Part One

Great question! I think it gets at the heart of a few narratives regarding the Third Reich that could use greater nuance. First, your question leads to the less overt question of how politics and society worked in the Third Reich. Second, you have pointed to how the purges worked and what the aims were. Third, your focal point on opposition to the regime notes a failure by Germans to create a viable alternative to the Nazi regime. I will try to flesh each of these out in turn.

The Nazi Regime based much of its power in the consent of the governed. While we might often think of the Nazis as a forcing an abject population to obey or face extreme consequences, this does not appropriately portray the nature of the regime. Dissenters certainly existed within Germany, but more often the Germans consented through both cooperation and silence.

The Nazis did not take power illegally. Hindenburg, parliamentarians, and voters gave Hitler power. In November of 1932, the Nazi party received 33% of the popular votes (down from 37% less than three months before) and was the largest party in the Reichstag. However, they did not have a majority and it was not until January of 1933 that President Paul von Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor---an act which was legally Hindenburg's to take.

The Nazis almost immediately began a process called gleischaltung (trans. Coordination or synchronization but ultimately meaning the Nazification of society). Following the Reichstag Fire in February of 1933, Hindenburg was pressured by Hitler to limit or eliminate a number of civil rights. The Nazis then used this power to harass political opponents, especially communists, in preparation for a new set of elections that would, they hoped, leave them a majority in the Reichstag. In spite of the outlawing of the Communist party, the Nazis only received 44% of the votes. They still needed coalitions or compromise with other parties to rule.

In order to work around this situation, the Nazis worked with the Catholic Center Party to pass the Enabling Act, which allowed the Chancellor to rule by decree and essentially neutered the power of the Reichstag itself. Why in the world, you might ask, would the legislators of the Catholic Center Party be complicit in destroying the very power of the Reichstag in which they served? Because they got what they wanted. Hitler signed a Concordat with the church which secured the independence of the Church and its properties in Germany. Over the next few months, each of the political parties was coerced into dismantling itself or physically forced to do so. Political parties other than the NSDAP were banned. Yet, in November of 1933, Germany held a new round of elections in which 92% of the votes were cast for the NSDAP and 8% against, invalid, or blank. In spite of having de facto power, the Nazis sought popular approval and consent, even if only nominally.

Other aspects of life were also placed under Nazi control through the process of gleischaltung. Most notably, and as part of the assault on the political parties, the Nazis called for a National Day of Labor on May 1st. Labor Unions had been attempting to get a Mayday holiday through the Reichstag for some time. The day following the announcement, Trade Union offices and those of the allied political party, the Social Democrats, were looted and many of their leaders were beaten or arrested. The labor movement was placed under the control of the German Labor Front, which was the Nazi replacement for all labor unions. Since Germany was a federal system, the Nazis also reorganized the state legislatures in such a way that they came under Nazi control. Medical and professional Nazi organizations were created. The Hitler Youth became the way that the Nazis managed male juveniles.

Notable in all of this is the idea of consent. While violence and forced coercion was certainly present, so was consent. It was not only Nazi party members who controlled how promotions and benefits worked in the various organizations. Universities managed themselves, but incorporated adherence to Nazi ideals as a primary concern. The same was true of other professional organizations. While the German Christians never came to control the Lutheran churches, nominal adherence to a number of Nazi policies. Finally, the consolidation of the Nazi party under Hitler also occurred during 1933-1934, but will be discussed later.

Important in understanding the process by which the Nazis came to control the various aspects of society is that they did not control them in a completely formal way. They certainly applied pressure and had Nazis in many positions of power within the organizations, but just as important was the use of denunciations.

The image of the all-knowing Gestapo is one of fantasy. According to Robert Gellately, who studied Gestapo files in Dusseldorf and other cities near it, there was roughly “one secret policemen per 10,000 in Germany and about one per 500--or twenty times as many-- in the USSR in the same period.” Such numbers would not allow for the type of role--that of detectives doggedly tracking down a resistance member or a spy on stakeouts--that is often attributed to them. Further, denunciations provided a key starting point for a large portion of the cases, especially those relating to race, with which the Gestapo dealt. In fact, so overwhelming were the denunciations that many Gestapo saw them as a problem. Why?

Denunciations weren’t about complying with Nazi policy or demonstrating adherence to ideology. The reason for denunciations didn’t have to comply with the denunciation itself. One could denounce a occupational competitor for a supposed ideological flaw in order to increase one's own job opportunities. In fact, Richard Evans, citing a number of other historians, notes that 37% of denunciations of 213 studied were due to private motivations. Only 24% came from clear ideological motivation. Clearly denunciations had moved beyond the control of the Gestapo.

The use of denunciations had become a method of extrajudicial social control that had the additional effect of buttressing the power of the Nazis. No one could know who would turn them in or for what reason. One could not express one's opinion. Not because fear that the Gestapo man might be listening, but because someone was listening. Further, even not talking could become suspect. If one heard subversive talk and did not report it, that failure could also be denounced. The extrajudicial nature also allowed for the German people themselves to be the guides of how the system worked. Those who did not fit into the society, for whatever reason, were most at risk of denunciation, even if they complied with the regime ideologically. Hence, the German people held in some ways more and in other ways less control over the nature of their society than is usually portrayed.

The purges in your original question most likely refers to the singularly brutal purge called “The Night of the Long Knives.” Over the course of June 30-July 2, the Nazi leadership was purged of those who might have been disloyal to Hitler. Most notable of these was Ernst Rohm, who led the Sturm Abteilung--also called the Brownshirts. However, leftists in the party, along with their leader Gregor Strasser were also killed. The former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher, a Conservative anti-Nazi, was also among the killed. The SA purge of the party occurred both because Rohm and the Brownshirts posed the real possibility of a threat to Hitler due to their more radical leanings and also because by purging them, Hitler was able to be assuage the fears of the Army that it would be replaced. In return for purging the SA, the Wehrmacht swore allegiance to Hitler himself--not to the Germany or even the Nazi state. Yet another aspect of Gleischaltung.