Sunday, April 10, 2011

Building blocks, regardless of resistance, of Hitler's attainment of absolute power.

While we focused on Hitler and the NSDAP's ideology and the social, political and economic factors that gave rise to the Nazi seizure of power, Kershaw's Hitler gave several other aspects that allowed Hitler to sustain his power after becoming Chancellor of Germany.

While we have commented on the lack of resistance by other parties such as the SPD, as mentioned in Allen's book, had contributed significantly to Hitler's acquisition of absolute power, there are also instances of resistance taken up by those opposing Hitler's regime that had failed. Not assuming that Röhm intended to become more powerful than Hitler (although one would not be surprised), Röhm's intention of attaining more power and of showing that he was the one in control serves as a potential threat to Hitler's power. In Kershaw's Hitler, Kershaw states that Hitler had a sharp instinct for the realities of power, which led to his decision to break with Röhm. The intial lack of control over Rohm and the SA seemed to be worrisome for Hitler. Eventually, Rohm was killed and the SA was crushed. In addition, there were Papen and his friends whose goal was to "tame" Hitler. Their moves in attempting to do this were futile. Blomberg and Reichenau's attempts to bind Hitler eventually led to an opposite effect. Instead of creating a dependence of Hitler on the army, the oath of unconditional loyalty to the person of the Fuhrer, taken by every officer and soldier in the armed forces, "marked a symbolic moment where the army chained itself to the Fuhrer." This questions the idea that a lack of resistance against Hitler's regime is a crucial, albeit not determinant, factor that led to Hitler's attainment of absolute power over Germany. At times, it seems like with or without resistance, and in spite of dilemmas and moments of loss and hysteria, Hitler managed to emerge victorious.

However, Kershaw makes it plain that Hitler's triumph is largely owed to those who, in the power-struggles of the summer, thought that they had much to gain by placing the German state at Hitler's disposal, rather than Hitler's will. Hitler was allowed to get away with his crimes once again, when his brutal and ruthless "cleansing action" of the SA and other opponents was applauded by those within Germany rather than opposed. In Kershaw's Hitler Myth, we can also see how the "heroic" image of Hitler's leadership led to his popularity among Germans, which allowed him to sustain his power over Germany. In fact, as seen in Kershaw's Hitler, despite the problems that arose that led to the widespread discontent and deterioration in the mood of the people, the extensive criticism of corrupt and high-handed party functionaries, and the intolerable SA during Nazi rule, Hitler remained popular. Each action made by Hitler followed by each reaction (resistance or not) by the people of Germany seem like building blocks for Hitler's attainment of absolute power over Germany and the bitter years under Hitler's rule in Germany.

1 comment:

  1. I completely agree that thus far, facing dilemmas or resistance, Hitler always seemed to be able to re-affirm himself as the one man to "save Germany". How weird was it that Hitler had hoped Röhm would kill himself after he was captured? Leaving him in a room with that note and a gun was so bizarre. After Hitler announced the public "reason" why Röhm had to be taken care of, he was revered even more for stopping at nothing to preserve the loyalty of the 3rd Reich! People thought it was honorable and heroic that he removed one of his earliest collaborators for fear of treasonous activity. Did situations like this happen during this time-period in other countries or was this just typical of Germany under Hitler's rule?

    ReplyDelete