Intro--The "Munich Putsch" Treason Trial Of Adolf Hitler...Do We Learn Anything From History, And If So, What?
Introduction--
On November 9th, 1923, Adolf Hitler and his fellow Nazis committed high treason against the German government and people, an action which left four Bavarian Police dead, sixteen Nazi Party members dead, hundreds injured and wounded, including Jewish residents of Munich whose homes and businesses were broken into, their property destroyed, and who were dragged out and beaten by the violent mob of Stormtroopers there accompanying Hitler. Hitler and his inner circle were arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for treason to five years in prison, (with one exception) and paroled after nine and half months after a virtual vacation in relative freedom and luxury. For treason.
How does one make sense of this? How do we process this reality, having our own historical hindsight and knowing what calamities would not have occurred in the twentieth century had there been a just trial and sentencing for the crimes actually committed over those few days?
When looking to past history in search of explanations or insights regarding present developments, it is natural to look for parallels and similarities as part of the process. We do this as a means to learn from both the positive accomplishments of others, as well as their sometimes tragic errors in judgement.
Writing about history is another matter. The tendency of the writer is too often to want to explain everything that happened, and to make our own views of it the story, instead of presenting history as it happened and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. The failure to do that is when the writer becomes too pedantic and condescending to be readable, or trustworthy for that matter. I will admit to my own failings on that account, as I often cave in to frustration about the seeming passivity and disinterest of some in the face of existential crisis, and go overboard in trying to "shake people up". I mention this because to accomplish something useful with this series, I have to fight against my own backward tendencies in order to do a good job.
The main question here for the writer is whether they are writing in order to read their own thoughts as a sort of academic exercise and echo chamber, or writing to empower others, now and in the future. In order to trust the powers of judgment of your readers to form the right conclusions and act upon them, one can not be a cynic, who feels as though people will never learn, and therefore are self-doomed by their own inability to absorb reality.
An honest writer of history, whether a professional historian or an amateur like myself, must take the leap of faith that ideas have efficacy in the real world, and that people engaged in critical thinking will respond to those ideas accordingly. Otherwise, what do we have as a motivational force to go forward with? If people are unmoved by ideas, and flee from reality en masse, then we are most certainly doomed to repeat the tragic mistakes of those who came before us.
If we do it right, the reader should have numerous "Aha"! moments, in which they reflect upon current events and say not that "history repeats itself", but that I, or we have made the same blunders and adopted the same misonceptions as those who came before, inviting both tragedy and disaster. Conversely, the reader can be inspired by the actions of those who intervened to head off such tragedy, or sacrificed their personal lives and comforts to take a stand for the good. We can draw courage from such historical examples and desire to walk in their footsteps. The writings of reporter and historian William L. Shirer, especially his "Rise and Fall of The Third Reich" are exemplary of how someone writing as an eyewitness to history can write for the sake of present and future generations, without injecting his own strong emotions into the narrative.
The question which should be omnipresent in the minds of those reading history should be "what would I have done if I were there"? As opposed to, "isn't that interesting"? The most important thing in my view for those who both read and write about history is to take it personally. To live IN history, rather than simply learning about it.
If we, the American people can in this time of crisis see our own actions and acts of omission from the vantagepoint of their impact upon both present and future generations, that adds a degree of political self-consciousness which enables us to effectively "self-check" whether what we are doing is correct, timely, and of an enduring nature. A good writer is constantly trying to remain transparent such that the history presented is not accompanied by ideological baggage, which has the effect of background noise that drowns out the significiance of past events. Like most important work, it needs to be informed by the intent of benefitting others, not the satisfaction of one's ego-identity.
If that is our orientation, then we can have confidence that what we write, read, and do, will resonate and have an impact, even if we are not here personally to see it. That is what is meant by "the efficacy of ideas". And now, more than ever, that "leap of faith" is one that more of us will need to take as we grapple with the crisis at hand and going forward.
Lance Rosen, January 8, 2022
Part I-- Setting The Stage...The Collapse Of Post War Germany
