WeimarRepublic IntroductionandThesisStatement_1 xUnitFinalEssay2 OpportunismDuringKristallnacht TheNightofthePogrom AVisitor__sPerspectiveonKristallnacht AFamilyrespondstoKristallnacht DiscoveringJewishBlood First_Regulation_Reich_Citizenship FromDemocracytoDictatorship WeimarRepublicEconomy WeimarRepublicSociety
The Holocaust, and the Power and Impact of Our Choices
To what extent was democracy in jeopardy in Weimar Germany?
Assignment Objective: To inquire about the problems Weimar Germany faced that
set the stage for the Nazi Party.
Instructions:
● Complete the tasks inside this document by analyzing the primary sources in the
attachments: “Society”, “Politics”, and “Economy”.
Task 1: Using the primary sources, identify examples that were good for the Weimar
Republic, and examples that were bad for the Weimar Republic.
>>>Use this sentence stem to shape your entries:
We see/find in the primary source (description of primary source; what is
happening/what does it say?)______________________________. This shows that
(explain how it was either good or bad for the Weimar Republic)__________________.
Politics
Excerpts from the
Weimar Constitution
Stabbed in the Back
Spartacists
Proclamation
Soldiers in German
Revolution
Kapp Putsch
Economy
Hyperinflation
statistics
Children stack inflated
currency
Women and Children
in line
Homeless Shelter
Worker’s
Demonstration
Society
Christian women go
vote
Jewish women
provides ID card
Anti Semitism incident
Education in Weimar
Germany
Task 2: Connections
1. How would you describe the overall mood and feelings by Germans in Weimar Germany?
2. What do you think was the most important factor in shaping distrust toward the Weimar
government? Explain.
3. In what ways was Germany divided in an “Us vs Them” society during this time? Be sure
to explain.
4. What do you think was the Weimar democracy’s greatest challenge to its existence?
Why?
Task 3: To what extent was democracy in jeopardy in Weimar Germany?
Write in a complete paragraph. State a clear topic sentence. Provide multiple points
supported with evidence from the primary sources, and a concluding sentence.
2
What does learning about the choices people made during the Weimar Republic, the Nazi regime and the Holocaust teach us about the power and impact of our choices today?
By (Name)
Course
Professor
Date
What does learning about the choices people made during the Weimar Republic, the Nazi regime and the Holocaust teach us about the power and impact of our choices today?
Introduction
People choices play an instrumental role to the overall outcomes of the society and in the case of Weimar Republic, the Nazi Regime and the Holocaust people made choices which had diverse consequences that continue to be felt today. In all the scenarios the choices made by the leaders, the subjects and the international community had a significant impact on the German’s societal outcomes. The universe of obligation can be cited to show the nature in which the Nazi and the Weimar government prioritized one group over the other. Besides, it is evident that the Germans choices to condone the misgivings of the Nazi and the Weimar republic bore the holocaust in which Jews were killed in concentration camps and their properties destroyed.
Thesis Statement
This paper will seek to explore the different choices that were made by the leaders, the Germans and the international community during the Weimar Republic, the Nazi Regime and the Holocaust and assess the key lessons on power of choices and their impact lessons for the contemporary society in terms of democracy, freedoms and rights and more importantly the theme of social responsibilities.
Unit Final Essay
Holocaust and Human Behaviour
Unit Essential Question: What does learning about the choices people made during the Weimar
Republic, the Nazi regime and the Holocaust teach us about the power and impact of our choices today?
The goal of our unit is to learn about the power and impact of the choices made during this history in
order to teach us about the power and impact of our choices today.
Essay Criteria
A. Structure
Introduction and Thesis
❏ Introduce the topic and purpose of the essay
❏ Present a clear and concise thesis–a 1-2 sentence statement addressing your response to the
essay question. What are 3 most significant lessons learned that teach you the power and impact
of our choices today? Organize them into themes.
❏ What happens when we don’t stand up for democracy? Your rights and freedoms? Each
other?
❏ What happens when people narrow their obligation toward others?
❏ What happens when we ignore our social responsibilities?
❏ What happens when we let others define our identities for us?
Body Paragraphs (3 in total, 1 paragraph for each lesson in your thesis)
❏ A clear topic sentence — includes a point (in our case, a lesson learned) you are making directly
connected to your thesis.
❏ Evidence — provide relevant and specific evidence of the choices that were made, and the
consequences of those choices (first 2 columns)
❏ Provide more than one piece of evidence per point. A variety (no more than 3) from
across the four research stages shows a stronger argument for your point.
