The real problem was the decline of the moderate parties and their failure to work together against the extremists. German politics were becoming dangerously polarized as more and more voters turned to the extreme parties of the right or left.
As always who rules? Workers or Capitalists and Feudalists. Stalin suicidally instructed Ernst Thalman of the KPD to treat the SPD as Fascists. Hitler went up the middle and won without a squeek from the Left. Hitler paced his room waiting for the General strike which never eventuated! Stalin was the one who let Hitler in. Stalin idiotically said never mind after Hitler our turn. He thought Naz'ism couldn't possibly last!
Please do tell if I am wrong, Is it true that because the Nazi party was kind of a new party that it got a major advantage as it didn’t so much get into the political talk of the day and when they did attempt a coup d’ate the trial revealed quite a bit of Hitler’s charmistic side and showed that he could possibly be a the new face of the extreme right. The KPD had the reputation quite well ruined because of the sparctist uprising and the major mainstream parties had made names for themselves for getting caught up in political troubles. The Nazis did a lot of their activities in such a way that was typical of mainstream parties. If this is way too obvious, sorry for that. I have only recently begun to search this up as I have an fascination with modern German History.
Bruening put part of the blame on the Allies of WW I. He argued that if he could have got any concessions from them on reparations, he could have improved the economy and kept Hitler out of power, because more voters would then have supported the Centre Party.
William Cooke I think there's some merit in that but remember the Reparations had already been considerably slackened thanks to the Young and Dawes Plans and the German economy was doing really rather well, as was politics, post 1924 in the Golden Age, although the wind was positively yanked from the sails when the Great Depression hit. American funds and investments in Germany industry dried up and debts started to be recalled from Germany. The moderate parties argued more and more on how to deal with the crisis; nothing worked, and the extremists saw their chance and took it.
A significant thin-to-modest majority of American politicians in and out of the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations and even outside either major party were arguing the same thing at the time. Ironically a significant but small minority of US politicians who wanted to 'punish' Germany and their allied nations immediately after WW1 hypocritically/compartmentalized-sociopathy turned out to be many of the same folk that later supported Hitler and/or Mussolini!
I have read that Schleicher's interior minister told Hindenburg he had to take either the Nazis or the Communists into the government to preserve public order. The Nazis and the Communists were going at each other hammer and tongs in the streets of Berlin and other German cities; and under the Treaty of Versailles the government was not allowed a big enough army to keep public order there and still guard the frontiers against attack by either the French or the Poles.
Actually, no. The Nazi's were making it a point to hold marches through neighborhoods sympathetic to the communists. This wasn't out of control street fighting. These street fights had been planned for, expected and provoked by the Nazi's. The Nazi's had engineered "chaos" to give the impression through the mass media that the nation was out of control. The seizure of Austria, Danzig and Bohemia all followed the same pattern. As soon as these places were secured, Brown Shirt marches through Red neighborhoods were called off, suddenly ending all social unrest long before any secret police had begun to arrest communists.
William Cooke That's partially right yes, and the army was often either outright against the Republic or best case neutral during many of the earlier uprisings like the Kapp Putsch. Political violence was certainly on the rise and as the other gentleman said these things were very much planned by both the Sturmabteilung and Rotkämpferbund.
Interesting. Yes, Von Papen made a deal with the devil and all of Papen's people and Hindenburg too. Nor did Von Papen do poorly under the Nazi's. After all of Von Papen's friends were sacrificed (murdered), he resigned the vice-chancellorship in "disgust". He then became Ambassador to Austria until Anschluss and then to Turkey until Nazi Germany was defeated. However, making Hitler Chancellor was a deal that did not come easy. They were forced to do it. Not because of their upbringing, education or lack of values. They were forced by the logic of party plurality in their congress and constitution. The largest party was offered to form a coalition government with their representative as Chancellor or, in English, the prime minister. They were able to delay Hitler for for one year. But really? What could they do? The guy had been elected Chancellor. Imagine if a figure like Trump was elected? Could they really use the electoral college to cancel his election? They would eventually have to let him in. But why blame just a single right-wing Catholic for Hitler? Hitler had been elected by millions of little Hitlers. The anti-Jewish, anti-communist sentiment of the Nazi program wasn't a secret. The holocaust and the war with Russia were eventualities or, at the very least, implied by their program. There was also the Conservative Party that joined the Nazi's to form a coalition government. Hitler didn't happen just because a few guys thought they were making a backroom deal. Von Papen is a part of the narrative. As Vice-Chancellor he gave Hitler's regime non-Nazi credibility while he presented himself as an enthusiastic supporter. He claims that he thought of himself as a brake on Hitler. But he was no brake. In fact, in hindsight, we can see that he had no idea of what was going on until it was too late for his friends. In hindsight, we can see that Von Papen was a clueless idiot, and then an obedient puppet. But we can also definitely see - knowing what we know, Von Papen wasn't only to blame for Hitler. Hitler was a mass social phenomena that couldn't be stopped. In fact, Hitler lost the election for president. Hitler wasn't elected president until 1935. First, the Nazi Party was elected. If Hitler had been assassinated, for example, there were many others that were ready to take his place. Hitler thought so too and killed 1,000 of his rivals in the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knives. Logically, if you wanted to blame anyone, there is first to blame the 17,277,180 Germans who voted for the Nazi Party in March 1933. Cool video.
Great Monkey King X I agree with most of your summation here but I'd like to bring up a few points. The reason I think Von Papen is largely guilty is that the role of chancellor in Weimar Germany was not elected. The presidency was, which Hitler lost to Hindenburg in 1932, although Hindenburg repeatedly refused Hitler the chancellorship from 1930 to 1932 after Brüning, Von Schleicher and Von Papen respectively failed. However once Von Papen has made this deal with Hitler, only then, does Hindenburg accept Hitler as chancellor. Although you're quite right in saying that by this time the Nazis were an unstoppable force and Germany was headed for either Nazism or Communism. I'd find it hard to blame so many Germans for it too, because anti-semitism was the norm and it was not only the NSDAP who exploited that, and secondly because essentially if you weren't a communist, you were anti-communist because they were the other violent radicals in Germany at the time. I'm not sure if a Great War was really on the cards back in 1932, I've no doubts Hitler had it planned but to the average people I don't think that's what they thought was going to happen right away. Remember Germany was in a dire straight, politically and economically with all the aforementioned violence on the streets, so I think more people voted NSDAP for internal stability, an end to threat from Communism (from within the KPD not from the USSR) and someone who would lead them out of the economic situation with a strong hand.
Hindenburg was eventually blackmailed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Hindenburg hadn't paid inherent tax on a big property he had transferred to his son, and this they figured out (Veronica Clark). Re: killed 1,000 of his rivals in the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knive It was less than 30, according to Irving.
The Weimar system of proportional representation didn't really cause it, as the Nazis were obviously thr party with the most votes, so in a first-past-the-post system like in the UK Hitler not only would have become Chancellor, but wouldn't have even needed to make any deals to do so - he likely would have had an overwhelming majority of seats in the Reichstag (much as how UK parties can get a clear majority of seats in Parliament even when they only get about 35% of the national vote). It was more that a majority of the population was against democracy -- be they Communists or Nazis. It's an inherently contradictory situation for a democracy. How do you go with majority vote when the majority doesn't want that?
The unraveling of the Weimar Republic was a reaction to external pressures. The Versailles Treaty was an unrealistic framework for peace. France and the Netherlands were quick to resort to force to enforce their interests under the treaty, Britain did not try to stop them, and the USA sought to cash in on the plight of Germany. The USSR supported constant agitation to overthrow the state. In addition to the economic and imperialist pressures, the Versailles Treaty also required Germany to reduce it's military so drastically that it could neither prevent foreign occupation, nor monopolize domestic violence. The former is covered in these videos, but the latter is not emphasized so much. The Communists developed a paramilitary presence. This lead to a reactionary formation of paramilitary forces associated with political parties. No democratic republic can survive the toleration of politically affiliated militias competing for power. The reason the Nazis won this internecine battle is because the Communists were internationalists, and the Nazis appealed to German tribalism. The Liberals and Socialists lost the propaganda battle, but the street fighting was the catalyst. The Liberals and Socialists did not re-negotiate the military terms, when they had the chance, instead seeking to concentrate on the economic terms, of Versailles. Had Hindenburg strengthened the Republic's police power to put down and even abolish the political militias, the Nazis would never have become a threat and the Communist threat would have diminished over time. Though I make this opinion focussing upon the Communists and the Nazis, it is my recollection that all of the political parties engaged in this "militia politics." framework.
