Weimar on the Potomac?
Like Germany’s myth of a “stab-in-the-back” following World War I, the lie about this year’s “stolen election” has the potential to poison our politics for decades to come.
Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, Erich Ludendorff, one of the Supreme Warlords who had been responsible for Germany’s loss of the War, began to propagate the myth that Germany was defeated not on the battlefield, but by what he called a “stab-in-the-back.” This act of betrayal, he alleged, was delivered by some of Germany’s own citizens.
This was a gigantic lie. Ludendorff himself had gone to the Kaiser in late 1918 and informed him that the German armies fighting in France were on the verge of military collapse. He urged the Kaiser to authorize an immediate armistice to prevent Allied armies from marching into Germany. That armistice took effect on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. It is the basis for our celebration of Veterans Day on November 11th each year.
But Ludendorff would not accept responsibility for Germany’s defeat, and in the years following the war he used his position and reputation to repeatedly claim that the defeat was due to the actions of the more liberal political elements in Germany, including the socialists, some of whom had advocated for a negotiated peace after four years of horrendous war. He also blamed the defeat on what he called “certain financial interests” in Germany that he claimed placed “profits over patriotism.” It was generally understood he meant German Jewish businessmen.
In a society reeling from huge losses of men and material during the War, Ludendorff’s lie became for many the accepted reality of what had actually happened in Germany. A significant portion of the population came to blame their fellow citizens for all of the ills that afflicted the German nation after the war, including its loss of Empire, hyper-inflation and continued economic and political instability.
The consequences of planting this lie within German society are well known. Not only was it used to help justify the persecution of Germany’s Jewish population, but it stigmatized and de-legitimized the liberal political parties that made up Germany’s post-war, democratically elected, Weimar Republic. That Republic ended with the triumph of the extreme-right Nazi Party within Germany. A triumph aided in no small part by Ludendorff’s lie.
Today, America is faced with a defeated leader who continues to use his position, power and influence to promote the gigantic lie that he and the country are the victims of a stolen national election. As with Ludendorff, this appears to be an intentional effort to both shift the blame for the loss while at the same time laying the groundwork for the future de-legitimization of Trump’s political opponents and possibly of the United States electoral system as a whole.
How successful this lie will be, and what its ultimate consequences will be, are unknowns. But some lessons can be gleaned from Germany’s experience.
Of great concern is the fact that almost none of the Republican political leadership in this country, including those who currently hold a majority in the United States Senate, have been willing to speak out in defense of the truth. In Germany during the interwar period the parties of the center and the right appeared to endorse Ludendorff’s allegations, either explicitly, or implicitly through their refusal to speak out against it. Any action by a country’s political leadership that gives the lie more credibility will heighten its pernicious long-term effects.
On the other hand, throughout America many local and state-level election officials of both parties have conducted themselves with honesty and courage and have defended the integrity of the U.S. electoral system. The country’s judiciary has also acquited itself well. What appear in almost all cases to be baseless legal actions challenging official election results have been heard, considered and dismissed. In a number of important cases the dismissals have come from federal judges appointed by Trump himself. Such actions have the effect of cutting off the lie at its root. In most instances, Germany lacked such independant resources to combat the lie.
However, if Germany’s experience is a guide, the future of Trump’s lie will depend most heavily on what happens over the next four to eight years.
In the decade following the end of the War, Ludendorff’s lie found fertile ground amid the chaos of Weimar Germany. We must avoid that fate.
If America finds a way to deal with its most pressing social problems with at least a modicum of success, and if the economy returns to a healthy and balanced growth following the pandemic, Trump’s lie may die a quiet and well deserved death. However, if the opposite happens, if the social, racial and political divides in this country widen or if there is further significant economic dislocation, Trump’s great lie will be there, steadily gaining adherents, perfectly positioned to contribute to the eventual breakdown of our common political order.
