Controversy - Unit 8 -How Effectively Did the Nazi State Operate

Unit 8: Controversy: how effectively did the Nazi state operate from 1933 to 1939?

How effectively did the Nazi state operate from 1933 to 1939?

Timeline

1933:April: Anti-Jewish BoycottOctober: Germany withdraws from the League of Nations

1934:August: Law on the Head of State of the German Reich – proclaims Hitler to be Fuhrer

1935:January: Reich Local Government Law gives local Nazi officials (Kreisleiter) more powerApril: Anti-German Stresa Front formedJune: Anglo-German naval agreementSeptember: Nuremburg Rally and Nuremburg Laws

1936: March: Remilitarisation of the RhinelandJune: Hitler appoints SS leader Himmler as Chief of Police

1937:November: Hossbach Conference

1938:March: Anschluss with AustriaJune: Decree forbidding Jewish doctors from treating Aryan patientsSeptember: Czech crisis meetings in Germany – Sudetenland given to GermanyNovember: Kristallnacht

1939:January: Goring sets up the Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration and places Heydrich at its headMarch: Germany invades the rest of CzechoslovakiaMay: Pact of Steel with Italy signedAugust: The Ministerial Council for the Defence of the ReichSeptember: Leading Gauleiter become Reich Defence Commissioners


The Central Role of Hitler (Intentionalist) Intentionalist historians: Domestic/foreign policy – only understood in context of Hitler’s Weltangshauung (world

view) Hitler’s ideological aims = defined in Mein Kampf (1924) – and were consistent throughout

life – including:- Creation of new Germany and Volksgemeinschaft – on racial lines and cleansed of

racially impure – ie Jews- Creation of 1000 Year Reich- Struggle of Germans and Aryans through which they would be saved from communism

and Bolshevism destroyed- Restoration and militarily/central European power – and destruction of ToV.- Lebensraum – eastward expansion for Germans

Hitler was omnipotent. (Bracher, The Reinforcement of the National Socialist Domination, pub 1956)

- Conflicting power – only resolved by Hitler- Hitler held key position = because of confusion of conflicting power groups

(Evans, The Third Reich in Power, pub 2005)- Hitler = broad general principles – simple, clear, understandable- Mein Kampf, speeches, propaganda- Hitler ordered action: ie Jewish boycott ; kristallnacht- Hitler avoided specifics – but were unmistakeable in power

Hitler most consistent/detailed = foreign policy + preparation for war Hitler drove Germany to war – when he became Chancellor Subordinated every aspect of policy for war = created stress on economy, society and

political system (Bullock, Hitler:A Study in Tyranny, pub 1952)

- Hitler = efficient in way he set to work implementing ideas- Many underestimate him as ignorant- Colleagues never underestimated Hitler’s superiority he established over people

Divide and Rule (intentionalist) Nazi state = ‘Alleinherrschaft’ (sole rule) – all essential decisions = made by Hitler Nazi State = monocratic state However – infighting between power blocs within 3rd Reich [Economics Minister – Schacht –

and Four Year Plan – Goring) Intentionalists argue = ‘divide and rule’: (Otto Dietrich (Hitlers press secretary), Hitler, pub 1955)

- ‘Hitler produced the biggest confusion in government that ever existed’- Removed ‘all clarity of leadership’- Intentional- Hitler = disorganised leadership to develop/further his own will- To become ‘despotic tyranny’


(Haffner, The Meaning of Hitler, pub 1979)- Hitler deliberately destroyed state’s ability to function = for his omnipotence – from the

start- Various authorities against one another – competition – overlapping- Hitler head of them- Absolute rule = only amid controlled chaos- Hitler replaced state by chaos and knew how to control it.

Divide and Rule, the Economic Sphere (intentionalist) Divide and rule – evident where responsibility for same area given to more than one agency

= blurring of responsibilities Traditional civilservice / judiciary v radical agencies Divide and Rule in Economic Sphere:

- Until 1936 – Schacht in control of economics (Reichsbank president – Economics minister).

- He introduced the New Plan – govt investment and work creation schemes to reduced unemployment = to create autarkic economy

- 1936: Goring = Office of Four Year Plan – controlled important areas of economy [directed officials from civil service to raw material production for war]

- November 1937: Schacht resigned as economics minister- Increased radicalisation (Conservative Schacht restrained radicalisation slightly)- Funk = new economics minister – submitted to Plan- Goring undermined Agriculture – appointed civil servants from there to work on 4YP.- Goring/ 4YP survived = patronage of Hitler.