❏ Use criteria (concepts of human behaviour) we have learned to assess the choices
and their consequences (identity, stereotypes, universe of obligation, us vs them
dynamic, pressures of conformity).
❏ Explanation — Column 3! You will notice that there will be overlap and patterns in Column 3
across the four stages of your research. Treat these as conclusions to your point. Fully explain
how the choices and consequences made in the past teach you about the power and impact of our
choices today with reference to major themes.
Conclusion
❏ Summarize the explanations (what did these lessons teach you about the power and impact of our
choices today?) presented in the three body paragraphs, and concluding thoughts such as what
this found knowledge will mean to you or can do for you in your life.
B. Formatting
❏ Title Page (Title, Name, Course, Block). See example for proper formatting.
❏ Minimum of 1700 words. Maximum of 2400.
❏ Paragraphs are indented, size 12 font, 1.5 line spacing.
❏ In-text citations. See example for proper formatting.
❏ Either directly reference the source’s title followed by a direct quote from the source, or
cite the source’s title at the end of the direct quote.
❏ Works Cited Page at the end of the essay. See example for proper formatting.
I am not asking you to do outside research. Any sources you use from class/Google Classroom
should be used as your supporting details for your evidence. For your Works Cited page, provide
the Titles of the sources in quotations that you used in your essay in alphabetical order. If there
isn’t a title (for example, an image), create one.
Title Page Formatting
The Holocaust, and the Power
and Impact of Our Choices
Jacob Bower
Social Studies 11
Block A
Works Cited Page Formatting
Works Cited
“A Matter of Obedience”
“Bystanders in Hartheim Castle”
“Difficult Choices in Poland”
“Hyperinflation Statistics”
“Public Humiliation”
“Who Chose the Nazi Party”
In-text Citation Example
Direct reference of the title followed by quote:
In “Allegory of the Cave,” Plato says, “He [human/prisoner] would be a wit’s end and in addition would
consider that what he previously saw [with his own eyes] was more unhidden than what was now being
shown [to him by someone else].”
Direct quote followed by Title in parenthesis:
This is shown when Plato says, “He [human/prisoner] would be a wit’s end and in addition would
consider that what he previously saw [with his own eyes] was more unhidden than what was now being
shown [to him by someone else]” (“Allegory of the Cave”).
Incomplete Developing Meeting Exceeding
Ethical Dimension
Uses Criteria
– Concepts of
human
behaviour
(identity,
stereotypes,
universe of
obligation,
us vs them
dynamic,
pressures of
conformity).
Student has not used
criteria to draw
conclusions from the
choices made in the
past to teach them
about the power and
impact of choices
today. Conclusions
are not explained,
appropriate, based on
relevant themes nor
addresses the essay
question.
Student uses some
criteria to draw
conclusions from the
choices made in the
past to teach them
about the power and
impact of choices
today. Conclusions
are somewhat
explained, reasonable,
based on relevant
themes, and addresses
the essay question.
Student uses most
criteria to draw
conclusions from the
choices made in the
past to teach them
about the power and
impact of choices
today. Conclusions
are explained,
reasonable, based on
relevant themes, and
mostly addresses the
essay question.
Student uses criteria
to draw conclusions
from the choices
made in the past to
teach them about the
power and impact of
choices today.
Conclusions are
articulate, insightful,
based on relevant
themes, and specific
to the essay question.
Essay Criteria
A. Structure
B. Formatting
Student has not
applied any of the
necessary criteria and
there are major errors
throughout the essay.
The essay has been
entirely
compromised.
Student has applied
some of the necessary
criteria with some
major errors which
has compromised the
essay to some degree.
Student has applied
all the necessary
criteria with some
minor errors without
compromising the
essay.
Student has
successfully applied
all the necessary
essay criteria without
errors in a masterful
way.
Written Clarity Student’s essay
contains many clarity
issues. Their points,
supporting details and
explanations contain
glaring spelling and
grammar errors, and
gaps that completely
take away from the
flow and train of
thought of the essay.
Student’s essay
contains some clarity
issues. Their points,
supporting details and
explanations contain
spelling and grammar
errors, and gaps that,
at times, take away
from the flow and
train of thought of the
essay.
Student’s essay is
mostly clear and
concise. Their points,
supporting details and
explanations contains
some minor spelling
and grammar errors
but overall the essay
is clear.
Student’s essay is
written clearly and
concisely. All points
are articulated,
supported with
evidence, and fully
explained without
errors, gaps or
confusing language.
Opportunism During Kristallnacht
Despite Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller’s instructions to state police that plundering be
held to a minimum (see reading, The Night of the Pogrom), the theft of goods, property, and
money from Jews by German police, SS members, and civilians amid the chaos of Kristallnacht
was widespread.
