Benjamin Carter Hett

While an interesting work I have to agree that this seems to be a case of that one might have expected more. What one has here is not so much an examination of the plot that led to the Reichstag Fire, as regardless of suspicions that the SA was the responsible party those tracks appear to be obliterated beyond recapturing, but an examination of how the unlikely narrative of Marinus van der Lubbe being the sole guilty party took hold in the Federal Republic of Germany. Let's just say that the show more assignment of guilt to a lone actor was a very convenient alibi for the German legal establishment and law-enforcement apparatus, whose commitment to nationalism and anti-communism had made it very easy for the Nazi regime to corrupt them. show less

We’ve long since passed the point where everyone thinks World War II started in 1941. That’s just when the US declared war. Most students get the modern version that has the war starting in 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland. China and Japan had been fighting since 1937, but now both sides of world were at war. But few, however, can pinpoint its ideological roots. Why did Germany invade? What led the German state to believe it could conquer Europe? While these questions are still show more being debated, there is an interesting occurrence which basically led to the formation of the Nazi state: the Reichstag fire of 1933. Benjamin Hett’s Burning the Reichstag studies the events and politics surrounding this fateful event.

During the evening of February 27, 1933, a fire erupted in the Reichstag, the German seat of government. It took a few hours to get under control, but eventually it was extinguished. Adolf Hitler, the newly-elected Chancellor of Germany was notified and he immediately blamed the Communists for trying to overthrow parliament. At the time, the Nazi party controlled only a third of the seats in parliament, about twice as many as the Communists. Hitler was already in the middle of proceedings to dissolve parliament and hold new elections (in an effort to increase Nazi seats). The fire allowed to him issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which effectively suspended civil liberties for Germans citizens. The ensuing elections and political bonds formed thereafter gave him power to pass the Enabling Act, giving direct and dictatorial power to the Chancellor. All this from one fire.

While the man responsible, Marinus van der Lubbe, was indeed a Communist and is historically believed to have done the deed, there is conflicting evidence as to whether it was part of a conspiracy on the part of the Communist party to start a coup or whether this was the Nazi machine’s first plot to gain control of the country. He may have been goaded into doing so by the Nazis in an effort to frame the Communists. Hett’s narrative of the events and the social climate, including the trial involving van der Lubbe and his supposed Bulgarian Communist co-conspirators, proves to be a very interesting read. Some of the more enticing bits are concerning the author himself, who writes about corresponding with the few people remaining who were actually involved in the fire and looking through the notes of past researchers. He proves that history is not just about what’s in the past, but that it’s still evolving, still seeking its own truth. It gets a little convoluted in places when he tries to parse out all the political connections and machinations, but his details are myriad and much-needed (he literally gives a minute-by-minute account of the night of the fire reconstructed from trail transcripts and police reports). All in all, this was a well-researched and thought-provoking book. show less

You’ll always be able to tell when a book about Hitler was written post-Trump, I think. This one’s intro and conclusion emphasize Weimar citizens’ indifference to truth and Hitler’s lack of deep intelligence as opposed to pseudointellectualism; he was such a liar that he never even knew what the truth was. The rest of the book is a political history of the particular maneuvers that Hitler used to come to power in a regime where the Nazis lacked majority or even near-majority support show more until after they were firmly in charge. As we probably all know by now, it was the decision of non-fascist right-wingers that the Nazis provided needed energy and support to their movement, and their confidence that they could control Hitler, that made the difference. One described Hitler as chancellor not as the “head” of the nation, but as the “hat” to be put on and off as needed. Good metaphor, bad prediction. show less

The story of the fall of the progressive Weimar Republic and the subsequent rise of Nazism in 1920s and 30s Germany is a complex one, but Benjamin Hett has produced one of the most compelling readable recent books on the subject. Each section starts with vignettes that shows the impact of the political turmoil on everyday people by telling some personal stories - a technique that grounds the broader narrative with relatable context. The political story is also well handled, lucid, and show more engaging. Early in the introduction Hett makes the observation that today’s political climate is closer to the 1930s than that of the 1990s, but then let’s the reader draw their own parallels and conclusions (many of which are uncomfortable). Overall as well as being an excellent historical account that examines the question “how did that happen?”, it’s also a reminder of just how fragile democracy can be. The book ends with the sentiment “We who come later have one advantage over them: we have their example before us.” Let’s hope that we do indeed use that advantage and heed the lessons learned. show less