The rise of fascism in Europe, and particularly, the emergence of National Socialism in Germany, possesses a complex genealogy. In various artistic, historical, autobiographical and theoretical works, factors such as economic crisis, the consequences of the First World War, and the seductive quality of the fascist and National Socialist worldview are all advanced as reasons for the successes of such ideologies. In this regard, the reduction of this emergence to a singular cause overlooks the complexity of the historical situation understood as the combination of different economic, political and cultural elements. Accordingly, in order to examine the rise of National Socialism, it is most prudent to consider a diversity of perspectives that chronicle this phenomenon. The following essay shall take such an approach, using the literature of Thomas Mann, the autobiographical account of Sebastian Haffner, the historical approach of Robert W. Strayer, and the theoretical viewpoints of Hoffman & Timm and Edele & Geyer, to understand the etiology of National Socialism’s achievement of political hegemony in Germany. Following the diversity of these sources, the essay shall argue that the emergence of National Socialism is the result of the movement’s addressing of a diverse number of concerns that constituted the life of the German people of the time period; because of the diversity of such concerns, National Socialism gave the appearance of certainty to the German people, in a time of profound uncertainty.

National Socialism and its sister ideology of fascism possess their own distinct worldview. Primarily, according to Strayer, these ideologies are above all “intensely nationalistic.” (6) Such a focus on nationalism creates or rather informs the various policy decisions that are inherent to the fascist or Nazi ideology. Primarily, it is the idea of the people of the nation constituting an organic whole that drives this political worldview. In other words, policy decisions must be directed towards what is perceived as to the benefit of this organic whole. Thus, issues such as avenging some of the perceived failures and injustices committed against the people, for example, as a result of the First World War, must be stressed in order to reclaim the dignity of the people; economic policy must not emphasize the free market system and individualism, as the combined idea of the nation surpasses individual ambition. Accordingly, this is a highly centralized form of government, one that attempts to exercise control over all aspects of the country’s life – this is consistent with the premise that the nation exists as a unified nation linked through a shared ethnic and racial background. The realization of these fascist values, however, also necessitated the aggressiveness of fascism in countries such as Germany and Italy, as Strayer notes, precisely because “in their determination to overthrow existing regimes, they were revolutionary” (7) At the same time, however, as Strayer also observes, their emphasis on the nation and the national community meant a certain traditional worldview: “in their celebration of traditional values and their opposition to much of modern life, however, they were conservative or reactionary.” (7) Accordingly, the basic ideological orientation of fascism and National Socialism can be viewed as a synthesis of an authoritarian and hostile approach to political plurality and democracy, combined with a commitment to a certain mystical and transcendental belief in traditional forms of normativity. Policy decisions thus seek to aggressively realize these norms within the context of a chaotic world.

Such an authoritarianism and the idea of an unwavering traditional truth can be viewed as the ideological appeal of fascism in the post First World War period. In an era marked by tremendous political turmoil and upheaval, such parties offered a feeling of stability to the populace through their championing of traditional values. At the same time, they also promised, one could say, to put the world in order, through an authoritarian and unilateral approach to policy decisions. The notion that “such ideas appealed to dissatisfied or unfulfilled people in all social classes” (Strayer) suggests that the general malaise and uncertainty that marked this time period could be resolved by a fascist political ideology. In other words, the ambiguity of life could be reduced through a combination of authoritarianism and tradition. For example, that “the German economy largely ground to a halt in the early 1930s [with] massive unemployment among workers and the middle class alike.” (Strayer) meant that this time period was marked by a deep crisis, one which could be understand as requiring a radical response. Such uncertainty was aggravated by the feeling of dishonor and shame that emerged in Germany after the First World War. The loss of Germany in the war left a feeling of humiliation; and with this wound to German pride, “there arose a myth that Germany had not really lost the war but that civilians especially socialists, communist, and Jews, had betrayed the nation, ‘stabbing it in the back’.” (Strayer) With this viewpoint, Germany thus thought of itself as being constituted by diverse and divisive elements. The means with which to resolve this ambiguity would therefore lie in a strong centralized power that could unite the country against its internal and external conflicts, whether these conflicts be economic, ethnic, or political. Precisely what was required was a strong and unified response.