German newspapers reported the looting of and theft from Jewish-owned businesses.
According to Berlin’s Daily Herald newspaper, “The great shopping centers looked as though
they had suffered an air raid . . . Showcases were torn from the walls, furniture broken, electric
signs smashed to fragments.” The News Chronicle newspaper, also from Berlin, reported
looters “smashing with peculiar care the windows of jewellery shops and, sniggering, stuffing
into their pockets the trinkets and necklaces that fell on the pavements.”
In Vienna, Helga Milberg, who was eight years old during Kristallnacht, recalled that all
of the goods and equipment from her father’s butcher shop were stolen during the pogrom.
“My father saw that the other storekeepers had helped themselves to everything,” she wrote.
According to historian Martin Gilbert, when a British reporter asked a Nazi official
about the widespread theft of goods from Jewish businesses during Kristallnacht in Vienna, the
official responded:
“We began seizing goods from Jewish shops because sooner or later they would have been
nationalised [confiscated by the government] anyway.” The goods thus seized, the official
added, “will be used to compensate us for at least part of the damage which the Jews have been
doing for years to the German people.”
Gilbert also describes how Kurt Füchsl’s family lost their home.
Seven-year-old Kurt Füchsl was bewildered by the events of Kristallnacht, and by being
forced to leave home with his family early on the morning of November 10. He later recalled:
“What happened, as recounted to me by my Mother, was that an interior decorator had taken a
picture of our beautiful living room and displayed the picture of our apartment in his shop
window. A Frau [Mrs.] Januba saw the picture and heard that we were Jewish. She came
around to the apartment and asked if it was for sale. She was told it wasn’t, but a few days later,
on the morning of Kristallnacht, she came back with some officers and said, ‘This apartment is
now mine.’ She showed a piece of paper with a swastika stamped on it and told us that we
would have to leave by six that evening.” Kurt Füchsl’s mother protested to the officers who
were accompanying Frau Januba that she had a sick child at home who was already asleep. “All
right,” they told her, “but you have to get out by six in the morning.”
German officials also stole cash from Jewish businesses and families. Two weeks after
Kristallnacht, Margarete Drexler wrote the following letter to the Gestapo, requesting the
return of the money officials had taken from her home in Mannheim, Germany:
Mannheim, 24 November 1938
Margarete Drexler, Landau Pfalz Suedring St. 10
To the Secret State Police Landau (Pfalz) The sum of 900 Marks in cash was confiscated from
me in the course of the action of 10 November. I herewith request to act for the return of my
money, as I need it urgently for me and my child’s livelihood. I hope that my request will be
granted, as my husband died as a result of his injuries during the war — he fought and died for
his fatherland with extreme courage — and I am left without any income. Until recent years
you could have found a photo of my husband on the wall next to the picture of
Generalfeldmarschall [Paul] von Hindenburg in the canteen of the 23 Infantry regiment in
Landau. This was done to honour his high military performance. His medals and decorations
prove that he fought with great courage and honour. He received: The Iron Cross First Class,
The Iron Cross Second Class, The Military Order of Merit Fourth Class with swords. The
Military Order of Sanitation 2 class with a blue-white ribbon. This ribbon is usually bestowed
only upon recipients of the Max Joseph Order, which accepts only members of the nobility. I
can only hope that as a widow of such a man, so honoured by his country, my request for the
return of my property will not be in vain.
With German greetings,
(signed) Frau Margarete Drexler
Widow of reserve staff surgeon
Dr. Hermann Drexler
In 1940, Drexler was arrested and imprisoned in a concentration camp in France, where
she died.
The Night of the Pogrom
Hugo Moses described what he experienced on Kristallnacht and in the days that
followed:
On the evening of 9 November 1938, the SA brown-shirts and the SS black-shirts met in
bars to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of [the Nazis’] failed putsch in Munich. Around
eleven o’clock in the evening, I came home from a Jewish aid organization meeting and I can
testify that most of the “German people” who a day later the government said were responsible
for what happened that night lay peacefully in bed that evening. Everywhere lights had been
put out, and nothing suggested that in the following hours such terrible events would take
place.
Even the uniformed party members were not in on the plan; the order to destroy Jewish
property came shortly before they moved from the bars to the Jewish houses. (I have this
information from the brother of an SS man who took an active part in the pogroms.)
