“Fire walls” are relevant again today, but they didn’t happen back then. How should conservatives act against the right-wing extremists against the backdrop of Weimar?
In Thuringia, the bourgeois parties had no problems accepting the NSDAP into the state government in 1930 - with the consequences already described. The CDU/CSU, on the other hand, has so far ruled out coalitions with the AfD at federal or state level. One can only hope that she sticks to this principle. Because the example of Thuringia shows what happens when the “fire wall” comes down. Once the taboo is broken, the consequences for the Union and indeed for political conservatism in the Federal Republic would be devastating.
The AfD is sometimes compared or equated with the NSADP. What do you think of it?
The AfD has some ideological overlaps with the NSDAP, and their mobilization strategies show certain similarities. However, there are some key differences: Fortunately, it does not have a charismatic leader like Hitler; It does not maintain a paramilitary civil war force in the form of the SA, and quite apart from the fact that it is not planning a war of conquest or genocide, it does not represent – at least not yet clearly – the goal of completely abolishing parliamentary democracy, but rather of transforming it into one “illiberal democracy”, for example along the lines of Viktor Orbán in Hungary.
Sometimes it is argued that the AfD will be “disenchanted” through integration and participation: What should we make of this historically?
The AfD would probably not be “disenchanted” by being involved in political responsibility; it would probably become stronger rather than weaker. In 1933, the conservatives of Weimar also believed that they could ”tame” the Hitler movement by involving them in the “government of national concentration.” This turned out to be a major miscalculation. It only took Hitler a few months to outplay his conservative allies and establish his unrestricted dictatorship.
It is a bitter irony of history that Hitler came to power when the Nazi Party was already in decline.
By the end of 1932, Hitler’s star was actually on the decline. In the Reichstag election at the beginning of November, the NSDAP lost massive numbers of votes for the first time and the party found itself in a serious crisis. Many astute observers at the time were of the opinion that Hitler’s rise was slowed and his decline was unstoppable. The fact that he finally came to power was not due to the lack of “endurance” of the Democrats, especially the Social Democrats, the actual state party of the Weimar Republic, which fought tenaciously and sometimes to the point of self-denial for the continued existence of democracy. The transfer of power to Hitler was the result of a dark scheming behind the scenes, in which the camarilla around President Hindenburg pulled the strings.
Hitler was not an “industrial accident,” you write, pointing out the importance of the decisions made by individuals in specific situations. What is your advice to our current political leaders?
My first advice would be not to underestimate your opponent. Hitler also came to power because Hindenburg’s camarilla believed they could “engage” him for their own purposes. Björn Höcke may seem like a joke, but he is not harmless. Vigilance and a clear stance against opponents of democracy are needed. When it comes to Donald Trump, you shouldn’t rely on the fact that things won’t get that bad, but rather prepare yourself for eventualities. My second recommendation concerns cooperation between bourgeois and left-wing parties. The founding compromise of Weimar was based on the cooperation of the social democrats with the moderate parties of the middle class, i.e. the Center and the DDP. In the so-called “Grand Coalition” between 1928 and 1930, these parties, together with the right-wing liberal DVP, had the chance of forming a government without the nationalists and the conservative opponents of the republic.
But in 1930 this was over, followed by the so-called presidential cabinets, which were solely dependent on the goodwill of the Reich President?
The fact that Hindenburg’s camarilla was able to usher in the era of presidential cabinets was also due to the fact that the “grand coalition” could not agree on a few percentage points on unemployment insurance. This really shouldn’t happen to the Democrats again. But the break in the traffic light coalition shows worrying parallels, even if the consequences are not as serious as in 1930. Then as now, the core issue was the question of the financing and scope of the welfare state. And then, as now, the breaking point lay between social democracy and a right-wing liberal party. In the interest of the whole, one must step over one’s own shadow in the fateful hour of a democracy and disregard petty party interests. The end of the traffic light makes it clear that this lesson has not yet been understood everywhere. In terms of the future, this means: Now is not the time for principled arguments or tactical games. Now is the time for courageous and pragmatic initiatives from all democratic parties.
It will become clear in the next few months what role Wagenknecht and her party want to play in German politics: that of the KPD in the Weimar Republic, which together with the NSDAP formed a negative majority and whose first goal was to close the Weimar Republic destabilize? Or that of a party that, despite everything, ultimately stabilizes the system and helps to enable majorities against the right-wing populists.
