 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .(August 2023) |
Historiographical debates on the subject on Widerstand have often featured intense arguments about the nature, extent and effectiveness of resistance in the Third Reich. In particular, debate has focused around what to define as Widerstand (resistance). [1]
Within both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, the memory of Widerstand was harnessed after 1949 as a way of providing legitimacy to the two rival German states. In East Germany, the focus was unabashedly on celebrating the KPD, which was represented as the only anti-fascist force in Germany; non-Communist resistance was either ignored or slighted. [2] In East Germany, historical work on the subject of Widerstand was highly politicized and portrayed members of the KPD resistance as heroes. The general tone of East German work on the subject was well summarized by the introduction to the 1974 book Die deutsche antifaschistische Widerstandsbewegung, which stated: "The German anti-fascist resistance movement, especially the KPD and the forces allied to it, embodied the progressive line of German policy. The most consistent political force of this movement, the KPD, carried out from the first day of the fascist dictatorship, organized and, centrally directed the struggle against imperialism ... The expression of the victory of the resolute anti-fascists after the smashing of fascism by the Soviet Union, and the other states of the Anti-Hitler coalition, and the defeat of German imperialism is the existence of the GDR in which the legacy of the best of the German people who gave their lives in the anti-fascist struggle was realized". [2]
In West Germany, the first works to appear on the subject, such as the books by Hans Rothfels and Gerhard Ritter, were intended both to rebut the "collective guilt" accusations against the German people by showing the existence of the "other Germany", and to prevent another Dolchstoßlegende from emerging by portraying those involved in Widerstand activities in as heroic light as possible. [3] Under the influence of the Cold War, starting in the late 1940s, and continuing throughout the 1950s, historiographical work on the subject in the Federal Republic came to increasing exclude the KPD, and assigned a minor role to the SPD. In his biography of Goerdeler, Ritter drew a distinction between those Germans working for the defeat of their country, and those Germans working to overthrow the Nazi regime while being loyal to Germany. Thus, in Ritter's view, Goerdeler was a patriot while those involved in the Rote Kapelle were traitors who deserved to be executed. [4] In general, West German historians in the 1950s came to define Widerstand as only including national-conservatives involved in the 20 July plot, and a "monumentalization" and "heroicization" of Widerstand occurred with those being involved being credited as acting from the highest possible ethical and moral motives. In the 1950s, resistance was depicted as middle-class and Christian with the emphasis on the heroic individual standing alone against tyranny. [5]
Starting in the 1960s, a younger generation of West German historians such as Hans Mommsen started to provide a more critical assessment of Widerstand within German elites, and came to decry the "monumentalization" of the 1950s. In two articles published in 1966, Mommsen proved the claim often advanced in the 1950s that the ideas behind "men of 20 July" were the inspiration for the 1949 Basic Law of the Federal Republic was false. [6] Mommsen showed that the ideas of national-conservative opponents of the Nazis had their origins in the anti-Weimar right of the 1920s, that the system the national-conservatives wished to build in place of Nazism was not a democracy, and that national-conservatives wished to see a "Greater Germany" ruling over much of Central and Eastern Europe. [7]
Increasingly, West German historians started in the 1960s and 1970s to examine Widerstand outside of elites, and by focusing on resistance by ordinary people to challenge the popular notion that had been "resistance without the people". [8] An example of the changing trend in historical research was a series of local studies of varying degrees of quality on working-class resistance movements associated with the SPD and the KPD published in the 1970s, which shed much light on these previously little known movements. [9] As the historical genre of Alltagsgeschichte (history of everyday life) started to enjoy increasing popularity as a research topic in the 1970s–80s, historians became more preoccupied with that they considered to be "everyday" resistance by individuals acting outside of any sort of organization". [10]
