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, and at the same time a fringe movement of the racist far right grew into the largest party in the country. 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. This is one of the most intensively studied processes in modern history, and it poses two linked questions that this lesson takes together: why did German democracy collapse, and why did millions of Germans turn to the NSDAP? The two cannot be separated, because the collapse created the conditions in which the Nazi vote surged, while the Nazi movement supplied the mass mobilisation that made a democratic outcome impossible.
The central problem of interpretation is whether the destruction of democracy and the rise of Hitler were inevitable once the Depression struck, or whether they resulted from contingent political choices that might have been made differently. The answer bears on how far the catastrophe is to be explained by impersonal structural forces and how far by the decisions of identifiable men — Bruning, Papen, Schleicher, Hindenburg — and by the appeal and organisation of the Nazi movement itself. Throughout, the subject demands a sober, analytical treatment: the task is to explain a movement whose ideology and consequences were monstrous, and explanation must never become endorsement.
The organising question is therefore why the Weimar Republic collapsed and the NSDAP rose to power between 1929 and 1933, and how far this outcome was the product of economic catastrophe and structural weakness as against the miscalculations of the conservative elites and the appeal of the Nazi movement. As before, the evidence supports genuinely opposed readings, and the strongest analysis holds structure and contingency together.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y221 (Non-British period study): Democracy and Dictatorships in Germany 1919–1963, and covers the terminal crisis of the Weimar Republic and the Nazi rise to power. Within our own teaching sequence we deliberately fuse the collapse of democracy and the rise of the NSDAP into a single study, because the two processes were interdependent and the causation is clearest when they are analysed together; this reflects our own pedagogical judgement rather than a transcription of the specification's ordering. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Y221 is a period study assessed on AO1 only, examined by a two-part question: a shorter part (a) (around ten marks) requiring a comparative "greater importance" judgement, and a longer part (b) (around twenty marks) demanding a sustained analytical essay with a substantiated overall judgement. There is no source enquiry and no interpretations component. The second-order concepts to foreground here are causation above all (the interplay of structural conditions and contingent choices), together with significance (which developments were decisive) and change (how rapidly the political landscape was transformed). For this lesson that means being able to compare, say, the relative importance of the economic crisis and the conservative elites (a part (a) comparison), or to argue how far the Nazi rise is best explained by the Depression (a part (b) essay).
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, after the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, American banks recalled their capital and ceased fresh lending, the foundation of German prosperity was abruptly removed. Credit dried up, firms collapsed, and unemployment soared. The crisis culminated in a full-scale banking collapse in mid-1931, when the failure of the Austrian Creditanstalt triggered panic across central Europe and the German Danatbank failed, forcing the government to close the banks temporarily.
| 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% |
| Bank deposits | 50 billion marks | 35 billion marks | around −30% |
Mass unemployment — the official figure of 6.1 million in 1932 understated a true total that, including unregistered and short-time workers, may have approached 8 million — meant that a large fraction of the workforce was without work and many more feared losing it. The experience 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 analytical point about the unemployment figure is its political meaning: the slump discredited the parliamentary parties of the centre and channelled mass desperation towards the NSDAP and the KPD.
The first decisive political consequence of the slump 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 funding the unemployment insurance scheme. Rather than seek a new majority, President Hindenburg appointed Heinrich Bruning of the Centre Party and authorised him to govern by presidential decree under Article 48. This was a fateful constitutional turning point. Bruning could not command a Reichstag majority, so he governed through emergency decrees, dissolving the Reichstag when it objected; parliamentary democracy was in effect suspended from 1930 onward and replaced by presidential government resting on Article 48. Democracy was being hollowed out from within well before Hitler came to power — arguably the moment parliamentary democracy effectively ended, with what followed a contest over who would control the authoritarian system that replaced it.
Bruning's economic policy compounded the damage. Committed to a rigid deflationary orthodoxy — partly to demonstrate that Germany could not pay reparations — he cut spending, raised taxes and forced down wages, deepening the slump and intensifying the misery driving voters to the extremes. His policy earned him the grim nickname of the 'Hunger Chancellor'.
| Action | Intended aim | Actual effect |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting welfare and salaries | Balance the budget | Increased poverty and hardship |
| Raising taxes | Increase revenue | Reduced consumer spending |
| Forcing down wages | Restore competitiveness | Reduced domestic demand |
| Deflationary policy overall | End reparations; restore confidence | Deepened the Depression |
Understanding why, in the depths of the Depression, millions of Germans cast their votes for the NSDAP requires attention to the movement itself as well as to the crisis around it. The NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party) had grown from the tiny German Workers' Party of 1919, and in 1920 adopted the 25-Point Programme, combining aggressive nationalism, racial doctrine and a strand of anti-capitalist rhetoric. Despite its name it was neither socialist in any conventional sense nor a workers' party, but a radical nationalist, racist and anti-democratic movement. Nazi ideology, set out most fully in Mein Kampf, was not a systematic philosophy but a constellation of interlocking obsessions.
