Why Did Germans Really Vote for the Nazis?

It is a commonly held assumption that the rise of Nazism in Germany was driven by overwhelming popular support from all segments of society. However, this oversimplification conceals a far more complex and nuanced reality. Despite the Nazis' eventual dominance, they never secured a majority of the German vote, even at their peak in 1933. Their rise to power was facilitated by a combination of voter manipulation, repression of opposition, and strategic alliances with influential social groups. Yet, the question remains: what made the Nazi Party appealing to certain groups, and why did their support prove so pivotal in shaping the course of history?

The support base of the Nazi Party was neither monolithic nor uniformly distributed across the German population. While the Nazis gained backing from some of Germany’s industrialists and military officials, these elite groups represented only a small fraction of society. To build a mass movement capable of seizing power, the Nazis needed to appeal to a much larger segment of the electorate. They achieved this by positioning themselves as the saviors of the middle class, particularly the lower middle class, a group often referred to as the “petty bourgeoisie.” This class included small business owners, shopkeepers, self-employed professionals, and land-owning farmers. The Nazis’ ability to tap into the anxieties and grievances of this group was central to their rise.

The economic and social position of the petty bourgeoisie in the Weimar Republic was precarious. On one hand, they faced intense competition from large corporations and monopolies, which could operate more efficiently and cheaply due to their scale. This economic threat fostered anti-capitalist sentiments within the middle class, as they saw unregulated market forces as a danger to their livelihoods. On the other hand, the middle class also felt threatened by the growing power of the labor movement, which demanded higher wages, stronger labor protections, and public social policies funded by taxes—burdens that small business owners were often ill-equipped to bear. This dual fear of “big capital” and “big labor” created a sense of isolation and vulnerability that the Nazis masterfully exploited.

The Nazi Party’s rhetoric and propaganda were tailored to resonate with these middle-class fears and aspirations. They promised to revitalize the middle class, presenting themselves as its champions against both capitalist exploitation and Marxist revolution. Nazi propaganda blamed both groups for Germany’s economic and social woes, often using anti-Semitic narratives to simplify and personalize these threats. Jewish people were alternately depicted as wealthy, greedy financiers controlling big business and as impoverished, unclean labor agitators undermining social stability. This contradictory portrayal allowed the Nazis to frame Jews as a common enemy for both ends of the middle-class paranoia spectrum.

In contrast, the industrial working class—particularly unionized workers employed in large-scale industries—was far less likely to support the Nazis. These workers overwhelmingly voted for the Social Democrats or the Communists, parties that advocated for labor rights and collective action. Unlike the socially atomized middle class, industrial workers often shared their workplaces with large, diverse groups of people, fostering a sense of solidarity and mutual support. This collective experience made them more resistant to the divisive and xenophobic rhetoric propagated by the Nazis. Moreover, unionized workers had organizational structures that empowered them to address their grievances collectively, reducing the individual fear and resentment that the Nazis relied upon to mobilize support.

Despite their promises to uplift the middle class, the Nazis abandoned these commitments as soon as they came to power. Once in control, they prioritized the interests of Germany’s largest industrialists and financial elites. The Nazis’ suppression of trade unions, socialists, and communists served the dual purpose of dismantling organized labor and securing the backing of big capital. Wealthy industrialists, in turn, provided the financial resources necessary to sustain the Nazi regime and its war machine. This betrayal of middle-class interests underscores the role of fascism as a tool for preserving and consolidating capitalist power, rather than fulfilling its populist promises.

The dynamics of the Nazi rise to power are not merely of historical interest; they have striking parallels in contemporary politics. For instance, the emergence of right-wing populist movements, such as MAGA in the United States, reveals similar patterns of middle-class discontent and susceptibility to reactionary narratives. In these movements, the lower middle class—particularly small business owners and self-employed professionals—plays a central role. These individuals often view government regulations and social programs as threats to their independence and prosperity. At the same time, they resent the economic dominance of large corporations, leading to a contradictory desire for both deregulation and government intervention to protect their interests.

Events like the January 6th Capitol Riot in the United States highlight these dynamics. Analysis of the rioters’ demographics shows a significant overrepresentation of small business owners, self-employed professionals, and managers—groups that align with the petty bourgeoisie. These individuals were drawn to right-wing populist narratives that framed government policies, labor movements, and minority rights as obstacles to their personal success. Their participation underscores the enduring influence of middle-class anxieties in shaping political movements.

The COVID-19 pandemic further illustrated these dynamics. Anti-lockdown protests in the United States were disproportionately driven by small business owners whose livelihoods were threatened by public health measures. Slogans like “Small Business is Essential” reflected genuine economic concerns, but they were often accompanied by conspiracy theories and anti-government rhetoric. This middle-class paranoia mirrored the sentiments that the Nazis exploited during the Weimar Republic, demonstrating how economic crises can amplify social divisions and foster reactionary politics.

The betrayal of the middle class by fascist regimes serves as a cautionary tale. While the Nazis rose to power by promising to protect middle-class interests, their policies ultimately served the agenda of big capital, further marginalizing the very groups that supported them. This historical lesson underscores the importance of addressing middle-class grievances in ways that promote social solidarity rather than division. Today, as economic inequality and political polarization continue to grow, how can societies address the concerns of the middle class without allowing their fears to be weaponized by extremist ideologies? What steps can be taken to ensure that economic and social policies unite rather than divide, fostering a more inclusive and equitable political landscape?