You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Between 1929 and 1933 a combination of economic catastrophe, political miscalculation and constitutional exploitation drained the life from German democracy. In little more than three years the Weimar Republic passed from the apparent stability of the "Golden Age" to the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933. This is one of the most intensively studied processes in modern history, and it poses two entwined questions. The first concerns the collapse of the Republic: was the destruction of German democracy inevitable once the Depression struck, or the contingent product of political choices that might have been made differently? The second concerns the rise of the Nazis: why did millions of Germans, in the depths of the slump, cast their votes for a movement whose ideology and consequences were monstrous? The two questions are inseparable, because the collapse of democracy and the rise of Nazism were a single interlocking process — the fall of the old order and the ascent of the new.
For a breadth study running to 1989, these years are the pivot of the democracy versus dictatorship thread and the hinge between the two German experiments the course compares — the failed first democracy of Weimar and, by contrast, the durable second democracy of the Federal Republic after 1949. The manner of Weimar's death shaped the lessons its successors drew: the dangers of proportional representation without a threshold, of emergency presidential powers, of parties unwilling to defend the constitution, and of elites who imagined they could harness extremism. This lesson examines the impact of the Depression, the breakdown of parliamentary government, the ideology and appeal of the NSDAP, and the "backstairs" intrigues that installed Hitler — and it insists throughout on a sober, analytical treatment, in which explanation of the catastrophe never becomes endorsement of it.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to Edexcel 9HI0 Paper 1, Option 1G (Route G): "Germany and West Germany, 1918–89" — a breadth study assessed by extended analytical essays (Sections A and B) and by the evaluation of historians' interpretations (Section C). In our teaching sequence it is the turning point of the democracy vs dictatorship thread, and it links directly to the previous lesson (the vulnerabilities inherited from 1918 to 1929) and the next (the consolidation of the dictatorship after January 1933).
Because Paper 1 rewards command of change over time and judgements about causation, keep organising the collapse by type of cause — deep structural conditions, medium-term political factors, and the immediate trigger of elite intrigue — and keep asking how the fall of Weimar shaped the democracy that would replace it after 1945. (For the precise assessment weightings and question wording, consult the official Edexcel specification and sample assessment materials rather than any paraphrase.)
Germany was struck harder by the Depression than almost any other major economy, and for a specific reason: the recovery of the Golden Age had been financed by short-term American loans, and when American banks recalled their capital after the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, the foundation of German prosperity was abruptly removed. Credit dried up, firms collapsed, and the crisis culminated in a full-scale banking collapse in mid-1931 (the failure of the Danatbank in July 1931 forced the temporary closure of the banks). Unemployment soared to catastrophic levels.
| Economic indicator | 1928 | 1932 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial production (1928 = 100) | 100 | 58 | around −42% |
| Registered unemployed | 1.3 million | 6.1 million | around +370% |
| Real wages (index) | 100 | 64 | around −36% |
The official figure of 6.1 million unemployed in 1932 understated the true total, which including unregistered and short-time workers may have approached 8 million. The human and political effects were profound: the slump destroyed not only livelihoods but faith in a democratic system that appeared powerless to respond, and it drove voters in growing numbers towards the parties of the extremes.
The first decisive political consequence was the collapse of parliamentary government itself. The Grand Coalition under the Social Democrat Hermann Müller — the last government to rest on a genuine Reichstag majority — broke apart in March 1930 over how to fund the unemployment insurance scheme. Rather than seek a new majority, President Hindenburg appointed Heinrich Brüning of the Centre Party and authorised him to govern by presidential decree under Article 48. This was a fateful turning point: Brüning could not command a majority, so he governed through emergency decrees, dissolving the Reichstag when it objected. Parliamentary democracy was, in effect, suspended from 1930 — hollowed out from within well before Hitler took office. Brüning's rigid deflationary policy (cutting spending, raising taxes, forcing down wages, partly to demonstrate that Germany could not pay reparations) deepened the slump and earned him the grim nickname of the "Hunger Chancellor". Ian Kershaw regards Brüning's chancellorship as in effect the beginning of the end for Weimar democracy, because it normalised government without parliamentary consent — the very mechanism through which Hitler would later be installed and empowered.
The electoral statistics chart the destruction of the moderate centre and the surge to the extremes with stark clarity.
| Party (share of vote) | May 1928 | Sept 1930 | July 1932 | Nov 1932 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSDAP | 2.6% | 18.3% | 37.3% | 33.1% |
| KPD | 10.6% | 13.1% | 14.3% | 16.9% |
| SPD | 29.8% | 24.5% | 21.6% | 20.4% |
| Centre | 12.1% | 11.8% | 12.5% | 11.9% |
| Liberals (DDP and DVP) | 13.6% | 8.6% | 2.6% | 3.1% |
Several features are analytically important. First, the Nazi breakthrough came in September 1930, immediately after the slump began and the turn to presidential rule, and it accelerated as unemployment rose — the correlation between economic distress and the radical vote is direct. Secondly, the NSDAP drew much of its support by cannibalising the liberal and conservative parties, not from the socialist working class, whose parties held up far better. Thirdly, by mid-1932 the two avowedly anti-democratic parties, the NSDAP and the KPD, together commanded a majority of Reichstag seats, making any pro-democratic majority government arithmetically impossible. Finally — a fact crucial to the whole interpretation — the NSDAP's vote actually fell back in November 1932, from 37.3% to 33.1%. Hitler was appointed Chancellor not at the height of his electoral strength but as it ebbed, which points to the decisive role of elite intrigue rather than an irresistible popular tide.
