One Nation, Indivisible 001: Is the United States 1930s Germany?
Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 800-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/
Subscribe to One Nation, Indivisible with Andrew Seidel:
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/one-nation-indivisible-with-andrew-seidel/id1791471198
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0w5Lb2ImPFPS1NWMG0DLrQ
In the inaugural episode of One Nation Indivisible, host Andrew L. Seidel explores the provocative question of whether the United States today mirrors Germany in the 1930s. Joined by German historian Annika Brockschmidt, the episode examines historical parallels, focusing on the rise of authoritarianism and fascist tendencies in both countries. They discuss the use of legal mechanisms, political violence, and propaganda, highlighting similarities and differences between Trump and Hitler. The conversation delves into how average citizens and political figures can act to resist these dangerous trends, emphasizing the importance of civic engagement and vigilance in preserving democracy.
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC
Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Brad here to say that we're bringing you Andrew Seidel's new podcast, One Nation Indivisible.
This is the very first episode.
We're so proud at Access Moody Media to have Andrew on board.
And I have listened to this episode.
It is astounding.
And if you are familiar with him as a lawyer, as an author, as a public speaker, you won't be surprised how amazing it is.
Check out this first episode.
And as you You'll find it in the show notes.
One of the best deals is that Andrew will be doing bonus content every Monday.
And if you are a Swatch Premium subscriber, you will get access to that bonus content.
If you're not...
I just want you to sign up.
Appreciate y'all.
Check it out.
and get subscribed to One Nation Indivisible.
Axis Mundi Welcome to One
Nation Indivisible.
I'm Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional attorney and the author of The Founding Myth and American Crusade.
This is a podcast about religion, the law, and the battle for America's soul.
We'll be separating church and state, defending freedom and equality, and fighting Christian nationalism.
If you haven't already, sign up for our weekly bonus content and ad-free listening at accessmundi.us.
L.F.G., folks.
Welcome to One Nation Indivisible, I am your host, Andrew L. Seidel.
And this podcast has been a long time coming.
Been asked for several years to do podcasts by a whole bunch of different folk.
Bradley Onishi, my friend, is the one who finally convinced me.
But it wasn't just Brad.
It was also where we are as a country.
Where the United States of America is, not just on the world stage, but in the span of history.
At this moment, I didn't feel like I could sit quietly on the sidelines.
Not that I've ever done that.
But I had more to say and I needed a bigger platform to say it.
So this is the podcast about religion and the law and the battle for America's soul.
And we're going to get in to all of those things.
But we're also going to talk about this moment in history and whether there are any moments in history that we can look back on and say, yep, that is us.
The first question I wanted to answer for my first episode of this podcast was, are we Germany in the 1930s?
Is the United States really like Germany in the 1930s?
I want to hear from experts who know the history, not just people spouting off online.
When I told my friends and family that I was going to be launching this podcast, I didn't mention that this was going to be the first episode.
I didn't know when I signed on.
And one of my best friends, this is a man I have been friends with for 25 years, Charles.
This is a man who loves me and wants me to succeed in everything.
He has always been in my corner.
He's also the guy that I worry.
I worry about him getting sucked into the algorithm in a way that I don't with some of my other friends.
He sent some advice to me on the podcast.
Unsolicited, but coming from a good place because I love that man and I know he loves me.
And the second piece of advice on that list was a group of what he called no words.
Quote, no words.
Things I shouldn't say.
And this is if I wanted to reach the hugest audience possible.
Right?
Again, coming from a good place, this is a man who wants me to succeed, to be, you know, as popular as Joe Rogan.
And on that list of no words were racism, misogyny, sexism, Hitler, and Nazis.
That these are instant credibility killers.
The boy who cried wolf and the villagers aren't coming.
And now I'm doing my first episode on Are We Germany in the 1930s?
Sorry, not sorry, Charles.
If you spend any time online, you're probably familiar with this.
Maybe you even know of Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law states that as an online conversation continues, the...
The probability of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100%.
It's gonna happen.
The longer the conversation continues in the comment section, the more likely it is going to be, until it approaches a certainty, that someone's gonna call somebody a Nazi.
But the flip side of Godwin's Law is that it can be taken advantage of by the wolves.
They can deliberately downplay.
Denounce any use of the comparison, however clear and obvious it might be.
So let's take a listen to CNN immediately after Elon Musk did his Zig Hail salute on stage.
Here's what the anchors who had just seen this said.
Listen to how they portray it.