At 3 a.m. sharp, someone insistently rang at the door to my apartment. I went to the
window and saw that the streetlights had been turned off. Nonetheless, I could make out a
transport vehicle out of which emerged about twenty uniformed men. I recognized only one of
them, a man who served as the leader; the rest came from other localities and cities and were
distributed over the district in accordance with marching orders. I called out to my wife: “Don’t
be afraid, they are party men; please keep calm.” Then I went to the door in my pajamas and
opened it.
A wave of alcohol hit me, and the mob forced its way into the home. A leader pushed by
me and yanked the telephone off the wall. A leader of the SS men, green-faced with
drunkenness, cocked his revolver as I watched and then held it to my forehead and slurred:
“Do you know why we’ve come here, you swine?” I replied, “No,” and he went on, “Because of
the outrageous act committed in Paris, for which you are also to blame. If you even try to move,
I’ll shoot you like a pig.” I kept quiet and stood, my hands behind my back, in the ice-cold
[draft] coming in the open door. An SA man, who must have had a little human feeling,
whispered to me: “Keep still. Don’t move.” During all this time and for another twenty minutes,
the drunken SS leader fumbled threateningly with his revolver near my forehead. An
inadvertent movement on my part or a clumsy one on his and my life would have been over. If I
live to be a hundred, I will never forget that brutish face and those dreadful minutes.
In the meantime, about ten uniformed men had invaded my house. I heard my wife cry:
“What do you want with my children? You’ll touch the children over my dead body!” Then I
heard only the crashing of overturned furniture, the breaking of glass and the trampling of
heavy boots. Weeks later, I was still waking from restless sleep, still hearing that crashing,
hammering, and striking. We will never forget that night. After about half an hour, which
seemed to me an eternity, the brutish drunks left our apartment, shouting and bellowing. The
leader blew a whistle and as his subordinates stumbled past him, fired his revolver close to my
head, two shots to the ceiling. I thought my eardrums had burst but I stood there like a wall. (A
few hours later I showed a police officer the two bullet holes.) The last SA man who left the
building hit me on the head so hard with the walking stick he had used to destroy my pictures
that a fortnight later the swelling was still perceptible. As he went out, he shouted at me:
“There you are, you Jewish pig. Have fun.” . . .
Towards dawn, a police officer appeared in order to determine whether there was any
damage visible from the outside, such as broken window glass or furniture thrown out into the
street. Shaking his head, he said to us, as I showed him the bullet holes from the preceding
night: “It’s a disgrace to see all this. It wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t had to stay in our
barracks.” As he left, the officer said, “I hope it’s the last time this will happen to you.”
Two hours later, another police officer appeared and told Moses, “I’m sorry, but I have
to arrest you.”
I said to him, “I have never broken the law; tell me why you are arresting me.” The
officer: “I have been ordered to arrest all Jewish men. Don’t make it so hard for me, just follow
me.” My wife accompanied me to the police station. . . .
At the police station, the officers were almost all nice to us. Only one officer told my
wife: “Go home. You may see your husband again after a few years of forced labor in the
concentration camp, if he’s still alive.” Another officer, who had been at school with me, said to
his comrade: “Man, don’t talk such nonsense.” To my wife he said: “Just go home now, you’ll
soon have your husband back.” A few hours later my little boy came to see me again. The
experiences of that terrible night and my arrest were too much for the little soul, and he kept
weeping and looking at me as if I were about to be shot. The police officer I knew well took the
child by the hand and said to me: “I’ll take the child to my office until you are taken away. If the
boy saw that, he’d never forget it for the rest of his life.”
After several weeks in prison, Moses was released, thanks to the wife of an “Aryan”
acquaintance. Soon after, he and his family managed to leave Germany. Moses told his story
for the first time in 1940, just a year and a half after the pogrom. He refused to reveal the name
of his town or the identities of those who helped him, because he did not want to endanger
those left behind.
A Visitor’s Perspective on Kristallnacht
René Juvet, a Swiss merchant, was visiting friends in the countryside during the events of
Kristallnacht. The next morning he drove to the town of Bayreuth, where he saw people
watching as houses burned to the ground. At one point, he got out of his car to take a closer
look at a crowd gathered in front of a warehouse where dozens of Jews were being held.
I was reluctant to add myself to the assembled crowd but I had to see with my own eyes
what was happening there. Through the great windows you could see perhaps fifty people
in a bleak, empty hall. Most of them stood against the wall, staring gloomily, a few walked
restlessly about, others were sitting—in spite of the severe cold—on the bare floor. Almost
all of them, incidentally, were inadequately dressed; some only had thrown on a topcoat
over their nightclothes. The SA people who had picked them up during the night had
apparently not allowed them time to put on more clothing. Compared to what happened
later, this was only a small beginning.