that a person sutch as Hitler became chanslor in the Wiemar republic. Was the (In my opinion) direct consequense of the "dolchstosslüge" (inwented by Erich Ludendorf and Paul Von Hindenburg) and the "Versailler vertrag"
Torben Johansen I think they definitely played a role in it but I don't think Hitler's rise was at all inevitable. In fact I'd be willing to argue Weimar would have gone on fairly well if the Great Depression had not come around.
you me be right.. but! than again?? i think it merely accelerated the prosses a lot. It was fuel to the fire of the nazis as for the german communists. lt was a grate accelerator. But what with the OkW ( the Wehrmacht ) most of the plans the nazis used to rearmor the german army came from the wehrmacht they where not invented/made by the nazis they where already there.
This is good on the aspects that it covers. The tradition of the Chancellorship going to largest party in Reischtag had already ended, and with von Schleicher as Chancellor before von Papen and then Hitler its hard to see how this is an element to emphasize here (Weimar tradition). Other points are well emphasized here that show how little Wiemar tradition counted for anything with these folks. There are more important aspects of the history - just some are noted below. I think an important omission is the role of Prussia, which had a solid "Wiemar coalition" against the nazis continuously until 1932, and how von Papen had been installed there as commissioner in 1932 (before becoming Chancellor of Wiemar) by emergency decree in order to break that coalition in which the SPD had continuous leadership. Prussia was the largest and most important principality and had evolved from bastion of conservatism to bastion of progressivism. In Prussia, von Papen immediately removed the 8 members of the Prussian cabinet, which in 1930 had refused to allow either nazis or communists to hold any municipal office, and had also banned the nazi uniform. Professor Quigley emphasizes the point in Tragedy and Hope. which contains a pretty thorough discussion of this topic. He says that this political situation in Prussia had been the main obstacle to the nazis until von Papen was installed there. One other point (maybe on the "nein" side) - before offering the Chancellorship, von Papen had success in cutting off funds from industrialists in his native westphalia to the nazi party. Its one of the reasons von papen and the others thought they could control Hitler. Everyone should read about this history. Many otherwise good American sources will say "its too complicated" to understand, but these aspects are actually pretty easy to understand. I have found however that we need a bigger scope to understand any aspect of this essential part of history. This part of history is fascinating, and once you dig into the top sources you can understand how the American version has always been somewhat slanted and quite limited. You can even see this in the differences between the BBC and American versions of the main "rise and fall" films on the topic. (Its illuminating - to say the least - that Professor Quigley's main work shows (and states emphatically that) the project of building the nazi party into a mass political movement had failed.) Some wikipedia pages are not good in this area and follow some of the typical Hitler-centric narratives that fail to take account of many aspects including Papen.
@@Victor-07-04Ah yes. The central position between the workers party of communists and the actual fucking Nazis. Good one. That's like standing between a black man and a racist going "why can't we both just stop fighting?" Because one side is actually evil.
I am confused about the relation between the President and the Chancellor. If I understand correctly, the President appoints the Chancellor but has less power than him. That strikes me as weird.
He thought, like the majority of the aristocratic and conservative class of the Weimar Republic, that he could use Hitler as a drummer, a pliable vehicle to cynically drive German national sentiment where it needed to go. He was a fool. He was also fortunate enough to have survived the Night of Long Knives and acquittal at Nuremberg, but his legacy as an unscrupulous political animal has cast a very long shadow over his name.
Thanks for the video mate I'm looking at the rise of Hitler to chancellor for my A level History and this video is useful for looking at Von Papen's role
I still think and will always think that the Weimar democracy may well have survived if it had been a "crowned republic" as we say in New Zealand, ie, with a constitutional monarch along the lines of its Scandinavian and Low Countries neighbours. And there were plenty of candidates to choose from in Germany with its plethora of ruling families. Critical elements of German society - not only the politicians themselves but the big industrialists, the aristocratic landowners, the judiciary and the rest of the civil service. It was a tall order expecting a "republic without republicans" to survive, given the monarchism deeply rooted in the national psyche. Yes, the Weimar constitution was flawed, as every human endeavor is flawed, but not necessarily fatally so.
Yes. The point is that von happen supported the 28 February presidential decree restricting temporarily all civic liberties and voted in favour of the 23.3.33 emergency law which abolished democracy all together the ermaechtung akt
Have you done any videos about the economic status of Germany, and what influence the Jews had in Germany during the period before Hitlers Rise to Power?
The above videos about the political views of the various parties explains it. The Nazi Party's full name was The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. However, each part of that name was meant to attract a slice of the electorate, and was pure propaganda. The Nazis were Nationalist, but there was already a Nationalist Party. The Nazis were not Socialist. Their economic ideology was fascist and elitist. They called themselves "The German Workers Party" because they were trying to attract the Centrist voter. There already was a "German Workers" party, a centrist party. The Nazis wanted the electorate to believe that they were uniters, not dividers. "You will unite and you will like it! Or else!!"
0:24 'with all that malarkey going on'. Is 'malarkey' a millennial word for the Second World War and it's atrocities? If so, we've really evolved into a superior culture! :)
What a stupid, anachronistic way of focusing ther subject.You mistake von Pappen's stance for a totally reactionary fight against democracy. Deplorable.
What? The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was THE prominent institution on sexual education that's basically what the name means. They protected trans and gay people. Performed sexual reassignment surgeries. Taught people how to practice safe homosexual acts if they were so inclined and TONS of other research. Run by Magnus Hirschfeld. Who was named "the world's most dangerous jew" by a man named Adolf Hitler. Dunno if you've heard of him. The IFS was the first of many famous Nazi book burnings. During which they didn't just burn books. They raided the institution and killed its members.
The real problem was the decline of the moderate parties and their failure to work together against the extremists. German politics were becoming dangerously polarized as more and more voters turned to the extreme parties of the right or left.
William Cooke Absolutely.
As always who rules? Workers or Capitalists and Feudalists. Stalin suicidally instructed Ernst Thalman of the KPD to treat the SPD as Fascists.
Hitler went up the middle and won without a squeek from the Left. Hitler paced his room waiting for the General strike which never eventuated!
Stalin was the one who let Hitler in. Stalin idiotically said never mind after Hitler our turn. He thought Naz'ism couldn't possibly last!
Reminds me very much of the Spanish Civil War.
History With Hilbert This is happening the US right now especially on the left which is getting more communistic and violent by the day
Please do tell if I am wrong,
Is it true that because the Nazi party was kind of a new party that it got a major advantage as it didn’t so much get into the political talk of the day and when they did attempt a coup d’ate the trial revealed quite a bit of Hitler’s charmistic side and showed that he could possibly be a the new face of the extreme right. The KPD had the reputation quite well ruined because of the sparctist uprising and the major mainstream parties had made names for themselves for getting caught up in political troubles. The Nazis did a lot of their activities in such a way that was typical of mainstream parties.
If this is way too obvious, sorry for that. I have only recently begun to search this up as I have an fascination with modern German History.
this video is not available in my country
Germany
Same thing here in Poland. Like wtf youtube?
Füher Merkel doesn't want you to know your history
There is the swastika flag in the background of most of the video. Does that get videos banned in Germany?
I think the blame for this is people who dislike the swastika more than the fact that one third of the people voted for the NSDAP.
Literally an A-level history question
literally an A levels student
“To blame” as if Hitler’s rise to power was a bad thing.
Bruening put part of the blame on the Allies of WW I. He argued that if he could have got any concessions from them on reparations, he could have improved the economy and kept Hitler out of power, because more voters would then have supported the Centre Party.
William Cooke I think there's some merit in that but remember the Reparations had already been considerably slackened thanks to the Young and Dawes Plans and the German economy was doing really rather well, as was politics, post 1924 in the Golden Age, although the wind was positively yanked from the sails when the Great Depression hit. American funds and investments in Germany industry dried up and debts started to be recalled from Germany. The moderate parties argued more and more on how to deal with the crisis; nothing worked, and the extremists saw their chance and took it.
A significant thin-to-modest majority of American politicians in and out of the Hoover and Roosevelt Administrations and even outside either major party were arguing the same thing at the time. Ironically a significant but small minority of US politicians who wanted to 'punish' Germany and their allied nations immediately after WW1 hypocritically/compartmentalized-sociopathy turned out to be many of the same folk that later supported Hitler and/or Mussolini!
I have read that Schleicher's interior minister told Hindenburg he had to take either the Nazis or the Communists into the government to preserve public order. The Nazis and the Communists were going at each other hammer and tongs in the streets of Berlin and other German cities; and under the Treaty of Versailles the government was not allowed a big enough army to keep public order there and still guard the frontiers against attack by either the French or the Poles.
Actually, no. The Nazi's were making it a point to hold marches through neighborhoods sympathetic to the communists. This wasn't out of control street fighting. These street fights had been planned for, expected and provoked by the Nazi's. The Nazi's had engineered "chaos" to give the impression through the mass media that the nation was out of control. The seizure of Austria, Danzig and Bohemia all followed the same pattern. As soon as these places were secured, Brown Shirt marches through Red neighborhoods were called off, suddenly ending all social unrest long before any secret police had begun to arrest communists.
William Cooke That's partially right yes, and the army was often either outright against the Republic or best case neutral during many of the earlier uprisings like the Kapp Putsch. Political violence was certainly on the rise and as the other gentleman said these things were very much planned by both the Sturmabteilung and Rotkämpferbund.
"The fights have been provoked by Nazis" That's victim blaming.
Interesting. Yes, Von Papen made a deal with the devil and all of Papen's people and Hindenburg too. Nor did Von Papen do poorly under the Nazi's. After all of Von Papen's friends were sacrificed (murdered), he resigned the vice-chancellorship in "disgust". He then became Ambassador to Austria until Anschluss and then to Turkey until Nazi Germany was defeated. However, making Hitler Chancellor was a deal that did not come easy. They were forced to do it. Not because of their upbringing, education or lack of values. They were forced by the logic of party plurality in their congress and constitution. The largest party was offered to form a coalition government with their representative as Chancellor or, in English, the prime minister. They were able to delay Hitler for for one year. But really? What could they do? The guy had been elected Chancellor.
Imagine if a figure like Trump was elected? Could they really use the electoral college to cancel his election? They would eventually have to let him in.
But why blame just a single right-wing Catholic for Hitler? Hitler had been elected by millions of little Hitlers. The anti-Jewish, anti-communist sentiment of the Nazi program wasn't a secret. The holocaust and the war with Russia were eventualities or, at the very least, implied by their program. There was also the Conservative Party that joined the Nazi's to form a coalition government. Hitler didn't happen just because a few guys thought they were making a backroom deal. Von Papen is a part of the narrative. As Vice-Chancellor he gave Hitler's regime non-Nazi credibility while he presented himself as an enthusiastic supporter. He claims that he thought of himself as a brake on Hitler. But he was no brake. In fact, in hindsight, we can see that he had no idea of what was going on until it was too late for his friends. In hindsight, we can see that Von Papen was a clueless idiot, and then an obedient puppet. But we can also definitely see - knowing what we know, Von Papen wasn't only to blame for Hitler. Hitler was a mass social phenomena that couldn't be stopped. In fact, Hitler lost the election for president. Hitler wasn't elected president until 1935. First, the Nazi Party was elected. If Hitler had been assassinated, for example, there were many others that were ready to take his place. Hitler thought so too and killed 1,000 of his rivals in the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knives. Logically, if you wanted to blame anyone, there is first to blame the 17,277,180 Germans who voted for the Nazi Party in March 1933.
Cool video.
Great Monkey King X I agree with most of your summation here but I'd like to bring up a few points. The reason I think Von Papen is largely guilty is that the role of chancellor in Weimar Germany was not elected. The presidency was, which Hitler lost to Hindenburg in 1932, although Hindenburg repeatedly refused Hitler the chancellorship from 1930 to 1932 after Brüning, Von Schleicher and Von Papen respectively failed. However once Von Papen has made this deal with Hitler, only then, does Hindenburg accept Hitler as chancellor. Although you're quite right in saying that by this time the Nazis were an unstoppable force and Germany was headed for either Nazism or Communism. I'd find it hard to blame so many Germans for it too, because anti-semitism was the norm and it was not only the NSDAP who exploited that, and secondly because essentially if you weren't a communist, you were anti-communist because they were the other violent radicals in Germany at the time. I'm not sure if a Great War was really on the cards back in 1932, I've no doubts Hitler had it planned but to the average people I don't think that's what they thought was going to happen right away. Remember Germany was in a dire straight, politically and economically with all the aforementioned violence on the streets, so I think more people voted NSDAP for internal stability, an end to threat from Communism (from within the KPD not from the USSR) and someone who would lead them out of the economic situation with a strong hand.
Hindenburg was eventually blackmailed to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Hindenburg hadn't paid inherent tax on a big property he had transferred to his son, and this they figured out (Veronica Clark).
Re: killed 1,000 of his rivals in the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knive
It was less than 30, according to Irving.
The Weimar system of proportional representation didn't really cause it, as the Nazis were obviously thr party with the most votes, so in a first-past-the-post system like in the UK Hitler not only would have become Chancellor, but wouldn't have even needed to make any deals to do so - he likely would have had an overwhelming majority of seats in the Reichstag (much as how UK parties can get a clear majority of seats in Parliament even when they only get about 35% of the national vote).
It was more that a majority of the population was against democracy -- be they Communists or Nazis. It's an inherently contradictory situation for a democracy. How do you go with majority vote when the majority doesn't want that?
This video was uploaded on April 20th, which is both 4/20 (yeet) and also Hitler's birthday.
I'm sure RUclips loves that thumbnail
Odin Hove I don't doubt that my videos won't last very long when the new RUclips Heroes come along and see them xD
Hilbert, with your knowlege of history, you must be watching developments here in the states with dread fascination..
@S.S. Archangel I would say the division between party lines
Nah it was the Papa John's Pizza.
He was like an equally cool but completely incompetent German James Bond
I have an exam tomorrow and this helped SO MUCH!!!!!
The unraveling of the Weimar Republic was a reaction to external pressures. The Versailles Treaty was an unrealistic framework for peace. France and the Netherlands were quick to resort to force to enforce their interests under the treaty, Britain did not try to stop them, and the USA sought to cash in on the plight of Germany. The USSR supported constant agitation to overthrow the state.
In addition to the economic and imperialist pressures, the Versailles Treaty also required Germany to reduce it's military so drastically that it could neither prevent foreign occupation, nor monopolize domestic violence. The former is covered in these videos, but the latter is not emphasized so much.
The Communists developed a paramilitary presence. This lead to a reactionary formation of paramilitary forces associated with political parties. No democratic republic can survive the toleration of politically affiliated militias competing for power. The reason the Nazis won this internecine battle is because the Communists were internationalists, and the Nazis appealed to German tribalism. The Liberals and Socialists lost the propaganda battle, but the street fighting was the catalyst.
The Liberals and Socialists did not re-negotiate the military terms, when they had the chance, instead seeking to concentrate on the economic terms, of Versailles. Had Hindenburg strengthened the Republic's police power to put down and even abolish the political militias, the Nazis would never have become a threat and the Communist threat would have diminished over time.
Though I make this opinion focussing upon the Communists and the Nazis, it is my recollection that all of the political parties engaged in this "militia politics." framework.
'the Netherlands'?? Don't you mean Belgium?
great video
Stefán Atli Þorvaldsson Cheers Stefán!
that a person sutch as Hitler became chanslor in the Wiemar republic. Was the (In my opinion) direct consequense of the "dolchstosslüge" (inwented by Erich Ludendorf and Paul Von Hindenburg) and the "Versailler vertrag"
Torben Johansen I think they definitely played a role in it but I don't think Hitler's rise was at all inevitable. In fact I'd be willing to argue Weimar would have gone on fairly well if the Great Depression had not come around.
you me be right.. but! than again?? i think it merely accelerated the prosses a lot. It was fuel to the fire of the nazis as for the german communists. lt was a grate accelerator. But what with the OkW ( the Wehrmacht ) most of the plans the nazis used to rearmor the german army came from the wehrmacht they where not invented/made by the nazis they where already there.
This is good on the aspects that it covers. The tradition of the Chancellorship going to largest party in Reischtag had already ended, and with von Schleicher as Chancellor before von Papen and then Hitler its hard to see how this is an element to emphasize here (Weimar tradition). Other points are well emphasized here that show how little Wiemar tradition counted for anything with these folks. There are more important aspects of the history - just some are noted below.
I think an important omission is the role of Prussia, which had a solid "Wiemar coalition" against the nazis continuously until 1932, and how von Papen had been installed there as commissioner in 1932 (before becoming Chancellor of Wiemar) by emergency decree in order to break that coalition in which the SPD had continuous leadership. Prussia was the largest and most important principality and had evolved from bastion of conservatism to bastion of progressivism. In Prussia, von Papen immediately removed the 8 members of the Prussian cabinet, which in 1930 had refused to allow either nazis or communists to hold any municipal office, and had also banned the nazi uniform.
Professor Quigley emphasizes the point in Tragedy and Hope. which contains a pretty thorough discussion of this topic. He says that this political situation in Prussia had been the main obstacle to the nazis until von Papen was installed there.
One other point (maybe on the "nein" side) - before offering the Chancellorship, von Papen had success in cutting off funds from industrialists in his native westphalia to the nazi party. Its one of the reasons von papen and the others thought they could control Hitler.
Everyone should read about this history. Many otherwise good American sources will say "its too complicated" to understand, but these aspects are actually pretty easy to understand. I have found however that we need a bigger scope to understand any aspect of this essential part of history. This part of history is fascinating, and once you dig into the top sources you can understand how the American version has always been somewhat slanted and quite limited. You can even see this in the differences between the BBC and American versions of the main "rise and fall" films on the topic. (Its illuminating - to say the least - that Professor Quigley's main work shows (and states emphatically that) the project of building the nazi party into a mass political movement had failed.) Some wikipedia pages are not good in this area and follow some of the typical Hitler-centric narratives that fail to take account of many aspects including Papen.
isn't better to being far right than far wrong
Or just nice and central
@@Victor-07-04Ah yes. The central position between the workers party of communists and the actual fucking Nazis. Good one.
That's like standing between a black man and a racist going "why can't we both just stop fighting?"
Because one side is actually evil.
I am confused about the relation between the President and the Chancellor. If I understand correctly, the President appoints the Chancellor but has less power than him. That strikes me as weird.
He thought, like the majority of the aristocratic and conservative class of the Weimar Republic, that he could use Hitler as a drummer, a pliable vehicle to cynically drive German national sentiment where it needed to go. He was a fool. He was also fortunate enough to have survived the Night of Long Knives and acquittal at Nuremberg, but his legacy as an unscrupulous political animal has cast a very long shadow over his name.
Nah.
@@Gnashercide Yeah.
Thank you, this is brilliant!
Thanks for the video mate
I'm looking at the rise of Hitler to chancellor for my A level History and this video is useful for looking at Von Papen's role
I still think and will always think that the Weimar democracy may well have survived if it had been a "crowned republic" as we say in New Zealand, ie, with a constitutional monarch along the lines of its Scandinavian and Low Countries neighbours. And there were plenty of candidates to choose from in Germany with its plethora of ruling families. Critical elements of German society - not only the politicians themselves but the big industrialists, the aristocratic landowners, the judiciary and the rest of the civil service. It was a tall order expecting a "republic without republicans" to survive, given the monarchism deeply rooted in the national psyche. Yes, the Weimar constitution was flawed, as every human endeavor is flawed, but not necessarily fatally so.
