Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-27T00:23:25.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why fascists took over the Reichstag but have not captured the Kremlin: a comparison of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Steffen Kailitz Open the ORCID record for Steffen Kailitz [Opens in a new window]  and
Andreas Umland Open the ORCID record for Andreas Umland [Opens in a new window]
Steffen Kailitz
Affiliation:
Hannah Arendt Institute for the Research on Totalitarianism, Dresden, Germany
Andreas Umland*
Affiliation:
Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Kyiv, Ukraine
*
∗ Corresponding author. Email: andreas.umland@stanfordalumni.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Like Weimar Germany, contemporary Russia is home to fascist actors and widespread nationalism. But unlike interwar Germany, the party system in post-Soviet Russia is heavily manipulated and civil society remains underdeveloped. This means that fascists have not had a chance to use elections or to penetrate civil society in order to build up political support. The continuing presence of a resolutely authoritarian, yet non-fascist “national leader” (Vladimir Putin) keeps the country from becoming a liberal democracy but it also, for now, makes it less likely that the regime will become fascist.

Keywords

fascismRussiaauthoritarianismWeimar Germanyregime collapse

Information

Type
Special Section: Perspectives on Russian Nationalism
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 206 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berman, Sheri. 1997. “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic.” World Politics 49: 401–429.Google Scholar
Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1960. Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik: Eine Studie zum Problem des Machtverfalls in der Demokratie. Villingen: Ring-Verlag.Google Scholar
Breuer, Stefan. 2005. Nationalismus und Faschismus: Frankreich, Italien und Deutschland im Vergleich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Broszat, Martin. 1984. Die Machtergreifung: Der Aufstieg der NSDAP und die Zerstörung der Weimarer Republik. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Childers, Thomas. 1983. The Nazi Voter: the Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919–1933. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Dobry, Michel. 1986. Sociologie des crises politiques: La dynamique des mobilisations multisectorielles. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, edited by Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., 79–138. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Falter, Jürgen W. 1991. Hitlers Wähler. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Faulenbach, Bernd. 1980. Ideologic des deutschen Weges: Die deutsche Geschichte in der Historiographie zwischen Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Niall, and Granville, Brigitte. 2000. “‘Weimar on the Volga': Causes and Consequences of Inflation in 1990s Russia Compared with 1920s Germany.” Journal of Economic History 60 (4): 1061–1087.Google Scholar
Fish, M. Steven. 1995. Democracy from Scratch: Opposition and Regime in the New Russian Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Folkestad, Bjarte. 2005. “From Russia with Cleavages: A Study in Party System and Voting Behaviour in Post-Communist Russia.” Master's thesis, The University of Bergen. http://hdl.handle.net/1956/1042.Google Scholar
Golosov, Grigorii V. 2004. Political Parties in the Regions of Russia: Democracy Unclaimed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Roger. 1993. The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Griffin, Roger, ed. 1995. Fascism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Roger, and Feldman, Matthew, eds. 2004. Critical Concepts in Political Science: Fascism. Vols. I–V. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Griffin, Roger, Werner, Loh, and Umland, Andreas, eds. 2006. Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hale, Henry E. 1999. “Machine Politics and Institutionalized Electorates: A Comparative Analysis of Six Duma Elections in Bashkortostan.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 15 (4): 70–110.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 1997. Ideology, Uncertainty, and the Rise of Anti-system Parties in Postcommunist Russia. Studies in Public Policy. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 2006. “Postimperial Democracies: Ideology and Party Formation in Third Republic France, Weimar Germany, and Post-Soviet Russia.” East European Politics and Societies 20 (2): 343–372.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E. 2010. Post-Imperial Democracies: Ideology and Party Formation in Third Republic France, Weimar Germany, and Post-Soviet Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Stephen E., and Kopstein, Jeffrey. 1997. “The Weimar/Russia Comparison.” Post-Soviet Affairs 13 (3): 252–283.Google Scholar