I just want to look at that salute that he gave again, just if anybody missed it.
We'll just show it again.
He's just wrapped up here.
You can hear the...
All right, so we just showed that.
We just showed that.
Right.
It was quick.
I think our viewers are smart, and they can take a look at that, but it certainly was...
It's not something that you typically see at American political rallies, to put it that way.
No, no, it was not something that you usually would see.
And it was quick.
As you point out, it was very quick, but it was...
It was in a moment of intensity for him as he came out dancing and then he did that.
He is a hero here.
The word they use to describe the Nazi salute is quick.
They are afraid to say the very clear comparison to describe a Hitler salute as a Hitler salute.
There is a reluctance, a fear of calling a Nazi a Nazi.
In any space other than those comment sections.
It reminds me of Victorian times when women would have the temerity to make a point, a valid point, about their position in society, being second-class citizens at best, immediately labeled hysterical.
And the other problem that we face here, about the hang-up that we as a culture have, is that Nazis are the standard of evil by which...
We measure all else.
That's why Dodwin's Law exists.
So is Nazi an epithet that we hurl at opponents in online debates?
Sure.
Sometimes without warrant, without evidence, without necessarily being close to the truth?
Sure, that happens.
But does that mean that all uses of the word, that all comparisons of a modern political movement A modern authoritarian movement.
A fascistic movement.
Does it mean that all of those are similarly baseless?
Of course not.
And to suggest that and empowers the fascists and authoritarians and the Nazis.
Nazis were authoritarians bent on seizing power and demonizing and scapegoating minorities and others and...
As a result of those, twin evils conducted one of the largest and most brutal mass murder campaigns in all of human history.
And if we see the first two ingredients of that, the A plus the B, we can legitimately start to worry about what happens after those two things are added together.
What happens on the other side of that equals sign?
The authoritarians bent on seizing power, A. A plus B equals one of the largest and most brutal mass murder campaigns in all of human history.
So when A and B are added together, can and should we start worrying about what's next?
Absolutely, we should.
So where are we?
Where is the United States in that breadth, that scope of human history?
And is this a valid...
Comparison.
Well, let's not ask people in the online comments section.
Let's get with one of the experts.
And one of those experts is Annika Brockschmidt, who is joining me from Germany.
Annika Brockschmidt is a German historian, author, journalist, and podcaster.
She writes with me at Religion Dispatches and a number of European outlets.
Her second nonfiction book, America's Gottskrieger, America's Holy Warriors, How the Religious Right Endangers Democracy, was published in German in October 2021 and was an immediate bestseller, as well as her third book, Die Braunstifter, The Arsonists, How Extremists Took Over the Republican Party, which was published in February 2024. She co-hosts the podcast Kreuz und Flag, Crossing Flag.
Basically, she's an expert on German history, authoritarianism, and Christian nationalism here in the U.S., so there is nobody better to have this conversation with today.
Annika, welcome!
Hi.
Thanks for joining for this very lighthearted topic.
It's a pleasure to have you.
So, you are an expert in this area.
You're also an expert on American Christian nationalism, which to me makes you the perfect guest to talk about this with.
Let's just ask the question.
Is America in the same spot that Germany was in the 1930s?
Is that where we are right now?
That's a pointed question.
However, I would say, you know, the tricky thing with historical comparisons is always they have a few pitfalls.
So let me say this.
So first of all, because of my background as a German historian by training, let me preface.
What we'll discuss with this.
So, and this is also because of how maybe I'm wired because of how the German discourse on this question usually goes.
Comparing something doesn't necessarily mean saying that they're the same.
So I think that's important for what we're going to say here.
I don't think it's helpful or even accurate to say Trump is just like Hitler.
However, there's a big however there.
Historic of parallels and comparing.
Not just the style of rhetoric, the way political violence is used, but also the way that Trump and his government view the constitutional order of the United States.
All of that, comparing that to historical precedence, I think is helpful to recognize and identify fascist tendencies in the present, all while remembering that fascism in 2025...
It doesn't have to look specifically like Nazism in 1930s Germany.
So Nazism was a specific type of European fascism.
Some would argue it's its own category.
So there were differences, even in the past, for example, between Italian, German and Austrian fascism.
Think of it as sort of different brands of a similar thing that shared some core characteristics.
Let's maybe start with some differences and then go to the similarities.
Some of the things that I would say are different between Trump and Hitler if we look at them as politicians.
Hitler was an ideologue.
