It was more of a Sop to popular rule, then an actual Constitutionally balanced system.

You're absolutely right - that WAS Bismarck's idea of balance - he was quite cynical about any ideas of "popular sovereignty". I for one am not sure that he was wrong in that regard...

 

[Belisarius II]

And once progressives began to push forwards reforms that fundamentally weaken the Kaiser, the aristocrats and the Heer's political power, it would happen. IOTL, only the chaos in 1918 enabled them to successfully stage a revolution, and Versailles actually prevented the Weimar Republic from being couped outright. A 1-million Heer with zero restrictions would simply throw Weimar politicians into the prison and bring back the Kaiser.

Theoretically you could be right. You didn't need a million man Heer to overthrow Weimar, there were coup attempts, but the Army was never unified. They would never bring back the Kaiser, because they thought he was a buffoon, and after all they had overthrown him to begin with.

 

[Thomas1195]

Theoretically you could be right. You didn't need a million man Heer to overthrow Weimar, there were coup attempts, but the Army was never unified. They would never bring back the Kaiser, because they thought he was a buffoon, and after all they had overthrown him to begin with.

I mean, the old regime, not Kaiser Wilhelm specifically.

Or, in a Central Power victory scenario, the monarchy would be emboldened, not the progressives.

Even in a no World War TL, you only need a serious economic downturn. We would see SDs demanding cutting funding to the Heer and increasing social programs bla bla..., and interesting stuffs would occur.