Part 1 – Democracy in Nazi Germany
Adolf Hitler’s regime is known for its totalitarian rule, but were there ever democratic elements within Nazi Germany? Historians have debated whether Hitler and his regime actually held any belief in democracy, or indeed ever implemented any democratic systems. To understand the role of democracy in the Nazi era, it is essential to look at the relations between Hitler and those around him, the Nazi Party’s views on democracy, and whether there were any attempts to implement democratic principles within the Third Reich.
To begin, many of those in close contact with Hitler, such as Albert Speer, noted that he was highly disdainful of democracy and its processes. Speer wrote that Hitler was “totally opposed to any form of democracy or collectivism which limited his power.” Various sources from other contemporaries, such as historians William L. Shirer and Joachim Fest, have also stated that Hitler did not hold democratic values, noting that he saw the functioning of democracy as a kind of weakness. Hitler himself even denounced democracy publicly on many occasions.
The Nazi Party and its members held similar views on democracy. The Nazi Party was dedicated to the pursuit of an authoritarian state, with its Programme of 1925 decrying “the striving of the parties in parliament to shift responsibility onto the Parliament rather than the government”. The party also refused to accept the authority of the Weimar Constitution, which embodied the ideals of democracy and which they viewed as a hindrance to their own plans.
Furthermore, no attempts were ever made to implement democratic systems within Nazi Germany. There are no records or evidence to suggest that Hitler or any of his cohorts ever attempted to do so, nor was it suggested by the Nazi Party’s Programme. To the contrary, the Nazi regime sought to eliminate all forms of democracy, law and liberty, and instead focused on the implementation of authoritarian ideals, aiming to establish a dictatorship and the Fuhrerprinzip.
In conclusion, it is evident that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party held no faith in democracy or any of its processes, and there is little evidence to suggest that either ever attempted to implement democratic values or principles within the Third Reich.
Part 2 – Hitler’s Aversion to Elections
Hitler’s distrust of democracy can be seen particularly in his aversion to elections. In 1932, it is estimated that Nazi Party membership peaked at around 820,000 – more than double the size of the Communist Party – and this significant growth led many to believe that Hitler might have considered calling for a general election in 1933 to try and get a majority. However, such an election never took place and it has been argued that Hitler’s failure to do so demonstrates his distaste for democracy and its processes.
Hitler’s ongoing relationship with President Paul von Hindenburg also means that no elections were ever held. Von Hindenburg’s loyalty to Hitler was invaluable to the Nazi regime, so much so that he provided the legal basis by which the previously elected majority of the Reichstag were removed, allowing the Nazis to pass the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed Hitler to become an absolute dictator.
Moreover, it has been suggested that Hitler’s fear of democracy and his waning popularity in the late 1930s had caused him to become suspicious of the German people’s intention if a general election had been held. As such, it is likely that his decision not to call for elections was a conscious effort to avoid any democratic processes or accountability.
All in all, Hitler’s dislike of democracy is further highlighted by his refusal to hold general elections throughout his tenure as Führer – further cementing his aversion to any democratic principles.
Part 3 – Propaganda as a Tool
Rather than democracy, Hitler and the Nazi party instead utilised propaganda as a tool to both shape public opinion and promote their own ideals and policies.
One of the most propagandised elements of Nazi Germany was the National Socialist political system. Through the power of propaganda, Hitler sought to spread his own views and preach the supposed merits of his political model, effectively attempting to eliminate any traces of democracy in people’s minds.
Furthermore, the Nazi regime also sought to spread their own view on the economy through the use of propaganda. The Nazi regime used propaganda in its efforts to control supply and demand through price-fixing and rationing, whilst also emphasising the virtues of price controls and production targets, once again outlining their own views on economics rather than those of the democratic system.
It is thus no surprise that today, when most people think of Nazi Germany, they not only think of its authoritarian and totalitarian nature, but also of its propaganda – a testament to its success as one of Hitler’s tools in the eradication of democracy in the Third Reich.
Part 4 – Nazi’s Discreditment of Democracy
Not only did Hitler and his regime refuse to embrace democracy, they actively sought to discredit it. This is seen in their swift dismantling of the Weimar Republic and their criticism of the actions of the democratic governments of the time.
Furthermore, the Nazi propaganda machine also played an important role in the discreditation of democracy, demonising its ideals and claiming that democracy was responsible for the economic failurs and hyperinflation of the 1930s. This enabled Hitler to gain the support of the people and undermined the legitimacy of democratic governments, subsequently making it easier for the Nazi’s to take power.
