Читаем The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1944–1945 полностью

A sense of relief in Germany that the eastern front appeared to be stabilized was said to have been dissipated in mid-August through the depressing news of the Allied breakthrough in the west, for which the population had been completely unprepared.10 Optimists suggesting that the war could yet be won with a supreme effort had a hard time in the gathering gloom of opinion about the huge superiority of enemy forces, scepticism about the promised new ‘wonder weapons’, and feelings that the total-war effort, though generally welcome, had come too late and would, in any case, not be evenly spread in its burdens. Letters from loved ones at the front, and even official news bulletins from France, were cited as indicators that Germany could not compete with the Allied supremacy in men and weaponry. ‘I don’t believe we’ll be able to stop the storm of the enemy,’ one quoted letter home ran. ‘Their superiority is far too great, in the air and above all with tanks, tanks and still more tanks.’ ‘Where are the great reserves that have always been talked about?’ people were asking. In the depressed mood, the desire for an early end to the war was all the stronger, and with it the view that the consequences of defeat would be less dreadful than claimed. Scepticism and defeatism were becoming inseparable.11

By early September reports from propaganda offices across the country were indicating that the mood of the people had reached its lowest point during the entire war. Since the general tenor of such reports—more so than those of the SD—was to emphasize the pro-Nazi sentiments of the population, the clear indication of depression and hopelessness conveyed at this time is all the more striking. A sense of insecurity was widespread. Those with ‘negative’ attitudes were gaining in numbers and undermining morale through defeatist comments and ‘concealed criticism of the leadership’. Many were asking why the Allied landing had not been halted, why total war had not been proclaimed earlier, and why the ‘poison’ that had produced the uprising of 20 July had not been spotted earlier and destroyed. The criticism was aimed at the Führer himself, even if people were too wary to mention him directly.

Those holding such views could see no way to improve the situation and repel the enemy. The wounded soldiers and refugees streaming in from the west only bolstered their pessimism. Ordinary soldiers and the ‘homeland’ were not to blame, they were saying, if it all went wrong and Germany were to lose the war. It was not a matter of fate. The ability of the generals was called into question; and the leadership had not done everything necessary. Above all, the sense of powerlessness in the face of immense enemy superiority in numbers and equipment was dispiriting. Women with children were especially prone to anxiety about the future, it was said. Thoughts of suicide were increasingly common. Hopes in the new weapons were fading, particularly since it was felt that everything had been done too late to make a difference. People were saying that if Lorraine and the Saarland could not be held, the loss of centres of vital armaments production would force Germany to surrender. Few thought that the Westwall—the huge line of German fortifications that had been built in 1938, known to the western Allies as the ‘Siegfried Line’—would hold up the enemy advance any more than the French ‘Maginot Line’ had stopped the Wehrmacht’s march into France in 1940. With the enemy at the borders of the Reich, the desertion of Germany’s allies—Romania had sued for peace and joined the war against Germany on 25 August, Finland was on the verge of breaking off relations with Germany, other countries were about to follow suit—and exposure with no defence to intensified ‘terror from the skies’, it was difficult to avoid pessimism.12

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

1917 год: русская государственность в эпоху смут, реформ и революций
1917 год: русская государственность в эпоху смут, реформ и революций

В монографии, приуроченной к столетнему юбилею Революции 1917 года, автор исследует один из наиболее актуальных в наши дни вопросов – роль в отечественной истории российской государственности, его эволюцию в период революционных потрясений. В монографии поднят вопрос об ответственности правящих слоёв за эффективность и устойчивость основ государства. На широком фактическом материале показана гибель традиционной для России монархической государственности, эволюция власти и гражданских институтов в условиях либерального эксперимента и, наконец, восстановление крепкого национального государства в результате мощного движения народных масс, которое, как это уже было в нашей истории в XVII веке, в Октябре 1917 года позволило предотвратить гибель страны. Автор подробно разбирает становление мобилизационного режима, возникшего на волне октябрьских событий, показывая как просчёты, так и успехи большевиков в стремлении укрепить революционную власть. Увенчанием проделанного отечественной государственностью сложного пути от крушения к возрождению автор называет принятие советской Конституции 1918 года.В формате a4.pdf сохранен издательский макет.

Димитрий Олегович Чураков

История / Образование и наука