c) Source D is a report by the Gestapo about the efforts of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties towards propaganda. It details the types of propaganda, and how they are spread. It says that propaganda was spread by distributing lots of pamphlets until 1936, but now (1937), it is spread by word of mouth, and from bases in factories or sports clubs. The report says that the Social Democratic Party works by spreading news, on small bits of paper, whereas the Communists used to use many pamphlets, but have now switched to word of mouth. This source suggests that there was a large amount of illegal, underground anti-Nazi activity. This report seems to be an accurate representation of what was actually happening, despite being written in a very critical way of the parties mentioned. For example, it says that their pamphlets are “biased” criticism of the government.
Source E is a diary entry by an American correspondent in Berlin, and describes how the Berliners refused to watch a huge military parade. He says that the German people are “dead against war” because of the way they refused to watch, and those that did, did so in “utter silence”. He said that Hitler was enraged by this. This is a diary entry, so is likely to be what he actually believed, but he was an American, and so he may have wanted to make the German people seem against Hitler because America was at that time following a policy of isolationism, and didn’t want to get involved in any war. However, this is in a diary, so I think that I can assume that this is a fair account of what actually happened.
The lack of support described above could be because of the resistance of the underground parties, but the way that it is described in the source suggests that it is more to do with the German people, and their integrity. Source D does say that the articles in the pamphlets are criticisms of government measures, and so this suggests that any move towards war would have been criticised by the underground opposition. However, the way the lack of support is described in source E, suggests that the Berliners are not cheering out of their own morals, and that they are “unable” to find a word of cheer, not don’t want to. This does not mean that they had not been shown pamphlets and propaganda, but that the American did not know about it. I think that the lack of support in E may be slightly influenced by some resistance propaganda, but the diarist does not mention any type of propaganda. This may be due to the fact that he is a foreigner, so would not be part of the small resistance groups, nor would he ever be shown any propaganda.
Source F is a police report from rural Bavaria, and describes how church attendances have been increasing as the diplomatic situation worsens. It says that the mood is directed against the Party, and that Party’s propaganda is “helpless” against the Church. It says that the more the State restricts the Church, the more people support it. This report seems to be a true account of the events, because I can see no reason why the police would lie in a report. This is from mid-1939.
The lack of support shown here seems to be the defiance of the peasantry who support the priests ahead of the State, despite the propaganda of the Nazis. The police would have known about any underground organisations, so they may have listed any organisation that had been distributing propaganda at church meetings. The fact that they do not, suggests that there was not much involvement by the Communists or Social Democrats, and that they were not using the Church to distribute anti-Nazi propaganda. However, I do not know that the Gestapo and the regular Police were that closely connected, so the police may not have had information about such activities, and just because they do not mention any anti-Nazi propaganda, it does not mean that it was not being distributed. In fact, even if the anti-Nazi propaganda was not Communist or Social Democrat, the church could still have been criticising the Nazis. I think that the lack of support in F was more due to the Church, and the general defiance of the people, than any of the Communist or Social Democrat resistance described in Source D, but the Church could easily have been preaching anti-Nazi propaganda in ways similar to those that the Gestapo identified.
d) Source G suggests that the public did approve of Hitler. It shows Hitler with the workers and the owner of an armament factory in the Ruhr. Everyone is smiling, and many are saluting Hitler. There seem to be several different types of people; there are workers, the owner, and then Hitler and some SS men. Hitler and his men are wearing long trench coats, and seem to be watching everyone. Hitler himself is smiling, and saluting.
This was taken in an armament factory in 1936, just after Hitler began to remilitarise the Rhineland, and rearm Germany. This would make him very popular with the type of people featured in the photo: the workers and owner of an armament factory. This is because his policies would have given work to all the workers, and would be making the owner very rich. Therefore, what you see in the photograph is what you would expect from the time, and the people present. This makes the source more reliable because we know that it was typical. However, we do not know that this is genuine, it may have been set up by the Nazis to be used as propaganda, or the smiles and salutes could be because the people felt intimidated. In the photograph, we can see one scary looking man, in a trench coat, and another out of site behind Hitler. These would have been his bodyguards from the SS, but they may have actively, or just by their presence intimidated the people present into showing their support for Hitler. As it happens, I do not think that this is very likely because I know that their feeling that they are showing are typical to that type of person. Another problem with the source is that it only shows a very small proportion of the population, and their feelings are not necessarily representative of the whole of Germany.