The so-called "Bavaria Project" of the 1970s, an effort made by the Institute of Contemporary History to comprehensively document "everyday life" in Bavaria during the Third Reich did much to spur research into this area. The first director of the "Bavaria Project", Peter Hüttenberger, defined Widerstand as "every form of rebellion against at least potentially total rule within the context of asymmetrical relations of rule". [11] For Hüttenberger, "symmetrical" rule occurs when there is a "bargain" struck between the different interests of the rulers and ruled which leads more or less to a "balance"; "asymmetrical rule" occurs when there is no "bargain" and the state seeks total Herrschaft (domination) over the ruled. For this reason, Hüttenberger discounted the East German claim that the KPD had been engaging in anti-Nazi resistance during the Weimar Republic. Hüttenberger argued that democracy is a form of "symmetrical" rule, and therefore merely being an opposition party under a democracy does not qualify as resistance. [12]
Seen within this perspective as defined by Hüttenberger, any effort made to resist the claim of total Herrschaft, no matter how minor was a form of Widerstand. Thus, the six volumes which comprised the "Bavaria Project" edited by the project's second director, Martin Broszat depicted actions such as refusal to give the Nazi salute as a type of resistance. Moreover, the emphasis upon resistance in "everyday life" in the "Bavaria Project" portrayed Widerstand not as a total contrast between black and white, but rather in shades of grey, noting that people who often refused to behave as the Nazi regime wanted in one area often conformed in other areas; as an example the Bavarian peasants who did business with Jewish cattle dealers in the 1930s despite the efforts of the Nazi regime to stop these transactions otherwise often expressed approval of the anti-Semitic laws. Rather than defining resistance as a matter of intention, Broszat and his associates came to define Widerstand as a matter of Wirkung (effect) as a means of blocking the Nazi regime's total claim to control all aspects of German life, regardless of whether the intentions were political or not. [13]
Realizing that not every action that blocked the Nazi regime's total claims should be considered a form of Widerstand, Broszat devised the controversial concept of Resistenz (immunity). By Resistenz, Broszat meant the ability of certain sections of German society, such as the Wehrmacht, the Roman Catholic Church and the bureaucracy, to enjoy immunity from the Nazis' claims to total power and to continue functioning according to their traditions and practices without seeking to fundamentally challenge the Nazi regime. Broszat's concept was used to advance the notion that, at least at the local level, there was much continuity in Germany between the Weimar and Nazi eras. [14]
The Resistenz concept was often criticized by other historians for seeking to change the focus from "behavior" and intentions towards the Nazi regime towards the "effect" on one's actions on the regime. [15] One of Broszat's leading critics, the Swiss historian Walter Hofer commented that in his view: "The concept of Resistenz leads to a levelling down of fundamental resistance against the system on the one hand and actions criticizing more or less accidental, superficial manifestations on the other: the tyrannicide appears on the same plane as the illegal cattle-slaughterer". [16] Moreover, Hofter noted that the things that Broszat labeled Resistenz had no effect within the grander scheme of things on the ability of the Nazi regime to accomplish its objectives within Germany. [16] Another of Broszat's critics, the German historian Klaus-Jürgen Müller argued that the term Widerstand should apply only to those having a "will to overcome the system" and that Broszat's Resistenz concept did too much to muddy the waters between by speaking of societal "immunity" to the regime. [16] A more sympathetic appraisal of the Resistenz concept came from the historians Manfred Messerschmidt and Heinz Boberach who argued that Widerstand should be defined from the viewpoint of the Nazi state, and any activity that was contrary to the regime's wishes, such as listerning to jazz music, should be considered as a form of Widerstand. [17] Hans Mommsen wrote about the Resistenz concept that:
