Even where they disagreed fundamentally with Hitler’s tactics, the generals did not dispute his right to issue them, and fought on loyally. Faced with increasingly insane orders for the defence of Berlin, Colonel-General Heinrici nonetheless felt that to refuse them was to commit treason. The example of Field-Marshal Kesselring, refusing even at the end of April 1945 to condone surrender in Italy as long as the Führer was alive, is a further graphic case.
Crucial in enabling the regime to fight on was also the radicalization of the structure of power beneath Hitler in the last months. In the wake of Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt, the regime was swiftly buttressed. Changes were made that shored it up in the last months and ruled out any internal collapse, with power below Hitler largely divided between the four Nazi grandees. Bormann, as we saw, greatly expanded the mobilizing and controlling role of the Party, extending its hold over almost all facets of daily life. Goebbels now combined the key areas of propaganda and mobilization for the total-war effort. Without the million extra men that he raised by the end of 1944, the Wehrmacht would simply not have been able to replace the extraordinary losses it was suffering. Himmler, with his takeover of the command of the Replacement Army (from whose headquarters Stauffenberg had orchestrated the plot to kill Hitler), extended his terror apparatus into the Wehrmacht itself. Only the Replacement Army had been capable of planning the attempted coup d’état in 1944. In Himmler’s hands, that potential was removed. And Speer achieved miracles of management and organization in producing sufficient armaments, despite the growing crisis of production and transport through Allied bombing and territorial losses, to ensure that the troops still had weapons to fight with. If Speer, who was very late in accepting that the war was irredeemably lost, had worked half as hard, Germany could not have held out for remotely so long.
The quadrumvirate of Bormann, Goebbels, Himmler and Speer – three of them among the most brutal and radical fanatics, the fourth an ambitious, power-hungry organizational genius – was instrumental to the continuation of the war. But the four were divided among themselves and suspicious of each other – a characteristic of the Nazi state. And each of them knew that his power depended on a higher authority – that of Hitler.
Finally, but far from least, we come to Hitler himself. He never deviated from what had been the leitmotiv of his political existence, that there would never, ever, be a ‘cowardly’ capitulation and internal revolution as there had been in 1918. He consequently and consistently refused all entreaties from his paladins to consider a negotiated settlement. For him, that could only follow a victory, not a defeat. There was never a chance of that, once the vice closed on the Third Reich after the major enemy successes, east and west, from June 1944 onwards. The Allied demand for ‘unconditional surrender’ simply played to his mentality and convictions. ‘Heroic’ total destruction was for him infinitely preferable to what he saw as the coward’s way out of capitulation. The plight of the German people did not concern him. They had proved weak in the war, and deserved to go under. After the failure of the Ardennes offensive, he was clear-sighted enough to see that his last card had been played. But he clutched at one straw after another in desperation and impotence to turn the tide that was about to engulf him. Suicide was the obvious and likely way out. In fact, it became the only way out. It was simply a matter of time, and of timing, so that he could not be captured by the Russians. It was also the easy way out for him, since he knew that whatever happened he had no future after the war. But as long as he lived, his power – if over a rapidly diminishing Reich – could not be challenged, as Göring and Himmler learnt even in the very last days of his life.
Hitler’s personality was self-evidently scarcely insignificant to Germany’s continued fight. Generals and political leaders alike found him absolutely intransigent if they proposed any alternative course of action. Even in the last weeks some went in to see him demoralized and disconsolate and came away with new enthusiasm and determination. Under a different head of state, say Göring (until his ousting on 23 April 1945 Hitler’s designated successor), it seems highly likely that Germany would have sued for peace at some point earlier than May 1945. It is indeed questionable whether in the event of Hitler’s earlier demise Göring (or Himmler, the only other feasible candidate to have succeeded) would have had the internal authority with the generals to continue the prosecution of the war. Such a counter-factual scenario only emphasizes once more how much Hitler’s insistence on the continuation of the war provided the major obstacle to halting it. This cannot, however, be regarded solely as a matter of Hitler’s domineering personality – his intransigence, his detachment from reality, his readiness to take the country and German people down with him to total perdition – however important this was. Beyond this is the question of why the power elite was prepared to allow him to dictate in such disastrous fashion to the end.
Albert Speer ruminated in pseudo self-reproach in his memoirs about why, when it was obvious that Germany was as good as finished economically and militarily, Hitler was not faced with any joint action from those military leaders in regular contact with him to demand an explanation of how he was going to end the war (with the implication that they might have forced him to do so). Speer thought of such a move coming from Göring, Keitel, Jodl, Dönitz, Guderian and himself.11 The proposition, as he well knew, was absurd.12 Structurally as well as individually, the group he mentioned was divided and (his own and Guderian’s growing estrangement aside) in any case arch-loyalists, three of whom fervently backed Hitler’s ‘hold-out’ orders.
