History of the Nazi Regime - Essay Example

Your name Instructor Name Unit Name Date The Nazi Regime: Did The Regime Manage To Get Considerable Popular Acceptance Among Ordinary Germans Or Was The Lack Of Open Dissent Or Even Opposition The Result Of Wide-Spread Terror And Intimidation? In historical terms, the Nazi Regime is often shed in a negative light with members of the Third Reich often being vilified as criminal at best and satanic at worst. Indeed, very few people would disagree that the events that took place during Hitler’s Nazi regime were undoubtedly the worst that have ever taken place in Germany and subsequent governments have been at pains to lay the ghosts of that haunting past to rest by publicly apologizing to victims of the regime. Ordinary Germans, too, of both the Nazi era and the post- Nazi era are often remorseful about the torture and sheer atrocities that the regime committed and most people distance themselves from those policies, branding the perpetrators as being in the minority. They argue that the Nazi regime was not representative of the whole of Germany. However, that said, it would be naïve to assume that every single German who lived through the Nazi era was against these policies. For Hitler and his henchmen to have been able to perpetuate the type of crimes they did with such a far- reaching effect, there must have been some support, not just at the government level, but also at the grassroots level. The question that has been foremost in the minds of scholars who have studied the Nazi regime in trying to understand how these atrocities could have been carried out so effectively is whether the regime had considerable popular acceptance among ordinary Germans or whether the lack of open dissent or even opposition was due to widespread terror. The following discussion will thus attempt to answer this question by making an honest and balanced evaluation of the hard facts devoid of any sentimentalism or romanticism. It should first be noted that it is impossible to accurately ascertain the level of popularity of the Nazi regime as no public records or public opinion surveys exist concerning the same. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that the regime had its own way of gauging public opinion as they always actively sought to maintain their existing popularity. It has been adequately explained that following Nazi elevation to power in 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the then Minister for Propaganda, stressed to all his staff at the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda the importance of constantly gauging public moods. Goebbels, together with all the ruling elites, frequently received highly detailed reports from agencies such as the Secret Police (SD), local government authorities, the Gestapo and the judiciary concerning the peoples’ mood and, indeed, he would even habitually quote these in his diary.1 Hitler likewise was well- versed with these reports. In fact, records indicate that he strove at all times to prevent increasing food prices to avoid lessening his regimes popularity. This clearly proves that there actually was a great level of political sensitivity to public opinion and in fact, there were continual attempts by the regime throughout its tenure to maintain this popular support. Undoubtedly, it cannot be denied that there was a conditioning of minds within Germany that initially laid the groundwork for the acceptance of Nazi policies. These attitudes were encapsulated in the phrase “Volksgemeinschaft” which referred to the sense of ‘national community.’ The main aim of this attitude was to foster a feeling of extreme national pride where the supremacy of the nation was deemed as being above everything else. The Nazi regime, through its propaganda, sought to create an image of a society that had transcended class and social divisiveness through a new ethnic unity based on ‘true’ German values.2 The reality on the ground, however, was that this social and class gap still remained and in fact, the gap had actually widened! The fact that ordinary Germans failed to see this widening gap proves therefore that, despite the propaganda machinery that had been put in place, there was a level of complacency on their part in failing to see the cracks in the claims made by the regime. The truth of the matter is that while propaganda did play a role in mobilizing support for the NSDAP whilst in opposition and maintaining the party once it was in power, propaganda on its own could not have sustained the Nazi Party and its ideology for a period of 12 years. There is now substantial evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Nazi policies and propaganda reflected many of the aspirations of the vast majority of the population. Propaganda on its own is a toothless bull and can only succeed if the targets of the propaganda are receptive to the ideas propagated since propaganda is more about confirming rather than merely converting public opinion. For propaganda to be effective it must, in a sense, preach to those who are already partially converted.3 