Understanding why so many Germans voted Nazi requires attention to ideology, organisation and the sociology of the vote. Nazi ideology was not a systematic philosophy but a constellation of interlocking obsessions, set out most fully in Mein Kampf: a pseudo-scientific racial hierarchy with the "Aryan" at its summit and the Jews cast as a parasitic "anti-race"; a virulent antisemitism that blamed the Jews for defeat, Bolshevism, capitalism and cultural change alike; the demand for Lebensraum ("living space") in the east; social Darwinism that glorified racial struggle and war; the Führerprinzip (leader principle); and the vision of a racially unified, classless Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community") defined, in reality, by exclusion. These ideas were mutually reinforcing: antisemitism supplied a single, all-purpose enemy onto whom every grievance could be projected, and the whole pointed logically towards dictatorship, war and persecution. As Ian Kershaw stresses, the ideology's danger lay precisely in its internal coherence, not in mere irrational hatred.
After the failure of the Munich Putsch, Hitler rebuilt the NSDAP around a "legality strategy" — power to be won through the ballot box and then subverted from within — and a formidable national organisation: the territorial Gau system under regional Gauleiter, a web of affiliated bodies (the Hitler Youth, professional and women's leagues), the paramilitary SA for street violence, and, from 1930, centrally directed propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. The Bamberg Conference of 1926 had already confirmed the primacy of racial nationalism over the party's "socialist" wing and entrenched Hitler's unchallengeable leadership. The party pursued a calculated dual strategy, combining the appearance of constitutional respectability with the reality of organised SA violence, so that it could pose as the cure for the very disorder its own followers helped to create. Goebbels's propaganda was effective not because it created grievances from nothing but because it resonated with pre-existing anxieties intensified by the slump: to the unemployed it promised work and bread; to the farmer, protection; to the frightened middle class, a bulwark against communism; to the young, a cause.
The sociology of the vote qualifies any simple picture. The NSDAP was a genuine "catch-all" movement, but its support was strongly patterned.
| Social group | Support level | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Lower middle class (Mittelstand) | Very high | Threatened by the crisis; feared sliding into the proletariat; resented big business and organised labour |
| Farmers (Protestant areas) | Very high | Agricultural depression and debt; traditional conservatism; receptive to anti-Marxist appeals |
| Young voters | Disproportionately high | Attracted by the movement's dynamism and promise of a future |
| Protestants | Much higher than Catholics | Catholic voters were largely insulated by loyalty to the Centre Party and the Church |
| Industrial workers | Lower, but not negligible | Some, especially the unemployed and non-unionised, were drawn in |
Two patterns stand out: the religious divide was among the strongest predictors of the vote (Protestant Germany returning far higher Nazi votes than Catholic regions), and the NSDAP penetrated the unionised working class least. Peter Fritzsche argues the Nazis succeeded by offering a vision that appeared to transcend the old class politics; Ian Kershaw stresses the indispensable role of the "Hitler myth". Students should avoid the discredited Sonderweg ("special path") thesis, which held that Germany was uniquely and inevitably predisposed to fascism; what mattered was a specific combination of circumstances — economic catastrophe, constitutional vulnerability, elite complicity, and Nazi ideology, leadership and organisation — a combination, not a destiny.
If the rise of the extremes is one half of the story, the failure of the Republic's defenders is the other. The most damaging division, with roots reaching back to the bloodshed of January 1919, was the bitter enmity between the two great parties of the working class. On instructions ultimately deriving from Moscow, the KPD treated the SPD as its principal enemy, denouncing the Social Democrats as "social fascists" and refusing any united front against the NSDAP. The two parties together regularly polled more votes than the Nazis, but they fought each other as readily as they fought the right. The SPD itself was reduced to a policy of "toleration" of Brüning's decrees as the lesser evil — a passivity that demoralised its supporters and offered no positive answer to the crisis. The catastrophic illustration came with the Preussenschlag ("Prussian coup") of July 1932, when Papen deposed the SPD-led government of Prussia — Germany's largest state and the last great institutional stronghold of democracy — by presidential decree, and the SPD, fearing civil war and unsure of the loyalty of the police and army, submitted with nothing more than a legal protest. The party that had defeated the Kapp Putsch in 1920 with a general strike now acquiesced in the destruction of its greatest bastion. By late 1932 there was no longer any coherent democratic bloc capable of forming a government or mounting a defence. The Republic was destroyed not only by the strength of its enemies but by the disunity, passivity and exhaustion of its friends.
The final phase of the collapse was dominated less by the Nazi movement in the streets than by intrigue within the small circle around the aged President Hindenburg. The key figures were General Kurt von Schleicher, who manoeuvred behind the scenes; Franz von Papen, an ambitious conservative with almost no popular support; and Hindenburg himself, increasingly reliant on his advisers.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.