So we have finally moved beyond elections but all decisions in 1933 Germany are still politically based. The Nazi’s now had absolute power of Germany. Northeimer’s now realized that they no longer lived in a state of personal freedom. The implementation of the long-awaited terror system came to fruition and in order to justify this, the Nazi’s used fear tactics such as the potential for a Communist uprising. The Nazi’s always played on the people’s fear. The Nazi party would use social norms against them. For example, the Nazi party planted guns to get people arrested when everyone had guns in Northeim. Then of course the Nazi’s used the newspaper in order to publicize the arrests. The Nazi party never did anything quietly; ever move they made was public and propagandizes. All police actions were justified through propaganda, which is actually comical because the police actions were unjustified and the propaganda was all lies so the Nazi actions were corrupt dictatorial power plays. The use of fear through propaganda was significant in Nazi policies because the ultimate punishment was the concentration camp, which all Germans feared. Resistance was futile and even those who did resist the 3rd Reich ended up giving in eventually like Mayor Peters.
Looking back on this time it is very easy for us to question how could no one stand up to the Nazi’s? However, reading Allen’s book has made me realize that it is not so easy to understand because every single move made by Hilter was strategized and perfectly planned to a tee. There was also always a plan B for any initial failures. The organization of the Nazi party is what made them so powerful and scary, even when the party had some internal division it still gained control through the manipulation of the political system. I feel like there is no other way to define Hitler and the 3rd Reich other than the epitome of political corruption.
To tie into the idea of lacking resistance, or ‘passivity,’ a term we may retroactively use to mistakenly criticize the German population given our present-day reflection on the past, I think you make a great point about the structure of the terrorism and arrests. Yes, at a daily level people were conscious of what they said, conscious that they’re actions were being traced by the Gestapo; so in a sense people cultivated an aura of fear. But more generally, I think we can think of the dissolution of opposition in two ways. On one hand, as Allen mentions, the institution of a dictatorship in Germany didn’t come at the hands of a revolution but by quasi-legal actions. And so the idea of the Reichsbanner offering resistance didn’t manifest because “its members [were] struck down one by one, its leaders imprisoned, beaten, hounded from their jobs and their homes without any resistance from the organization as a whole” (Allen 191). However, Northeim’s Riechsbanner and SPD contingent were also too attached to their policy of legal resistance, suppressing the Nazi movement only after receiving order from Berlin, that their allegiance to order weakened them. The second way, and I think more to the point being made in your post about the Nazi structure, is the type of resistance that couldn’t occur because “poverty, terror, bureaucratic chicanery, and social isolation—a potent formula” were together overwhelming (200). Given the culmination of these factors, Allen mocks the idea of criticizing the Germans for passivity because even if a Noetherimer Social Democrat had weapons, “whom was one to shoot? Policemen? Every Nazi (including those you went to school with)?” (200). The fact that the SPD couldn’t target the culprit of the Nazi regime, let alone how daunting and unrealistic rebellion seemed, is a testament to the structure that the NSDAP put in place within 6 months of Hitler becoming chancellor to solidify its dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteTo address the title of your post, and kind of go off on a tangent of your discussion. I want to bring up a point that occurred to me, which implicates the ideals of 'youthful rebellion' manifested in the course of the Nazi takeover. I found it very interesting how Allen addresses the effect of Nazism in the life of a student body: initially, the SPD seemed to be the political party that maintained a lot of power over the school boards/councils and tried to drive out Nazi influence on students. But it's interesting to consider that perhaps by trying to prohibit the presence of Nazism (at least in the school setting) it might have become more appealing to students as a form of rebellion. I know that doesn't particularly pertain to your idea of resistance to Nazi fear tactics. Yet, it does point to a possible aspect of how and why Nazism might have inspired the support of the youth, who would be future voters and supporters of the Nazis. At least in the schools, the Nazi could be seen as a sort of rebellious association against the more rigid regulations of the SPD, so perhaps anyone who was more likely rebel later on was kind of won over to the Nazi side already. Though it's perfectly legitimate to wonder why they wouldn't change their stance after Nazi terrorist activities began. But as both of you have pointed out, Hitler's presence in Northeim and the societal conditions the people were already dealing either inspired faith in the Nazis to put up with the violence, or made those who would rise up incapable of doing so without great fear and risk. I just find it interesting to consider the youth/student perspective of the Nazi take-over, especially because this text offers a specific example, of how the Nazis could be seen as a 'rebellious' party (ironic considering the strict, dictatorial power they came to be known for) by a demographic that was one of their strongest supporters: the youth.
ReplyDelete