However – divide and rule = flawed Hitler did not believe in structure/ systems – he believed in laws of politics =shaped by laws

of nature – [strongest would survive] Hitler avoided regulating/interfering whenever possible Preferred to allow structures to develop organically Hitler did interfere sometimes

The Case for a Polycratic State (structuralist) Challenges ‘intentionalist’ view Structuralist Historian: Domestic/foreign policy development = the way Hitler/decision makers operated competing

in chaotic structure State chaotic = Hitler unwilling to regulate government – lack of plan/direction from Hitler Chaotic structure = radicalisation of policy (Broszat, The Hitler State, pub 1983)

- Hitler = no direct/systematic leadership – - but sometimes pushed party/govt into action – supported/rejected initiative – or

ignored and left them to continue- Conflicting forces = result of Hitler’s ‘absolutism’ – and not beneficial to regime longterm- Chaos = led to ‘policy of irrational destruction’ after years of success


(Mommsen, The Civil Service in the Third Reich, pub 1966)- 2 different political directions – fundamentally incompatible = institutional degeneration

– reduced effectiveness of state- SA, SS and DAF = no longer ‘close, unitedly led organisation’

Organisation of Nazi Party

Fuhrer Hitler: Undisputed leader of party

Reichsleitung (Reich Leadership): Several Reich leaders had specific responsibilities [party treasurer; Fuhrers deputy for party affairs]

Landesinspekteur (Regional Inspector): Originally 9 regional inspectors – replaced by Gauleiters

Gauleiter (District Leader): (September 1939: became Reich Defence Commissioners) 36 leaders of (Gaue) districts ie Saxony – no. grew with inclusion of Austria, Sudetenland and Danzig

Kreisleiter (Circuit Leader): Equivalent to rural council

Ortsgruppenleiter (local group leader): leaders responsible for town section

Zellenleiter (cell leader): based on neighbourhood/employment unit

Blockwart (block warden): 4lowest official

PG-Parteigenosse (Party Comrade): Ordinary members


Struggle between Party and State (structuralist)

Structuralists: power structures evolved because of poorly defined roles 1933: state machinery including civil service = intact Consolidation of power = Weimar institutions weakened – civil service challenged by Nazi

Agencies with same roles Hess (Deputy) and Bormann (chief of staff) given more power/influence [ie. Hess had power

to supervise new laws Party – state clash = 1934 Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich – Frick tried to put Reich

Governors under control of ministry of interior (centralised control) – however Failed = Gauleiters equal to Hitlers representation in regions – therefore wouldn’t submit to Frick.

Hitler however – did put Governors under Frick’s control – but still appeal to Fuhrer Party representatives increased power at local level:

- District Party leaders (Krauleiter) = political influence at local level – could choose local mayors

- 1935: Hess and Bormann put dominance of party over civil service = Bormann set up own party organisation that rivalled Reich Chancellors office

- 1937: All state officials = directly responsible to Hitler- 1939: Nazi membership = compulsory for civil servants- Declaration of War – more power at local level = September 1939: Gauleiter became

Reich Defence Commissioners [assumed total control of regions] Hitler = not concerned to protect interests of state or party [used state to provide legitimacy through state institutions to operate] Prepared to allow other agencies (ie SS) to develop own power – might rival state/party These groups = mini states within states – influence grow/limit depending on closeness to

Fuhrer and interpretations of his will Hitler let agencies fight between for strongest to win – but intervened and supported one

which supported weltangshauung. [1936: Hitler ended battle for control of police – appointed Himmler head of police]

Police now did not serve to state – but to Fuhrer – part of ‘ideological struggle’.

