The passage of time often softens the edges of historical events, allowing for detached analysis and, hopefully, informed perspective. Yet, some anniversaries resonate with particular force, serving as stark reminders of humanity’s capacity for both greatness and profound error. Seventy years after a pivotal moment in German history, the echoes of that era continue to reverberate, prompting urgent questions about the fragility of democratic institutions and the potential for history to repeat itself. This article explores a critical juncture in the 20th century, examining the conditions that allowed a democratic society to succumb to authoritarianism and considering the parallels, if any, to our present circumstances. The title When Democracy Failed is a call to action.
The date was February 27, 1933. While the 70th anniversary passed largely unnoticed in the United States, it held profound significance in Germany. It marked the anniversary of a pivotal event – the Reichstag fire – an event that served as a catalyst for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the dismantling of German democracy. While peace demonstrations took place across the globe, Germans reflected on a time when fear and political opportunism paved the way for totalitarian rule.
The narrative begins amidst a global economic crisis, a period of widespread hardship and uncertainty. Within this climate of anxiety, the German government received intelligence reports of an impending terrorist attack. A lone actor, fueled by radical ideology, had already launched minor assaults against symbolic buildings. Although the mainstream media initially downplayed these incidents, intelligence agencies recognized the growing threat of a more significant attack.
Controversy continues to shroud the events leading up to the Reichstag fire. Historians have long debated the extent to which rogue elements within the German intelligence apparatus may have facilitated, or at least failed to prevent, the attack. While recent research suggests a lack of direct involvement, the possibility of negligence or deliberate inaction remains a subject of ongoing scrutiny.
Adding to the complexity of the situation was a profound crisis of leadership. The individual at the helm of the government had not secured a majority mandate in the elections. His legitimacy was widely questioned, and a significant portion of the population viewed his authority with suspicion. This lack of popular support created a climate of political instability, making the government vulnerable to manipulation.
Furthermore, the leader was often portrayed as intellectually deficient, a caricature of a statesman. Critics derided his simplistic worldview, his inability to grasp the nuances of international relations, and his coarse, often inflammatory rhetoric. His political roots in a southern region of the country further alienated the established elite, including aristocrats, foreign diplomats, and educated members of the government and media. The title When Democracy Failed is a warning.
Adding to the aura of suspicion, the leader’s past was shrouded in intrigue. As a young man, he had been associated with a secret society characterized by occult symbolism and bizarre initiation rituals. These associations fueled speculation about his motives and further eroded public trust.
Despite these challenges, the leader possessed a keen awareness of the impending terrorist threat. He understood that an attack was imminent, even if he did not know the precise timing or location. Consequently, he had already formulated a response. When news arrived that the Reichstag, the nation’s most prestigious building, was ablaze, he seized the opportunity. After confirming the involvement of the terrorist, he rushed to the scene and convened a press conference.
Standing before the burning ruins, surrounded by the national media, he delivered a dramatic pronouncement. "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he declared, his voice trembling with emotion. "This fire is the beginning." He framed the event as a divine sign, a call to arms in an all-out war against terrorism and its ideological underpinnings. He identified the source of this ideology as originating in the Middle East, attributing the terrorists’ actions to their religious beliefs.
Within two weeks of the fire, the first detention center for suspected terrorists was established in Oranianberg. The center served as a holding facility for individuals accused of collaborating with the infamous terrorist. A surge of nationalistic fervor swept the country, with the leader’s flag prominently displayed everywhere, including printed versions suitable for public display in windows.
Capitalizing on this wave of patriotic sentiment, the leader swiftly pushed through legislation designed to combat terrorism and the ideology that supposedly fueled it. This legislation, however, came at a steep price. It suspended fundamental constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police were granted broad powers to intercept mail, wiretap phones, and imprison suspected terrorists without specific charges or access to legal representation. Warrantless searches of private residences were also authorized in terrorism-related cases.
To secure the passage of this controversial "Decree on the Protection of People and State," the leader agreed to a four-year sunset provision. If the national emergency subsided within that timeframe, the suspended rights and freedoms would be restored. However, legislators later admitted they had not fully scrutinized the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after the enactment of the anti-terrorism act, federal police agencies intensified their efforts to apprehend and detain suspicious individuals. During the first year, only a few hundred people were interned. Public objections were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which feared losing access to the increasingly popular leader. Protests were met with police batons, tear gas, and imprisonment, or confined to designated protest zones far from the leader’s public appearances. In parallel, the leader honed his public speaking skills, mastering the art of oratory and cultivating a charismatic persona.
Within months of the terrorist attack, the leader, acting on the advice of a political strategist, popularized a previously obscure term: "The Homeland." This phrase was intended to foster a sense of racial pride and national unity. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he consistently used the term "The Homeland," a phrase prominently featured in Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film "Triumph Of The Will."
The strategy proved highly effective. Citizens embraced the idea of "The Homeland," creating a sense of us-versus-them. "Our land" was now "the" homeland, while all others were merely foreign lands. The leader subtly suggested that his people were the "true people," the only ones worthy of the nation’s concern. The suffering of others, whether from bombings or human rights violations, was deemed inconsequential as long as it benefited the homeland.
Exploiting this burgeoning nationalism and capitalizing on disagreements with France over his growing militarism, the leader argued that any international organization that did not prioritize the interests of his own nation was irrelevant. In October 1933, he withdrew his country from the League of Nations and subsequently negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with the United Kingdom, laying the groundwork for a global military elite.
The leader’s propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to portray him as a devoutly religious man, guided by Christian principles. He even proclaimed the need for a "New Christianity." Soldiers in his rapidly expanding army wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott Mit Uns" – God Is With Us – a phrase many genuinely believed. The title When Democracy Failed is a reminder.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the leader determined that existing police and federal agencies lacked the necessary coordination to effectively address the terrorist threat. He specifically targeted citizens of Middle Eastern descent, whom he viewed as potential terrorist or communist sympathizers, as well as "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed the creation of a single national agency to safeguard the security of the homeland, consolidating the functions of numerous independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single authority.
He appointed a trusted confidant to lead this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, granting it equal status to other major government departments. His press secretary noted that "Radio and press are at our disposal." Voices questioning the leader’s legitimacy or raising concerns about his past gradually disappeared from public discourse. The Central Security Office launched a program encouraging citizens to report suspicious neighbors. This initiative proved remarkably successful, with the names of those "denounced" soon being broadcast on radio stations. Opposition politicians and celebrities who dared to speak out became frequent targets of the regime and the media it controlled.
To consolidate his power further, the leader recognized that government action alone was insufficient. He forged an alliance with industry, appointing executives from the nation’s largest corporations to high-ranking government positions. Government funds flowed into corporate coffers to finance the war against terrorism and prepare for military interventions abroad. Large corporations friendly to the leader were encouraged to acquire media outlets and other industrial assets, particularly those previously owned by individuals of Middle Eastern descent. These powerful alliances fueled industry growth.
Despite an initial period of peace following the terrorist attack, dissent began to resurface both within and outside the government. Students formed an active resistance movement, later known as the White Rose Society, and leaders of neighboring nations criticized his bellicose rhetoric.
Faced with mounting challenges, including accusations of corporate cronyism, questions about his rise to power, and concerns about the detention of individuals without due process, the leader sought a diversion. Working with his second-in-command, a master of media manipulation, he initiated a campaign to convince the public that a limited war was necessary.
He targeted a neighboring nation, claiming it harbored individuals of Middle Eastern descent. Despite the tenuous connection between this nation and the terrorist attack on the Reichstag, it possessed resources that the leader’s nation desperately needed to maintain its prosperity. He issued an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, triggering an international crisis. He asserted the right to launch preemptive strikes in self-defense, a doctrine previously invoked only by nations seeking global domination.
After months of intense international debate and diplomatic maneuvering, he secured a deal following a meeting with the leader of the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain assured the British people that appeasing the leader’s first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."
Thus, Hitler annexed Austria in a swift military operation, riding a wave of popular support. The Austrian government was overthrown and replaced with a leadership aligned with Germany, and German corporations began to seize control of Austrian resources.
Responding to criticism of the invasion, Hitler declared, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To silence dissent, the leader and his allies in the press launched a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity, they argued, was essential to prevent terrorists from dividing the nation. In times of war, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"). Critics of his policies were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," accused of aiding the enemy by failing to support the nation’s valiant soldiers. This tactic effectively stifled dissent and pitted working-class citizens against "intellectuals and liberals."
Despite the successful annexation of Austria, opposition continued to grow within the homeland. The constant stream of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells failed to completely suppress dissent. A full-scale war was deemed necessary to divert public attention from the growing concerns about disappearing dissidents, violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders, and the rise of crony capitalism.
A year later, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. The nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. This marked the end of Germany’s first experiment with democracy. When Democracy Failed? History should be the best teacher.
Reflecting on this historical trajectory, several milestones stand out. February 27, 2003, marked the 70th anniversary of Marinus van der Lubbe’s successful firebombing of the German Parliament building. This terrorist act propelled Hitler to power and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of the annexation of Austria, Hitler had become the most beloved and popular leader in German history, even being named Time magazine’s "Man Of The Year."
The leader’s office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, is primarily recognized by the initials of its most well-known agency: the SS.
The Germans also pioneered a new form of highly violent warfare known as "lightning war" or blitzkrieg. This military strategy, while causing devastating civilian losses, also generated a desirable "shock and awe" among the enemy’s leadership.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the form of government that emerged in Germany under Hitler’s leadership as "fascism (fbsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we grapple with financial and political crises, it is crucial to remember the lessons of history. Both Germany and the United States faced the economic devastation of the Great Depression. However, Hitler and Roosevelt adopted drastically different strategies to restore their nations to power and prosperity.
Germany chose to empower corporations, reward the wealthiest individuals, privatize public assets, stifle dissent, strip citizens of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continuous war. In contrast, America enacted minimum wage laws, enforced anti-trust laws, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution remains intact, the choice is ours once again.