As Huxley (1936) noted: “Propaganda gives force and direction to the successive movements of popular feeling and desire; but it does not do much to create these movements. The propagandist is a man who canalizes an already existing stream. In a land where there is no water, he digs in vain.”4 Therefore, it is evident that the Nazi regime was successful, not simply because of a powerful and intelligent Propaganda Ministry, but mainly because a majority of the decisions they made and the propaganda propagated were all done with an acute knowledge of how the public already felt about certain issues and a broad awareness of the prevailing opinions and prejudices amongst ordinary Germans. Certain scholars rightly argue that propaganda is only effective when it is reinforcing existing prejudices and values rather than when it is attempting to construct a new value system.5 Propaganda on its own is not sufficient justification for the passiveness and support of the German public at the time. If, for instance, person A is convinced by person B to murder person C and proceeds to do so, will person A be able to stand before a judge and plead innocence on the basis that he/ she was convinced into murder by person B? The obvious answer to that is that such an argument would not hold water in a court of law. In that same vein, ordinary Germans who actively or passively supported the Nazi regime’s propaganda cannot be seen as being innocent of failing to stand up to the Nazi government. The attitude on the whole of ordinary Germans was that of passive acceptance and resignation. To an outsider, such passiveness seems incredulous. How could normal human beings simply stand by as the holocaust was being carried out in full force? The answer to this most likely lies in the economic progress that Germany was experiencing at the time. While some Germans may have disapproved of the ongoing holocaust and terror being perpetrated, many chose to turn blind eye because of the newly found national economic prosperity.6 Thus, as some historians have aptly suggested, the attitudes of such Germans was ambivalent and inconsistent. In the silence of their homes, they may have voiced concern about the evils being committed in the Third Reich but they would not openly dissent for fear of losing out on their economic benefits.7 They were thus guilty of passively supporting the Nazi regime for selfish and superficial reasons- the love of money and comfort. However, it is important to note that we cannot merely whitewash the issue by claiming that the Nazi regime had the full, unwavering popular support of the German people. While it is true that the regime could not possibly have carried out its heinous agenda without some level of substantial grassroots support, it is also not logical to assert that, perhaps, all Germans at that time were inherently evil and/ or racist. To be fair to the German people, we must understand the prevailing national psyche at the time to provide a more contextual critique. In 1933, the society was still suffering from a deep sense of national humiliation. Further to that, they were bogged down by the economic depression, inflation and mass unemployment. The appeal of the promising National Socialist revival proclaiming that it was going to put all different elements together under a banner of German national rebirth is thus obvious and it is understandable that the Germans of that time were extremely enthusiastic about an offer of a new and prosperous start particularly after the disgraceful end of the Weimar Republic.8 To top this off, there was renewed political stability. The great contrast between the Nazis and Weimar plus the fact that the much- reviled communism had been effectively crushed meant that the German people did not have to fear any further revolutions. Hitler was highly popular because he was viewed as a strong central leader. Through him, the German people felt that they finally had the stability they had yearned for, especially after coming from the devastating effects the World War II. He reiterated the need for new political dispensation through this simple message: Germany did not lose the war but instead was stabbed in the back by the socialist and Jewish traitors. He maintained that the Versailles Treaty was the root of all evil thus needed to be denounced.9 This political rhetoric was very well received as the German people were being told what they wanted to hear. Hence, convinced that their country was well on its way to achieving political stability, they gave Hitler overwhelming support. In fact, he was so popular that women fainted at the sight of him and people would wait for hours just to see him! On the international scene, his political stature was seen as being even greater by the German people and Hitler furthered this image by embarking on a series of high-risk adventures whereby he occupied the Saar Land, dismembered Czechoslovakia and annexed Austria. The successes of these gambles and adventures improved the national morale and Hitler became ever more popular- the symbol of Germany and its Messiah.10 