“The Nazi Regime Depended More on its Broad Popularity
than on Terror in the Years 1933-39.”
How Far Do You Agree with this Statement?

Note: One of my duties in the various places where I teach is to show students how to write essays – something most young people are not nowadays taught to do. What I like to do in class is to choose a question at random, discuss possible approaches, and then dictate an answer one paragraph at a time. Some of these answers are very short. Some are just notes. Some amount to small dissertations. In this latter case, the students take turns at looking on-line for the information we decide is needed. It they cannot find it, I show them how to change the structure of what has already been written, or to strike out in a new direction.

It is a “writing masterclass” approach that makes use of my own strengths, and is often a welcome alternative to formal teaching. It fills up a long morning session. Everyone learns something, and the more attentive will improve their final grades by at least one step.

Here is an example of the finished product. Do not take it as a statement of personal opinion. It is an answer produced for a specific question, and it bears in mind what a possibly unknown examiner will appreciate, and what can be written to incorporate the sources found in class. SIG

PS – If anyone wants to engage my services as a teacher of these skills, please click on the image to the left. Though they are my niche subjects, Greek and Latin are not my exclusive focus as a teacher. I do much else besides.

“The Nazi Regime Depended More on its Broad Popularity than on Terror in the Years 1933–39.”
How far do you agree with this statement?

So long as we keep clearly in mind that we are discussing the period before the War, there is much to support the view that the Nazi regime depended more on popularity than on terror. It is easy, with hindsight, to read back into the 1930s the full horrors of what came later. However, before 1939, the regime functioned in a markedly different way. It was certainly capable of brutality, and it did employ repression at key moments. Yet its day-to-day stability rested primarily on consent—often active, sometimes passive—rather than on the continuous application of terror. The contrary evidence cannot be denied, but it can be set in context.

A useful starting point is comparison with the other great tyranny of the period. The Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union was openly and continuously brutal. It killed millions in peacetime through collectivisation, purges, and labour camps. Opposition was not merely suppressed where it existed; it was actively sought out and often fabricated. The regime depended on maintaining a climate of fear. Terror was not incidental—it was structural.

There were clear reasons for this. Russia lacked a strong tradition of civic stability. The regime was attempting a radical transformation of society, and in doing so it generated immense resistance. Stalin himself had comparatively weak revolutionary credentials and faced rivals with stronger claims to legitimacy. Living standards for many fell or stagnated. Under such conditions, terror was not simply useful—it was necessary.

In Germany, none of these conditions applied in quite the same way. The country possessed a long tradition of administrative order and social discipline. The Nazi regime did not seek to destroy all existing institutions, but to capture and redirect them. The civil service, the army, the judiciary, and large parts of the economy continued to function, albeit under new political direction. Once the internal radical challenge had been removed in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, German life appeared, for most people, to continue in a recognisable—and often improved—form.

This moment, the Night of the Long Knives, is crucial. It demonstrated the regime’s capacity for ruthless violence, but it also stabilised the system. The elimination of Röhm and the SA leadership reassured conservative elites, secured the loyalty of the army, and removed the last major internal rival to Hitler. From this point onwards, there was no serious alternative centre of power within Germany. Terror had been used, but it was used decisively and then, for the most part, withdrawn from general application.

Above all, the regime maintained its position because it delivered on its promises. Hitler’s main commitments before 1933 were clear: to end the Great Depression, to restore political stability, and to reverse the humiliations imposed by Versailles. In the eyes of most Germans, he succeeded.

Unemployment, which had reached around six million in 1933, fell dramatically. Within eighteen months, it had dropped to a fraction of that figure. This was achieved through public works, rearmament, and various forms of labour mobilisation. While this recovery depended heavily on state spending and concealed economic weaknesses, it transformed public perception. For ordinary Germans, the contrast with the mass unemployment of the Weimar years was stark and decisive.

