George S. Vascik Miami University

Guardians of tradition or agents of modernity: sources of National

Socialist appeal in rural northwest Germany

George S. Vascik

Miami University

Polling places in northwest Germany

Kreise and Ämter

NordenWittmund

Jork

Hadeln Neuhaus

Kehdingen

Osterholz

Bremervörde

Stade

Lehe

Geestemünde

Blumenthal

Elsfleth

WesterstedeLeer

Weener

Emden

Oldenburg

Varel

JeverRüstringen

Butjadingen

Brake

Aurich

Plurality winners, 1924_1

DNVP

DNVP

DHP

Wittmund

1924_1 1928 1930 1932_1

P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2

All/tax hectare 0.907 0.0 0.273 0.2 0.444 0.1 0.000 5.9

All/pop. density 0.295 0.2 0.728 0.0 0.750 0.0 0.351 0.2

All/RR distance 0.178 0.8 0.119 1.1 0.017 3.0 0.776 0.0

1924_1 1928 1930 1932_1

P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2

All/tax/density 0.576 0.2 0.536 0.2 0.729 0.1 0.000 6.4

All/tax/distance 0.398 0.9 0.156 1.7 0.025 3.8 0.096 2.2

All/density/dist 0.285 1.2 0.223 1.4 0.057 3.0 0.118 2.0

All/den/tax/dist 0.454 1.2 0.249 1.9 0.061 3.9 0.015 4.9

Determinants of Racist success in all villages(multiple variables)

Determinants of Racist success in all villages(single variable)

1924_1 1928 1930 1932_1

P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2

Ag/tax hectare 0.000 13.8 0.000 12.9 0.000 12.4 0.000 7.4

Ag/pop. density 0.000 13.4 0.000 11.1 0.000 12.3 0.027 0.5

Ag/RR distance 0.000 11.3 0.007 4.5 0.001 7.2 0.001 7.2

1924_1 1928 1930 1932_1

P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2 P value

R2

Ag/tax/density 0.000 14.3 0.000 13.0 0.000 12.5 0.000 7.9

Ag/tax/distance 0.000 12.9 0.020 4.5 0.003 7.3 0.000 9.1

Ag/density/dist 0.000 11.7 0.018 4.6 0.003 7.2 0.006 5.7

Ag/den/tax/dist 0.000 13.7 0.040 4.6 0.007 7.3 0.000 11.9

Determinants of Racist success Liberal villages(multiple variables)

Determinants of Racist success in Liberal villages(single variable)

Völkisch votes in relation to pre-War Liberal hegemony, May 1924

Agrarian block leader, 1924_1

VSB

Bremervoerde

Hamburg

Bremen

Locating Bremervoerde

Constituency: Hanover 18

Constituency 15

Bremervörde

GIS of Kreis Bremervoerde

The complex nature of politics in Bremervoerde

• Liberals and Radicals – Who they were and what they represented

• The German-Hanoverian party– Who they were and what they represented

• The Agrarians – Bund der Landwirte later Reichslandbund

• Creating the Composite Voting Indices

Mapping areas of political

orientation

Liberal = goldDHP = greenAgrarian = striped

Single variables influencing Liberal, Agrarian, and Modern orientation

Liberal Agrarian Traditionalist

P-value R-Sq P-value R-Sq P-value R-Sq

Parish 0.000 20.6% 0.676 0.3% 0.000 26.0%

Area 0.547 0.7% 0.359 1.5% 0.465 1.0%

Tax/hectare 0.340 1.7% 0.002 16.0% 0.095 5.0%

RR distance

Population 0.208 2.9% 0.290 2.0% 0.073 5.7%

Pop. density

0.031 8.2% 0.026 8.7% 0.027 8.6%

% non-Evangelical

0.141 3.9% 0.332 1.7% 0.116 4.4%

Composite Liberal and Traditionalist Vote percentages by parish

Scatter plot of Composite Agrarian Vote percentages and tax/hectare

Probability plot of Composite Agrarian Value percentages and tax/hectare

Transformative effect of the Great War

• Immediate post-War results• Continued German-Hanoverian strength

and spread– What it meant

• May 1924 referendum• The impact of the Great Inflation

– Dissolution of the Liberal (DVP) and Radical (DDP) parties

Immediate post-War results

May referendum

Question: should Hanover be allowed to form a state independent of Prussia?

Voting in two stages: first to decide if question should be put to the voters, second actual binding vote.