Jasper, Gotthard. 1986. Die gescheiterte Zähmung: Wege zur Machtergreifung Hitlers 1930 – 1934. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kailitz, Steffen. 2009. “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for the Breakdown and Survival of Electoral Regimes and Fascist Takeover/Non-takeover in the Interwar Years.” Paper prepared for the 2009 World Congress of Political Science, Santiago de Chile, July 12–16.Google Scholar
Kailitz, Steffen, and Umland, Andreas. 2010. Why the Fascists Won't Take Over the Kremlin (for Now): A Comparison of Democracy's Breakdown and Fascism's Rise in Weimar Germany and Post-Soviet Russia. GU-VShE: Preprint. Seriia WP14 “Politicheskaia teoriia i politicheskii analiz”, 2. https://www.hse.ru/data/2010/06/10/1219754365/WP14_2010_02.pdf.Google Scholar
Kershaw, Ian. 2007. “Blind Optimism.” The Guardian, November 14.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1992. “The Formation of Party Systems in East Central Europe.” Politics & Society 20: 7–50.Google Scholar
Konitzer, Andrew. 2005. “‘Parties of Power’ and Centralization in Mexico and Russia: The PRI and United Russia.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, April 7.Google Scholar
Lepsius, M. Rainer. 1978. “From Fragmented Party Democracy to Government by Emergency Decree and National Socialist Takeover: Germany.” In The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Europe, edited by Linz, Juan and Stepan, Alfred, 34–79. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan. 1976. “Some Notes Towards the Comparative Study of Fascism.” In Fascism – A Reader's Guide, edited by Laqueur, Walter, 4–38. London: Wildwood House.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan. 1978. Breakdown of Democracies: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives, edited by Martin Lipset, Seymour and Rokkan, Stein, 1–64. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Loh, Werner, and Wippermann, Wolfgang, eds. 2002. “Faschismus” kontrovers. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
Luebbert, Gregory M. 1991. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luks, Leonid. 1990. “Abschied vom Leninismus: Zur ideologischen Dynamik der Perestrojka.” Zeitschrift für Politik 37 (4): 353–360.Google Scholar
Luks, Leonid. 2005. Der russische “Sonderweg”? Aufsätze zur neuesten Geschichte Ruβlands im europäischen Kontext. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag.Google Scholar
Luks, Leonid. 2008. “‘Weimar Russia?': Notes on a Controversial Concept.” Russian Politics and Law 46 (4): 47–65.Google Scholar
Luks, Leonid. 2009. “Irreführende Parallelen: Das autoritäre Russland ist nicht faschistisch.” Osteuropa 59 (4): 119–128.Google Scholar
McFaul, Michael. 2001. “Explaining Party Formation and Nonformation in Russia: Actors, Institutions, and Chance.” Comparative Political Studies 34: 1159–1187.Google Scholar
Misukhin, Gleb. 1998. “Rossiia v veimarskom zerkalie, ili Soblazn’ legkogo uznavaniia.” Pro et Contra 3: 111–123.Google Scholar
Möller, Horst. 1985. Parlamentarismus in Preuβen 1919–1932. Düsseldorf: Droste.Google Scholar
Mommsen, Hans. 1998. The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 2007. “Is Putin's Russia Fascist?” The National Interest Online, December 3. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/inside-track-is-putins-russia-fascist-1888.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 2009. “Russland – Volk, Staat und Führer: Elemente eines faschistischen Systems.” Osteuropa 59 (1): 109–124.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 2010. “Russia's Systemic Transformations Since Perestroika: From Totalitarianism to Authoritarianism to Democracy – To Fascism?” The Harriman Review 17 (2): 1–14.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander J. 2016. “Putin's Russia as a Fascist Political System.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 49 (1): 25–36.Google Scholar