"This raises, of course, the issue of how to distinguish between resistance that intended to overthrow the system, and active Resistenz (though judged from the angle of convictions of the individual, this constitutes an artificial separation). Those who risked their lives to hide Jewish fellow citizens and acquire forged exit permits for them, those who tried to help Russian prisoners-of-war, those who, at their workplaces, fought for the rights of workers and refused to be indoctrinated by the German Labour Front, those who protested against the treatment of the Jewish population or publicly denounced the euthanasia programme, those who refused to obey criminal orders, those who as a powerless protest against Nazi war policies daubed slogans on walls at night-time, those who protected the persecuted and shared their ration cards with them-in a wider sense they all belonged to the resistance". [18]
As part of a critical evaluation of those involved in anti-Nazi work, the German historian Christof Dipper in his 1983 essay "Der Deutsche Widerstand und die Juden" (translated into English as "The German Resistance and the Jews") argued that the majority of the anti-Nazi national-conservatives were anti-Semitic. Dipper wrote that for the majority of the national-conservatives "the bureaucratic, pseudo-legal deprivation of the Jews practiced until 1938 was still considered acceptable". Though Dipper noted no-one in the Widerstand movement supported the Holocaust, he also commented that the national-conservatives did not intend to restore civil rights to the Jews after the overthrow of Hitler. Dipper went on to argue that based on such views held by opponents of the regime that for "a large part of the German people...believed that a "Jewish Question" existed and had to be solved...". [19]
In response to Dipper's charges, the Canadian historian Peter Hoffmann in his 2004 essay "The German Resistance and the Holocaust" sought to disapprove Dipper's thesis. Hoffmann argued that the majority of those involved in the 20 July putsch attempt were motivated in large part to moral objections to the Shoah. [20] In particular, Hoffmann used the example of Claus von Stauffenberg's moral outrage to witnessing the massacre of Russian Jews in 1942, and of Carl Friedrich Goerdeler's advice in 1938–39 to his contact with British intelligence, the industrialist A.P. Young that the British government should take a tough line with the Nazi regime in regards to its anti-Semitism. [21] The Israeli historian Danny Orbach in his 2010 book Valkyrie: Hahitnagdut Hagermanit Lehitler defended the German resistance fighters, particularly Goerdeler, against the charge that they were anti-Semitic by noting Goerdeler's strong support for Zionism, the importance of the Holocaust in the motives of the National-Conservative resistance, as well as attempts of other German resistance fighters to save persecuted Jews. [22] In a recent article, Orbach also argued that Dipper's accusations of antisemitism are based on a misreading, if not distortion, of the primary sources, above all Goerdeler's memoranda on the Jewish Question. [23]
Another viewpoint advanced in the debate was that of Mommsen, who cautioned against the use of overtly rigid terminology, and spoke of a wide type of "resistance practice" (Widerstandspraxis), by which he meant that there were different types and forms of resistance, and that resistance should be considered a "process", in which individuals came to increasingly reject the Nazi system in its entirety. [24] As an example of resistance as a "process", Mommsen used the example of Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, who initially supported the Nazis, became increasing disillusioned over Nazi economic policies while serving as Price Commissioner in the mid-1930s, and by the late 1930s was committed to Hitler's overthrow. [24] Mommsen described national-conservative resistance as "a resistance of servants of the state", who, over time, came to gradually abandon their former support of the regime, and instead steadily came to accept that the only way of bringing about fundamental change was to seek the regime's destruction. [25] In regards to the idea of "resistance as a process", several historians have worked out typologies. The German historian Detlev Peukert created a typology running from "nonconformity" (mostly done in private and not including total rejection of the Nazi system), "refusal of co-operation" (Verweigerung), "protest", and finally, "resistance" (those committed to the overthrow of the regime). [26] The Austrian historian Gerhard Botz argued for a typology starting with "deviant behavior" (minor acts of non-conformity), "social protest", and "political resistance". [26]