So he had a deeply anti-Semitic focus of the world that centered around eradicating the Jewish people at its core.
So resulting in the Holocaust where 6 million Jews were murdered by Nazis.
And Trump...
I'm curious how you view this, because to me, Trump, on the other hand, seems not necessarily like a committed national socialist ideologue.
His brand of fascism, to me, is more, and I'm not saying this to make light of it, but it's a different type.
It seems more, let's say, vibes-based than the result of him being, for example, an ideologically committed anti-Semite.
He revolves around himself.
He has a fascist instinct.
He revels in cruelty, in violence, in the humiliation of those who he sees as less than human or as his enemies.
And anti-Semitism and racism are part of that worldview, I think.
But again, it seems less like there's a fully formed ideological construct.
Just when talking about Trump, I'm not talking about the people who, you know, are his advisors.
I think you could argue with a more fully formed worldview there.
But he seemed more to be driven by his, let's say, personal bigoted instincts.
That doesn't mean he's less dangerous.
It's just maybe a different brand of bad.
However, I think when we look at the position of the United States, the historical moment that you guys are in right now, I think especially when it comes to the question, you know, the term...
Constitutional crisis has been a lot.
I had an interview a couple of days ago with Thomas Zimmer.
He's a history professor at Georgetown.
He's a German historian as well.
And he said that he would have used the term constitutional crisis last week, but that at the present time, he says, he's asking himself, is that even accurate anymore?
Because a constitutional crisis Would assume the constitution is still in effect.
Is that still the case?
I'm not sure.
However, because you asked, is it Germany in the 1930s?
There is something to that comparison.
And I promise I will not make this a history lecture.
No, that's what it's for.
This is what we're here to learn and answer.
Okay, okay.
Let's just take a look at some of the things that happened in Germany in the 1930s that made from a democracy into a dictatorship.
Pause real quick.
I want to do that.
Pause real quick.
Sure.
Because to me, that is one of the central things that I want to get at.
I appreciate your throat clearing and disclaimer up at the front here about the usefulness of this comparison.
And I absolutely think you are right that Trump...
To me, that is the most significant difference.
Like, Trump is by no means driven by ideology.
He is driven by a love of power, greed, and I think a fear of being held accountable.
And I know we'll get into some of the significant likenesses as well.
I mean, to me, that is, I think, the most significant difference.
But there's also this element of where we are on the timeline, right?
Which is like why it's the 1930s.
When we look back at what happened in Europe, we can see the scope of it.
And we know that when you mix this toxic A plus B plus C, you get one of the largest mass murderers in history.
And I think that's what everybody's afraid of here.
We don't know.
What the mix is that we have right now, to the point that you're just making.
Is the Constitution still in effect and still standing?
Like the fact that we're even asking that question is, is, is scary.
I'm Leah Payne.
I'm a historian who studies Pentecostal and charismatic movements in the United States What I've learned is that what happens in churches shapes the American political and social landscape.
Some trends have been developing over decades, and others are brand new.
Spirit and Power is a limited series podcast from the Institute for Religion, Media, and Civic Engagement made possible by generous funding from the Henry Luce Foundation.
Beginning on Thursday, March 6th, we'll explore the technicolor world of the prosperity gospel, the surprising faith of mama bear activists, apocalyptic responses to the Trump administration's deportation policy, and much, much more.
Join me for in-depth conversations with journalists and scholars exploring the intersection of charismatic religion and politics in America.
But yeah, so let's talk about how he consolidated power and kind of spreaded the German constitution and made himself the law.
So there was a really great, I can't remember if it was an article or a thread, I think it might have been a thread, by a political scientist.
Not sure how to pronounce her name, so if I butchered, I'm sorry.
She's called Rachel...
I'm not sure.
And she published this right before the election of Trump.
I think it might have been in October last year, where she essentially played out scenarios, should Trump win?
And I think it was titled something like, what really happens if Trump wins?
And she pointed out some of those similarities that I think are really useful to take a look at, because she reminded us that when Hitler took the oath of office on January 30th, 1933, he claimed, That he would uphold and follow the Constitution.
It took him, I think, less than three months to dismantle the German Constitution.
But even before that, he had publicly stated that after his failed violent coup attempt of 1923...
For which he served a short jail sentence, you know, unlike Trump, anyway.
Sorry.
I have developed a pretty nasty form of gallows humor to cope, so forgive me for that.
Listen, coping is important.
But I mean, to me, that is also just it's a significant similarity in their past.
I mean, January 6th is the failed Beer Hall push of 1923.
