UC Santa Barbara > History Department > Prof. Marcuse > Courses > Hist 133b Homepage > Hist 133b Book Essays Index page > Student essay
 |
"Public Opinion in the Third Reich" Book Essay on:
by Emily Pelling for Prof. Marcuse's lecture course |
|
& Abstract |
and Links |
at amazon |
About Emily Pelling My name is Emily Pelling. I am a third year student, History MA, studying at Edinburgh University. I am currently on a year abroad at UCSB, into my second semester. I have a brief previous knowledge of Nazi Germany; I studied the Third Reich for my A-levels at Godalming College. I chose to study this topic because I wanted to get a better insight into the participation of ordinary citizens in Nazi Germany, and the role of propaganda in shaping public opinion. I also wanted to gain an insight into the impact that public opinion played in shaping the propaganda itself. Abstract (back to top) Marlis Steinert’s book focuses upon the role of public opinion in the Third Reich. She sets out to discredit the theory that Nazi Germany, as a totalitarian state, produced a unified public opinion. In her book she focuses upon three main features, first the independence of German opinion in light of the manipulations of the propaganda machine, second the influences that shaped public opinion against Nazi propaganda, and third the overall impact such public opinions had. Her work is organised chronologically, and thus one is able to gain a thorough insight into the shift in public opinion within specific time periods. Steinert looks at the reciprocal relationship between propaganda and public opinion, and how the two affected upon one another. She uses primary source material to demonstrate how during times of military vulnerability and/or domestic unrest, the manipulation of public opinion by Nazi propaganda was less successful. Her book is systematic, thorough, and helps to demonstrate the role of public opinion in the Third Reich. |
Essay (back to top) Central Questions How significant was the role of public opinion in the Third Reich, and to what extent was German public opinion unified? Introduction The atrocities against humanity carried out in the Third Reich are impossible to ignore. One cannot read about the holocaust without feeling incredulous as to how it was allowed to happen, in particular to what extent ordinary German citizens were aware that it was happening. During the Third Reich, Hitler was able to consolidate his power, establishing himself as Chancellor and President of the Reich, the two titles embodied in one, that of the Fuhrer. The extent to which he was able to do so was heavily influenced by the propaganda machine of the Reich. Headed by Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda tool was significant in shaping the policies of the party into a framework that would appeal and influence the German public accordingly. Historian Ian Kershaw demonstrates the ‘Hitler Myth,’ as evidence of the successful implementation of Nazi propaganda. Kershaw argues that Hitler’s cult following was due to the skillful projection of the Fuhrer through propaganda. The impact of propaganda upon the German citizens is a feature of the Nazi regime I find to be compelling. In this essay I focus on the matter of public opinion in the Third Reich in accordance to the findings of Historian Marlis Steinert. I intend to address to what degree the German public were willing accomplices to the Nazi policies, to what extent propaganda affected public opinion, and the overall significance of public opinion in the Third Reich. In her book, Hitler’s War and the Germans, Marlis Steinert sets out to examine the mood of German people living in the Third Reich. The book is organised systematically, analysing the shift in public opinion in light of the events of World War Two, drawing on evidence taken from security service records, public prosecutors records and propaganda surveys. Throughout the book, Steinert builds upon the thesis that public opinion in the Third Reich often demonstrated discrepancies with Nazi policy. Linked to this Steinert focuses upon three main aspects, firstly the independence of German opinion in light of the manipulations of the propaganda machine, the influences that shaped public opinion against Nazi propaganda, and the overall impact such public opinions had. Steinert’s argument ultimately discredits the premise that totalitarian Nazi Germany produced a unified public opinion. Steinert states that whilst in a democracy public opinion is integral to the political framework, this is not to say that in coercive regimes public opinion cannot be differentiated. One of the main aspects she chooses to focus upon is the use of propaganda in shaping public opinion. Propaganda was a fundamental tool employed by the Nazi party to consolidate and maintain their power. However, Steinert argues that whilst public opinion may have been shaped by the propaganda machine, similarly, propaganda often responded to the mood of the public. Indeed, Steinert goes on to stress the importance for totalitarian leaders to obtain a sense of public opinion in order to retain authority, thus the heavy use of surveillance and the Gestapo in the Third Reich. Steinert’s thesis states that Hitler responded to public opinion on an ad hoc basis, a direct reflection of his disorganised approach to bureaucracy, whilst the propaganda machine that the Nazi party employed as means to govern public opinion was inextricably linked to the reports they received regarding public opinion. ‘It can be thus confirmed,…that “public opinion and propaganda mutually limit and influence each other.”’ (p3). Steinert attempts to interpret this relationship between propaganda and public opinion, addressing the success the Nazi party had in shaping public opinion, and the extent to which German citizen’s rejected Nazi actions. Due to the questionable sources available when trying to analyse the nature of German opinion during this period, Steinert chooses to focus upon a dual concept of ‘mood and attitude.’(5). This concept is significant in understanding the sociological and psychological implications of German citizens’ seeming compliance with a regime that upheld totalitarianism and mass crimes against humanity. Mood and attitude is used as a tool to grasp a comprehension of both the short-term spontaneous responses of German citizens on a daily basis, and the more lasting opinions shaped by ‘character, education and experience.’ (5). One example of the influence of propaganda can be noted in Steinert’s account of German citizen’s participation in the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Though the extent to which German citizens were made aware of the gross crimes against Jews being carried out is debateable, especially in light of the ‘rumour’ methods employed to legitimise much Nazi violence, Steinert advances the claim that few German citizens resisted the deportation of the Jews, and supported the Nazi implementation of the yellow star for Jews. She argues that whilst some individual Germans did attempt to assist close Jewish friends, the majority of German citizens were ignorant of the extent of the persecution, and remained ‘befuddled’ by the propaganda against the Jews. She concludes, ‘mass executions were , for many individuals, ideas beyond rational comprehension.’ (145). Thus, Steinert discredits the argument that German people were willing executioners of Hitler’s crimes against humanity. Instead she attributes the minimal opposition to the Nazi policies in this instance as being a result of a wide proportion of the German public being ignorant of politics and under the spell of the propaganda the Nazis churned out. She concludes, ‘…widespread ignorance, the stupidity and the chronic indifference to politics makes it easy for any active minority to gain power, provided it masters the keyboards of emotions..’ (330). Steinert's book is organised chronologically, thus one is able to gain a comprehensive insight into the shifting sense of public opinion, from the outbreak of war in 1933, to the German defeat and the demise of the Nazi ‘totalitarian’ regime, 1945. It also helps demonstrate clearly another of her thesis’ which rests upon the argument that public opinion became less influenced by propaganda during periods where their own lives were impacted or times of German instability in the war effort. Steinert argues that the German public may have been ‘reluctantly loyal’(50), at the outset of the war. Much of their compliance with the Fuhrer’s decision to take their country into the war was grounded in emotions evoked through the regime’s propaganda efforts. Post war events such as the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles, and the need to reclaim the German former territory such as Danzig were amongst the Nazi party efforts to manipulate public opinion and justify the country’s entrance into the war. Steinert argues that the territorial claims the Germans advanced in the early stages were followed by ‘success reports’ or ‘rumours,’ which were designed to legitimise the actions of the Nazis in the eyes of the German public. One example of such a rumour can be seen in the case of the treatment of the Poles. Steinert argues that ‘the racial struggle in Poland was concealed by endless reports of atrocities against ethnic Germans.’ (56). Thus, in understanding the varied public response to the Nazi regime, Steinert proposes that increasing criticism of the Third Reich leadership ran parallel to the German path to defeat in the war effort. Much of the propaganda which had enticed German citizen support for Hitler was times specific, focused on a reversal of the ‘stab in the back legend’ and the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles following World War One. Thus, when defeat seemed imminent once more, Steinert argues this as influential in the breakdown of Nazi support. ‘For Germans at home doubts also began to creep in more and more.’ (186). Added to the military defeats, public opinion was also influenced by the domestic strains the war rendered upon the home front. Low morale was exaggerated by the sacrifices German citizens had to make to their living standards in a bid to bolster the war effort. For an example, Steinert attributes the rise of public agitation to the rationing system; ‘The impact of the announcement to cut rations surpassed worst expectations,…..Inadequate food supplies thus provoked many Germans to wonder about the future course of war in a way they had not when war was declared….’(157). A large part of Steinert’s argument for the existence of variations in public opinion states that German citizens became more critical of the Nazi regime and less willing recipients of the propaganda when their own immediate lifestyles were affected, for example, their food was rationed. Another example of public criticism of Nazi policy was in the substantial opposition to the Nazi euthanasia programs, and the removal of crucifixes from schools. Both of these actions caused much public agitation. Steinert compares this outward display of public outrage to the notable lack of criticism advanced regarding the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Steinert argues these differences in reactions were most likely due to the lack of contact German citizens had with the Jewish community ordinarily, and thus the lack of impact their removal from Germany was to have upon their life. Steinert’s book makes readers aware of the argument that regardless of totalitarian leadership, public diversity of opinion can exist. Steinert’s work provides insight into the failings of the Nazi propaganda machine, and the existence of opposition in light of this. Thus I would recommend it as a means to understanding why some Nazi policies were more widely accepted by the public than others. The opposition of the German public to the euthanasia program, some German citizen’s support for their Jewish friends, and the rise of the influence of the churches, all suggest the inability for propaganda to completely manipulate public opinion in Nazi Germany. Added to this one can identify the problems of propaganda in consolidating support across age and gender boundaries. Steinert labels the youth as having developed a ‘limited political conscience,’ and the women remaining ‘apolitical’ (331). International relations could not be reshaped through the use of propaganda, despite the efforts of the propaganda machine. Steinert argues that military defeats and World War One legacies of mistrust could not be quashed, and thus international stereotypes remained. ‘No amount of praise, however lavishly heaped on the Italian allies by Goebbels’ opinion makers, could destroy the mistrust stemming from World War One.’ (331). However, in contrast, as Steinert demonstrates, the reciprocal nature of propaganda to public opinion was fundamental in policy making and upholding a totalitarian style of leadership. The Nazi party was able to gauge through public opinion the disapproval of the euthanasia program, something that would have been significant in determining the methods with which they carried out their persecution of the Jews. Having read a review of Steinert’s work by Larry Wilcox in the Journal of American History, I am inclined to agree with him that though this does provide a valuable insight into the role of public opinion, I am curious as to the reliability of the sources used, and the impact such opinions had upon the Fuhrer himself. Steinert does briefly discuss the implications of public opinion upon policy making, though she does not mention the possible outcome had the full extent of public criticism been realised. |
Bibliography and Links (back to top)(links last checked 3/x/07) Reviews
Books and Articles
Websites
|
|
Any student tempted to use this paper for an assignment in another course or school should be aware of the serious consequences for plagiarism. Here is what I write in my syllabi:
|