At the end of his description of Kristallnacht, Juvet writes:
To the credit of my [non-Jewish German colleagues] I can report that they—with the
exception of Neder, who took part in the operation in his role as an SA
Führer—disapproved of the excesses. Some more, others less. Waldmeyer said nothing,
but he was very thoughtful in ensuing days; Hoffmann, who could almost count himself as
one of the old guard, made no attempt to conceal his horror from me. I also heard that the
workers were outraged. . . .
A little while after this I met our Nuremberg representative, a harmless and industrious
person. He was a member of the SA but was, by chance, kept away from home that
evening. . . .
“I am happy I was not in Nuremberg that evening, it certainly would have rubbed me the
wrong way,” said our representative.
I asked him whether he would have taken part if he had been there. “Of course,” he said,
“orders are orders.”
His words clarified a whole lot of things for me.
A Family responds to Kristallnacht
Marie Kahle (a teacher), her husband (a university professor and Lutheran pastor), and their
sons witnessed the events of Kristallnacht in the city of Bonn and the effects those events had
on their Jewish neighbors and colleagues. Marie Kahle wrote about the choices she and her
family made the next day:
On 10 November, 1938, at 11:30 in the morning, the wife of a Jewish colleague came to me and
reported that both the synagogues in Bonn had been set on fire and that SS men had destroyed
the Jewish shops, to which I replied: “That can’t be true!” She gave me a manuscript to keep,
her husband’s life work. Then one of my sons brought the same news.
My third son immediately went, without my knowing it, to a Jewish clockmaker’s shop,
helped the man’s wife hide a few things and brought home a chest with the most valuable
jewelry and time-pieces. Then he went to a chocolate shop, warned the owner and helped her
move tea, coffee, cocoa, etc. to a room in the very back of the building. While three SS men
were destroying everything in the front of the shop, he slipped out the back door with a suitcase
full of securities and rode home with it on his bicycle. Later on, he spent weeks selling these
hidden things to our acquaintances and thus made money for the two shop owners that the
Gestapo knew nothing about. A Jewish colleague of my husband’s stayed with us all day long
on 10 November and thus avoided being arrested.
From 11 November on, my sons worked furiously to help the Jewish shopkeepers clear
out their shops. I couldn’t take part in this myself because I did not want to endanger my
husband’s position. I could only visit the poor people. During one of these visits, my eldest son
and I were surprised by a policeman, who wrote down my name. The consequence was a
newspaper article . . . for 17 November 1938 headed “This is a betrayal of the people: Frau
Kahle and her son help the Jewess Goldstein clear out.”
On the basis of this newspaper article, my husband was immediately suspended and he was
forbidden to enter . . . the university buildings. My eldest son was also forbidden to enter the
university. He was convicted by a disciplinary court. . . . During the night, our house was
attacked. Window panes were broken, etc. . . . The police came a short time later but went away
again immediately. One of the policemen advised me to look out into the street: there, we
found written in large red letters on the pavement: “Traitors to the People! Jew-lovers!” We
washed the writing away with turpentine.
However, since the people were constantly coming back in their car, I openly rode away
on my bicycle. I did not want to be beaten to death in front of my children and I was also only a
danger to my family. I found shelter in a small Catholic convent, where the nuns were kind
enough to look after me and my youngest child. During the interrogation by the Gestapo a few
days later, I was asked whether I knew the license number of the car whose occupants had
made the attack. When I said “no”, I was released. As I came out of the Gestapo building, this
same car stood in front of the door. I even recognized the driver.
Particularly important in this whole period was a visit in 1939 by a well-known
neurologist who, as Reich Education Director . . . was well up on Jewish matters. He told me,
on two afternoons when we were alone, what would happen to me and my family along the
lines of “Jews and friends of Jews must be exterminated. We are exterminating friends of Jews
and all their offspring.” Then he said that I could not be saved, but my family could. When I
asked what I should do, he gave his answer in the form of a couple of stories in which the wife
committed suicide and thereby saved her family. Then he asked: “How much Veronal [a
sleeping pill] do you have?” When I answered, “Only two grams,” he wrote me a prescription
for the quantity that I was lacking. I carried the Veronal around with me for a few days, but
then decided not to die, but instead to try to escape abroad with my family.
In four months, only three of my husband’s colleagues dared to visit us. I was not
allowed to go out during the day. When one evening I met a colleague’s wife and complained
that no friends or acquaintances had dared to visit me, she said: “That’s not cowardice; we are
just facing facts.”
Soon after, the family left Germany.
Discovering Jewish Blood
The Nuremberg Laws turned Jews from German citizens into “residents of Germany.”
