Questions
The nature of National Socialism in
Germany
Study Sources A to F and then answer the questions which follow.
Source A
From The Roots of National Socialism, 1783-1933, a book by British historian R. Butler, first published in 1942
National Socialism is the inevitable reappearance of Prussian militarism and terror, as seen during the 18th century. The Nazis combined two strands of nationalist thinking: a revival of former imperialism together with a social, economic and spiritual national revolution. They were able to manipulate the emotions of the German people at a time of anxiety and deep resentment towards the Weimar system. Anti-Semitic tendencies can also be traced back to earlier days.
Source: adapted from a summary in David Smith, 'Origins of National Socialism', in Modern History Review (September 1995)
Source B
The view of Sir Lewis Namier, a Polish Jew who settled in Britain and became a historian. This article was published in 1948
To what extent is the average German responsible for the misdeeds of his rulers? ... Attempts to absolve the German people of responsibility even for the Second Reich [the regime of Kaiser Wilhelm II] are unconvincing. And as for Hitler and his Third Reich, these arose from the people, indeed from the lower depths of the people, and the unmeasured adulation of which the Fuhrer became the object was as spontaneous as the man was self-made. Friends of the Germans must ask themselves why individual Germans in non-German surroundings become useful, decent citizens, but in groups, both at home and abroad, are apt to develop tendencies that make them a menace to their fellow-men?
Source: Sir Lewis Namier, 'German Unity and the German Wars', in Avenues of History (Hamish Hamilton, 1952)
Source C
From National Socialism and the German Past, a book by German historian Gerhard Ritter, published in 1955
Nazi propaganda was not a repetition of the deeds of German forefathers, but an unquenchable will for success in the future. Hitler wanted his state to be something completely new, breaking out of the mould of the past. It is an illusion to see Frederick the Great and Kaiser Wilhelm II as forerunners of Hitler. He may have stressed the traditional linkage in public, but in private he was sharply critical of the old archaic institutions associated with hereditary monarchy. He wished himself to be seen not as above the people, but more the people's inspiration, the Volksfuhrer (people's guide).
Source D
The view of another German historian, Karl Dietrich Bracher, writing in 1970
Without Hitler, German history would probably have taken a completely different path; rarely in history has there been such a close interdependence of general and personal factors and the indispensable role of the individual as in the period 1919 and 1945. The National Socialist road to power was never inevitable; this completely destroys the argument of historical continuity.
Sources: C and D are adapted from a summary in David Smith, 'Origins of National Socialism', in Modern History Review (September 1995)
Source E
The view of a British historian and biographer of Hitler, Alan Bullock, writing in 1993
I do not believe that Hitler created the historical circumstances of which he was able to take advantage. Nor was there anything inevitable about his rise. He would not have succeeded had it not been for a stroke of luck - the unexpected chance offered by the economic depression which hit Germany with such force that it allowed him to convert the Nazi vote of 800 000 in the election of 1928 to more than 13 million in 1932. And I do not believe that if Hitler had not seized the opportunity, then someone else would have done, and the result would have been much the same.
Source: Alan Bullock, 'Personality in History: Hitler and Stalin', in Modern History Review (November 1993)
Source F
Information from a British historian, Jeremy Noakes
According to recent research, the [Nazi] party succeeded in winning a significant amount of working class support among blue collar workers engaged in handicrafts and small-scale manufacturing ... in March 1933, 33% of workers entitled to vote supported the Nazis ... between 1928 and 1933 the Nazi party had won over 2 million SPD [socialist] voters ... It is important to emphasise how unstable support for the Nazi party was. As far as membership was concerned, the party was like a revolving door with people joining and leaving all the time. After the November 1932 election, in which the Nazis lost support, there were good grounds for thinking that it might disintegrate. In local elections in Thuringia and Saxony in December 1932, the Nazis lost heavily - in its previous stronghold of Thuringia it was 40% down on its already reduced vote of November. The party's propaganda headquarters summed up the situation by stressing 'it must not come to another election. The results could not be imagined'. What would have happened if Hitler had continued to be denied office will remain one of the big ifs of history, but at the time, the party's prospects appeared bleak.
Source: Jeremy Noakes, 'Who Supported Hitler?', in Modern History Review, April 1995
(a) Make a list of points on which there seems
to be some agreement among the writers.
(b) What differences can you find between these
interpretations of National Socialism?
(c) What do you think are the strengths and
weaknesses of each of these interpretations?
(d) What explanations can you suggest for the differences of interpretation?
