
Hitler's Bogus Crisis of ‘Public Order'
Adolf Hitler was a master of manufacturing public-security crises to advance his authoritarian agenda.
He used inflammatory tactics and rhetoric to disable constitutional protections for the Weimar Republic's 17 federated states, crushing their leadership and imposing his will on the country. 'I myself was once a federalist during my time in the opposition,' Hitler told Hans Lex, a Reichstag delegate for the Bavarian People's Party, in mid-March 1933, 'but I have now come to the conviction that the Weimar constitution is fundamentally flawed.' Federalism, Hitler said, encouraged states to pursue local interests at the expense of the nation.
'The rest of the world watched in astonishment and glee as democratic leaders of the individual states, relying on the Weimar Constitution,' Hitler continued, 'did not hesitate to attack the Reich government in the fiercest way possible at public rallies, in the press and on the radio.' Hitler vowed to end the 'eternal battle' between the states and the central government by dismantling the federated system, crushing states' rights, and forging 'a unified will' for the nation.
In a statement to the press, Hitler said that the imposition of central authority should be seen not as the 'raping' of state sovereignty but rather as the 'alignment' of state policies with the central government's.
Timothy W. Ryback: What the press got wrong about Hitler
Hitler had been more circumspect when he addressed the Reichsrat, a federal body of state representatives intended to monitor the relationship between the Reich and state governments, on Thursday, February 2, 1933, three days after his appointment as chancellor. The country's federated states, Hitler had said then, were the 'historic building blocks of the German nation.' He insisted that he had no intention of intruding on state sovereignty. He would assert Reich control only 'where absolutely necessary.'
Three weeks later, on February 27, the Reichstag fire provided Hitler with the 'absolutely necessary' excuse he needed. Hitler claimed that an arson attack on the Reichstag by a lone perpetrator—who was caught in the act— was the start of an attempted Bolshevik revolution, using that false claim to suspend civil liberties and suppress the voting rights of the German Communist Party, thereby enabling his supporters in the Reichstag to pass legislation granting him authoritarian power.
At Hitler's urging, President Paul von Hindenburg issued an Article 48 emergency decree, 'Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State.' The first paragraph suspended civil liberties, providing Hitler the means to suppress political opposition in advance of the upcoming elections on March 5. The second paragraph gave Hitler the power to trample states' rights: 'If any state fails to take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, the Reich government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.'
That second paragraph sent alarm bells clanging in state capitals across the country, nowhere louder than in Bavaria, where concern over state sovereignty had run high from the outset of Hitler's chancellorship. Heinrich Held, the minister president—the equivalent of a U.S. state governor—of Bavaria, the second-largest federated state after its neighbor Prussia, was among the Weimar Republic's fiercest states'-rights advocates. He had a jurist's keen eye for legal loopholes and political subterfuge. Though the Weimar constitution was lauded by legal experts as one of the most democratic and progressive of its time, Held considered it to be disquietingly unclear and pliable when it came to states' rights. In the emergency-powers provision of Article 48, he detected the 'seeds of dictatorship.'
'The developments in public affairs in Germany fill the Bavarian state government with grave concern,' Held had written to Hindenburg five days into Hitler's chancellorship. 'Based on what has been announced, it seems the relationship of the states to the Reich could undergo a significant change.'
By 'developments in public affairs,' Held was referring to what had happened in Prussia the previous year. In July 1932, a Reich governor had been installed there, ostensibly to restore public order following street violence between communists and National Socialists. Prussia claimed that the Reich government had overreached, and took the matter to the Constitutional Court. Fearing what a ruling for the Reich would forebode for other federated states, Held had Bavaria join the lawsuit.
State of Prussia v. Reich Government placed the high court in a precarious position not just judicially but also politically—the Reich governor's installation in Prussia was a fait accompli. If the judges ruled in favor of Prussia, the Reich could simply ignore the court. But the greater danger, Held feared, was that Hindenburg would exercise his Article 48 powers to invoke a constitutionally permissible 'Reich Execution' that would permit the army to impose central authority on a state. If Prussia were to resist such an imposition, a constitutional crisis could quickly devolve into civil war.
