How To Start a War, by Trapani
This book carefully navigates how the Nazi’s came to power. It is well written and the author takes pains when the drama builds to be clear that what he is reading is from transcripts of actual discussion taken as decisions were had. There is little heresy in this book.
My focus was less on (one more) recapitulation of Shirer’s books or any of the other histories of Naziism but rather, the tactics, explicit tactics, and observations made by people in the Nazi party.
Some of his points are obvious: huge social and economic problems make citizens willing to take risks. Someone with a clear and consistent message with a promise to solve problems that are complex is an answer in that setting when otherwise…… Having a propaganda machine to hammer the message home is also invaluable and relatively easy to provide when you control the media. Watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington for a 1930’s American propaganda that lays out our version of the themes of the time. Hitler was constrained by a constitution until his party achieved a majority in the Reichstag (the German Congress) at which point, that control provided him blank checks to do what he wanted. This was a great reminder and something the book emphasizes—Germany had its first representative government — ever —starting in 1919— and it did not last two decades: the citizens voted it away to an authoritarian leader. German citizens voted for personal security and national pride over having a real voice in how the country would or should be run. German culture and its needs over-rode “common sense.” This has happened in plenty of other countries but the time and place and the pace of industrial and technical changes made the outcome of this vote an outlier as to things gone wrong.
Being an authoritarian, Hitler was clear about his goals and the power he planned to gain to implement them—-every step of the way—-and yet polarized opinions as reported through the news and disorganized opposition parties made this relatively easy to achieve even when a majority of Germans did not agree with all of his vision. His use of para-military shock troops (the brownshirts) were icing on the cake to shore up the indecisive ones. You voice opposition to his vision or tactics? You are labelled a communist, shunned, and or beaten up—or worse.
.
Germany was intensely polarized in the midst of the depression—more so than we are now in the USA. When candidate Trump points to how things have never been this bad, we need to look back to the thirties (when most of our parents were children) to realize that is not so—he is wrong..
Hitler is described as charismatic and while we may not get that seeing old news clips of his speechmaking, objectively, German citizens clearly saw it. This charisma was comparable with a shocking public use of language and opinions—he denigrated opponents with “vile” language and of course, had a theory about Jews that finds parallels only in the American deep south of the same time. Since Newt Gingriche’s time, there are conservatives who say the world, “Liberal” with a curl of the lip dripping with disdain, much as when Goebbels said the word, “Jew.”
The tipping point was when he assumed leadership and the old figurehead president (Hindenburg) died. He was legislated the power that made him a dictator in the early 1930’s and yet, he was still vulnerable. He had made the terms of surrender after WWI a focal point of dissatisfaction and effectively bluffed the future allies into accepting Germany’s continued defiance of that surrender. He marched 3000 troops into the demilitarized zone (the Rhineland) knowing that if the French (with 1.5 million troops) opposed him, his regime would collapse. The depression, the cost of mobilization, the memory of so many dead in the last war all led to non-action on the part of the French. Had as few as 3,000 French marched in opposition, the Germans would have retreated and the Nazi regime would have failed. French politics were messy as well and a further lesson: it is easier to plan and win a war when the opposition is fragmented, disorganized, and afraid. If you think back to a physical fight you might have had when young, remember that if you don’t want to fight and the other guy is dying to fight, you are at a distinct disadvantage.
The recording of his announcing, live to the Reichstag— that German troops had reoccupied the Rhineland is impressive. No one in that body refrained from shouting at the top of their lungs with joy and admiration. This action picked up converts who might still think his theories and belief system were suspect, but here he delivered the goods!
NOT in the book is an interesting point: in 1919 and for the following years, in England, the discussion about the war went something like this: “That was appalling! How did that happen? We nearly lost and may yet lose our empire. That must never ever happen again.” There was an antiwar movement in England that had traction at all levels of society and leadership. This in part left England at a disadvantage as war became unavoidable. In Germany, the point of view was quite different: “How the hell did we lose that war? We had it in the bag! Something weird happened—what was that?” Traitors in German society (Jews) were an easy target. There was some thinking about, “next time.” One theorist argues that in fact, WWI and WWII were simply extensions of the same fundamental conflict and the interwar years simply a “time out.”
The German army leadership was alarmed by Hitler but admired his pluck. That he reclaimed the Rhineland gave him credibility because, scarred by war and lacking resources, they would never have dared to pull off that stunt.