To move to second stage, a majority of 33% of eligible votes must vote yes.

Impact of the Great Inflation• Collapse of support

for DVP and DDP in election with 6.7% greater turnout

• Shifting support to DNVP

• Growth of Racist VSB

Locating political

anti-Semitism in Kreis

Bremervoerde

Single variables influencing votes cast for the VSB in May 1924

P-value R-Sq

Composite Liberal Value 0.000 31.6%

Composite Agrarian Value 0.316 1.8%

Composite Traditionalist Value 0.000 23.2%

Parish 0.037 7.7%

Area 0.090 5.1%

Tax/hectare 0.122 4.3%

Railroad distance

Population 0.192 3.1%

Population density 0.450 1.0%

% non-Evangelical 0.496 0,8%

The rural crisis of 1927/28

• Discussion of events

• Landvolk movement

• Founding of the CNBLP– Created by Landbund– Opposed to DNVP and Racists– Alliance with the German Hanoverians

• Campaign of 1928

Single variables influencing votes cast for the NSDAP in May 1928

P-value R-Sq

Composite Liberal Value 0.013 10.6%

Composite Agrarian Value 0.233 2.6%

Composite Traditionalist Value 0.045 7.1%

Parish 0.003 14.9%

Area 0.020 9.5%

Tax/hectare 0.947 0.0%

Railroad distance

Population 0.021 9.3%

Population density 0.307 1.9%

% non-Evangelical 0.200 3.0%

Single variables influencing votes cast for the CNBLP in May 1928

P-value R-Sq

Composite Liberal Value 0.310 1.9%

Composite Agrarian Value 0.001 18.4%

Composite Traditionalist Value 0.183 3.2%

Parish 0.832 0.1%

Area 0.443 1.1%

Tax/hectare 0.142 3.9%

Railroad distance

Population 0.179 3.3%

Population density 0.244 2.5%

% non-Evangelical 0.065 6.1%

Christian Nationalist

Peasants’ and Rural

Peoples’ Party

Who collects post-1928 detritus?

• The CNBLP, created by the Landbund as a mean of channeling rural discontent, turned out to be a way-station to the NSDAP

• CNBLP vote 1928:NSDAP vote 1930 – P-value 0.007 R-Sq=13.1%

• German-Hanoverians reemerge as the largest party in the majority of villages

• After 1930 elections, Christian Nationalists enter government and craft a Rural Recovery Program with DHP support

The election of September

1930• Where Racists did

best• Areas of residual

Traditionalist strength

• The battle within the Landbund between Traditionalists and Nazis

Single variables influencing votes cast for the NSDAP in September 1930

P-value R-Sq

Composite Liberal Value 0.000 23.9%

Composite Agrarian Value 0.028 9.0%

Composite Traditionalist Value 0.000 24.1%

CNBLP vote 1928 0.007 13.1%

Parish 0.004 15.2%

Area 0.133 4.3%

Tax/hectare 0.011 11.8%

Population 0.263 2.4%

Population density 0.613 0.5%

% non-Evangelical 0.731 0.2%

Single variables influencing votes cast for the NSDAP in July 1932

P-value R-Sq

Composite Liberal Value 0.224 2.8%

Composite Agrarian Value 0.018 10.2%

Composite Traditionalist Value 0.533 0.7%

Parish 0.465 1.0%

Area 0.351 1.6%

Tax/hectare 0.288 2.1%

Railroad distance

Population 0.360 1.6%

Population density 0.046 7.3%

% non-Evangelical 0.078 5.8%

Votes cast for the Deutsch-Hannoversche Partei, 1893-1932

Participation

1919 1920 1924/1 1924/2 1928 1930 1932/1 1932/2 1933

Votes 9,687 9,169 9,784 9,882 11,032 11,655 12,432 11,290 12,719

% 93.4 88.4 94.3 95.3>11.6% >5.6% >6.6% <9.2% >12.7

>11.6% 17.9% 25.8% 14.2% 28.7%

Eligible voters in May 1924: 10,372

Conclusions

• Voters in historically Liberal towns and villages were most susceptible to Racist and Nazi appeals after 1924

• Voters in historically Traditionalist towns and villages resisted the Nazis the longest

• The German-Hanoverian party was much more capable of maintaining its traditional voter base than most historians allow

• The Nazi triumph in 1932 was based in part on bringing new voters into the process