Hitler’s Lifestyle (structuralist)

1935: Hitler lived = Bohemian lifestyle – spent minimal time on admin of govt In Berlin: meeting for less than 1 hour, walks, films Berghof retreat: wake late, walks In Berlin – would intervene in trivial matters (ie punishment for traffic offences) (Evans, The Third Reich in Power, pub 2005)

- Bohemian lifestyle = not inactive or withdrawn from domestic politics- He could ‘intervene powerfully and decisively’ - ‘erratic’ rather than ‘lazy’- Wrote own speeches; tours around Germany; speaking; meeting officials; ceremonial

functions- Detail in areas of interest – art/culture: Hitler personally selected exhibits- Racial policy – leading role: speeded up or slowed down anti Semitism


Was Hitler a Weak Dictator? (structuralist)

Hitler not all powerful dictator as had been suggested: (Mason, Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class, pub 1995)

- ‘Hitler had preference for creating new organs of state to carry out specific projects’- ‘right man for the job’- Sought men who were ‘loyal’ and ‘dependant’ on him- Fuhrer cult – contributed to inaction of domestic affairs- Hitler didn’t associate himself with ‘unpopular’ measures- Therefore – in this sense – Hitler = weak

(Mommsen, National Socialism, pub 1971)- Hitler = unwilling to take decisions- Concerned with upholding prestige and personal authority- Some respects = weak dictator

Hitler and the Gauleiter

1932: Hitler wrote: ‘the basis of political organisation is loyalty’ Ie. Btw Fuhrer and Gauleiter One of Hitler’s Gauleiter: ‘hitler was no dictator‘ dependent on those around him –

approved views of powerful – ‘never ran counter to opinion of his Gauleiter’ – ‘Hitler was at all times dependant on them’

However – challenging ^ relationship btw Hitler and Gauleiter: Gauleiter = most trusted/loyal – exercised considerable power in localities for Hitler Goebbels’ power base strengthened = appointment of Gaulieters (Danzig = forster) Gauleiter power stronger = lack of collective leadership Gauleiter = omnipotent in their regions Gauleiter = guardians of Nazi faith, weilders of vats patronage, key in rallying morale Gauleiter = ‘blackbone of his power’ (Kershaw)

Hitler the Decision-Maker

Hitler showed little interest in day-to-day decisions of govt Cabinet meetings declined: 1933 = 72 times ; 1938 = 0 times After HIndenburgs death, constitutional change, oath of allegiance, plebiscite – Hitler

unassailable The Triumph of the Will = Hitler appeatred as a demi-god, worshipped by Germans –

because he was so powerful Crucial decisions = made by Hitler Decision for Night of Long Knives was HItlers – resolve tensions between army and SA Solely Hitlers decision (support from Goring and Himmler) Following Night of Long Knives = disappearance of collective govt Establishment of Fuhrer rule


Lack of Formal Mechanisms

Hitler’s authority was unchallenged Hitler rarely read document before deciding – disliked signing papers Officials sought verbal agreement of even ‘nod’ = ‘Fuhrer’s Orders’ carried ultimate authority Sometimes issued contradictory orders = confusion:

- 1935: meeting discussing Jewish emigration:Hess’ interpretation – Hitler wanted all Jews to emigrate asapMin. Of interior official interpretation – Hitler wanted to use Jews as hostages = Therefore confusion and unclear government

- Sometimes, Fuhrers orders given prematurely without state/party consultation:1934, Hitler agreed let Ley increase power of DAF at expense of employers – opposed by Hess, Schacht and businesses – Hitler then did a U turn on policy= Hitler needed to use power pragmatically

Case Study: Foreign Policy

Foreign policy = Hitler very decisive

Hitler’s Foreign Policy Aims

Weltanshauung = unlimited territorial expansion Most Germans/politicians = shared ambitions:

- Hitler wanted to destroy ToV and create ‘Greater Germany’ = all Germans dominate a ‘Mittel Europe’ (central Europe)

- Destroy Soviet Union and establishing Lebesraum = enslaving Eastern Europeans

Diplomacy 1933-35

Germany was weak in 1933 = have to move cautiously Army was limited to 100,000 (ToV) Economy still in depression Germany had no allies Hostile alliances Hitler’s short term objective = secure alliances, undermine rivals, achieve more acceptable

aims, give appearance of moderation:- Signed Four Power Pact (Britain, France, Germany , Italy) – sought to revise Treaty of

Versailles diplomatically- 1934: signed non-aggression pact with Poland [to last 10 years]- ^These were to distract reaction from Germany’s withdrawal of League of Nations (Oct

1933) = League was weak and didn’t secure multinational disarmament 1935: Hitler ordered conscription and rearmament 1935: Nazi assassination of Austrian chancellor – Nazis threatened to invade


