My Weimar Culture Presentation

[Free Thinker]

I recently gave a presentation on the Weimar Culture in Germany in my history class at my college (I am taking part time classes there in addition to High School). The time length was 30 minutes, and I relied heavily on "Ominous Parallels". I can't attach the presentation (its too big), but here are the notes I used. Send me a message if you want to see the .ppt!

weimar_pres_notes.doc

[Free Thinker]

FYI -

If you are reading the notes, each numbered point corresponds to each slide. Sorry for the typos!

[Strangelove]

First off, I have not yet read the Ominious Parallels, so sorry if any point I make is already dealt with by that book.

That being said, I am a bit suspicious of some of the historical reasoning that you use throughout the presentation. Here are some of my concerns:

“Germany lost WWI and thus turned to Nazism because of its inner lure and attractiveness.

This Theory is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, Austria lost the war and didn’t become a Facist power and Italy gained at the Treaty of Versailles and did become a Fascist power."

To simplify it down to simply "loosing WWI" denies that other factors which were present in Germany but not in Italy or Austria, and also denies aspects of Italy and Austria.

Factors that Germany had which no other nation had:

-War Guilt Clause from Treaty of Versailles

-Loss of territory due to Treaty of Versialles

-Reperation Payments, that initially resulted in hyper inflation.

-Forced, if not outright hypocrticial disarmamanet. No other nation was pushed to disarm as Germany did.

-Foreign Occupation (France in the Ruhr)

-The immediate rise of a Parliamentian Government (Weimer) in the aftermath of a tradition of authoritarian (not Totalitarian) rule which had been established by Bismark, utilized by Kaiser Wilhelm I, and which was also utilized during WWI. Germany lacked the expirence and readiness to deal with the issues of a Democracy.

Also remember:

-Italy did not make any real gains at Verailles, despite being promised quite a bit.

-The Austrian Government did infact have a strong Nazi movement, and was leaning twoards authoritarianism like most European countries.

The next comment you make is this:

“Hitler was able to come to power due to the harsh reparations and unfair blame put on Germany, thus it was due to their Great Depression”

The reason why this is wrong is because all industrial nations at that time were struggling with Great Depressions, but few of them turned to Nazism.

First off, no other nation would immediatley turn to Nazism cause it was an explicitly German concept of "National Socialism" with racist and misguided overtones of Aryanism.

Also keep in mind, that even if not all nations turned to Nazism, all nations did become protectionist, they all instituted some sort welfare program (not just FDR, France and the UK as well) and of course, The Great Depression did lead the Japanese to inavde Manchuria and the Italians to invade Abyssiniya even before Hitler's own expansionism began. The Great Depression

did have a simialr effect on all nations it hit.

I would however, understand your point that its interesting to see that a Right Wing Regime came to power when it would seem a Left Wing Regime would be the more "likely response" (such as Bernard Show's flirtations with Stalin) but I would only remind that the Nazis in the early years did play heavily the "Socialist" element of "National Socialism" and that some of their projects (building the Autobahn) do ring to the same tune of state public works projects.

Now I do understand and largely agree with your point that Weimar culture allowed the Nazi's to gain a foothold, but I think that its a rather all encompassing answer you propose which ignores several important facts:

-The German "Electorate" did not make Hitler the Chancellor. The Nazis were the largest party but never the majority party in the Reichstag. Infact, int eh last set of elections, the Nazis did loose some seats.

-Hitler was selected to be Chancellor because of political agreements made with various other German politicians. Germany was already leaning twoards general authoritarisnism as far back as pre-great depression Stressman. The "People" never made Hitler Chancellor

-The electorate which did help Hitler, was very agrarian, and they were not the kinds of people who would often go to the Berlin art gallery to see the latest expresionist painting, or read the latest nihilist literature.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I get the impression that you are trying to make philosophy fit the circumstances. In otherwords, you are trying to make anti-Objectivist ideas the cause of Nazism, when in my opinion, you seem to be giving them more credit then they are worth.

I appologise if this critism is not something to wanted to hear, but I felt that there were some gaps in the logic of the presentation that needed to be filled.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Strangelove

[BurgessLau]

First off, I have not yet read the Ominious Parallels [...]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I get the impression that you are trying to make philosophy fit the circumstances. In otherwords, you are trying to make anti-Objectivist ideas the cause of Nazism, when in my opinion, you seem to be giving them more credit then they are worth.

