Hitler's First Hundred Days: When Germans Embraced the Third Reich

by Peter Fritzsche

This unsettling and illuminating history reveals how Germany's fractured republic gave way to the Third Reich, from the formation of the Nazi party to the rise of Hitler.


Amid the ravages of economic depression, Germans in the early 1930s were pulled to political extremes both left and right. Then, in the spring of 1933, Germany turned itself inside out, from a deeply divided republic into a one-party dictatorship. In Hitler's First Hundred Days, award-winning historian Peter Fritzsche offers a probing account of the pivotal moments when the majority of Germans seemed, all at once, to join the Nazis to construct the Third Reich. Fritzsche examines the events of the period -- the elections and mass arrests, the bonfires and gunfire, the patriotic rallies and anti-Jewish boycotts -- to understand both the terrifying power the National Socialists exerted over ordinary Germans and the powerful appeal of the new era they promised.



Hitler's First Hundred Days is the chilling story of the beginning of the end, when one hundred days inaugurated a new thousand-year Reich.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Germany, World War II, Politics, War, World History

432 pages, Hardcover

Published March 17, 2020

Reviews

[Beata · Rating 5 out of 5]

In-depth analysis of Hitler's seizure of power, of the relative easiness the Nazis took control of the people's minds and bodies.
This non-fiction was right up my street as I am interested in social history, and I found Mr Fritzsche's book insightful regarding the shift from the Weimer Republic to the Third Reich within several months. How was this influence achieved so nearly effortlessly? The analysis of the political and social circumstances, the brutal struggles which took place literally in the streets and houses, and the unexpectedly swift turn of the society towards ideas offered by the Nazis is delivered through examples from all strata, political, social and mental. One word of warning, though. I would not recommend this as the first read on the Third Reich as the Author's intention was not to present a detailed history of those days but rather to focus on people, both ordinary and those at power, and the reasons behind the acceptance of totalitarian rule within such a short period of time. The book reads very well, however, it does require some background knowledge of the period.
I listened to an audiobook from OverDrive, and one definite minues is the way the narrator pronounces German surnames or names of the places. It was not a problem for me to guess them as I know how they sound in German, but my ears hurt every time I heard the words mispronounced. The narrator should have made an effort and learnt the proper pronunciation. And this is one reason why I am going to get a print copy the moment it becomes less pricey.

[Jill H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

After the end of WWI, Germany, which did not accept defeat, was especially politically vulnerable. The Weimar Republic was floundering and Hindenburg was on the verge of senility. Government was in a constant state of flux and confusion. The author gives a clear picture of the run-up of a little known party (Nazi) and its leader (Adolf Hitler) who was also unknown.......from anonymity to dictatorship. This information sets the stage for the intent of the book which is to enumerate the successes of Hitler and the Nazis in their first one hundred days in power. And I was surprised to learn how rapidly events happened in that short period of time from January 30 to May 9, 1933. The stage was set for the most heinous rule in modern history.

In those initial days, the following was accomplished:

*the Enabling Act which suspended the Constitution
*Reich commissars took over separate states (Prussia, Bavaria)
*complete control of local governments
*dismantling of trade unions
*laws denying German Jews equal rights as citizens
*Nazi brownshirts practically replacing the the police force
*Ideological affiliations no longer structured political thinking.

The Nazis had seemingly established sturdy foundations for the Third or Thousand Year Reich. Of course we know how it ended in twelve years but the rise of Nazism still boggles the mind.

The book is a little slow in places where the author describes a little too often the pageantry and violent incidents that occurred during the Nazi ascendancy; however, that is a minor point in an otherwise fascinating history of evil incarnate. Recommended.

[Scott Pomfret · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an important book for the modern era, which attempts to answer a basic questions: how could the rise of Nazis have happened? As it turns out the answer is: very easily, surprising even the Nazis with how Germany and its working class caved/bought in. From this history, we learn there was nothing inevitable in the Nazis’ rise: it was rather a deliberate and clever exploitation of national emergency, calibrated encouragement of national sense of victimhood, and the use of Us-versus-Them tropes. The ease of the Weimar republic’s demise reveals how fragile a democracy can be (though, of course, it had no historical pedigree).

Unfortunately, the book’s structure is not straightforward, so it seems repetitive. The comparative section on France in the Thirties was so long it seemed like padding. I didn’t find the inconsistent references to the timeline (“it was day x of the hundred days”) to be useful since it was used only in some sections. Nor was I persuaded that the author said anything insightful about the “coercion v consent” dichotomy that he set up.

For those listening to the audiobook version, prepare to be disappointed by the narrator’s vicious butchering of both German and French words and phrases with appalling mispronunciations that brought the work to a grinding halt. One would have thought the audiobook publisher would have bothered to attempt to coach him in the proper phonetics. The narrator also occasionally put on a cartoonish German accent when reading (in English) quotes attributed to bad Germans like Himmler, Hitler, and Goering. A weird and disappointing performance that detracted from the text.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a clearly written book that focuses on Hitler´s first 100 days in power, but also discusses the preceding years that led to the social and political stasis in Germany, and the effect of the rise of Nazism in Germany on political trends throughout Europe, especially France. The author shows that the topic of the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s defies the usual sociological explanation - and how that is why what turned out to be the world´s most destructive and evil regime will remain a subject of perennial study.

