I was never a big fan of Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners because of its simplistic thesis that the success of the NSDAP was due to an innate anti-Semitism among Germans. I was impressed by its reception in Germany and the discussion it started – which continues on even today. Now a new book has been published – Hitlers Volksstaat (by Götz Aly) – which, in the words of Die Zeit reviewer Volker Ullrich, turns Goldhagen’s thesis on its head. I have not read the book yet, but I’ve read the lengthy excerpts that have been published in Der Spiegel. Aly has studied the domestic social programs of Germany under National-Socialism, and provides some compelling evidence that the Nazi’s took the "Socialist" aspect of their party’rs name quite seriously – at least for Germans. In this sense the tradtional leftist critique of National-Socialism – that it represented the culmination of monopoly capitalism – is clearly wrong. Aly depicts a docile German populace that benefitted from the generous welfare programs of the Nazis, even though a large portions of these benefits were made posssible by the murderous plundering of the German-occupied territories. Here is an excerpt from an interview (in English) with Aly via Sign and Sight:
Anyone trying to understand the destructive success of National
Socialism should look at the public face of the annihilation policy –
the modern, cosy and obliging welfare state. During WWII, German soldiers’ wives received
twice as much family support as their British and American
counterparts. They had more money than in peace times. The generosity
of state benefits meant that women saw no reason to work. In 1942 it
was suggested that state benefits be reduced and taxed but Hitler
blocked the idea, fearing public opposition. Funk, the Reich’s minister
for economic affairs commented drily, "Our economic policy during the
war was overly opulent. It is not easy to correct such a thing."Until
May 8, 1845, 80 percent of Germans paid no direct war taxes. The
indirect taxes were limited to tobacco, brandy and beer. The Regime’s
cautious handling of the Volk was apparent in every last detail. In the
so-called "South-Eastern German consumer region", the tax on a litre of beer
(which Goebbels referred to as a "positive mood element") was 10
Reichspfennigs; in the North, it was about 30 more. There was no tax on
wine because it would have affected wine producers who were "already
struggling economically".Protection against unfair dismissal,
tenant protection regulations, protection from seizure under execution:
hundreds of finely tuned laws were aimed at socio-political
appeasement. Hitler ruled according to the principal of "I am the
people", later to form the basis of the German Republic’s welfare
state. The Schröder/Fischer government now faces the historic task of bidding a prolonged farewell to the German community of the Volk.Hitler
gained overwhelming support with his policy of running up debts and
explaining that it would be others that paid the price. He promised the
Germans everything and asked little of them in return. The constant
talk of "a people without living space", "international standing",
"complementary economic areas" and "Jew purging" served a single
purpose: to increase German prosperity without making Germans
work for it themselves. This was the driving force behind his criminal
politics: not the interests of industrialists and bankers such as
Flick, Krupp and Abs. Economically, the Nazi state was a snowballing
system of fraud. Politically, it was a monstrous bubble of speculation,
inflated by the common party members.
I think Aly overstates his case by calling the democratic Sozialstaat a continuation of NS-policies, but his thesis is provocative. By ignoring the role of Nazi ideology he also weakens his argument. The crimes he described could not have occurred with the tacit support of the German populace unless there were a general sense of racial entitlement.