What do you believe was the philosophical cause of the rise of Nazism in Germany?

[Strangelove]

You are trying to get me to attribute the rise of Nazism to a single cause, a "philisophical" case. I don't see merit in that view for this situation. I do not believe that because, and only because of the weakness of the philosophies of the Weimar Cultural scene that Nazism was able to rise.

I find that view incorrect, not out of denial of the weakness of nihilism as an idea. But because its a view which assumes that the Nazi party gained strength among the Weimar elite and intelligentsia, which is not true. Its also a view that attributes far too much power and influence to a group that lacked it.

The Nazi parties core electoral strength was the agrarian component of society. Not a component of society that was heavily exposed to, or weakened by nihilism or existentialism. Support for Hitler came here less out of any command to pledge loyalty to the state, then for advocating the Romantic idea of the "Volk" and a return to a "simpler time". Additionally, Hitler did not have total electoral support in the ubran areas where people were reading on existentialism and watching metropolis, because the Nazis were not the majority party, and were a party that had the potential to go down the road of electoral decline.

More importantly, Hitler's rise to Chancellor was not allowed by members of the Weimar cultural scene who held existential or nihilistic ideas, but by politicians such as Hindenburg who were generally interested in seeing some semblence of authoritarianism due to the German political "tradition" of authoritarianism, a tradition that argurably was carried over from Prussia and Bismarck, and so backed Hitler as the candidate to lead the authoritarian drive, believing him to be a chractecter who could be manipulated. (they were of course, incorrect).

I doubt that Hindenburg was a large fan of the expresinist movement. He was of the old Prussian order and to attribute his appointing of Hitler as Chancellor to Weimar Cultural trends seems far fetched.

[Strangelove]

My appologies for putting the critism in this thread, such would have been more apporpriate for the "Member Writing" forum, I was not aware that a proper forum for peer review existed.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Strangelove

[unskinned]

You are trying to get me to attribute the rise of Nazism to a single cause, a "philisophical" case. I don't see merit in that view for this situation. I do not believe that because, and only because of the weakness of the philosophies of the Weimar Cultural scene that Nazism was able to rise.

I doubt that. The standard point here is that philosophy was the main reason for the rise of Nazism. The extent to which a philosophy influenced the culture is roughly associated with the time it took for that philosophy to become popular and widely accepted. The most influential philosophers, as far as I am concerned, were Kant, Hegel, and Shopenhauer. There is a saying, "evil triumphs when good men do nothing." For a brilliant example of a philosophy that reccomends that the virtuous men literally withdraw from the world and do nothing, read Shopenhauer (sp?). All societies go through hard times, it is usually the extent to which philosphy has been corrupted in that society that they succumb to those hard times.

Futhermore, there are two different issues being discussed here. One is the rise of Nazism, the other is the unleashing of the Nazis on Europe. Philosophy also had a negative influence on Europe, especially (for instance, moral relativist) those which allowed people to want peace at any price. As long as we are talking about the effect of the nazis on Europe and World War II, we are talking about the negative influence of philosphy on the French and English. Hitler's armies had orders to retreat from the Ruhr at the first sign of French resistance. There was no resitance. Again, evil trimphs when good men do nothing.

[unskinned]

More importantly, Hitler's rise to Chancellor was not allowed by members of the Weimar cultural scene who held existential or nihilistic ideas, but by politicians such as Hindenburg who were generally interested in seeing some semblence of authoritarianism due to the German political "tradition" of authoritarianism, a tradition that argurably was carried over from Prussia and Bismarck, and so backed Hitler as the candidate to lead the authoritarian drive, believing him to be a chractecter who could be manipulated. (they were of course, incorrect).

That is not entirely true. I have read some accounts of existentialist students at the time claiming to have been generally horrified by the support for Nazism. But at least one of the major figures of existentialism, Martin Heidegger, was an undeniably rabid advocate of Nazism and Hitler. They found thousands of dead troopers on the eastern front and N. Africa with Heidegger's works in their packs.

