Consensus of the People in Nazi Germany

2253 Words Mar 17th, 2012 10 Pages
The vital element in maintaining Hitler’s regime remains one of the most controversial arguments amongst historians. There are many considerable factors. Historians such as Jaques Delarue and Hans Rothfels argue that terror was the main component to sustain control, whilst David Crew and Dick Geary believe it was propaganda that made it possible. However, there are other factors that are supported, for instance, contextual condition was backed by Ralph Flenly and Hans Rothfels and the people’s consent, as A.J.P. Taylor proposes, was the imperative constituent. Most historians have the same problem evaluating as they have different definitions for people’s consent. “Silent opposition” is the term used for the people who passively opposed. …show more content…
They also assassinated a Gestapo officer at Cologne in 1944. This behaviour demonstrated that although young people were forced to support Hitler, not all were convinced by the Propaganda. In spite of this, the Edelweiss pirates were only a small minority group.

Another one of Flenly's main point is that the effects of the First World War had left a vacuum in the German politics, one which required a strong leading figure. The emotional appeal of the Nazis was very strong, the Nazi ideology fitted with the traditional values like the role of men and women and family values. Only a small group of people would deny these ideas. The Nazis offered exactly what the people wanted and they extended conventional ideals and gave the people a leader which they longed for. Their “long tradition of obedience to authority and the retarded development of political and civil freedom” was a sign that was also spotted by William Shirer as he claimed “Acceptance of autocracy, of blind obedience to the petty tyrants who ruled as princes, became ingrained in the German mind.”[6] hence the immense support shown in the election results, in November election 1933, they gained 92.9% of the overall votes. This was “an achievement which cannot be credited solely to terrorism, still less to fraud.[7]” Flenly’s interpretation also points out that the people gave their approval
Open Document