One of the greatest historical points of contention is the environment or processes that

allowed the National Socialist Party, the Nazis, to come to power in Germany. In a time of
desperation and depression, as well as progressive thinking and actions, a regime was brought
into power that set progressive ideas aside and committed some of the greatest atrocities known
to man in the Holocaust.
How could such an institution come into place? John Strachey, a British author in the
1930s with a Marxist viewpoint1, attributes both the long running finances and growth of Fascist
parties, the Nazi party in particular, and the sudden accumulation of power just as support for the
Nazis began to decline to wealthy capitalist backers. These sponsors already had the power, but
utilized the party as a tool to maintain their power and wealth. He defines Fascism and its
purpose as the movement for the preservation by violence, and at all costs, of the private
ownership of the means of production. As such he believes fascism to be the enemy democracy,
internationalism, science, and education, with the goal being destruction of these things by
killing, torturing, and terrorizing in defense of the capitalists. He reasons it has come to this as
they fear that capitalism is non-compatible with these progressions. The wealthy capitalists
create parties to act on their behalf, comprised of lower middle class and peasants, who are led to
believe they are fighting for their cause, but share few similar interests with their funders.
Touting progressive ideas and practicality, it really is to maintain the private ownership of
production.2
1 Leslie Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2002), 102.
2 John Strachey, The Menace of Fascism (Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1933), Reprint, Leslie
Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2002), 102-104.

Gallagher 2

Giving the example of Hitlers rise to power in Germany, Strachey says that despite
obvious decline in the Nazi movements popularity, Hitler was suddenly given his position as
chancellor, then President. This goes against Von Hindenburg, the previous President of
Germany, who was against Hitler, and a strong supporter of the German Constitution. This losing
of momentum was the precise reason Hitler was handed his power the German ruling class was
afraid of losing their power. Using Mussolini as an example, Strachey states the march on Rome
was an exceedingly mild affair. Both Hitler and Mussolini were the best options for the
capitalists.3
A. J. P. Taylor, a professor at Manchester and Oxford Universities4, took a look at
German History to try to explain the successful ascension of the Nazi party. Charlemagne, the
Holy Roman Empire, and the German Confederation all show a history of violence. He groups
the Germans with other eastern European nations, often using the terminology Barbarians. The
Germans, thinking better of themselves, are trying to distance themselves from their lesser
counterparts. In this effort they would never be happy without war. Luther, of Lutheranism and
his religious interpretation of the Bible, gave Germany a united nation but destroyed their
politics by believing in liberty in service to a prince. The ultimate trouble came with the failed
revolution of 1848, as the military strength of Austria and Prussia resurged. The National
Assembly lost its power and the German people came to only respect strong leaders, primarily in

3 John Strachey, The Menace of Fascism (Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1933), Reprint, Leslie
Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2002), 105-107.
4 Leslie Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth, 2002), 108.

Gallagher 3

military force. Foreign war was what bound the German states together, and it is what the people
needed. 5
So what took the German people so long to give Hitler power when he offered what the
German people needed? Taylor attributes this to brutality and lawlessness of the National
Socialists. But German barbarity and the desire for the destruction of their barbarian neighbors
to the east caused the public to eventually give in to Hitler and the Nazis. Although perhaps
hesitant at helping the Nazis, Germans sought the grand prize of reversing the shame enacted
upon them in 1918 by the Treaty of Versailles, not merely the reparations and forced guilt, but to
remove the stigma of equality with the nations to the east such as Czechoslovakia and Poland,
which the Germans did not consider equal. 6
Taylor holds a more compelling and substantiated argument than the conspiracy claims of
Strachey. Strachey published shortly after the Nazis rose to prominent power while Taylor
published at the end of the Second World War, after years of revelations and new information.
Taylor is backed by the distrust of big business toward the Nazis, the general acceptance of
violence by the Germans, and the complex fashion in which Hitler arose to power.
John Merriman in A History of Modern Europe says the primary followers and supporters
of fascism are middle-class frustrated by poor economic conditions, and fear of socialist and
communist movements that would increase social aid primarily impacting the earnings of the
5 A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (The Putnam Publishing Group, 1946),
Reprint, Leslie Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth, 2002), 107-114.
6 A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (The Putnam Publishing Group, 1946),
Reprint, Leslie Derfler and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth, 2002), 115-116.