Source H shows an anonymous businessman handing Hitler a handful of banknotes from behind him. The caption says “Millions stand behind me”, suggesting that millions of marks, not millions of people are standing behind Hitler, and keeping him in power. Hitler has his hand up as if in a salute, but it is there to receive the money. This is ridiculing Hitler’s salute. Another thing to note is that Hitler is very small compared to the businessman. This could be suggesting that Hitler is a puppet for the businesses, and also literally makes Hitler seem small, which is what the Communists would have wanted. The fact that this was distributed by Communists agents in the 1930’s shows that this is undoubtedly a piece of propaganda, although I could have worked that out without that information.
This is clearly a very biased view of Hitler, because it is Communist propaganda, but it has some truth behind it. Hitler was supported by big business throughout his campaign for power, because they saw that he could help them out with low taxation, and rearmament. This relationship continued when he came to power in 1933, so it is very likely that Hitler continued to receive money from the owners of factories and businesses. This collage tells us some important things about Hitler’s popularity: it shows that he did not have one hundred percent support, because there were still many underground opposition groups who, it says, distributed this sort of anti-Nazi propaganda. The fact that they Communists were able to distribute this sort of thing with out being caught also shows that Hitler did not have complete support, because if he had, then someone would have turned the Communist agents over to the authorities. Therefore, this source shows that Hitler had the support of businesses, but more importantly, some people did not support him.
Source G is reliable as evidence because I have worked out that it was almost certainly a genuine photograph, and the expressions on the workers faces are probably genuine. However, this only represents a small proportion of society. The armaments workers would have supported Hitler because it was thanks to him that they had their jobs. This is therefore reliable evidence that Hitler had the support of the armament workers, but it is not very useful as evidence about Hitler’s general public approval.
Source H also shows that Hitler had the support of big business, but the main point about it is that it is anti-Nazi propaganda. This means that this proves the existence of an opposition to Hitler, so is very useful in showing that Hitler did not have total support from the public. Therefore, I think that source H is more useful in finding out about Hitler’s public approval, but source G is more reliable as a piece of evidence about Hitler’s approval among the small part of society that is the armaments workers.
e) Source I says that the government enjoyed great popularity because of the ability of the Nazis to self-promote, but source J says that Hitler being a figure of adoration helped because they would never criticise him, only those under him. This meant that Hitler was able to keep support for the government. In some ways, this is an agreement because for Hitler to be raised to this status of hero, he would have had to over promote himself vastly. But it is also a disagreement because source I is saying that the Nazis success was due to their ability to make everyone overestimate their achievements, whether this is Hitler or the reduction of unemployment, but source J is saying that their main reason for the uncritical loyalty of their supporters was Hitler himself, in spite of his government, and “underlings”.
Both sources agree that the Nazis imposed their ideas on people: source I says that the regime “strove” to rigorously impose their ideas, and source J says that their “ideologically reactionary” views changed the place of women in society. However, source I implies that their success was not because of the enforcement of their ideas onto the people, but despite this, while source J says that their ideas on women did much to help the position of women in society, so actually won them support.
From these similarities, the sources differ. Source I says that their support came mostly from the workers, whom they had given jobs, but Source J says that it was the women, whose place in society they had helped, and who supported and worshipped Hitler. Another difference is that source I says, “In 1937 and 1938 the popularity of Hitler and his government…reached its zenith”. This implies that their popularity then began to decline. However, source J says that Hitler remained a figure for adoration until the Third Reich ended in 1944, and mentions no decline in popularity. Source I also says that the “success of their foreign policy” reinforced the popularity, but there is no mention of this in source J.
Therefore, these two sources are similar in some ways, and different in others. One credits the women for supporting the Nazis; the other credits the workers. One says that their support continued unquestioningly until 1945; the other says that the support began to decline after 1938. Both agree that they imposed their ideas onto people, but source J says that this won them popularity, while source I implies that they needed popularity to be able to do this.
f) Source K claims that the Nazi government never succeeded in winning the enthusiastic support of the German people, and says that many people were too frightened to voice their opposition to the Nazis, but still disliked them. He backs this up with the fact that the opposition parties that were forced underground, both resurfaced when the Nazi regime collapsed, and sources D and H both support this view, because both show that there was considerable opposition activity during the thirties, but it was all illegal, and secret. Source D also backs up the claim made by source K that most of the opposition came from the workers because it says that the Communist Party set up bases in factories and sports clubs, and relying on word of mouth to spread their propaganda. This suggests that there was enough support for the Communists for them to be able to trust most people in the factory, and support for the Communists, as source D says, means that they believed the “biased criticisms of the government”, so basically were against the Nazis.