Technically, the law made intermarriage between Jews and German citizens a criminal offense,
but existing marriages were not dissolved or criminalized, perhaps in order to maintain public
support.
The laws transformed the lives of Jews all over Germany, including thousands of people who
had not previously known their families had Jewish heritage. Among them were Marianne
Schweitzer and her siblings.
Although we were not a churchgoing family, we observed Christmas and Easter in the
traditional ways and belonged to the Lutheran church. My parents, my three siblings and I
were all baptized and I took confirmation classes with Martin Niemöller, the former
U-boat commander and his brother who substituted when Martin was in prison for
anti-Nazi activities.
It was in 1932 that my [older] sister Rele provoked my father to reveal our Jewish ancestry
for the first time. She played the violin and rejected a violin teacher because he “looked too
Jewish.” Our father had responded in a rather convoluted way by saying, “Don’t you know
that your grandmother came from the same people as Jesus . . . ?”
Our mother’s side, the Körtes, were “Aryan” by Hitler’s standards. But our father’s parents,
Eugen Schweitzer and Algunde Hollaender were Jews born in Poland who had been
baptized as adults. My father and his two brothers were considered Jews by Hitler’s laws.
Though all were married to non-Jewish wives, our lives were dramatically changed. The
whole family was devastated and worried about our future. My mother’s “Aryan” side
stood by my father. My Körte grandmother said, “If Hitler is against Ernst [my father], I
am against Hitler.”
We heard no anti-Jewish remarks at home, but the antisemitism of that time was so
pervasive and the images in periodicals such as Der Stürmer* so ugly, that Rele later wrote
of her shock at learning her relation to “monsters.” She considered herself “the typical
German girl with blond, curly hair.” I took the news more in stride. I was happy to be able
to stay in school and glad not to be eligible to join Hitler Youth. . . .
In September of 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were introduced. My “Jewish” father was
barred from treating “Aryan” patients, employing “Aryans,” attending concerts or the
theater, or using public transportation. Rele had passed her Abitur, the certification of
completing a high school degree, but as a Mischling**, was ineligible to attend university.
She couldn’t marry her “Aryan” boyfriend Hans, a medical student.
Der Stürmer* – anti-semitic newspaper
Mischling** – ‘mixed blood’
First Regulation to the Reich
Citizenship Law
Note: This law, passed on November 14, 1935, amended the original Reich Citizenship Law, passed on
September 15, 1935.
Article 3
Only the Reich citizen, as bearer of full political rights, exercises the right to vote in political affairs or
can hold public office . . .
Article 4
1. A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He has no right to vote in political affairs and he cannot
occupy public office.
2. Jewish [government] officials will retire as of December 31, 1935 . . .
Article 5
1. A Jew is anyone who is descended from at least three grandparents who are racially full Jews . . .
2. A Jew is also one who is descended from two full Jewish parents, if (a) he belonged to the Jewish
religious community at the time this law was issued, or joined the community later, (b) he was
married to a Jewish person, at the time the law was issued, or married one subsequently, (c) he is
the offspring of a marriage with a Jew, in the sense of Section I, which was contracted after the Law
for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor became effective, (d) he is the offspring of
an extramarital relationship with a Jew, according to Section I, and will be born out of wedlock after
July 31, 1936 . . .1
1 Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Documents on Nazism 1919–1945 (New York: Viking Press, 1974), 463–67.
Handout
© Facing History and Ourselves visit www.facinghistory.org
From Democracy to Dictatorship
While the Nazis were focusing on putting Germans back to work in the midst of the Great
Depression, they also unleashed attacks on their political opposition as soon as Hitler became
chancellor. On the evening of February 27, 1933, alarms suddenly rang out in the Reichstag as
fire destroyed the building’s main chamber. Within 20 minutes, Hitler was on the scene to
declare: “This is a God-given signal! If this fire, as I believe, turns out to be the handiwork of
Communists, then there is nothing that shall stop us now from crushing out this murderous
pest with an iron fist.”
Marinus van der Lubbe was the man the Nazis captured that night. He confessed to setting the
building ablaze but repeatedly insisted that he had acted alone. Adolf Hitler paid no attention
to the confession. He saw a chance to get rid of what he considered the Nazis’ most immediate
rival—the Communists—so he ordered the arrest of anyone with ties to the Communist Party.
Within days, the Nazis had thrown 4,000 Communists and their leaders into hastily created
prisons and concentration camps. By the end of March, 20,000 Communists had been
arrested, and by the end of that summer more than 100,000 Communists, Social Democrats,
union officials, and other “radicals” were imprisoned.