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Racial theory | A supposed hierarchy of races with the 'Aryan' at its summit, framing Jews as a parasitic 'anti-race' |
| Antisemitism | Jews blamed for defeat, for Bolshevism, for capitalism and for cultural change alike |
| Lebensraum | The demand for 'living space' in the east, to be seized by conquest |
| Social Darwinism | A view of life as racial struggle, in which war was natural and even desirable |
| Fuhrerprinzip | The 'leader principle': an all-powerful leader whose will was law |
| Volksgemeinschaft | The vision of a racially unified, classless national community |
These ideas were mutually reinforcing: antisemitism supplied a single, all-purpose enemy onto whom every grievance could be projected; social Darwinism justified the pursuit of Lebensraum; and the Fuhrerprinzip licensed the dictatorship needed to accomplish these goals. The danger of the ideology lay precisely in its internal coherence, not in mere irrational hatred.
The failure of the Munich Putsch in 1923 had taught Hitler that power could not be seized by force against the army and the state, but must be won, at least in form, through the ballot box and then subverted from within. This 'legality strategy' governed Nazi tactics after 1924 and shaped the rebuilding of the party into a formidable national organisation: a territorial Gau system of regional branches, a web of affiliated organisations reaching into every social group, the paramilitary SA providing muscle and street presence, and, from 1930, centrally directed propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. The pivotal Bamberg Conference of 1926 confirmed the primacy of nationalism, racial ideology and Hitler's unchallengeable leadership over the more 'socialist' northern wing. Crucially, the legality strategy did not mean abandoning force: the NSDAP pursued a dual strategy, combining the appearance of constitutional respectability with organised street violence by the SA, so that the Nazis could pose as the only movement capable of restoring order against the very chaos their own followers helped to create — while the veneer of legality reassured the conservatives who might otherwise have resisted them.
Under Goebbels the party developed propaganda of unusual sophistication, designed less to argue a programme than to project an emotional impression of strength, dynamism and national renewal. Mass rallies, striking posters, the party newspaper, radio, film and the cultivation of Hitler's image were matched carefully to audience: work and bread to the unemployed, protection to the farmer, a bulwark against communism to the frightened middle class, excitement to the young. The crucial analytical point is that propaganda did not create grievances from nothing; it was effective because it resonated with pre-existing anxieties intensified by the Depression.
The sociology of the Nazi vote qualifies any simple picture. The NSDAP was, more than any previous German party, a genuine 'catch-all' movement drawing support across the social spectrum — but its support was unevenly distributed, and certain groups were markedly over-represented.
| 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; anti-Marxism |
| 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 the Centre Party and the Church |
| Industrial workers | Lower, but not negligible | Some, especially the unemployed and non-unionised, were drawn in |
Two patterns matter for analysis. The religious divide was among the strongest predictors of the vote: Protestant Germany, particularly the countryside and small towns, returned far higher Nazi votes than Catholic regions, where the Centre Party and the Church provided an effective barrier. And while the NSDAP penetrated the working class less successfully than other groups — the SPD and KPD held much of their support — it attracted enough workers to make its catch-all character real. Avoid the cliché that 'the middle class' simply voted Nazi out of economic fear: the evidence shows a catch-all movement with a strong religious and regional patterning, and the appeal reached across classes, which is part of what made it so dangerous.
The electoral statistics chart the destruction of the moderate centre and the surge to the extremes with stark clarity. In the relatively prosperous election of May 1928 the NSDAP had been a fringe party with 2.6% of the vote; by July 1932 it had become the largest party in Germany with 37.3%.
| 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% |
| DNVP | 14.2% | 7.0% | 5.9% | 8.3% |
| Liberals (DDP and DVP) | 13.6% | 8.6% | 2.6% | 3.1% |
Several features are analytically important. 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. The collapse of the liberal and conservative parties shows that the NSDAP drew much of its support by cannibalising the existing right and centre-right, not from the socialist working class, whose parties held up far better. 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. And, strikingly, the Nazi vote actually fell back in November 1932, from 37.3% to 33.1% — evidence that the surge had peaked and was beginning to recede, which makes the decision to appoint Hitler in January 1933 all the more revealing of the role of elite intrigue rather than an irresistible popular tide.
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 in the bloodshed of January 1919, was the bitter hostility between the two great parties of the working class, the SPD and the KPD. On instructions ultimately deriving from Moscow, the Communists treated the Social Democrats as their principal enemy, denouncing them 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', tolerating Bruning's decrees as the lesser evil, which demoralised its supporters and offered no positive answer to the crisis. The catastrophic illustration came with the Preussenschlag of July 1932, when Papen deposed the SPD-led Prussian government by decree and the SPD, fearing civil war and unsure of the loyalty of the police and army, submitted with only a legal protest.
| Defender | Stance in the crisis | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| SPD | Toleration of Bruning; legal protest only against the Preussenschlag | Demoralisation; no active defence of democracy |
| KPD | 'Social fascism' line; treated the SPD as the main enemy | The left fatally divided against itself |
| Centre Party | Supplied Bruning, then drifted toward accommodation | Willingness to contemplate authoritarian solutions |
| Liberal parties | Electoral collapse | Disappearance of the moderate centre |
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 delayed price of divisions sown in the Republic's earliest years.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.