Use source A and B and your own knowledge to explain why people were persuaded by Nazi propaganda In the elections of the early 1930s.

Carl Handley, History, Mrs Chalmers

GCSE History Coursework

Study C: Germany

Assignment B: Objective 3

1)Sources A & B

Use source A and B and your own knowledge to explain why people were persuaded by Nazi propaganda In the elections of the early 1930s.

The Nazi party were very persuasive; they would use whatever means they could to get what they wanted.

These posters are propaganda for Hitler they both have the aim of enticing the German public to vote for them but they are both different types of propaganda.

Source A is Black propaganda, saying that the Jews and the Social Democrats would both bring communism, this is what the Germans feared the most. The short, fat looking man, a stereotypical Jew, is holding a huge bag of money, is well dressed, and is obviously well fed because of his size this is to give the impression that Jews are money grabbing and selfish. Most of the Germans disliked the Jews anyway but this poster would hopefully, for the Nazi party warn even more people off, as according to the Nazis, would keep all the money for them selves. That is why the Jew is drawn as fat and wealthy.

The tall thin man represents the Social Democratic Party, the Nazis biggest rival. He is dressed like an angel but is holding a club. The club shows the threat of violence, which would warn voters off. The man appears to be kind, gentle and a good leader, like an angel, but underneath he has the threat of violence and therefore is a deceitful, liar too.

The two men, the Jew and the Social Democrat are linking arms, I think this is so that you link all the bad things about each party (man) will be linked together with each other so that the parties appear twice as bad, and therefore would warn even more people off voting for them.

Although the poster is Black propaganda, towards the Nazis rivals, it can be seen as white propaganda, towards the Nazis, because if these people are not going to vote for either of the rival parties then there is only the Nazi party left to consider. This is a clever way to encourage voters, the voters can look at this and see who not to vote for, and therefore think for themselves and who they should vote for, and since there is only the Nazis left to consider, they have won votes with out pasting there name all over the place and boring everyone with the same marketing devices.

In the background there is total darkness except the odd bright Nazi sign, a ray of light. This is what the Nazis wanted to public to see, them as “a ray of light” their only hope, a little white propaganda for the Nazis just to remind the public that they are there, little rays of light.

Source B is White propaganda for the Nazis, this is a different type of propaganda but it is just as effective. They have used the current depression in Germany to back up their campaign. The depression had hit Germany hard and everyone was suffering. Their unemployment level had doubled, so nobody had any money to spend so the shopkeepers had no income and so on. The poster has shown this by drawing all the people in the poster as the general public, any one in the depression was drawn, to emphasise just how bad, miserable and unhappy Germany and her people were.

After highlighting this they have put a caption “Hitler-our last hope” basically saying that Hitler is the only one that can save them.

The two cartoons display a different message on them but they are delivering the same one, that Hitler is their last hope. The first one, source A, does not carry the message “Hitler-our last hope” but it does make you think that. If the people of Germany were not going to vote for The Jews or the social democrats then “Hitler-their last hope”, the same message as on source B.

2) Sources Ca & Cb

Do these sources give similar or different impressions of what Hitler’s actions on the Night of the Long Knives? Explain your answer with reference to the sources.

The night of the long knives was the name given to a mass murder committed by Hitler and the SS. The people that were murderd were people that had stood with Hitler and helped him come to power. Hitler was a very paranoid leader and believed these ministers and other leaders, to be plotting against him and there fore he felt had to dispose of them. Nobody really knows if they were plotting against him but that’s what he thought and Gobbles told the world. One of the leaders that was killed was Rohem, he was the leader of the SA and was planning on uniting with the army, Hitler couldn’t have this because he would have become too strong, and so to stop him he killed him.

I think the sources are totally different from each other and can both be seen as biased.

Source Ca is a statement from Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Goebbels and Hitler were in on it all together and probably wrote it together. Some of the story could be true but in this source only from Hitler and Goebbels point of view, a sick, deceitful and manipulative point of view, this is how the Nazis put their point across. That is why I think this is a biased source and cannot be trusted. Hitler and Goebbels were brilliant at launching propaganda for themselves and the Nazis, so you cannot trust this source to give you the real details of what really happened on the night of the long knives, you will only get what puts the Nazis in the best light, this is what Hitler and Gobbels always did, they turned things round to put things in their favour.

David Low, a British cartoonist, has drawn source Cb. This source can be classed as biased because of the two different governments at that time, the British were in a democratic government at that time, the Germans were in a fascist government. These two governments had totally different views, laws and believed in different things, so each country would send out black propaganda for the other country.