Neumann, Sigmund. 1968. Die Parteien der Weimarer Republik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1986. “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy.” In Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, edited by O'Donnell, Guillermo, Schmitter, Philippe, and Whitehead, Laurence, 47–63. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pyta, Wolfram. 2007. Hindenburg: Herrschaft zwischen Hohenzollern und Hitler. München: Siedler.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 2001. “How Floating Parties Frustrate Democratic Accountability: A Supply-side View of Russia's Elections.” In Contemporary Russian Politics: A Reader, edited by Brown, Archie, 215–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Munro, Neil. 2002. Elections Without Order: Russia's Challenge to Vladimir Putin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryavec, Karl. 1998. “Weimar Russia?” Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization 6: 702–708.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas, ed. 2006. Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Shenfield, Stephen. 1998. “The Weimar/Russia Comparison: Reflections on Hanson and Kopstein.” Post-Soviet Affairs 14 (4): 355–368.Google Scholar
Shenfield, Stephen D. 2001. Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Sontheimer, Kurt. 1962. Antidemokratisches Denken in der Weimarer Republik: Die politischen Ideen des deutschen Nationalismus zwischen 1918 und 1933. München: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung.Google Scholar
Starovoitova, Galina. 1993. “Weimar Russia?” Journal of Democracy 4 (3): 106–109.Google Scholar
Stoner-Weiss, Kathryn. 2001. “The Limited Reach of Russia's Party System: Under-institutionalization in Dual Transitions.” Politics & Society 29: 385–414.Google Scholar
Stürmer, Michael. 1980. Die Weimarer Republik: Belagerte Civitas. Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum, Hain, Scriptor, Hanstein.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 1994. “Wladimir Shirinowskij in der Russischen Politik. Einige Hintergründe des Aufstiegs der Liberal-Demokratischen Partei Russlands.” Osteuropa 44 (12): 1117–1131.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 1997. “Vladimir Zhirinovskii in Russian Politics: Three Approaches to the Emergence of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia, 1990–1993.” PhD diss., Freie Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2002a. “Russischer Rechtsextremismus im Lichte der jüngeren theoretischen und empirischen Faschismusforschung.” Osteuropa 52: 901–913.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2002b. Toward an Uncivil Society? Contextualizing the Recent Decline of Extremely Right-wing Parties in Russia. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Working Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2006. “Zhirinovsky in the First Russian Republic: A Chronology of Events 1991–1993.” The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 19 (2): 193–241.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2008. “Zhirinovsky's Last Thrust to the South and the Definition of Fascism.” Russian Politics and Law 46 (4): 31–46.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2009a. “Das Konzept der ‘unzivilen Gesellschaft’ als Instrument vergleichender und rußlandbezogener Rechtsexremismusforschung.” Forum für osteuropäische Ideen- und Zeitgeschichte 13 (1): 129–147.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2009b. “Die Orange Revolution als Scheideweg: Demokratisierungsschub in der Ukraine, Restaurationsimpuls in Russland.” Osteuropa 59 (11): 109–120.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2009c. “Rastsvet russkogo ul'tranatsionalizma i stanovlenie soobshchestva ego issledovatelei.” Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeiskoi istorii i kul'tury 5 (1): 5–38.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2010. “Zhirinovskii as a Fascist: Palingenetic Ultra-nationalism and the Emergence of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia in 1992–93.” Forum für osteuropäische Ideen- und Zeitgeschichte 14 (2): 189–215.Google Scholar
Umland, Andreas. 2015. “Challenges and Promises of Comparative Research into Post-Soviet Fascism: Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of the Contemporary East European Extreme Right.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 48 (2–3): 169–181.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, J. Samuel. 1992. “Democratic Consolidation in Post-transitional Settings: Notion, Process, and Facilitating Conditions.” In Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, edited by Mainwaring, Scott, O'Donnell, Guillermo, and Samuel Valenzuela, J., 57–104. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Van Herpen, Marcel. 2013. Putinism: The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vogt, Martin. 1984. “Das ‘Versagen’ der politischen Parteien in der Weimarer Republik.” In Die Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung, edited by Michalka, Wolfgang, 60–73. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Wilson, Andrew. 2005. Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Yanov, Alexander. 1995. Weimar Russia – And What We Can Do About It. New York: Slovo.Google Scholar