For the beginning of this series, click here.
Eventually. I will hopefully make an index type page.
I think what has happened is I actually got lost on The Holocaust Explained website.
I think in part 1 of my series, I had first ended up on The Holocaust Explained website when I Googled economics and the rise of Nazis (not sure if those were the exact search terms I used). Then somehow I lost that particular page of the site and when I tried to get back to it, I ended up elsewhere on the site. And then I got off track.
So...back to economics.
After the Stock Market crash in the United States, things went downhill for Germany too. Because Germany had been getting loans from the U.S. The U.S stopped being so generous...out of necessity.
Wages fell 39%
Twenty million Germans were fully employed in 1929. By 1933, the number was reduced to 11 million.
Thousands of businesses closed.
What I've been wondering is how many people joined the Hitler-train not because they were especially antisemitic or believed in some kind of superior Aryan race but because they didn't like the direction the economy was going.
In the same way today, I wonder how many people jumped on the Desantis or Abbott train not because they were particularly transphobic but because they imagine that Biden is destroying the economy and Desantis, Abbot, or Trump can save it.
How many of those people are now becoming transphobic and homophobic, because it's just easier to go all in and be an enthusiastic rider?
And....
How many people are actually NOT that worried about the economy? Because their financial situation is actually quite secure. But they pretend to despair about high gas prices, because it seems more socially acceptable to push the message. I'm NOT a bigot! I'm just worried about the economy. But also.... Disney shouldn't be grooming children!
Speaking of Disney. I've heard stuff about Walt Disney being antisemitic and/or a Nazi sympathizer. Maybe I'll look into that in a future post.
* * *
The Holocaust Explained says that in 1932, The Allies (the team against Germany in World War I) gave Germany a break by suspending their reparation payments...indefinitely.
That, alongside a work creation scheme from the government, put a tiny bit of light in a dark situation.
But it wasn't enough.
The bad outweighed the good.
I feel like that about our time period. It's like each tiny bit of hopeful news is matched with a shit ton of bad news.
* * *
I'm struggling to figure out if I already read the next part on The Holocaust Explained.
I don't think I have.
But I'm not 100% positive.
Anyway....
In June 1928, a leader named Hermann Mueller created a political coalition made up of both left and right parties.
The Holocaust Explained says, Political parties seemed to be putting aside their differences and coming together for the good of Germany.
It sounds like some kind of political utopia.
But it didn't turn out as well as hoped.
Because there were so many different viewpoints, Mueller couldn't get legislation passed.
Okay. I think I know what happened.
I think I either read about all this on another website. OR I read it in a different section of The Holocaust Explained.
Or this shit repeated itself.
I know I read and wrote about a government coalition struggling to come together.
I don't know if it was Mueller, though?
I might check the old posts in a minute.
Before that, though...going to blab on a bit about how it reminds me of things in our current situation.
First of all, it reminds me of the current Senate. We had this idea that since we had the slim majority, we could get a lot of awesome legislation passed. But then two Democratic Senators (Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) become huge roadblocks to the plan.
Second of all, it makes me think of how some anti-Trump Republicans have either sided with Democrats or joined the Democratic party.
There's a spirit of the enemy of the enemy is my friend, and there's room for all of us under the umbrella!
Right now, there's sometimes a great feeling of comradeship.
BUT....what happens if the Democrats get the power we want...like a large majority in the Senate rather than a slim one; yet the wants and plans of these Democratic Senators are too varied from each other?
What if there's a happy medium that most Democrats in America would be happy with and most of the Senators and Representatives agree with, but there are Democrats too far to the right or too far to the left, and they refuse to compromise?
I'm at a place where I'd probably be happy with a lot of very progressive legislation. But if it's a choice between accepting more centrist legislation vs. doing nothing or worse: having Conservative legislation, I would rather congress members vote yes rather than being stubborn.
Anyway....back to the 1920's.
Leader Mueller tried to get help for the unemployed. Something with an Article 48? Mueller requested it.
A right-wing member of Government named Hindenburg gave Mueller a big fat no. The Holocaust Explained says that this was about Hindenburg disliking the left-wing being in power.
So although, there was a coalition with a mix of political sides, I guess the left had the main power.
Anyway, it reminds me of Mitch McConnell and how he prides himself on obstruction.
The other thing that's interesting to me is the website says Hindenburg was a right-wing conservative. Is that phrase redundant. Or can a person be a right-wing progressive? Left-wing conservative?
Really!
I continue to be so confused by all these terms.
* * *
I'm guessing the Hindenburg that blew up is named after the politician.
I'm going to do more research into this later.
I mean not the explosion but Hindenburg and Mueller.
I also want to look more into Mitch McConnell.
I'm definitely not a fan of his, because of his right-wing positions.
BUT what I'm now wondering is whether he's obstructing the Democrats, because he's against progressive policy? Or is he purposely trying to sabotage the Democrats, because he wants Republicans in power, because he wants power for himself.
If it's the latter, that means he's putting power and party over the country and its people,
If it's the former, I still hate him. But to be fair, how would I feel about a Democratic Senate Leader who has the main goal of obstructing conservative legislation?