Were any of them responsible for the fire? The question was irrelevant to the Nazis. They had
been given an opportunity to get rid of their enemies, and they took it.
After the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, Hitler ordered the arrest of anyone with ties to
the Communist Party. By the end of March, approximately 20,000 people had been arrested.
The day after the fire, February 28, 1933, President Hindenburg, at Hitler’s urging, issued two
emergency decrees designed to make such arrests legal, even those that had already taken
place. Their titles—“For the Defense of Nation and State” and “To Combat Treason against the
German Nation and Treasonable Activities”—reveal how Hitler used the fire to further his own
goals. The two decrees suspended, until further notice, every part of the constitution that
protected personal freedoms. The Nazis claimed that the decrees were necessary to protect the
nation from the “Communist menace.”
On March 5, 1933, the government held an election for control of the Reichstag. The Nazis won
288 seats (43.9% of the vote). The Communists won 81 seats (12.3%), even though their
representatives were unable to claim those seats—if they appeared in public, they faced
immediate arrest. Other opposition parties also won significant numbers of seats. The Social
Democrats captured 119 seats (18.3%), and the Catholic Center Party won 73 seats (11.2%).
Together, the Communist, Social Democratic, and Catholic Center Parties won nearly as many
seats as the Nazis. But their members distrusted one another almost as much as they feared the
Nazis. As a result, these parties were unable to mount a unified opposition to the Nazi Party.
Still under Nazi control, the Reichstag passed a new law on March 21, 1933, that made it a
crime to speak out against the new government or criticize its leaders. Known as the Malicious
Practices Act, the law made even the smallest expression of dissent a crime. Those who were
accused of “gossiping” or “making fun” of government officials could be arrested and sent to
prison or a concentration camp.
Then, on March 24, 1933, the Reichstag passed what became known as the Enabling Act by a
vote of 141 to 94. It “enabled” the chancellor of Germany to punish anyone he considered an
“enemy of the state.” The act allowed “laws passed by the government” to override the
constitution. Only the 94 Social Democrats voted against the law. Most of the other deputies
who opposed it were in hiding, in prison, or in exile.
That same day, Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler, then police commissioner for the city of
Munich, held a news conference to announce the opening of the first concentration camp near
Dachau, Germany. According to Himmler, the camp would have the capacity to hold 5,000
people, including Communist Party members and Social Democrats “who threaten the security
of the state.” Himmler continued, according to a newspaper report:
On Wednesday, 22 March, the concentration camp at the former gunpowder factory
received its first allocation of 200 inmates. . . . The occupancy of the camp will gradually
increase to 2,500 men and will possibly be expanded to 5,000 men later. A labor service
detachment recently prepared the barrack for the first 200 men and secured it for the time
being with a barrier of triple barbed-wire. The first job of the camp inmates will be to
restore the other stone buildings, which are very run-down. . . . The guard unit will initially
consist of a contingent of 100 state police, which are to be further reinforced by SA [storm
trooper] auxiliary police guards. . . . No visits are allowed at the Concentration Camp in
Dachau.
Throughout the spring and early summer of 1933, the Nazis used the new laws to frighten and
intimidate Germans. By May, they forced all trade labor unions to dissolve. Instead, workers
could only belong to a Nazi-approved union called the German Labor Front.
Then, in June, Hitler outlawed the Social Democratic Party. The German Nationalist Party,
which was part of Hitler’s coalition government, dissolved after its deputies were told to resign
or become the next target. By the end of the month, German concentration camps held 27,000
people. By mid-July, the Nazi Party was the only political party allowed in the country. Other
organizations were also brought into line. As historian William Sheridan Allen has put it,
“Whenever two or three were gathered, the Führer would also be present.”
Not everyone accepted the changes. Amid uncertainty about the future of the country under
Nazi rule, thousands of Germans, including 63,000 Jews, fled the country. Most who left ended
up in neighboring countries. The rest of the nation’s 60 million people stayed, by choice or
necessity, and adapted to life in the “new Germany.”
Answer on a separate sheet of paper.
1. Which 2 events were the most important in transforming Germany from a
democracy to a dictatorship?
2. Which choices made by groups or individuals seemed to have the greatest
consequences?
In the period following the end of World War I, Germany experienced a disastrous period of
inflation (where prices rise, at the same time, the value of currency decreases).
For example: One day, it costs $
1
to buy a soda. The next day there is hyperinflation, and it now
costs $10,000 to buy a soda. As a result, your $1 has a much weaker buying power as it did.