On October 25, 1932, the court ruled that although Hindenburg had acted within his constitutional authority in installing a Reich governor, Prussia nonetheless still retained administrative control over its territory. The tangled ruling baffled legal experts and general observers alike. Vorwärts, the Social Democratic newspaper, wrote, 'Only the gods know how this situation can realistically be resolved.' Hitler resolved the situation rather bluntly: After taking office as chancellor, he simply dissolved the Prussian state government.
Having watched the Reich government do this, Held now feared a similar intrusion—or worse—in Bavaria: At Hitler's first cabinet meeting as chancellor, he had considered deploying the army to quell public unrest. Hitler's defense minister informed the new chancellor that ordering German soldiers to shoot German citizens on German soil was unthinkable—the army was trained exclusively to fight an 'external enemy.'
In his letter to Hindenberg, Held had reminded the German president of his solemn oath to uphold the democratic principles and federated structures of the Weimar constitution. 'The Bavarian state government places its trust in Your Excellency as protector of constitutional rights and of justice,' Held wrote. Hindenburg wrote back offering reassurance. 'Neither the Reich government nor I personally,' he wrote, 'are pursuing plans designed to eradicate the sovereignty of the federated states and to establish a centralized state.' Hindenburg added that he also had no intention of 'inserting Reich Governors into the business of state governments.' Still, rumors of Hitler's designs on Bavaria's sovereign authority persisted.
Timothy W. Ryback: How Hitler dismantled a democracy in 53 days
Two weeks later, Fritz Schäffer, the head of the Bavarian People's Party, traveled to Berlin to meet with Hindenburg and reiterate the state's concerns about Hitler's anti-federalist designs. Schäffer did not mince words. 'If the Reich sends a Reich governor to Bavaria, he will be arrested at the state border,' Schäffer told Hindenburg. Further, if Hitler's storm troopers attempted to stage a coup in Bavaria, Schäffer said, the state government would mobilize the Bavaria Watch, a state militia of 30,000 men that was aligned with the Bavarian People's Party. The Bavarian militia, battle-hardened by the Great War, Schäffer warned, would crush Hitler's ragtag bands of brownshirt storm troopers 'with ruthless force.'
Hindenburg assured Schäffer that even if the state government were not politically aligned with the Reich, he had 'no intention of installing Reich governors in states where order prevails.' Hindenburg said that he valued 'Bavaria and the Bavarian people and would avoid anything that would bring Bavaria into conflict with the Reich.'
Ten days later, the Reichstag fire and ensuing emergency decree scrambled the constitutional calculus. A day after Hindenburg exercised his Article 48 authority, Heinrich Held was in Berlin for a meeting with Hitler. The Bavarian minister president informed the Reich chancellor in no uncertain terms that his federated state did not require Reich assistance in maintaining public order. After an hour and a half, Held emerged, with Hitler's assurance 'that there will be no use of paragraph two against states in which, like Bavaria, law and order are maintained by state authorities.'
The March 5 Reichstag elections delivered Hitler 44 percent of the electorate and with that a claim on political power at every level of government. The next day, 200,000 National Socialist brownshirts stormed state and municipal offices across the country. Swastika banners draped town halls. Civil servants were thrown from their desks.
But not in Bavaria. Held's solid block of more than 1 million voters, along with the threat of armed resistance by the Bavaria Watch, gave Hitler pause. So did Schäffer's threat to call on Bavaria's Prince Rupprecht to reestablish monarchical rule.
Hitler huddled with his lieutenants to frame a strategy for Bavaria. Storm troopers would stage public disturbances, triggering a response under paragraph two of Article 48, enabling Hitler to suspend the Held government, and install a Reich governor in its place.