Also, you may be right in suggesting that philosophy did not drive the general intelligentsia to support Hitler, but that is not the main point. Philosphy drove the intelligentsia to fail to challenge Hitler. Again, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. And it's not just Shopenhauer, either. Many early existentialists, as far as I have understood them, took the stand that there is no "set" of ethics. That there is no way to justify reccomending one code of values over another. It is a kind of moral caution which does not keep people from joining the resistance, once the evil is blindingly obvious, but rather that makes them unwilling to see evil that is obvious but more distant. It is a kind of moral caution that justifies the condemnation and fighting of evil only after it is entirely too late.

Also, when I talk about evil here, Strangelove, I am referring to threats to my life, personally. Nothing more than that, just so you know. That is an Objectivist idea of evil.

Edited May 15, 2005 by unskinned

[Hal]

Martin Heidegger, was an undeniably rabid advocate of Nazism and Hitler.  They found thousands of dead troopers on the eastern front and N. Africa with Heidegger's works in their packs. 

I find it almost impossible to believe the average trooper could/would read Heidegger, do you have some kind of source for this?

Philosphy drove the intelligentsia to fail to challenge Hitler.

Most major existentialist figure opposed Nazi Germany. Many had Soviet sympathies, and were disgusted by Heidegger's stance.

Many early existentialists, as far as I have understood them, took the stand that there is no "set" of ethics.  That there is no way to justify reccomending one code of values over another.

This isnt entirely true. Doing nothing while Hitler rose to power would have almost certainly been 'bad faith' (Sartre term), or 'inauthentic' (Heideggerian), and there is nothing more 'anti-Existentialistic' than quietism.

It is a kind of moral caution which does not keep people from joining the resistance, once the evil is blindingly obvious, but rather that makes them unwilling to see evil that is obvious but more distant. It is a kind of moral caution that justifies the condemnation and fighting of evil only after it is entirely too late.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Edited May 16, 2005 by Hal

[unskinned]

I find it almost impossible to believe the average trooper could/would read Heidegger, do you have some kind of source for this?

Here is one source.

On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy

by Tom Rockmore

University of California Press, 1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among these prophets, Heidegger was perhaps the most unlikely candidate to influence. But his influence was far-reaching, far wider than his philosophical seminar at the University of Marburg, far wider than might seem possible in light of his inordinately obscure book, Sein und Zeit of 1927, far wider than Heidegger himself, with his carefully cultivated solitude and unconcealed contempt for other philosophers, appeared to wish. Yet, as one of Heidegger's most perceptive critics, Paul Hühnerfeld, has said: ***"These books, whose meaning was barely decipherable when they appeared, were devoured. And the young German soldiers in the Second World War who died somewhere in Russia or Africa with the writings of Hödlerlin and Heidegger in their knapsacks can never be counted."... ****

What Heidegger did was to give philosophical seriousness, professorial respectability, to the love affair with unreason and death that dominated so many Germans in this hard time... And Heidegger's life -- his isolation, his peasant-like appearance, his deliberate provincialism, his hatred of the city -- seemed to confirm his philosophy, which was a disdainful rejection of modern urban rationalist civilization, an eruptive nihilism.

... When the Nazis came to power, Heidegger displayed what many have since thought unfitting servility to his new masters -- did he not omit from prints of Sein und Zeit appearing in the Nazi era his dedication to the philosopher [Edmund] Husserl, to whom he owed so much but who was, inconveniently enough, a Jew?

Peter Gay, Weimar Culture, the Outsider as Insider, Harper Torchbook, 1970, pp. 81-83.

I think Leonard Peikoff wrote that it is a common fallacy that reason is the faculty of supermen. In the original German, I bet Heidegger was actually pretty straightforward. I realized that he writes very logically and clearly. I do not take Huhnerfeld's "...can never be counted" as a deliberate vaguery but as a statement that these works were well known to be widely read by this population. It might be comparable to the way Chomsky and Zinn are read in America. This characterization by Huhnerfeld does not conflict with my understanding of what was once called "The Nation of Philosophers."

Edited May 16, 2005 by unskinned

[unskinned]

I wrote: Philosphy drove the intelligentsia to fail to challenge Hitler.

You replied:

Most major existentialist figure opposed Nazi Germany. Many had Soviet sympathies, and were disgusted by Heidegger's stance.