The author cites diaries of the era that show some Germans resisted the pull of Nazism while others accepted or even welcomed it. It was the most popular dictatorship of the 20th C - somehow, most Germans accepted its violence and twisting of laws to suit its racist end, and support for the Nazis in Germany was widespread, perhaps up to 90% within a year or two. Not all Germans were in favor of everything Nazism stood for, but they adapted its new ideas to their old ideas and in this way became adjusted to the new system and became part of the masses of Germans who supported Hitler. The book contains much information and insight into how the Nazis were able to mobilize the masses - gain such an overwhelming degree of support in only 100 days, and also compares Hitler´s first 100 days with that of FDR´s at around the same time, as well as Napoleon´s 100 days in the prior century. The book gives an extremely clear description of the sociopolitical crisis leading up to Hitler´s appointment as Chancellor in 1933 - how Hitler´s rise to power was basically a coup by other right-wing politicians who installed Hitler as chancellor thinking they could control him, or neutralize him politically if he was given a position of power and responsibility in which they were sure he would fail. But they all wanted authoritarianism and the end of the Wiemar Republic. The group of politicians tragically underestimated Hitler and the powerful and driven Nazis around him, especially Goebbels. Sadly, instead of failing, the Nazis lost no time in taking control of the streets and towns thru the actions such as marches and rallies of their hundreds and thousands of soldiers, the storm troopers. It was Hitler who successfully neutralized any and all political opposition or challenge to his leadership, not the other way around. The appointment of Hitler as Chancellor by Hindenburg was perhaps one of the gravest if not the gravest political errors in history since Hitler never hesitated, was apparently ready to go, to crush anyone and anything in his way, from day 1. While the Nazis´ electoral support pre-1933 had maxed out at 52%, in their first 100 days the Nazis forged a new German united base of support, based on nationalism and racism. In a few weeks, the Nazis were holding grandiose rallies that attracted hundreds of thousands of cheering supporters. The Germans accepted the Nazis´ incessant propaganda - some may have been coerced into supporting Hitler, but many others were convinced the Nazis were right. In some referendums a few years later, the Nazis enjoyed 90% support. The Nazi revolution in Germany therefore was the most popular dictatorship of the 20th C; how the Nazis managed to rally such a large proportion of Germans so quickly will probably always be studied.

Here are some quotes:

¨The enormous financial outlays by all the belligerents in World War I (1914-1918) upended the economic order."

¨The depression hit Germany, an industrial country heavily dependent on exports, particularly hard."

¨Between 1929 and 1932, one in three Germans lost their livelihood. At the same time, young people had no prospect of entering the labor force."

¨In its view, the [NSDAP] ... provided the model for the national community it promised to construct once it seized power."

¨After World War I, German cities felt more perilous as social norms eroded.¨

¨With so much time on their hands, people without jobs lost interest in almost everything."

¨The scope of violence appalled those Germans who realized that Nazis sowed the very violence from which they promised to protect peaceful citizens. Yet precisely the fighting spirit of the Nazis, the fact that they were ¨consequential,¨ willing not so much to restore old peace as impose new order, made them attractive. The Nazis won support because of their militance. By launching furious, uncompromising attacks on the ¨system¨ and physically engaging their enemies, they dramatized the combustibility of the present. Through action, they overcame the paralysis of the crisis and opened the way into the future."

¨With the slogan ¨Hitler over Germany,¨ which cast the Nazi leader as a messiah, Hitler campaigned by airplane, speaking in as many a five cities in one day."

¨[In July 1932, in Hamburg, in the aftermath of violence between Communists and Nazis in which 18 people were killed - 2 Nazis shot by Communists and 16 unarmed men and women shot by the police] No snipers were found - they rarely were -- but the police had already shifted gears from ¨neutral¨ to ¨right.¨¨

¨[In August 1932, after the formation of Papen´s ¨cabinet of barons¨] Locked out of the halls of power, the Nazis attacked the establishment.¨

¨...in November 1932... ....Hitler...hammered that ¨economic misery has not lessened, unemployment is rising, Bolshevism is spreading.¨¨

¨The March 1933 election campaign allowed the Nazis to occupy the public space necessary to simulate a plebiscite. In an age of mass communication, radio was key. The Nazis mobilized the resources of the state to completely dominate the campaign and intimidate opponents."

¨Radio dramatically reproduced the emotional relationship between Hitler and his followers."

¨Wherever he spoke, Hitler addressed record-breaking crowds."

¨When the weather got warmer, Goebbels urged radio listeners to open their windows so that passersby could hear Hitler´s speeches. The radio broadcasts were designed to create a collective Nazi voice and a collective national experience."

¨Both Hitler and President Franklin D. Roosevelt took great advantage of the national intimacy of radio, the one in cheer-splattered declamations against ¨enemies,¨ the other in ¨fireside chats¨ among ¨friends,¨ so in the United States, radio created community in a different register.¨

¨All this ¨mainstream¨commentary constituted a total disregard of fact to achieve one end: the destruction of the republic, which meant the destruction of fact, morality, and law. Insist on the crime, switch out the perpetrators, plant the evidence--it did not take much effort to convince Hindenburg that Communists were taking up arms."

¨You can only preserve the civic order if you step in for your opponent and speak out against your ally."

¨The specter of terrorism served the Nazis by creating consent.¨

¨...Social Democrats feared being outmaneuvered by a military response, especially if the army joined forces with the SA. And how many people would rally to protect the constitution in hard times when so many people blamed the ¨system?" The party felt the drag of 6 million unemployed like a ¨ball and chain.¨

¨This was the beginning of the regime of surveillance that characterized the Third Reich and emboldened its citizens to denounce each another.¨

¨It is not clear what part of the story, the coercion or the consent, we must tell first in order to explain the success of the Nazis.¨

¨The Weimar Republic was finished off in a sequence of events over just a week or two in March 1933.¨

¨When Goring looked out at the republican landscape he conjured up the devastation of the western front."