Three days after the election, on Wednesday, March 8, Held was in his office when he heard Hitler storm troopers singing the Nazi Party anthem in a public square. Shortly before noon, three Hitler lieutenants—Ernst Röhm, Heinrich Himmler, and Adolf Wagner—all in brown uniforms and jackboots, stomped into Held's office. Noting the 'protesting' Nazi storm troopers outside Held's office—staged there per Hitler's secret decree—Röhm expressed concern about public safety, and demanded that Held agree to install a Reich governor. Wagner slapped a whip across Held's desk. Held rose to his feet. He informed the three men that, as minister president, he needed to consult his cabinet. Wagner demanded an answer by noon. Held refused. 'Noon is lunchtime,' he is reputed to have said. 'I never make decisions at lunchtime.'
By the time Hitler's lieutenants reconvened with Held, at 3:40 that afternoon, this time in the company of a prospective Reich governor, Franz von Epp, Held had conferred with his cabinet. 'The Bavarian government is fully capable of maintaining peace and public order on its own,' he said, adding that he would not be coerced or intimidated. That evening, Held telegraphed Hindenburg. He requested support from Reichswehr Division VII, garrisoned in Munich, in case the National Socialists staged a coup. Hindenburg declined to help. That Friday, Franz von Epp made his first public appearance as Bavaria's Reich governor. Armed storm troopers swarmed state administrative offices. Still, Held didn't budge. A pair of Nazi storm troopers, intended to intimidate the intransigent minister president, were posted outside Held's office, rifles slung over their shoulders.
Timothy W. Ryback: The oligarchs who came to regret supporting Hitler
That weekend, Hitler flew south to try to resolve the crisis personally. He summoned Hans Lex, the Reichstag delegate who now headed the Bavaria Watch militia. Hitler told Lex he wanted to discuss, in confidence, a potential coalition. Lex cautioned Hitler that the degree to which the Bavarian People's Party would be willing to cooperate with the National Socialists was limited. For instance, Lex said, he could in good conscience imagine placing '1,000 Social Democratic functionaries' in protective custody—but only so long as they were detained within the parameters of the law and were 'treated humanely.' However, 'one could not,' Lex continued, 'align with Christian values, for example, a terrorist action that saw political opponents randomly snatched and thrown up against a wall.' Lex assured Hitler that Minister President Held had matters in Bavaria well in hand, and he explained that, having won more than 1 million votes in the latest election, Held represented 'a solid and unshakable' political force, supported by the martial force of the 30,000 armed men of the Bavaria Watch. Unable to close a deal, Hitler returned to Berlin.
But Hitler didn't need a deal. Instead, he unleashed his own storm troopers—both the SA and the SS—on Bavaria. The Bavaria Watch did not mobilize. Prince Rupprecht did not intervene. Fritz Schäffer was accosted and beaten on the street, then hustled to the Nazi Party headquarters in Munich for interrogation. Held was forced from his official residence, and his family was threatened; eventually, he was forced to flee to Switzerland. With Held gone, the Reich governor assumed full authority over Bavaria. 'With the führer at midday when we receive the latest news from Munich,' Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary on March 15. 'There can no longer be talk of resistance anywhere.' The New York Times reported that Hitler's efforts to 'steamroller' the country on his path to unchecked power were proving successful.
The ironies of history can be multilayered. Heinrich Held understood the threat that Hitler posed to democracy long before most people had ever heard of National Socialism or its leader. And a decade earlier, at a moment when Hitler was effectively a stateless immigrant in Germany, Held had been unable to deport him from the country.
In September 1924, the warden of Landsberg Prison, where Hitler was serving a five-year sentence for his failed Beer Hall Putsch, reported that incarceration had done nothing to temper the Nazi leader's authoritarian impulses. If anything, he wrote, Hitler had grown 'more mature, calmer, more calculating in his convictions.'