In addition to the fact that Germans finally felt a renewed sense of national pride, economic prosperity and political stability, the Nazi regime succeeded because fear was used by the regime to quell the little discontent that may have existed. Any opposition to the regime by the minority who dared stand up to the Third Reich was quickly and effectively blocked with ferocity. The Nazi regime used terror and fear as an extremely powerful tool in carrying out its agenda. This was one of the main ways it succeeded in exercising control and keeping power over the German people for such a long time. In particular, the SS was a crucial tool of Nazi terror, persecution and intimidation. The members of the SS staffed the concentration camps, in which perceived enemies of the regime were imprisoned.11 Moreover, SS chief Heinrich Himmler also gained control over the regular or non- party police thereby centralizing German political police forces within a new agency, the Gestapo (the secret state police). This newly unified, nationwide (albeit criminal) police force together with plainclothes detectives used ruthless methods to arrest political opponents and those who refused to conform to the policies of the Nazi regime. Concentration camps were created to deal with racial enemies such as the Jews and Gypsies. Moral enemies like homosexuals, criminals and prostitutes were also prime targets for torture. Domestic enemies like the communists, socialists and liberals were persecuted in large numbers. In addition to all of this, there was an effective spy network which infiltrated almost every aspect of life and work. This level of oppression thus made it difficult to express opposing views.12 Nevertheless, the climate of fear Hitler created was not through a method of uniformly terrorizing all of Germany with an all-powerful and arbitrary police. The real picture was of the Third Reich selectively targeting their opposers for persecution and elimination confident that they had the complete support of ordinary “Volk comrades.” Without such popular agreement, the Nazi regime could not have executed such a potent agenda. The harsh reality is that the brutality of the Nazi regime arose from a mutual sense of animosity amongst both ordinary Germans and the Party faithful toward people they considered to be outcasts. This is something ordinary Germans need to address if they are to lay the demons of the past to rest once and for all. In a nutshell, therefore, it is evident that the Nazi regime did in fact have the popular support of ordinary Germans. While it is true that the regime used fear and propaganda in achieving its devious ends, it did so with the full knowledge that the propaganda was based on the prevailing views and prejudices of the German people at large. Fear and terror was only used against opponents of the regime as well as those considered to be outcasts. The average German was not a victim of this brutality. This is a sobering fact that should serve as a lesson, not only to present- day Germans, but to all of humanity since prejudices towards certain sections of society are still prevalent. Unless these prejudices are effectively dealt with, it would not be far- fetched to say that a repeat of what occurred in Nazi Germany could re- occur in another society with the same devastating effects. Continuous public education is thus necessary in changing prejudices and if all world governments can commit themselves to this, we will be one step closer to seeing a more united and prejudice- free world; both now and in the future. Works Cited Dixon, Joe. 2002. Did the German people benefit from Nazi economic policy? Accessed on the 13th of May, 2009 from http://www.helium.com/items/1020359-did-the-german-people-benefit-from-nazi-economic-policy Holocaust Encyclopaedia. Nazi Terror Begins. Washington DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2009. Accessed on the 12th of May, 2009 from http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005686 Huxley, Aldous. Notes on Propaganda. Harper’s Magazine, 1936. Kershaw Ian. How Effective was Nazi Propaganda? Nazi Propaganda. The Power and the Limitations. (D. Welch (ed.). London: 1983.180–205. Kimel, Alexander. Holocaust Understanding & Prevention: Hitler's Popularity. 2004. Accessed on the 13th of May, 2009 from http://kimel.net/popularity.html Noakes, Jeremy and Pridham, Geoffrey. (eds). State, Economy and Society. Nazism 1919–1945, vol. 2. 1984. Planet Papers. To what extent did propaganda influence Nazi consolidation of power? 1933-1939? 2009. Accessed on the 13th of May, 2009 from http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4783.php Scheck, Raffael. The Functioning of the Nazi Regime: State and Society. 2006. Accessed on the 12th of May, 2009 from http://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rmscheck/GermanyE5.html Welch, David. Nazi Propaganda and the Volksgemeinschaft: Constructing a People’s Community. London: SAGE Publications, 2004. Accessed on the 13th of May, 2009 from http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/1953/welcho4.pdf Read More