¨Goring declared the need to fight the Communists and ¨Marxists¨ as Germans had fought the French and British in World War I.¨

¨Nazi violence was choreographed as ¨people´s justice¨ to render enemies ridiculous and to bind spectators together as an injured but restored community.¨

¨Denunciations led to arrests and arrests to confessions so that the political police, or Gestapo, quickly destroyed underground Communist and Social Democratic networks..."

¨With the tread of boots in the stairwell and the knock on the door, ¨the sounds of the night,¨ Nazis entered the private apartments of individuals.¨

¨Immediately after the March 5 [1933] elections, people had nightmares because the dictatorship had ¨the power to make nightmares real.¨

¨Without being able to live in four walls or rely on social norms, individuals were extremely vulnerable."

¨From 1929 to 1932, the size of the Nazi Party increased eight-fold..."

¨...the Nazis continuously displayed violence as spectacle, introducing their victims as ¨November criminals¨ and corrupt beneficiaries of the ¨system¨ in rituals of humiliation that created audiences who were invited to participate in the chastisement.¨ [¨The nickname "November Criminals" was given to the German politicians who negotiated and signed the armistice which ended World War I in November of 1918. The November Criminals were named so by German political opponents who thought the German army had enough strength to continue and that surrendering was a betrayal or crime, that the German army had not actually lost on the battlefront.¨ - https://www.thoughtco.com/the-novembe...]

¨The National Socialists introduced the concentration camps as integral parts of the new Reich.¨

¨The emphasis on conformity is hardly controversial: the violence of dictatorship forced most citizens to live ¨dissonant lives.¨ The public presentation of the new conformist self often clashed in uneasy ways with the cultivation of the old self in private.¨

¨...Germans credited the Nazis with finally putting into place the national solidarity they had yearned for after the lost war and years of revolution and counterrevolution.¨

¨While in principle antidemocratic, Nazis and their supporters genuinely believed they represented the German people.¨

¨At a cabinet meeting on March 7, Hitler informed his ministers that he considered ¨the events of March 5 [election]¨ to be ¨a revolution.¨

¨In the dramatic debate on the ratification of the Enabling Act on March 23... ....Hitler tied the Social Democrats to fourteen years of misrule and to an outdated system.¨

¨For the overwhelming majority of Protestant churchgoers, the Nazi seizure of power was cause for immense joy. It promised to disperse the enemies gathered at the church gates while elevating the German people.¨

¨More and more Germans accepted the Nazis because they found the promise of national unity and national renewal compelling.¨

¨...the Day of Potsdam [ceremony in Potsdam on March 21, saluting the sacrifices of the Great War] served to cement Hitler´s power, since all the parties represented in the new Reichstag (with the exception of the principled Social Democrats), voted to suspend the constitution two days later."

¨This was the secret to National Socialist success; Hitler´s party represented itself as the legitimate, inevitable steward of the nation while not claiming to be its equivalent.¨

¨The Day of National Labor, on May 1, 1933.... ....crafted a spectacle of national unity that was difficult to deny or resist."

¨Most participants did not pay close attention to what Hitler was saying, but the text revealed how he sought to occupy the position of Social Democrats. Hitler, who wore a gray suit with a white carnation rather than a brown SA uniform and swastika pin, spoke to workers as patriots who had served honorably in the war and built Germany´s industrial strength-- and also as victims oppressed by liberalistic economic orthodoxies.¨

¨...anti-Jewish rumblings were audible early on. This kind of uninhibited speech grew out of the freedom people felt at Hitler´s appointment as chancellor. They felt emboldened..."

¨After the March 5 elections, everything changed for Germany´s half million Jews, who made up about 1 percent of the total population. Democracy and civil rights died the week after the election.¨

¨The boycotts relied on entrenched resentments against allegedly wealthy, rapacious, or tricky Jews."

¨There would have been neither consensus nor compliance if the National Socialists had not been able to improve the economy, or at least not been credited with doing so.¨

¨Between these three years, Germany returned to full employment for the first time in a decade (although pay lagged while the number of work hours rose, and, of course, labor unions had been crushed). Germany´s recovery also outpaced the economic growth of all other advanced capitalist nations.¨

¨The statistics registered real successes as a result of ambitious state-sponsored work-creation projects in spring and summer 1933 and then a massive rearmament drive after 1935; in fact, rearmament engendered ¨the largest transfer of resources ever undertaken by a capitalist state in peacetime.¨

¨...the Nazi ambition to construct new sorts of human beings made the revolution in 1933 truly revolutionary.¨

¨War and defeat, then revolution in 1918, the hyperinflation in 1922-1923, and the Great Depression in the early 1930s convinced millions of Germans that they were the victims of history."