Italy moved troops to Austrian border = to prevent German invasion of Austria = German isolation Austrian assassination = reinforced defensive alliances against Germany 1945: Anti-German Stresa Front signed [condemned German rearmament; reconfirmed

Franco-German border; defended Austrian independence] 1935: France/Russia allied – Russia agreed to defend Czechoslovakia

Rearmament and Conscription

1936: Hitler decided to exploit Abyssinia Crisis by remilitarisation of the Rhineland Remilitarisation of Rhineland = risked military intervention by France/Britain Hitler instructed German troops – retreat in face on resistance – But Hitler was correct that

France would not retaliate Britain needed to retain Germany as ally against Russia League of Nations (caught up with Abyssinia crisis)remained inactive Peaceful reoccupation of Rhineland = celebrated and consolidated Nazi power Hitler = living up to promises and man of action who would destroy ToV.

The Anschluss with Austria, 1938

By 1937: Hitler had rebuilt military/diplomatic strength German economy had recovered, army increased to 500,000, some key alliances formed Spanish Civil war: Spanish nationalists supported by Germany = valuable army training Berlin-Rome axis (Germany and Italy) 1937:Anti-Comintern Pact:(Germany, Italy, Japan) 1937: Hossbach conference = revealed aims to Generals of Lebensraum (living space) Anschluss with Austria [had been prohibited by ToV] = key stage in expansionism [Austrian govt planned plebiscite for Anschluss – Hitler cancelled plebiscite and invaded

Austria = Austrians rejoiced = Anschluss proclaimed] Timetable for German expansion + annexing of Austria = HItlers decisions

The Seizure of Czechoslovakia 1938-39


Anschluss = Czechoslovakia vulnerable to German expansionism Hitler wanted its coal/iron resources and incorporation of 3 million German speakers in

Sudetenland – Czechs reinforced them with frontier defences:- March 1938: Sudetenland Germans wanted union with Reich- Czechs mobilised army for defence – but new rising = Sudeten crisis- German intervention = risked European war [Czech. Guaranteed by ToV +

Czech,France,Russia alliance]- Britain agreed to let Germany annex German-speaking areas who voted in plebiscite to

join.- Hitler demanded immediate occupation of Sudetenland without plebiscite- Czechs mobilised army- German Generals plotted against Hitler to save Germany from defeat- Finally – Britain and France agreed to appease Hitler [not ready for war – espec when

Russia was bigger threat]- Hitler disappointed = Czech crisis didn’t lead to war.

The Conquest of Poland 1939

March 1939: Germany invaded rest of Czechoslovakia without resistance Clear that Hitler aiming for unlimited eastward expansion = Britain and France guaranteed

Polish independence:- 1939: Reinforced alliance with Italy ‘Pact of Steel’ = Hitler knew Britain/France would not

tolerate attack on Poland- 1939: Nazi-Soviet Pact (German – Russian) = [Peace treaty for 2 years ; Germany agreed

to partition Poland = Hitler now could seize half of Poland without fighting on two fronts]

- August 1939: Hitler demanded back from Poland the lands seized by ToV [Silesia, Polish corridor and Danzig = German speakers]

- 1st September 1939: Germany invaded Poland- Britain demanded German withdrawal – ignored- 3rd September: Britain declared war on Germany- Old-fashioned Polish army = defenceless against new German warfare- Britain could do nothing – as Russia was attacking from east- 27th September 1939: Poland surrendered- Most significant proof of Hitler’s executive power = decision to go to war – Against

advice of Goring- Hitler’s decision – after foreign policy victories from Rhineland to Anschluss

(Prazmowska, Hitler and the Origins of WWII, pub 2005)- No consensus over whether Hitler had critical role in defining regime – or if he just

brought together pre existing political ideas- Hitlers foreign policy plans were pretty much accepted by nazi leadership, army,

ministries- Foreign policy successes strengthened Nazi power and authority

(Kershaw, The Hitler Myth, pub 1987)- From 1935: Hitler distanced himself from domestic affairs


- Left ordinary business to competing ministries [like 4YP = chaos]- Hitler concentrated on diplomatic/foreign policy

