The Nazi era, a dark epoch in German history, was marked by Adolf Hitler's despotic rule from 1933 to 1945. The magnitude of the regime's ruthlessness often raises the question of why there was not more domestic resistance against such a totalitarian force. This essay will explore the extent to which domestic resistance to the Nazis up to 1939 was limited and unsuccessful. Although there was some opposition to Nazi rule within Germany, the nature and effectiveness of this resistance have been matters of extensive historical debate. Through the perspectives of various historians, we will assess the argument that the resistance was indeed limited and largely ineffective, whilst also considering counter-arguments suggesting that the resistance was more widespread and impactful than generally believed.
The limited resistance to Nazi rule can largely be attributed to the consolidation of power by the Nazi regime, the extensive propaganda machinery, and the pervasive terror state. Notable historian Ian Kershaw argues that there was a 'consensus of acquiescence' among the German public, facilitated by the combination of propaganda, repression, and the economic prosperity brought about by the Nazi regime in the mid-1930s. Indeed, the Nazis effectively employed the Gestapo and the SS, among other instruments of state power, to suppress dissent and engender a climate of fear, thereby limiting the extent of the resistance. For instance, the infamous 'Night of the Long Knives' in 1934 saw the murder of key figures in the SA and other potential rivals, demonstrating the regime's ruthlessness. Moreover, a lack of unity among the opposition groups further hampered the effectiveness of the resistance. The Nazis outlawed political parties and trade unions, leading to the fragmentation of any potential unified opposition. Historian Detlev Peukert suggests that the resistance was limited to small, isolated pockets, with working-class opposition in the form of the Red Orchestra and White Rose group, and conservative opposition from individuals like Carl Goerdeler and the Kreisau Circle, failing to coordinate a large-scale opposition.
Contrarily, some historians argue that resistance against the Nazis was more extensive and varied than is often suggested. Peter Hoffmann posits that the broad spectrum of resistance encompassed not just overt political resistance but also nonconformity and dissent in everyday life. This resistance included acts of passive resistance such as non-compliance with Nazi policies, non-participation in Nazi rituals, and listening to foreign radio broadcasts, among others. The Church, too, served as a key source of resistance. While it was largely focused on protecting its own interests, some individual members of the clergy did engage in active opposition. Notably, Martin Niemöller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, prominent Protestant theologians, openly criticized the Nazis and participated in the Confessional Church, an opposition Protestant group. Similarly, the Catholic Church's encyclical 'Mit brennender Sorge' (With Burning Concern) in 1937, condemning Hitler's racial policies and suppression of the Church, could also be considered a form of resistance.
Although domestic resistance to the Nazis existed in various forms, its effectiveness was questionable. As Kershaw points out, most Germans were 'working towards the Führer,' thus marginalising dissenters and making widespread opposition unlikely. Moreover, the Nazis' effective control over communication channels, like the press and radio, and their large-scale propaganda campaigns, meant that the few instances of public opposition, such as the occasional workers' strikes, failed to garner widespread support or effect any substantive change. However, the existence of the resistance, albeit limited, served as a beacon of hope in a dark era, underscoring human resilience in the face of tyranny. It is also essential to consider the severe conditions under which these individuals and groups were operating, making their courage all the more remarkable.
In conclusion, it appears that the statement “Domestic resistance to the Nazis up to 1939 was limited and unsuccessful” is largely accurate, albeit with some notable exceptions. It was the combination of the Nazis' formidable control apparatus, the general public's acquiescence, and the lack of a unified opposition that resulted in the limited and largely ineffective resistance up to 1939. However, it is essential to remember the courage of those who did resist, in whatever form and despite the high personal risk involved. Their actions, while perhaps not changing the course of history, provide important lessons in moral courage and resilience. As such, the study of resistance to the Nazis remains a complex, nuanced, and intensely debated area in historical scholarship.