¨In the years before World War II, public spending for health care increased by some 250 percent, although investments in armaments grew far more rapidly.¨

¨Over the radio, [the Nazi minister of the interior, Wilhelm] Frick hectored Germans to abandon the ¨´outmoded´ command to ´love they neighbor.´¨

¨Germans earned about half of what their counterparts did in the United States.¨

¨...people tended to believe the radio more than the newspaper because it seemed more immediate and unedited--the ¨real thing.¨

¨In a Hobbesian war of ¨all against all,¨ Nazi Germany had rolled up all the modern protocols that separated and balanced power and established both sovereignty and tolerance.¨

¨[In France] Resentment about decadence and decline washed over crucial sectors of the business and professional elite.¨

¨Across Europe, new associations organized while older right-wing groups regained energy. They saw themselves as missionaries of a political offensive that shared anti-liberalism, anti-Marxism, Antisemitism, and usually anti-capitalism, plus European-wide experiences of war, revolution, and counterrevolution.¨

[Kimba Tichenor · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are countless books that address Hitler's meteoric rise to power. But what makes this book different from the rest is that it does not just tell the reader about events, it recreates the sounds, spectacles, and even smells that Germans experienced during those early days of conversion and coercion to the Nazi cause. In short, it allows the reader to feel immersed in the times, almost as if he or she was there experiencing events first hand. It is this immersion that helps the reader understand the complex processes that shaped everyday Germans response to the Third Reich. This on-the-streets experience is reconstructed by the author through extensive use of primary accounts of those days as well as through incorporating novelistic and cinematic treatments of the Nazi rise to power that were released as events unfolded. This is a must-read for anyone interested in how a democratic nation can become susceptible to authoritarian ideology, xenophobia, and a murderous agenda even as the people of that nation search for unity, peace, and an escape from polarized politics.

I would like to thank the publisher, author, and Net Galley for an advanced copy of this book in exchange for a fair and honest review.

[Cass · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a great book in here, it's just a little hard to find. Fritzsche may be stuck in an uncomfortable zone between academic writing and commercial writing. There's not enough context for the casual reader, some very dense text, and whole sections that are tough to follow without prior study.

But the core information about how the population was successfully steered into horror is stunning. Worth reading, but not as accessible as it could have been. Why don't experts have better editors?!

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hitler’s Quick Seizure of Total Control

Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a deeply fragmented society, but not dysfunctional. The nation’s largest party was the Social Democrats, the most reliable pillar of German democracy. A natural ally was the Catholic Center Party. But in a period of economic depression, the Communists and the Nazis had gained votes by attacking the system. By 1932 these extreme left and right wings taken together constituted a slim majority in the Reichstag.

As author Peter Fritzsche notes, no party in Germany assumed a position of unchallenged power as quickly as the Nazis. From 2.8% of the vote in the 1928 Reichstag elations, their share rose to 18% by 1930 and to 37% by 1932. No party could match their diverse electorate which cut across class, occupation, and geographic lines.

Nonetheless, in the 100 days before Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg as Chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazi party’s support was eroding, says the author. Germany was showing signs of modest economic improvement. Most press commentators at the time misjudged what was about to happen because they saw government in parliamentary terms and assumed that the Nazis, as a minority party, would have to form a coalition government.

The central point of this book is that no such parliamentary coalition was sought by Hitler, who instead ruthlessly assumed total dictatorial power in his first 100 days as Chancellor.

First, Hitler, as advised by Goebbels, was a master of a new medium, the radio. Hitler kicked off his 1933 campaign with a mammoth rally which was broadcast over the radio and in hundreds of loudspeakers installed in market squares. Goebbels broadcast it like a live sporting event, mimicking the sights and sounds of thousands of animated fans in a sporting arena.

Weimar regulations prohibited radio broadcast of political speeches, but because Hitler was Chancellor he and other Nazis holding political office were exempt. The opposition had no access to the airwaves. “Radio brought the world into the living room,” notes Fritzsche. “Now it brought the Nazis”. This new medium, radio, had tremendous power as a political tool (much as television did in the 1950s or Twitter and social media recently). The author cites a survey conducted in Germany and in America in 1933 that found that more people believed radio than the newspapers. The immediacy of broadcast conveyed “truth” unfiltered by journalists or other third parties.

If Goebbels was the political strategist, Goring was the brutal enforcer bent upon suppressing facts and destroying standards of morality and law. On February 2, day four of the Third Reich, Goring shut down all independent or opposition newspapers.

The Nazis created disorder and then moved in to “restore order”, says Fritzsche. Social Democrat office holders were forced to resign, were beaten, and sent to prison. Of nineteen such members of the state parliament, nine were sent to concentration camps where seven died. Mainstream office holders were put in carts and paraded through streets of jeering crowds. This worked as a warning to others.

Federal elections were held March 5, 1933 — five days after the Reichstag fire gave Hitler the excuse for dissolving the German parliament. Still, the Nazis failed to win a majority of the votes (43.9%) despite waging a campaign of terror against opponents. After this election, many Social Democrat officials resigned so as not to be humiliated or tortured.

On March 7, the Nazis occupied trade union headquarters and raised the Nazi flag over municipal buildings. Thugs forced closure of Jewish stores. Newspapers were forbidden to report on the assaults Nazi thugs made on Jews, Communists, and even moderate opponents.

On April 7, Jews were excluded from public sector employment. Germans were required to fill out ancestry forms going back several generations to prove “Aryan purity”. Neighbors were encouraged to denounce neighbors when they heard the odd comment critical of Hitler or the Nazi party. Those who had not voted for Hitler quietly disappeared from view.

One hundred days into Hitler’s assumption of power, the British ambassador to Germany observed, “No government…has attained such a position of unchallenged power as the Hitler government. There is homogeneous authority…untrammeled by checks and hindrances.”

Many have written about Hitler’s rise, some more eloquently, but Fritzsche’s focus on a 100 day period helps explain Hitler’s methods and his astounding success in seizing total power in such a short period of time.

The author’s narrative does tend to drift in the last part of the book as he examines how the Nazi model influenced French Fascism and attracted some in America — including Charles Lindberg and the America First movement. He cites diary entries or letters by a few ordinary, middle class Germans and argues that this was the group instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power. One wishes for a bit more of this perspective as seen at the time to illustrate the broader points made.