Source K also says that most people did not take part in the very dangerous active resistance, but rather passively opposed the Nazis. The historian says that they “retreated … into sullen apathy and resignation”. This means that they did very little against the Nazis, just did not support them. This idea is supported by source E, which shows describes this passive resistance. He says that people “refused to look on” at the military parade, and that the German people were “dead against war”.
Another sign of passive resistance is described in source F, which says that no matter how hard the Nazis tried to cut the power of the Catholic Church, and to stop people from attending, people continued to go to every religious occasion. The police report states that the “mood” is directed against the party. This seems to be an act of defiance by the people, and shows that many people in the countryside as well as the cities were quietly opposed to the Nazis. Another source that describes the general mood, and feeling towards the Nazis as being negative, is source C, which says that people have lost faith in Hitler, hate Goebbels, and feel very uncertain about the economic future.
However, this is not the whole story. There was a lot of fanatically enthusiastic support from some people, as source B shows. This source is an example of the “messianic belief” in Hitler that source C claims had died out by 1936. The poem was written two years before source C, so it is possible that much of the belief had died out by 1936, but in 1934, the source suggests that there was a great faith in Hitler.
Source A also shows that many people did support the Nazis. This pronouncement by the Catholic Teachers Association thanks Hitler for “breaking through the un-German spirit which prevailed in the revolution of 1918”, and says that the teachers will help to Nazis to build a new Reich. This is clearly a very pro-Nazi statement, and shows that they were (at least to begin with) enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis. However, this statement seems very automatic, and this may be because of their general German ness (i.e. perhaps the I am misinterpreting the tone because it has got changed in the translation), or because they are just quoting from Mien Kamf in order to get in Hitler’s good books. Another problem with this source is that although this source is very pro-Nazi, it was written very early on, when the Nazis had only had power for a very short amount of time. But by 1936, if source C is anything to go by, many teachers had become very critical of the Nazis. This was because of the way that the Nazis interfered with education, and made all teachers swear allegiance to Hitler.
The main claim of source K is that most workers opposed the Nazis, even if the majority didn’t do anything about this. However, there is considerable evidence from sources G and source I that many of the workers would have had a great reason to support the Nazis. Source G shows that some workers did support Hitler, and source I explains that this was because the Nazis benefited many workers by boosting employment, and it is true that unemployment fell by a huge amount under the Nazis. However, much of this decrease in unemployment is to do with another factor that source I identifies. This is the “exceptional ability (of the Nazis) to spotlight” their achievements. In this case, the figures that showed decreases in unemployment were actually because many foreigners had been kicked out and woman had been encouraged to leave their jobs. However, it is true that the Nazis did create more jobs by “large-scale stimulation of production”, and this meant that they won the support of many workers for a short time anyway.
Therefore, sources C, D, E F and H agree with source K in saying that the Nazis never won the enthusiastic support of the people, but sources A, B, G, I, and J do not, each suggesting in different ways that different parts of society did indeed enthusiastically support the Nazis. Source C is closely linked with the sources A and B because although those two sources are very pro-Nazi, source C counters them both. Source A is a pronouncement made by teachers in favour of the Nazis, but source C is how a teacher felt by 1936, very anti-Nazi. Equally, source A is a pronouncement by Catholics, but source F describes how many Catholics were opposed to the Nazis. This suggests that either source A is not very reliable, or that feelings changed a great deal over the few years between source A being written, and the others being written. I think that both reasons are valid because even if the Catholic Teachers Association had been lying a little in their pronouncement, in order to win support from the Nazis, it is unlikely that they would lie that much. I also know that Hitler interfered a lot with education, and this annoyed many teachers, possibly turning them against the Nazis. Source B is a poem of “messianic belief” in Hitler, but source C says that this had died out by 1936. This shows that although the Nazis did once have the enthusiastic support of many people, their feelings changed gradually against the Nazis.
Source I is correct in saying that unemployment did decrease under the Nazis, but this does not mean that all the workers were fanatic Nazis all the way through the regime, and this is shown by the fact that the factories were the main centres for opposition activity (source F). However, the factor that strikes me as the most important in showing that there was passive opposition to the Nazis is the apathy, and everyday defiance that is described in sources E and F. Both of these sources seem to be fairly reliable, but perhaps slightly exaggerated. The American journalist would exaggerate the Nazi opposition because of the isolationist stance that his country had taken on the situation in Europe, and the police may be inclined to overestimate the threat from groups of people to justify punishment and action. They are also very late on, one from ’38, and the other from ’39, so they are not of that much use in deciding if the workers ever enthusiastically supported the Nazis.
Therefore, I think that many workers did enthusiastically support the Nazis at one point, but this soon died out, and people retreated to “sullen apathy” as source K says.