Did big business play a crucial role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power? Did German capitalists undermine the Weimar Republic, finance the Nazi Party, and use their influence on behalf of Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship of Germany?
For half a century, such charges as these have been repeatedly made, and today one of the most widely held explanations for the Third Reich's origins places prime responsibility on Germany's leading corporations. Astonishingly, this subject has never been adequately explored--and until now it was commonly believed that the records that might throw light on this important connection had been either lost or destroyed. In the pages of this groundbreaking book, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., shows us that these records do indeed exist. And the evidence that leads him to his startling conclusion--that big business did not, on balance, support Hitler's political program--overthrows many of our conventional ideas about the rise of Hitler's regime.
German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler takes us through the major corporate archives of Weimar and Nazi Germany and inside the executive offices of the giants of Germany industry--I. G. Farben, Flick, Krupp, Siemens, and many others. It shows us the dynamics between corporations and political machines, businessmen and politicians, industrial associations and political parties. Beginning with an examination of the heritage of German big business and the role it played in the politics of the Weimar Republic, Turner scrutinizes the attitudes of the Nazi Party leadership--Hitler in particular--toward economic issues and big business. He then traces the known contacts between the Nazis and the men of big business down to the triumph of Nazism in 1933. For the first time, the story is told form both sides, employing documentation from Nazi as well as business sources. In the course of assessing the significance of financial contributions to Hitler's party, the author provides the first systematic analysis of Nazism's sources of income. He also gives us a new window, not only on Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, but also on the behavior of 20th-century private corporations, their executives, and their influence on our times.
As much a book about business history as about the Nazi era, this volume gives us a new window, not only on Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, but one through which we can view the behavior of twentieth-century private corporations, their executives, and their influence on our times.
Perhaps the greatest debunking of the anti capitalist left that big business, capitalism and national socialism were of the same bed. Remarkably detailed, the sheer amount of primary documents used for this text is quite incredible, going through early campaign financing receipts, bank notes, and many more pieces of evidence. In fact, Marxists would forge letters to business newspapers in order to align the Nazis with capitalism. A derived property of this book is a closer look at the economic plank of the national socialist, which should bury the idea that one, socialism is strictly a left wing economic idea and that the Nazi themselves were capitalist outside of state against state driven competition, rooted in the Hegelian tradition of a single victorious nation.
In contrast to claims by many marxist historians, Turner successfully proved that it were people like Bruning, Von Papen and Schleicher - not Germany´s capitalists - who set the disastrous political and economic course that destroyed what remained of the Weimar republic and fostered the growth of the Nazi party. Even after 30 years, this book is still worth reading, though some of the interpretations are by now a little obsolete
For my first real dive into the Weimar republic and the origins of Hitler, I learnt a bunch from this. There's something I had to note down on almost every page. This book is known as a rebuttal of the claims that big business, meaning members of one of Germany's big trusts, were a major component that bought Hitler to power, either through funding or political networking. On this front it rebuts in style and it really makes the claims of the historians who say big business helped Hitler (there are a lot of different claims) seem quite flimsy evidence ways, and quite silly when the liberal zeitgeist of the haute bourgeoisie is taken into account.
It is shown that the Reichsverband and its members were never keen on the NSDAP, that the business community was always worried about the party platform of the NSDAP for its anti liberal economic policies, not to mention its antisemitism. Hitler would always, when talking to business, tailor his message so these parts were removed or hidden. Basically he would bang on about how the NSDAP were the only bulwark against bolshevism, and not give any specifics on his economic plans. As such he was never able to attract any big business backers, except Fritz Thyssen. This does not mean that only Thyssen provided funds to the Nazis. There are a few instances, particularly as the likelihood of an NSDAP government looms large, where members of big businessmen would provide money to Nazis they saw as moderating forces within the party, with the hope to steer the NSDAP from its more extreme anti liberalism. This never worked. Regardless of this financial support, the book makes clear that the NSDAP was a wholly ground roots organization, with the vast majority of its money coming from its dedicated followers, collected as dues or at speaking events or rallies, of which they held a lot.
Even in the final few months of the republic, with it's constant crises and uncertainty, big business never supported the NSDAP and remained rightfully sceptical of their claims to respect private property. The DVP and DNVP rags put out numerous criticisms of Nazi economic policy until the very end.
The book ends with a nice piece on just why so many myths about the collusion of Hitler and big business persist. Turner claims that three things contribute: 1) Ideological biases 2) Historians are pretty removed from the world of business and as such are less able to judge plausibility of claims and 3) first movers on this topic created and repeated these claims to the point where they became accepted.