At the same time, the regime restored order. The street violence of the late Weimar period disappeared. The Communist Party was eliminated, and after 1934 the SA ceased to be a disruptive force. The state presented itself as the guarantor of stability. For a population exhausted by years of political conflict, this alone was a powerful source of support.

Foreign policy added further to the regime’s popularity. The remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss with Austria, and the acquisition of the Sudetenland were all achieved without war. These actions appeared to reverse the settlement of 1919 and restore Germany’s status as a great power. They were widely celebrated within Germany. Even those who were uneasy about the regime’s internal policies could take pride in these successes.

It is in this context that the regime’s popularity must be understood. The enthusiasm displayed at events such as the Nuremberg rallies and the 1936 Olympic Games was not entirely manufactured. Propaganda certainly shaped and amplified public sentiment, but it did not create it from nothing. Hitler’s personal popularity appears to have been genuine. He travelled widely within Germany, often with relatively modest security, and was greeted by large crowds. People came to see him, to cheer him, and even to touch him. It is difficult to imagine such scenes being sustained purely by coercion.

Given this level of support, there was no need for constant, visible terror. As Robert Gellately has observed, most Germans had no direct confrontation with the Gestapo. The regime’s worst actions were often hidden or only partially known. The police state existed, but it did not intrude into the daily lives of most citizens in an obvious way.

E.A. Johnson sharpens this point by arguing that the police state was often perceived as legitimate. Many Germans saw the regime as defending law and order and protecting their interests. If one belonged to a targeted group—Jews, Communists, or those considered socially deviant—life became increasingly dangerous. But most Germans did not belong to these groups, and many were at least vaguely supportive of measures taken against them. The repression of “outsiders” reinforced the sense that the regime was acting on behalf of the majority.

The selective nature of repression is important. The Nazi regime did not apply terror indiscriminately. It targeted specific groups and individuals, while allowing a considerable degree of latitude in other areas. Mild criticism, private grumbling, and limited non-conformity were often tolerated. Cultural figures such as Richard Strauss or Wilhelm Furtwängler, who did not always conform to Nazi expectations, were allowed a degree of independence because of their prestige. This would have been inconceivable in a system based on total terror.

There were, however, clear limits to this tolerance. When the regime perceived a genuine threat, it responded with severity. The crushing of dissent within the army in 1938, for example, showed that opposition from within key institutions would not be tolerated. Similarly, the earlier suppression of political parties and trade unions had eliminated organised opposition. Terror was therefore present, but it was used strategically rather than universally.

This brings us to the argument of historians such as Richard Evans, who emphasise the extent of surveillance and repression. Evans argues that the apparent normality of life in the 1930s concealed a much wider system of control. He points to the role of various organisations in monitoring public behaviour and to the atmosphere of fear that this created. Testimonies from individuals who lived through the period sometimes reinforce this view.

However, such evidence must be treated with care. Much of it is retrospective, shaped by the knowledge of what the regime later became. The experience of those who were persecuted cannot be taken as representative of the population as a whole. Nor can the conditions of the war years be projected back onto the pre-war period. While the regime certainly possessed the capacity for widespread terror, it did not need to employ it continuously in the 1930s.

A further point worth emphasising is that terror is costly. Maintaining a system of constant surveillance, imprisonment, and execution requires resources and administrative effort. It is not an efficient strategy if compliance can be achieved by other means. The Nazi regime, whatever its moral character, was not irrational in this respect. It used terror where necessary, but relied on popularity and conformity where possible.

In conclusion, the Nazi regime in the years 1933–39 depended more on broad popularity than on terror, though both played a role. It achieved genuine support by restoring economic stability, eliminating political disorder, and pursuing successful foreign policies. Terror was used selectively to eliminate opposition and enforce conformity, but it was not the primary basis of control. The more pervasive and indiscriminate forms of repression associated with the regime became fully visible only during the war. In the 1930s, the regime’s strength lay in its ability to secure the active or passive consent of the majority of the German people.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,