'There is no doubt that Hitler, after his release from the detention facility will return to political life,' the warden cautioned. 'He will seek to revive the nationalist movement according to his vision.' Held, then newly installed as minister president of Bavaria, moved to action. He prepared for Hitler's immediate deportation to his Austrian homeland upon release from prison.
A Bavarian delegation was dispatched to Vienna to discuss the handover, only to be told that the Austrians would under no circumstances allow the return of their native son. Vienna argued that Hitler had forfeited his Austrian citizenship as a result of his service in a Bavarian regiment. 'Hitler is considered as stateless, and as a result of the refusal by Austria to receive him, his deportation is no longer possible,' Held lamented in an internal memorandum. 'The government fears nonetheless that incarceration has in no way sobered or calmed Hitler, rather compelled him to continue to pursue his goals with undiminished energy.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Germany's CDU: Foreign medical students must work in Germany or pay
The German conservative party of Chancellor Friedrich Merz wants to charge foreign medical students for their studies if they return to their home countries immediately after graduation instead of working in Germany. "Anyone who studies here should practise in rural areas for at least five years. Those who do not wish to do so must repay the costs of this first-class education," Sepp Müller, deputy chair of the parliamentary group of the conservative CDU/CSU bloc, told the Bild newspaper in remarks published on Wednesday. Higher education, including medical school, is mainly free in Germany - to both foreign and domestic students. By contrast, in the United States both domestic and foreign students can pay some $60,000 per year - and more when housing and books are included. In the United Kingdom, annual international fees range between £43,700 ($59,232) at the Cardiff Medical School in Wales, to £67,194 at the Cambridge Medical School, according to UK testing site UKCAT The secretary of state in the German Health Ministry, Tino Sorge, also called for measures to prevent foreign medical students from returning to their home countries after completing their studies. "Our goal must be to retain such highly qualified professionals. We need to attract young doctors to work in Germany instead of watching them leave," the CDU politician told the newspaper. He added that each medical school place comes with significant costs. Florian Müller, the research policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Bild that the federal states should independently regulate the repayment of study costs. "We need to focus much more on ensuring that international talents work in Germany after university," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
German Foreign Minister Wadephul heads to Rome for talks on Ukraine
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul is expected in Rome on Thursday for an international conference focused on EU security and the war in Ukraine. Hosted by Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, the meeting is taking place within the framework of the so-called Weimar Plus format. The group is an extension of the Weimar Triangle, which is made up of Germany, France and Poland. According to the German Foreign Office, both NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha will attend the conference. They are to be joined by representatives from Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, France and the European Union. The meeting is taking place less than a month before the fourth Ukraine Recovery Conference, scheduled for July 10-11, at which some 2,000 representatives from politics, business and international organizations plan to discuss Ukraine's long-term prospects. After a bilateral meeting with Tajani, Wadephul's schedule sees him leave Rome for the Middle East on Thursday evening. Through Sunday, he plans to visit a host of countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. The Foreign Office said the focus of the trip to the region is the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and plans for a peaceful order in the territory after the end of the ongoing conflict with Israel.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Chabria: Newsom's 'Democracy is under assault' speech could turn the tables on Trump
Frame it as a call to action or a presidential campaign announcement, Gov. Gavin Newsom's address to America on Tuesday has tapped into our zeitgeist (German words feel oddly appropriate at the moment) in a way few others have. 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said during a live broadcast with a California flag and the U.S. flag in the background. 