Germany would come to intimidate the Austrians into giving up their independence and joining Germany. There was resistance. Hitler treated Austrian leaders with disdain, rude language, and obvious threats of invasion. He manipulated their prime minister into a meeting in Germany with no supporting staff. He caved. Hitler hand- picked the next leader before the German troops entered. During the non-negotiations Hitler had fits of nerves exploding with energy and frustration. He was observed to lie on the ground kicking his arms and legs. He would chew the carpet when lying on the ground and his support staff used a slang expression for him, “Carpet eater.” A modern state in modern times had a dysfunctional leader with this behavior and who would know? If a video of this behavior had been made public, would it have changed anything?
Czechoslovakia’s collapse made clear to anyone listening that one could not believe a thing Hitler said as binding. He used words for effect and they were often in conflict with actions taken. He continued to play on the fears of all the participants of WWI; they all wanted to avoid a repeat of that war and he fully planned to give them exactly that while clearly stating otherwise. If what someone actually does is in conflict with the view they project, as was the case for the allies negotiating, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
Having the police state and economy building towards war, a decision is made to act on the Jewish population. This minority population was found throughout Germany and explicitly stigmatized. Kristallnacht had the support of the government, local governments, and many citizens who carried off property thrown out of broken windows. An economic crisis followed that divided even the Nazi leadership. Most of the properties damaged were rented by Jews and owned by Aryans who had insurance. The insurance industry in the midst of the world-wide depression did not have the reserves to pay out the claims which were significant: just to replace all the broken windows in Germany from that night would cost more than all the payouts for all claims the year before.. A bail-out was needed and found German leaders arguing the point along the lines of, “Couldn’t you just kill a bunch of jews without causing all this damage that we now have to pay out?”
The decision to invade Poland made, the Italian foreign secretary was brought to Berlin to discuss the plan. Italy was not prepared to fight a world war. The Germans welcomed it and were aggressively clear about how easy it was going to be to take Poland and they predicted the West would back down. It is an interesting point; William Shirer was struck at how interviewed Germans for years before the war had very unilateral points of view about negotiations, and how other people should react with a double standard being that the Germans were not held by the same constraints. The Italians knew better but their opinions were not considered.
To draw conclusions about WWII and try to apply them to the modern world is problematic. We are all intelligent people that whatever our background or beliefs, we will find how now is different than then. I think using Hitler as the focus or point of reference is often overdrawn. My look at this book tries to distill the themes down to how authoritarian people think and use strategy to concentrate power in the face of opposition. For those who want to make the analogy of Trump and Hitler (I have always preferred comparing him to Mussolini taking note of issues like competence as well as narcism—all the more evident on rally footage). I think the principles outlined in the book apply to business as well—Elon Musk is an authoritarian—any large organization finds power by isolating minority opinions, lying, exaggerating, bullying, overtly or subtly, and so on.
The conclusion of the book challenges those of us lucky enough to have some voice in our government. He notes that most of us assume the checks and balances work and that the society and government autocorrect. He thinks despite our wealth and comfort and experience, these are almost always short term realities and power not only abhors a vacuum but seeks to organize and overwhelm. And those who fear the deep state would agree.
His final points about the past repeating itself:
Germany was going to go to war with Poland no matter what. It contrived a border incident with actors playing the part of Polish soldiers invading Germany. The blood spilled by, “those animals” set the machine in play. In 2012, Russian actors played the part of Ukrainians in the Crimea and precipitated the annexation of Crimea.
Kristalnacht was an organized act of terror- organized by a national government against a cultural and religious minority with very specific goals in mind. Propaganda and force were used as was isolation of the population and destruction of their means of living. The Chinese government has followed this same path with the Uighars who are a cultural and religious minority distinct from the mainstream Chinese culture.
The burning of the Rheichstad (seat of the German government) was attributed to an agitator while actually was performed by Nazi’s to get the population on board with a number of activities all meant to consolidate power behind one authoritarian. Turkey saw an attempted take over of its government by military coup and similarly, this served to elevate the current president to an authoritarian position of power.
The beerhall incident by Hitler draws an analogy with January 6—both ending with violence at a government seat of power—and being labelled a trivial thing with the government overreacting by those who supported it—and failing—-but setting up the return of the protagonists with a new more successful strategy……….
Comments