Many had Soviet sympathies... I view that as a failure to challenge Nazism. What an awful alternative intellectually, and certainly historically. Lenin's victims alone almost cry out from the grave at such a suggestion. That was part of the reason fascism erupted, many europeans wanted anything but to be submitted to that.

Edited May 16, 2005 by unskinned

[unskinned]

Here is another quotation which seems to echo the idea of Germans having philosophy in their packs:

The book concludes with a helpful epilogue, "Europe Discovers Nietzsche," where Safranski discusses some early interpretations of Nietzsche's thought (Mann, Bertram, Baeumler), the often-mentioned fact of the distribution of 150,000 copies of This Spoke Zarathustra to World War I German foot-soldiers (along with the Bible and Goethe's Faust), and Nietzsche's influence on several great European minds of the twentieth century (Bergson, Jaspers, Heidegger, Adorno/Horkheimer, and Foucault).

from:Essays in Philosophy

A Biannual Journal

Vol. 4 No. 1, January 2003

Book Review (of)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Rüdiger Safranski. Translated by Shelley Frisch. London and New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2002. 409pp.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/martin2rev.html

Yes, it was a different war and slightly richer subject matter, but only slightly different in both cases. I don't consider Zarathustra to be light reading.

[Hal]

I wrote: Philosphy drove the intelligentsia to fail to challenge Hitler.

Many had Soviet sympathies...   I view that as a failure to challenge Nazism.

Then I'd have to say you were mistaken. The soviets were in direct opposition to Nazism, regardless of what may be said about similarities between the two ideologies.

Regarding Heidegger:

Yes, it was a different war and slightly richer subject matter, but only slightly different in both cases. I don't consider Zarathustra to be light reading.

I would say its light reading compared to something like Being and Time, which is in my opinion one of the most difficult works of philosophy ever written. Even a casual reader of TSZ with no philosophical background would probably get 'something' from it even if they missed most of Nietzsche's deeper meanings and misinterpreted him (as most do), but I wouldnt expect them to get more than 10 pages into BT before giving up in disgust/confusion. The same applies to Chomsky/Zinn - you cant really compare those works with BT in terms of difficulty. Edited May 18, 2005 by Hal

[punk]

Here is one source.

On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy

by Tom Rockmore

University of California Press, 1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among these prophets, Heidegger was perhaps the most unlikely candidate to influence. But his influence was far-reaching, far wider than his philosophical seminar at the University of Marburg, far wider than might seem possible in light of his inordinately obscure book, Sein und Zeit of 1927, far wider than Heidegger himself, with his carefully cultivated solitude and unconcealed contempt for other philosophers, appeared to wish. Yet, as one of Heidegger's most perceptive critics, Paul Hühnerfeld, has said:  ***"These books, whose meaning was barely decipherable when they appeared, were devoured. And the young German soldiers in the Second World War who died somewhere in Russia or Africa with the writings of Hödlerlin and Heidegger in their knapsacks can never be counted."... ****

What Heidegger did was to give philosophical seriousness, professorial respectability, to the love affair with unreason and death that dominated so many Germans in this hard time... And Heidegger's life -- his isolation, his peasant-like appearance, his deliberate provincialism, his hatred of the city -- seemed to confirm his philosophy, which was a disdainful rejection of modern urban rationalist civilization, an eruptive nihilism.

... When the Nazis came to power, Heidegger displayed what many have since thought unfitting servility to his new masters -- did he not omit from prints of Sein und Zeit appearing in the Nazi era his dedication to the philosopher [Edmund] Husserl, to whom he owed so much but who was, inconveniently enough, a Jew?

Peter Gay, Weimar Culture, the Outsider as Insider, Harper Torchbook, 1970, pp. 81-83.

I think Leonard Peikoff wrote that it is a common fallacy that reason is the faculty of supermen.  In the original German, I bet Heidegger was actually pretty straightforward.  I realized that he writes very logically and clearly.  I do not take Huhnerfeld's "...can never be counted" as a deliberate vaguery but as a statement that these works were well known to be widely read by this population.  It might be comparable to the way Chomsky and Zinn are read in America.  This characterization by Huhnerfeld does not conflict with my understanding of what was once called "The Nation of Philosophers."

