Why was there so little resistance to Nazi rule in Germany 1933-39?
In identifying causes for the lack of resistance to the Nazi party after it came to power it is necessary to consider what forms such resistance could take, and as such explain what limitations there were to the possible sources of this resistance. When examining resistance in the Nazi state, it is useful to focus on the overt acts of dissent which were most noticeably absent- such as organised conspiracies to topple the regime or activities such as strikes. Whilst it should be recognised that everyday concerns and grumbles could be seen as resistance to the Nazi party or its policies, they do not present a challenge1 to Nazi rule and thus only active resistance will be considered here.
When examining the reasons for a lack of organised resistance post-1933 there are essentially three elements that can be considered: the weaknesses of the initial base for opposition; the measures taken by the Party to neutralise potential sources of opposition; and general enthusiasm for the Nazis.
Obviously for there to be resistance to Nazi rule there had to be groups that held alternative views. Before the Nazis came to power the groups most resistant to Nazi ideology were Catholics and the working class due to the strength of their own ideological beliefs. Thus with other sections of society largely supportive of Hitler’s coming to power, it is amongst these groups that you would expect organised, well-defined resistance to emerge. However, each group was restricted in its capacity to effectively counter the Nazi party.
Resistance from the working class arose mainly from socialist parties. However, these were not able to present a united front, as rivalry between the SPD and KPD was considerable - the KPD seeing the SPD as untrustworthy due to their involvement in the coalition government that has suppressed the spartacist movement; whereas the SPD considered the KPD too extreme or simply pawns of Moscow. Although the KPD had seen an increase in support pre-1933, this was more than counteracted by the decline in SPD votes in this period. Thus the left wing parties were ill prepared compared to the ruthlessly efficient Nazi party. Once trade unions were dismantled in 1933 and replaced with the Nazi-centric DAF - and the upper echelons of the KPD and SPD were either taken into protective custody or fled to exile - the organisational powers of each collapsed. As a result most resistance once the Nazi’s had come to power revolved around keeping the parties alive in some form - the circulation of literature or intelligence-gathering operations - but certainly nothing like a mass movement to overthrow the Nazis- they simply didn’t have the strength.
The Catholic Church, given its international organisation and resultant independence from the state, could be expected to generate a more effective source of resistance. However, the concerns of the church were essentially that it was able to preserve its own structures rather than having a wider concern for German society. Thus they were willing to accept a withdrawal from political activism provided that the Nazis didn’t encroach upon religious concerns. The concordat effectively removes the Catholic Church as a source of organised political resistance, and it can be seen that dissent was only voiced when the Nazis were seen as going too far as regards influence in church- such as the attempted replacement of crucifixes with pictures of Hitler in catholic schools.
As a result it can be seen that the most promising sources of resistance before the Nazis came to power were not able to capitalise on this after 1933. It is however necessary to identify the measures by which the Nazis sought to prevent new bases of opposition from emerging.
The popular image of Nazi rule is of a highly repressive state which used terror as its main tool in suppressing resistance, through an all-powerful police network. Although such an image within Germany would have benefited the Nazis, in reality terrorising the public was not the only approach. More positive methods were taken to try and kindle enthusiasm for Hitler’s rule or at the least to de-politicise the people to the extent that they were no longer concerned.
The influence of terror should be recognised, as despite the low numbers of Gestapo officers, the general public itself became their source of intelligence. With the nazification of all elements of life - at home, at work or at social events - there was always the possibility that whoever you were talking to could be an informer, and thus fear of the Gestapo could explain a reluctance to speak out in dissent. The police state thus gained an aura of omniscience that minimised resistance as would-be dissenters felt it safer to avoid drawing attention to themselves and instead retreated as much as possible from involvement in the Nazi state.
By integrating Nazism into all aspects of life, Hitler hoped that the party would be seen more as a part of life than a distinctly political entity. Thus whilst the absorption of trade unions through the DAF or the replacement of youth movements with the Hitler Youth might be viewed negatively, projects such as KdF - strength through joy - sought to improve the lives of ordinary Germans and as such neutralise their resistance to other Nazi policies. The offers of foreign holidays, the "peoples’ car" and the "peoples’ radio" - all previously luxury items available only to the very rich - were genuinely successful in making the Nazi party more acceptable to those who might otherwise have resisted a purely repressive state in which they perceived themselves as worse off.
Finally, it should be recognised that amongst large sections of society there was enthusiasm for Nazi rule - although sometimes initially motivated by negative support due to disillusionment with the Weimar republic or fear of the influence of left wing political parties - the economic recovery and creation of full employment helped to reinforce Nazi popularity.
In conclusion therefore, it can be seen that the most likely sources of resistance to the Nazis- the political left and the Catholic Church - lacked the organisation required or were more concerned with protecting their own interests to risk direct confrontation with Nazi rule. Furthermore, the establishment of an effective police state and the infiltration of all aspects of life by Nazi ideology, along with attempts to de-politicise the masses, meant that once these sources of resistance had been crushed no new ones would emerge to fill the gaps. Finally, the genuine enthusiasm held by the majority for Hitler meant that resistance to Nazi rule was inevitably restricted in scope in the period 1933-39.
1 In general; eliserh points out that after the Nuremberg laws were passed, which essentially placed the Jewish population in a state of outlawry, there were enough shows of sympathy to Jews that the regime had to introduce severe criminal penalties for such things as offering one's seat on the tube to a Jewish person, etc. It's hard to say exactly how much of that was going on, but it had to have reached a certain level for the central government to have become concerned with it.
Written 03/ii/2002 as part of my A-level studies; I was reminded of this by Kyudosha's recently C!ed writeup in memetic engineering so I dug it out my archives. Apologies for the incredibly long sentences I was clearly fond of back then, and let me know if you find factual errors!