Von Papen, Schleicher & Co.

How Hitler's Enemies Became His Best Enablers

A Paradoxical Interaction case study from January 1933

Why do smart people consistently produce outcomes they're trying to prevent?

January 30, 1933: Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany. Not through election victory. Not through a coup. Through appointment by President Hindenburg.

At the urging of Franz von Papen. A man who despised Hitler.

This isn't a story about incompetence. It's about structure.

The Players

Franz von Papen – Conservative aristocrat, former Chancellor, deeply anti-democratic. Despised Hitler as a "Bohemian corporal." Planned to bring him into government and control him.

Kurt von Schleicher – General, schemer, last Chancellor before Hitler. Tried to split the Nazi party by wooing Gregor Strasser. Believed himself the puppet master.

Paul von Hindenburg – President, 85 years old, authoritarian, monarchist. Hated Hitler, called him "the corporal." Refused him the Chancellorship for months.

Alfred Hugenberg – Media mogul, leader of the German National People's Party (DNVP). Wanted to use Hitler as junior partner to crush the left.

Each wanted to prevent Hitler. Or contain him. Or use him. Or split him. Or neutralize him.

That's exactly why they enabled him.

The PI Structure

1. "We've Boxed Him In"

Von Papen's Plan: Bring Hitler into cabinet. Surround him with conservative ministers. Only two Nazis in cabinet (Hitler as Chancellor, Frick as Interior Minister). Conservatives hold majority. "In two months we'll have pushed Hitler into a corner."

Rational Logic:

• NSDAP is largest party (33% in last election)
• No stable government without them
• Inclusion drains radical energy
• Control through institutional constraints

What Happened: Hitler used the Chancellorship to seize total power. Reichstag fire (February 1933) → emergency decrees → Enabling Act (March 1933). Von Papen? Vice Chancellor without power. All non-Nazi ministers? Irrelevant within months.

The PI: The attempt to control Hitler gave him the position from which he became uncontrollable. The institutional constraints meant to contain him legitimized his takeover.

2. Schleicher: "Divide and Rule"

Schleicher's Plan: Make Gregor Strasser (left wing of NSDAP) Vice Chancellor. Split the Nazi party. Isolate Hitler. Strasser + trade unions + military = new coalition.

Rational Logic:

• Strasser is more pragmatic than Hitler
• NSDAP's social base wants economic policy, not ideology
• Splitting permanently weakens Hitler

What Happened: Strasser declined. Hitler learned of the intrigue. Used it to crush internal party opposition. Strasser resigned (December 1932). Hitler consolidated control within NSDAP.

The PI: The attempt to weaken Hitler through division forced him to centralize his party. Schleicher produced exactly the unified bloc he meant to prevent.

3. Hugenberg: "We're Using Him"

Hugenberg's Plan: Use NSDAP as mass base for conservative policy. Hitler brings the street, DNVP brings the institutions. Joint government against Marxism.

Rational Logic:

• DNVP has the economic elite
• NSDAP has the masses
• Hitler is vulgar but useful
• After victory, he'll be controllable

What Happened: DNVP dissolved within months. Hugenberg resigned June 1933. His party was gleichgeschaltet. Hitler didn't need him anymore.

The PI: Hugenberg gave Hitler bourgeois legitimacy. The alliance made Hitler acceptable to elites. Once Hitler had power, he didn't need the drawing room.

4. Hindenburg: "I Won't Appoint This Corporal"

Hindenburg's Position: Months-long refusal to appoint Hitler Chancellor. Contempt for the "upstart." Wanted authoritarian presidential government without parliament.

What Changed His Mind: Von Papen. Schleicher became untenable (no majority, threatened military coup against Hindenburg). Von Papen promised: Hitler as Chancellor, but "framed" by conservatives. Hindenburg relented. January 30, 1933.

The PI: Hindenburg prevented Hitler until the alternative (Schleicher, chaos, civil war) seemed worse. His refusal created exactly the power vacuum that made Hitler's appointment inevitable.

Why Everyone Acted Rationally

• Von Papen: Preferred controlled inclusion over uncontrolled opposition
• Schleicher: Preferred splitting over confrontation
• Hugenberg: Preferred alliance over isolation
• Hindenburg: Preferred "framed Hitler" over chaos

Each made the rational move. Each weakened the others. Each strengthened Hitler.

The Meta-PI

Fragmentation of Anti-Hitler Forces:

• SPD fought KPD (social fascism thesis)
• Conservatives fought each other (Papen vs. Schleicher)
• Center party wavered between all sides
• Everyone believed they were the smartest player

The Result: No coordinated opposition. Each attempt to isolate Hitler gave him new room to maneuver. Each intrigue against him proved his indispensability.

Hitler's opponents weren't stupid. They were trapped in a structure where rational individual action produces collective irrationality.

The Lesson

Not: "Papen was an idiot. Schleicher was naive. Hugenberg was blind."

But: The structure of fragmented elites + mass movement + crisis situation produces this outcome. Competent actors, rational moves, predictable failure.

"All are guilty. None are at fault."

Papen, Schleicher, Hugenberg wanted to prevent Hitler. Their attempts to prevent him enabled him. The structure defeated each one.

Parallels Today?

Wherever:

• Fragmented opposition faces unified movement
• Everyone believes they can "instrumentalize" the demagogue
• "Inclusion" serves as strategy against radicalization
• Elites weaken each other instead of coordinating

History doesn't repeat. But structures do.

Want to explore more PI case studies?

Anti-Practices – What Guarantees Failure
Core Practices – What Actually Navigates
About PI Framework