Heidegger is absolutely *not* straightforward in the German. I've read "Sein und Zeit" in the German, and it is written in that horrible style that characterizes German academic philosophy. On top of this Heidegger gives words idiosyncratic technical meanings as well as basing quite a bit of his reasoning on German word etymologies. Heidegger makes Hegel look like a font of literary clarity (I've read him in German too). For that matter Heidegger makes Kant look like Shakespeare (again, I've read Kant in German).

Perhaps a better comparison to Heidegger in English might be James Joyce, there is something of the the feeling of stream-of-consciousness in Heidegger.

If you would contend that it is just the German language which invites this philosophical style, a simple reading of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer would show what clearly written German philosophy can be like (I've read them in German too).

Heidegger was probably familiar to quite a few people at the time though. German culture has a tradition of the prince among the German philosophy professors who becomes something of a popular cultural figure (the current holder of this position is Habermas). People were probably familiar with him through word-of-mouth accounts of his thought, and some of his lighter material (essays and such) which were very specific on topic and don't range much over his general theory, as well as transcripts of his lectures (you will notice that quite a bit of the Heidegger corpus is transcripts of lectures on this or that topic). I really doubt "Sein und Zeit" was well read popularly.

[punk]

Here is another quotation which seems to echo the idea of Germans having philosophy in their packs:

Yes, it was a different war and slightly richer subject matter, but only slightly different in both cases.  I don't consider Zarathustra to be light reading.

Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries had a much more intellectual culture than contemporary America. A working class German was much more likely to be reading and discussing literary works of merit than their contemporary American counterparts. So they might be reading Nietzsche, Goethe, Thomas Mann or the like whereas the American counterpart is more likely to be reading Stephen King, or some "Left Behind" novel.

This seems to be an American problem rather than Germany being exceptional. I recall hearing that in the 70's and 80's you could go into bars in Latin America and easily strike up a conversation about the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez with strangers. I don't see anything like that happening in most American bars.

[unskinned]

Heidegger is absolutely *not* straightforward in the German.  I've read "Sein und Zeit" in the German, and it is written in that horrible style that characterizes German academic philosophy.  On top of this Heidegger gives words idiosyncratic technical meanings as well as basing quite a bit of his reasoning on German word etymologies.  Heidegger makes Hegel look like a font of literary clarity (I've read him in German too).  For that matter Heidegger makes Kant look like Shakespeare (again, I've read Kant in German).

Perhaps a better comparison to Heidegger in English might be James Joyce, there is something of the the feeling of stream-of-consciousness in Heidegger.

If you would contend that it is just the German language which invites this philosophical style, a simple reading of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer would show what clearly written German philosophy can be like (I've read them in German too).

Heidegger was probably familiar to quite a few people at the time though.  German culture has a tradition of the prince among the German philosophy professors who becomes something of a popular cultural figure (the current holder of this position is Habermas).  People were probably familiar with him through word-of-mouth accounts of his thought, and some of his lighter material (essays and such) which were very specific on topic and don't range much over his general theory, as well as transcripts of his lectures (you will notice that quite a bit of the Heidegger corpus is transcripts of lectures on this or that topic).  I really doubt "Sein und Zeit" was well read popularly.

I think you're right Punk. Despite what I wrote, Heidegger is certainly not straightforward in English. Thankyou for relating that experience and also for the insight about the difference between Schopenhauer's clearer writing and Heidegger's unclarity in English. That seems very true. I think, in addition to inappropriately proposing that "Sein und Zeit" is straightforward, I misused the Peikoff quotation about reason and supermen to suggest that there were many men of reason among the Germans. I think your comment about the philosohical interest of many early 20th Century Germans is more appropriate, as they were philosophically interested but hardly men of reason.

Getting back to the point, my original comment was that thousands of troopers died with Heidegger's works in their packs. It was NOT that most did. I was never suggesting that. I will also reiterate that I do not think Heidegger bares the most intellectual responsibility for the assumption of the Nazis. As I wrote, it would seem that is on Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and the darker romantics. Yet, it is obvious that he bares some responsibility.

When I review or come across even better sources than those already posted, I will be sure to bring them here.

[Bold Standard]

Don't forget that the Soviets originally supported the Nazis. In fact, members of the Communist Party living in Germany were ordered to vote for Hitler. There is a reference to that in _Ominous Parallels_, but I don't have my copy handy for a page number.

I wrote: Philosphy drove the intelligentsia to fail to challenge Hitler.

You replied:

Many had Soviet sympathies...  I view that as a failure to challenge Nazism.  What an awful alternative intellectually, and certainly historically.  Lenin's victims alone almost cry out from the grave at such a suggestion.  That was part of the reason fascism erupted, many europeans wanted anything but to be submitted to that.

[Eric Mathis]

Don't forget that the Soviets originally supported the Nazis.  In fact, members of the Communist Party living in Germany were ordered to vote for Hitler.  There is a reference to that in _Ominous Parallels_, but I don't have my copy handy for a page number.

Why wouldn't Communists vote for their own Communist Party candidates? They were gaining on the Nazis in every election leading up to 1933. Fear of a Communist electoral victory is why Von Papen struck a bargain with Hitler, opening the way for Hitler to become Chancellor.

[punk]

Why wouldn't Communists vote for their own Communist Party candidates? They were gaining on the Nazis in every election leading up to 1933.  Fear of a Communist electoral victory is why Von Papen struck a bargain with Hitler, opening the way for Hitler to become Chancellor.

The German Communists felt that National Socialism represented the culmination of a failing capitalist order. After this last hurrah's attempts to maintain capitalism inspite of its collapse, the oppressed proletariat would rise up and overthrow it and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course without allied occupation of Germany after the war, this is probably what would have happened.

[Bold Standard]

The German Communists felt that National Socialism represented the culmination of a failing capitalist order.  After this last hurrah's attempts to maintain capitalism inspite of its collapse, the oppressed proletariat would rise up and overthrow it and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course without allied occupation of Germany after the war, this is probably what would have happened.

I disagree. The Nazis were always explicitly anti-Capitalist. They were as vehement in their comments against Capitalism as they were in their comments against the Jews.

I believe that the German Communists voted for the Nazi party because they didn't want to divide the vote. They believed that they and the Nazi's were fighting a common enemy- Capitalism. They thought the Nazi's were more likely to win, so they supported them. I think they believed that once Capitalism was defeated by the Nazis, they would be able to sway the vote back to themselves.

But the difference between Nazism and Communism is in method, not intention or fundamental ideology. The Nazis wanted the German public to believe that they were working *with* ("tolerating") private businesses somewhat, instead of obviously and explicitly seizing absolute control. But the Communists knew what the Nazis true intention was.

[punk]

I disagree.  The Nazis were always explicitly anti-Capitalist.  They were as vehement in their comments against Capitalism as they were in their comments against the Jews.

I believe that the German Communists voted for the Nazi party because they didn't want to divide the vote.  They believed that they and the Nazi's were fighting a common enemy- Capitalism.  They thought the Nazi's were more likely to win, so they supported them.  I think they believed that once Capitalism was defeated by the Nazis, they would be able to sway the vote back to themselves.

But the difference between Nazism and Communism is in method, not intention or fundamental ideology.  The Nazis wanted the German public to believe that they were working *with* ("tolerating") private businesses somewhat, instead of obviously and explicitly seizing absolute control.  But the Communists knew what the Nazis true intention was.

The issue isn't what you think the Nazis were, nor what the Nazis thought the Nazis were. The issue is what the *German Communists* thought the Nazis were.

In Marxist-Leninist thought, the ultimate stage of capitalism is imperialism. Imperialism involves the oppression of the population at the behest of the ruling class (the owners of capital) so that the ruling class (capital) can plunder abroad to keep profits at acceptible levels.

Under this system of thought the Nazis can be seen as the beginning of imperialism, and since in Marxist-Leninist thought things have to happen in a certain order, they would see it as a good thing to let the imperialists run their course fore-doomed to failure.

Also, the Communists never voted for the Nazis. They simply refrained from voting at all. They were going to let the inevitable happen after which they were going to triumph.

[Eric Mathis]

The German Communists felt that National Socialism represented the culmination of a failing capitalist order.  After this last hurrah's attempts to maintain capitalism inspite of its collapse, the oppressed proletariat would rise up and overthrow it and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course without allied occupation of Germany after the war, this is probably what would have happened.