The decision for National Socialism is thus a decision to establish or regain power and hegemony. According to Hoffman and Timm, Nazi Germany policies, such as the “state management of reproduction” (90) demonstrate an attempt to create a “racially defined Volksgemeinschaft to provide social support for the hegemony of the ;Aryan; master race over Europe and the world.” (87) Such policies reflect the desire to re-assert German superiority in a time in which such superiority was precisely in doubt. In line with such an idea, in his autobiographical account of the rise of National Socialism, Sebastian Haffner writes that the decision for Nazism was essentially an “ultimate decisions of conscience.” (6) This is a decision for conscience, precisely because it a decision concerning the essence of the nation and its future course. For Haffner, this decision is traced back to the duality he establishes between the individual and the state that explains the rise of Nazism. The state is described as “an exceedingly powerful, formidable and ruthless state” (Haffner, 4), whereas the individual is “insignificant, unknown private.” (Haffner, 4) According to this duality, the individual is always at a disadvantage: the power that the state wields inevitably crushes such individuality. In a time period, therefore, when individual situations were aggravated by historical uncertainty and economic crisis, the decision for the State is a decision to regain some control and power over life. The Nazi State, despite its ruthlessness, offered such an alternative in the vacuum of German life after the First World War. The desire to eliminate weakness and uncertainty leads one to sacrifice their individuality for security. Accordingly, the social, political and economic situation explosively combines to force the individual to make a decision against him or herself on the personal level, in favour of something that would be greater and more stable, that is, the State.

Yet whereas Haffner can be viewed as presenting a certain autonomous choice that existed in the rise of National Socialism, Thomas Mann presents a different account. The allegory in Mann’s short story “Mario and the Magician” perceives the fascist leader as a type of magician, endeavoring to hypnotize the audience under his sway. The character of Cipolla thus seduces the audience, who are amazed at his prowess. Cipolla wishes to project a power and authority to the public which he performs his magic for: “Cipolla himself saw to it…that the nature of his powers should be clear beyond a doubt to even the least-instructed person.” (208) Reading Mann’s story as an allegory, it is precisely the elimination of doubt that fascism and National Socialism attempts to project to the audience. This elimination fo doubt is necessary because the historical time period is constituted by doubt: doubts concerning the economic future, doubts concerning the structure of society and subversive elements; doubts concerning the role of Germany and the future of the people in Europe and the World. The magician is a figure that tries to capture the audience and suspend their doubt in conjunction with his ability to perform magic: he is the solver of mystery and one who concentrates power on himself. This is exactly the promise of the authoritarian regime: to concentrate power in a single location and exert hegemony over the population. And the populace is effected in a certain spellbound way by this demonstration of power, as Mann writes: “The curiosity of the entire audience was unbounded and universal, everybody both enjoyed the amazing character of the entertainment and unanimously conceded the professional skill of the performer.” (209) Mann’s remarks about “without exception” are crucial here, insofar as the work of the magician tries to minimize exception and anomaly, much like the promise of a strong authoritarian government. The unexpected turns in economics, politics and social life are to be eliminated through a central presence of a powerful figure. In other words, the world will be able to be understood and become more manageable according to a singular narrative; accordingly, doubt and apprehension disappear. The success of the Nazis is thus equivalent to the successes of a magician deceiving the public, in the sense that the magician is viewed as all powerful and that he has control over even the uncertain: the figures of the magician and the dictator coincide because their power appears to somehow transcend everyday existence and the fluctuations of the unexpectedness of life itself. The social and cultural tendency to require such a leader in times of turmoil thus explains the success of the magician: in a situation of doubt, when someone clearly demonstrates their power, this individual will gain the appreciation of the audience and their admiration. The instability of Germany, in other words, lends itself to the appearance of a great leader, a strong state and an authoritarian regime to combat the apparent chaos.