There are some true points that match in the two, Hitler is present, although Goebbels makes it sound as if Hitler single handedly marched in and saved the world from such ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are some true points that match in the two, Hitler is present, although Goebbels makes it sound as if Hitler single handedly marched in and saved the world from such vile scenes, another example of what the Nazis did to turn the propaganda in there favour, it does appear that he was present. There are also things that don’t match up, Ca says that the SA deserved to de treated like they were, Nazi propaganda, were as Cb is saying they didn’t, difference in the two governments views, there is one thing that becomes apparent, Hitler disposed of people when he didn’t need them any longer.

Source Ca and Cb also express the same opinion of Goebbels too, that he hides behind the big powerful Hitler. In Ca he says how Hitler confronted the conspirators him self and with great courage and arrested them himself, what you wouldn’t read is that Goebbels wasn’t even there, he was still in Berlin. So he would have had to hear the story from someone else, like Hitler, or a soldier that wouldn’t say a word against Hitler, so the story could easily be made up to make Hitler. In source Cb he is hiding behind Hitler in a sort of scared, frightened pose which I also think is like an “ohh good shot Hitler, go on do it again” pose. They are similar because they both show violence but different because Ca seeks to justify there actions where as the other, Cb, does not.

From the info from each source you can get a good picture of Goebbels, I think that he is right behind Hitler, and will do anything that Hitler tells him. He wasn’t even at the Night of the Long Knives and yet he still tells it as though he was right there watching this great show of bravery from Hitler, and then there’s the cartoon which backs up this opinion of mine. Both sources show indicate the violence, in Ca there is lots of weapons shown and blood all over the floor, but just how and why is changed to the type of propaganda that the publisher wants to give out.

Both sources could be seen a biased because Cb is from a free democratic view, and a anti-Nazi country, the USA. Ca on the other hand is Nazi propaganda and there fore is very lightly to be biased.

3) Source D

What message do you think the Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment was trying to give to the German people by publishing this photograph? Refer to the photograph and your own knowledge of the period to explain your answer.

I think that there is more than one message behind this photograph. This parade was put on just 6 months after Germany had re-occupied the Rhineland, so it is probably a parade honouring the army that took back the Rhineland. The message behind that’s is not only that Germany had taken back the Rhineland but also to tell the world that they had ripped up the treaty of Versailles and that Germany were once again a major power in the world.

Hitler often used these rallies as propaganda for the Nazis and to put messages across. This rally was a celebration, a celebration of the first step of Hitler’s master plan.

Hitler will have planned this rally to let the world know that Germany was back and that no longer would they be dictated to by the French, British and the treaty of Versailles. I think Hitler wanted other powers to fear Germany, by showing off his impressive army he will have made all the other countries realise that one again Germany were a major power. Since Hitler was such an extreme nationalist he will have wanted this more than anything else, Germany to be once again feared and respected.

Not only was Hitler trying to give this message to the world but also the German public, if Hitler didn’t have the German public behind him then he could not start or compete in a war. After the First World war Germany had suffered badly, especially with the treaty of Versailles, so the last thing the Germans would have wanted was another war, but if Hitler could persuade the public that they could win the war, by parading there huge army, then he would have had a good chance of winning the war. The rallie was held at one of 6 Nuremburg rallie stadiums, he often paraded his army to show the world and his public.

Hitler and Goebbels use propaganda very effectively to get what they wanted, in this case they used the rally as propaganda, if they had just put up posters and read out long speeches then people would not have got behind Hitler and his war plans, but he showed the public his huge army, and once they saw it he had them behind him. The rallies were just part of the Nazi propaganda, part of a bigger propaganda, they controlled all of the propaganda that went out in the media, and the rallies were just part of that.

4) Sources E, F and G

How far do sources E and F agree with the message being put over by cartoonists in source G?

Sources E and F do not agree with source G at all, the Nazis would have you shot for drawing a picture like that. I think source E and F backs up source G. The Nazis were the best at censorship which is exactly what they did, if they thought that some one would speak out against them then they would write up a law that that said you could be shot for it. The press were censored so that they could only publish what would agree with the Fuhrers opinion and would promote his views. The best example of the extreme censorship that went on in Germany at this time is the “burning of the books”, Hitler burnt all the books in Germany that were anti-Nazi and then re-wrote them expressing the Nazis point of veiw, they re-wrote history.