The lessons of 1933 Germany seem worth studying in an America which has never seemed more polarized, where traditional institutions are being questioned, if not attacked, as never before, and where a virus is disrupting life as we know it in a fundamental way.

[Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

Frightening how fragile the Weimar Republic proved to be, although this book never really explained why that was the case. We see the violence, lies, propaganda, and power grabs by the Nazis that cemented their control over Germany, and how they instituted vicious policies that targeted Jews and political enemies. And we see how "ordinary" Germans fell into line. Why they did so is something of a mystery or perhaps unanswerable question. Some were motivated by idealogical affinity, some saw personal gain, others did so to fit in or participate in a movement that seemed to be unifying Germany (as long as you weren't on the long list of enemies), while others simply went along less than half heartedly so as to keep out of trouble. There were other possibilities and none of the rationales are mutually exclusive to each other. But the results were terrifying.

[Tobias · Rating 5 out of 5]

An impressive account of how the 48% who voted for parties other than the Nazis (and coalition partners) in March 1933 embraced, accepted, or acquiesced to the new regime. It's not strictly a narrative of the 100 days but rather a wider look at how the abrupt changes introduced during those months fundamentally disrupted German political life (and not just German -- he has a fantastic chapter on the international impact, particularly on France, and also contrasts with FDR's 100 days, which overlapped).

[William Sariego · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've read so many books on Hitler's Germany and WWII I'm starting to wonder if I need anymore. Still, the narrow focus of this one attracted me. Concentrating on the first 100 days the transition of power between Weimar and the 3rd Reich was interesting read about. Recommended only for those wanting minutia for the between war era.

[Mark Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting account of the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. It shows how the conservative parties of Weimar Germany supported Hitler's rise, simply because they underestimated his ability to transform Germany to be totally behind him and they overestimated their own abilities to control and manipulate this strange, bellicose former painter, soldier and prisoner. The book also shows that Germans did indeed know about the concentration camps--many were threatened with being imprisoned in them and many Germans, especially communists, were! (I had often heard it said that the German public didn't really know what was going on during the war and so did not think to stand against the Nazis. This is patently untrue.) The book also shows that the Nazis had a plurality of the vote in Weimar Germany but never made up a majority of the electorate...nor did they gain supporters in subsequent elections. Not until threats of violence and other measures occurred did the society as a whole come to embrace the new ruling party.

Overall, this book just underscores how quickly a radical party--once gaining power--can transform the political, cultural, and social environment of the country to become the new normal. This is a lesson that resonates in the US now--albeit to a less directly fascist extent--with the transformation of the Republican Party into a racebaiting, anti-immigrant, anti-science, populist party and the subsequent transformation of the entire left/right political spectrum to accommodate this shift.

[Ionia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many books deal with the subject of Hitler's rise to power, but this one goes into far more detail than most. The author has done an exemplary job of researching this material and has come up with a very readable, personal account of how Hitler went from a no-one to a someone in the span of a few years.

Rather than rehashing the same often-told stories of how Hitler took over Germany and eventually other territories, this book narrows in on his first hundred days in power and how those decisions and responses would later change the outcome of the future.

This book is well-organised and invaluable for anyone doing research on Germany's involvement in WWII. I learned a lot from reading this book, especially about the little known events happening in the background of the larger, more popular stories. I thought the author did a good job of staying impartial and reporting facts.

Definitely a book to read if you want to know more about Hitler's first period as chancellor. Interesting, compelling and informational.

This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, all opinions are my own.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fritzsche writes a thought-provoking and disturbing book about Hitler’s first 100 days as Germany’s Chancellor. Fritzsche attempts to determine whether or not average Germans were coerced or consented to follow Hitler’s lead. The answer is a bit of both. Hitler drew the Germans of 1920s and 1930s back to the glory days of August, 1914. He claimed Germans were victims of others: Jews, Allies, Communists, non-Aryans. He imposed administrative order on a society hungry for it. Then he backed it all up with violence. Fascist movements around Europe and even in the US (Lindbergh’s “America First” in late 1930s) failed to get much momentum because the German victimhood narrative did not resonate and those other movements shied away from violence (although hatred of Jews was shared enthusiastically). Reading this as fascist and far right movements awaken in our time makes the book even more interesting and unsettling.

The last line of the book sums it up well: At the heart of the tyranny of Nazism was the tyranny of the story Germans came to tell about themselves.

[Ankur Goyal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read several books on World War II. Several of those were focused on atrocities committed in Auschwitz, Sobibor and Similar camps. There are stories about cruelties & war crimes, stories about survival and human spirit and stories about love in such times however I was always curious about how such situation arose. How, one person became so powerful to carry out one of the largest organised genocide in the history of mankind.

This was the first book I read which gives a careful account of how the nation came together and put one person in charge believing that he is the answer to all their problems. His "all or nothing" approach and heated speeches found favour with masses. This, combined with political assassinations and elimination of conflicting ideologies gradually installed a system of terror and state activism which affected life of millions.

The book gives detailed information of history but does not become boring. It keeps the interest alive and moves like a thrilling political drama.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and important history, but frequently repetitive, with unnecessary digressions, excessive details - such as a list of foreign correspondents in Berlin and their affiliations and later career developments -- poor word choices and occasional blatant errors -- such as what "second person" means and how American newspapers utilized syndication. Later chapters seem padded, making the last third a slog, which is sad --because the more straightforward history in keeping with the title is poorly understood and quite relevant to the rising authoritarianism of our times.

