It is certainly the case that the Nazi regime had the
appearance of being strong, stable and successful. It projected
this image through its use of propaganda. Nevertheless there
were signs that whilst the regime was never really challenged,
the success and stability of the regime was beginning to slip,
and that ultimately the success of the regime was being called
into question. Under the strain of war it would begin to
crumble. In addition the increasing use of propaganda and
terror to maintain the appearance of stability and success
points to a regime in crisis. Though never seriously
challenged in the period 1933-1939, there were sources of
potential opposition, the church and the army. However, the
successful economic recovery and the dazzling foreign policy
successes enabled the Nazis to maintain popular support until
the coming of the Second World War. (2)
The stability of the regime in the early years was mostly
achieved through enforced conformity but as the regime
tackled the legacy of Weimar this achieved a measure of
popular support. The speed with which Hitler consolidated his
position ensured there was no legal platform on which to voice
dissent. The spread of the effective security apparatus ensured
conformity although, as Source 1 indicates, the fear of being
subjected to detailed checks meant limited opposition but
whilst there was the constant checking up on people it is
questionable how much time this left the Gestapo to deal with
any actual challenges to the regime. (3) Nevertheless the
need for this suggests that not all Germans were enthusiastic
supporters of the regime. (4) The Nazis introduced a series of
public work programmes designed to reduce unemployment
and to project an image of Germany back to work. The
innovativeness of Schacht’s New Plan ensured that economic
recovery was achieved and most people appeared to benefit
from this and as source 4 states people ‘described this period
‘as the one in which things had gone best for Germany’. In
addition to the successful economic recovery Hitler’s
successful foreign policy also maintained popular support. The
tearing up of the hated Treaty of Versailles and the
reoccupation of the Rhineland were greeted with enthusiastic
support from most Germans, and as source 6 claims, this
‘internal rebuilding of the country and the national triumphs all
attributed to (Hitler’s) genius’. (5)
Many people were never to change their view about Hitler and
indeed the success of Goebbel’s Hitler Myth reinforced the
image of Hitler as the saviour of Germany. (6) Even as Hitler
.
began to turn inwards and even as the war came onto the
horizon people would be ‘clamouring for him’. (Source 5)
However source 5 also suggests that increasingly morale was
in decline as war approached and the regime found it
necessary to ‘organise cheering crowds’ this suggests that the
success of the regime was declining as Hitler’s territorial
ambitions brought war closer and with an increase in
restriction on people and fear of what war would bring.
However there was no sudden backlash against Hitler though
there were increased grumblings and criticisms about other
leading Nazis. (7)
Even as early as 1935 all was not as it seemed in the Third
Reich – the image of a strong, stable and successful regime
was already subjected to criticism from within the party as ‘the
Nazi Party’s own members… were very dissatisfied with the
way the party had lost its true spirit’ (Source 2). This suggests
that, although Hitler had achieved strength through his
ruthless purge on the 30 June 1934 with the Night of the long
Knives, this had not eliminated all dissent within the party. (8)
Furthermore the churches had not been subjected to complete
Gleischaltung and maintained a measure of independence and
were, even as early as 1935, ‘circulating anti Nazi writings’
and trying to make followers ‘anti-Nazi’ (source 2). Indeed,
Kershaw infers this as he states ‘there were many grievances
remaining’ and this was certainly a source of potential
instability as people maintained their commitment to their
faith. But given that there was no serious opposition to Hitler
and the regime during the period 1933-1939, he suggests that
the regime maintained its strength and stability even as its
success was being questioned. (9)
The army was another potential source of opposition but not
until 1938 (10) was anything approaching a challenge made.
For all their ‘contemptuous attitude towards the party’, army
officers in the main remained loyal to Hitler as the oath of
loyalty given after Hindenburg’s death to Hitler personally
ensured they would. So, the lack of opposition suggests the
regime remained strong, stable and successful and the general
popularity of Hitler (making him the ‘most popular political
leader of any nation’, as source 6 states) suggests that his
position was certainly secure. (9)
However, the nature of his rule and the state in which he ruled
could be seen to be where stability was questionable. (11) The
manner in which Hitler ruled ensured chaos and confusion by
allowing overlapping responsibilities amongst his subordinates,
ensuring they would fight amongst themselves to prove their
loyalty and efficiency, and the lack of day-to-day involvement
by Hitler led to what has been suggested as the reason for the
radicalisation of domestic policies and the increasing anti-
Semitic persecution – the April 1 boycott and even Crystal
Night were not instigated by Hitler. Hitler’s increasing
withdrawal from government meant that he became ‘angry
and impatient’ and ‘snapping at his adjutants’. He left the
running of the regime to his subordinates having to interpret
his wishes rather than Hitler clearly directing. This hints at
problems that could undermine stability and success and
indeed perhaps also to a rather weak dictator as some
historians, such as Mommsen, have suggested. However, KD
Bracher has pointed out that Hitler was always master in the
Third Reich, suggesting that his regime was strong, stable and
successful and that he deliberately ruled by ‘divide and rule’.
(12)
It is clear that, to a large extent, the Hitler regime was strong,
stable and successful in the period 1933 to 1939. Certainly on
the surface it maintained this image. The absence of any real
challenge to Hitler or his regime points to strength and
success and many in Germany were happy to accept the
‘booming economy’ and the restoration of ‘law and order’ as
‘few were concerned if civil liberties had been destroyed’.
Additionally, whilst there certainly existed grumblings, no real
criticisms or challenges came to the fore until the outbreak of
war. It is therefore possible to accept the existence of some
opposition without denying the essential stability of the
regime, based on its success as well as its methods of
repression. What was perhaps more significant was the hint of
tension as war approached, and the nature of Hitler’s control,
which promoted internal rivalry and extremism, threatening
stability, but not in the immediate situation. Only with the
lack of military success as the war progressed did the strength
and stability of the regime begin to crack. (13)