(Kershaw, Nemesis, pub 2000)- Regime depended on = Hitlers popularity, successes and triumphs- Regime would survive = only expansion- Gamble for expansion = inescapable- Any potential limits on Hitler disappeared

Working towards the Fuhrer (synthesis of intentionalist/structuralist)

- Recognition of importance of Hitler as arbiter btw power blocs/leader

- Acceptance that regime had chaotic characteristics

- Recognition that Nazis evolved over time – change came from above and below

- Acceptance that the coherent element of Nazi Germany was a tacit ideological belief and was identified with the Fuhrer

(Kershaw, Hubris, pub 1998) – extent to which Hitler shaped Nazi ideology- Strands of Nazi ideology existed before – but Hitler was indispensable to rise of Nazism

Nazi ideology emerged as part of broader European political culture before Hitler- Hitler =defined Nazis in power

He could control party (because of Fuhrerprinzip) at Bamberg Meeting to assassination of Gregor Strasser

- Power over Nazis was sealed by Night of The Long Knives and destruction of SA powerHitler asserted his weltangshauung as sole source of ideology/power

- Nazism became Hitlerism = although groups in Nazi movement/German society believed in own aspects of Nazism – they were refined to meet weltangshauung.

- Acquisition of power changed Nazi ideology because purpose of ideology changed:Before 1933: ideology = to gain powerAfter 1933: ideology = to strengthen Hitlers powerOnce Power is achieved – dynamic of new state/ political system/ Nazi society = to ‘work towards the Fuhrer.

(Speech Feb 1934 by Minister for Prussian Agriculture)- Would be difficult for Fuhrer to order from above everything he tries to implement- Everyone has ‘worked towards the Fuhrer’- People have just waited for instruction – but it was everyones duty to ‘work towards the

fuhrer’ along the lines he would wish [2 central themes from quote^:

-1. Idea of New Germany was central to Nazism-2. The minister and other believed that New Germany could be achieved by working towards the fuhrer

Concept of working towards the fuhrer = accepted by most historians


Cumulative Radicalisation (policy became more extreme)

Regime efficiency = successful interpretation of Hitler’s Weltangshauung Centre of power = Hitlers authority Hitler hated bureaucracy – left it to others As Fuhrer was head of govt and failing to focus on routine matters – he left space for other

to fill Power and Influence available Access to Hitler+ ability to work towards the fuhrer determined powers of those around him Those who were able to best interpret the will of the Fuhrer = got access/ influence (Kershaw, Stalin and Nazism, pub 1997)- Assumption that fragmentation of politics arose from divide and rule strategy = misleading- Actually a reflection of social Darwinism – that best man would prevail- However – meant that a great deal of energy/time wasted in conflicts/rivalries btw

state/party- However ^ paramount to internal development of regime:- Social-Darwinist struggle led to ruthlessness in pursuit of radical goals = cumulative

radicalisation- Individuals competed with each other- Officials tried to appear radical for Weltangshauung = to get closer to Hitler (Kershaw, Hubris, pub 1998)- Pressure from Nazi radicals to get closer to Hitler = radicalisation of legislation- ‘Cumulative radicalisation’ – recognisable from early weeks of regime ‘push and pull’ mechanism = cumulative radicalisation ‘push’ factor = leading individual/agencies came up with more radical policies in working

towards the fuhrer ‘Pull’ factor = Hitler was instinctively radical Racial policy – Hitler = most radical of Nazis Goebbels = extremely radical = closest to Hitler ‘working toward Fuhrer’ = adopting radical position

Hitler’s Authority

Fuhrer authority unquestioned and unconstrained ([Huber, constitutional theorist] Pridham, Nazism 1919-45, pub 2000)- Position of Fuhrer = includes in itself all sovereign powers of the Reich- All public power = derived from Hitler’s power- Political power given to Fuhrer as executor of nations common will- Fuhrer power not restricted by safeguards and controls- Fuhrers power = free/independent/unlimited/exclusive


Hitlers power = absolute in theory and practice Hitler’s world view – given central prominence: ([1938: Speech by head of Nazi Lawyers Association] Pridham, Nazism, pub 2000)- Fuhrer = supreme judge of the nation- No position in law independent of will of Fuhrer- Constitutional law was legal formulation of will of Fuhrer Fuhrer’s will = clearly defined and understood Efficiency of regime = attempt of all involved to realise Fuhrers will – even if it drove