These sources, E and F, back up the cartoonist’s point of view 100%. Source E is a statement or ruling from Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s right hand man. Stating how a true Nazi woman should act, how they are ALLOWED to act and what they should provide for their husbands and their country. He is dictating to them, telling them what to do, and how they should do it, and if they didn’t do it then they knew the punishments. This is basically what the cartoonist is saying, that the Nazis told people what to do and if they didn’t do it the Hitler “censored” them, which ever group they happened to be, the church, or even the education system. Source F is similar to source E, it is not a dictation but even worse, a law against freedom of speech, it is saying that the press can only print things which agree with or even promote the Fuhrer. When you compare these two sources with source G you can see where the cartoonist is coming from, ie. a free democratic country

Source G is a cartoon from New York. The cartoon shows Hitler speaking to the nation with his best men behind him. He is standing on a platform. Everything is fine as far as the public are concerned but underneath the platform there are all the groups (represented as people) that Hitler had silenced, the church, the education system, women, the press and the law. So to the people everything is fine but underneath Hitler is changing everything. Maybe the public didn’t notice or maybe they were too frightened but for some reason nobody said a word about these entire goings on.

So the sources don’t agree with each other as E and F are sources from the Nazis but they do back one another up, the Nazis were dictators, the told people what to do and if they didn’t do it then they were suppressed or killed. The Nazis thought up ways of getting what they wanted from the public and rewarded “good behaviour” and severely punished bad. That is how they got what they wanted. A good example is, the Nazis wanted lots of aryan babies, so they rewarded mothers that had lots of babies, the more babies a woman had the better house, car etc she got.

Sources H and I

Which of these two Sources is the most useful in assessing the state of public opinion with regard to the Nazi popularity in the 1930s?

Both sources are useful sources. Source H is a report from the social democratic party, it is saying that the German public is being totally ignorant, and that they must be blind not to see all of the things going on all around them, e.g., Concentration camps, killing anyone that’s stands against them or disagrees with any of there opinions. Maybe the Germans were blind not to see all of the brutality, but I think the reason was that they were simply too afraid to say or do anything. If some one said anything about Hitler or the Nazis, which put them in a bad light or made a joke of them, then with in a few days they would be taken away, even if it was just a joke at Hitler’s expense. Obviously his or her family would notice but they were too afraid to say any thing. This was not the only possibility for nobody saying any thing the other is that they had been brain washed. It sounds like something you would see at the movies but the Nazis were experts at convincing or brainwashing people using propaganda. They could even persuade children to spy on their parents. The report is especially useful because it is a report from another point of view. It would be very hard to find a source going against the Nazis around this time because obviously people would be too scared to speak against the Nazis. The report is saying how the whole of Germany has been brain washed, and must be ignoring the terror going on all around them, so obviously the Nazis were unbelievably popular or the Social democrats wouldn’t have to send out a report to try and make people see what is going on. All thought this source is a biased source it is still very useful. It can be seen as biased because it is from the Social Democratic party, Hitler’s main rivals, even though they had been banned.

Source I is a photo taken at another of Hitler’s propaganda rallies. The people are screaming and shouting for Hitler, idolising him. I think this is a message to the rest of the world, letting them know how popular he is and how he has come to power. It is very useful, just like source H because it actually shows people loving and adoring him, even though he probably hurt one of there friends or family some where along the line, this shows that they must have been brainwashed or be to frightened. This source is a biased source also, it is biased because the Nazis would have taken and released the photo because they had total control over the press, it is a propaganda photo of a propaganda event.

So both sources show or say that the public of Germany did love Hitler but they do disagree on why. I don’t think either of them can be more useful than the other because they are both biased sources and both are saying or showing the same thing.

Sources J & K

Which of these two sources offers the more reliable view of the power of the Nazi propaganda. Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.

These two sources are reliable, strong and not totally biased. Source J is a cartoon from Russia. I think that this source is a reliable source because Russia were using the same type of propaganda around that time to promote Stalin, so they knew exactly what was going on in Germany at that time. The cartoon is saying that Goebbels is creating an image to the rest of Germany that Hitler is this big powerful, tall and strong man, the type of man that the rest of Germany would look up to and respect. This is exactly what Goebbels really was doing but it worked. The public knew what Hitler looked like but that is not what the Nazis were exploiting they were working on the type of man he was, a powerful, good leader, single minded leader, the only man that could save Germany. This source could be biased, The Russians and the Germans never did get on so too speak so the source would be biased against Germany, but it still shows what was really going on.

Source K is also a reliable source, It is a piece of writing from a American journalist, it was write along time after it all happened so there could be a few faults in it due to memory and new points that came to the surface after it all happened. So it is not totally reliable but most of it should be reliable and correct. He lived in Germany while all of the lying a deceit when on, and he was one person that noticed what was really going on, he says how hard it was to live with all the lies and never ending propaganda, and that every one over there was told what to say, do and think. I think that this is the more reliable source. Even though it is possible that things could have slipped his mind, the source seems detailed and reliable. He had access to a lot of different facilities, such as British papers and radio, so he will have heard different sides of the story and there fore could of made up his own mind. He has heard every side of every story and then made up him mind that the Nazis were deceitful and not to be trusted so I would take source J and the most reliable source, referring to the power of the nazi propaganda.

