Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:24:05.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decay of Support for Monarchy and the Hitler Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

G. R. Boynton  and
Gerhard Loewenberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Public support for the existing institutions of government depends in part on public perceptions of the alternatives. This assertion will not come as news in those parts of the world where changing the regime is a regular part of political life. In France, for example, where regimes have been numbered to distinguish them from each other, it is common knowledge that public evaluations of the Fourth Republic depended on comparisons with the Third, that especially in its early years the Fifth Republic was frequently judged by comparison with the Fourth, and that in particularly sophisticated circles these more or less contemporary regimes have been frequently compared with the First and Second Republics.

Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1974 , pp. 453 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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.)

References

1 See, for example, Patterson, Samuel C., Wahlke, John C., and Boynton, G. Robert, ‘Dimensions of Support in Legislative Systems’, in Kornberg, Allan, ed., Legislatures in Comparative Perspective (New York: McKay, 1973), pp. 282–313.Google Scholar

2 Loewenberg, Gerhard, “The Influence of Parliamentary Behavior on Regime Stability’, Comparative Politics, III (1971), 183–5.Google Scholar

3 Boynton, G. R. and Loewenberg, Gerhard, ‘The Development of Public Support for Parliament in Germany, 1951–59’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 169–90, p. 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 ‘Würden Sie sagen, es wäre am besten für unser Land, wieder die Monarchie, also einen König oder Kaiser, zu haben?’

5 ‘Alles, was zwischen 1933 und 1939 aufgebaut worden war, und noch viel mehr, wurde durch den Krieg vernichtet. Würden Sie sagen, dass Hitler ohne den Krieg einer der grössten deutschen Staatsmänner gewesen wäre?’

6 ‘Unsere Bundesflagge ist Schwarz-Rot-Gold. Wäre Ihnen Schwarz-Weiss-Rot lieber?’

7 This is the same procedure which we described in detail in a previous article. See Boynton, and Loewenberg, , ‘Development of Public Support for Parliament in Germany,’ pp. 175–8.Google Scholar

8 Boynton, and Loewenberg, , ‘Development of Public Support for Parliament in Germany’, p. 178.Google Scholar

9 Schoenbaum, David, Hitler's Social Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1966), passim.Google Scholar

10 Scheuch, Erwin K., ‘Social Context and Individual Behavior’, in Dogan, Mattei and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1969), pp. 133–55.Google Scholar

11 Votes cast for the Nazi party were above the national average in the regions presently incorporated in the following Länder: Baden-Wuerttemberg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein. The regions in which the Nazi vote was below the national average are presently incorporated in the following Länder: Bavaria, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, NorthRhine-Westphalia. The Saar was left out of this analysis, since it was not a part of Germany in 1932.

12 See the discussion by Searing, Donald D., Schwartz, Joel J., and Lind, Alden E., “The Structuring Principle: Political Socialization and Belief Systems’, American Political Science Review, LXVII (1973), 415–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar