How useful are these sources for our understanding of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1939? (32 mark)

There are many aspects which contribute to our understanding of Nazi Germany within the period of 33-39. Within source A we are prevented with a satirical cartoon which grates harshly upon the regime of the third Reich. It presents an unflattering cartoon image of Goebbels, who appears to be ordering members of the SS to attack the Jews, commenting “The Jews are our guests and will be treated accordingly”. This therefore suggests that even from an outsider’s point of view of the Third Reich were extremist, despite only being in power for just a year and still being under the control of Hindenburg, as this work was produced early in 1934. It also suggests that comments from the Nazi party which seemed subtle and harmless such as “treated accordingly” were much for severe than they seemed. It is a Czechoslovakian cartoon for a magazine. Cartoons were renowned for being dramatized and satirical, in order to be emotive. Yet I feel it is possible to extract a great amount of truth from this interpretation, despite its hyperbolic nature. Being of Czechoslovakian and therefore being a foreign interpretation, this may suggest that the situation within Germany was direr than suspected if this was the impression that people were receiving from the outside. Yet this could also suggest that the aim of this Czechoslovakian cartoon was to merciless slate Germany in order to portray them in a poor light, deeming this to be a propaganda piece. Yet due to them not being under the Nazi oppression of media censorship, this would also allow them to publish the truth. As It was for a magazine, we can also conclude that this was for the means of moulding an opinion, and for informing people of the situation in Germany. Yet even in our society it is the accuracy and reliability of the tabloids are questionable. However it is apparent that this source is highly useful in helping our understanding for several reasons, one being that it reveals a foreign insight into Nazi Germany in 1934 and how she was perceived from the outside. It also helps us to understand how early on Anti-Semitism had become a normal way of life within Nazi Germany. I feel most significantly it helps us to understand how severe the influence that the Nazis had over Germany really was, even under the orders of German President Hindenburg.  

Source E is a speech which speaks of the demolishment of the trade unions, implying a removal of freedom of speech and the fight for personal rights within the work place. Although this removal would not implicate as harshly upon the workers of the trade union as the anti-Semitic policies did upon the Jews I feel source E is similar to source A with regards to the Nazis’ tactics of dealing with certain social groups. It speaks of how the Nazis were ‘laying hands upon the trade unions’ in order to ‘rescue the German people from internal strife’ and to ‘save those groups that were interested in creating that trouble’. In the place of these, the Nazi party set up organisations such as the DAF which we the Nazi alternative to trade unions which oppressed freedom of speech or strikes. They did this as they believed that in allowing groups such as trade unions, people would talk and think for themselves and therefore rebel against the third Reich. Yet the sincerity of this linguistic content is questionable due to its authorship. The source is a speech by Adolf Hitler himself, and therefore would be a propaganda piece in order to get the people on his side and to agree with his policies. Therefore he uses language such as ‘save’ and ‘rescue’ in order to present the Nazi parties actions as in the interest of the German people, when in actual fact the truthfulness of this being his motive was highly unlikely. Therefore we cannot take this source as being useful in terms of the Nazis genuine aim and motive, and cannot take it literally word for word as it’s true meaning is hidden within the propaganda linguistics. Yet it is also possible to say that he uses this language due to his political position at the time. May 1st 1934, when the speech was given, Hitler was not the Fuhrer. He was still under the power of President Hindenburg and therefore it is possible that Hitler was supressing his radicalism in order to remain favourable under Hindenburg’s reign. Due to the fact that is a May Day speech, it is again possible that Hitler uses this seemingly caring use of language within this propaganda speech in order to gain the public’s trust as he was soon to become Fuhrer in the months following this speech. Therefore I feel this speech is useful in regards to Hitler’s adaptability for certain audiences and in consideration to his political position. It is also useful when regarding the technique and propaganda Hitler used upon the German people, and also in helping we understand how Hitler consolidated his power. Yet it is un-useful in helping us understand how opposition to the Third Reich felt about this development.  

Source F is a comment on the Nazi’s achievements over the period of ’33-36 and on the need to rearm in Germany. ‘How tremendous indeed are the achievements of the new Reich’ it says, gloating of their ability to ‘take over the state which...stood on the brink of collapse and to bring about its recovery’. It speaks of the Nazi’s triumph in regards to curing the unemployment crisis ‘to bring millions back to work and bread’ naturally failing to mention that the employment statistics exclude women or Jews. ‘A world under arms has forced us to rearm… increased certainty for the German mother that her children will not be murdered in an unholy war’. As pointed out in Source E, the language within this source is not to be taken literally and to be regarded as a propaganda scheme. We can assume this due to it’s author, being Rudolph Hess, a leading Nazi.  He would therefore be in the business of insuring that the Nazis were portrayed in a way that made the public believe they were doing it in the interest of the German public as Nazis were in the line of self-glorification. It was produced for an article in the Nazi Newspaper ‘Volkischer Beobachter’ meaning the ‘people’s observer’ was a paper aimed directly at the public, and to me confirms that this article was indeed made with the motive of influencing and moulding the opinions of the public.  The article was made in October 1936, just after the success that was the Berlin Olympics which emphasised the glorification of the Nazi Party and therefore gained more public support. In this same year, Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland which links in with this need to rearm which Rudolph speaks off prophetically and would have also gained public support. Again, this source is useful in our understanding the use of propaganda in Nazi Germany and also the Nazi corruption of the media within Germany, which is oppositely paralleled in source A’s grating view of the Nazi Regime. Yet it is un-useful in pointing out the flaws in the regime surrounding the topics such as employment and racism towards certain social groups.  

All these sources in their own right are helpful in understanding Nazi Germany from ’33-39. Yet there are significant factors which these sources fail to consider. Each source is extremely one sided, source A Is firmly against the Nazi party where as Source E is strictly from Nazi origin, and therefore they do not consider the other side of the argument. These sources do not consider the treatment of the women, how they were to follow the policy of the three K’s (church, children and kitchen) and how they were encouraged to reproduce through means of money and awards. They do not recognise the indoctrination of the youth through the schools and youth clubs, nor do they consider the Nazi takeover of the church and the alternative Reich church that was put in place. Significant events such as the Reichstag fire and the withdrawal from the League of Nations are also neglected. Sources from historians such as Kershaw and contemporary interviews with German citizens may have lent a wider insight on the Third Reich.  And therefore, although these sources are not useful, they only provide a fraction of understanding when we consider the whole period in its entirety.