7)i)

I agree with this statement, as the Russians show in source J this was the way that the Nazis worked and it must have worked or they wouldn’t have been so successful. Source K does say that the propaganda was never ending and that it was hard not to be sucked in by it. Source I shows all of Hitler’s fans, he was so big in Germany at that time, he was like a footballer or a pop star would be now, but ten times more popular. The public loved him, they loved him because he was the right guy at the right time, and he saved them from the depression. I don’t really think that Hitler was the right guy at the right time, he was painted by goebbels, to be the right man at the right time, if Germany needed a different type of man then, just like in source J, goebbels would have painted him different. That is why I think Hitler was so popular, he and Goebbels we the masters of propaganda and they simply brainwashed people. I think that source H backs this up perfectly, they don’t understand why, or how the German public are not saying or doing any thing against the ruthlessness of Hitler and how he treats people, but it is obvious from sources J, K and I that the simple reason is that he has brain washed them. Using propaganda Goebbels made him out to be the innocent one. This is shown by the broad cast made by goebbels after “the night of the long knives” he came on the radio and told everyone that Hitler found out that they were plotting against Hitler, so he went over to Munich at once, and when they got there he found disgusting scenes of debauchery, so he arrested them him self. He goes on to say how lucky Germany is to have such a good leader. It came apparent much later that Hitler wasn’t even there that night, that just shows how goebbels twisted things to put Hitler in a good light, that is the type of propaganda that he used and that is why Hitler was so popular and stayed in power. The way that the Nazis came to power was also Goebbels but he used different propaganda, instead of making it out that Hitler was great, he ripped the opposition to bits and made it so that Hitler was the only realistic choice. This is shown by source A, he puts both of his main opposition in the same poster and points out all of the bad points and links them together with each party, making them both twice as bad. The after he has put everyone off voting for them, he shows the public how miserable they all our and says that he is there last hope, and they are already put off the other two after source A so the think “well yes he is our last hope, who else is there”, and that is how goebbels got Hitler to power, so it was all goebbles really, but he needed someone to paint, they were a great team in all.

ii)

This statement is not as well backed up. It could be true but as I have said in explaining i. The source show that goebbles did create Hitler to be the right man, and at that time the country did need a extremist like Hitler was but I think, if they didn’t need a extremist then he could have been made to seem different and then started enforcing his extreme ways later on when the time was right. I think that with a propaganda expert like Goebbels Hitler would have come to power eventually at one time or another and used his master plan to take over countries like he did, so all in all I think that i. Is the better interpretation.

Many people claimed that they had no idea what was really going on in Germany during the Nazi period. Use the sources and your own knowledge of German history to explain why people have disagreed as to whether or not this was true

I personally disagree with the people that claim they had no idea. I think that people chose not to see the people being taken to concentration camps and the racial side to him. Maybe they were too afraid or agreed with what he was doing but one way or another they must have noticed something’s. Although it is a biased source, think that source H is a very useful one, the Social Democrats are seeing all of these things going on all around them, concentration camps, death camps, censorship and the can see all of this, and they cant understand why the German public cant see this. It must be obvious when one day your wife/husband or sister disappears, surly people would notice something like that, and yet the claim not too, I find that very hard too believe. A less obvious example is the censorship that was going on, it was still blatantly obvious, Hitler was dictating everything around Germany, the papers, schools, the legal system, human rights, as it is shown in source G. Surely people would have noticed when all of a sudden the papers stopped printing opinions against anything the Nazis, and that the whole schooling system changed, every book was burnt in the “burning of the books” and now explained history the Nazi way, and that women were no longer allowed to work. They are not the sort of things that you don’t notice, it was so obvious as the social democrats say in source H. And its not as if the Nazis tried to hide it all, it sounds very obvious what they are doing in source F, but still people say they did not notice.

I do see why people chose not to speak out, it must have been terrified, that is why people chose to run away from Germany and leave everything, and it must have been hard no to speak out against the lies in fear so eventually maybe the brainwashing would have worked. Source E is yet another source, from the Nazis dictating to people what they can and cant do, in this case to women, telling them to stay at home and have babies. So going by all of the sources and my own knowledge and opinions I think that somewhere the German public would have noticed what was going on, even after they had been brainwashed the would have come to notice what had gone on, after Hitler and the Nazis had gone.

My conclusion to all of this would be that the clever people were the ones that did badly under a Nazi rule, people that didn’t question the propaganda and the government were the once that got the big houses and cars, it was the people that questioned what was going on that would be taken away during the night and things like that. Like in source E, women are told that if they have lots of children and act properly for their husbands will be rewarded, but the women that thought and questioned it, didn’t do well because they didn’t want children. This government was tailor maid for people that would do as they were told, but the people who liked to have a choice and make up their own minds would struggle.