The Coming of the Third Reich: How the Nazis Destroyed Democracy and Seized Power in Germany

Product Information

Extreme violence against the left had been legiinized, if not encouraged, by the moderate Social Democrats; but this in no way exempted them from being a target themselves ..." the unwillingness of the Centre Party (Catholic) and the Social Democrats (socialist) to work together ... NS now (Nov 1932) had less seats (196) than the combined two Marxist parties - Communists (100) + Social Democrats (121) = 221 … Centre Party had 70 seats ... the Nazis were jubilant at the failure of the Social Democrats and trade unions to respond to the Papen coup … Goebbels wrote in his diary … "They have missed their big chance. It's never going to come again." Lccn 2003063205 Ocr tesseract 5.0.0-1-g862e Ocr_detected_lang en Ocr_detected_lang_conf 1.0000 Ocr_detected_script Latin Ocr_detected_script_conf 0.9594 Ocr_module_version 0.0.15 Ocr_parameters -l eng Old_pallet IA-WL-2000080 Openlibrary_edition These are both controversial matters and I find it disturbing that Evans, who provides numerous footnotes, fails to do so here. prior to the Nazi seizure of power in Germany, right-wing dicatators had overthrown liberal democratic regimes in Hungary, Spain and Italy so as to prevent communists from coming to power.

The Coming of the Third Reich Quotes - Goodreads The Coming of the Third Reich Quotes - Goodreads

Enter the rise of Hitler who came to prominence not because he was an eloquent speaker, he was a masterful propagandist. The Nazi party was still on the fringe but started to consolidate into an ethos that consisted of anti-establishment, anti-republic, anti-democratic, anti-semetic, anti-marxists, and anti-communist. They were the party of protest. They were also a contortionist party, crafting rhetoric to meet and galvanize its audience. It ultimately was a party that stood for very little principle other than achieving power. They were a party of deep nihilism. They even borrowed socialist rhetoric and at one point called themselves nationalist socialists. And in a way they were a brand of socialism although a highly ethnically pure and ultra-nationalist version of socialism that was very different from Marxism and communism then and now.With the political parties suppressed and all chances of any discordant voices eliminated, the Nazis finally let loose their racial campaigns and massacres and systematic eradication of Jews, Socialists and Communists from all social, political and economic positions in the entire country. In 1900 Germany was generally viewed as one of the world’s most progressive, dynamic and impressive nations. Ceaselessly inventive, in many ways at the cutting edge of social and welfare reform, Germany was the one country in Europe to rival the United States as a beacon for future growth and change. Its political culture was not noticeably more rooted in the past than that of rivals such as Britain or Russia. Antisemitism was no more widespread than in many other countries, representative institutions were thriving, political parties and elections an accepted part of constitutional practice. Writers such as Hans Blüher, strongly influenced by the youth movement, went to even greater extremes in their plea for the state to be reorganized along anti-democratic lines and led by a close-knit group of heroic men united by homoerotic ties of love and affection.” Richard Evans does a fantastic job imo. I love the fact that he leaves out moralizing and avoids too much editorializing. It makes for a stronger recounting of the history. And frankly I can judge for myself the terribleness of the actions, I don't need the writer needing to cram their moral outrage down my throat. I'm sufficiently outraged as it is, thank you very much ;)

Coming Of The Third Reich, The: How the Nazis Destroyed Coming Of The Third Reich, The: How the Nazis Destroyed

Sir Richard J Evans writes in his opening paragraph that this book is not aimed at the expert seeking groundbreaking theory into the rise of the Third Reich. What he says is it is a book which focuses on the Nazis as a whole as they gain power in the Weimar Republic. He states he hopes that the newcomer will gain their understanding and the learned scholar will hopefully gain snippets of new information. I place myself in between both, although a student of history my degree did not focus on 1920-30s Germany. I can say that this is a good book, not mind blowing or revolutionary, but solid. I read a lot about Germany and WWII, so I was really looking forward to this book! I also wrote my undergrad thesis on this time period, so I am very interested in the subject. But this book just fell flat for me. This is a superbly researched and written history of Germany before the Nazis tightened their grip on German society. The level of detail is astonishing, without getting bogged down, and the style is lively and engrossing. Slowly and methodically, the Nazis infiltrate every aspect of German life, intimidating and liquidating their opposition - Communists, Social Democrats, trade unions, Modernist/abstract art and culture (the Nazis had dreadful taste in art!) and of course anything Jewish or even remotely suggestive of Judaism. Despite multiple elections, and the Nazis never gaining a parliamentary majority, they manipulate and manoeuvre themselves into power. The main impression I gained from this superb history is that everybody constantly underestimated the Nazis. A lesson to be learned.Throughout the book, Evans several times cites Raimund Pretzel, whose posthumously published memoirs (under the pseudonym Sebastian Haffner) are very much worth reading, in part because they were written in 1939, and give an excellent first-hand overview of this time from the perspective of a politically disengaged, “Aryan” German. In particular, Pretzel notes the erosion of the rule of law in the legal profession (he was a lawyer). Actually, if I had to choose, I would recommend Pretzel’s memoirs over Evans’s; there is a lot less detail, but basically the same story, and the first-hand perspective adds a lots to the reader’s grasp that litanies of fact do not.

The Coming of the Third Reich: Richard J. Evans

Within two months,’ Papen confidently told a worried conservative acquaintance, ‘we will have pushed Hitler so far into a corner that he’ll squeak.’172” For example, Evans totally buys the story that a Dutch Communist named Lubbe was the sole perpetrator of the Reichstag fire ... Evans: Lubbe confessed to starting the fire ... it was confirmed by subsequent investigation that he had worked alone ... and does not mention a contemporaneous memorandum by Ernst Oberfohren (published a few days before he committed suicide or was murdered) that Joseph Goebbels thought up the idea of burning down the Reichstag and that Hermann Goering supervised the actual burning.Impressive ... perceptive ... humane ... the most comprehensive history in any language of the disastrous epoch of the Third Reich' Richard J. Evans’s The Coming of the Third Reich is an enormous work of synthesis—knowledgable and reliable.”— Mark Mazower, New York Times Book Review