Book Review: The Third Reich In Power, 1933-39 (2005) by Richard J. Evans

I reviewed the first volume in this trilogy here, and the second is just as gripping and informative. Volume two is chiefly remarkable for the way it answers the question of how and why the average German was able to go along with Hitler's bloodthirsty nationalism and antisemitism. Evans also manages to dispel the myth that the Nazi Party was somehow able to lift Germany out of the Depression.

After WW II historians and sociologists spent a lot of time arguing about and commenting on the fact that Germany, in many respects one of the most civilized European countries prior to WW I, was able to become the most uncivilized in double-quick time. Evans shows that the economic battering and civil unrest that plagued Germany throughout the 1920s essentially created a punch drunk populace that was softened up for Hitler's message: the imminent return of a Germany both powerful and proud. His rabid nationalism also seemed like a strong antidote to the threat (as perceived by the middle and upper classes) of Marxism. Once in power, Hitler and the Nazis began the quick, brutal and ruthless suppression of all forms of dissent. Everyone from trade unionists to Catholics to boy scouts were bullied, jailed, exiled or killed in an effort to create a Nazi-centric state. Given the very high levels of intimidation the Nazis dealt out it becomes less surprising that the German people were reluctant to voice opposition to Hitler. That being said, Evans leaves us in no doubt that after 1933 most Germans were, to a point, supporters of Hitler. However, few of them could have anticipated how great his desire was for conquest and bloodshed.

Evans doesn't delve much into the psychological and sociological reasons for antisemitism, but he shows us that Germany was far from alone in persecuting Jews. Throughout the '30s countries like Poland, Hungary and Romania enacted antisemitic legislation and regulations that often equaled what the Nazis were up to. For all the usual religious and scapegoat reasons, the '30s saw a huge rise in antisemitism across Europe. Where Germany differed was in the enormous propaganda effort the Nazis put into demonizing Jews. Books, movies, radio, newspapers, speeches, there was no form of communication the Nazis didn't use, and use often, to persuade Germans that Jews were a curse upon the land. Evans shows that even Germans who had no particular dislike for Jews prior to 1933 became enthusiastic antisemites after only a few years of non-stop Nazi propaganda.

Popular opinion has often said that Hitler and the Nazis managed to turn the German economy around after they came to power. Not so. The Nazis reduced employment to a large degree by redefining who qualified as unemployed. Seasonal workers, for example, were no longer listed as unemployed when their jobs ended. Germany also began to simply print more money in order to pay for rearmament and public works projects. By 1939 the Germany economy was, in fact, nearing collapse; rationing was becoming commonplace and the consumer economy was disappearing. The Nazis needed a war in 1939 if only to prevent economic disaster. Their economy seemed vibrant but was, in reality, grossly deformed.

If the third volume in this series is as good as the first two it will arguably have to stand as the best history of Germany and the Nazis that's been written.

Book Review: The Coming of the Third Reich (2003) by Richard J. Evans

This is the first in a three volume history of the Third Reich, covering the period from 1919-33. And while the author can't offer any new information about this era, he certainly does an admirable job of analyzing and laying out the reasons for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party.

Evans does a particularly good job of pointing out that the Nazis were not voted into power by the German electorate. It's a popular misconception that Hitler gained power democratically, when in fact the most support the Nazis ever got in a free election was 37% of the vote. The left wing vote was only marginally lower, but it was split between two parties, the Communists and the Social Democrats. The appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor in place of Hindenburg in 1933 is what allowed to Nazis to fully grab the reins of power, especially after the Reichstag fire (which wasn't an act of Nazi sabotage) gave Hitler an excuse to declare a state of emergency.

The idea that Germans followed Hitler blindly and unhesitatingly also takes a bit of a drubbing in Evans' analysis. Once Hitler became Reich Chancellor in January 1933, the Nazis, via their SA and SS goon squads, began a reign of terror against anyone and everyone they regarded as a real or possible opponent. Hundreds were killed, thousands beaten up, and tens of thousands were arrested and held in the first concentration camps. Although the terror wasn't on a Stalinist scale, a clear message was sent to the German people that dissent from the Nazi party worldview was a guarantee of harsh persecution.  The hundreds of thousands of Germans who joined the Nazi party at this time were, it would seem, motivated by fear more than ideology.

The author also does a good job of placing the Nazis' anti-Semitism in a historical context. Prior to WW I Germans were probably not Europe's most noted anti-Semites. That title could have been given to the French or Russians. Germany's military failure in WW I and its subsequent economic collapse had many Germans looking for a suitable scapegoat and Jews were, of course, the historically-preferred choice for that role. Beyond that, it would seem that it was Hitler's own pathological, visceral loathing of Jews that motivated the Nazi party to move from harassment to persecution to genocide.

There's an interesting parallel that can be drawn between the Nazi party and contemporary right-wing movements such as the Tea Party. The Nazis never had a rational political platform or philosophy. Their "politics" consisted solely of railing against the corruption and ineptitude of the Weimar Republic and appealing to aggressive fantasies about race and nationalism. Likewise, the Tea Party screams that the federal government is incompetent and pernicious, wraps itself in the flag at all times, sees America as preordained to rule the world, and has a thinly disguised dislike of Americans who aren't white and Christian. In both cases, the real or perceived failure of central government provides the impetus for a kind of blind, unreasoning anger that finds expression in a political party built around slogans and imagery rather than coherent policy.