[Susan Paxton · Rating 2 out of 5]

An important topic and yet so wretchedly executed.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The reason why the Third Reich “will not go away, but continues to command the attention of thinking people throughout the world,” concluded the eminent historian Richard Evans, is “it raises in the most acute form the possibilities and consequences of the human hatred and destructiveness that exist, even if only in a small way, within all of us.”

“It demonstrates,” Evans wrote on the final page of his unparalleled, three-volume study, “with terrible clarity the ultimate potential consequences of racism, militarism, and authoritarianism… It poses in the most extreme possible form the moral dilemmas we all face at one time or another in our lives, of conformity or resistance, action or inaction in the particular situations with which we are confronted.” (p. 764, The Third Reich at War)

These words remain front of mind more than a decade after I first read them. They explain why we continue to read new books about the Third Reich. We remain fascinated and frightened by what occurred: an economically, culturally, and scientifically advanced nation discarded parliamentary democracy and descended into barbarism.

The story is familiar and the debates are old, but the issues are fresh. Questions similar to why Germans embraced the Nazi Party, the person of Hitler, and life in the Third Reich are being asked around our dinner tables. That is not because the U.S. is verging on dictatorship. The situations and contexts are different but the moral dilemma is real: families and communities are divided over support of Donald Trump. One half the nation simply cannot understand the politics of the other half.

Many Americans believe they are witnessing in real time the slide into authoritarianism, horrified by how quickly our most important institutions have crumpled under the administration’s pressure. Moreover, they believe they are living in a different country because either something fundamentally changed in the past four years about the American character or, more likely in my view, the rule of Trump and Trumpism merely exposed darker tendencies that were waiting for an opportunity.

What does the clutch of authoritarianism tell us about human nature that transcends time, borders, and cultures? Where lies the gray line separating coercion and consent? If these questions are on your mind, you may want to pick up ‘Hitler’s First Hundred Days’ by the historian Peter Fritzsche of the University of Illinois. It is essential reading.

“While Hitler’s Germany was not inevitable, it also emerged as the twentieth century’s most popular dictatorship,” Fritzsche says of the “basic incongruity” that characterized Germany in 1932-33. “Everything did change” in one hundred days, he concludes, “although I have also asked how much.”

Readers unfamiliar with Hitler’s rise may be surprised to learn how close the party’s collapse appeared to the Nazis themselves in late 1932. Their electoral popularity seemed to have reached its zenith and was waning, the party’s finances were a mess, and they were still without power. Although the largest political party in the Weimar Republic, the Nazis never won an outright majority in any national election, topping out at about 40 percent. But Germany’s fractured political landscape made it impossible for any party, from the Nazis on the right to the Social Democrats and Communists on the left, to win a majority and form a cabinet. So Hitler gambled that the conservatives and nationalists would eventually cede to his maximalist demands. We know what happened next: Hindenburg, relenting under pressure to break the country’s political paralysis and drive the final nail into the Republic’s coffin, appointed Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.

Is it possible for a nation to change in 100 days? Yes, Fritzsche argues. We must start by understanding the awesome power of fascism to mobilize a people toward an ideological goal.

The Nazis were “a startling new political entity,” “built on sturdy foundations of antirepublican activism.” (pp. 51-53) They were relentless and effective campaigners. Hitler was a captivating speaker (although Fritzsche does not neglect to remind us many people found him vile), and Goebbels was a mastermind of propaganda. The Nazis, like other political parties of Weimar Germany, employed thousands of paramilitary soldiers -- the SA, or brown shirts. They marched in towns and villages everywhere in Germany, bringing along bands and speakers. The Nazis also possessed a prolific press apparatus and understood the power of radio to reach the masses.

The Nazi Party built the most diverse constituency of the Weimar Republic, pulling from conservative nationalists to middle class professionals to a good many workers and disaffected leftists. They were not the party of young, unemployed, alienated men alone.

“Nor was the Nazi Party a creature born of the Great Depression. It is tempting to compare the dramatic rise in the number of Nazi voters in the years after 1930 with the equally dramatic rise in the number of Germans without work. But the unemployed did not generally vote for the National Socialists, while well-to-do burghers did.” p. 51

The sociologist Theodore Abel of Columbia University “undertook the first detailed investigations into why Germans became Nazis… Abel discounted economic destitution and anti-Semitism as major factors.” p. 52-53

Instead, the National Socialists tapped into widespread popular disenchantment with the republic not by promising a return to the old, but by touting “the revolutionary aims most people preferred.” p. 54

“They scorned the old class prejudices and limited social horizons of traditional nationalists… the whole Nazi project rested on the resolve to reverse the tide of history by vanquishing revolutionary traitors of 1918 to establish a new Reich based on the patriotic union of 1914.” p. 54

In other words, the Nazis promised revolution. They were capable of blending memories of a bygone national unity (1914) with a desire to free Germany from the shackles of Versailles, to produce a powerful movement toward forming a new “peoples’ community.” They were capable of looking back and ahead at the same time.

“The Nazis conceived of a national union that would transcend the existing sociology of the nation by breaking down the socioeconomic milieus that kept the nation divided. This meant eroding the all-important emphasis citizens placed on categorical identities…” p. 56

There could be only one identity: National Socialist. Hitler and his henchmen, through words and violent action, made clear who could belong in the new nation they envisioned. Leftists, centrists, Jews, the mentally and physically disabled -- none of these Germans could belong.

