How would the development and destiny of the Third Reich have evolved if the SS had never come to full power and the SA had remained as the prevalent instrument of party force?
Would the labor/socialist flavor of the SA have changed the character of the nation?
Would war have been less likely?
What other important political differences would have been observed?
What if SA had Prevailed?
Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
I disagree with the basic premise of your question. The SS did not "come to power" nor did the SA fail to "prevail." What happened was Hitler consolidated his power and saw the need to purge the SA leadership to do it. To look at the situation as a conflict between the two organizations misses the real point. Both were simply tools in the Master's hands.
-
Rolf Steiner
- Associate
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:06 pm
- Location: London
Hi guys
it's an interesting question - didn't a level of manipulation on the part of Heydrich/Himmler influence the outcome? It's sometimes said that whoever had Hitler's ear at a certain point could use that opportunity to translate their ambitions into 'policy'.
it's an interesting question - didn't a level of manipulation on the part of Heydrich/Himmler influence the outcome? It's sometimes said that whoever had Hitler's ear at a certain point could use that opportunity to translate their ambitions into 'policy'.
"And I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow!"
-
Nebelwerfer
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Dear derGespent,
Is there any doubt that, after the purge of the SA leadership, Himmler was closer to the Fuehrer than whomever the SA leader was and that the SS grew tremendously in numbers and influence right up through even say 1943 ?
And that the SS actually took a front and center role in the war itself, with an armed branch with forces in the field?
I believe there is a valid question reflected in your post, which is whether Hitler was influenced by ANYONE in his inner circle, even by Himmler. Himmler and his SS clearly had a great influence on German life, but also had some effect on the development of strategy and policy, despite the Corporal's stubborness.
Is there any doubt that, after the purge of the SA leadership, Himmler was closer to the Fuehrer than whomever the SA leader was and that the SS grew tremendously in numbers and influence right up through even say 1943 ?
And that the SS actually took a front and center role in the war itself, with an armed branch with forces in the field?
I believe there is a valid question reflected in your post, which is whether Hitler was influenced by ANYONE in his inner circle, even by Himmler. Himmler and his SS clearly had a great influence on German life, but also had some effect on the development of strategy and policy, despite the Corporal's stubborness.
-
Herr Doktor
- Contributor
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 8:26 pm
I agree with derGespenst. For the SA to have "won," the entire climate would have to be different. The SA would have had to been less an undisciplined mob, less of Rohm's influence about a "people's army," less agitation of the very elements in power that Hitler needed the cooperation of to succeed in forming a new government.
In the end, the SA and the SS evolved in certain ways and had their own distinct charactistics - but they were only what Hitler allowed them to be. And when Hitler's old friend Rohm and the SA became a liability, he destroyed them.
Cheers,
HD
In the end, the SA and the SS evolved in certain ways and had their own distinct charactistics - but they were only what Hitler allowed them to be. And when Hitler's old friend Rohm and the SA became a liability, he destroyed them.
Of course Hitler was influenced by people close to him (Bormann is a good example). On the other hand, Rohm was a member of the inner circle at one time, too - and look what happened to him. Many schemes and alliances... but somewhat beside the point where the SA was concerned. Regardless of the plotting of Himmler and Goring, Hitler needed to eliminate the SA to get into power, and the end justified the means.I believe there is a valid question reflected in your post, which is whether Hitler was influenced by ANYONE in his inner circle, even by Himmler. Himmler and his SS clearly had a great influence on German life, but also had some effect on the development of strategy and policy, despite the Corporal's stubborness.
Cheers,
HD
-
Nebelwerfer
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Dear derGespent and Herr Doktor,
Let me see if I follow your points, in terms of what is cause and what is effect:
Are you saying that, the reason (cause) that the SA was suppressed was that its fundamentally socialist/labor tendencies were contrary to the (capitalist/conservative) direction the party and the nation took?
If so, then you would agree that the SA was a fish out of water after the purge, and that if, somehow, conditions would have allowed it to maintain a prominent position, then its fundamentally socialist/labor flavor would have resulted in a very different Third Reich.
Let me see if I follow your points, in terms of what is cause and what is effect:
Are you saying that, the reason (cause) that the SA was suppressed was that its fundamentally socialist/labor tendencies were contrary to the (capitalist/conservative) direction the party and the nation took?
If so, then you would agree that the SA was a fish out of water after the purge, and that if, somehow, conditions would have allowed it to maintain a prominent position, then its fundamentally socialist/labor flavor would have resulted in a very different Third Reich.
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
Nebelwerfer - that's not quite where I'm going. Look at the history of any revolution - the American, the French, the unnamed one that came of the English Civil War - and what you find is the most radical elements that carried the revolution through became liuabilities to the revolution's prospects for success once it became established. This is what happened in Germany. Röhm and his people were vital for carrying out Hitler's revolution but became a distinct liability to Hitler's consolidation of power and had to be put down. It has less to do with socialist vs. capitalist outlook, more with consolidation of power vs. permanent revolution.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Jez,
Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Trotskyists, Stalinists.............. Communist regimes dropped off their most radical elements all along the way. The trouble was that, as in Nazi Germany, the core of the movement were still radical by wider standards. If Nazis and Communists weren't radical they would just have been more Nationalists and Socialists.
Cheers,
Sid.
Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Trotskyists, Stalinists.............. Communist regimes dropped off their most radical elements all along the way. The trouble was that, as in Nazi Germany, the core of the movement were still radical by wider standards. If Nazis and Communists weren't radical they would just have been more Nationalists and Socialists.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
Wasn't the significance of the decapitation of the SA that it prevented competion not with the then relatively insignificant SS but with the Army?
In the earliest years of Hitler's rule the 100,000 man Reichswehr had almost no reserves, whereas the SA was a several-million strong, organised (one hesitates to say "disciplined") and uniformed force formed and led by ex-WWI combatants and to a great degree composed of them. Thus, at the very beginning of Hitler's rule the SA was integrated with Army defence planning as its main source of reservists.
As a result, the SA's leaders had delusions of grandeur to the point that Rohm could seriously contend that the SA should become, as Herr Doktor said, a "people's army", with himself at the head. This made it a threat to the far more professional, but much smaller, German Army and to Hitler's planned monopoly of power in his own person. The SA's serious reservist role was abolished as soon as the Army got conscription and could begin to build up its own mass reserves.
If I am not mistaken, the Army's reward to Hitler for getting rid of its SA competitor was to accept the introduction of a personal oath to Hitler, with consequences we all know.
Cheers,
Sid.
Wasn't the significance of the decapitation of the SA that it prevented competion not with the then relatively insignificant SS but with the Army?
In the earliest years of Hitler's rule the 100,000 man Reichswehr had almost no reserves, whereas the SA was a several-million strong, organised (one hesitates to say "disciplined") and uniformed force formed and led by ex-WWI combatants and to a great degree composed of them. Thus, at the very beginning of Hitler's rule the SA was integrated with Army defence planning as its main source of reservists.
As a result, the SA's leaders had delusions of grandeur to the point that Rohm could seriously contend that the SA should become, as Herr Doktor said, a "people's army", with himself at the head. This made it a threat to the far more professional, but much smaller, German Army and to Hitler's planned monopoly of power in his own person. The SA's serious reservist role was abolished as soon as the Army got conscription and could begin to build up its own mass reserves.
If I am not mistaken, the Army's reward to Hitler for getting rid of its SA competitor was to accept the introduction of a personal oath to Hitler, with consequences we all know.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Nebelwerfer
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:15 pm
Great discussion!
What do members think on this point:
With the SA in as influential a position as the SS was in 1939, would war have been less likely?
I think it would have been less likely (because I suspect that the SA would have been more concered with a domestic agenda of social welfare/ employment/ housing/etc. than was the SS), but by all means, what are your thoughts?
What do members think on this point:
With the SA in as influential a position as the SS was in 1939, would war have been less likely?
I think it would have been less likely (because I suspect that the SA would have been more concered with a domestic agenda of social welfare/ employment/ housing/etc. than was the SS), but by all means, what are your thoughts?
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Nebelwerfer,
I don't think the SS was in a particularly influential position in 1939 as far as precipitating war was concerned, so, presuming the SA was in its place, it also would presumably not have been particularly influential either.
If the SA had survived as a significant power it might have been at the expense of the Army, whose senior officer corps were decidedly nervous of risking war. Thus it is not impossible that Germany might have found itself at war earlier with a more aggressive SA People's Army of decidedly less proficiency than the Army it actually entered the war with.
I would suggest the problem is that, as nobody in 1934 could have predicted with accuracy the phenomenal growth of Germany's land and air forces over the next five years, it is equally difficult to guess what the SA might have looked like in 1939 if its leadership had not been assasinated in 1934.
Yours not very helpfully,
Sid.
I don't think the SS was in a particularly influential position in 1939 as far as precipitating war was concerned, so, presuming the SA was in its place, it also would presumably not have been particularly influential either.
If the SA had survived as a significant power it might have been at the expense of the Army, whose senior officer corps were decidedly nervous of risking war. Thus it is not impossible that Germany might have found itself at war earlier with a more aggressive SA People's Army of decidedly less proficiency than the Army it actually entered the war with.
I would suggest the problem is that, as nobody in 1934 could have predicted with accuracy the phenomenal growth of Germany's land and air forces over the next five years, it is equally difficult to guess what the SA might have looked like in 1939 if its leadership had not been assasinated in 1934.
Yours not very helpfully,
Sid.
Indeed. I believe it unfortunate that the SA did not see the purge comming and do away with Hitler. I guess Rohm did not believe Hitler would really stab his friends in the back.Nebelwerfer wrote:Dear derGespent and Herr Doktor,
Let me see if I follow your points, in terms of what is cause and what is effect:
Are you saying that, the reason (cause) that the SA was suppressed was that its fundamentally socialist/labor tendencies were contrary to the (capitalist/conservative) direction the party and the nation took?
If so, then you would agree that the SA was a fish out of water after the purge, and that if, somehow, conditions would have allowed it to maintain a prominent position, then its fundamentally socialist/labor flavor would have resulted in a very different Third Reich.
The ultimate result would have been that the World War would have been avoided. Maybe some things, like the occupation of the Rhineland and the union with Austria would have happened. But I doubt that Rohm or Gregor Strassor would have wanted to see another world war.
Germany itself would have become a national-socialist republic in the truest sense of the word. While life would not have been too easy for the jews (the SA was still anti-semetic) I do not think that the holicaust would have happened. At the worst, the Jews of Germany would have been deported.