Introduction
The rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party from the political margins in the 1920s to a dominant role within the German government by 1935 has long been a topic of historical debate. This essay explores the importance of militarism in the Nazi Party’s ascent to power and its resulting influence on German society during this period. Drawing on primary sources from Moeller’s The Nazi State and German Society, as well as three additional secondary sources, this essay contends that militarism was vital to the Nazi Party’s rise to power. Furthermore, it argues that embracing militarism enabled the Nazis to maintain control over German society.
Militarism as a Core Tenet of Nazi Ideology
The Nazi Party’s ideology strongly emphasized militarism and the perceived need to expand Germany’s military might. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that Germany’s future was acquiring new territories and resources through military conquest (Moeller 2010, 40). The emphasis on militarism and territorial growth aligned with the feelings of numerous Germans disenchanted with the Treaty of Versailles. These individuals were exasperated by the harsh economic restrictions on Germany following World War I.
The Impact of Militarism on Nazi Electoral Success
The Nazis’ emphasis on militarism helped them garner electoral support from various segments of German society. Many Germans, particularly those in the middle and lower-middle classes, saw the Nazis’ military aspirations as a means to restore national pride and regain lost territories (Lees 2018, 300). Additionally, the party’s strong focus on militarism attracted the support of former military officers and veterans who sought to regain their status and influence in society (Gross and Schmidt 2020, 10). Militarism helped the Nazis shape German society and gain diverse support.
Militarism and the Consolidation of Nazi Power
With Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in 1933, the Nazi Party systematically consolidated its power by adopting militarism. One example of this was the establishment of the SA (Sturmabteilung), a paramilitary organization that served as the Nazi Party’s enforcement arm (Moeller 2010, 90). The SA targeted political opponents, Jews, and trade unionists with violence (Gross and Schmidt 2020, 12). This created fear and intimidation, facilitating Nazi control expansion.
The creation of the SS (Schutzstaffel), an elite paramilitary unit initially formed as Hitler’s guard, was another crucial element of the Nazi Party’s aggressive approach. The SS later evolved into a multifaceted organization responsible for internal security, intelligence, and the administration of concentration camps (Moeller 2010, 95). Under Heinrich Himmler’s leadership, the SS was instrumental in enforcing the Nazi regime’s racial policies and quelling dissent within German society (Lees 2018, 301). The Nazis pursued a rearmament policy involving rapid growth in Germany’s military capabilities, violating the Treaty of Versailles stipulations. This process included the construction of new military infrastructure, the development of advanced weaponry, and the secret expansion of the German Air Force (Moeller 2010, 120). The rearmament program bolsters the Nazi Party’s image as a force capable of restoring Germany’s military might and was instrumental in rallying popular support behind the regime (Wadhwani and Viebig 2021, 349). Militarism significantly contributed to the Nazis’ rise and control in Germany.
Militarism and the Transformation of German Society
As the Nazi Party strengthened its grip on power, militarism became increasingly ingrained in German society. The regime implemented compulsory military service for young men, requiring them to serve in the armed forces for a designated period (Moeller 2010, 130). The conscription policy expanded the military size and ingrained a sense of duty and loyalty to the Nazi regime among the youth. In addition to implementing compulsory military service, the regime expanded military production by investing in armaments and military technology industries. This included the establishment of state-owned enterprises, such as the Hermann Göring Works, which produced steel and iron for military purposes (Lees 2018, 306). Private industries were urged or forced to focus on military production (Wadhwani and Viebig 2021, 346). Companies like Krupp and IG Farben became rearmament program pillars.
Many militaristic policies and institutions were introduced to entrench militarism in German society further. For example, the regime implemented the “Strength through Joy” program to promote physical fitness and preparedness among the civilian population for potential military service (Moeller 2010, 135). This program provided incentives such as subsidized vacations and leisure activities to cultivate a strong and healthy populace capable of supporting the regime’s militaristic ambitions. The founding of the Hitler Youth was instrumental in instilling the militaristic and nationalist principles of the Nazi Party in young Germans (Moeller 2010, 110). This organization provided paramilitary training and education in Nazi ideology, instilling a sense of loyalty and commitment to the regime’s goals from an early age. The regime’s focus on militarism had economic implications, as military spending and rearmament became central to its economic recovery efforts (Lees 2018, 305). The aggressive rearmament program increased demand for goods and services related to military production, reducing unemployment and stimulating economic growth.
Conclusion
In summary, this essay contends that the Nazi Party’s adoption of militarism was crucial to their ascension to power and their capacity to control German society. By tapping into widespread grievances over the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh economic conditions imposed on Germany, the Nazis could garner electoral support from diverse social groups. Once in power, they used militaristic means to consolidate their control and transform German society in line with their ideological goals. The prominence of militarism in the success of the Nazi Party underscores the need to comprehend the intricate factors that enabled Hitler to assume the role of German Chancellor in 1933 and remain in power for the subsequent 12 years.
References
Gross, Dominik, and Mathias V. Schmidt. 2020. “The Relationship of Former Board Members of the German Society of Pathology to National Socialism: A Prosopographic Study.” Pathology Research and Practice 216 (1): 152618. Web.
Lees, Charles. 2018. “The ‘Alternative for Germany’: The Rise of Right-Wing Populism at the Heart of Europe.” Politics 38 (3): 295–310. Web.
Moeller, Robert G. 2010. The Nazi State and German Society: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford.
Wadhwani, R. Daniel, and Clara Viebig. 2021. “Social Imaginaries of Entrepreneurship Education: The United States and Germany, 1800–2020.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 20 (3): 342–60. Web.