The German government’s method of financing the war by borrowing heavily and printing
large quantities of unbacked currency began the inflationary spiral. This was elevated by the
loss of resources and reparations, which resulted from the Treaty of Versailles. And these
difficulties were in turn elevated by political violence. The unwillingness of industrialists and
labor leaders to put aside their narrow interests and work for the common good was yet
another factor which aggravated the situation. Many Germans, particularly those on fixed
incomes and pensions, endured great hardships and lived in sharply reduced circumstances.
By November of 1923, hyper-inflation paralyzed Germany and only foreign loans and the
issuing of a entirely new currency restored confidence and ended the crisis.
Date Marks U.S.
Dollars
1919 4.2 1
1921 75 1
1922 400 1
Jan. 1923 7,000 1
Jul. 1923 160,000 1
Aug. 1923 1,000,000 1
Nov. 1, 1923 1,300,000,000 1
Nov. 15,
1923
1,300,000,000,000 1
Nov. 16,
1923
4,200,000,000,0
0
0
1
German children build a pyramid with stacks of inflated currency, virtually worthless in 1923.
Women and children wait in line in Berlin, in hopes of buying sub-standard meat during a
period of hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany (1923).
The original caption for this photo, taken in Weimar Germany during the Great Depression,
reads: “When night comes! Picture taken in the municipal refuge for the homeless. View of one
of the dormitories which can house up to 100 people.”
Workers Demonstration in Weimar Germany
First Sign: Workers demonstration against bread tax and high rents! Second Sign: The upperclass
form a dictatorship of wealth against the working class!
1. German Christian women voting in 1919. German Christian women were newly
enfranchised.
Eastern European Jewish women are asked for ID cards in Berlin’s “Barn Quarter” in 1920.
Life in Weimar Germany was often unpredictable, as a former soldier, Henry
Buxbaum, discovered one evening in the early 1920s:
“The train was pitch-dark. The lights were out, nothing uncommon after the war when
the German railroads were in utter disrepair and very few things functioned orderly. . . . That
night, we were seven or eight people in the dark, fourth-class compartment, sitting in utter
silence till one of the men started the usual refrain: “Those God-damned Jews, they are at the
root of all our troubles.” Quickly, some of the others joined in. I couldn’t see them and had no
idea who they were, but from their voices they sounded like younger men. They sang the same
litany over and over again, blaming the Jews for everything that has gone wrong with Germany
and for anything else wrong in this world. It went on and on, a cacophony of obscenities,
becoming more vicious and at the same time more unbearable with each new sentence echoing
in my ears. Finally, I couldn’t stand it any longer. I knew very well that to start up with them
would get me into trouble, and that to answer them wasn’t exactly the height of wisdom, but I
couldn’t help it. . . . I began naturally with the announcement: “Well, I am a Jew and etc., etc.”
That was the signal they needed. Now they really went after me, threatening me physically. I
didn’t hold my tongue as the argument went back and forth. They began jostling me till one of
them . . . probably more encouraged by the darkness than by his own valor, suggested: “Let’s
throw the Jew out of the train.” Now, I didn’t dare ignore this signal, and from then on I kept
quiet. I knew that silence for the moment was better than falling under the wheels of a moving
train. One of the men in our compartment, more vicious in his attacks than the others, got off
the train with me in Friedburg. When I saw him under the dim light of the platform, I
recognized him as a fellow I knew well from our soccer club. . . . I would never have suspected
this man of harboring such rabid, antisemitic feelings.”
In the Weimar Republic, Germany’s schools remained centers of tradition. Most
teachers were conservative, both in their way of teaching and in their politics, and
many were anti-socialist and antisemitic. A young man known as Klaus describes
his schooling in the 1920s:
“We were taught history as a series of facts. We had to learn dates, names, places of
battles. Periods during which Germany won wars were emphasized. Periods during which
Germany lost wars were sloughed over. We heard very little about World War I, except that the
Versailles peace treaty was a disgrace, which someday, in some vague way, would be rectified.
In my school, one of the best in Berlin, there were three courses in Greek and Roman history,
four in medieval history, and not one in government. If we tried to relate ideas we got from
literature or history to current events, our teachers changed the subject. I really don’t believe
that anyone was deliberately trying to evade politics. Those teachers really seemed to think that
what went on in the Greek and Roman Empires was more important than what was happening
on the streets of Berlin and Munich. They considered any attempt to bring up current political
questions a distraction . . . because we hadn’t done our homework. And there was always a
great deal of homework in a school like mine, which prepared students for the university. At
the end of our senior year, we were expected to take a detailed and exceedingly tough exam
called the Abitur. How we did on the exam could determine our whole future. Again, the Abitur
concentrated on our knowledge of facts, not on interpretation or on the expression of personal
ideas.”