Opposition And Dissent In The Third Reich

After the Nazi rise to power in 1933, Germany had already been under the habit of having to live with conditions that were generally not considered to be Ð''normal', given the fact that it had endured a world war, collapse of the Weimar Republic, and a devastating economic depression.

As the Nazis were somewhat successful at imposing unreasonable decrees and legislation, apparently without facing much opposition, it is rather tempting to say that considerable dissent may not have been present in the Third Reich. However, through Peukert's work it is clear that dissent was present, albeit in varying degrees of intensity; however, organised opposition failed due to a lack of cohesion among those that disagreed with the regime. This lack of cohesion was brought about by the Nazis attempts at the dissolution of human relations, successfully scaring some away, while forcing others underground, all the time terrorizing the general public as to what their fate would be should they choose to resist.

After the Night of the Long Knives, it was clear that Hitler and the SS were in control. The SS and the Gestapo methods to keep citizens in check were unreasonable and they contributed to a climate of terror in which it was clear that opposition was very dangerous. In Peukert's work, the Gestapo green reports are reproduced in order to showcase real popular opinion without the gloss and element of falsity that characterized the propaganda. He also mentions that a major grievance was that one's private life was subject to examination and scrutiny at any time by the regime. The very fact that these reports existed is evidence of invasion of privacy and of insidious behaviour, which enabled them to get hold of such information for their reports. This characteristic practise of the Gestapo was in fact felt as an infringement on peoples' right to privacy, yet it was clear that a person could not resist, much less stop the Gestapo without dire consequences.

The "Atomization of social relations" is mentioned as the ultimate Nazi effort to make a communal attempt at resistance impossible. This Ð''atomisation' occurred as a result of people becoming so cautious of what their behaviour and conversations, that they felt they could not even trust their neighbour. This condition made individual resistance unlikely and communal resistance even less likely. Therefore, by making individuals feel that they were under surveillance twenty-four hours a day, constantly invading their privacy, and straining their interactions with other people, the Nazis felt they were closing any possible windows for rebellion.

Fear and terror were a major aspect of explaining passiveness or indifference; Peukert refers to this as the Ð'Ò'Supervision Theory'. There is another facet that works in conjunction with this, which is the Ð''Seduction Theory'. The latter claims that Goebbel's propaganda was Ð''irresistible'. There is no doubt that the Nazis were indeed a sort of propaganda machine that never ceased to work. This gave people something to believe in, and exploited their need for "normalcy". This need was brought about by Ð'Ёdefeat in World War I, economic crisis and inflation. This hunger for things going back to they way they Ð'Ò'used to beÐ'Ò'(so long ago) was taken advantage of in two ways: the FÐ"јhrer Myth, and the broadcasting of their supposed achievements. These two elements were intertwined, the latter greatly helping maintain the validity of the former. This was done by way of success in foreign policy and reports on Germany's economic progress. This offered a sense of security, and can explain the lack of resistance by simply serving as an element of refuge, which rather than being accepted for being true, was accepted because people would more readily believe positive reports than contest them. The weak and vulnerable position people found themselves in, made them a somewhat receptive audience for the Nazis, who exploited this feeling and made sure that Hitler's string of successes was widely known. With Germany making good progress, who could protest about the small inconveniences that they had to endure?

Another reason to support the Nazis, were their domestic policies, namely the economic one. They created work, and, seemingly eradicated unemployment. This was not exactly the case, as a considerable amount of the people who were all of a sudden employed, were in fact working in labour camps performing at menial jobs for very low pay. This, however, was not widely known, and thus the German was pleased that unemployment was slowly becoming less of a problem, and that conditions were so much better than the dire economic situation Germany found itself in before the Nazi rise to power. This meant also that the Nazis had, to some extent, kept their promise of providing work, making many unwilling to oppose a regime that was lifting them out of a dreadful situation. Rather than focus on the negative aspects, especially in the latter stages of the War, people tried to agree that the Nazis had created work, and made Germany strong. Rearmament had also created jobs, but was a double-edged sword because it gave rise to a fear of war, which was the last thing anyone wanted. However evident this was to them, opposition still seemed like a bad idea, something Ð''ungrateful' to do. However, by 1934 many realised that not all promises were being kept. The hope, nonetheless, stayed alive. Popular grievances were about failings in the economy, but then the dismantling of the Versailles Treaty and foreign policy successes was good for the Nazis in the public eye. Thus, it seemed that for every one step forward, the Nazis took two steps back; but their progress was broadcast and inculcated into Germany's collective mind, and their setbacks were covered up. The fact that there was any progress at all made people think twice about opposing the regime.

The last, and perhaps most important feature of the failure of opposition was that any dissent that did occur was divided, and any action that was attempted lacked sufficient cooperation from other parties that were also interested in making a difference. Opposers often wanted different things and wouldn't cooperate. This in turn made any opposition weak and extremely risky, added to the fact that criticism of a political nature was taken far more seriously than normal whining about high food prices.

For instance, the open persecution of the Communists was not opposed because firstly, they had enemies, or simply supporters of other parties, which did not wish them well, and a total annihilation of the Reds would not have been unwelcome.