Hitler’s Volksgemeinschaft
Hitler’s Volksgemeinschaft
The Volksgemeinschaft was the Nazi ideal of a perfect Aryan society.
This new world order was intended to bridge and supercede traditional class and social divisions.
The key question is
Did Nazism create a social revolution?
Historiography provides three main interpretations:
1. Traditional view: Changes in social structure and attitudes were fundamental
2. A (predominantly) Marxist view: that argues that whilst there was a transformation of institutions and social appearances, Nazism essentially reinforced capitalist practises and social class divisions and so society remained unchanged.
3. A middle-ground approach: Nazism did produce a transformation, not immediately, but in terms of the consequences for post-war Germany
Writing in the 1960s, Dahrendorf and Schoenbaum both concluded that the Third Reich had produced a social revolution. They argued that the Nazis modernised society, although this was never the intention. They broke down traditional loyalties and created a classeless society.
David Schoenbaum claims,
“The Third Reich was a double revolution. It was at the same time a revolution of means and ends. The revolution of ends was ideologised-war against bourgeois and industrial society. The revolution of means was its reciprocal.” [i.e the methods of propaganda and policy were revolutionary methods of achieving the revolutionary aims of the ideological war the Nazis were waging]
Kershaw argues that ‘Nazism did not produce a social revolution' during the twelve years of power
There are a number of difficulties with studying how far society was transformed?
• Confusing propaganda with reality. The ideal German was the traditional peasant, working the homeland, but the reality of Nazi Germany was of an industrial economy at war
• If we accept that change occurred, we have the difficulty of deciding whether war or Nazism was the force for change
• Difficulty of identifying long-term and short-term, direct and indirect change
How did the Nazis try to create a National Community?
Creating a Racial State – politically
• Elimination of opposition
o Purge of SA
o Anti-communist sweeps (1936)
o Expansion of the penal code (1935) resulting in what could be termed ‘everyday criminality’
• Gleischaltung
o elimination of unions and creation of Day of German Labour
• Establishment of new national institutions and programs that took people from the cradle to the grave within a National Socialist framework, and covered all aspects of life within a nation
o Boys – Deutsches Jungvolk, Hitler Youth, Reich Labour Service, Army
o Girls –Jung Madel, Bund Deutscher Madel, (BDM) Faith and Beauty, NS Frauenwerk (NSF)
o For both boys and girls, German Students’ League, German Labour Front, NSDAP as institutions, plus Beauty of Labour and Strength Through Joy programs
• Policies that directly altered the lives of various groups within the nation
o Reich Labour Service
o
Creating a Racial State – symbolically
Propaganda:
• Posters
o KDF
• Kulturpolitik – art becoming political rather than aesthetic
o Exhibitions of Degenerate and German art
o Prevalence of Nazi ideology in ‘art’ – paintings of happy, large, Aryan, peasant families
• Creation of myths and heros for this new ‘nation’ – Horst Wessel
• Generation of slogans
o Volksgemeinschaft (community of the people)
o -Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz (common good before individual good)
Ritual:
• Party rallies
• The replacement of traditional German greetings of ‘Good Day’, or, in South Germany, ‘God be with you’ with ‘Heil Hitler’.
• Participation in party oriented public holidays was expected: 24 February to commemorate the founding of the Party in 1925, April 20 Hitler’s birthday, 2nd Sunday in May Mothering Sunday. May Day 1933, the Nuremburg Party Rally 1934; Olympic Games 1936,
• Contributions were expected towards Nazi charities such as the Winter Relief Programme. Families were expected to have one Eintopf (one pot) Sunday lunch per month in winter. The money they would have spent was donated to collectors. Badges were given to each household that contributed, to be displayed on front doors.
Contributions were:
‘voluntary but [they are] an expression of political reliability, they are proof of loyalty to the Fuhrer”
From a statement of the Gau official in Gau Hessen-Nassaux 28 November 1939
Non-participants could expect public exposure in the press or even violence from Nazi mobs.
• The ‘nation of listeners’ to Goebbels’ Volksempfanger (People’s Receiver – radio), reinforced by community listening and radio wardens
You have probably already spotted that propaganda in this area reflected the mantra of Nazi propaganda
1. Simplicity
2. Ubiquity
3. Repetition
How successfully did the Nazis create a Volksgemeinschaft?
The following are SUMMARY ARGUMENTS (level 1). Using the presentations of your peers and your own reading you will need to
a) substantiate these arguments (find evidence to back them up or contradict them
b) add in references to relevant historiographical debate and / or the work of specific historians
You may notice that, if you were answering a question such as ‘how successfully did Nazism create a Volksgemeinschaft?’ all/some of these assertions could be used as paragraph starters. Aren’t you clever for noticing that!?! Wouldn’t it be a good idea to plan such an essay now, whilst all the material is in your head? I think so too. If you wanted to be really diligent, you could go through the past papers you have and plan answers to all questions relating to this topic. Yes, I am an optimist.
Of course, you don’t have to follow this structure, you can split ideas up, merge them and re-organise them as you see fit. This is just a starting point.
The organisations which supported traditional loyalties were destroyed, but this didn’t destroy people’s actual loyalties, only their outward expressions.
This contradiction between outward behaviour and inner opinion undermined the ‘community’ ideal of the volksgemeinschaft and lead, instead, to the ‘atomisation of society’ (Peukert).
Opposition existed, although not necessarily in the form of armed uprising, because formal rebellion was neither easy to organise, nor likely to be effective.
The Nazis did not create a classless community. There remained a significant difference between classes.
There were changes to the roles of different groups within the Volksgemeinschaft but these changes were often changes in appearance only, and were undermined by the practical requirements of war.
War resulted in increasing quantity and decisiveness of dissent from the Nazi vision of the Volksgemeinschaft.
There was a huge gap between the propaganda of the Volksgemeinschaft and the reality of life in Nazi Germany, increasing with the advent of war.
In many cases there was, in reality, widespread continuity with policies under Weimar, rather than a revolutionary new ideology.
Any changes that were made were short-term and ended with the collapse of the Nazi regime in 1945.
The only long-term transformation was in the exclusion of certain groups from the Volksgemeinschaft.
This transformation was made possible by war, although it was obviously predicated on (founded on) Nazi ideology.
Overall conclusion:
Volksgemeinschaft was an ideal not a reality
Continuity with Weimar not total break with tradition
Any real changes undermined by war and vanished in 1945 therefore short-term
Only long-term change negative – destruction of minorities and ‘asocials’
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.