Reichardt. Sven, ‘Violence and Community: A Micro-Study on Nazi Storm Troopers’
Reichardt’s micro-study focuses on the SA-Sturm 33 of the Berlin-Charlottenburg district and how comradeship was formed within the organisation. He begins his chapter by discussing the violent political actions this SA-Sturm group conducted within the early 1930’s. He describes the events and how they escalated form street fighting to murders and the publicity that these actions gained for the Sturm. They became known as a Moderstorm – ‘storm of murderers’ by the press and were praised by Gobbles as they had developed into what he had envisioned. The publicity they received in the early 1930’s considerably helped to grow the SA-Sturm’s membership along with the Nazi’s desire to utilise violence to further their political agenda.
The chapter then goes on to discuss what allowed the SA members to bond and create a form of unity. The comradery was created through their mutual hatred towards the Jewish communities, Communists and Social Democrats. This bond was only further enhanced through the Sturmlokal were SA members would meet on a daily basis to form friendships. This structure allowed for the SA-Sturm to become the pillar of force that extended beyond political loyalties and encompassed their members entire life.
Reichardt later discuss the leadership of the SA-Sturm. He draws parallels with two important Sturmführer’s Friedrich Eugen Hahn and his successor Hans-Eberhard Maikowski. He describes both these men to have paramilitary and violent backgrounds before their inclusion within the SA, and notes that both these men quickly ascended the ranks due to past experiences. Due to their experience and readiness to engage themselves in violence for the movement they gained and enjoyed the success and loyalty of their sturm.
Reichardt later details the configuration and the social aspects of the SA and notes that many members were from backgrounds that lacked family, and those who were often unemployed. Reichardt also states that the Great Depression helped push those who were unemployed towards paramilitary organisations. The SA offered comradeship and a better future to those who desired it. The violence the SA-Sturm conducted is largely linked to excessive alcohol consumption, as many SA members were witnessed arriving at the Sturmlokal intoxicated. They carried these attacks so they could gain recognition for their sturm and their Sturmführer.
Therefore, Reichardt has produced a captivating argument that bonds both political violence to the comradery of the SA-Sturm. He has showed that the SA were able to glorify violence through the ties of friendship and the desire to impress their Sturmführer, which allowed the Nazi’s to use the SA’s solidarity to further fuel their political agenda.
Words – 425
Chris Millington ‘Street fighting men: Political Violence in Inter-War France’ by Jennifer Anderson
In this article, Millington discusses violence in inter-war France and France, appearing less violent than its other European counterparts, such as Italy and Germany. Millington discusses violence in French politics and to provides an insight into the beliefs and values of the actors leading to the creation of legitimate and illegitimate behaviours during confrontations.
Millington argues that political violence in inter-war France mostly consisted of a ‘bitter struggle’ between the left and the right, often described by historians as ‘the French Civil war’. Millington does this by looking at the parliamentary leagues on both sides and how they conducted their campaigns. One example Millington looks at is the escalation of political violence between 1924-26 under the left-wing Cartel Des Gauches which saw extreme right-wing parliamentary formations already existing elsewhere in Europe emerging in France.
Millington successfully explains key events that characterised French political violence, such as the Nationalist Riot on the 6th of February 1934 when thousands of leaguers and ex-combatants protested against the perceived corrupt government increasing political tensions. The guards deployed by the state specialised in non-violent crowd control methods; however, they carried weapons which they often used on left-wing demonstrators. On the night of the 6th of February, 13 were killed, and hundreds were injured.
Millington also looks at public encounters between political opponents that often lead to violence after groups attempting to assert their authority in the street. Millington analyses attempts to control propaganda and ownership of public spaces while incorporating the use of political symbols such as uniform and insignia. One example used by Millington is political symbols like insignia rings doubling as knuckledusters.
Millington details French street fighters arming themselves mostly with weapons for hand to hand combat such as knuckledusters and knives. Millington discusses the idea of cultural factors influencing the choice of weapon in his analysis of street confrontations and its connection to the notion of ‘manliness’. When used in self-defence, violence was determined to be legitimate under what he goes on to describe as the ‘masculine code of conduct’. With this association, Millington goes on to discuss how the connection left little room for female participation. Millington acknowledges female attendance of parades and ceremonies and their active role in violence, however, he also acknowledges that women were often used to prove the brutality and cowardice of those on the opposing political agenda.
