(originally published on H-German 31 October 1995)
Scholars have long been fascinated by the contradictions inherent in National Socialist ideology and its practical implementation: the ambivalent attitudes toward modernization and the inconsistent policies regarding the employment of women are but two examples. In this important and sophisticated article, historian Volker Dahm focuses on two other such anomalous developments. The first concerns the regime's centralizing and totalitarian tendencies, which were in marked contrast to the stated appreciation of regional particularism (a key component of the "Blut und Boden" message). The second contradiction stems from the disjuncture between what Dahm calls "die intellektuelle Begrenzung und kulturelle Unfruchtbarkeit der NS-Ideologie," on the one hand, and the demonstrable increase and effective propagation of cultural activities on the other. The National Socialists fostered much that was banal and loathsome, but they were highly efficient and even innovative in spreading "culture" to the masses.
Dahm argues that the interplay between the central Reich authorities and the regional or local institutions can be understood only by studying specific geographic areas -- case studies in other words, which will ultimately yield a viable paradigm. He cites two publications focusing on Düsseldorf and Westphalia, as well as an anthology on the Niederdeutsch, but notes that they are exceptional; hence he begins and concludes the article with a call for more local studies. Dahm does not limit himself to one region in this article, and through archival research and extensive use of the periodical Die Kulturverwaltung -- a journal founded during the Third Reich and dedicated to the subject of "gemeindliche Kulturpflege" -- he integrates a wealth of material concerning regional culture. His discussion of Heimatmuseen, Volkliederarchiven, Musikfeste, Volkstänze groups, various Büchereien, and so on, offers a depiction of German culture during this period that moves beyond the more commonly studied "representative" cultural products.
Dahm argues that regional institutions and their members had considerable autonomy, which enabled them to create a largely traditional culture despite the rapid expansion of the state bureaucracy and the concomitant effort aimed at "Gleichschaltung." The author, who has written extensively on the Reichskulturkammer and other parts of the Nazi cultural administration, includes here a fairly comprehensive overview of those Reich offices which attempted to coordinate and regulate cultural activities. In particular, his discussion of the endeavors of Goebbels, Rosenberg, and Ley to create organs to oversee "Laienverbände" and other popular associations is precise and complements the burgeoning scholarship on this subject. His conclusion, which follows this discussion, is nonetheless rather surprising: local associations, he argues, had "Spielräume und Handlungsmöglichkeiten... [that] waren wesentlich größer, als es den landläufigen Vorstellungen vom Wesen der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur und totalitärer Regime überhaupt entspricht." He qualifies this claim by noting that this independence did not extend to those outside the racially determined Volksgemeinschaft or to those with left-wing political views; and he observes that there was considerable regional variation, as well as differences between kinds of cultural activities. But the thrust of his argument points to a lack of interference by Reich officials in cultural matters.
As noted above, Dahm also documents the spread of culture during the Third Reich. He provides statistics chronicling, for example, the increase in operational libraries ("akzeptabel" Volksbüchereien): from 6,231 in 1933 to 13,908 in 1940 (and he notes about their location that "die weit überwiegende Zahl in Kleinstädten und auf dem Lande [waren]"). Similar figures apply to museums, theater companies, and music societies. His argument about the propagation of culture is convincing, even though he does not mention the Nazis' use of cinema and radio as additionally important means of integrating the rural and regional population into national culture. In his defense here, because these two media were controlled by the central Reich authorities, they perhaps constituted a type of culture that differed in certain respects from the more popular local variety which is the main focus of the author.
If Dahm's arguments are correct, they yield a somewhat paradoxical situation whereby the Reich authorities expanded the state cultural bureaucracy, increased the number of institutions dedicated to fostering popular culture, and yet allowed those in the provinces considerable autonomy. One might explain this situation by the fact both the governing officials and common citizens exhibited a penchant for escapist entertainment, and that most of the classics were considered acceptable and continued to augment contemporary cultural products. But what he argues for is far more than a kind of voluntary Gleichschaltung. Dahm posits a certain cultural heterogeneity in the provinces, where much that took place was not distinctively Nazi. As evidence, he notes that less that 20 percent of the holdings in the Munich Stadtbüchereien were removed after the war. Moreover, he submits that many people did not feel the government bearing down on them in the manner previously assumed. He cites, in one of his examples, the poll of 85 authors who worked during the Third Reich undertaken in 1988 by the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, where 93 percent described their contact with the Reichsschrifttumskammer as "'selten,' 'keinen,' 'gar keinen,' [or] 'nicht den geringsten.'" Dahm therefore argues for a "Freiraum regionaler und lokaler kultureller Aktivitäten" that revises previous conceptions of totalitarian culture.
One must ask whether this autonomy suggests that those in the provinces opposed the Nazi leadership. It is possible to read this article as an attempt to exonerate a large portion of the German population from the crimes of the regime: the "common" man, Dahm implies, resisted the encroachments of the malevolent government. This, of course, is a problematic argument, and it is not entirely clear if this is what Dahm intends. But in his portrayal of provincial cultural activities, the practitioners seem rather more innocent, and even heroic, than was the case. For example, ongoing research concerning Germans' knowledge of the Holocaust -- including Eric Johnson's work on what people knew of the gassing facilities -- and Robert Gellately's earlier study of the Gestapo, where he describes a widespread willingness to snitch, does not allow for such a positive assessment. The Reich authorities may not have dominated all aspects of national life, but neither their coercive power nor their popular support should be underestimated.
Volker Dahm has raised a number of interesting and important questions in this article, and he is absolutely right to call for more local studies which examine the relationship of the periphery to the core. A shortcoming, however, is his failure to utilize English-language scholarship: despite his laudable research that yielded 178 footnotes, there is not one reference to an English-language author. The work of Alan Steinweis, Pam Potter, Michael Myers, and others in this field certainly needs to be considered. Dahm is undoubtedly a leading figure with respect to the cultural history of the Third Reich, and it is appropriate for him to make this intervention seeking to set a scholarly agenda. But perhaps more than any other national history, the study of modern Germany is an international effort, and the contributions of non-Germans should not be ignored. Nevertheless, Dahm's article is an important contribution to the study of culture under National Socialist rule.