Because then you overlook what scope for action and alternatives there were, and that the outcome was more open than a perspective focused solely on the downfall would suggest. So, to put it bluntly, you are promoting a fatalistic attitude and missing the real lesson of the Weimar Republic, namely that it is important to fight for democracy. And, by the way, one would not do justice to the striking contradictions that this era contained. It was not only a time of crisis and political instability, but also a brilliant era in culture and science that has lost none of its appeal to this day.
What are the historical lessons from Weimar Germany that can inform our understanding of today’s political extremism?
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, everyone, to this special interview on the lessons of history and their relevance to our current political landscape. Today, we have with us a distinguished expert in political history, Dr. Hans Müller. Dr. Müller, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Hans Müller (DHM): Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
TNE: Let’s dive right in. The phrase “fire walls” has made a resurgence in conversations about political extremism. Can you explain what these “fire walls” entail and their historical significance, particularly in the context of Weimar Germany?
DHM: Certainly. The term “fire wall” refers to the boundaries that established political parties set against extremist movements to prevent their integration into mainstream politics. In Weimar Germany, in 1930, the bourgeois parties breached this fire wall by accepting the NSDAP – the Nazi Party – into their government, leading to catastrophic consequences for democracy. Today, we’re witnessing similar dynamics, specifically with the AfD in Germany. It’s essential for conservative parties like the CDU/CSU to maintain their stance against coalitions with such extremist groups to safeguard democratic values.
TNE: That’s a sobering reminder of our history. There’s often a comparison drawn between the AfD and the NSDAP. Can you provide your perspective on this?
DHM: The AfD does have some ideological overlaps with the NSDAP, such as nationalist rhetoric and certain mobilization strategies. However, significant differences exist: the AfD lacks a charismatic leader like Hitler and does not have the paramilitary structures that the Nazis had, such as the SA. While they may seek to transform parliamentary democracy into an “illiberal democracy,” at least for now, their goals don’t extend to outright domination or genocide as the Nazis did.
TNE: In light of these risks, some argue that integrating the AfD into political processes might “disenchant” them. Historically, how valid is this argument?
DHM: Historically, such thoughts have proven to be dangerously misguided. The belief that the NSDAP could be “tamed” by involving them in government was a crucial miscalculation that contributed to Hitler’s rise. The AfD would likely become more emboldened rather than less if given political responsibility. History teaches us to be extremely cautious of this strategy.
TNE: Reflecting on history, you mention that Hitler came to power during a period when the Nazi Party was perceived to be in decline. Can you elaborate on this irony?
DHM: Absolutely. By late 1932, the NSDAP was experiencing a significant electoral decline, leading to widespread belief that Hitler’s influence was waning. However, it was through a combination of political maneuvering behind the scenes – particularly by President Hindenburg’s inner circle – that he was brought to power. This reminds us that the ascent of extremist movements often involves complex political machinations, rather than mere public support.
TNE: That’s an important perspective. Looking at our current leaders, what would you advise them to consider based on these historical lessons?
DHM: Firstly, political leaders must avoid underestimating their opponents. Just as Hindenburg’s circle fell into the trap of thinking they could control Hitler for their own benefit, today’s leaders should recognize that figures like Björn Höcke of the AfD, while they may seem laughable, pose a genuine threat. Vigilance and a firm stance against undemocratic movements are essential. Secondly, cooperation among moderate parties—both bourgeois and left-wing—was critical in the Weimar era. They must prioritize collaboration over partisan squabbles in moments of crisis.
TNE: You mentioned the “Grand Coalition” and its breakdown leading to the presidential cabinets in the Weimar Republic. How can we prevent a similar situation today?
DHM: That’s crucial. The disintegration of the coalition came down to minor disagreements on unemployment insurance, which should never have overshadowed the need to preserve democracy. Currently, we’re seeing troubling parallels with the breakdown of the traffic light coalition in Germany. The focus should be on unity, especially regarding vital issues like welfare state funding. Political leaders must rise above petty interests during critical times.
TNE: as we conclude, what emerging patterns should politicians and citizens keep an eye on to safeguard democracy for the future?
DHM: Individuals must stay alert to the signs of extremist ideologies creeping into mainstream politics, as well as the tactics used by such groups to normalize their rhetoric. Active engagement in democracy and dialogue between differing political factions remains crucial. History has taught us that complacency can lead to dangerous outcomes. We must learn and adapt, ensuring we don’t fall into the same traps that our predecessors did.
TNE: Dr. Müller, your insights have been invaluable today. Thank you for sharing your expertise on these crucial issues facing our society.
DHM: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing these pressing matters.