Germany into war of annihilation and destruction. Valid to point to central importance of Hitler Debate over whether Hitler was strong/weak been ended by concept of ‘working towards

the fuhrer’ Hitler had Supreme role because those below tried to interpret his world view Structures of power = chaotic – but position of Fuhrer and world view = unchallenged (Kershaw, Nemesis, pub 2000)- Hitler’s expansion had freed itself from all institutional constraints and had unchallenged

supremacy over whole ‘power cartel’- Hitelr’s personalised form of rule = eroded collective decision making- Competing power blocs = beneath Hitler and enhanced his position – and divided interests

of all power blocs (individually/sectionally)- Hitler offered bilateral relations with Nazis beneath him – he remained the sole arbiter –

even when he let supporters battle it out themselves- ‘Less a planned strategy of divide and rule than an inevitable consequence of Fuhrer

authority’

The Dynamic for Radicalisation

Dynamic for change = found in synthesis of initiatives from below and the work of Nazi leaders/officials/ civil servants in working towards the Fuhrer

Ordinary Germans worked towards the Fuhrer at local level by accepting initiatives Working towards the Fuhrer’s weltangshaunng happened on 2 levels:- Decision Makers within the Regime: leadership, bureaucracy, business and military became

more radical in working towards the Fuhrer – partic. ‘removal of Jews’ and preparation for lebensraum.

- Social Consensus: Most Germans conformed to regime by joining Nazi organisations, reporting anti-Nazi behaviour to Gestapo, performing salute, boycotting Jewish businesses, supporting imprisonment in concentration campsNot all Germans conformed, some grumbled, dissented and few opposed.But from majority = ‘loyal reluctance’ - and from many = positive enthusiasm

Created dynamic for radicalisation = important feature of regime after 1934 Development of radical racial initiatives - pressure for anti-semitic action = above and below

[radical anit-semites who saw regime as opportunity to attack Jews

Caste Study 1: Boycott 1933


Causes:

Attacks driven mainly by SA Jews attacked in synagogues, streets, homes – no attempt from authorities to restrict

violence March 1933: Jewish lawyers/judges attacked and expelled Violence brought condemnation from abroad March 1933: US Jewish groups/Europe boycotted German goods

Response:

Nazi radicals – like Streicher – demanded boycott of Jewish businesses Boycott lasted 1 day – middleclasses didn’t like violence

Outcome:

Boycott – triggered more radical response from the state Unease about street violence = led to laws passed discriminating against Jews SA and Civil Servant aim = to remove Jewish professionals Laws to exclude Jews reflected initiatives taken at local level Frick = framed Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service [ included ‘Aryan

Clause’ preventing Jews from working in civil service] Decree also to prevent Jewish lawyers Racial policy = made ‘on the hoof’ – rather than following plan Jews= some believed attacks would blow over, but others understood process of excluding

Jews from German life By 1933: 40,000 Jews left Germany ; including 20 Nobel Prize winners – Einstein

Case Study 2: Nuremburg Laws 1935

Causes:

Local violence stirred up by Gauleiter (Streicher/Goebbels) ; radicalisation of discrimination in workplace ; followed by ‘working towards the Fuhrer’ by establishment

From 1935: Anti-Jewish propaganda intensified SS keen to implement Nazi programme By 1935: many local Nazis frustrated by lack of progress of Nazi revolution 1935: Attacks against Jews intensified ; anitJewish riots ; attacking Jews on Berlin streets

Response:


Many German’s disliked violence of SA Conservatives in government (like Schacht) argued that violence was denigrating German

image abroad – more legal approach to ‘Jewish Question’ preferable:- Meetings (chaired by Schacht) agreed that government needed to decide a plan on ‘Jewish

Question’- Hitler ended random attacks: but needed to appease radicals - Hitler ordered civil servants to draft legislation to deal with issue of relationships btw Jews

and Aryans- Hitler accepted Law for the Protection of German Blood – that illegalised relationships btw

Jews and Aryans- Hitler also demanded Reich Citizenship Law = deprived Jews of citizenship- Became law at Nuremburg Party Rally

Outcome:

Nuremburg served purpose = ended local attacks on Jews that undermined credibility of government

Radicals = pleased with new discrimination Conservatives = satisfied with end to violence against Jews off the streets – and legislated Olympics 1936: anti-Semitic policy reduced = maintain civil image to world Nuremburg Laws ensured legality of anti-Semitism = turning point in radicalisation of anti-

Semitic policy.