I mean, it should have ended in both cases their public lives, their political aspirations, and been both escaped with, you know, basically a slap on the wrist.
Like Hitler had this short time in jail.
He wrote a book, which became the basis for...
Quite a book.
Yeah, is authoritarian regime.
And you have them then rewarding these same violent supporters later on.
Trump saying, fuck it, release them all.
You know, anyway.
Continue apologies.
No, no, no.
And the thing is that quite like Trump's movement, the Nazis, after the failed coup attempt, changed strategy.
And...
Hitler made clear that he intended to try to advance his political project through legal means.
So that means that, for example, after the NSDAP, which is the Nazi Party, after they in the elections of 1928, I think they only got something over like 2% in those elections.
That's 1928. So they changed tactics.
That meant, for example, that in their campaigns, they didn't primarily focus on anti-Semitism anymore.
That was supposed to take a bit of a backseat publicly.
But they also now claimed that they were going to try to get power, quote-unquote, the legal way.
Now, let me make it clear.
Hitler also made it abundantly clear that once in power, there was no question about that, he would mould government and the rule of law to his will.
Which he said was the people's will.
Yeah, that's where the folk comes in.
So in 1930, he took what's known as the Legalitätszeit, which translates to the oath of legality in front of the constitutional court, where he was basically saying, we're done with coups.
And I looked up the direct quote for this.
And he said, quote, the National Socialist Movement will only seek to achieve the goal in this state with the constitutional means.
However, this is the big however, he then added, and this is the part about where he said the quiet part out loud, quote, The Constitution only prescribes the methods, not the goal.
In this constitutional way, we will try to obtain the decisive majorities in the legislative bodies in order to mould the state into the form that corresponds to our ideas the moment we succeed in doing so.
So I would say the parallels here, despite some differences, are pretty obvious.
I would say we have the failed coup attempt.
The attempt to then get power the legal way, all while openly stating, even before you win the election, that you then intend to change the constitutional order and or upend it completely.
Those seem like pretty strong analogies.
Yeah.
And let's also not forget that it was even quite the shock that Hitler became chancellor in 1933. So in the 1932 elections...
He and his party had done pretty poorly.
He was also basically bankrupt.
Possible bankruptcies out of money, another possible comparison.
So when he then comes into power, his majority is very slim.
So it's barely 51%.
So it's a coalition government.
So remember, this isn't a two-party system.
This is a system of many parties where the coalitions are...
You know, ever-shifting.
It's been very irregular.
Hitler and the Nazis have basically played obstructionists and had a part in previous governments dissolving.
So the obstructionism is also a big part of this, because you then can point at democracy and say, see, this is not delivering what the people want, even though you're the one who's, you know, grinding the gears.
It's not working.
Yeah, it's not working.
So this is the presidential election of 1932. This is what you're talking about.
So we're talking like 88 years before America's 2020 election.
And Hitler loses by quite a few, like millions of votes.
I don't remember the number.
Yeah, I think they lose 2 million votes, which is quite a lot in German elections.
This is in 1932. Yeah, so those are the parliamentary elections.
And then he claims election fraud, right?
Well, that was always one of their systems.
But basically what happens, the way that he becomes chancellor in 1933 is through a sort of backroom deal because, to make it very short, the nationalistic conservative elites basically think, yes, Hitler's a goon, but we can control him.
And he probably won't last long as chancellor.
So we'll make him chancellor.
There's a coalition government between the NSDAP and the DNVP, which is the Conservative Nationalist Party.
NatCon, you could say.
Anyway, sorry.
And so he becomes chancellor.
So that means his cabinet only has two other Nazis.
It's freaking Göring.
In cabinet positions when he becomes chancellor in 1933. So he knows that if he wants to consolidate Nazi power, he needs to upend the democratic opposition through what we then later call the Emächtigungsgesetz, which is the empowering law.
Because this would essentially put, and again, if you're listening for echoes, now is an echoey part.
This would then put essentially the executive's authority over the other branches of government, not unlike a unitary executive theory, maybe.
And then the executive wouldn't need approval of parliament to pass laws anymore so that Hitler can not only rule like a dictator via decree, but so that he can essentially also pass laws without parliament.
But for this to happen, for such a law to be passed, you need...
A two-thirds majority in the Reichstag, so in the German parliament.
So he was also very clear from what we know from documents, from sources, from their meetings after he was chancellor that he would need to exchange, again, equity part, key government officials with loyalists.