Why is this video unavailable in Switzerland?
he was heavily responsible
you forgot to say happy birthday.
wulf 659 The timing of this was really rather unfortunate wasn't it xD
I'm...Sure...that it was...a...COMPLETE...coincidence...Lol...
Yes. The point is that von happen supported the 28 February presidential decree restricting temporarily all civic liberties and voted in favour of the 23.3.33 emergency law which abolished democracy all together the ermaechtung akt
You need to read Shirer to get better detail on the situation
I would add Oskar von Hindenburg to the list, although more so after Hitler first gained power.
" we can absolutely destroy the defence " ? Eh?
Based Von Papen
I suppose I have to be the guy that posts it...
#VonPapenDidNothingWrong
#MakeDeutschlandGreatAgain
Nazis in this chat. Glad they're at least being honest and supporting Nazism internationally by coopting the maga movement.
Did you destroy the defense?
giveussomevodka Imagine the Battle of Tannenburg but better. Oh, and we were the Germans ;)
Ja!
"The stab on the back myth"?? Ever heard of the Balfour declaration???
Frank Lucas balfour declaration was about the british dominions becoming equal to the UK
You should check out babaloyn Berlin
Gostaria de saber se sou descendente dele
Von Papen was another hero then! good on him!
Answer: Yes.
Have you done any videos about the economic status of Germany, and what influence the Jews had in Germany during the period before Hitlers Rise to Power?
Yes, people were to blame for Hitler's rise to power. But that does not mean they had any clue what Hitler was capable of, or what he was going to do.
They claimed they never voted for him after that.
In 'Mein Kampf' I think 1925 he very clearly said German Arians need to win the racial battle in the East and against the Jews. He followed it.
TLDR Hjalmar Schact
No. It was world war 1.
YOOOOO!!!!!!!!! im not evening lying but, I am Kaylan von Papen and I am his great great grandson!
Von Paper
Why do people always say the National Socialists were "far right"?
So people don't really say the Nazi's are far right?
Zackery Davis that is because the head of the nazi party before Hitler, Strasser, had socialist ideas
German/Prussian socialism is different from marxist socialism. That's the only correct answer.
The above videos about the political views of the various parties explains it. The Nazi Party's full name was The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. However, each part of that name was meant to attract a slice of the electorate, and was pure propaganda.
The Nazis were Nationalist, but there was already a Nationalist Party. The Nazis were not Socialist. Their economic ideology was fascist and elitist. They called themselves "The German Workers Party" because they were trying to attract the Centrist voter. There already was a "German Workers" party, a centrist party.
The Nazis wanted the electorate to believe that they were uniters, not dividers.
"You will unite and you will like it! Or else!!"
Socialists are far right? Ok bro.
N.S.D.A.P
Look my last name
You pronounce the words like a Dutchman
0:24 'with all that malarkey going on'. Is 'malarkey' a millennial word for the Second World War and it's atrocities? If so, we've really evolved into a superior culture! :)
🇹🇷🇹🇷
What a stupid, anachronistic way of focusing ther subject.You mistake von Pappen's stance for a totally reactionary fight against democracy. Deplorable.
Well this is unfortunate 😂😂😂
i dont think there was anything called LGBT rights or ANY conception of it
What? The Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was THE prominent institution on sexual education that's basically what the name means. They protected trans and gay people. Performed sexual reassignment surgeries. Taught people how to practice safe homosexual acts if they were so inclined and TONS of other research. Run by Magnus Hirschfeld. Who was named "the world's most dangerous jew" by a man named Adolf Hitler. Dunno if you've heard of him.
The IFS was the first of many famous Nazi book burnings. During which they didn't just burn books. They raided the institution and killed its members.
It's a stupid what if question . What if there was no world war?
Great video