Confronting Hitler in any organized body, political or military, was completely impossible. The dissolution, from early in the Third Reich and ever more pronounced during the war, of all structures of collective government ensured that. Mussolini’s deposition in July 1943 had come from within his own organization, the Fascist Grand Council. And above Mussolini, at least nominally, stood an alternative source of loyalty: the King of Italy. No similar structures existed in Nazi Germany. Hitler was head of state, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, head of government and head of the Party. He had consistently resisted suggestions to reinstate a form of collective government in the Reich cabinet and the creation of a senate of the Nazi Party to determine, among other things, the succession. The Gauleiter were summoned to assemble periodically, but only to hear pep-talks from Hitler. Even in the armed forces, there was a damaging division between the High Command of the Wehrmacht (responsible for operations outside the eastern front) and the High Command of the Army (responsible for only the eastern front).
The problem was compounded by the fact that Hitler was not just supreme commander of the Wehrmacht as a whole, but also Commander-in-Chief of the Army. Even compared with other authoritarian regimes, the personalization of rule in Hitler’s regime was extreme. Structures of power, each imbued in varied measure with Nazi ideological values, were all bound to Hitler, gaining legitimation from his ‘charismatic leadership’. The fragmentation of governance reflected the character of Hitler’s absolute power, even when this started to wane in the very last weeks. Though Hitler’s mass appeal as a charismatic leader had been in steep decline since the middle of the war, the fragmentation of rule beneath him that had been a hallmark of his charismatic rule from the beginning lasted to the end. It was a fundamental reason why an earlier collapse, or a resort to a negotiated settlement – any alternative to the inexorable course to self-destruction – did not take place.
The mindset of the ruling elite had attuned to the character of charismatic domination and underpinned the structural determinants preventing any challenge to Hitler. Among Nazi leaders, the personal bonds forged with him at an earlier time proved almost impossible to break even when the nimbus of infallibility built into the personality cult faded. So did the utter dependence on Hitler for positions of power. Speer admittedly distanced himself, though very belatedly, and even he felt an inward urge to make a perilous and futile last trip back into the Führer Bunker
in the very last days to say his personal farewell to the leader he had once idolized. Göring, despite bearing the brunt of Hitler’s fury at the failure of the Luftwaffe, never broke with him. His deposition from all his offices on 23 April followed a misunderstanding wilfully exploited by Bormann, one of the Reich Marshal’s arch-enemies. Bormann himself was the loyal right hand of his master, turning Hitler’s tirades and outbursts into bureaucratic regulations and orders. Himmler was the strong arm of repression who, despite surreptitiously going his own way in the last months in an attempt to retain a position of power in a post-Hitler world, continued to recognize his dependency. The breach with Hitler came at the very last, and, as with Göring, seems to have followed a misunderstanding, when Himmler presumed reports of the Dictator’s breakdown on 22 April had meant his effective abdication. The most committed of all the top Nazi leaders, and among the most clear-sighted of Hitler’s acolytes, Joseph Goebbels, was one of the very few prepared to stay with him to the end and cast himself on the great funeral pyre of the Third Reich.
Beneath the top echelon of Party bosses, the Gauleiter still presented a phalanx of outright loyalists, whatever their private feelings, who had long since bound themselves irredeemably to Hitler, even though in the last weeks they started of necessity to take independent action as communications with Berlin broke down. Their last collective meeting with Hitler, on 24 February 1945, showed that Hitler’s authority was still intact among this important group.
Among military leaders, the stance of Grand-Admiral Karl Dönitz, head of the navy and at Hitler’s death his nominated successor as head of state, is illustrative of the lasting bonds with Hitler. In contrast to his post-war reputation of a military professional who had simply done his duty, Dönitz had been one of the foremost fanatics in his support for Hitler’s orders to fight to the last, an outright Nazi in his attitude. But with Hitler gone, the chief and unyielding barrier to capitulation was removed. Given overall responsibility and feeling freed from his oath of loyalty to Hitler, Dönitz saw the need to bow to military and political reality and looked immediately to find a negotiated end to a lost war. This sudden reversal of his stance by Dönitz underlines as clearly as anything how much the fight to the end, down to complete defeat and destruction, was owing not just to Hitler in person, but to the character of his rule and the mentalities that had upheld his charismatic domination.
Of the reasons why Germany was able and willing to fight on to the end, these structures of rule and underlying mentalities behind them are the most fundamental. All the other factors – lingering popular backing for Hitler, the ferocious terror apparatus, the increased dominance of the Party, the prominent roles of the Bormann–Goebbels–Himmler–Speer quadrumvirate, the negative integration produced by the fear of Bolshevik occupation, and the continued readiness of high-ranking civil servants and military leaders to continue doing their duty when all was obviously lost – were ultimately subordinate to the way the charismatic Führer regime was structured, and how it functioned, in its dying phase. Paradoxically, it was by this time charismatic rule without charisma. Hitler’s mass charismatic appeal had long since dissolved, but the structures and mentalities of his charismatic rule lasted until his death in the bunker. The dominant elites, divided as they were, possessed neither the collective will nor the mechanisms of power to prevent Hitler taking Germany to total destruction.
That was decisive.