But again, when he's made chancellor, nobody even thought that his government would last.
Basically, people expected it to be crumbling very soon, under infighting, incompetence.
Again, not unlike right now.
But then, end of February 1933, the Reichstag goes up into flames.
And so that's where the German parliament meets.
It's the capital.
To me, that's the January 6th echo.
We were so close to it on that day.
Exactly.
And you're reminding me of the Joseph Goebbels quote.
The joke about democracy is that it gives its enemies the tools to destroy it.
I'm butchering it, but something along those lines.
No, that's it.
Yeah.
I mean, and that's what we're talking about.
So it's using democracy to kill democracy.
Yeah, exactly.
And then...
Claiming that once you're in power, and this is why I'm finding it so chilling, and I'm quoting Thomas Simmer again, the Georgetown history professor and a good friend of mine, who said to me only last week that what Trump really,
Trump's posturing, and that of his closest advisors, and even the VP channeling Andrew Jackson again, really is that Trump, as the head of the executive branch, It's sort of presented as this manifestation of the people's will, the Volkswille, which is a very fascist thing.
So basically saying, fuck the courts.
Sorry, am I allowed to swear?
Yes, I think so.
It's my podcast, yes.
Okay, good.
Essentially saying, fuck the courts.
If the courts deem something illegal or unconstitutional, that is represented...
In this sort of amorphous thing that we are claiming as what the real Americans want, that is manifested in this leadership.
You know, I don't need to point it out.
It's pretty fascist.
And so what you see when the Reichstag is on fire is that the question of who's to blame starts immediately.
And they eventually arrest a young Dutch communist who is basically caught in the act.
But still...
To this day, it's not quite clear who committed this arson because there's evidence of the Berlin fire chief saying that he'd seen evidence that the Nazis had been involved as well.
So it's very murky.
So there's this catastrophic event that produces shocking imagery.
The Reichstag is on fire.
That's the heart of German democracy.
So Hitler had known previously that this Ermächtigungsgesetz, this enabling law, he wouldn't get a two-thirds majority while the Communist Party still was around.
So now the Nazis declared the Reichstag via a communist coup attempt.
And the so-called Schieselass, which translates basically to shooting decree, that was issued...
Ten days before, on February 17th, Göring ordered the Prussian police to use firearms against all political opponents.
So it was a carte blanche for political violence against Hitler's political opponents.
So when Trump promises the police they won't be hassled anymore by lawsuits about using deadly violence, I'd say that raises the hackles of any historians, although we're not yet at a shooting decree point.
That is really, you know, that's really an important step.
Well, I mean, you can see that echo too in the calls for martial law, the calls to bring out the military.
You know, we had Stuart Rhodes, you know, on stage before January 6th talking about bringing, you know, invoking the Insurrection Act, things like that.
I mean, it would not take much to push Trump in that direction.
I'm hearing you say, though, that this was in an attempt to completely...
Because he needs to pass the law somehow.
But the thing is that even with them banning the Communist Party, the prosecution starts immediately.
They round up members of the KPD, which is the Communist Party.
They imprison them.
So they're basically under so much duress that they can't attend parliament anymore because they would be arrested.
But the thing is, as I've said previously, even without the communists, they're still not at the two thirds thresholds because you still have the SPD.
Those are the social democrats.
And so what they now need to do, and this is why it's so important to pay attention.
To moments where procedural rules are changed.
You know, stuff that sounds to the layperson like very boring.
Because what they do is, in Parliament, because they know even without the communists we can't get to two-thirds.
So we now need to first change the Parliament's rules of procedure.
And so, members of all parties, except the SPD, agree to change the Reichstag's rules of procedure.
Why?
Because they relented to the threat of physical violence, because in violation of the law, armed and uniformed members of the SA and SS were present in Parliament during that procedural vote.
Basically, they changed the procedural rules so that this law can pass.
That's the easiest way to put it.
With a threat of violence.
With a threat of violence.
There's literal armed goons in parliament while they do this vote.
So the Social Democrats vote against, which is very brave, but the rest of the parties vote for.
All right, y'all, there's like half an hour more of this episode, but you got to stop.
You got to go hit subscribe on One Nation Indivisible with Andrew Seidel and listen to the rest there.
We want to make sure you get these episodes every Tuesday.
So get subscribed and listen to the rest of Annika.
And Andrew's conversation.
Don't forget to become a premium subscriber so you can get the bonus content from Andrew and from us at Straight White American Jesus.
