Hitler's first weeks as chancellor pre-scripted America's demagogue-as-despot

The day after President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Germany's chancellor, the New York Times covered the story in the upper left corner of Page 1. (Irrelevant to topic, but note the paper's cost in 1933.)

The story's third paragraph:

"Continued on Page Three."

Second paragraph:

And that was that, according to the Times and many other contemporary observers of European fascism. We know what played out, so Naziism's ultimate ghoulishness strikes us today as a kind of inevitable force of history; it seems what happened was destined to happen. Little remembered is that Hitler had to struggle — no, not that one, this was a different mein Kampf — his way to supreme, dictatorial power even after his appointment as chancellor.

In fact, or I should say with factual precision, historian Timothy Ryback has noted that Hitler's struggle lasted "one month, three weeks, two days, eight hours, and 40 minutes." There were, let's say, complications. One was that Germany's multiparty, parliamentary system included resolute anti-Nazi Communists, and ridding himself of political competition took Hitler some time. Also, Germany's imminent führer had only two National Socialists in the 48-member "ordinary cabinet" of the Reichsregierung ("Reich government"): Minister Without Portfolio Hermann Göring, death by suicide, 15 October 1946, and Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, death by hanging, one day after Göring departed for hell.

Göring on Hitler's right; Frick, standing, fourth from the left.)

In early January of this year, the above-cited historian Ryback penned a carefully crafted article for The Atlantic titled "How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days." His motivation for writing the piece was too obvious to mention here — not once did he even mention the real object's name. Self-evident as well is that Ryback's noted particulars on Hitler's methodology of rising to supreme authoritarian power required no stretching of truths, no bendings of history, no hyperbole nor false analogies. Virtually all of what the historian observed of Hitler's systematic savagery, raw opportunism and challenges overcome fit flawlessly into Trump's bio.

A thorough retelling of Ryback's story would be much too cumbersome; the article runs close to 5,000 words. I'll instead hit the highlights — a poor choice of words, unless you're also as fascinated by, and obsessed with, histories of what disfigures some demagogues into abject monsters. I'll follow no chronology of events nor present step-by-step analyses of Hitler's sinister maneuverings. I'll simply bundle up the stunning similarities and terrifying exactitudes as a sort of gestalt repugnance.

For starters, Ryback writes that Hitler’s chancellorship "came almost as much as a surprise to Hitler as it did to the rest of the country." Only yesterday, I believe it was, did I write the same about Trump's 2016 quasi-victory over Hillary Clinton. His candidacy began as a publicity stunt and the farce of it all has yet to end.

While waiting, like Göring and Frick, to be executed at Nuremberg, Hitler’s private attorney, Hans Frank, commented on his dead-by-suicide client’s keen ability to detect "the potential weakness inherent in every formal form of law," and then, continues Ryback, go about "ruthlessly exploiting that weakness." With Trump, think the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act so he can deport brown people. Or, as far as I know, there's no formal law barring him from annointing a sadistic billionaire to steal candy from babies. Hitler was also explicit, when testifying in judicial hearings, that he was seeking power through legal means but would do as he liked once elected. Trump has stated there are times when terminating the U.S. Constitution would be allowable.

Hitler "had been co-opting or crushing right-wing competitors and paralyzing legislative processes" and "play[ing] obstructionist politics" — e.g., the bioartsin immigration bill — "for years." Hitler understood after his failed 1923 putsch that he needed parliamentary cooperation to "dismantle the separation of powers, grant [his] executive branch the authority to make laws without parliamentary approval, and allow [him] to rule by decree, bypassing democratic institutions and the constitution." Trump/GOP.

At his first cabinet meeting, after swearing to uphold Germany's constitution, he informed those present of his "plans for expunging key government officials and filling their positions with loyalists." He added that something along the lines of, let's call it, an enabling act would be "necessary to make good on his campaign promises to revive the economy, reduce unemployment, increase military spending, withdraw from international treaty obligations, purge the country of foreigners he claimed were 'poisoning' the blood of the nation, and exact revenge on political opponents. 'Heads will roll in the sand,'" said Hitler. Check all boxes for Trump.

Hitler had campaigned on draining the "parliamentarian swamp"—den parlamentarischen Sumpf — but dug one deeper and wider than ever before. "He responded as he invariably did when confronted with dissenting opinions or inconvenient truths: He ignored them and doubled down." He told former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher that "it was astonishing in his life that he was always rescued just when he himself had given up all hope."

Hitler appointed Frick to the task of "suppressing the opposition press," "undermining states’ rights," "imposing bans on left-wing newspapers," and making certain adjustments to Germany's electoral system. On 18 February, a center-left newspaper "wrote that despite Hitler’s campaign promises and political posturing, nothing had changed for the average German. If anything, things had gotten worse," and especially worrisome was "Hitler’s promise of doubling tariffs" (Ryback's words). Economic Minister Alfred Hugenberg told Hitler in a cabinet meeting that "catastrophic economic conditions" threatened the "existence of the country," and, as the newspaper also wrote, "In the end, the survival of the new government will rely not on words but on the economic conditions."

On 27 Feb., the Reichstag burned — presenting the perfect opportunity for Hitler to urge an "emergency decree [giving him] tremendous power to intimidate—and imprison—the political opposition." Thousands of its members were arrested and newspapers were shut down. "Göring had already been doing this for the past month, but the courts had invariably ordered the release of detained people. With the decree in effect, the courts could not intervene." On 25 March 5, one week after the fire, Germans voted. The NY Times' Frederick Birchall "expressed his dismay at the apparent willingness of Germans to submit to authoritarian rule when they had the opportunity for a democratic alternative." In Birchall's words, "In any American or Anglo-Saxon community the response would be immediate and overwhelming," Makes you want to cry, no?

On 21 March, a decree granted amnesty to National Socialists who had been convicted of participating "in the battle for national renewal." Traitors became "national heroes" and for their opponents, "the first concentration camp ... opened that afternoon." Göring told the foreign press to stay the hell out of Germany's domestic goings-on; the country would do as it pleased. And on 23 March, Hitler again urged an enabling law, now officially named the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich." At last, he got what he wanted. With the law in hand, he promised that “treason toward our nation and our people shall in the future be stamped out with ruthless barbarity."

Observed Joseph Goebbels: "The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the means to its own destruction."