The British historian Sir Ian Kershaw has argued that there are two approaches to the Widerstand question, one of which he calls the fundamentalist (dealing with those committed to overthrowing the Nazi regime) and the societal (dealing with forms of dissent in "everyday life"). In Kershaw's viewpoint, the Resistenz concept works well in an Alltagsgeschichte approach, but works less well in the field of high politics, and moreover by focusing only on the "effect" of one's actions, fails to consider the crucial element of the "intention" behind one's actions. [27] Kershaw has argued that the term Widerstand should be used only for those working for the total overthrow of the Nazi system, and those engaging in behavior which was counter to the regime's wishes without seeking to overthrow the regime should be included under the terms opposition and dissent, depending upon their motives and actions. [28] Kershaw has used the Edelweiss Pirates as an example of whose behavior initially fell under dissent, and who advanced from there to opposition and finally to resistance. [29] Similarly, the American historian Claudia Koonz in her 1992 article "Ethical Dilemmas and Nazi Eugenics", argued that those who protested against the Action T4 program, usually for religious reasons while remaining silent about the Holocaust cannot be considered as part of any resistance to the Nazis, and these protests can only be considered as a form of dissent. [30] In Kershaw's opinion, there were three bands ranging from dissent to opposition to resistance. In Kershaw's view, there was much dissent and opposition within German society, but outside of the working-class, very little resistance. [31] Though Kershaw has argued that the Resistenz concept has much merit, overall he concluded that the Nazi regime had a broad basis of support and consensus, and it is correct to speak of "resistance without the people". [32]
The 20 July plot was a failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, the chancellor and leader of National Socialist Germany, and subsequently to overthrow the National Socialist regime on 20 July 1944. The plotters were part of the German resistance, mainly composed of Wehrmacht officers. The leader of the conspiracy, Claus von Stauffenberg, planned to kill Hitler by detonating an explosive hidden in a briefcase. However, due to the location of the bomb at the time of detonation, the blast only dealt Hitler minor injuries. The planners' subsequent coup attempt also failed and resulted in a purge of the Wehrmacht.
Friedrich Adam von Trott zu Solz was a German lawyer and diplomat who was involved in the conservative resistance to Nazism. A declared opponent of the Nazi regime from the beginning, he actively participated in the Kreisau Circle of Helmuth James Graf von Moltke and Peter Yorck von Wartenburg. Together with Claus von Stauffenberg and Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg, he conspired in the 20 July plot and was supposed to have been appointed Secretary of State in the Foreign Office and lead negotiator with the Western Allies if the plot had succeeded.
Carl Friedrich Goerdeler was a German conservative politician, monarchist, executive, economist, civil servant and opponent of the Nazi regime. He opposed some anti-Jewish policies while he held office and was opposed to the Holocaust.
Sir Ian Kershaw is an English historian whose work has chiefly focused on the social history of 20th-century Germany. He is regarded by many as one of the world's foremost experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, and is particularly noted for his biographies of Hitler.
The Historikerstreit was a dispute in the late 1980s in West Germany between conservative and left-of-center academics and other intellectuals about how to incorporate Nazi Germany and the Holocaust into German historiography, and more generally into the German people's view of themselves. The dispute was initiated with the Bitburg controversy, which related to a commemorative service at a German military cemetery where members of the Waffen-SS were buried. The service was attended by President of the United States Ronald Reagan, who had been invited by the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The Bitburg ceremony was widely interpreted in Germany as the beginning of the "normalization" of the nation's Nazi past, and inspired a slew of criticisms and defenses that made up the initiating arguments of the Historikerstreit. The dispute quickly outgrew the initial context of the Bitburg controversy, however, and became a series of broader historiographic, political, and critical debates about how the episode of the Holocaust should be understood in Germany's history and identity.
Gerhard Georg Bernhard Ritter was a German historian who served as a professor of history at the University of Freiburg from 1925 to 1956. He studied under Professor Hermann Oncken. A Lutheran, he first became well known for his 1925 biography of Martin Luther and hagiographic portrayal of Prussia. A member of the German People's Party during the Weimar Republic, he was a lifelong monarchist and remained sympathetic to the political system of the defunct German Empire.