Case Study 3: Kristallnacht, 1938

Origins

Radical initiatives emerged in response Anti-semitic focus at Nuremburg Rally 1935 – Hitler launched attack on threat of ‘Jewish

Bolshevism’ [April 1937: Hitler told Kreisleiters to move carefully on Jewish policy]- 1937: Schacht’s resignation = removal on restraining influence on radical anti-Semtism

Schacht had feared that open anti-Semitism would lead to international disapproval that might affect tradeGoring’s growing influence in economics resulted in several anti-Jewish decrees [1937: Goring issued decree limiting ability of Jewish businesses to buy raw materials] = part of long term strategy to Aryanise Jewish businesses

- 1938: Anschluss: incorporation of Nazi Austrians sparked violence against Jews : Jewish property seized, 40,000 homes stolen – other Nazis eager to copy

- Ministries and agencies competed with each other to radicalise initiatives that would isolate Jews (work towards the Fuhrer): 1938: decree to stop Jews from treating Aryan patients passed – suggested by Reich Doctors leader

- Deputy Hess suggested law: all male Jews adopt the name ‘Israel’ and female Jews ‘Sarah’ – passports stamped with letter ‘J’


- Heydrich – leader of SD – most anti-Semitic radical – SS and SD increasingly acted outside the law Focussed on removing Jews from economy and encouraging emigration [radical Eichmann set up Central Office of Austrian Jewry = encourage emigration]1938: Hitler/Nazis envisaged solution to Jewish Question = emigration [but restricted by necessities of diplomacy]

- 1938: Goebbels’ influence restricted by Hitlers relationship with film maker and success of Nazis in interpreting Fuhrers will [ie Himmler/Goring] – also uncertain of position with Hitler after disclosure of Goebbels’ affair

- Goebbels used position as Gauleiter of Berlin to agitate Jews = win Hitler’s approvalJune 1938: Berlin Jewish shops attacked so badly – Hitler feared international backlash and ordered its restraining

- Momentum for radicalisation of anti-Semitism = provoked anti-Semitic policy and nationwide pogrom.

Kristallnacht trigger = assassination of German ambassador by Polish Jew Press suggested nationwide Jewish conspiracy = outbursts of anti-Semitic violence

Response:

Ambassadors death = Goebbels had reason to seize radical agenda Goebbels gave go ahead for radicalisation of persecution of Jews Kristallnacht = violence against Jews widespread/extreme: 100s of Jews murdered, thousands of synagogues destroyed, 30,000 Jews arrested and

taken to concentration camps SS/SA involved with Kristallnacht – but Himmler/Heydrich unaware till it started Goring angry – Goebbels had not considered effect on economy = important initiatives could be started from anywhere – but needed approval of Fuhrer

Outcome:

Despite Goebbels provoking pogrom – Goring instructed by Hitler to coordinate next stage November 1938: meeting [Goring, Heydrich, Goebbels...] held to discuss further measures

against Jews: Jewish community pay: 1000m mark fine (Goebbels idea] and excluded Jews from economic

life 1939: Goring set up Office for Jewish Emigration + Reich Association for Jews in Germany –

Heydrich = Head Kristallnacht = altered focus of Jewish affairs from removing Jews from economic life – to

removing Jews altogether [SS had control of process]


Case Study 4: Bouhler and Aktion T4 - 1939

Origins:

Father of severely disabled child petitioned the Fuhrer to allow his son to be killed

Response:

Hitler passed a policy of child ‘euthanasia’ under direction of Bouhler (chief of chancellery) Killed mentally/physically handicapped children – medical authorities informed govt of

disabled children

Outcome:

Aktion T4 initiative happened outside of government – but had Fuhrers approval Death of up to 90,000 children

There was no blueprint/plan for racial policy – but clearly defined ideology Nazis tried to gain Fuhrers approval = initiating more radical policy -[Hitlers deep anti-

Semitism = lay at heart of weltangshauung]

Controversy - Unit 8 -How Effectively Did the Nazi State Operate

Documents

Transcript of Controversy - Unit 8 -How Effectively Did the Nazi State Operate