I'd probably be very grateful.
Now would I support a Democratic Senator who blocked votes on a Republican Supreme Court nominee with the excuse that it was an election year; then turned around and installed a progressive judge months before the next election?
I don't think so.
Blatant hypocrisy like that doesn't sit well with me.
* * *
I'm going to talk to Lord Wiki about Hermann Mueller.
Mueller was the Chancellor of Germany in 1920 and then again from 1928-1930.
He was one of the German politicians who signed the Treaty of Versailles. This was the one not liked by right-wing Germans, and it was the one that said Germany had to pay reparations.
Mueller signed it not as Chancellor but back when he was Foreign Minister in 1919.
Mueller's party was the Social Democratic Party of Germany. It's still one of the main parties in Germany today.
Lord Wiki has a lot to say about the party. I might be interested enough to read later. I think it will help me understand what happened in Germany pre-Nazi days. For now, though, I just know it's left-winged.
Mueller was influenced politically by his father who was, in turn, influenced by a German philosopher and anthropologist named Ludwig Feuerbach.
Feuerbach sounds fascinating to me too. He was an atheist and critique of Christianity.
Lord Wiki says Mueller is the only German Chancellor who was not a member of any religion. Although he contradicts himself on another page, saying that Gustav Bauer was also irreligious.
Bauer was the leader before Mueller and also from the Social Democratic Party.
Anyway....
In the early 20th century, before the first war, Mueller changed from being left to more centrist. I imagine the right-wing Germans would be like today's American Republicans, calling Mueller far-left rather than centrist.
During World War I, Mueller supported something called Burgfriedenspolitik. This was a political truce between the Social Democratic Party and other political parties.
If I'm understanding this right, the SDP compromised by promising no union strikes while in return, the other political parties promised to refrain from criticizing the government and the war.
But then eventually members of the SDP started breaking ranks to oppose the war.
In his 1920's leadership days, Mueller showed support for disabled veterans by passing a law that said all public and private companies with at least 20 workers had to hire a worker disabled by accident or war.
How about if they were born with a disability?
Well, I'm not going to go into all that right now...just because I feel like I'm going to be falling down another major rabbit hole. I'm trying to stay on track. Kind of.
Lord Wiki talks about a bunch of policy that Mueller worked on. It sounds like he was passionate about helping the disabled by finding them employment.
* * *
Now I'm going to read about what Mueller was doing in 1920-1928. Or really maybe it's more about what Germany was doing without Mueller as leader from 1920-1928.
Who ousted Mueller from power in 1920?
That was Mr. Constantin Fehrenbach from the Catholic Zentrum party.
Was Zentrum to the right of the Social Democratic Party? I'm guessing yes. But how far to the right?
At this moment, I feel I'm at a crossroads.
Should I look more into Mueller from 1920-1928?
Or the party in power?
I should probably do the government in power.
Well, no.
I'm changing my mind.
If Mueller lost the election and left politics, that would be one thing. But he comes back. So his storyline is probably somewhat important.
* * *
I decided it would help me to get a bigger picture view of things.
So I am looking at Lord Wiki's list of Chancellors.
I'm wondering how many were there between Mueller's first run and Hitler.
There were twelve!! I included Mueller's first run in that.
I did NOT include all the leaders between the end of the Second Reich and Mueller's first run. There were three then.
This is all the Weimar Republic, by the way.
All together there were 15 different leaderships.
Most of the leaderships lasted under a year.
The longest consecutive run was Heinrich Bruning from the Centrist Party (2 years 61 days).
The shortest was Kurt Von Schleicher (51 days) who was non-partisan and the last before Hitler took over.
Really.
I am overwhelmed.
So many leaders.
Do I need to look into each of them?
I feel weird for concentrating on Mueller when there were so many others.
But maybe I do need to look at all of them...at least a little bit.
* * *
I decided, that for now, what I should do is go back to why I wanted to look at Mueller in the first place. It was what The Holocaust Explained said about his dispute with Hindenburg.
Not the blimp but the politician.
Lord Wiki is reminding me that it wasn't just Hindenburg. There were all kinds of problems with getting all the parties in the coalition to compromise.
During The Depression is when the Article 48-Hindenburg drama occurred. It was about providing unemployment insurance. There were disagreements on how to raise the money for that. Then Mueller wanted to use the Article 48.
Oh! Okay. Article 48 is something I read about in one of my earlier posts on all this. It's where the leader can take emergency measures without consulting the Reichstag (German legislature).
I guess it's not full-proof since Hindenburg blocked Mueller's plans.
Wait.
I see what's happening here.
There's two leadership jobs.
There's the chancellor and then there's the president.
It's the President who gets to do the Article 48 thing.
And Hindenburg was the President.
I'm so overwhelmed by all this.
Who had more power, the President or Chancellor?
From what I can gather, it was The President.
Well, and that makes sense since President Hindenburg thwarted Chancellor Mueller's plans.
It was a case of Mueller asking for Hindenburg's assistance and then Hindenburg knocking him back.
Guess who Hindenburg did NOT knock back?
If you guessed Hitler, you win.
* * *
Now I'm going to read a bit about Hindenburg.
I've been feeling a lot overwhelmed and confused about how to go about all this.
I think what I'll do, for now, is let the Holocaust Explained be my map. I'll read what they say and then if I want to know more, I'll Google. But I'll try not to go down too many rabbit holes or go down way too deep in one rabbit hole.
I'm also telling myself that I don't need to read everything, learn everything, and write down almost everything.
I'm going to kind of skim, through, and find what I think is interesting and/or relevant.
So here we go....
Paul von Hindenburg was President of Germany from 1925-1934.
Lord Wiki says he was pressured by advisors to appoint Hitler as Chancellor.
I wonder how much resistance he gave to the advice.
Hindenburg was a military man. He did the combat thing and then rose through military ranks.
In World War I, he led victories against Russia.
Lord Wiki says he became a hero. And Lord Wiki just introduced me to a concept called Cult of Personality.
Rabbit hole.....
* * *
Lord Wiki says a Cult of Personality is the result of an effort which is made to create an idealized and heroic image of a leader by a government, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Historically, it has developed through techniques of mass media, propaganda, the big lie, fake news, spectacle, the arts, patriotism, and government-organized demonstrations and rallies.
That sounds a bit familar.
Some examples of Cult of personality leaders—Juan Peron, Mao Zedong, XI Jinping, Mussolini, Modi, Hitler, The Kim family....
The list is actually quite long. Lord Wiki has a different, longer list on a separate page.
Donald Trump is on the list but so are other American presidents—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan, and Abraham Lincoln.
Lord Wiki says Kennedy had a cult of personality but it happened more AFTER he was assassinated. That's interesting. I wouldn't have expected that. Was his the type of celebrity death where people who didn't notice the celebrity before are suddenly obsessed?
* * *
Back to Hindenburg.
He retired from the military in 1919.
Germany lost the war.
I wonder if his cult of personality faded a bit with the loss and retirement.
Lord Wiki says he returned to public life in 1925. He became the second president of the Weimar President.
In the election, he ran as an independent.
The election had two rounds. Hindenburg wasn't in the first one.
Another right-wing politician was in the lead. But they had to have a second election, because that guy didn't have a majority vote. I think that would over 50%? I think it's similar to what happens in the United States with (maybe?) primaries and other non-Presidential elections.
Hindenburg was pushed to enter the second round where he got 48% of the votes.
Maybe I'm wrong about 50%.
Or maybe at some point, they lowered the standards rather than having an infinite rounds of elections.
Lord Wiki has a map of the first round.
Interestingly, Wilhelm Marx the Social Democratic candidate did well in seven states. Six of them are...
I was going to say coastal, but I think Germany is landlocked.
Is it?
No.
Not totally.
They have a bit of a coastal area up north.
That coastal area went for the non-Hindenburg right-wing guy.
There is a cluster of states that went more left.
They would have bordered Switzerland and France.
In the United States, coastal cities seem to be more left.
OR is it that our coastal cities also happen to be big cities, and big cities are more left?
Are border cities also more left?
I'll leave these as rhetorical for now.
I'll save the rabbit hole for another day.
It does get me thinking, though.
Were there major differences in states and cities when it comes to who embraced Hitler faster? Were there cities that were less antisemitic? Did any of them do extra resisting?
* * *
Lord Wiki says that Hindenburg didn't support Hitler but he played a role in the political instability that led to Hitler.
It kind of reminds me of my dad. He's never been part of the anti-vaccine movement. In fact, he's very pro-vaccine. But he did play a role in down-playing Covid, mostly in the form of sending us articles, videos, links that downplayed the virus. I saw a fascinating Vox video where they talked about how the downplaying of the virus played a huge part in vaccine hesitancy.
It's kind of an unfitting analogy, because my dad isn't a politician and doesn't have a huge platform.
But...I don't know.
I guess they're both cases where a person doesn't directly support something, but their behavior is part of the catalyst that causes something.
I guess in the vaccine case, it's not an individual (such as my dad) who causes it but instead Trump, Trump's sycophants and worshippers, Fox News, etc.
* * *
Hitler won the election in November 1932. Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor in January 1933.
There was an arson attack on the German Parliament building. This led to Hindenburg agreeing to one of those decree-things. Lord Wiki says it suspended various civil liberties. Hindenburg was willing to sign that for Hitler but hadn't been willing to sign something to help with Mueller's unemployment plan.
Holy shit.
So...after that decree, Hindenburg signed another decree that allowed the Chancellor (Hitler!) to sign his own decrees without needing the Reichstag's blessing OR the president's.
When Hindenburg died a year later, Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor; then declared himself Fuhrer.
I have so much more to learn.
But this post is super long.
I'm going to stop here and continue later in a new post.
What I read from Lord Wiki today was just his introduction/summary paragraphs about Hindenburg. I might dig a little deeper in the next post....
No comments:
Post a Comment