The strength of Fritzsche’s analysis lies in demonstrating how ordinary Germans accepted or rejected the new regime. There were the true believers -- young men who joined the SA, for instance, after watching a march or listening to Hitler speak. Such an emotional experience was enough to make them convert.

But as Fritzsche continually reminds us, about half the electorate did not vote for the Nazi/nationalist “coalition” in March 1933 -- the last election until after the Second World War. The 48 percent who voted against Hitler included some Germans who would never subscribe to Nazi ideology or support Hitler. Many others, however, eventually reached an accommodation with the new regime: they may have ignored Nazism’s most vulgar ideas, but they came to enjoy life in the Third Reich. They may not have actively participated in the persecution of Jews, but they did not actively oppose it, either. Indeed, they may have gathered as spectators to watch the destruction of Jewish businesses and places of worship.

Herein lies the debate between consent and coercion. Did Germans have a choice after January 1933?

Consent and coercion are different sides of the same coin: after coming to power in 1933 the Nazis sought to keep society in a state of perpetual ideological mobilization. They forced people to confront questions that would define life in the Reich: are my neighbors Jewish? Do they speak badly of Hitler in private? What flag are they flying on their porch? Did they tune into Hitler’s speech last night? No aspect of life was small enough to escape attention.

While it is true that open opposition to the regime was impossible after January 1933, and especially after March, the fact remains that millions of Germans willingly gave their assent to Hitler and the National Socialists. They found ways to justify violence against the Nazis’ opponents in an ‘us versus them’ atmosphere stimulated relentlessly by the Nazi government and press. In the absence of polling in what was not a free society, it remains impossible to precisely know how many Germans supported the National Socialists above and beyond those who voted for them. While the debate continues among scholars, there is no denying that millions of Germans supported the Nazis to varying degrees and that Hitler himself became one of the most popular individual leaders in the world.

“Germans credited the Nazis with finally putting into place the national solidarity they had yearned for after the lost war and years of revolution and counterrevolution. Appeals for unity resonated because they promised to resolve the crass divisions of 1932… While in principle antidemocratic, Nazis and their supporters genuinely believed they represented the German people.” p. 185

When the definition of an acceptable German changed through the force of law, the supporters went along, even when it wrecked their own families. The Hamburg schoolteacher Louise Solmitz, an adoring fan of Adolph Hitler, did not abandon the regime even after her husband Fredy’s Jewishness was exposed by government decree.

“There were no longer any compromises, which is what the end of a free civil society meant.” p. 249

“New in all this was not the anti-Semitism per se but the termination of ambiguous or indeterminate social relations among neighbors.” p. 250 The Nazis forced ordinary people to choose. You could continue to befriend your Jewish neighbors, but faced with the probability of suffering social and professional death, most Germans saw no choice at all.

Fritzsche’s analysis inspires feelings of awe and revulsion. In the first 100 days of Hitler’s rule -- many years before world war and genocide -- his government largely succeeded in its project of remaking the political and social bonds of society, employing violence and forced sterylizations to purefy the “peoples’ community’ (Volksgemeinschaft).

“The great achievement of the Third Reich was getting Germans to see themselves as the Nazis did: as an imperiled people who had created for themselves a new lease on collective life… Not everyone agreed with the Nazis on every point, but most adjusted to National Socialism in their own way, adhering to new ideas by pursuing them in new forms. As a result, more and more Germans had accepted the Third Reich.” p. 355

Four stars for ‘Hitler’s First Hundred Days’ by Peter Fritzsche. An excellent book sheds new light on a familiar, yet still fresh, subject. Its insights influence your thinking and can be applied to future reading. And at this moment in my own country’s history, Fritzsche’s book is helping me ask the right questions about the human condition.

[Abby Stopka]

This was a very good book. It explains a lot on why and how Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933 and what steps were taken and actions that occurred during this 1st 100 days.

[Nancy K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling, and extremely well-researched. Just what this WWII buff needed.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

⭐⭐¾

I feel like this is an important read but I don't know that it's would be for everyone. Mainly because it was poorly executed. It's one of those reads that's not that retainable.

[Trevor Seigler · Rating 4 out of 5]

The rise of the Nazis to power in Germany is one of history's darkest chapters, a blood-soaked chronicle of decisions made that altered the landscape of the world and cost countless millions their lives in the destructive war of 1939-1945 and in the Holocaust against Europe's Jews, homosexuals, Communists, and other "undesirables." Trying to rationalize how the Nazis came to power and how ordinary Germans came to embrace them is a task that seems prescient now more than ever. This book does a great service in highlighting the first few months of Hitler's reign, as he stripped away the constructs of the moribund Weimar Republic to ensure that his "Thousand-Year Reich" would have no end in sight.

Using the template of "the first hundred days" (often a barometer by which to measure incoming presidential administrations here in the US), Peter Fritzsche shows that Adolf Hitler had to have the help of Germans both high and low before he could really call himself "the leader." The politics of early Nazi rule get highlighted here, but as compellingly, Fritzsche documents the reactions of everyday German citizens, some who oppose Hitler and some who embrace the Nazi cause after fourteen years of a democracy that was doomed from the beginning. Culpability in future Nazi crimes is introduced by the very open announcement that concentration camps are real, and that political enemies of the regime (Communists, Social Democrats, and even monarchists pining for the Hohenzolleren family) are being kept there under the brutal "care" of the SA. The world at large is reacting to Hitler's seizure of power, as well, with some even embracing the notion that fascism in Germany could work in their own countries (France, or America). As the book points out, 1933 is a red-letter date in world history because those in power in Germany had no notion of the monster they were letting into their midst; they were only interested in seizing power and thought they could control Hitler and his mob. Totally not relevant to our current situation in America, of course (sarcasm).

