“Is Hitler Racist Enough?”
The Struggle for Hegemony within the völkisch Movement in the North
German Countryside
Who were the German Racists?
• Deutsch-völkisch Freiheitspartei (DVFP), founded December 1922 after radical anti-Semites ejected from German Nationalist People’s Party, banned 1923
• February 1924 electoral alliance with NSDAP as Völkisch-Sozial Bloc (VSB)
• After successful May 1924 election campaign, DVFP tried to gain hegemony within the racist movement while Hitler loyalists tried to maintain their independence
• In run up to May 1928 election, DVFP tried to exploit rural unrest through alliance with Landvolk- und Mittelstandspartei as the Völkisch-National Bloc (VNB)
Locating the study
Percentages of votes cast for the competing völkisch parties, May 1928
German Racist/Nazi competition, May 1928
Votes Percentage of total vote
Percentage of Racist vote
NSDAP 30,195 7.8% 69.3%
VNB 13,379 3.5% 30.7%
Polling place leader
100% of vote
0% with competition
0% both parties
NSDAP 235 39 95 12
VNB 301 97 39 12
tied 12
Not available 16
126 places with vote range 33.3-66.6%
37 places with vote range 45-55%
The “Noakes” Thesis
• The German Racists tried to exploit concerns about Point 21 in the Nazi Party program
• Consequently, the German Racists did best among well-to-do farmers in the fertile Marsch areas, while the Nazis did better among poor farmers on the less fertile Geest
Leaflet
Racists as a matter of course recognize private property as the essential basisof any culture. Is it völkisch when the program of the NSDAP demands a law for the uncompensated nationalization of land? Or is that Marxism?
To be völkisch is to fight all three super-national powers: the Free Masons, theJesuits, and the Jews. Hitler does notfight against Rome and the Jesuits. …He is only interested in the Jews.
Data analysis of the “Noakes” Thesis
Party P-value
VNB 0.243
NSDAP 0.015
Correlation of land tax/hectare to percentage of votes cast for the Völkisch-National Bloc and the NSDAP
Data analysis of the “Noakes” Thesis
Party P-value
VNB 0.243
NSDAP 0.015
Pop/den P-value
VNB 0.001
NSDAP 0.000
Agrarianism P-value
VNB 0.000
NSDAP 0.003
Liberalism P-value
VNB 0.159
NSDAP 0.000
Regression analysis
VNB VNB NSDAP NSDAP
P-value R-squared P-value R-squared
Tax/Den 0.003 2.0% 0.000 3.0%
Tax/Liberal 0.000 3.4% 0.000 6.2%
Tax/Agrarian 0.000 3.9% 0.000 4.3%
Tax/Den/Agrarian 0.000 5.2% 0.000 5.7%
Tax/Den/Liberal 0.000 5.1% 0.000 8.1%
Den/Agrarian 0.001 2.6% 0.000 2.4%
Den/Liberal 0.000 4.5% 0.000 6.0%
Mapping the “Noakes” Thesis
The Hamilton Thesis• In his extensive statistical analysis of Weimar
voting patterns based on county-level data, Richard Hamilton argued that within majority Protestant areas, the major factors determining the growing support for National Socialism were– Innovative, energetic local activists– Support from the “establishment” press
• Establishment press support was non-existent in northwest before 1932, only one Nazi newspaper in study area
Leading party within the völkisch block by polling place, May 1928
Areas exhibiting National Socialist dominance
Areas exhibiting German Racist dominance
Voß
Fetz
Bohnens
Carolinensiel
Wilhelmshaven was a center of anti-Semitic agitation since 1919
Carolinensiel•1925: 1530 inhabitants•Votes/percentages• 1924 (283/49.9%)• 1928 • VNB (204/39.8%)• NSDAP (44/8.6%)
Carolinensiel
• Wilhelmshaven was a center of anti-Semitic agitation since 1919
• Carolinensiel• 1925: 1530 inhabitants• Votes/percentages• 1924 (283/49.9%)• 1928 • VNB (204/39.8%)• NSDAP (44/8.6%)
Carolinensiel
Heinrich van Dieken•Son of a school teacher•War veteran•School teacher in Carolin-
ensiel since 1918•Well-liked, active in DVSTB and DVFP•Member of the Prussian Landtag, 1924-1930•Refused to join NSDAP
Conclusions
• The “Noakes” Thesis does not stand up to statistical or spatial analysis
• GIS helps us understand what other factors were perhaps more important– Existing historical political patterns– The importance of strong personalities who were
able to bend local voting behavior to their will
Top Related