Gallagher 4

middle class.7 Alfredo Rocco, the Minister of Justice of Italy during Mussolinis rule describes
the economic policies of fascist states. Fascists make the choices best in the interest of the
society, which is the accumulation of individuals. Considering economic freedom and state
interference viable options, they will be applied in the moment as necessary.8 This could be
touted to both the wealthy and the lower classes, but would generate more fear in wealthy
capitalists than excitement from the common worker. In another definition of what comprises
fascism, control of the economy is through the bureaucratic coordination of formerly
independent corporate entities which is removing the power from private ownership.9 Merriman
elaborates on this distrust, saying big businessmen were suspicious of Nazi mass appeal,
preferring traditional authoritarian movements, movements that appealed to their sense of social
exclusiveness. Middle class small business owners were the backbone of the Nazis. They
desired protection from Hitler, and did not care if this was through military power and violence.10
Another reason that the Nazis were not a tool of the wealthy capitalist is that they were only one
of many extreme right-wing groups, many which were more supported than the Nazis, and who
were not so extreme in corporatism, anti-Semitism, and creating a new elite class. The ideas had
multiple points of origin. The proportion of votes submitted for parties from the last election in
7 John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2010), 1000.
8 Alfredo Rocco, The Political Doctrine of Fascism (Italy, 1929)
9 Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and
Autocracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), Reprint, Leslie Derfler
and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2002),
122.
10 John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2010), 1014.

Gallagher 5

1928 to last free election in 1932 show rapid decline in middle class and growth in the Nazi
party, while the decline in the conservative party, DNVP, only decreased half as much as most
others.11 The process of ascending to power was complex and had a multitude of events that
culminated in the final result of Fhrer. The Nazis had rapidly growing support in the years
preceding Hitlers appointment. In 1930 the Nazis attained 18 percent of the vote for parliament.
In 1932 Hitler ran for president, receiving 5.5 million votes fewer than Hindenburgs 19 million.
The third place had less than one fourth of Hindenburgs. In the Reichstag elections the Nazis
became the largest party in the parliament even after losing 2 million votes. Papen, a previous
chancellor, created a coalition with the Nazis to beat out his successor Schleicher. Papen had the
intention of removing Hitler once the Weimar Republic was no more, and convinced Hindenburg
to appoint him with Papen as Vice-Chancellor to keep an eye on Hitler. Hitler squashed
opposition and was given the powers of parliament by the Enabling Act, still receiving mass
appeal even after multiple instances of violence against opposition. The members of the S.A. or
Stormtroopers wore military-esque uniforms that gave them respect from the German people,
as they have since the Princes of Martin Luthers time and then the military unification of Otto
Von Bismarck. Once Hindenburg died, Hitler consolidated the positions of Chancellor and
President, gaining absolute control.12
Taylor takes an extreme view of the barbarity of the German people as a member of an
allied nation directly at the end of the most devastating conflict on Earth. His resentment of his
11 Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics
(Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1982), Reprint, Leslie Derfler
and Patricia Kollander, An Age of Conflict (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2002),
125.
12 John Merriman, A History of Modern Europe (New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2010), 1020-1025.

Gallagher 6

enemy explains his severity, but his ideas are well noted. His time of publishing at the conclusion
of the conflict instead of 6 years before war broke out allow new information to be collected,
leading to a more complete view of the cause of the Nazi rise to power. Fresh in the minds of the
German people was the defeat in 1918 and the embarrassment it left. They were willing to give
up liberties to regain their pride and strength.