This is a chilling, illuminating read, a book that serves to highlight how the myth of inevitability with regards to Hitler was anything but; had an organized resistance stood up to him up to and including the moment when the Enabling Act was unleashed in March 1933, history could very well have been different. It isn't, of course, but we should always be mindful that history is made just as much by inaction as action taken to preserve a way of life.

[Oliver Bogler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A valuable contribution to the history of Nazi Germany, focusing on how the country changed in the first 100 days after Hitler's appointment as chancellor. Drawing on many contemporary sources the author shows how people starting from very different perspectives and places we're affected, and changed their lives in response. Some sections like the lengthy discourse on a play about Napoleon's hundred days were less compelling to me.

[Timothy Lugg · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933 there was no guarantee that he or the National Socialists would go on to dominate the nation. In fact, it was unlikely they would because they had lost ground in the 1932 elections. Peter Fritzsche recounts the steps the Nazis took to sideline and eliminate the opposition during the first 100 days of Hitler taking this new title. Through coercion both unwilling and willing, they changed to conversation from the Nazis being one party among many to being the only party that represented all Germans. Many were converted to this way of thinking, and those that were not convinced learned to keep their mouth's shut. If anything, this book demonstrates that people who are willing to employ violence have the ability to change the minds of many and the behavior of all.

[Carl Bauer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hitler's First Hundred Days

This is really a remarkable study of how the Germans were psychologically and socially swept into the Nazi psyche
before the 2nd World War. It is beautifully and straightforwardly composed. I have read William L. Sister's complete books on this subject. This account focuses on all the influences to which the Germans were exposed
The book does not moralize on the subject at all, is therefore easily acceptable as a discourse of facts!

Carl Bauer, July, 2020

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall a well researched and insightful book that uncovers the reasons why Germans flocked to support (or at least appeared to support) Hitler's NSDAP. From the fire in the Reichstag to the growth of radio and cinema, this book hits on a lot of different areas of life that the average German would have been exposed to. Fritzsche manages to trace the development of Nazi policy, from their deal with the other conservative groups to support Hitler as Chancellor to the boycott of Jewish businesses and the Enabling Act of 1933. I was also intrigued by the author's description of the Weiman tenements, unemployment, and the battle between the Marxists (and other left-wing groups such as the Social Democrats) and the Nazis.

I could have done without the chapter on France's relationship with fascism. For me, it added nothing to the book. Additionally, I wish the author would have touched upon the Jews that actually voted for Hitler. There were several instances of this in the elections of the early 30s; many Jews believed a vote for the NSDAP would lead to protection and some semblance of maintained assimilation.

[Chris Sosa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great work of exploration regarding daily life in Germany as Hitler assumed power. While the Holocaust itself remains a regular topic of historical discussion, often lost is the ways in which the groundwork was set at a societal level for a genocide to occur.

Peter Fritzche's work expands beyond the idea of Hitler as a singular evil (which often shifts blame away from the society) and instead focuses on the way the populace at large embraced ideas, leaders and behaviors that set the groundwork for genocide. Telling this part of the story is chilling and necessary.

I do wish the author had chosen to go a bit further. Despite near-universal awareness of the Holocaust, the average person possesses a deeply simplified level of knowledge. The information in "Hitler's First 100 Days" must be coupled with an understanding of what came next, and I'd love to see an expanded addition of this work that provides readers with an overview to contextualize what they've just read in the preceding pages.

Highly recommended.

[Peter P. Bernard]

Unfortunately, authors who write about Hitler today consciously have Trump in their sights.
Journalists, columnist and onion writers resist making such a comparison sometimes at great efforts (overseen by page editors) but the comparisons are inevitable for historians.
With that in mind, Fritzsce's book gets three stars because the comparisons are estranged (although visible)
Trump's first 100 Days were spent reversing Obama's Executive Orders and not in initiating new policies. Whenever he tried--like the Muslim ban--they were so clumsily implemented that they were mostly reversed by the courts. But according to the book, Hitler moved decisively in enacting his programs--the Nuremberg Laws were in place and ruled by the Schmitt court to be valid unlike Trump's Muslim ban.
It might have been interesting if Fritzsche had examined some Trump era fiction like he did with German fiction during Hitler's first 100 Days

[Miguel · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be just slightly critical here, I don’t think that the author lives up to the title in that instead of a laser focused overview of the first 100 days the reader receives quite a bit of information post 1933 that could have been exchanged for an even closer examination of the title’s subject matter. That stated, the book does a pretty good job of giving a flavor for the outset of the Nazi regime with particular focus on ordinary reaction of firsthand accounts giving a sense of how the national mood was both shaped and changed in the process. There’s also some good detail on the role and reaction of the social democrats (current SDP party in Germany) and their role and response to Hitler taking over the chancellorship.

[Simone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you, NetGalley for a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for my honest opinion!

There are so many books about Hitler that it is hard to find a really unique one that doesn't tell you anything that other books haven't told you already. This was an ok book. It wasn't my favorite book about Hitler, but I loved reading about the events that unfolded in the late 1930s/early 1940s from a different angle.

[Ted Haussman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was a little hard to get into with the first 90 pages a bit of a middle of the pre-January 30, 1933 period and barely a mention of the Schleicher government immediately preceding Hitler’s surprise installation. But it aptly explains the rapid consolidation of power and consent of the German people to discard republican forms of government which has resulted in stalemate and embrace fascism, dictatorship, and the cult of Hitler.