Hans Mommsen was a German historian, known for his studies in German social history, for his functionalist interpretation of the Third Reich, and especially for arguing that Adolf Hitler was a weak dictator. Descended from Nobel Prize-winning historian Theodor Mommsen, he was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
The functionalism–intentionalism debate is a historiographical debate about the reasons for the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. It essentially centres on two questions:
Martin Broszat was a German historian specializing in modern German social history. As director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich from 1972 until his death, he became known as one of the world's most eminent scholars of Nazi Germany.
Ernst Nolte was a German historian and philosopher. Nolte's major interest was the comparative studies of fascism and communism. Originally trained in philosophy, he was professor emeritus of modern history at the Free University of Berlin, where he taught from 1973 until his 1991 retirement. He was previously a professor at the University of Marburg from 1965 to 1973. He was best known for his seminal work Fascism in Its Epoch, which received widespread acclaim when it was published in 1963. Nolte was a prominent conservative academic from the early 1960s and was involved in many controversies related to the interpretation of the history of fascism and communism, including the Historikerstreit in the late 1980s. In later years, Nolte focused on Islamism and "Islamic fascism".
Saul Friedländer is a Czech-Jewish-born historian and a professor emeritus of history at UCLA.
Detlev Julio K. Peukert was a German historian, noted for his studies of the relationship between what he called the "spirit of science" and the Holocaust and in social history and the Weimar Republic. Peukert taught modern history at the University of Essen and served as director of the Research Institute for the History of the Nazi Period. Peukert was a member of the German Communist Party until 1978, when he joined the Social Democratic Party of Germany. A politically engaged historian, Peukert was known for his unconventional take on modern German history, and in an obituary, the British historian Richard Bessel wrote that it was a major loss that Peukert had died at the age of 39 as a result of AIDS.
Many individuals and groups in Germany that were opposed to the Nazi regime engaged in resistance, including assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler or by overthrowing his regime.
Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust is a 1996 book by American writer Daniel Goldhagen, in which he argues that the vast majority of ordinary Germans were "willing executioners" in the Holocaust because of a unique and virulent "eliminationist antisemitism" in German political culture which had developed in the preceding centuries. Goldhagen argues that eliminationist antisemitism was the cornerstone of German national identity, was unique to Germany, and because of it ordinary German conscripts killed Jews willingly. Goldhagen asserts that this mentality grew out of medieval attitudes rooted in religion and was later secularized.
Hans Christian Gerlach is professor of Modern History at the University of Bern. Gerlach is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Genocide Research and author of multiple books dealing with the Hunger Plan, the Holocaust, and genocide.
Popes Pius XI (1922–1939) and Pius XII (1939–1958) led the Catholic Church during the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. Around a third of Germans were Catholic in the 1930s, most of them lived in Southern Germany; Protestants dominated the north. The Catholic Church in Germany opposed the Nazi Party, and in the 1933 elections, the proportion of Catholics who voted for the Nazi Party was lower than the national average. Nevertheless, the Catholic-aligned Centre Party voted for the Enabling Act of 1933, which gave Adolf Hitler additional domestic powers to suppress political opponents as Chancellor of Germany. President Paul Von Hindenburg continued to serve as Commander and Chief and he also continued to be responsible for the negotiation of international treaties until his death on 2 August 1934.
Fascism in Its Epoch, also known in English as The Three Faces of Fascism, is a 1963 book by historian and philosopher Ernst Nolte. It is widely regarded as his magnum opus and a seminal work on the history of fascism.
At the outbreak of World War II, the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) had some 1700 members in Nazi Germany, divided into three provinces: Eastern, Lower and Upper Germany. Nazi leaders had some admiration for the discipline of the Jesuit order, but opposed its principles. Of the 152 Jesuits murdered by the Nazis across Europe, 27 died in captivity or its results, and 43 in the concentration camps.
The historiography of Adolf Hitler deals with the academic studies of Adolf Hitler from the 1930s to the present. In 1998, a German editor said there were 120,000 studies of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Since then many more have appeared, with many of them decisively shaping the historiography regarding Hitler.
During a speech at the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, Adolf Hitler threatened "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" in the event of war:
If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
