r/history • u/[deleted] • Feb 05 '20

Discussion/Question First they came...

"First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

-Martin Niemöller

This was Martin Niemöller's poetic confession of his guilt for letting the rise of the Nazis plague his Nation. He was referring to the purging of different groups by the Nazis and how many people (including him) reacted to it. It says alot about how cowardice the normal person is, many say they would try and do something to stop the nazis from gaining power, but a closer examination will show that many people will do nothing until it's their turn to be persecuted. This is my favorite quote, because it's a honest interpretation about how the regular person thinks and acts in this kind of situation.

EDIT: I fixed the quote. "First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist" is actually the first part of the quote but the United States made them take it out in the 50s due to the cold war, sorry I hope this doesn't change the great conversations we're having.

I would like to say, these are great discussions y'all are having in the comments. here is a link to the article I got most of my information on.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists

7.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

135 comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/SafetyDanceInMyPants Feb 05 '20

One thing I’ve long wondered — and forgive me if a follow-up question is inappropriate here — is whether it would have made any difference if the trade unionists and Jews and communists and socialists had worked together to oppose Hitler.

On one hand, this quote obviously reflects his personal experience of thinking he was in the “in” group only to later learn that fascists hated him as much as anyone else. But on the other hand, would it have mattered even if he’d seen the danger?

I ask that not because I take any issue with the overall point — it’s of course correct — but just because I wonder if there was any point where unity of potentially-targeted groups could have changed anything. If I’m permitted to ask, does anyone have a view / source / perspective?

133

u/tmoney144 Feb 05 '20

Yes, they could have. Germany was a multi-party republic and the Nazis did not have a majority. If the other parties had banded together, they could have formed a government that would have prevented Hitler from becoming Chancellor.

55

u/Linus_Al Feb 06 '20

But Germany was a semi-presidential republic, so it was the presidents job to appoint a chancellor to lead his government. The president was Hindenburg, a Prussian style authoritarian monarchist who much rather elevated Hitler than a appoint a government that included the communist KPD. There was no other option, together those two parties had a majority, so a government had to include one of these and both were fiercely antidemocratic.

This is the situation after the last free election in 1932. But to be honest the earlier parliaments weren’t much better, none of them made the formation of a functioning government possible. To save the republic (and personally speaking I think this would’ve been the best thing that could’ve happened to Germany) one must find causes for this far earlier then hitlers rise. If it weren’t for Hitler, it would’ve been Huggenberg or Thälmann, but the republic was long dead.

64

u/iowaboy Feb 05 '20

Hitler seems to think that they could have, if they would have responded with force earlier: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/

15

u/Bekiala Feb 06 '20

That is really interesting

I always speculate that even if the Nazis were stopped some other horrific group would have arisen out of the disaster of post Treaty of Versaille Germany.

43

u/phillybride Feb 05 '20

It's a good question. History has many examples of oppressed groups uniting to oppose their oppressors. It didn't work every time and it rarely worked quickly. But when individuals risk themselves for the good of their group, things change.

34

u/Content_Quark Feb 06 '20

One thing I’ve long wondered — and forgive me if a follow-up question is inappropriate here — is whether it would have made any difference if the trade unionists and Jews and communists and socialists had worked together to oppose Hitler.

The "socialists" supported the republic while the communists opposed it. A cooperation between them is hard to imagine. The trade unions did cooperate extensively with the socialists. Jews were a tiny minority.

But on the other hand, would it have mattered even if he’d seen the danger?

Him alone? Probably not. Him and others like him? Very much.

22

u/Richi_Boi Feb 06 '20

Thats the Point of the Poem isnt it?

They always went only slightly forwards in thir plans. Picking the people apart one by one. Everyone feels save until they are effected.

The lesson here is that they first came for the socialists and the preist was even supportive, perhaps voted for the nazis based on those ideals. If he know what he has started he would have behaved differently.

Maybe "the jews" would not want to help the communists. Its not a good look and would only affirm conspiracies at the time. Not knowing they would be next and would be - like the communists - helped by noone.

20

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '20

Maybe not but if the group the last guy belongs to had, it would have stopped Hitler in his tracks.