It has also been suggested that the Third Reich’s symbolism and the iconography of its institutions, such as the Nazi salute, was designed to distance itself from the parliamentary system of democracy and eliminate any memories of the Weimar Republic. This symbolic movement away from democracy meant that the Nazi regime could more easily control the population and maintain its own power.
The Nazi’s also discouraged political freedom and perpetuated a culture of fear and censorship, in an effort to prevent any democratic notions from resurfacing and to hinder any opposition. With the people rendered silent, Hitler’s own ideals had free rein and his pursuit of absolute power continued.
Part 5 – The Impact of Hitler’s Rejection of Democracy
The effects of Hitler’s rejection of democracy are highly visible and far-reaching. Hitler’s permanent destruction of democratic systems and institutions made it difficult for Germany to rebuild its political landscape after WWII. Furthermore, the Nazi regime’s various and often drastic attempts to discredit democracy, as well as its sweeping social control mechanisms, has led to the reluctance of many Germans to retain a political association with modern democracy and the parliamentary systems associated with it.
Moreover, the Nazi propaganda machine’s usage of anti-Semitic and anti-democratic rhetoric and symbolism has had a long-lasting impact, impacting the views and convictions of generations long after the fall of the Reich.
In a wider, more global sense, the lack of democratic government under Hitler had devastating effects. Such disastrous events such as the Holocaust, the destruction of war and the fall of neighbouring countries are unprecedented in history and were enabled, to varying extents, by the lack of democratic systems in Nazi Germany.
In conclusion, whilst the effects of Hitler’s rejection of democracy can still be felt today, the Nazi era remains a vivid reminder of the consequences of authoritarian rule and of the importance of upholding democratic values and principles.
Part 6 – The Legacy of Nazi Germany
Whilst it is made evident that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party’s rejection of democracy and its processes had significant effects, it is also important to recognise that the actions of the Third Reich in terms of its eradication and discreditation of democracy have shaped modern democratic theories and perspectives. As a result, modern democracies have seen significant increased values of freedom, equality and inclusivity, safeguards against authoritarianism and an increase in the accountability of the government to its population.
Additionally, today, there is an increased focus on preserving civil liberties, and a greater need to uphold democracy in order to prevent rampant ideological changes, such as those brought about by the Nazi Party in the 1930s. This has led to international organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union, both of which were established in the aftermath of WWII and were subsequently were created with the aim of promoting democratic cohesion and stability across the world.
Therefore, although the Third Reich’s rejection of democracy had devastating consequences, it can also be argued that those same events pushed countries around the world to learn from their mistakes and strive to uphold the values of democracy and liberty.
Part 7 – Consequences of Democracy’s Demise
The consequences of Adolf Hitler’s disregard for democracy have been both far-reaching and long-lasting. Not only did his rejection of democratic processes lead to a series of unprecedented atrocities and disasters, but it also meant the lack of any consequent laws or mechanisms which could have been important for the protection of the German people, as well as other nations which felt the full force of Nazi rule.
Many of Hitler’s actions, such as the passage of the Enabling Law of 1933, the banning of large numbers of political organisations, the dissolution of independent institutions, the seizure of power and the meddling of the legal and judicial systems, demonstrate just how destructive the lack of democratic control can be.
Furthermore, the absence of democratic accountability and deliberation also led to startling gaps in the governance of Nazi Germany, resulting in a culture of incompetence. This was demonstrated in the implementation of disastrous economic policies and the military overreach which ultimately led to Germany’s defeat in WWII.
The consequences of Hitler’s disregard for democracy have also led to a global recognition of the importance of freedom and justice, with many countries opting for democratic systems of governance in the years since.
Part 8 – Rejection of Collective Responsibility
One of the key aspects of Nazi Germany’s rejection of democracy was the rejection of the collective responsibility of the government. The Nazi regime instead sought to introduce the concept of collective guilt, placing the blame for all crimes, atrocities and failures upon certain demographic groups in an effort to subjugate them.
This rejection of collective responsibility had serious implications for the people of Nazi Germany as it meant they were no longer able to hold their leaders accountable for any shortfalls, failures or wrongdoings. Instead, individuals within those targeted communities were held responsible for any negative acts, which often had no basis or proof. This meant that those who were persecuted had no recourse for justice, with no means for defending themselves against such measures, most of which had been passed without any consultation nor representation.
The lack of collective responsibility in Nazi Germany also meant that the Nazi Party was able to introduce highly controversial policies without much pushback from the wider population, who had very little say or power in the government. This was one of the drawbacks of an authoritarian rule, without a system of governance which enabled the people of Nazi Germany to hold the government accountable and to be heard.
In a nutshell, it is clear that the rejection of democracy in Nazi Germany led to a further rejection of collective responsibility and thus the potential for any accountability within Nazi Germany itself.