Then why was the German Communist Party bothering to field its own candidates and winning elections? In 1930 the Communists received 4.5 million votes and took 77 seats in the Reichstag. If the Communists had thrown their support to the Nazis, Hitler would have had a majority in the Reichstag and could have come to power three years earlier. So why were the German Communists voting for Communists when they could have voted for what "represented the culmination of a failing capitalist order"?

[punk]

Then why was the German Communist Party bothering to field its own candidates and winning elections?  In 1930 the Communists received 4.5 million votes and took 77 seats in the Reichstag.  If the Communists had thrown their support to the Nazis, Hitler would have had a majority in the Reichstag and could have come to power three years earlier.  So why were the German Communists voting for Communists when they could have voted for what "represented the culmination of a failing capitalist order"?

As with all political parties, there are wings to the party representing diverse views. One wing believed they could work through parliament and take over, another wing believed they had to let the Marxist dialectic work to its conclusion.

While the Nazis were an outsider party like the Communists without any support from the German political establishment, the first wing was generally in control of the Communists and they continued to run against the Nazis. At a certain point though the German political establishment decided they would take the Nazis under their wing and use them to consolidate parliamentary control (which of course ended up being a big mistake for the German political establishment, but that was later). The Communists perceived this alliance between the establishment (i.e. capital) and the Nazis as a sign that the establishment had made a fundamental change in its intentions and methods. It is at this point that the second wing becomes dominant, and they essentially boycott the parliament.

[Eric Mathis]

As with all political parties, there are wings to the party representing diverse views.  One wing believed they could work through parliament and take over, another wing believed they had to let the Marxist dialectic work to its conclusion.

While the Nazis were an outsider party like the Communists without any support from the German political establishment, the first wing was generally in control of the Communists and they continued to run against the Nazis.  At a certain point though the German political establishment decided they would take the Nazis under their wing and use them to consolidate parliamentary control (which of course ended up being a big mistake for the German political establishment, but that was later).  The Communists perceived this alliance between the establishment (i.e. capital) and the Nazis as a sign that the establishment had made a fundamental change in its intentions and methods.  It is at this point that the second wing becomes dominant, and they essentially boycott the parliament.

Bold Standard stated on Mat 31 that "In fact, members of the Communist Party living in Germany were ordered to vote for Hitler. "

So it would appear that those doing the "ordering" had absolutely no influence over the Communist Party hierarchy itself or over the millions who voted their ticket. Otherwise, the number of Communist candidates in the elections of the early 1930s would have been zero. (We can only wonder if these "orders" were coming ultimately from the office of Dr. Goebbels!)

How about this as a contemporary model: In fact, members of the Republican Party were ordered to vote for Kerry, since Kerry represented the culmination of a failing socialist order. The fact that some Republicans voted for Bush anyway just proves there are "wings to the party representing diverse views."

Of course, demanding any information about exactly who is doing this ordering produces a complete blank out.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[punk]

Bold Standard stated on Mat 31 that "In fact, members of the Communist Party living in Germany were ordered to vote for Hitler. "

So it would appear that those doing the "ordering" had absolutely no influence over the Communist Party hierarchy itself or over the millions who voted their ticket.  Otherwise, the number of Communist candidates in the elections of the early 1930s would have been zero.  (We can only wonder if these "orders" were coming ultimately from the office of Dr. Goebbels!)

How about this as a contemporary model: In fact, members of the Republican Party were ordered to vote for Kerry, since Kerry represented the culmination of a failing socialist order.  The fact that some Republicans voted for Bush anyway just proves there are "wings to the party representing diverse views."

Of course, demanding any information about exactly who is doing this ordering produces a complete blank out.

I didn't really follow any of that. What are you saying?

My account is based on my memory of reading history books on the coming to power of the Nazis in the Weimar republic several years ago. If parts of the account are historically wrong, then I will admit so when confronted with historical data. I have never had a high opinion of Peikoff (a low opinion which I derived from reading "Ominous Parallels" actually), so I don't really consider that a source.

From what little I think I understood of your post though, it seems like you are trying to get theory to trump actual data, and when data disagrees with theory, to throw data out.