1L - Government and opposition to 1945: Nazism as an ideology and in practice
Nazi government combined ideological goals, competing institutions, propaganda and terror. This lesson explains how it worked, what different forms of opposition could achieve and how war transformed the regime up to 1945.
Ideology sets political priorities
Nazism rejected liberal democracy, Marxism and political equality. It presented the nation as a racial community led by a single authoritative Führer. Its antisemitism falsely portrayed Jews as a threat responsible for contradictory supposed evils, including capitalism and Communism. These claims were racist ideology rather than explanations supported by evidence. They justified exclusion, persecution and ultimately genocide.
The promised Volksgemeinschaft, or people's community, offered unity across class divisions to those the regime classified as belonging. It excluded Jews and other groups defined as racial or social enemies. The regime destroyed independent trade unions and political opposition rather than allowing groups to bargain freely. Its use of “socialism” in the party name did not mean that it implemented Marxist class equality or abolished private business. Property owners could retain their enterprises while serving state priorities.
Extreme nationalism, rearmament and the pursuit of Lebensraum, living space, linked domestic policy to expansion, particularly in eastern Europe. Military conquest was intended to supply land and resources while subordinating or destroying populations regarded as inferior. Ideology therefore shaped concrete choices over citizenship, law, welfare, policing and war. It should not be treated merely as propaganda added to otherwise conventional government.
The Nazi programme preserved among Nuremberg documents provides contemporary evidence of racial citizenship and nationalist aims. Stated promises should be compared with later practice rather than accepted as a transparent description of it.
Hitler and competing institutions
Hitler's authority rested on the Führer principle: subordinates were expected to obey the leader rather than challenge him through independent institutions. Yet the system was not one chain of administration in which every action began with a detailed written order. Existing ministries, the Nazi Party, SS organisations and special agencies had overlapping responsibilities. Access to Hitler and his approval could matter more than a clear statutory boundary.
Hitler set ideological and strategic priorities and intervened decisively on important matters, but often left subordinates to devise policy and compete for influence. Officials could try to anticipate what would advance his aims, proposing increasingly radical measures. Competition could encourage activity and radicalisation while also causing waste, contradictory decisions and delay. Personal dictatorship and administrative disorder were therefore compatible.
Key leaders explain the machinery. Hermann Göring helped establish political policing, commanded the Luftwaffe and later directed the Four Year Plan. Heinrich Himmler developed the SS and became chief of the German police in 1936. Reinhard Heydrich coordinated security and intelligence organisations and played a central role in racial persecution and mass murder. Joseph Goebbels directed propaganda through press, radio, cinema and public spectacle. Martin Bormann controlled party administration and access to Hitler, gaining particular influence during the war. Albert Speer acquired authority over armaments from 1942. Their roles connected coercion, persuasion, resources and personal access, rather than forming isolated biographical stories.
The December 1933 party–state law established Nazi predominance but did not create a neat division between party and state. The law itself and Himmler's 1936 appointment decree show how institutional relationships changed through particular interventions.
Terror and participation
The Terror State made organised opposition exceptionally dangerous. The Gestapo investigated political enemies; the SS developed the concentration-camp system; police and courts punished behaviour defined as threatening the regime. Protective custody allowed imprisonment outside ordinary safeguards. Early camps targeted political opponents, while the system expanded to racial and other persecuted groups. Concentration camps and later killing centres had different functions and histories; not every camp was a purpose-built extermination centre.
The regime's coercive reach depended on more than the number of secret police officers. Denunciations from ordinary people, information from workplaces and cooperation by officials and judges helped identify targets. Personal quarrels could become accusations of political disloyalty. Fear of being reported encouraged self-censorship, so visible conformity did not necessarily establish private agreement.
Terror also did not mean that all support was coerced. Propaganda, economic recovery, nationalist foreign-policy successes and the promise of belonging attracted approval from many people. Participation in Nazi organisations could offer careers, social benefits or a sense of purpose. Other people accommodated the regime pragmatically, avoided politics or maintained reservations while complying publicly. The persecuted experienced systematic danger regardless of whether neighbours supported them privately.
An explanation of Nazi control must combine coercion, consent and accommodation. Terror prevented dissatisfied people from organising freely; approval and cooperation increased the regime's effectiveness. Saying that everyone enthusiastically supported Hitler erases victims and opponents; saying that everyone obeyed only through fear understates participation and ideological commitment.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account