Notes
ABBREVIATIONS
BAB Bundesarchiv Berlin/Lichterfelde
BA/MA Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv, Freiburg
BDC Berlin Document Center
BfZ Bibliothek für Zeitgeschichte, Württembergische
Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart
BHStA Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich
DNB Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro (German News Agency)
DRZW Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg
DZW Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg
HSSPF Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer (Higher SS and Police Leader(s))
IfZ Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich
IMT International Military Tribunal
ITS International Tracing Service, Bad Arolsen
IWM Imperial War Museum, Duxford
KTB/OKW Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommando der Wehrmacht
KTB/SKL Kriegstagebuch der Seekriegsleitung
LHC Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives, King’s College, London
MadR Meldungen aus dem Reich
NAL National Archives London (formerly Public Record Office)
Nbg.-Dok. Nürnberg-Dokument (unpublished trial document(s))
NCO non-commissioned officer
NL Nachlaß (personal papers)
NSDAP Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party)
NSFO Nationalsozialistischer Führungsoffizier (National Socialist Leadership Officer)
NSV Nationalsozialistiche Volkswohlfahrt (National Socialist People’s Welfare Organization)
OKH Oberkommando des Heeres (High Command of the Army)
OKW Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces)
OT Organisation Todt
PWE Political Warfare Executive
RPÄ Reichspropagandaämter
RPvNB/OP Regierungspräsident von Niederbayern und der Oberpfalz (Government President (Head of the Regional Administration) of Lower Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate)
RPvOB Regierungspräsident von Oberbayern (Government President of Upper Bavaria)
RPvOF/MF Regierungspräsident von Oberfranken und Mittelfranken (Government President of Upper Franconia and Central Franconia)
RVK Reichsverteidigungskommissar(e) (Reich Defence Commissar(s))
SD Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service)
SHAEF Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force
StAA Staatsarchiv Augsburg
StAM Staatsarchiv München
TBJG Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels
VB Völkischer Beobachter
Vf Z Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte
YVS Yad Vashem Studies
For the full book titles, see List of Works Cited, pp. 511–32; for details of archives, see List of Archival Sources Cited, pp. 509–10. Contributions in DRZW are cited by author only in the Notes; titles are given in List of Works Cited.
PREFACE
1. See, for example, Ralf Meindl, Ostpreußens Gauleiter: Erich Koch – eine politische Biographie, Osnabrück, 2007.
2. A good, critical study of Dönitz, long overdue, appeared only after this work had been completed: Dieter Hartwig, Großadmiral Karl Dönitz: Legende und Wirklichkeit, Paderborn, 2010.
3. Exemplary, in different ways, are Herfried Münkler, Machtzerfall: Die letzten Tage des Dritten Reiches dargestellt am Beispiel der hessischen Kreisstadt Friedberg, Berlin, 1985, and Stephen G. Fritz, Endkampf: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Death of the Third Reich, Lexington, Ky., 2004.
4. None better than Antony Beevor’s brilliant narrative depiction of the Red Army’s assault on the Reich capital, Berlin: The Downfall 1945, pb. edn., London, 2007.
5. Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg, vol. 6: Die Zerschlagung des Hitlerfaschismus und die Befreiung des deutschen Volkes (Juni 1944 bis zum 8. Mai 1945), written by an Authors’ Collective under direction of Wolfgang Schumann and Olaf Groehler, with assistance from Wolfgang Bleyer, Berlin, 1985.
6. Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, edited by various authors for the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt, vols. 7–10, Munich, 2004–8.
7. Two recent works among many might be singled out: Andreas Kunz, Wehrmacht und Niederlage: Die bewaffnete Macht in der Endphase der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft 1944 bis 1945, Munich, 2007; and John Zimmermann, Pflicht zum Untergang: Die deutsche Kriegführung im Westen des Reiches 1944/45, Paderborn, 2009.
8. This applies to the excellent works by Dieter Rebentisch, Führerstaat und Verwaltung im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Stuttgart, 1989, and Eleanor Hancock, National Socialist
Leadership and Total War 1941–45, New York, 1991. Martin Broszat’s classic Der Staat Hitlers, Munich, 1969, dealt in the main with the beginning, rather than the end, of the Third Reich.
9. The extensive study by Dietrich Orlow, The History of the Nazi Party, vol. 2: 1933–1945, Newton Abbot, 1973, for example, devotes little more than 20 of its 538 pages to the period after the Stauffenberg assassination attempt and no more than 8 pages or so to the months January–May 1945, while Kurt Pätzold and Manfred Weißbecker, Geschichte der NSDAP 1920–1945, Cologne, 1981, written by two GDR historians, devotes less than a dozen out of 429 pages to the period under consideration in this book.
10. Marlis Steinert’s splendid Hitlers Krieg und die Deutschen, Düsseldorf and Vienna, 1970, has not yet been bettered as a social history of Germany during the war. It is, however, largely restricted to usage of – highly informative – internal reports on morale, and deals in the main with civilian society, but not with the military. A new and highly promising study of German society during the war is being prepared by Nicholas Stargardt, Magdalen College, Oxford.
11. The outstanding study of American strategy and the military advance into Germany is that of Klaus-Dietmar Henke, Die amerikanische Besetzung Deutschlands, Munich, 1995. A graphic description of Allied, as well as German, military experiences at the fronts as Germany was crushed is provided by Max Hastings, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944–45, London, 2004.