Conservatives and the Third Reich: A Complicated Legacy

As I reflect on the role of conservatives during the Third Reich, I am struck by the complexity of their actions and motivations. It is tempting to view them as either enablers or resisters, but the truth is more nuanced. Conservatives were neither monolithic in their views nor consistent in their actions, and their relationship with the Nazi regime evolved over time.

Before Hitler came to power, many conservatives underestimated him. To them, he was a radical upstart whose movement could be harnessed to counter the left, restore traditional values, and dismantle the Weimar Republic, which they despised. Conservatives like Franz von Papen believed they could use the Nazis to their advantage while keeping them under control. This pragmatism, or perhaps hubris, played a critical role in Hitler’s rise. By supporting his appointment as Chancellor in 1933, they inadvertently handed him the reins of power, believing they could contain his extremism. They could not have been more wrong.

The Nazis swiftly dismantled traditional institutions that conservatives cherished. The aristocracy, the military elite, and the church - pillars of conservative Germany - found themselves either co-opted or sidelined. Conservative politicians who had hoped to guide Hitler, such as von Papen, were rendered irrelevant as the Nazis consolidated total control. Some conservatives realized too late the danger they had unleashed. Their initial alignment with the Nazis out of shared nationalism, anti-communism, and disdain for democracy blinded them to the regime’s true nature.

Of course, not all conservatives embraced the Nazi agenda. There were those who opposed Hitler from the start, wary of his demagoguery and violence. Heinrich Brüning, the former Chancellor, worked to block Hitler’s rise but was ultimately outmaneuvered. Others became disillusioned as Nazi policies grew increasingly radical. Yet, the ability to resist was severely limited. The regime's ruthlessness and the fear of imprisonment, execution, or persecution silenced many who might have otherwise acted.

Even in such oppressive conditions, some conservatives chose resistance, often at great personal risk. The Kreisau Circle, a group of conservative and Christian intellectuals, envisioned a Germany free of Nazi tyranny. Military officers like Claus von Stauffenberg, steeped in conservative and aristocratic traditions, saw Hitler’s catastrophic war policies as a betrayal of Germany. Their efforts culminated in the July 20 Plot of 1944, an audacious attempt to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazi regime. Though the plot failed and its participants were brutally executed, their actions highlighted the existence of principled opposition among conservative ranks.

Yet, such acts of defiance were the exception rather than the rule. For many conservatives, resistance came too late or not at all. Some, disillusioned but fearful, chose passivity, unwilling or unable to risk the consequences of open opposition. Others, deeply invested in nationalism or anti-communism, continued to support aspects of the regime despite their misgivings. The lack of a unified conservative resistance underscores the divisions within their ranks and their varying degrees of complicity.

Reflecting on the role of conservatives in the Third Reich, I am left with a sense of both tragedy and irony. Many conservatives, in their desire to protect Germany from what they perceived as greater threats, enabled a regime that ultimately destroyed the very traditions and institutions they sought to preserve. While some redeemed themselves through courageous acts of resistance, their efforts were insufficient to undo the damage wrought by their earlier misjudgments. The story of conservatives during this dark chapter serves as a reminder of the dangers of underestimating extremism and the moral cost of political expediency.