Millington concludes that violence in inter-war France sees frequent encounters between the left and right; although it did not always end in violence, it did see large amounts of street violence to control public influence and propaganda. Millington illustrates the political divide between the left and right and its relations to the development of violence. Millington ends by stating that while violence in France differed from its European counterparts, the Republic’s enemies were also unsuccessful at undermining law and order, unlike the other states in Europe.
Thanks, Declan and Jennifer, for the summaries. I have stuck them in one blogpost for ease of commenting below. I’d like us to draw out some similarities and parallels between the two texts here and in the seminar. It strikes me that the two texts are quite different in their approach and what they argue about their respective subjects. Is this due to the situation being different in France and Germany, for example?
I’m also interested in the role that alcohol played in all of this. We haven’t discussed substance abuse and its relationship to violence, but it seems to be a key factor in Reichardt.
As discussed in the seminar, I feel we have to be fragile in distinguishing the situation in France and Germany. Both Reichardt and Millington seem to emphasize masculinity as a fundamental factor, they both also seem to hint at the impact of WW1 but Reichardt indicates this was more to do with young men ‘missing out’ on fighting in the war rather than young men having being ‘militarized’ by involvement in the war itself.
The involvement of alcohol clearly did increase the likelihood of these young men resorting to violence, but personally I feel that fully integrated storm troopers were already so indoctrinated by Nazi ideology that the ideas of ‘brotherhood’ & ‘self-defense’ came first and foremost, and that they would act violently in these situations with or without alcohol.
I agree with the above comment that the readings are very different in the reasons for how different Germany and France from each other at this time. It intrigued me in the Reichardt reading just how much these groups of men could have hatred for certain groups. The use of alcohol definitely had an impact on the increase of violence among young men but i also agree that these men were ingrained and hated different ethnic/religious groups for other reasons and would have acted violently either way, alcohol may have just increased or gave them more confidence to do so.
Hi, I really think the summary of Riechardt’s work highlights the comradery between those within the SA and their mutual hatred towards the communists and Jews. I specifically enjoyed reading about the rallying point in which they can all bond over, which I feel is alcohol, as it can be a stimulant to further emphasis their already violent and hostile nature. Using this new bonds of friendship to glorify the Nazi regime and bolster support for the SA itself.
I found Reichardt’s chapter also really interesting in the fact that the SA offered men a family. They not only aimed violence at Communists, Social Democrats and Jews, but would also defend each other if they were ever attacked. Furthermore, the media on the SA and their violence was also interesting as it had a positive effect on membership. Reichardt shows this by stating that the publicity of violence led to 400 new members in March 1927. Overall, i found this topic really interesting
I found Reichardt’s article an interesting read, the focus on the comradeship aspect of the SA and the fact these men bonded over violent acts and carried them out willingly reminded me of Bourke’s argument that men actually began to enjoy violence. I feel the consumption of alcohol would have been a factor in the intense levels of violence regardless of the recipient, drinking and violence seems to be a common theme relating to violence as it was noted as a cause for increased levels of violence at events such as the occupation of Louvain.
Reichardt’s article made me think of the SA as almost a cult. There;s obviously a lot of differences, but the emphasis he placed on the sense of comradeship and even family created between members, many of whom were previously socially isolated, reminded me of how cults function in a very similar way, by appealing to people in want of a purpose/community. It makes sense that something like this could grow in interwar Europe, given how many were dislocated, as well as the nature of life in the rapidly-growing urban centres.
Great insight, especially on violence in interwar France; a subject I knew little about in comparison with interwar Germany.
There are many reasons why paramilitary groups were rife in society post WW1. Alcohol more than likely played a part in most reasons for being a paramilitary. Men came back from the war having grown used to the violence and were unable to give it up. Paramilitary groups gave them an excuse to continue. Young males, who were too young to fight in the War, felt that this was a great way to be able to see some violent action. Germany, in particular, used paramilitary groups as a solution to the military sanctions of the Treaty of Versailles. The groups were mainly used in on the eastern border.