'The moment we've feared has arrived.' What moment exactly is he referring to? President Trump has put Marines and National Guardsmen on the streets of Los Angeles, and granted himself the power to put them anywhere. Wednesday, a top military leader said those forces could "detain" protesters, but not outright arrest them, though — despite what you see on right wing media — most protesters have been peaceful. But every would-be authoritarian ultimately faces a decisive moment, when the fear they have generated must be enforced with action to solidify power. The danger of that moment for the would-be king is that it is also the time when rebellion is most likely, and most likely to be effective. People wake up. In using force against his own citizens, the leader risks alienating supporters and activating resistance. Read more: Mayor Karen Bass decries continuing raids, wonders if L.A. is a 'national experiment' What happens next in Los Angeles between the military and protesters — which group is perceived as the aggressors — may likely determine what happens next in our democracy. If the military is the aggressor and protesters remain largely peaceful, Trump risks losing support. If the protesters are violent, public perception could further empower Trump. The president's immigration czar Tom Homan, said on CNN that what happens next, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters — I mean, they make the decisions.' Welcome to that fraught moment, America. Who would have thought Newsom would lead on it so effectively? "Everybody who's not a Trumpist in this society has been taken by surprise, and is still groggy from the authoritarian offensive of the last five months," said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at the embattled Harvard University, and author of "How Democracies Die." Levitsky told me that it helps shake off that shock to have national leaders, people who others can look to and rally behind. Especially as fear nudges some into silence. "You never know who that leader sometimes is going to be, and it may be Newsom," Levitsky said. "Maybe his political ambitions end up converging with the small d, democratic opposition." Maybe. Since his address, and a coinciding and A-game funny online offensive, Newsom's reach has skyrocketed. Millions of people watched his address, and hundreds of thousands have followed him on TikTok and other social media platforms. Searches about him on Google were up 9,700%, according to CNN. Love his message or find it laughable, it had reach — partly because it was unapologetically clear and also unexpected. "Trump and his loyalist thrive on division because it allow them to take more power and exert even more control," Newsom said. I was on the ground with the protesters this week, and I can say from firsthand experience that there are a small number of agitators and a large number of peaceful protesters. But Trump has done an excellent job of creating crisis and fear by portraying events as out of the control of local and state authorities, and therefore in need of his intervention. Republicans "need that violence to corroborate their talking points," Mia Bloom told me. She's an expert on extremism and a professor at Georgia State University. Violence "like in the aftermath of George Floyd, when there was the rioting, that actually was helpful for Republicans," she said. Read more: After images of unrest comes the political spin, distorting the reality on the ground in L.A. Levitsky said authoritarians look for crises. "You need an emergency, both rhetorically and legally, to engage in authoritarian behavior," he said. So Trump has laid a trap with his immigration sweeps in a city of immigrants to create opportunity, and Newsom has called it out. And it calling it out — pointing out the danger of protesters turning violent and yet still calling for peaceful protest — Newsom has put Trump in a precarious position that the president may not have been expecting. "Repressing protest is a very risky venture," said Levitsky. "It often, not always, but often, does trigger push back." Levitsky points out that already, there is some evidence that Trump may have overreached, and is losing support. A new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 76% of Americans oppose the military birthday parade Trump plans on throwing for himself in Washington, D.C. this weekend. That includes disapproval from more than half of Trump supporters. A separate poll by Quinnipiac University found that 54% of those polled disapprove of how he's handling immigration issues, and 56% disapprove of his deportations. Bloom warns that there's a danger in raising too many alarms about authoritarianism right now, because we still have some functioning guardrails. She said that stoking too much fear could backfire, for Newsom and for democracy. "We're at a moment in which the country is very polarized and that these things are being told through two very different types of narratives, and the moment we give the other side, which was a very apocalyptic, nihilistic narrative, we give them fodder, we justify the worst policies" she said. She pointed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when some protesters placed flowers in the barrels of soldiers' guns, and act of peaceful protest she said changed public perception. That, she said, is what's needed now. Newsom was clear in his call for peaceful protest. But also clear that it was a call to action in a historic inflection point. We can't know in the moment who or what history will remember, said Levitsky. "It's really important that the most privileged among us stand up and fight," he said. "If they don't, citizens are going to look around and say, 'Well, why should I?" Having leaders willing to be the target, when so many feel the danger of speaking out, has value, he said. Because fear may spread like a virus, but courage is contagious, too. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.